Marokai... you can hardly point fingers at others calling their proposals "too complicated"... your proposals and wishes would make this game a bureaucratic nightmare and would achieve nothing more than not changing a thing would... because people would still be leaving. Except they'd be mad at you instead of the JCP.
You keep saying this. That my proposed changes would somehow make everything some procedural thicket. But you've yet to actually show how that's the case. Most of my proposals are small changes. Changing things around here, adding a little program there, setting up the option for something else here. I'm not asking for permissions slips and doctor's forms.
My ideas regarding the Senate are the only really radical thing I propose, and I understand if people dislike them, but it's disingenuous to suggest that people are going to turn around and carefully consider their Senate options. Your party voted in lockstep. BRTD, a person who didn't even declare, got the most votes of all Senate candidates. He didn't get those votes because he had a sudden groundswell of support in the eleventh hour. He got those voters because those voters were told to go vote for him from on high. I like your naivete. I think it's innocent and sweet. But I don't share it.
I see nothing wrong with consecutive term limits at the very least.
Buddy you don't have to convince me in an effort to hit the refresh button on the entire game. I proposed such a thing over a year ago. But not enough people share the desire for such a dramatic new beginning.
I've no objection to game reform coming piece by piece. But what pieces are acceptable? How teeny tiny small do they have to be? Jbrase's proposal was a very very modest idea! You can't get any more minor than that!
People are leaving and lack interest already. The status-quo doesn't work anymore.
This is where my biggest issue with your argument lies. The parties can take advantage of these things if they want to, but all my proposals do is allow the parties to take advantage of that infrastructure if they so desire. Bgwah talks and talks about how he wants to see intra-party politics take to the forefront in a new political era. Okay, fine. Let's actually do that. Right now there is no structure for that.
My caucus proposal does nothing more than allow people to form them and have them formally appear on the ballot. How is that interference? How does that allow me to meddle in the JCP? It doesn't. People join them of their own choosing. It creates a sort of "party within a party" that actually has meaning.
How does your party deciding to have a primary mean I'm meddling in the JCP? Again, it doesn't. Such a primary would be your parties choice. It would just actually be
legally binding. Which it has to be if people actually want intra-party politics to be a 'thing' that actually exists.
You keep acting like I'm trying to put forward proposals that micromanage every aspect of the game. I'm not. I'm just trying to find ways to flesh out new aspects of the game people either haven't considered, or say they want, but don't make happen. My philosophy is that, if people want change, then something has to actually change!
That is why my thread, and the SoEA's threads, and up until Yelnoc's resignation, the SoIA's thread, are stickied. If people don't read them I can't really do anything about that. It's not like they're hard to find.
Threads for all of these things already exist. I don't understand how we get anywhere by creating a flurry of childboards. I think people know where the Senate is, by now. It's not hard to find.
The GM can manage itself, thank you..
I am not trying to break up the JCP. I'm trying to make positions meaningful and trying to actually find ways to create intra-party politics. Yes, I think it would be wonderful if the JCP got cut down about 20 members, but my proposals aren't about that.
I will happily try to look into such things for you, since as GM, this is my job. But I do need help. If people want my attention on something specific, they often PM me about their issue in particular, as Jbrase did earlier today.
You accuse me of micromanaging but an awful lot of what you're proposing here is doing the exact same thing. If the Senate wants to do these things, nothing is stopping them. The problem isn't the lack of mechanisms to re-evaluate legislation, the problem is you Senators lack the desire to actually do so. Nothing is stopping you from, right at this very second, going back and looking over a whole lot of legislation, and repealing it or consolidating it or replacing it.
I've done it myself plenty of times. I had hoped I'd be in the Senate right now to do the same thing once again, but apparently the voters of the Northeast didn't want such silly efficiency.
You need to be more open-minded to my proposals. All I've gotten from you guys lately is that you just hate everything that doesn't come from you. Bgwah wrote a bill making special elections occur in regional Senate seats when there's a vacancy. This passed with absolutely no fanfare. The ease at which things pass, as long as they're from you, is crazy. But when they come from outsiders, they treated as crazy radical things that no one in their right mind would ever consider.
When my ideas are given a fair shake, they get a lot of intrigued looks and supportive comments. My problem is that I don't think your party really wants anything to change. Bgwah has been a thorn in the side to reform for years, and it makes perfect sense why your party wouldn't want major changes to anything when you're on top. I think the only time you're open to change is when someone on your team can take credit for it.
You can lambast my ideas for being too wonky or complicated or procedural all you like, but the fact is this:
Any change is going to require people to learn or adapt to something different. Any change is going to require new procedure
somewhere. There is no magic pill here.
