Marokai Blue/Purple State for Atlasia, Campaign HQ

[President Marokai]

TPTTAA:
Marokai. Given what's come out in the recent "brawl" between you and Oakvale, do you feel you are qualified to be President?

(nothing personal)

Nothing personal taken, Teddy.

The decision for Oakvale to run on his own was very personally upsetting, for many reasons that I've outlined today several times over. I reacted in a way that I would expect anyone to act. And really, I didn't do anything too crazy or out of line for anyone that knows me.

I remember you asked me a question about tact the last time I was running back in May-June. This was my response:

Being aggressive around these parts is probably not healthy all the time, but I have no problem with it as long as the person actually contributes to the game and does their job(s) well. I'm not the most polite person in the world and I'll never win any sort of pageant with "I want world peace" questions, but I like to think that over the course of my time in Atlasia I've done alot to get respect.

I was an active and competent Senator, and I like to think I did a pretty good job of running the Senate as PPT. I'm an aggressive and politically active Justice, but I've written detailed opinions and my two colleagues can attest to the fact that I give a great deal of consideration to cases and try to build consensus in private. I remain an active member at large, participated in the ConCon of yore, wrote an Intro thread, etc etc. I've done alot of work and dedicated probably far too much time than I should've to Atlasia, but I did anyhow.

I'm not going to be Prom King of Atlasia anytime soon though, that's for sure. Being partisan, fiery, and intentionally poking the fire from time to time is, in my opinion, a healthy activity personally and for the game. It keeps things a little interesting, and makes people pay attention. I've attacked plenty of people and plenty of people have attacked me over the years. Hell, I started a newsletter directly for the purpose of pissing people off

But in all that time I know that there's a time to fist-fight and scream and a time to build consensus and compromise to get what you can. In the Senate I fought like hell for whatever I liked and probably insulted a few people along the way, but when voting time nears I tried to build consensus and get people on board for whatever I could.

In short, if someone has done alot in Atlasia and they have a good record, fighting and saying a few uncomfortable things from time to time won't get me distracted from their record. Someone who pretty much only stokes the fire however, is a little different. With that in mind though, I'd still agree with what I said. As long as the person has a history of being accomplished, active, and fair, I can easily look past what I consider to be little things, like someone's attitude.

And really, that's still my response today when it comes to attitude. I feel very strongly about that.

But when it comes right down to qualifications, purely on an objective level, I like to think I'm far and away the most qualified and experienced individual in the race. I've been Attorney General (twice), ConCon delegate, SDP Leader, JCP Vice-Leader, and UDL Founder. A Senator, PPT, Supreme Court Justice, Budget Committee member, and Vice President.

I've written and gotten passed countless pieces of very important legislation. During my time on the Court I accumulated a great deal of (honestly very fun) experience with law and wrote detailed opinions. I revived the Intro thread from it's wasting away, and have published countless pieces of platform ideas and legislation in the past. I work on the ConCon of nearly two years ago and helped Purple State write part of the draft that became the Constitution we have now. I have loved pretty much everything I've done in Atlasia, and I like to think I've succeeded in most of what I've tried to do.

I remember making this post in December of 2009, summing up just what I had done as Senator.

In short, to answer your question, yes, I believe I'm firmly qualified, and have demonstrated my abilities of working hard by myself and with others countless times in the past.

[Californian Tony]

Enthusiastically endorsed !

[President Marokai]

Enthusiastically endorsed !

Merci.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

I wish you and Purple State all the best this campaign. But I want to be President more!

[Purple State]

I wish you and Purple State all the best this campaign. But I want to be President more!

*Removes rifle site from Marokai's head*

You have no idea.

*Retrains rifle site on Marokai's head*

[Prez Duke]

    As for the term limits proposal, there's a fifth-term Senator right now who happens to be the primary reason the Senate is even functioning at all at this point. Sounds great on paper, slightly less so in practice.

I think the point of the proposal is that if it were implemented, you wouldn't need someone like Yank to keep things going in the first place. The Senate as a whole would become more active because players wouldn't burn out. So while you may lose someone like Yank (for a few months), you also have no need for his ability to keep the Senate scraping along.

I can think of at least 2 regional senate elections where active candidates or incumbents were kicked out for less than active replacements. That certainly didn't help the game at all. Imagine if that happened everywhere, and Yankee also was barred from running, what would happen then? I don't think this proposal would work as flawlessly as it sounds.

There are a bunch of other possibilities we have locked up for discussion in the campaign that still address this problem, so highlighting the strong and weak points of each individual idea is exactly the sort of thing in a contest of ideas that we want to do.

