Regional Consolidation: Where to draw the lines?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

In all honesty, I think the primary reason the Mideast is getting split is simply due to it's location.

It is more than mere coincidence that the Mideast is the only region which gets ripped apart under this scenario.

The Mideast has to be split up in order to add states to the Northeast, since the Mideast is the only region it is connected to. There is absolutely no way to create a balanced, 3-region map without splitting up the Mideast, which is unfortunate, because if any region deserves to remain intact, it is the Mideast.

I understand that the Mideast would probably be split up in some way if the 3-regions plan were to pass. However, the issue I have with the proposed plan is that the Mideast is the only region that is ripped apart, and all I am saying is that I suspect that this isn't a coincidence. In fact, if the Mideast is the only region that has to undergo drastic changes, the 3-regions plan becomes more palatable to citizens in other regions.

Even in the IDS/Pacific merger map they find a way to preserve the Midwest and leave the Mideast on the cutting room floor.

[Maxwell]

In all honesty, I think the primary reason the Mideast is getting split is simply due to it's location.

It is more than mere coincidence that the Mideast is the only region which gets ripped apart under this scenario.

The Mideast has to be split up in order to add states to the Northeast, since the Mideast is the only region it is connected to. There is absolutely no way to create a balanced, 3-region map without splitting up the Mideast, which is unfortunate, because if any region deserves to remain intact, it is the Mideast.

I understand that the Mideast would probably be split up in some way if the 3-regions plan were to pass. However, the issue I have with the proposed plan is that the Mideast is the only region that is ripped apart, and all I am saying is that I suspect that this isn't a coincidence. In fact, if the Mideast is the only region that has to undergo drastic changes, the 3-regions plan becomes more palatable to citizens in other regions.

Even in the IDS/Pacific merger map they find a way to preserve the Midwest and leave the Mideast on the cutting room floor.

The Midwest Labor party literally has no power (for god sakes, three terms of right-winger Governors with no opposition), if the argument you are trying to make is that Labor is trying to consolidate power, than that's just flat out wrong.

Either way, the Mideast is in an area that makes it very hard to cut out by itself. In addition, the Northeast is couped up in a corner where only adding parts of the Mideast would change it without making it ugly. If you're looking at the maps instead of thinking about the opposing sides intentions I think you could see that geographic reality.

[ZuWo]

Either way, the Mideast is in an area that makes it very hard to cut out by itself.

I don't dispute that as long as we are talking about contiguous regions. But if a three-region map were to be implemented, it wouldn't be fair to rip apart the Mideast alone. It would be much fairer to change everything radically and come up with three entirely new regions.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I have been looking at the maps Max. I understand the difficulty of keeping the Mideast whole but ripping one of the stronger regions apart (by splitting it between two other stable regions) while preserving the two weakest by merging them is just not right.

Either way, the Mideast is in an area that makes it very hard to cut out by itself.

I don't dispute that as long as we are talking about contiguous regions. But if a three-region map were to be implemented, it wouldn't be fair to rip apart the Mideast alone. It would be much fairer to change everything radically and come up with three entirely new regions.

[Adam Griffin]

Let me just say that this map is about as fair as it can get with respect to preserving regional identities. Keep in mind that this has been a huge part of the anti-consolidation crowd's argument. I encourage anyone who thinks that they can do better - using contiguous boundaries - to use my updated population map to construct one of their own. There's no way to leave the Mideast intact without having to split up multiple regions in the process.

A lot of the proponents' and detractors' comments here have merit:

Interesting that everyone assumes that the new regions would need to be contiguous.

I tried some versions that were non-contiguous, but they were quite ridiculous for the most part. You could theoretically preserve the Mideast and attach PA/DE/NJ to it, but the remainder of the Northeast would have to be anchored to the current IDS. The Midwest & Pacific merger would still hold as-is, though.

The Mideast has to be split up in order to add states to the Northeast, since the Mideast is the only region it is connected to. There is absolutely no way to create a balanced, 3-region map without splitting up the Mideast, which is unfortunate, because if any region deserves to remain intact, it is the Mideast.

