Aside from Griffin, Yankee, and Windjammer...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:49:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Aside from Griffin, Yankee, and Windjammer...
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Aside from Griffin, Yankee, and Windjammer...  (Read 2007 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 07, 2015, 12:16:20 AM »

...are there any active players who've been in Atlasia for over a year that are happy with the current state of Atlasia?  Someone joked that there didn't seem to be (I certainly can't think of any), but if it is indeed the case then we should really take a moment to reflect on that.  It seems pretty clear that only a tiny (albeit very loud and very verbose) minority of active players don't think that Atlasia should not continue to exist in it's current form.  This isn't even a controversial issue when you look at the numbers (especially once you remove zombies and people who haven't really been here long enough to get frustrated with the utter wasteland Atlasia has turned into).

Who comes up with these notions and why do they not get challenged? Why do Liberals stop being liberals whenever it comes to questioning the latest canard spun by the IRC regulars and then crapped all over this game and bought religiously by their vast network.

I am by nature never satisfied. I am not Nero fiddling whilst Rome burns. I keep going because I have vision for what this game can be and it is certainly not the hellhole that many people have brought to being. I enjoy playing this game and I know I will enjoy it a hell of lot more with these problems addressed.

I disagree with your approach. Destroy first Rimjob 2.0, has all the reason and good sense of a fanatical cult of doomsday prophets trying to actively make their bonkers predicitions come true.

There is no way, no means by which to even do what you are trying to achieve as step one. And even if there was, there is no way anyone not swept away in this madness would not come away scratching their heads at the notion that we are going to destroy the game and then trust that it will be rebuilt when the same promise was made when they destroyed the Pacific left it lockedo ut of itself and the region from amending the Consitution. Breaking the federal Cosntitution is not going to break the game, it is only going to liberate the regions.

I like you Mr. X, I know you are discouraged. I know you are disatisfied, but these people and their crazy notions are not going to save you or this game. They will destroy it and leave it dead, they aren't even afraid to openly admit it now. This is the real trap.   

Um... why is this suddenly a political ideology thing?

Its not, it is jsut I expect Liberals to question and being skeptical. Though these days I am not surprised anymore when that is not the case. Tongue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 07, 2015, 12:27:58 AM »

Looks like I am still being hacked. Now "I Am happy with the game as is".


Jesus these mods suck. Tongue


And I thought frantic was a type of Pokemon shipping.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2015, 04:48:00 AM »

This thread is based on a rather sensationalist fallacy: that not wanting to kill off Atlasia means not wanting to fix it. To put it in more general terms: someone not wanting to solve problems your way is not the equivalent of them not wanting to solve the problems, or denying that the problems even exist.

(Also, may I add that the title is about as good as the argument. Name-dropping Atlasian figures who are unpopular with ideological opponents is basically click-bait.)

Atlasia needs to die off, but the people doing it right now for their own glory isn't the answer.

As Yankee has said before, you can leave if you don't like it. Not sure why you won't accept that without ending it for everyone else as well. We need rational solutions, and "Atlasia needs to die off" is about as far from that as you can get.
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 07, 2015, 05:11:53 AM »

It's pretty clear that this game is not working as the old times.
But, at least for me, killing it is not the solution. A lot of things needs to be changed. The Constitution needs to be changed. The Senate tried to change it with various amendements, that were rejected by the Senate itself or by the regions.
Now there aren't excuses. It's time to change the Constitution and... I don't want to be repetitive, but the only way is a Constitutional Convention. I know that in the past there was a ConCon that, according to most of you, has not worked well, but I'm sure that this time would be different.
The number of regions needs to be changed. A ConCon can do it, inserting new clauses in the Constitution that allows to change boundaries or, as I'd prefer, with the Constitution selecting the new regions map and insert it in the Constitution (it would require short time than the first idea).
A ConCon would change our legislative system. A ConCon would change the election sytem. A ConCon would change the relationship between federal and regional governments.
This is the last call. We can do something now or we can let this game die.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2015, 05:40:03 AM »