Regardless, ignoring the merits of the idea entirely and just saying this generally, we just can't have it both ways here. At some point, something's gotta change, and people can't say that they wish new people were involved in the game and that we had more people doing things while at the same time trying to protect the job security of the old guard. If we actually want to solve problems, we need to make the tough and challenging decisions to actually solve them. We can't just always pay the idea of being newbie-friendly lip service without putting our money where our mouth is. (I never understood that saying.)

I think most people know I'm not exactly newbie friendly.

In all seriousness, how do we define a newbie-friendly environment? I sometimes love to tout the free market, and this is an area where I'd say the free-market would work more efficiently than a regulated one in the sense that we simply do not have enough active people in this game to have a turnover every two terms. Hell, look at this election. It isn't like there are many new faces running (and your own ticket is a flip of a previous administration), and this position has term limits!

At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say we'd see placeholders running for seats if parties could not have their preferred candidate run again to keep it warm for four months. We have to give voters the responsibility to keeping this game successful. If they elect inactive people over active ones, then they dug their own grave. We don't need any hand-holding, Marokai. I stopped doing that when I graduated high school!

Now you might say "well Duke, you're just shamelessly trying to save your job," and it's true, but I still hope I made some valid points!

[Purple State]

    As for the term limits proposal, there's a fifth-term Senator right now who happens to be the primary reason the Senate is even functioning at all at this point. Sounds great on paper, slightly less so in practice.

I think the point of the proposal is that if it were implemented, you wouldn't need someone like Yank to keep things going in the first place. The Senate as a whole would become more active because players wouldn't burn out. So while you may lose someone like Yank (for a few months), you also have no need for his ability to keep the Senate scraping along.

I can think of at least 2 regional senate elections where active candidates or incumbents were kicked out for less than active replacements. That certainly didn't help the game at all. Imagine if that happened everywhere, and Yankee also was barred from running, what would happen then? I don't think this proposal would work as flawlessly as it sounds.

There are a bunch of other possibilities we have locked up for discussion in the campaign that still address this problem, so highlighting the strong and weak points of each individual idea is exactly the sort of thing in a contest of ideas that we want to do.

Regardless, ignoring the merits of the idea entirely and just saying this generally, we just can't have it both ways here. At some point, something's gotta change, and people can't say that they wish new people were involved in the game and that we had more people doing things while at the same time trying to protect the job security of the old guard. If we actually want to solve problems, we need to make the tough and challenging decisions to actually solve them. We can't just always pay the idea of being newbie-friendly lip service without putting our money where our mouth is. (I never understood that saying.)

I think most people know I'm not exactly newbie friendly.

In all seriousness, how do we define a newbie-friendly environment? I sometimes love to tout the free market, and this is an area where I'd say the free-market would work more efficiently than a regulated one in the sense that we simply do not have enough active people in this game to have a turnover every two terms. Hell, look at this election. It isn't like there are many new faces running (and your own ticket is a flip of a previous administration), and this position has term limits!

At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say we'd see placeholders running for seats if parties could not have their preferred candidate run again to keep it warm for four months. We have to give voters the responsibility to keeping this game successful. If they elect inactive people over active ones, then they dug their own grave. We don't need any hand-holding, Marokai. I stopped doing that when I graduated high school!

Now you might say "well Duke, you're just shamelessly trying to save your job," and it's true, but I still hope I made some valid points!

There is certainly something to just saying, "Well hey, you elected them so you get what you vote for," but we have to recognize that inactive senators ruin the game. We shouldn't let the "seriousness" of Atlasia to get in the way of the fun of the game.

If debate in the Senate is meaningless or boring or nonexistent, people won't run. And if people don't run, the election sim that is the core of Atlasia gets real boring real fast, and there goes the game.

Through my time in Atlasia I like to think I've carved a pretty decent reputation on game reform and the one part of the game we haven't touched yet is the Senate. Everything else, by most metrics, has improved since we started these efforts. The Wiki is better. The GM is better. The regions are much better, both internally and in the regional Senate elections. The Constitution is easier to read and navigate.

What I think Marokai and I want to make clear is that we aren't going to just say "game reform, game reform, rah rah." We have ideas and are willing to engage in the discussions that will lead to productive changes. We are not only active, but we are also capable of actually seeing these efforts through from start to finish.

Oh, and we love cake, long walks on the beach and other fun, non-game-related activities that everyone holds in such high regard.

