Regarding campaign PM's

[Lumine]

Evening, gentlemen.

As some may have noticed I haven’t posted in Atlasia for some weeks. That doesn’t mean I’m gone, but I have little interest (or energy) on being actively engaged for the time being.

Due of that I’m really not interested on receiving campaign material (as I’ve received three or four campaign PM’s within two days), so this is a brief, friendly reminder not to include me on them.

On a final note, I should note my concern on the decreasing quality on “get out the vote” PM’s compared to what it was some time ago. Some of what I’ve received is actually rather dull or tedious, making me want to vote against the candidate rather than the desired effect (put some effort into it, dammit).

Affectionately,

Lumine.

[ZuWo]

It's actually the other way around with me. I haven't followed Atlasian politics very closely for quite some time so PMs help me to get to know those new kids running for office!

[Clyde1998]

Perhaps we could have an 'opt out' system where people can say that they don't wish to receive campaign PMs. This could be listed next to that person in the Census, so it's clear for everyone. Hopefully this could reduce unnecessary PMing and make people less frustrated.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Perhaps we could have an 'opt out' system where people can say that they don't wish to receive campaign PMs. This could be listed next to that person in the Census, so it's clear for everyone. Hopefully this could reduce unnecessary PMing and make people less frustrated.

I don't really think a no pm list is a  good idea (although it seems to get bounced around every election) for a couple of reasons. The first is Atlasia polling, for a poll to be successful you must try to pm every voter so that you can have a representative sample, it'd be much harder to do that if we had restrictions on who to PM (and I do believe polling pm's are related to campaigning), the other reason is because it'd be harder for newer players to break through, campaign pm's are a benchmark of modern atlasia campaigning.

[Leinad]

Perhaps we could have an 'opt out' system where people can say that they don't wish to receive campaign PMs. This could be listed next to that person in the Census, so it's clear for everyone. Hopefully this could reduce unnecessary PMing and make people less frustrated.

As I've said before, I hate this idea.

Take into account what ZuWo says: basically, this is the only way for new players to make themselves known to the lesser active members. You'll notice that, with an outlier or two, practically everyone who supports this proposal are veterans--people who can get votes without sending PMs because most people know them. And most of the people who would support this (Lumine and Clyde are obviously exceptions) are also the type who tend to be critical of new players (which, in a game with so much turnover, is critical to our lasting success).

Not to get anyone lost with my rambling, my point: campaign PMs allow new Atlasians--the driving force of this games growth (duh)--to be more competitive against veterans.

[Clyde1998]

I don't really think a no pm list is a  good idea (although it seems to get bounced around every election) for a couple of reasons. The first is Atlasia polling, for a poll to be successful you must try to pm every voter so that you can have a representative sample, it'd be much harder to do that if we had restrictions on who to PM (and I do believe polling pm's are related to campaigning), the other reason is because it'd be harder for newer players to break through, campaign pm's are a benchmark of modern atlasia campaigning.

As I've said before, I hate this idea.

Take into account what ZuWo says: basically, this is the only way for new players to make themselves known to the lesser active members. You'll notice that, with an outlier or two, practically everyone who supports this proposal are veterans--people who can get votes without sending PMs because most people know them. And most of the people who would support this (Lumine and Clyde are obviously exceptions) are also the type who tend to be critical of new players (which, in a game with so much turnover, is critical to our lasting success).

Not to get anyone lost with my rambling, my point: campaign PMs allow new Atlasians--the driving force of this games growth (duh)--to be more competitive against veterans.

I'm not suggesting banning campaign PMs, I'm suggesting that if people want to not receive campaign PMs there should be something in place to allow for this. I don't see how this is being of critical new players, or how I've been critical of new players I've sent out campaign PMs over course of this election cycle. There are probably more people who get votes because they're a member of the biggest two parties than are there because of name recognition.

In regards to polling, I was probably the person that started PMing people in the first place to get them to do polls. . It depends on the regularity of polling - if they're getting a PM every few days to ask them to doing a poll, I guess people would start getting annoyed.

[Poirot]

I am not for a Do not PM list linked to harsh penalties is a candidate send a pm because mistakes will happen. It will not be intentional to break the rule.

Receiving unwanted campaign pm is a complain that have been expressed by a few citizens. We should try to accomodate the wishes of citizens who don't like the campaign pms. If we don't they possibly will leave the game.

I don't know if the complaint comes from too many pm or if even one is too many. I think a pm on election weekend helps remind people there is an election going on. There could be a code of conduct for candidates to limit to one pm per voter during election weekend or incluse a couple days before.

If one is too many I support citizens being able to indicate they don't want campaign pm by a sign or colour on the census list. There could be a period to be on the list, like one lection cycle or two. If it's forever maybe the SoFE could have the right to contact the voter asking if they wish to remain on the list after a period of time.

