Constitution Development Comment Box

[Marokai Backbeat]

I have come to understand that I'm not going to start caring about Atlasia again in the (very) near future

Welcome aboard!

Well with comments like this, I'm certainly optimistic about the prospects of a universal system!

Please, delegates, vote for the expanded system that gives people an office who actually give a damn, the Presidential Parliamentarian model.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I have come to understand that I'm not going to start caring about Atlasia again in the (very) near future

Welcome aboard!

Well with comments like this, I'm certainly optimistic about the prospects of a universal system!

Please, delegates, vote for the expanded system that gives people an office who actually give a damn, the Presidential Parliamentarian model.

I'm not sure if you don't bother reading what I write, if you don't understand what I write, or if you deliberately misrepresent what I write, but as I have stated over and over again: A universal parliamentarian model still has elections, they are for the same number of positions as now and they are for people who are interested in filling the roles.

I find it very disappointing that you don't bother contributing in any way other than to criticise. If you put as much effort into bringing forth ideas as you have to criticising them, I would be more confident that we would have, as you claimed to desire, a "battle of ideas." You're not interested in a battle of ideas, you're only interested in trying to drag them down. You had a preconceived opinion, and have blindly refused to even consider other options or to attempt to improve on them.

We can barely maintain the number of offices we have now. You're trying to have it both ways (throw everyone into office & have elections) and you'll simply end up destroying the entire system. Elections would be entirely uncompetitive or the Lower House would be the equivalent of a garbage dump.

I'm more disappointed that you didn't take my comments to heart in another thread I made discussing this very point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also expressed support, interest, and posed inquiries about Lief's proposal which I've supported since he suggested it. I came in here with no notions of what I already supported. In fact, before Lief came along, I had no clue what I was going to support.

Pre-conceived notions were clearly held more by the Universalists before this convention board was even created.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Could we get updated results?

While it looks a little close right now, it seems as if a Universalism victory is inevitable and it was inevitable coming into this convention.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well, it looks like universalism is more popular than non-universalism, at the moment at least.

Yeah that was more of my point, even if Presidential Parliamentarian is tied with Parliamentary Universalism, when you combine the votes for Universalist systems overall, its not close at all.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I find it amusing I'm the one accused of trying to tear everyone else down when, aside from Smid, no one has attempted to defend Universalism, and no one has comments about my thread discussing my feelings toward it.

But har har, Franzl.

[Marokai Backbeat]

That's not the point, we're not voting on a final system here.

We're voting on the systems that we will discuss further. Any valid criticisms will certainly be considered throughout that process.

Most delegates here arn't really active in the nuts and bolts process so far of brainstorming and putting together government proposals and half the people who have voted so far haven't really been that active in the Convention. Plus, we're down two delegates. I think we can safely assume that the final vote tally here will be pretty similar to the final vote on the drafted Constitutions.

It takes conversation and debate to change people's minds, if people haven't participated in that so far, I don't really think many minds are going to shift.

(Say what you want about me, at least you and I are participating.)

[Marokai Backbeat]

...and I have yet to hear why this is a heinous sin.

There's been plenty of talk about how more elections=goodlier and how to go about achieving it, but none about why this is supposedly the case.

It makes you want to work for something. Like the law of supply and demand. There is a low supply of governemnt seats in a non-universal system, therefore people will work harder and be more active with the seats that are there. In a universal system, there is a high supply, so people do not need to work to get the seat, promting stangnance and low activity.

Indeed, creating a system where everyone is given an office stagnates the system at some point, when the government sim will inevitably become a cycle of "Make law, repeal law, repeal the repeal of the law, repeal the repeal of the repeal of the law, etc etc." and there will be only redundant elections on the side if elections at all.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm very very happy to see opposition to Universalism grow! Thank you all and spread the word!

[Marokai Backbeat]

I too would like to express that I think universalism would end up killing the Atlasian system

X  $Dan$(Devilman88), a begging citzen

Do you care explaining why?

Ive done so in more than simple detail. Perhaps you would like to be the first person to actually respond to it?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't really give a damn whether you asked for my opinion or not. I posted a very lengthy criticism of Universalism, if you want to defend it, perhaps your time would be better spent there than going after newbie non-delegates.

Just to quickly address your comments to him though:

1) That naive idea, the Universalist's Gamble as I've dubbed it, doesn't hold water in light of recent affairs. If people would actually care if they were given the opportunity to participate, we wouldn't have lost two Senators and two Delegates in the recent weeks. Moreover, if you suggest there's not enough to do, I'm not sure what more there would be to do under a system where the scales are tipped towards a government sim more than an election sim. In short, if people wanted to participate, those who already have that chance would be participating.

2) Universalism strikes me as a last ditch desperate effort, and not a serious proposal. It's "throw an office at everyone and hope they participate" which is not a serious way of running a government. Many have criticized my views that activity requirements for zombie voters would kill the game by purging the rolls of people who don't take a serious role. I've backed away from some of the hardline positions there, but I'm not sure how you can reconcile the threat of further choking the game to death by killing off 'inactive' members, and managing to hold a system that requires a great number of people.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't really give a damn whether you asked for my opinion or not. I posted a very lengthy criticism of Universalism, if you want to defend it, perhaps your time would be better spent there than going after newbie non-delegates.

Maybe I can do what I goddamn please.

Spare me.

Forgive me for not taking you the least bit seriously, then. If you're not actually willing to participate in a debate over your system of choice with someone who has spent a great deal of time trying to understand how all the systems would work and posted a very detailed thread about that proposal, and would rather ask questions of someone who just joined Atlasia, that's not really a discussion.

Also:

I don't really give a damn whether you asked for my opinion or not. I posted a very lengthy criticism of Universalism, if you want to defend it, perhaps your time would be better spent there than going after newbie non-delegates.

Just to quickly address your comments to him though:

1) That naive idea, the Universalist's Gamble as I've dubbed it, doesn't hold water in light of recent affairs. If people would actually care if they were given the opportunity to participate, we wouldn't have lost two Senators and two Delegates in the recent weeks. Moreover, if you suggest there's not enough to do, I'm not sure what more there would be to do under a system where the scales are tipped towards a government sim more than an election sim. In short, if people wanted to participate, those who already have that chance would be participating.

2) Universalism strikes me as a last ditch desperate effort, and not a serious proposal. It's "throw an office at everyone and hope they participate" which is not a serious way of running a government. Many have criticized my views that activity requirements for zombie voters would kill the game by purging the rolls of people who don't take a serious role. I've backed away from some of the hardline positions there, but I'm not sure how you can reconcile the threat of further choking the game to death by killing off 'inactive' members, and managing to hold a system that requires a great number of people.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I just wanted to say here that I'll have to respond to you later. I've been up all night and I've stayed up because of these little conversations.

I'm very tired and don't think I'd do a decent response right now so I'll get back to you soon.