I wouldn't mind the IDS getting Delaware or Oklahoma, but this seems like a very fair map.

Even in the IDS/Pacific merger map they find a way to preserve the Midwest and leave the Mideast on the cutting room floor.

The Midwest Labor party literally has no power (for god sakes, three terms of right-winger Governors with no opposition), if the argument you are trying to make is that Labor is trying to consolidate power, than that's just flat out wrong.

Either way, the Mideast is in an area that makes it very hard to cut out by itself. In addition, the Northeast is couped up in a corner where only adding parts of the Mideast would change it without making it ugly. If you're looking at the maps instead of thinking about the opposing sides intentions I think you could see that geographic reality.

Thanks for being reasonable here. The truth is that the most recent version of the map posted is more favorable to conservatives than the first (which consisted of 3 swing-regions). The NE/ME would be conservative-leaning, the Southeast would be heavily conservative and the PAC/MW would be heavily liberal under the current Census numbers.

I guess the difficult thing with preserving the Mideast and implementing a reduction plan is that the mideast simply doesn't make sense from a US geographical standpoint..

I mean, Virginia, KY and WV are considered the South and the rest are considered midwest or northeast, so it just doesn't mesh, which is too bad because it's the best functioning region we have now. I tried to come up with plans myself IF this is something we end up going through with, and I really couldn't make one that kept the mideast together.

Right. The Mideast is an anomaly and frankly doesn't have the same level of raison d'etre as the other regions do in terms of real-life justification. Under this proposal, it actually has more justification as an entity (effectively matching Confederate boundaries). I think most Southerners would agree that the areas highlighted in this proposal are true Southern areas. The irredentism in the IDS is strong: hopefully it won't go soft now that it has the best chance of expanding its cultural domain.

I have been looking at the maps Max. I understand the difficulty of keeping the Mideast whole but ripping one of the stronger regions apart (by splitting it between two other stable regions) while preserving the two weakest by merging them is just not right.

The Midwest and the Pacific, yes, are the two weakest from a general standpoint. They also take up the western half of the country and now have a combined population that merits a clean merger. Before, I had merged most of the ME & MW together, but Census numbers change.

This plan is fine. But it will likely fail I guess...

Don't be discouraged. These things take time.

Griffin, why is the Mideast region getting ripped to pieces while the others get to stay intact. Every time these three region scenarios comes up they all have that in common. That's why I will urge all Mideasterners to oppose any three region map proposal.

I guess the idea is the following: Most Mideasterners are likely to oppose "regional consolidation" anyway so the Mideast can as well be abolished. On the other hand, it is a lure for those in the IDS who are skeptical of "regional consolidation" because according to this scheme the IDS remains intact.

Pretty much. My original proposal was met with near universal criticism from the Mideast, while the rest of those who weighed in were more reasonable. It looks like you guys are going to reject any form of consolidation, no matter what. I see no reason that the majority of the country's will be held hostage by obstructionists in one region. Combined with the difficulties mentioned above that the Mideast's geography presents, there is simply no incentive not to split it up.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Honestly, I am starting to think a three region map might not be so bad (especially if it starts from scratch with regional boundaries, I'd definitely prefer this to preserving everything but the Mideast).  Griffen has made some pretty good points (and interesting maps) and I have actually had something of a change of heart on this issue as a result.  However, I don't think I can possibly support it unless (sorry if this has already been addressed) I see a convincing and through explanation of what problem this will actually fix (I've heard inactivity bandied about, but I don't know if that's the pro-consolidation consensus or just one person) and more importantly, how it will fix the problem.

[ilikeverin]

...oh my god, people are still bringing this up?

If you're worried about people being unevenly distributed between regions, bring back districts and substitute them for regional senate seats.  Really, it's that easy.

