A Proposal

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

My proposal for a workable relations between Atlasia and South America.


1. Given that having a joint GM could be very problematic, I think that the two GMs (one in Atlasia and one in South America) should be required to jointly produce stories about events taking place in non-playable countries and global economic situation. Without this, there will be no consistency. Such an agreement would solve all problems with synchronization.

For all intents and purposes, Atlasia and South America should work as the party of one universe. Otherwise it would be like France trying to establish relations with the Kingdom of Rurithania.

2. I have no problems with dual citizenship. I myself may not be registered in Mock Parliament, but there's nothing wrong with some of us being involved in both games. However, I'd advocate ban on holding offices in the two games simultaneously, since it's a tantamount for conflict of interests if there are differences between the two sides (more than likely). Imagine someone trying to be a United States Senator and Minister in Brazil at the same time. Utterly illogical.

3. I'm not a fan of expansionism, but since our friends in the Mock Parliament seized the entire continent for themselves, I think it would be only proper to maintain some even footing. Therefore Atlasia should expand a bit in the North.

4. And most important think. Both sides should work a way to prevent it's citizens from trying to undermine the other game. If you really want a peaceful relationship then it shouldn't be a problem for you.

[Adam Griffin]

Since apparently I am an extortionist or whatever, I propose something very simple with regards to acknowledging Mock Parliment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Since apparently I am an extortionist or whatever, I propose something very simple with regards to acknowledging Mock Parliment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I'm in favor of not proceeding with this until after the ConCon. The internal reform is our top priority.

[Oakvale]

However, I'd advocate ban on holding offices in the two games simultaneously, since it's a tantamount for conflict of interests if there are differences between the two sides (more than likely). Imagine someone trying to be a United States Senator and Minister in Brazil at the same time. Utterly illogical.

This was literally proposed by Talleyrand and subjected to howls of derision and went on to form the basis of the shrieking about ANTI-FANTASYLAND SENTIMENT.

[Talleyrand]

However, I'd advocate ban on holding offices in the two games simultaneously, since it's a tantamount for conflict of interests if there are differences between the two sides (more than likely). Imagine someone trying to be a United States Senator and Minister in Brazil at the same time. Utterly illogical.

This was literally proposed by Talleyrand and subjected to howls of derision and went on to form the basis of the shrieking about ANTI-FANTASYLAND SENTIMENT.

Yes! I am in favor of what the Senator has proposed here, but I am frankly puzzled by the fact that when I suggested a similarly reasonable plan, it was shouted down as "bitter" and an attempt to destroy this nation, including by Mr. Griffin, a terrorist who has done far more damage to this game than the unfairly maligned Mock Parliament.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Points one and four are common-sense proposals; however, I don't support a ban on dual officeholding for three reasons: first, it would likely be fatal to both games, as few are going to want to register in an elections game if they can't participate in the actual elections; second, I don't think there's a real conflict of interest so long as we prevent South American officials from being president, SoEA, or GM; third, there doesn't seem to be a correlation between dual officeholding and the trollish behavior we've seen from Turkisblau (Simfan and Leinad are two examples of MPs who have been among the strongest voices against such actions). I also am uneasy about annexing Canada, if only because it would mean we couldn't use the evc to make election maps .

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hm, good point, Truman. I think that'd be sufficient.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm not at all surprised that some people, instead of reacting to the whole proposal, hanged onto one point in order to make more noise about poor South American being presecuted.

[Leinad]

I like #1 and #4 a lot.

#3 is alright--I like the idea of expansion as Adam suggested, I don't see that it's a threat to South America as Cris suggested in his otherwise excellent speech at the South American parliament, nor do I share the opinion of my Pacific pal Classic Conservative that we don't have the capacity to. To me it just seems like a way to make the game more fun by adding an extra facet to it.

Not a fan of #2--I've been on the record as much as maybe anyone against a ban on simultaneous officeholding. Some have even given me credit for bringing down Talleyrand's original proposal single-handedly, although I refuse to believe that on the grounds that a place where I'm the voice of reason is a bad place. As Truman said, it would be disastrous for one or both games, which would be bad for us all. We've basically agreed that we can't sustain 5 regions in one game, why do some people think we can sustain 2 separate games without sharing players?

I'm glad that you seem to understand that, and thank Truman for explaining it so I didn't have to rehash the arguments I've already hashed ad nauseum.

I'm not at all surprised that some people, instead of reacting to the whole proposal, hanged onto one point

Indeed, I've found that people LOVE to do that, especially on the internet where people can re-read stuff to find irrelevent weak points. That's why I try to be as brief as possible to give detractors less fodder. Unfortunately I have a tendency to be the opposite of brief, so it ends up balancing out.