Marokai Blue/Purple State for Atlasia, Campaign HQ

[Purple State]

Well, I'm back.

After wandering through the wilderness of Atlasia in my post-presidency daze, I realized that my work was only partly complete. While we had a new Constitution, a much better organized Wiki, clearer election rules, and an improved GM position – along with the right people to maintain those reforms – what we lacked was excitement in the game.

Once I realized that something was draining the fun from the game, it didn't take very long to figure out what the source was: the Senate. And I don't mean the individual senators, who in most cases make good faith efforts to have meaningful and productive debate. What I mean when I say that the Senate is sapping the life from Atlasia is that the institution has become too unwieldy and too old and decrepit to bring any sort of excitement to the game.

Case in point is the recent economic crisis in Atlasia. For nearly a month we have heard news from the GM about our deteriorating economy. Soon after it was clear that this wasn't a one-off event, but a crisis, I urged the federal government to start caring about the economy. But has the Senate acted? Well, they have tried. But despite the urging of the President, the Secretary of Internal Affairs and the President Pro Tempore, there has been progress, but no final resolution. And even if you believe that the slow nature of the Senate is a useful way to promote productive debate, we can all certainly agree that the debate in that thread is not what any of us have in mind.

When I first joined the game, this was clearly not the case. As an up-and-coming player of the game, I dove head first into Senate debates where the great minds of Atlasia debated policy that caught the interest of everyday players. From education to foreign policy to criminal justice, the Senate looked at the issues that mattered to Atlasians. As a result, new members became active at the regional level in the hopes of building a record and someday reaching the Senate, a major indirect boon to overall activity.

This is why I've decided to run for Vice President with Marokai. As President I was able to change the foundations of the game for the better; as Vice President, and President of the Senate, I promise to change the institution that makes the game go 'round.

So where did it all go wrong? That is somewhat harder to identify, but I have some ideas. The Senate burns people out, pure and simple. We are all busy people and Atlasia is a game, and when people spend too much time in the Senate, they run out of ideas and they run out of steam. That is why this ticket will push for a broader discussion on consecutive term limits for federal officials.

It also is apparent that the Senate deals with far too many issues at once, meaning each bill receives too little attention and each senator is expected to juggle too many distinct topics. This can be solved by revising and reducing the legislative slots system. To many of you this sounds like an odd idea, but when the Senate considers seven pieces of legislation at once, it harms the game.

This is just a sneak peak to some of the ideas that Marokai and I have to make the Senate a more exciting place and help build a vital institution of the game. I look forward to working with the people, the Senate and the PPT to make this happen if you vote Marokai/Purple in February.

[Purple State]

Oh, and happy new year everyone.

[Purple State]

Oh, and happy new year everyone.

Your signature needs editing.

This will have to do until we do another signature contest.

[Purple State]

You've always been a great supporter Sewer. I'll use that until we hold a real contest, where you will have to compete just like last time. (Hint, hint: everyone start thinking about ideas.)

[Purple State]

Our rough draft on the term limits idea would only be "consecutive terms." So as an example, if we set the limit at two consecutive terms, you would run for Senate, win, run again, win, then be capped from running again, but then the next election you could run again.

This way people take some sort of break from office to roam the wilderness (like I did).

And Duke, I didn't run for a second term as president because my work as president was completed. I came into office to reform the Constitution, reform the Wiki, reform the executive branch (mainly SoIA, SoEA and GM) and reform election rules. After four months that was all completed and I wanted people more policy-oriented to come in and take advantage of the foundation built by my administration.

Now another four months later, I see new challenges to the game. But I don't believe it requires as much reform as last time. All it needs from the president is policy-oriented leadership, which Marokai has exemplified in his time in the Senate, as Attorney General and as my Vice President. Where the reform is now needed is in the policymaking apparatus: the Senate. And I can best reform that as Vice President.

[Purple State]

I should have drank the whole bottle last night, I knew it. Unfortunately it was non-alcoholic of course so it would have only served to make me sicker now. oh well!

