On Recent Events and the Future of Atlasia

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I hope you'll forgive the length, but I feel this is a discussion we as players really need to be having.  I guess I should start by saying that if it wasn't already obvious, recent events have made it all too clear that Atlasia needs to undergo some sort of major fundamental change (arguably even at the basic structural level) if it is to have any chance of breaking out of the monotonous rut it has been stuck in lately.  This is hardly a revolutionary sentiment and I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of players have more or less felt this way at various points this past year (at the very least).  Even back in September 2012, when I was first elected to the Mideast Assembly, Presidential candidates promising game reform was already starting to turn into the game's version of people telling pollsters "I disapprove of Congress" and it has only become a more meaningless cliche since then.  I'm not saying this is because Atlasian Presidential candidates or whoever have bad intentions, but the fact is pretty much everyone has agreed for a while that some sort of major change is required and everyone is saying they're serious about game reform.  I'm not saying people who say that aren't, but the results speak for themselves: Time and again people keep promising game reform and nothing ever happens.  It's like someone who is morbidly obese always promising himself he'll start exercising and eating less tomorrow.  

Back in 2012, the conventional wisdom was that inactivity was the issue and there was a time when it seemed like half of running for President (or in some regions, running for Governor) was just promising to restore activity.  Looking back, I think that efforts to reduce inactivity were largely trying to treat the symptom instead of the disease.  The People's Party has been so successful partly because we are fortunate to have in our ranks so many active, hard-working, and experienced Atlasians.  However, especially the second time around, our success has also been due in no small part to a growing dissatisfaction with the current state of Atlasia.  One could also argue this dissatisfaction has contributed to the Democratic-Republican Party's emergence, idk.  I mean no disrespect to either party, but look at the traditional "big two."  Labor's in the worst shape it's been in since I joined Atlasia and I haven't a clue what the Federalist Party's ideological message is supposed to be beyond "we're generic conservatives who really don't like Labor."  I don't mean those as fighting words and apologize if they come off that way.  My point is that it's not like the recent chaos just came out of nowhere.  There were already signs of popular discontent including the emergence of a third and fourth credible party in a game that has always seemed highly conducive to a two party system.  

Recently, it has become popular in some circles to act like the status quo was working and that before DemPGH resigned we were all having so much fun building alliances and passing legislation, but such claims are highly disingenuous at best.  The status quo was everyone complaining about how awful the game had gotten, doing things like legalizing incest in the NE for shock value or trying to pass an energy bill no one wanted because almost every serious problem the Senate would be expected to deal with had already been solved.  After the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was resolved you still had Senators in response to a war that had already ended in Atlasia and I couldn't swear to it, but I'm pretty sure the Senate has passed universal healthcare multiple times.  The point being that the status quo before DemPGH resigned wasn't a vibrant and thriving electoral and legislative simulation, it was a wounded animal begging to be put out of its misery and at some level we all knew it.  Sorry if that sounds harsh, but let's call a spade a spade.

Which brings me to the current situation.  As others have noted, the events that occurred following DemPGH's resignation are the clearest sign yet that the old status quo was not working and returning to it without any real fundamental change will only make things worse.  Sure there are some like me who see the recent chaos as the most fun thing to happen in Atlasia since...err...ever and others like TNF who seem to see it as a cancer on the game (and surely plenty who fall somewhere in between, the little polling we have suggests public opinion is pretty divided on post-DemPGH events), but surely we can all at least agree that whether it was good or bad, the fact that this stuff happened was more or less a cry for help by the game.  Almost as if a good chunk of players simply decided "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"  It is clear that many players (myself included) are so frustrated with the status quo that almost any shake up of the game seemed preferable.  Even at least one prominent Atlasian staunchly opposed to the post-DemPGH events privately conceded to me that the only thing keeping this from being a potential realigning moment for the game was the fact that no one like a Griffin, a Duke, or a Hagrid had thrown their weight behind it (ironically the types of players who would have the most to lose power-wise from any fundamental structural change, which isn't to say that's why no player like that has acknowledged that recent events have made the game more fun for many players).  Clearly a significant number of players are having more fun than they were when DemPGH resigned.