[President Marokai]

Thanks for handling that question for me in my absence, PS. I'm feeling a little under the weather, and we've been moving, so I'm extra tired on top of that. I'll be back on top in a day or two, and will quickly begin posting platform planks in greater detail and explanation as PS and I have done in the past.

Thanks everyone.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

You'r our only hope, Obi Wan Marokai.

[Purple State]

Not Another Purple State "Discussion"

Well, yes...

One thing I would like to feel people out on is opening up the ability to deregister. It seems like something that would make the experience of leaving the game smoother and less stressful for those who want to take a break from or permanently leave the game.

Any such allowance would need to be crafted in a way that avoids the abuses of the past, but I think we're seeing growing consensus that there needs to be a way to let people just stop playing. While Teddy's efforts to create a "Do Not PM" list are a good patch in the meantime, it is clearly not enough.

So what ideas would you like to see in an attempt to allow deregistration?

[Badger]

Simply allow it in the Voter Registration Thread. Maybe require a short waiting period (e.g. 5 days) before one can reregister so as not to overly burden the GM.

[Χahar]

Deregistration is a terrible idea that was abolished because it creates a legal mess. Don't bring it back, ever.

[Lief]

As I announced early this week, I will introduce legislation allowing de-registration once I am sworn in. I think a simple process, allowing voters to post that they want to deregister in the registration thread, followed by a short waiting period, as Badger suggested, is the best way to go here, and a simple solution.

[Badger]

Deregistration is a terrible idea that was abolished because it creates a legal mess.

How so? Not to be obtuse, but doesn't legalizing it do away with any potential legal issues?

[Χahar]

Deregistration is a terrible idea that was abolished because it creates a legal mess.

How so? Not to be obtuse, but doesn't legalizing it do away with any potential legal issues?

Quite the opposite. It was abolished because Sam Spade deregistered in the middle of an election which he won, causing a legal morass.

[Purple State]

I tend to agree that all it would take to alleviate Xahar's concerns is a waiting period and a clarification of election laws in the event of an untimely deregistration during elections. The waiting period could be something like a month or two, and I doubt it would be very difficult to amend the election laws to include provisions for this. In fact, I will likely write up a draft when I return from my hiatus later this month to alleviate the worries of Xahar and Tmth on this idea.


Unrelatedly, I'm just going to rip something from the Oakvale/Snowguy thread:

I believe that centrists, libertarians and conservatives alike can form a grand alliance to wrest control our noble republic from liberals and social democrats. It is time to return powers not specifically delegated to the national government back to the regional governments. Tmthforu94 and I believe that this government needs a proper and honorable balance to the liberal agenda. We now stand hope to reach this country back from radical progressivism to a more thought approach to governance. With that I hereby endorse the Tmthforu94/Dallasfan65 ticket.

May God bless and keep Atlasia strong

For anyone from center on leftwards considering supporting this ticket, this is Exhibit 'A' why not to despite both members of the ticket being exceptionally nice guys.



Exhibit B:

I'm still waiting to see how things develop but the split amongst the Atlasian Left is certainly welcome news.

Uh, a statement by one person who supports me in no way reflects the views of myself or my campaign. I'm disappointed that you'd even infer that.

I agree. I don't think it's fair to judge a candidate based on a comment or two from supporters.

My points are this:

1) The extreme right is strongly supporting Tmth to oppose the very policies we progressives value.

2) The right is similarly salivating at our increasingly rancorous divide.

Its up to us people. Everytime someone says, "enough, lets quit the drama and try to work together, two others begin pissing in the other party's Wheaties". One step forward, two steps back.

Enough. Its put up or shut up time folks. Either we ALL need to leave the drama and fighting behind---starting NOW & COMPLETELY--and start a functioning "competative cooperation".

Either that, or we should simply conceede the election to the RPP and Pops now.

I would just like to make clear that, at least from my perspective, this race should be about ideas, not about personalities or drama. I know there are people that think the fighting makes the elections fun, but what I remember most fondly about the elections I've considered most fun were those where legitimate policy debates were held frequently and ideas were really developed through discussion.

As a quick example, I very much enjoyed the back and forth with Duke about senatorial term limits. At the very least I heard a different perspective and I think the original idea improved as a result.

So let's all just leave the fighting aside and focus on more fun.

[President Marokai]

I'm confident the legal issues surrounding the idea could be worked out in some fashion. What concerns me more is the court's idea of what is someone's "identity." The court would have to establish, at some point somehow, that when someone deregisters and reregisters later, that they are the same individual. It's been implied at times that when someone is deregistered they cease to exist entirely and the slate is wiped clean. It's a bit of a grey area that I wish I could've resolved when I was a Justice, but never got the opportunity.