[Enderman]

Can someone make a map so that we don't have to have an image to work with? I know it would be VERY hard, but could someone at least try it? Also, with the Oceania and Puerto Rico, just say where they go at the bottom of the map...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Honestly, I am starting to think a three region map might not be so bad (especially if it starts from scratch with regional boundaries, I'd definitely prefer this to preserving everything but the Mideast).  Griffen has made some pretty good points (and interesting maps) and I have actually had something of a change of heart on this issue as a result.  However, I don't think I can possibly support it unless (sorry if this has already been addressed) I see a convincing and through explanation of what problem this will actually fix (I've heard inactivity bandied about, but I don't know if that's the pro-consolidation consensus or just one person) and more importantly, how it will fix the problem.

Is anyone going to even try to provide a good explanation for what problems this would fix and how it would fix them?  I suppose silence is an answer of sorts, but surely someone from the pro-consolidation side can a least make a go of it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Apparently it's supposed to combat inactivity by somehow lowering the bar. When there are less opportunities for new players, people will leave, and then we'll cut down the regions again. What a great solution!

See, the way I look at it, regional destruction does not actually address the problem, Mr. X. It covers it up. It says "well, Atlasia has peaked." And when Atlasia goes through another period of large growth again, there'll be no way to harness it or sustain it.

[Flake]

I wish that I had the time to type up a lengthy response myself, but Griffin provides a decent explanation of why regional consolidation is necessary and worth trying in this post:

For most of the past year, there have been few people who have been more involved in various capacities with the regional system than myself - or at least, that's how I feel. It was a goal of mine to spread out our caucus as evenly as possible, in order to ensure that Labor's voice was represented (or capable of obstructing, depending) in every region. The Five-Region Strategy! It's rather unnecessary to corral a party into one or two regions.

As a result, it was fairly common to hear about or be invested in various regional legislative efforts and reforms in every region. From Cottonfield (the ultimate war of attrition, and whose efforts have produced a leftist majority in the IDS Legislature since March; a non-Federalist majority since it began), to the crowd-sourced elected legislature amendment in the Midwest that I never took credit for, to the various coalitions that Labor built with regional allies from various parties in order to steer the conversation, to the thwarting of extremist regional governance in the Mideast, to the prior knowledge of Rimjob, and on and on and on. Some have and do get mad at me for not giving the Atlasian Government board my prime attention - that's because I've always been focused on the Regional Governments board. In summary, I feel that I know enough about regions to speak on the matter.


With that being said: the regional system is fed. It's not some god-given, permanently guaranteed system of things. It's a conservative idea and of course, any mention of change and the feathers start flying. Obviously, there's not enough demand to fill all of these offices, despite having either a record or near-record number of people in the game. The Northeast is collapsing, so much so that it's now third in terms of regional population, as members strategically register in (several regions, but mostly) the Pacific, which still can't get its st together apparently, and the Midwest holds its head above water and remains functional in a minimum capacity (not knocking the hard work our MW regional government does). The Mideast is the only healthy regional government by most measurements, and it has what, 55 people? Good luck getting the Census count to 275 anytime soon.

Anyone who is a defender of the regional system ought to do it a favor and admit that five region-model is excessive, doesn't work and doesn't do the system justice.

Most of the recent elections that were really exciting took place on the regional level so this gives us a good indication of how important healthy regions are for the game. And in order to make the regions even more attractive, we need to strengthen them. To those who want to abolish the regions altogether, please keep in mind that not everyone wants to be a Senator.

See this argument? Meh, it's not really one, but I agree with the statement. Of course we want  the system to be "stronger", and that's not the real point of debate. The debate is over whether the system itself should be altered. When you guys start proposing new ideas at some point hopefully, then you can steer the direction of the dialogue. I don't think the vast majority of people in this game or even the majority of those who want to see change want the regions to be abolished outright. Ergo, how do we make them stronger? Do we leave them exactly they way that they are and hope that fate straightens its st out at some point? Do we give failing institutions even more power? What about ten regions? Would that solve it?