I'm not gonna pretend to have all the answers about how to fix the game because I don't.  What I do know is that every time there's a new idea we always have someone with a new excuse why we can't try it (with said reasons ranging from legitimate to absurd) and it's getting ridiculous.  Consolidation?  It's an evil Liebor plot!!!  Let player introduce challenges like secessionism, civil war, an economic crisis, and violent riots that (barring a bad GM or an exceptionally competent and innovative public official) can't be fixed in a single post or Senate vote and then incorporate them into the story as we go? Sorry, someone made a petition saying they don't like it, so that's out.  Have a full legislative re-boot and start from scratch?  Nice try, but so-and-so would quit if all of his work in the IDS Assembly (or wherever) making laws for a made-up region of an imaginary country suddenly became meaningless.  What if we tried creating a second house and had a bicameral federal legislature?  Can't do that because...well...I missed that one, but I'm pretty sure one of the usual excuses were trotted out.  What if we Atlasia up into five different countries or just the Northeast leaves?  No, then we won't have enough players.  And so on...  

I didn't mean to single out anyone in the above paragraph and was deliberately hyperbolic at times, but the point is nearly everyone agreed there was a problem (even if they won't admit it now for political reasons) and yet all we seem to be able to agree on is what not to do.  I personally think we should let the post-DemPGH events run their course and see where it takes us without trying to kill it in the crib like some want to, but if you guys have a better idea; I'm all ears.  Seriously, I don't even care anymore whose idea it is or what party supports it.  I just  I'm sure some will just make some smart a[inks] response to this post (if you plan on posting something like "tl;dr" , go for it, I'll spend less time thinking about your post as you did writing it ), but for everyone else, I started this thread with the hope that it can become a place where we as players can have a good-faith discussion about what changes we are willing to support and and have a civil and honest debate about the best way to save the game from itself.  I'd also ask that we try to keep an open-mind regarding each other's ideas.  Maybe this is just a fool's errand and nothing will come of it, but I figure it's worth a shot.

tl;dr version: We all know the game was broken before DemPGH resigned, let's have an honest, civil, good-faith discussion about the best way to fix it.  If you think you've got the answer, great, let's here it.  Make your case and hopefully enough folks will read with an open-mind that you might just convince some skeptics.  

[Marokai Backbeat]

The argument here just seems dumb. It highlights a reasonable problem to talk about (the lack of day-to-day events un-elected people can participate in, the stodgy bureaucracy) but the solution is basically just "Let's have random crippling crises all the time! One week we can have a coup, next week we can have a civil war, the week after that we can have a devestating earthquake where we lose a chunk of California..." and this is not sustainable, if even at all desirable. There's a discussion to be had here, but if "let's have constant, rotating forms of chaos!" is present in this discussion there's not much of a logical argument that can be had against that.

[Oakvale]

I disagree with your fundamental premise. The game prior to the recent insanity was in better shape than it has been in a long time. Don't confuse political crises (the failed Presidency of DemPGH and some of the internal conflicts within the larger establishment parties) with mechanical issues.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The argument here just seems dumb. It highlights a reasonable problem to talk about (the lack of day-to-day events un-elected people can participate in, the stodgy bureaucracy) but the solution is basically just "Let's have random crippling crises all the time! One week we can have a coup, next week we can have a civil war, the week after that we can have a devestating earthquake where we lose a chunk of California..." and this is not sustainable, if even at all desirable. There's a discussion to be had here, but if "let's have constant, rotating forms of chaos!" is present in this discussion there's not much of a logical argument that can be had against that.

I'm not saying it has to be rotating forms of chaos (although I don't think I'm alone in considering that a *potentially* viable alternative worth exploring).  I'm asking in good faith to hear your alternative solution.  If you want to say "I don't think your idea is sustainable because a,b,c, and d, but here's what we should do instead...," I am all ears.  In other words, if you think what I'm advocating is a bad idea, fine (although I'd appreciate it if you'd at least explain why, even if they seems self-evident to you), but I'd ask that you offer some sort of alternative.  I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The argument here just seems dumb. It highlights a reasonable problem to talk about (the lack of day-to-day events un-elected people can participate in, the stodgy bureaucracy) but the solution is basically just "Let's have random crippling crises all the time! One week we can have a coup, next week we can have a civil war, the week after that we can have a devestating earthquake where we lose a chunk of California..." and this is not sustainable, if even at all desirable. There's a discussion to be had here, but if "let's have constant, rotating forms of chaos!" is present in this discussion there's not much of a logical argument that can be had against that.