Oh don't lie Yank, you loved it the first time. I promise it will go down just as smoothly the second.

[Purple State]

I should have drank the whole bottle last night, I knew it. Unfortunately it was non-alcoholic of course so it would have only served to make me sicker now. oh well!

Oh don't lie Yank, you loved it the first time. I promise it will go down just as smoothly the second.

Of course, I loved it the first time, but that is always the case for the spectator watching from afar isn't it. Such is not the case for those down in ring.

My spidey-sense tells me you're running...as Tmth's VP pick? Maybe that's more wishful thinking than anything else, but I hope I'm right. It's been a while since we had a good ol' fashioned policy brawl and it would sure make the Vice Presidential debates more fun.

EDIT note: And yes, I would really like multiple debates in this campaign, among the presidential candidates and vice presidential candidates. The sooner we can set these up the better.

[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.

[Purple State]

I should note right here that the proposal is only in a rough draft form that will benefit from these kinds of debate. We appreciate your willingness to push us on this because it helps us think through it all.

So is the idea flawless? Certainly not. But we also think it has considerable merit Duke. The system we have now is pretty darn broken. I'm not sure what exactly changed from a year or two ago, when Senate debate was extremely lively and productive. But the Senate really has become the place that voters send people to be ignored for four months. Do you have ideas on how to make some kind of term limits proposal work? Do you have other ideas to improve the Senate? This campaign relies on your input, so shoot me a PM if you have anything you want to discuss.

Between a debate on term limits, revising the legislative slots system and a broader look at the OSPR, I think we can make the Senate fun again, both for the senators there and those who aspire to higher office. That certainly won't happen without having the discussion though.

[Purple State]

Statement on the recent Oakvale vs. Marokai brawl

As someone who is and always has been hilariously in the dark on the back room dealmaking of this game, I just want everyone to take a deep breath. We have all just started what will be a very long and hopefully meaningful two month campaign. There will be policy proposals, debates and probably a few dramas along the way.

It is especially important at the beginning of this process to remain calm while all of the early shifting takes place. We will have some twists and turns all along the way, with surprise candidates and endorsements and policies, but let's not confuse the excitement of the game and the campaign with personal affronts and true anger.

Just a quick thought for all those dishing out early endorsements: let the campaigns get more than two feet off the ground before making your decisions. I know there are a lot of friendships on/off and forum and in this game, but at least wait until the platforms are unveiled or the debates begin to make your decision.

And let's all just make it through this with our sanity, mmk?

Now *hughughug* and let the fun begin.

~PS

[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*

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Purple State]

Why is deregistration so important? If you don't want to participate, just don't vote and you'll be removed in due time. Surely a PM here and there to go vote isn't THAT intrusive. If it is, those people need to chill out.

There just seem to be too many intangibles around it for it to work without causing the RG to go insane.

The biggest issue with showing Atlasians why deregistration is important is that none of the people active in the debate want to deregister. And those who want to deregister aren't active enough to be involved in the debate.

All I can say is that a representative of the people should represent all of the people to the best of his or her ability. It seems to me that there is a substantive portion of citizens that have asked for the ability to deregister and I don't think that's an absurd request. I wouldn't mind hearing from Fritz or Hans to get an RG's perspective on this though.

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 think you misunderstood my point. During the 5-10 days period, the user remains a registered voter with its full rights. And only if he doesn't retract his deregistration, this deregistration occurs 5 days after. If the guy was campaigning, his candidacy is immediately invalid. If he had been elected, the office is deemed vacant. That couldn't be simpler.

Ah, then I misunderstood and we are actually on the same page.

[Purple State]

The Cut Through the Smoke Game!!
Can YOU decipher a straightforward message from the following post?

I oppose off-site recruiting because members who are recruited off-site are often looked down upon, and aren't given much of a chance. If members of Atlasia as a whole began to accept off-site recruiting and had a more favorable opinion of it, I'd support it in a heart beat. This isn't about what I specifically want. It's about what I think is best for the game, and right now, I don't think off-site recruitment would be good for the game.