It's pretty clear that this game is not working as the old times.
But, at least for me, killing it is not the solution. A lot of things needs to be changed. The Constitution needs to be changed. The Senate tried to change it with various amendements, that were rejected by the Senate itself or by the regions.
Now there aren't excuses. It's time to change the Constitution and... I don't want to be repetitive, but the only way is a Constitutional Convention. I know that in the past there was a ConCon that, according to most of you, has not worked well, but I'm sure that this time would be different.
The number of regions needs to be changed. A ConCon can do it, inserting new clauses in the Constitution that allows to change boundaries or, as I'd prefer, with the Constitution selecting the new regions map and insert it in the Constitution (it would require short time than the first idea).
A ConCon would change our legislative system. A ConCon would change the election sytem. A ConCon would change the relationship between federal and regional governments.
This is the last call. We can do something now or we can let this game die.

The problem is we need to identify what's actually broken-we can't go to a concon with no idea what we're actually going to fix
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2015, 05:50:27 AM »
« Edited: July 07, 2015, 05:52:47 AM by Senator Cris »

It's pretty clear that this game is not working as the old times.
But, at least for me, killing it is not the solution. A lot of things needs to be changed. The Constitution needs to be changed. The Senate tried to change it with various amendements, that were rejected by the Senate itself or by the regions.
Now there aren't excuses. It's time to change the Constitution and... I don't want to be repetitive, but the only way is a Constitutional Convention. I know that in the past there was a ConCon that, according to most of you, has not worked well, but I'm sure that this time would be different.
The number of regions needs to be changed. A ConCon can do it, inserting new clauses in the Constitution that allows to change boundaries or, as I'd prefer, with the Constitution selecting the new regions map and insert it in the Constitution (it would require short time than the first idea).
A ConCon would change our legislative system. A ConCon would change the election sytem. A ConCon would change the relationship between federal and regional governments.
This is the last call. We can do something now or we can let this game die.

The problem is we need to identify what's actually broken-we can't go to a concon with no idea what we're actually going to fix
- Number of regions --> the current number is enough. There are difficulties to fill regional legislatures.
- Legislative sytem (Senate, also bicameralism can be discussed) --> a reduction of number of regions would lead to a change in the Senate. We can discuss about At-Large seats and why not about bicameralism.
- Elections system --> At-Large elections (expecially elections for 5 seats) are not working.
- Relationship between regions and fed govt, powers denied to regions.

These are the fundamental things, IMHO, and I'm sure that changes on these thing would be important and fundamental. But I'm sure there will be debates about the Cabinet, impeachment and other things.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2015, 10:08:19 AM »

This place could sustain the number of offices it currently holds if it actually offered something interesting. Right now it's a glorified circle jerk that only welcomes the same tired wankers. The game is not accessible to new players because it has drifted so far from reality that it's not even worth playing. Add onto that the fact that we've already tackled the big issues, and it's no surprise people have lost interest.

We do not need to lower the bar. We need to cast it aside and use a completely new bar. Atlasia? What's that? We need a new country, a new system of government, a new process for electing officeholders, and a blank slate. Period. Consolidation will not solve anything. Because in two years we wouldn't have enough players for three-region Atlasia, either.

Drastic change.

Griffin won. And look where we are because of it.

!?!

You're so full of sh**t. First of all, way to blame it on me: everybody remembers you doing all of the same things I once did but failing miserably at them. I suppose that failure gives you a clean conscience and the ability to forget about how you were every much a machine politician and powerplayer at one point as I once was too. Your hands aren't clean: you were literally the number one element of obstruction to changing this game at several points over the past two years because "muh regions" and "muh federalism".

Not even two months ago - in the midst of this trend that has been present for months, no less - you were still harping about how nothing was wrong with the game, the regions were fine, status quo blah blah blah. You can pretend that your qualm was against the changes to the game that I wanted to bring for over two years now, but the truth of the matter is that you've never put forward any substantive idea to reform or alter the game yourself because you never believed in changing the game. Do I really have to go dig up dozens of quotes from you over time to show that this has been your consistent position for years?