I'm not saying it has to be rotating forms of chaos (although I don't think I'm alone in considering that a *potentially* viable alternative worth exploring).  I'm asking in good faith to hear your alternative solution.  If you want to say "I don't think your idea is sustainable because a,b,c, and d, but here's what we should do instead...," I am all ears.  In other words, if you think what I'm advocating is a bad idea, fine (although I'd appreciate it if you'd at least explain why, even if they seems self-evident to you), but I'd ask that you offer some sort of alternative.  I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

There is no real response to this. What you want is fundamentally different from what this game provides. It would be like a person joining the Model U.N. and then wondering where all the hot action was. The game is always in need of mechanical tweaks but apart from offering the avenues for change for those who wish to make use of them (official options for secession, for instance) Atlasia is what it is.

I disagree with your fundamental premise. The game prior to the recent insanity was in better shape than it has been in a long time. Don't confuse political crises (the failed Presidency of DemPGH and some of the internal conflicts within the larger establishment parties) with mechanical issues.

It is a shame that two people can agree on so many things, so often, yet bitterly oppose each other for things picked up third-hand.

[Bacon King]

reform idea:

instead of elections we could have rap battles
replace the senate with a discussion board for male fashion advice
get rid of campaigns, make Joe Republic the GM and we just have RISK games

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What realignment was occurring? What would throwing my weight behind anything have accomplished?

I'll be honest in that I kind of tuned out the movements after Snowstalker's little thing, and there was no way I was going to join him.

I have long supported restructuring the government, but not like it was going right now.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The argument here just seems dumb. It highlights a reasonable problem to talk about (the lack of day-to-day events un-elected people can participate in, the stodgy bureaucracy) but the solution is basically just "Let's have random crippling crises all the time! One week we can have a coup, next week we can have a civil war, the week after that we can have a devestating earthquake where we lose a chunk of California..." and this is not sustainable, if even at all desirable. There's a discussion to be had here, but if "let's have constant, rotating forms of chaos!" is present in this discussion there's not much of a logical argument that can be had against that.

I'm not saying it has to be rotating forms of chaos (although I don't think I'm alone in considering that a *potentially* viable alternative worth exploring).  I'm asking in good faith to hear your alternative solution.  If you want to say "I don't think your idea is sustainable because a,b,c, and d, but here's what we should do instead...," I am all ears.  In other words, if you think what I'm advocating is a bad idea, fine (although I'd appreciate it if you'd at least explain why, even if they seems self-evident to you), but I'd ask that you offer some sort of alternative.  I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

There is no real response to this. What you want is fundamentally different from what this game provides. It would be like a person joining the Model U.N. and then wondering where all the hot action was. The game is always in need of mechanical tweaks but apart from offering the avenues for change for those who wish to make use of them (official options for secession, for instance) Atlasia is what it is.

I disagree with your fundamental premise. The game prior to the recent insanity was in better shape than it has been in a long time. Don't confuse political crises (the failed Presidency of DemPGH and some of the internal conflicts within the larger establishment parties) with mechanical issues.

It is a shame that two people can agree on so many things, so often, yet bitterly oppose each other for things picked up third-hand.

So if you'd oppose any fundamental game reform, particularly if it entailed major changes at the structural level of the game?  I guess if that's the case, we might as well make sure we mean the same thing when we use terms.  When you refer to and have referred to as "game reform," are you referring to what you described as "minor mechanical tweaks" rather than fundamental changes to the way the game works?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Maybe all the attention-seekers who thrived in the chaos could actually try and seek positive attention by contributing to the game when there's not a vacuum to fill.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So if you'd oppose any fundamental game reform, particularly if it entailed major changes at the structural level of the game?  I guess if that's the case, we might as well make sure we mean the same thing when we use terms.  When you refer to and have referred to as "game reform," are you referring to what you described as "minor mechanical tweaks" rather than fundamental changes to the way the game works?

I feel like you don't read half the posts you respond to. The idea that you would accuse me, of all people, of opposing fundamental game reform changes, is baffling. Have you read anything I write around here?

I support major changes if they are well-thought out, good for the long-term health of the game without just being a flash in the pan, and make the game we have now more enjoyable without turning it into something wholly different. This is why I support things like re-editing down the Constitution, BK's regular legislative reboots, changing election systems, and giving more powers to people who wish to make use of them, and not things like random crises or breaking the game into five separate pieces, ideas that are not particularly well-considered, especially in the long-term.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Maybe all the attention-seekers who thrived in the chaos could actually try and seek positive attention by contributing to the game when there's not a vacuum to fill.

I'll grant you that you have your Snowstalkers who were probably just making trouble for the hell of it (although I've gotta give the devil his due, it was kinda entertaining until he ignoring the nuclear bomb stuff).  That said, what basis do you have for your claim that the people who had fun during the period since DemPGH's resignation were just attention-seekers rather than players who were simply having fun?