See if you can figure out a stable and not-at-all-waffly principle from the above post! If you can find a message that makes sense, you WIN!*

*Note: Winners do not win any actual prizes.

I must insist that we at least provide cake and free *hughughug*'s to winners. And maybe an all-expenses-paid date with bgwah.

[Purple State]

This is what we mean...

Senator NCY recently posted this in the stimulus bill thread over on the government board:

Nay

I have given it much thought, but for some reason I am just not satisfied with this bill or the way it came together. In hindsight, Badger picked the wrong time of the year for an economic crisis. In a different part of the year, this wouldn't have likely taken as long and thus provided the chance to get it right. Also the Senate as a whole would have taken much more interest in the effort and been more motivated to take the initiative and offer ideas. 

I do thank the Senators for their cooperation in moving this bill forward, eventhough it could have been far better. I think that the Senate is much easier to manage when it its operating on its own inertia. It is very difficult to instill the energy and drive that keeps this place running when it doesn't exist to the extent necessary. I have found it frustrating to poke and prode Senators to respond, to offer amendments, and even just to discuss ideas and proposals. As much fun as I have had being the PPT, over these past two Senates, I am afraid that it is time for someone else to step up to the plate. Yes that is right, no more public berations, no more insults, and no more emails from a mob boss. There are a number of you who could easily do this if you apply yourselves and get active. I just hope you know the frustration you are bringing on yourself.

And so, for my likely final act as President Pro-Tempore:

This bill has enough votes to pass, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

This is exactly why this ticket has committed itself to finding creative solutions to the inactivity of the Senate. When arguably the most active and productive current government official becomes so frustrated that he reduces his level of involvement, the system is clearly broken. Marokai and I don't have all the answers, but we certainly have the balls to start the discussions necessary to find them.

I would also like to announce that if elected as your Vice President, I will keep the Senate running under my powers as President of the Senate. This means that I will not only cast tie-breaking votes, the minimum amount of work, but I will model Bacon King during his time as Vice President: an extremely active VP starting threads for legislation, opening and closing votes and making sure the trains run on time.

[Purple State]

I knew that was just too truncated. There was far more to it then just frustration over the Senate's activity level. The PM's allowed me to adequately deal with that. Instead it was a combination of things that led me to make my decision not to run for PPT. One of the big ones was the start of a new semester.

Understandable, but that it plays a role at all is cause for concern. And even here you admit it was a part of the decision.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I tried to clearly de-link the issue of Senate activity and my decision to participate in the running of the Senate. The only connection is that both were highlighted or spurred by your decision not to run for the position of PPT again. Had you decided to run again, I would avoid getting in your way given your effectiveness as PPT. Seeing as you have decided not to serve as PPT in the next Senate, I promise to make sure as VP that the Senate remains in order.

[Purple State]

On the Pardon of Mint

President Fritz's decision to pardon Mint is, I believe, the right decision. It shows a recognition that Mint's intent was not to circumvent the system, but rather to simply start over.

With that said, I would like to make a broader point. Under a Marokai/Purple State administration, Mint is never prosecuted in the first place. Why? Because Mint would have had the chance to deregister his original account, as we have proposed, and so there would not have been double registration issues.

Imagine the time and resources saved by a simple change to allow for deregistration. Not only that, but the court case clearly disillusioned Mint, who looks like he gave up on the game because of a court case that could have been avoided by a basic rule change. Imagine that, losing an active and productive member seeking to return to the game, losing interest because we didn't have deregistration in place.

Vote Marokai/Purple State and help us bring positive change to the game.

[Purple State]

Or, alternatively, you can change the law so that it wouldn't apply in this case.

Sure, but then you leave considerable uncertainty about what exactly the line is. So you will continue to have court cases and it will be up to judges to decide what the intent of citizens was at the time.

Conversely, you can just solve the problem and save time, "money" and stress.

So I'm unconvinced by your resistance to deregistration.

[Purple State]

I really don't see why you didn't just shoot Mint a pm advising him to de-register quickly, or he'd be banned. I know you were ordered by Fritz, but I think it would have been fine if you would have at least waited more than 3 minutes to give Mint a chance to de-register. Would of saved a lot of people a lot of time.