That's really my only concern.

[Californian Tony]

Just an idea.

- User X deregisters (using the register thread).
- We let 5-10 days without doing nothing. If the poster retracts his deregistration, then we do nothing.
- If no retractation before the deadline, the RG removes user X from the registered voter roll and adds him to a deregistered user list.
- Deregistered users can't vote, run for elections, be tried, bring charges against another user. Any candidate running for an office who deregistered has his candidacy invalidated.
- Deregistered users are kept on the deregistered user roll for 2 months. Until they are on it, they can't re-register.
- After this time, they are definitely removed from Atlasia, but they can come back when they wish.

[Badger]

Just an idea.

- User X deregisters (using the register thread).
- We let 5-10 days without doing nothing. If the poster retracts his deregistration, then we do nothing.
- If no retractation before the deadline, the RG removes user X from the registered voter roll and adds him to a deregistered user list.
- Deregistered users can't vote, run for elections, be tried, bring charges against another user. Any candidate running for an office who deregistered has his candidacy invalidated.
- Deregistered users are kept on the deregistered user roll for 2 months. Until they are on it, they can't re-register.
- After this time, they are definitely removed from Atlasia, but they can come back when they wish.

Two months seems an AWFULLY long mandatory inactive period. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose to have it that long, and may discourage people from rejoining Atlasia (i.e. they'd like to rejoin after cooling off a week or two after deregistering, but can't for two months, and lose interest in the meantime after rediscovering how nice real life is ).

[Californian Tony]

Just an idea.

- User X deregisters (using the register thread).
- We let 5-10 days without doing nothing. If the poster retracts his deregistration, then we do nothing.
- If no retractation before the deadline, the RG removes user X from the registered voter roll and adds him to a deregistered user list.
- Deregistered users can't vote, run for elections, be tried, bring charges against another user. Any candidate running for an office who deregistered has his candidacy invalidated.
- Deregistered users are kept on the deregistered user roll for 2 months. Until they are on it, they can't re-register.
- After this time, they are definitely removed from Atlasia, but they can come back when they wish.

Two months seems an AWFULLY long mandatory inactive period. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose to have it that long, and may discourage people from rejoining Atlasia (i.e. they'd like to rejoin after cooling off a week or two after deregistering, but can't for two months, and lose interest in the meantime after rediscovering how nice real life is ).

I think deregistering for one week or two would be a horribly awful thing to do, it would create mess for no reason. If one really wants to go, then he must go for real.

[Badger]

Just an idea.

- User X deregisters (using the register thread).
- We let 5-10 days without doing nothing. If the poster retracts his deregistration, then we do nothing.
- If no retractation before the deadline, the RG removes user X from the registered voter roll and adds him to a deregistered user list.
- Deregistered users can't vote, run for elections, be tried, bring charges against another user. Any candidate running for an office who deregistered has his candidacy invalidated.
- Deregistered users are kept on the deregistered user roll for 2 months. Until they are on it, they can't re-register.
- After this time, they are definitely removed from Atlasia, but they can come back when they wish.

Two months seems an AWFULLY long mandatory inactive period. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose to have it that long, and may discourage people from rejoining Atlasia (i.e. they'd like to rejoin after cooling off a week or two after deregistering, but can't for two months, and lose interest in the meantime after rediscovering how nice real life is ).

I think deregistering for one week or two would be a horribly awful thing to do, it would create mess for no reason. If one really wants to go, then he must go for real.

IMHO, it comes down to the RG's opinion as to the feasability of any time frams involved.

[Purple State]

Just an idea.

- User X deregisters (using the register thread).
- We let 5-10 days without doing nothing. If the poster retracts his deregistration, then we do nothing.
- If no retractation before the deadline, the RG removes user X from the registered voter roll and adds him to a deregistered user list.
- Deregistered users can't vote, run for elections, be tried, bring charges against another user. Any candidate running for an office who deregistered has his candidacy invalidated.
- Deregistered users are kept on the deregistered user roll for 2 months. Until they are on it, they can't re-register.
- After this time, they are definitely removed from Atlasia, but they can come back when they wish.

My issue with the bolded portion is that it could wreak havoc on counting elections. It is common enough for candidates to ask voters that change their minds to disqualify their own vote so as to boost their chances. Now imagine if they could ask them to de-register to disqualify their vote, but then that person had five days to change their mind and re-register. Would the vote remain disqualified or would it count? Would it depend on whether the election was already certified?

I say leave it as simple as possible. If you announce you want to de-register, the RG removes you and you cannot re-register for 2 weeks.

