A radical new plan for Atlasia - Confederation of Atlasia

[Grumpier Than Thou]

>gets re-elected as President
>suggests breaking up the entire country

That's a bold strategy.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

>gets re-elected as President
>suggests breaking up the entire country

That's a bold strategy.

He doesn't want anybody else to be President of Atlasia.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Its just one possible plan, I have many possible plans on how to change the country, you'll see more soon

[Kingpoleon]

This doesn't change the fundamental problem with gameplay (which I ranted and ranted about in October) and simply like the last con-con changes the name, and legalism behind our system without actually doing anything else.

Even if we have nations, with there own leaders, and parliaments, it still won't change the fact that there's no policy simulation in the game, and that activity only seems to occur around election period. We've had this exact problem since summer '15, and we haven't fixed it.

True policy simulation would require individual players to have an income, as well as personal relationships, that they must upkeep. That would require a great deal of effort.

[Adam Griffin]

When embarking on any massive element of game reform, three questions need to be asked: "what is the motivation?", "what does it entail?" and "what does it accomplish?".

Being the last person to birth from his girthy loins a major overhaul of the game, I'm all too familiar with the realistic obstacles of doing this. However, instead of a history lesson, I'll just provide my thoughts on what I've read so far.

Basically, one of two things would emerge from this broader proposal.

The first is that each region would get what is basically a superficial makeover and be considered a nation instead of a region. I don't really understand the point of this. I'd also imagine people in favor of regional governments wouldn't be too pleased by it. As has been extensively documented throughout years and years of this game, people are not going to "roleplay" or otherwise listen to story-tellers in any meaningful way enough to make concepts like diplomacy and the like work. People need to embrace that this game first and foremost is an elections and political warfare simulator.

The second is that each region becomes a nation just like Atlasia is now: each complete with regional and federal governments. This would be a terrible idea in that the sheer number of offices existing overall and in each region would be too great to reasonably keep filled/active. The primary push behind the reset of 2016 started years earlier as a plea for people to understand that the 5 regions and ~60 elected offices in the game was too much. Personally, I don't think we cut enough offices during the ConCon but keeping the 40 or so offices filled today doesn't seem to be anywhere nearly as big of a problem as it once was. Reversing that trend would put us right back where we were, possibly worse.

There are so many new people around today who don't even remember the ConCon efforts of 2015-16. These efforts are a lot of work. Let's not just throw up random ideas for massive game-shifts and then say "wait I got more" when criticism arises. This isn't something we embark on on a whim. There needs to be a concrete proposal and a concrete justification before all else.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I will take your thoughts into consideration, Adam.

[Blair]

There are so many new people around today who don't even remember the ConCon efforts of 2015-16. These efforts are a lot of work. Let's not just throw up random ideas for massive game-shifts and then say "wait I got more" when criticism arises. This isn't something we embark on on a whim. There needs to be a concrete proposal and a concrete justification before all else.

This 10000 times. The Con Con basically put the game out of action for about  6 months; and if you think keeping the game fun/active is a challenge, ask Truman how difficult it was to conduct about 7-8 threads of legalism where 25 different delegates need to vote on various constitutional options.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There are so many new people around today who don't even remember the ConCon efforts of 2015-16. These efforts are a lot of work. Let's not just throw up random ideas for massive game-shifts and then say "wait I got more" when criticism arises. This isn't something we embark on on a whim. There needs to be a concrete proposal and a concrete justification before all else.

This 10000 times. The Con Con basically put the game out of action for about  6 months; and if you think keeping the game fun/active is a challenge, ask Truman how difficult it was to conduct about 7-8 threads of legalism where 25 different delegates need to vote on various constitutional options.

More like 9th months.

And in the mean time nobody wants to do anything because "its all going to get deleted anyway with the reset". The process of reform itself, litterally hurts the thing you are desiring to fix for the duration that it is occurring. It is like Chemotherapy.

[Blair]

There are so many new people around today who don't even remember the ConCon efforts of 2015-16. These efforts are a lot of work. Let's not just throw up random ideas for massive game-shifts and then say "wait I got more" when criticism arises. This isn't something we embark on on a whim. There needs to be a concrete proposal and a concrete justification before all else.