As the Chairman of what was throughout many points of 2013-2014 the largest political party in the game, you had the ability to champion reform - you chose not to, and that says all that needs to be said. Your track record of opposition wasn't one of "this doesn't go far enough to fix the game"; it's always been one of "nothing is wrong, keep everything the way it is, and stop trying to fix what isn't broken". Now all of a sudden, you're speaking as if you've been a messenger for change this whole time. Hilarious. Way to blame it all on me, too - the one person who has actually consistently pushed for new and tangible reforms to both the regions and the game that don't involve scraping the bustbin of history for solutions. None of them were ever accomplished because of you. If you do end up de-registering and decide to come back at some point, maybe try not being so bitter and resistant to everything new.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,019


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2015, 10:43:58 AM »

It's pretty clear that this game is not working as the old times.
But, at least for me, killing it is not the solution. A lot of things needs to be changed. The Constitution needs to be changed. The Senate tried to change it with various amendements, that were rejected by the Senate itself or by the regions.
Now there aren't excuses. It's time to change the Constitution and... I don't want to be repetitive, but the only way is a Constitutional Convention. I know that in the past there was a ConCon that, according to most of you, has not worked well, but I'm sure that this time would be different.
The number of regions needs to be changed. A ConCon can do it, inserting new clauses in the Constitution that allows to change boundaries or, as I'd prefer, with the Constitution selecting the new regions map and insert it in the Constitution (it would require short time than the first idea).
A ConCon would change our legislative system. A ConCon would change the election sytem. A ConCon would change the relationship between federal and regional governments.
This is the last call. We can do something now or we can let this game die.

The problem is we need to identify what's actually broken-we can't go to a concon with no idea what we're actually going to fix
- Number of regions --> the current number is enough. There are difficulties to fill regional legislatures.
- Legislative sytem (Senate, also bicameralism can be discussed) --> a reduction of number of regions would lead to a change in the Senate. We can discuss about At-Large seats and why not about bicameralism.
- Elections system --> At-Large elections (expecially elections for 5 seats) are not working.
- Relationship between regions and fed govt, powers denied to regions.

These are the fundamental things, IMHO, and I'm sure that changes on these thing would be important and fundamental. But I'm sure there will be debates about the Cabinet, impeachment and other things.

I proposed many of those things in a memorandum in October 2013. I nearly was primaried by my own party (at the time) in favor of a troll candidate because I dared to support overhauling Atlasia because, as many said, "regions are fine, they're fine now and will continue to be fine in the future. I won't vote for Duke because he's in bed with Liebor and they just want to ruin the game." The memo is still online. Anyone can go read it.

All of those things are decent ideas, and I applaud that you're proposing something concrete, since no one else has done so.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 07, 2015, 10:52:55 AM »

It's pretty clear that this game is not working as the old times.
But, at least for me, killing it is not the solution. A lot of things needs to be changed. The Constitution needs to be changed. The Senate tried to change it with various amendements, that were rejected by the Senate itself or by the regions.
Now there aren't excuses. It's time to change the Constitution and... I don't want to be repetitive, but the only way is a Constitutional Convention. I know that in the past there was a ConCon that, according to most of you, has not worked well, but I'm sure that this time would be different.
The number of regions needs to be changed. A ConCon can do it, inserting new clauses in the Constitution that allows to change boundaries or, as I'd prefer, with the Constitution selecting the new regions map and insert it in the Constitution (it would require short time than the first idea).
A ConCon would change our legislative system. A ConCon would change the election sytem. A ConCon would change the relationship between federal and regional governments.
This is the last call. We can do something now or we can let this game die.

The problem is we need to identify what's actually broken-we can't go to a concon with no idea what we're actually going to fix
- Number of regions --> the current number is enough. There are difficulties to fill regional legislatures.
- Legislative sytem (Senate, also bicameralism can be discussed) --> a reduction of number of regions would lead to a change in the Senate. We can discuss about At-Large seats and why not about bicameralism.
- Elections system --> At-Large elections (expecially elections for 5 seats) are not working.
- Relationship between regions and fed govt, powers denied to regions.

These are the fundamental things, IMHO, and I'm sure that changes on these thing would be important and fundamental. But I'm sure there will be debates about the Cabinet, impeachment and other things.