And anyone who worries about a lack of offices or potential opportunities for newcomers either is insincere or truly lacks foresight and hindsight. This is already a problem in the "healthiest" region, and arguably at least one other. If such an overhaul could be accomplished (and in case I haven't made it clear thus far, I support reducing the number of regions), then why couldn't accompanying reform be pursued to create something entirely new? How about a House? Feel free to get creative here - we don't have to knee-jerk every time the status quo is challenged. I think that for every 3 regional offices abolished or made redundant, 2 more could be created at the federal level. Think about it: at-large party-list voting would be fun with a House consisting of ~20 members. Districts could also be done, albeit the number of reps would have to be smaller (yikes at districts containing 7 or 8 citizens with all the zombs around these days).

Even if the national approach weren't used, a 3-region system would create three entities that are on paper as viable as the Mideast. More offices could be created in each region if the former proposal isn't possible, and the SANCTITY OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT would still be preserved.

This could be a really great plan in all honesty.

[Adam Griffin]

Honestly, I am starting to think a three region map might not be so bad (especially if it starts from scratch with regional boundaries, I'd definitely prefer this to preserving everything but the Mideast).  Griffen has made some pretty good points (and interesting maps) and I have actually had something of a change of heart on this issue as a result.  However, I don't think I can possibly support it unless (sorry if this has already been addressed) I see a convincing and through explanation of what problem this will actually fix (I've heard inactivity bandied about, but I don't know if that's the pro-consolidation consensus or just one person) and more importantly, how it will fix the problem.

Is anyone going to even try to provide a good explanation for what problems this would fix and how it would fix them?  I suppose silence is an answer of sorts, but surely someone from the pro-consolidation side can a least make a go of it.

Silence is indicative of other things going on.

First of all: we can start off this discussion by not listening to Hagrid. He and his party never managed to effectively control more than two regions, and as such, never built movements from the ground-up in all five regions. Frankly, I don't think he has any clue how the 5-region system works as one entity and how the flaws in one or more regions propagate to all of them. We can thank him for his talking points, though.

Competition and activity are crucial: they are the reasons for this, and they will be solved with regional consolidation. From what I've gathered, we have never had a healthy 5-region system - even in peak times, there has been at least one or two regions that were in the doldrums. Even with four of the biggest power-brokers recruiting every available person to the game (including some who were using off-site sources), we still didn't have five healthy regions. We're never going to have five healthy regions. The creation of five was a mistake from its inception - not some divine and infallible creation that dare not be tampered with.

As it stands right now, each region requires at least one power-broker in order to thrive. At the peak of the game's population and activity, you had Napoleon pumping up the Northeast, myself and Hagrid pumping up the IDS, Wolfentoad pumping up the Pacific and Tmth pumping up the Mideast. When Napoleon moved to the Pacific, the Northeast crashed. When I stopped caring in the IDS, so did Hagrid and it crashed. When Tmth moved out of the Mideast, activity dropped markedly. When Wolfentoad quit, the Pacific collapsed and birthed the origins of Rimjob. See my point? At any given time, there are only a few people in the game willing to do this sort of thing - in a 5-region system, you encourage them to spread themselves out and sew the seeds of their own domain.

Now I know some will say, "Adam, that's good! We need activity in all corners of the country and this is how you revive regions". Except we've done that. You can revive regions, but you cannot make them sustainable with this approach. It doesn't work. Unfortunately, once someone grows tired of their actions, it all begins to collapse once again. The zombies die off. The population implodes. New people swoop in to take advantage of the situation and it causes chaos.

This is one reason why regional consolidation is necessary: you need to reduce the number of regions in order to reduce the number of fiefdoms, forcing multiple sociopaths to fight over the same region. This breeds competition, which obviously breeds activity. If one of them suddenly grows tired of the game, then it is less likely that the region itself will collapse into anarchy. The IDS was probably the only region as of late that had more than one person competing for dominance, which would explain why its voter activity surged the most out of any region during our "Golden Age" of late-winter/early-spring.