Marokai, of course, brings up a good point on re-registering and identity. I'm ambivalent on whether you are legally deemed a "new person" or the same person, but I'd like to hear thoughts on that.

[Χahar]

If you must have deregistration, make it so that it doesn't take effect until the next Wednesday or something so that it doesn't mess with elections.

[Purple State]

If you must have deregistration, make it so that it doesn't take effect until the next Wednesday or something so that it doesn't mess with elections.

Before I comment on the merits of this, I just want to say that win or lose, we can now declare that this campaign has been a success: Xahar has just offered a substantive policy proposal. I don't think that's happened in a whiiiiile.

Anyway, yes, that's a great idea. De-registration should simply be delayed until the Tuesday or Wednesday following the de-registration post, possibly with the opportunity to retract the request before it goes into effect, so that it avoids messing with elections.

[President Marokai]

Acting Nice vs. Being Productive

I was thinking about some things today about "bipartisanship" and "including everyone" in process. This is really what caused me to want to write about this:

Q:   Assuming you win, are you willing to pledge that your cabinet will not be hyper partisan and that you will look past ideology in you selection?

A:  I can promise you right now, JBrase, that I have no intentions of a hyper partisan cabinet, and I will not be running a hyper partisan government, either. At the cabinet I'm currently looking at placing, I have a member of each major party represented. My number one requirement for anyone who wishes to be in my cabinet is activity. After that, follows experience and political ideology., But activity is #1. My goal is to have one of the most active cabinets in Atlasian history.

First of all, I'd like to comment on the irony of the question. It asks if Tmth will "look past ideology" referencing how Fritz and, according to some Purple State, had left-wing cabinets. Tmth then says that yes, he will look past ideology.. by including that as one of his judging criteria for cabinet officials.

But that's not my beef, my comment here is in regard to what an effective cabinet is. Has Badger done poorly as Game Moderator? Nay, one can only realize he is a worthy successor to Purple State, and has done a good job.

Has Teddy done a poor job? No, as his mistakes have been negligible and he is clearly the most passionate of the entire cabinet for his position and cares for it deeply. His activity is almost unparalleled among the other cabinet members, including myself.

Is Hashemite a poor SoEA? Not at all, as he knows his stuff and cares deeply about actually making people care about foreign affairs. Is Hans a poor Registrar General? Unless someone considers constant updates to party numbers and voter rolls "poor," one could assume that's a flat "no."

When Purple State was President, he and I both decided that appointing Winston would be a great idea for SoIA. He was active, controversial enough without being a detriment to his effectiveness in Atlasia. He wanted the position badly and had ideas. He was also a communist and that generated a fair amount of controversy. The fact of the matter is, his ideology wasn't a factor to our decision either way. We believed he was the best person for the job and we went with him.

To expect anything different from a President is, in my opinion, irresponsible and silly. Effectiveness and competence is always going to be my top criteria. I will always try to include as many people as possible, but that will not take priority over actually getting things done unless enough people stand in the way that I need to woo them because passage would be impossible otherwise.

When PS and I proposed a restricted Constitutional Convention, we did so because the last ConCon did alot of good for making everyone feel involved and appreciated, but it didn't do a whole lot of good for actually making things happen. This is the sort of counter-proposal our progress in the redesigned ConCon got in October when it was nearing it's end:

Constitutional Convention
The Atlasian Constitutional Convention, while a novel idea with good intentions, once again failed to achieve its designated mission. It was poorly planned, poorly communicated, and poorly run. AndrewCT will assume the role of presiding officer over the ConCon and hold a vote. If the delegates vote to suspend, the administration will implement their new reforms. First, a new vote will be held. If the voters request another ConCon, AndrewCT/Duke believe the citizens of Atlasia should decide when and how the constitutional convention should be run, not a select group of politicians. In the event of another constitutional convention, the ticket supports the relocation of the convention to the Atlasia Fantasy Election forum as opposed to being tucked away in an obscure board no one ever checks. It must be an open process to everyone, and it demands everyone be involved to truly make the process worthwhile.

It's very easy to play politics with serious Atlasian issues and trot out the Populist card of "what the people want, make the people involved, make the people feel in charge," etc. It's alot harder to charge ahead with a vision and get stuff done. Had we gone ahead with this sentiment, we wouldn't have passed a consolidated Constitution. Should we go ahead with Tmth's vision for how cabinets should be made, you'll get alot of people that feel happy and included and Tmth will look nice from it, but you'll be neglecting people that are the best for the job.

Style and smiles are inferior to substance and progress.