You should join the Washington Society, Cris. These are exactly the kind of bold, rational solutions we've been trying to formulate.
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 07, 2015, 10:54:48 AM »

It's pretty clear that this game is not working as the old times.
But, at least for me, killing it is not the solution. A lot of things needs to be changed. The Constitution needs to be changed. The Senate tried to change it with various amendements, that were rejected by the Senate itself or by the regions.
Now there aren't excuses. It's time to change the Constitution and... I don't want to be repetitive, but the only way is a Constitutional Convention. I know that in the past there was a ConCon that, according to most of you, has not worked well, but I'm sure that this time would be different.
The number of regions needs to be changed. A ConCon can do it, inserting new clauses in the Constitution that allows to change boundaries or, as I'd prefer, with the Constitution selecting the new regions map and insert it in the Constitution (it would require short time than the first idea).
A ConCon would change our legislative system. A ConCon would change the election sytem. A ConCon would change the relationship between federal and regional governments.
This is the last call. We can do something now or we can let this game die.

The problem is we need to identify what's actually broken-we can't go to a concon with no idea what we're actually going to fix
- Number of regions --> the current number is enough. There are difficulties to fill regional legislatures.
- Legislative sytem (Senate, also bicameralism can be discussed) --> a reduction of number of regions would lead to a change in the Senate. We can discuss about At-Large seats and why not about bicameralism.
- Elections system --> At-Large elections (expecially elections for 5 seats) are not working.
- Relationship between regions and fed govt, powers denied to regions.

These are the fundamental things, IMHO, and I'm sure that changes on these thing would be important and fundamental. But I'm sure there will be debates about the Cabinet, impeachment and other things.

I proposed many of those things in a memorandum in October 2013. I nearly was primaried by my own party (at the time) in favor of a troll candidate because I dared to support overhauling Atlasia because, as many said, "regions are fine, they're fine now and will continue to be fine in the future. I won't vote for Duke because he's in bed with Liebor and they just want to ruin the game." The memo is still online. Anyone can go read it.

All of those things are decent ideas, and I applaud that you're proposing something concrete, since no one else has done so.
Thanks for your kind words. I know that you worked hard to change something (I remember the Bicameral Birthing Amendment and I supported it).
I hope you'll add your signature at the petition. I know that the ConCon has not worked well in the past, but this time it would be different. Really, I think it's the only way. Dissolving Atlasia is not the right way. A ConCon can replace parts of Constitution that are not working.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,977
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 07, 2015, 11:05:55 AM »

I also do not want the game to dissolve. I would like to reform the electoral system, but none of us can agree on anything in that department. I'd imagine the same thing for shifting the regions.

I've said this before, 15 years ago I was a member of a flourishing government sim that also pulled the plug. It ended up killing the game. I'd imagine the same thing would happen here.

I support revival yes, but not a re-birth.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,019


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 07, 2015, 01:51:49 PM »

I also do not want the game to dissolve. I would like to reform the electoral system, but none of us can agree on anything in that department. I'd imagine the same thing for shifting the regions.

I've said this before, 15 years ago I was a member of a flourishing government sim that also pulled the plug. It ended up killing the game. I'd imagine the same thing would happen here.

I support revival yes, but not a re-birth.

And there enlies the problem. There has to be almost universal agreement to change anything. Merely dissolving Atlasia does nothing unless we have direction after that, and right now Cris is the only one that has come forward with some concrete plan.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 07, 2015, 08:13:00 PM »

This thread is an excellent argument for total change IMO. Just look at some of the posts!
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 07, 2015, 08:32:00 PM »

I joined Atlasia a little over four years ago. From then until now, these sorts of conversations have perpetually cropped up arguing how badly things have declined. There is something of an ebb and flow certainly, but I don't think the overall sum of the contributions to this place really have changed that much. Heck, back then we certainly had fewer total people registered (and yes, back then there was still complaint about non-contributing zombies; that is not a new problem). Some regions were pretty much entirely defunct back then but have since had a renaissance.