This 10000 times. The Con Con basically put the game out of action for about  6 months; and if you think keeping the game fun/active is a challenge, ask Truman how difficult it was to conduct about 7-8 threads of legalism where 25 different delegates need to vote on various constitutional options.

More like 9th months.

And in the mean time nobody wants to do anything because "its all going to get deleted anyway with the reset". The process of reform itself, litterally hurts the thing you are desiring to fix for the duration that it is occurring. It is like Chemotherapy.

I mean I've been largely out the loop for the last three months but IIRC we still have massive gaping holes in the electoral laws in regards to changes that we needed after our October Fiasco 

[Oakvale]

The basic issue of the last ConCon was that it was populated for the most part by idiots. I would suggest not making that mistake again.

[Enduro]

X Enduro

[Lincoln Republican]

- Atlasia would no longer be a Republic but would rather become a Confederacy of nations.
 

No.

The last Confederacy in the new world was a slave nation, and I want nothing to do with a slave nation.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

- Atlasia would no longer be a Republic but would rather become a Confederacy of nations.
 

No.

The last Confederacy in the new world was a slave nation, and I want nothing to do with a slave nation.

Really? I thought you would love slavery considering what you thought of my last signature

[Lincoln Republican]

- Atlasia would no longer be a Republic but would rather become a Confederacy of nations.
 

No.

The last Confederacy in the new world was a slave nation, and I want nothing to do with a slave nation.

Really? I thought you would love slavery considering what you thought of my last signature

Well, let me explain something to you.

In your last signature, the woman you had in the picture was dressed entirely inappropriately.

As a matter of fact, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for blatantly exploiting that woman and objectifying her.

I do not care whether a woman, or man for that matter, is black, white, Asian, Hispanic, native, they should be dressed appropriately.

Your current signature is an improvement over your last signature.

And if this is all you have to defend your Confederacy idea, I do not hold out much hope for you achieving your goal of turning the nation into another Confederacy.

The last Confederacy died a painful and costly death in the 1860s, so let it lie.

[fhtagn]

- Atlasia would no longer be a Republic but would rather become a Confederacy of nations.
 

No.

The last Confederacy in the new world was a slave nation, and I want nothing to do with a slave nation.

Really? I thought you would love slavery considering what you thought of my last signature

Well, let me explain something to you.

In your last signature, the woman you had in the picture was not dressed entirely inappropriately.

As a matter of fact, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for blatantly exploiting that woman and objectifying her.

I do not care whether a woman, or man for that matter, is black, white, Asian, Hispanic, native, they should be dressed appropriately.

Your current signature is an improvement over your last signature.

And if this is all you have to defend your Confederacy idea, I do not hold out much hope for you achieving your goal of turning the nation into another Confederacy.

The last Confederacy died a painful and costly death in the 1860s, so let it lie.

Honestly the only one in this equation who should be ashamed is the person who is trying to dictate what women are allowed to wear.

You can't call someone out for exploiting and objectifying women and then make a statement like that

[Lincoln Republican]

- Atlasia would no longer be a Republic but would rather become a Confederacy of nations.
 

No.

The last Confederacy in the new world was a slave nation, and I want nothing to do with a slave nation.

Really? I thought you would love slavery considering what you thought of my last signature

Well, let me explain something to you.

In your last signature, the woman you had in the picture was not dressed entirely inappropriately.

As a matter of fact, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for blatantly exploiting that woman and objectifying her.

I do not care whether a woman, or man for that matter, is black, white, Asian, Hispanic, native, they should be dressed appropriately.

Your current signature is an improvement over your last signature.

And if this is all you have to defend your Confederacy idea, I do not hold out much hope for you achieving your goal of turning the nation into another Confederacy.

The last Confederacy died a painful and costly death in the 1860s, so let it lie.

Honestly the only one in this equation who should be ashamed is the person who is trying to dictate what women are allowed to wear.

You can't call someone out for exploiting and objectifying women and then make a statement like that

My friend, women, and men for that matter, are told what to wear all the time.