I don't like the importance of private campaining by pm or in chat there seems to have now. I find there there is not enough public campaign goign on on the elction boards. That is a way for newer players to get known by a large audience. By running publicly you don't rely on whisper campaign against an opponent or try to say in private what you think each voter wants to hear. The focus on private campaigning hurts the interesting part of the game on campaign and debates.

[Leinad]

I'm not suggesting banning campaign PMs, I'm suggesting that if people want to not receive campaign PMs there should be something in place to allow for this.

What is the difference? Is it just a suggestion? I am genuinely confused by what you mean. "Letting people opt-out" means we ban campaign PMs to those people, correct? Which is the idea I was criticizing--the old "do not PM list" idea.

And most of the people who would support this (Lumine and Clyde are obviously exceptions) are also the type who tend to be critical of new players (which, in a game with so much turnover, is critical to our lasting success).

Not to get anyone lost with my rambling, my point: campaign PMs allow new Atlasians--the driving force of this games growth (duh)--to be more competitive against veterans.

I don't see how this is being of critical new players, or how I've been critical of new players

Exactly, hence why I said "Lumine and Clyde are obvious exceptions."

I'm talking about the people who have supported this type of thing before. The same kind of people who consider every new poster either "low-energy old Atlas idiots" or "obvious socks."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But name recognition matters a lot. I remember a couple elections ago when Peebs was getting way more first preferences than all the other Laborites. When slates stay balanced--where the lesser-known people get the same amount of first-preferences as, say, Yankee--it's because of a concentrated effort of, you guessed it, campaign PMs.

[Kingpoleon]

 can't have a select "do not PM list".  It is unrealistic. The only real solution is including an official mailer letting every citizen know about each candidate, while banning campaign PMs, and maybe allow people to opt out of the mailer.

[Poirot]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Party vote coordination... that is electing a slate from a party as we don't seem to elect candidates for House, more a party. And that is precisely why candidates don't have to campaign in public or we don't have organized debates. Someone can declare 3 days before the vote and the party will do the rest. So yes campaign pms are tremendous for the game, the zombie citizens who don't follow what is going on must be awoken once in a while and used for a vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Party vote coordination... that is electing a slate from a party as we don't seem to elect candidates for House, more a party. And that is precisely why candidates don't have to campaign in public or we don't have organized debates. Someone can declare 3 days before the vote and the party will do the rest. So yes campaign pms are tremendous for the game, the zombie citizens who don't follow what is going on must be awoken once in a while and used for a vote.

All five of our candidates have campaign threads and I have for years pushed people to campaign publicly.

Pessimistic was a zombie voter for years, and now he is a rather good Representative, accomplishing a compromise with Simossad that got a previously failed effort on public housing reform through the House unanimously.

CMB has been active and has legislation on the floor. He has a campaign thread, but had a RL event that took him off the forum for the last part of the campaign, but leaving that aside.

I have seen numerous popular people who either on chat frequently or not who are just well known because they have been here longer, get elected and then proceed to do nothing while less well known candidates who put in some effort get screwed. There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to consider these candidates as opposed to always defaulting to the usual candidates they have always known.

[Poirot]

I was speaking in general and not singling out  NCYankee's party candidate in this election.

The voting system for House encourages parties to divide the vote among candidates. But effective voting tactic is not a justification for sending pm's to citizens who don't want them (or tolerate only a couple). I'm willing to explore how could we accomodate citizens who don't like pm. Respect their wishes.

Somehow it's turned into not sending pm to a citizen is anti newer player. Respecting the possible choice of a few citizens is not about excluding new player.

Or we could have a warning when people register. You accept the risk of receiving many messages in your inbox about Atlasia elections during the week for an election.  (and even two months before nowadays) 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was speaking in general and not singling out  NCYankee's party candidate in this election.

The voting system for House encourages parties to divide the vote among candidates. But effective voting tactic is not a justification for sending pm's to citizens who don't want them (or tolerate only a couple). I'm willing to explore how could we accomodate citizens who don't like pm. Respect their wishes.

Somehow it's turned into not sending pm to a citizen is anti newer player. Respecting the possible choice of a few citizens is not about excluding new player.

Or we could have a warning when people register. You accept the risk of receiving many messages in your inbox about Atlasia elections during the week for an election.  (and even two months before nowadays) 

There is a balancing act here to be sure. You said yourself you were reluctant to enforce penalties because you could accidentally send a PM to someone on a list, especially for a new player who may not be familiar with the process, suddenly walks into a criminal act without even knowing it.

At the end of the day, this is an elections game and being on the rolls chances are you are going to get contacted. I long for the days when everyone posted on the AFE board, but if anything that has decline the last few years as attention has been pulled towards other mediums, that means you are more reliant on either chat, PM or other alternative communication because the congregating effect of the AFE Board has declined, which also reduces the effectiveness of the very public campaigning I and others have been encouraging.

So you reach a point where you have to PM people just to get them to see your campaign thread, something that 2 years or 3 years ago, was not the case.