One thing I definitely have noticed is an increase in the complexity of bills and events in the game. This is good in some ways and bad in others. It's good, for instance, in that there really isn't much point in passing spending laws without having a semi-realistic budget bill to pay for them. It's good in that there are some really awful old bills that make no sense at all. I do think the quality has gone up some. But the downside is that more complicated means more time. This place can sometimes be like that new boardgame your friend buys that is supposed to be really fun but never gets played because it takes 4 hours to set up and the rule book is 200 pages long. That's the downside to complexity. It means there are a lot of offices someone who is as busy these days as I have been the past year just can't run for. I am a little perplexed though at people who will refuse to run for regional legislature seats; you can do that job in half an hour a week if you budget your time sensibly.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 07, 2015, 09:11:18 PM »

FTR, I've been on the IRC once in the past two months, for about half an hour. The conspiracy-mongering is unwarranted. I'm also not sure what the Liberal Party has to do with any of this.

I'd be happier if my IRL circumstances didn't mean I had to post from a lousy tablet.

I feel your pain as I post from my phone.

That was supposed to small l liberalism. Tongue Which even in the absent of the correct grammar, the sentence should have made pretty clear was my intent.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2015, 11:14:31 AM »

This place could sustain the number of offices it currently holds if it actually offered something interesting. Right now it's a glorified circle jerk that only welcomes the same tired wankers. The game is not accessible to new players because it has drifted so far from reality that it's not even worth playing. Add onto that the fact that we've already tackled the big issues, and it's no surprise people have lost interest.

We do not need to lower the bar. We need to cast it aside and use a completely new bar. Atlasia? What's that? We need a new country, a new system of government, a new process for electing officeholders, and a blank slate. Period. Consolidation will not solve anything. Because in two years we wouldn't have enough players for three-region Atlasia, either.

Drastic change.

Griffin won. And look where we are because of it.

!?!

You're so full of sh**t. First of all, way to blame it on me: everybody remembers you doing all of the same things I once did but failing miserably at them. I suppose that failure gives you a clean conscience and the ability to forget about how you were every much a machine politician and powerplayer at one point as I once was too. Your hands aren't clean: you were literally the number one element of obstruction to changing this game at several points over the past two years because "muh regions" and "muh federalism".

Not even two months ago - in the midst of this trend that has been present for months, no less - you were still harping about how nothing was wrong with the game, the regions were fine, status quo blah blah blah. You can pretend that your qualm was against the changes to the game that I wanted to bring for over two years now, but the truth of the matter is that you've never put forward any substantive idea to reform or alter the game yourself because you never believed in changing the game. Do I really have to go dig up dozens of quotes from you over time to show that this has been your consistent position for years?

As the Chairman of what was throughout many points of 2013-2014 the largest political party in the game, you had the ability to champion reform - you chose not to, and that says all that needs to be said. Your track record of opposition wasn't one of "this doesn't go far enough to fix the game"; it's always been one of "nothing is wrong, keep everything the way it is, and stop trying to fix what isn't broken". Now all of a sudden, you're speaking as if you've been a messenger for change this whole time. Hilarious. Way to blame it all on me, too - the one person who has actually consistently pushed for new and tangible reforms to both the regions and the game that don't involve scraping the bustbin of history for solutions. None of them were ever accomplished because of you. If you do end up de-registering and decide to come back at some point, maybe try not being so bitter and resistant to everything new.

Consolidation is lowering the bar. A new country with completely new governmental bodies and electoral methods is finding a new bar. That includes a complete reset: throwing everything away and starting from scratch. Everything.

That was on no one's radar when I was chairman. I proposed no new ideas because I didn't have any. I still don't. But something does need to be done. You can put words in my mouth, but I haven't been against every single reform we've seen. I supported a district system. I supported Marokai's move to bring Canada into the fold. I support things that make sense. Once again, for the millionth time, lowering the number of elected offices in the game is a quick fix that will not change any of the institutional problems with Atlasia.

As for my motives as chairman, I wanted a Federalist to be elected president. I failed. I failed at lots. But my intent was never to take over the game and beat it into being an extremist state. That has happened. But I am wrong to blame it all on you. Your work would have been for naught (and basically was) without the real heavy lifters you occasionally found in people like TNF.

Anyway, cheers. Beat it into the ground for all I care, folks.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 09, 2015, 08:43:16 AM »

Any kind of reform, buys you time and probably not as much as one would like or demand.