Tmth, dear.. People can't de-register.

He could have done what NiK did, though, to be able to stay on without being prosecuted.

If I recall correctly, NiK had lost access to his original account. Mint voluntarily changed his account.

You know the one person who seems to not actually care about this issue? Mint himself. He's already been pardoned apparently (although I personally think that's inopportune timing) so move on and stop looking for something to try and distract people with.

I'm not trying to distract people, I was making a simple inquiry. I would have posted this yesterday in the actual court case thread, but you locked it as I was typing the message.

Stop it. You thought you caught Marokai, but really you just made a mistake.

You thought Mint could de-register, but he couldn't. Instead, Marokai and I are proposing that people be allowed to do that to avoid exactly this situation.

You thought Mint could do what NiK did, but he couldn't because NiK was locked out of his account while Mint was not.

At the end of the day, Attorney General Marokai did his job and prosecuted a violation of the law. And President Fritz, rightly in our opinion, pardoned Mint under a provision Marokai and I successfully pushed for in the Constitutional Convention.

I don't see how exactly you can turn this into a winning political issue, but I guess you will keep trying.

[Purple State]

I really don't see why you didn't just shoot Mint a pm advising him to de-register quickly, or he'd be banned. I know you were ordered by Fritz, but I think it would have been fine if you would have at least waited more than 3 minutes to give Mint a chance to de-register. Would of saved a lot of people a lot of time.

Tmth, dear.. People can't de-register.

He could have done what NiK did, though, to be able to stay on without being prosecuted.

If I recall correctly, NiK had lost access to his original account. Mint voluntarily changed his account.

You know the one person who seems to not actually care about this issue? Mint himself. He's already been pardoned apparently (although I personally think that's inopportune timing) so move on and stop looking for something to try and distract people with.

I'm not trying to distract people, I was making a simple inquiry. I would have posted this yesterday in the actual court case thread, but you locked it as I was typing the message.

Stop it. You thought you caught Marokai, but really you just made a mistake.

You thought Mint could de-register, but he couldn't. Instead, Marokai and I are proposing that people be allowed to do that to avoid exactly this situation.

You thought Mint could do what NiK did, but he couldn't because NiK was locked out of his account while Mint was not.

At the end of the day, Attorney General Marokai did his job and prosecuted a violation of the law. And President Fritz, rightly in our opinion, pardoned Mint under a provision Marokai and I successfully pushed for in the Constitutional Convention.

I don't see how exactly you can turn this into a winning political issue, but I guess you will keep trying.

Marokai didn't want Mint to be pardoned until after the election. That's certainly concerning to me, as to others. With my OP, I wasn't trying to "make an issue out of it".  While I am a Presidential candidate, I am also a citizen, and Marokai is a public official. So I have every right to question him.

You have every right to question a public official, but at least try not to be ignorant of the facts while doing so. It was as though you didn't realize de-registration isn't allowed, or the reasoning behind NiK's vindication and Mint's prosecution, respectively.

[Purple State]

Clarifying a point from the presidential debate

So as not to butt in while the presidential candidates are debating... Oakvale said this on the second page:

<snip>

In keeping with his second point, which I agree with, on regions combatting unemployment on a more local level, I've made a couple of efforts to address the situation in my own region - the most notable being a regional hiring incentives initiative when President Purple State vetoed - IIRC - a national bill with similar aims.

<snip>

The bolded part is only partially true. As President, I did initially veto hiring incentive legislation due to concerns that the bill left unacceptable room for fraud and abuse. The bill was also quite costly and did not include adequate revenue-raising provisions.

However, just two weeks later I signed a much stronger (and paid for) version of the Hiring Incentives Act that accounted for my previous concerns. I was pleased that the Senate, then-Vice President Marokai and I could work through my earlier concerns to pass a law that was much better for Atlasia.

EDIT: I should also note that while candidates may want to strengthen the provisions of that law, the current level of hiring incentives don't expire until August of 2011.