[Oakvale]

Maybe all the attention-seekers who thrived in the chaos could actually try and seek positive attention by contributing to the game when there's not a vacuum to fill.

I'll grant you that you have your Snowstalkers who were probably just making trouble for the hell of it (although I've gotta give the devil his due, it was kinda entertaining until he ignoring the nuclear bomb stuff).  That said, what basis do you have for your claim that the people who had fun during the period since DemPGH's resignation were just attention-seekers rather than players who were simply having fun?

The people involved in the Great Confusion were:

Snowstalker
Alfred
Kalwejt
You
Some guy called Velasco?
Pingvin
Simfan

It's not hard to spot the pattern.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So if you'd oppose any fundamental game reform, particularly if it entailed major changes at the structural level of the game?  I guess if that's the case, we might as well make sure we mean the same thing when we use terms.  When you refer to and have referred to as "game reform," are you referring to what you described as "minor mechanical tweaks" rather than fundamental changes to the way the game works?

I feel like you don't read half the posts you respond to. The idea that you would accuse me, of all people, of opposing fundamental game reform changes, is baffling. Have you read anything I write around here?

I support major changes if they are well-thought out, good for the long-term health of the game without just being a flash in the pan, and make the game we have now more enjoyable without turning it into something wholly different. This is why I support things like re-editing down the Constitution, BK's regular legislative reboots, changing election systems, and giving more powers to people who wish to make use of them, and not things like random crises or breaking the game into five separate pieces, ideas that are not particularly well-considered, especially in the long-term.

I read all the posts I respond to, relax  I don't see how asking someone whether they hold a certain position is an accusation, but in any event, this is good.  You're offering more specifics now; could you please elaborate on what specific changes to the electoral system you had in mind?  I'm also skeptical that re-editing the constitution will really change anything, but I'd like to hear your argument for that as well.  I am fine with legislative reboots if that's what people want to try.  What's important is that we start trying things instead of continuing to do nothing.  As for incorporating crises proposed by players into the storyline and determining good or bad outcomes by how the government reacts (or in the case of the Midwestern government, doesn't react ), I still don't see any long-term issues with such an approach, perhaps you could enlighten me on the subject?  I don't think you've explained yet why, specifically, you think it is a bad idea.

[Maxwell]

reform idea:

instead of elections we could have rap battles
replace the senate with a discussion board for male fashion advice
get rid of campaigns, make Joe Republic the GM and we just have RISK games

psssh this game would be my bitch then.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Maybe all the attention-seekers who thrived in the chaos could actually try and seek positive attention by contributing to the game when there's not a vacuum to fill.

I'll grant you that you have your Snowstalkers who were probably just making trouble for the hell of it (although I've gotta give the devil his due, it was kinda entertaining until he ignoring the nuclear bomb stuff).  That said, what basis do you have for your claim that the people who had fun during the period since DemPGH's resignation were just attention-seekers rather than players who were simply having fun?

The people involved in the Great Confusion were:

Snowstalker
Alfred
Kalwejt
You
Some guy called Velasco?
Pingvin
Simfan

It's not hard to spot the pattern.

I'll grant you Snowstalker and maybe Simfan.  Kalwejt probably was in this case, but I wouldn't put him in the same category as Snowstalker.  I'm not even aware of any involvement on the part of Pingvin, but even if we give you that one; I don't think Alfred, Velasco, Cassius, Deus, Cranberry (he had to sign off on everything as SoIA), or myself could be called rampant attention-seekers.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

What realignment was occurring? What would throwing my weight behind anything have accomplished?

I'll be honest in that I kind of tuned out the movements after Snowstalker's little thing, and there was no way I was going to join him.

I have long supported restructuring the government, but not like it was going right now.

I'd argue that Snowstalker was at the fringe of even what was going post-DemPGH.  In any event, some folks have more influence here than others, you being among those with the most.  Surely we can at least agree on that?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What realignment was occurring? What would throwing my weight behind anything have accomplished?

I'll be honest in that I kind of tuned out the movements after Snowstalker's little thing, and there was no way I was going to join him.

I have long supported restructuring the government, but not like it was going right now.

I'd argue that Snowstalker was at the fringe of even what was going post-DemPGH.  In any event, some folks have more influence here than others, you being among those with the most.  Surely we can at least agree on that?

That's fine if I am influential, but what movement existed that would have been legitimized had I supported it? I was unaware there were any more going on except Snowstalker and the Northeast movement.