Everyone wants something different out of this game and therefore it is impossible to satisfy one completely without pissing off another. Polnut wants a return to centrism, the problem is to steal from none other then Hagrid is that you cannot have centrism when you have ever bolder and ever more empowered left and dwarfed right. Centrism has dominated this game far longer than anyone else has. The ones constantly being left to hang though are the right. We built up once before and came almost to the point of competition only to be met with a collective, "we're bored, blow it up and start over, duopoly sucks!". The left can feed off of a built in advantage for years, then before we can get close it is snatched away. Then you wonder why nothing ever changes in this game.

You have to have something to debate and need someone to debate with. In late 2013 through early 2014, we had some really close close At-Large and Regional races. The Midwest was almost evenly divided, The Pacific had the beginnings of a two party state, The Mideast was close save for when the leftists bolted almost as if on schedule, the NE, and even the South as I beat the dead horse that was my welcome down there. The Special elections were being decided by 1 vote and June was decided by five votes.

We are elections game, yet in spite of these close races, the opportunity was not fully realized and thus most of the benefits, potential that they were, were lost as a result. Many I think failed to grasp their relationship to the bigger picture and maybe that is one draw back to Atlasia is that you have to play its fullest in different ways at different times to get the most out of it and that is difficult to do. It is an elections game and campaigns are its lifeblood, but over the course of the game, campaigning lost its luster as people compaigned against opponents who did not (Duke/Cincy etc), or found there public campaigns being turned against them behind the scenes. This destroyed one of those important aspects of AFE board activity.

Second of all, winning the top job requires a lot of activity and a great deal of respect and support across different groups to win. Perhaps that is appropriate, but it is the very reason why June 2014 was a tremendous opportunity lost at least as far as Federalists were concerned simply because the two best people were either not available or had rendered themselves unavailable through their own actions. That would have probably have been the best election in the game's history as far as the right is concerned if not in overal terms. However, in the absence of that keystone player the opportunity collapsed. Just like the right collapsed in the absence of people dedicated to preserving it in late 2014 and early 2015.

If you want something you have to fight for it, even if you already have it, you have to fight to keep it. The players have to hunger for this game to work, and that is not going to change by reducing regions or restarting the game completely, or whatever other plan you may have. Perhaps my greatest diservice to this game was in not running for President the two times I probably could have won or come close, but hey when a dog you have had ten years dies right before one, and the writing is on the wall for impending financial apocalpyse right before the other, fantasyland isn't your biggest priority or even practical (no internet access at home from August 6th - October 22nd).
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 09, 2015, 09:39:20 PM »

Let's get down to brass tacks here shall we?

This place is about elections... a key element of that is campaigning. The issue now is that campaigning is considered unnecessary. You can tell some very interesting things from the quality and scale of campaigns. I think you see much better and thorough campaigns from the right and the broadly centre, the left, for the most part doesn't need to campaign as much or as thoroughly, because they've got the numbers/voter management advantage.

I'll say this, I don't want a return to centrism... because the people aren't there. I think this place worked better, both in terms of elections and overall processes was because neither left nor right controlled the political agenda. It was arguably somewhere that shifted centre-left, but you still needed to create coalitions and compromise. The polarisation of that the new paradigm is a key element of the state we're in. Even when politics as a discourse is polarised, voters usually aren't... now, for the most part the voters are as polarised as the active political participants. Which basically means the game is now almost entirely about who has the best voter management. Not who has the best campaigns or who has the best ideas.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2015, 02:15:49 AM »

Let's get down to brass tacks here shall we?

This place is about elections... a key element of that is campaigning. The issue now is that campaigning is considered unnecessary. You can tell some very interesting things from the quality and scale of campaigns. I think you see much better and thorough campaigns from the right and the broadly centre, the left, for the most part doesn't need to campaign as much or as thoroughly, because they've got the numbers/voter management advantage.

I'll say this, I don't want a return to centrism... because the people aren't there. I think this place worked better, both in terms of elections and overall processes was because neither left nor right controlled the political agenda. It was arguably somewhere that shifted centre-left, but you still needed to create coalitions and compromise. The polarisation of that the new paradigm is a key element of the state we're in. Even when politics as a discourse is polarised, voters usually aren't... now, for the most part the voters are as polarised as the active political participants. Which basically means the game is now almost entirely about who has the best voter management. Not who has the best campaigns or who has the best ideas.