For example, school teachers do not show up to school in a pair of short shorts, a tank top, and a pair of sneakers.  They have a dress code to follow, in which the failure to adhere to could result in anything from a reprimand to dismissal.

Employees of a prestigious law firm do not show up for work in a sweat shirt, ripped jeans and sandals.  They as well have a dress code to follow, which requires them to wear appropriate business attire.

Construction workers are told to wear steel toed boots, which if they don't wear means they could not work.

The list of what people can and cannot wear goes on and on.

[fhtagn]

- Atlasia would no longer be a Republic but would rather become a Confederacy of nations.
 

No.

The last Confederacy in the new world was a slave nation, and I want nothing to do with a slave nation.

Really? I thought you would love slavery considering what you thought of my last signature

Well, let me explain something to you.

In your last signature, the woman you had in the picture was not dressed entirely inappropriately.

As a matter of fact, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for blatantly exploiting that woman and objectifying her.

I do not care whether a woman, or man for that matter, is black, white, Asian, Hispanic, native, they should be dressed appropriately.

Your current signature is an improvement over your last signature.

And if this is all you have to defend your Confederacy idea, I do not hold out much hope for you achieving your goal of turning the nation into another Confederacy.

The last Confederacy died a painful and costly death in the 1860s, so let it lie.

Honestly the only one in this equation who should be ashamed is the person who is trying to dictate what women are allowed to wear.

You can't call someone out for exploiting and objectifying women and then make a statement like that

My friend, women, and men for that matter, are told what to wear all the time.

For example, school teachers do not show up to school in a pair of short shorts, a tank top, and a pair of sneakers.  They have a dress code to follow, in which the failure to adhere to could result in anything from a reprimand to dismissal.

Employees of a prestigious law firm do not show up for work in a sweat shirt, ripped jeans and sandals.  They as well have a dress code to follow, which requires them to wear appropriate business attire.

Construction workers are told to wear steel toed boots, which if they don't wear means they could not work.

The list of what people can and cannot wear goes on and on.

And this scenario is none of the examples you have given. Tiffany "New York" Pollard is a tv personality. Dressing like she is working your normal day job isn't a requirement for her, and I'm sure she loves what she wears and feels empowered by it.

I get that you're trying to shame dfw into "respecting women", but at least learn how to do it yourself before you try to preach to anyone.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I suggest a compromise: Tiffany Pollard may wear whatever she likes, but DFW must post a scarlet letter "A" alongside her image in his signature.

I am sure both sides will be mollified by this Modest Proposal.

[Simfan34]

We just had a major change and reboot relatively recently, in Atlasian terms. What justifies such a major change yet again, and so soon? From my vantage point the current system seems to be working. I don't see what this would do to improve game play. I cannot but help feel this is yet another manifestation of the secessionist fixation found amongst certain parts of those a "conservative" for "libertarian" persuasion.

[Wisconsin+17]

Given recent bills this has taken on more of a priority.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

We just had a major change and reboot relatively recently, in Atlasian terms. What justifies such a major change yet again, and so soon? From my vantage point the current system seems to be working. I don't see what this would do to improve game play. I cannot but help feel this is yet another manifestation of the secessionist fixation found amongst certain parts of those a "conservative" for "libertarian" persuasion.

uh I'm a centrist

[Lincoln Republican]

My dear Mr. President, I trust that other suggestions you have to "spice up" Atlasia are an improvement over your Confederacy plan.  The last thing Atlasia needs is another secessionist revolt.

Anyway, I have another suggestion.

Create by executive order a Port of Boston Authority, appointing me as Collector of the Port of Boston.

For some time this existed as a plum patronage appointment, and I would like to see it returned to its former glory, with me receiving the largess of this patronage.

Respectfully yours. 

[Simfan34]

Mr President, I didn't mean you particularly.

I also must applaud my friend Winfield for remaining a staunch champion of moral standards and the lessons of the War of Secession.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

now that there's a confederate party, time to revive? :thinking:

[S019]

You are literally trying to split apart the nation, no!

Besides the Articles of Confederation show just how effective this strategy is


Also the Confederacy was literally led by "fire eaters," let's please not follow their example