Aside from Griffin, Yankee, and Windjammer...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I never recruited a single person in this game without the hope that they would someday run for office or become active generally. I have long been opposed to zombie voting, just as I opposed strategic registration. People say we focused too much on numbers and not enough on quality, I can tell you right now there was never my intent to create a Party of zombies. I hate the fact that so many of the Federalist Party inactive. And you are right in a sense that for too long the party relied too much on numbers and got lazy and that is why it fell so badly when a good number of its most popular people (Cris, Lumine, Duke, Hagrid) all hit the road. We are trying to fix that, but it doesn't happen over night. But we do need newer and active people, people like Leinad who will take risks and run for office and not be scared away by these old timers seeking to impose the apocalypse. Lets bring in new people and let them have their shot like you had yours.

It is also easier for centrists to build out from small parties. The DA won three At-Large Senate seats from just a 20 man party in April 2009. That is an extreme example, but that is the kind of appeal you can have. What about the Conservative or leftist? When they enter the game, they enter as a suspect until they prove themselve wtih the "it" crowd or become cool enough to pull a Keystone Phil and become President based off the support liberals who knew him from when the site practically began. What conservative is going to wait four years?

Rimjob supporters screamed until they were blue in the face at me and others in 2013 that this was just a game. And then many of them turn around and treat their Conservative opponents like enemies on a freaking battle field, who not only must be defeated they must be wiped out for all of time. Hyprocits, the lot of them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

...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.   

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

...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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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


Jesus these mods suck.


And I thought frantic was a type of Pokemon shipping.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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. Which even in the absent of the correct grammar, the sentence should have made pretty clear was my intent.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.