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.
You seem to be quite willing to accept anything newbie non-delegates say when they support your opinion. Either they know enough to express a considered opinion, in which case they can also be questioned, or alternatively they don't know enough about how Atlasia works, in which case, he shouldn't be saying that a universal system would be the death of Atlasia. Either he knows enough to support what he's saying, or he doesn't know enough to make an educated comment in the first place.
Indeed, I find it somewhat hypocritical that you are supportive of an unelected person making comments in here while being opposed to universalism. I mean, that's the whole nature of the universal system (which is why I don't have a problem with PiT, Devilman, et al commenting in here - Hashemite and I are both advocates of newbies and other unelected people being able to participate and contribute - it's you who is fundamentally opposed to universal participation).
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.
Your thread was clearly biased, even the thread title was such. I'm not going to post comments in a thread that is so obviously leaning one way. Furthermore, I've already responded to most of your arguments ad nauseum and I think it's pretty pointless saying again what I'd already said before if you're just going to ignore what I've had to say previously. You're not interested in improving the system, you just want to vote it down, you're not willing to budge, so I'm not interested in discussing it with you - it would be pointless and I'd just be wasting my time. Early on, I'd PM'd you to ask if you'd be interested in discussing my proposal, you said yes, I messaged you about it and you chose to not respond. I'm showing you the courtesy you showed me.
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.
Interesting that the thing you've campaigned most against - the problem of zombie voters, is now something you support. I guess when a universal system is the most effective way of ensuring participation, you'd have to support zombie voting in order to be credible in your opposition of a universal model.