But when did vote management not matter? Dissolution allowed you to reclaim the White house, I think we can agree on that. But immediately thereafter you had Napoleon take over the game. 2012 was a great era for the center but no one wanted to take on Napoleon and so many on the right were ready to just go and vote for him and had I not convinced JBrase to run, he would have had an even bigger first preference haul than he ended up with.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2015, 09:31:26 AM »

Let's get down to brass tacks here shall we?

This place is about elections... a key element of that is campaigning. The issue now is that campaigning is considered unnecessary. You can tell some very interesting things from the quality and scale of campaigns. I think you see much better and thorough campaigns from the right and the broadly centre, the left, for the most part doesn't need to campaign as much or as thoroughly, because they've got the numbers/voter management advantage.

I'll say this, I don't want a return to centrism... because the people aren't there. I think this place worked better, both in terms of elections and overall processes was because neither left nor right controlled the political agenda. It was arguably somewhere that shifted centre-left, but you still needed to create coalitions and compromise. The polarisation of that the new paradigm is a key element of the state we're in. Even when politics as a discourse is polarised, voters usually aren't... now, for the most part the voters are as polarised as the active political participants. Which basically means the game is now almost entirely about who has the best voter management. Not who has the best campaigns or who has the best ideas.

But when did vote management not matter? Dissolution allowed you to reclaim the White house, I think we can agree on that. But immediately thereafter you had Napoleon take over the game. 2012 was a great era for the center but no one wanted to take on Napoleon and so many on the right were ready to just go and vote for him and had I not convinced JBrase to run, he would have had an even bigger first preference haul than he ended up with.

I think you're assuming that I'm addressing this through the prism of whatever personal gain I might have received. This isn't about re-prosecuting old cases... where are we NOW?
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 10, 2015, 08:30:05 PM »

It's weird to see Griffin being accused of being the reason things are so poopy. First of all, people have been making a lot of the same complaints they're making today for years, long before Griffin became a power around here, and secondly, I remember Griffin giving his blessing and support to plenty of changes. Labor under Griffin has been nowhere near as obstructionist as the JCP was a handful of years ago.

Bore has said this already and he's right: reform always dies in the regions. Unlike the Dark Days big changes actually do make it through the Senate on a semi-regular basis nowadays. It's "the people" that end up shooting them down.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 10, 2015, 10:09:56 PM »

Let's get down to brass tacks here shall we?

This place is about elections... a key element of that is campaigning. The issue now is that campaigning is considered unnecessary. You can tell some very interesting things from the quality and scale of campaigns. I think you see much better and thorough campaigns from the right and the broadly centre, the left, for the most part doesn't need to campaign as much or as thoroughly, because they've got the numbers/voter management advantage.

I'll say this, I don't want a return to centrism... because the people aren't there. I think this place worked better, both in terms of elections and overall processes was because neither left nor right controlled the political agenda. It was arguably somewhere that shifted centre-left, but you still needed to create coalitions and compromise. The polarisation of that the new paradigm is a key element of the state we're in. Even when politics as a discourse is polarised, voters usually aren't... now, for the most part the voters are as polarised as the active political participants. Which basically means the game is now almost entirely about who has the best voter management. Not who has the best campaigns or who has the best ideas.

But when did vote management not matter? Dissolution allowed you to reclaim the White house, I think we can agree on that. But immediately thereafter you had Napoleon take over the game. 2012 was a great era for the center but no one wanted to take on Napoleon and so many on the right were ready to just go and vote for him and had I not convinced JBrase to run, he would have had an even bigger first preference haul than he ended up with.

I think you're assuming that I'm addressing this through the prism of whatever personal gain I might have received. This isn't about re-prosecuting old cases... where are we NOW?

No, I am pointing out that the absence of the vote management, allowed for you to rise on your merits. Could be you, could have been Duke, could have been anybody, but in this case it was you. But that was just one election. The one immediately following saw witnessed the rise to dominance of Napoleon and began a year of "his vote management". My point is that dissolution provided rather short term gains in terms of "ending vote management".  I think you are presuming that I am presuming you are approaching this from political gain. Tongue
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.088 seconds with 12 queries.