As far as the ratio of citizens to offices goes, I'm willing to have that debate as part of a separate discussion - preferably once we pass a regional consolidation plan. The population has decreased quite a bit since I first advocated that (was around 3.7:1), though. It currently sits at 3.25:1. In other words, this has changed quite a bit recently. As the game's population stabilizes once again, we can more effectively determine the ideal number of offices to citizens. I don't think more competition in regional elections is necessarily a bad thing, though - it should be hard to get elected and that helps encourage newer individuals who may not win their first race to get involved in other areas of the game.

Another great reason/summary for consolidation is what I told an individual via PM just a day or so ago:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In conclusion:

• Regional consolidation will force there to be competing interests in each region, rather than spread-out kingmakers who can pick their own region, build it up and let it collapse when they're finished - activity, in other words
• Regional consolidation will create regions large enough so that a rogue person (like wolfentoad or myself) cannot enter a region, move a few people in/register a few new people and subsequently take over the region's politics - competition, in other words
• Because of these two elements, regional consolidation will prevent the worst of regional collapses. It is not a total cure for inactivity, but it takes care of the issues that we have historically seen in the Pacific and Midwest, and would have helped us avoid this most recent regional implosion if it had been in place

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Well done Mr. Griffin  I must say that I hadn't expected your argument to be so persuasive!  I still strongly oppose abolishing the regions, but I think it is clear that five or perhaps even four aren't enough to force competition through competing interests.  At this point, I would definitely support a three region map, especially if it redraws all of the regions from scratch (the Mideast shouldn't be singled out for destruction).  If you accomplish nothing else, you have converted at least one formerly anti-region reduction Atlasian.  That said, I do think NM-AM bares a good deal of the blame for the Pacific's current state (which is not to say it wouldn't be a mess even without them).

[Ban my account ffs!]

I have a major problem with Adam's map.  I am a resident of Minnesota.  I have nothing in common with people from California.  I don't want to be lumped in with them.  Minnesota, IRL, has more in common with Ohio or Michigan or New York than it does with California or Utah.

It also divides major metro areas... Kansas City, the Twin Cities both come to mind.

The map below only divides one largeish metro... Cincinnati.  And it is an appropriate divide, perhaps, because Cinci lies on the border between the MW and South IRL anyway.

I know I know.. Texas in the west?  Well, there is no reason for conservatives to live in the current Pacific.  If they can hail from Texas, which is an emerging state that has more in common with the interior west than the southeast, it might spark some balance in the west.

The populations as they currently are would be uneven... and people will have to move.  But I have no doubt with only 3 regions, that people will move to a lesser populated region in order to increase chances of being elected.

And the lines should be drawn based IRL since we're using a real IRL map.  It makes sense to have a Southeast like the one I have above.  It makes sense to combine the MW and central/northern Plains with the NE since they are more similar culturally.

Of course it's not perfect, but it's far better than the willy-nilly draw a line through the middle of it stuff I've seen so far.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I'm a resident of Indiana and I have more in common with Kentucky, Illinois, and Missouri than I do with New York and Massachusetts. So why am I lumped in with states I have less in common with?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'm a resident of Indiana and I have more in common with Kentucky, Illinois, and Missouri than I do with New York and Massachusetts. So why am I lumped in with states I have less in common with?

Um... you're in the same region as Illinois and Missouri.

Sorry JCL, but with 3 regions we won't be creating some unrealistic redo of the Mideast.  If you can't wrap your head around that, then it would be prudent for you to support keeping the 5 region system.

[PJ]

Puerto Rico and Oceania in red.

Oceania and Puerto Rico in red.

[windjammer]

The best would be to merge the Pacific and the Midwest, and the Northeast and Mideast  I guess.

I would vote against a map which would split the Midwest.

[TJ in Oregon]

This reminds me of a joke my uncle used to tell us when my church at home was under renovation to add a baptismal fountain and a whole bunch of aisles to the main sanctuary: "Gee, Father, you sure know how to full up the pews: remove half of them!"