Aside from Griffin, Yankee, and Windjammer...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There's a lot in this thread that I agree with... but a lot that I think is a little ill-informed and I hope doesn't cause irreparable harm to relationships going forward.

The systemic problems with this place started a lot longer ago than people here perhaps realise. Many of us, sure, in TPP and in other parties until recently, have seen these issues fester but without a clear solution as to how to address them. They should have been clear to others. 

When the focus in on amassing voters, quantity over (maybe) quality, over getting people to run and participate in the game (beyond voting) ... then this is kind of the end result.

I understand where people like AG, Yankee are coming from on this. I'm hardly known as a radical, usually, as TNF would put it, "liberal weenie" etc, but this is not new. One of the great strengths of the old TPP was it showed that a small but active and engaged party could participate and be major players. But, then we became just another party and focused on recruiting and voter management.

This isn't the fault of AG or Yankee or oakvale or Talleyrand or the lack of a type of GM or manners ... but all of us, absolutely myself included, have allowed this pretty obvious set of problems to fester for too long. I think a constitution convention will fail... I've seen it before, and frankly, we're still fixing the consequences of the last one. I don't know, with not that much longer left in my term we're I'm personally going to go on this. But I know superficial platitudes and half-measures will do nothing.

On another point, as someone who has been around way too long and should have left for good a long time ago... I saw first hand when some key members during early days in Atlasia were personally very vicious and aggressive towards me, both publicly and privately. Granted, I made mistakes and people were right to question me, but what offended me most, was the tone of ownership. They'd built "it" and they didn't want anyone who might damage it or change things. I worry I'm hearing the same tone from some now. No one owns this game, or any party, the time and effort you put into doesn't grant you special rights... it has to rise and if necessary, fall on its own merits and the strength of its purpose.

Yes, this is wordy... but f*** it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yes, no one owns this game and that is why no one has exclusive rights to destroy it.


Hagrid is right that consolidation alone will not fix this game and I think he is spot on about chasing a ever shrinking and dwindling pool of voters.

But it is hard for me to swallow that being turned around and used to push for a complete restart of the game being pushed for and advocated for by many of the same people who have pushed for consolidation and even outright abolition of the regions, using the same tactics, the same methods and same biases for over half a decade if not more. In that sense Duke is right also, about this being pushed for alterior motives. He mentioned glory, I am not sure if it is glory or not but it sure as hell is something. 

I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but I don't really see any ulterior motives from those who have discussed the issue with me. I don't see what "glory" is gained from this.

Of course, no one has the right to unilaterally destroy it, and no one can do that. There are definitely those who are much stronger in pushing this change, but it's clear a real national discussion about this needs to happen. But not one stymied by process over real debate.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

...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?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

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?