Talk Elections

I think with so many candidates it would be interesting to hold one. If there is a lot interest, maybe we can try to organize one.

I'd love to.

No, I hate IRC. I will only participate in forum debates so that all Atlasians can participate. Real time doesn't work for a game where we are all in different time zones, especially our non-American posters.

Viewing a debate should be easy access for all voters, and it'd be impossible to find a time when most active Atlasians could be on to view the debate. Not a terrible idea, but the alternative (having it on here like we always have) is much better.

I agree with Napoleon. Although I personally like the IRC, time zone issues would make it complicated, and it'd be hard to give in-depth answers in real time.

That said, I'd be open to participating in some kind of informal IRC debate on the condition that we also have one on the forum proper. :)

Aaaaaaaand now I see why we shouldn't use IRC. Threads are cooler, anyway.

FTR, I can easily voice the person who's allotted time to respond, and than de-voice, and so-on.  You guys would just have to come in at a set time, which seems to be your disagreement.

Senator Clarence and I have been discussing presidential debates however and agree that one in May and two in June would serve the voting public adequately.

I'm not saying that it would be the only debate, we could hold several so that posters & candidate from every timezone have a chance to view a live debate. Also the transcripts would be posted here.

One in early May, one in mid-but-not-quite-late May, one in very early June (like the 2nd) and then one about 3 days before the election sounds decent, no?

I think only the last three would be valuable, but I might be up to some other kind of presidential candidate event within the next two weeks.


Then why not just host it here in the first place? ;)

Because of time zone differences, I'd say no.  But here's another idea- what about a YouTube debate?

THIS IDEA.

ALL OF THE AWARDS.

I agree to it unconditionally.

It would be awesome, but the moderator staff would probably get ticked off if we posted the transcript on the forum for general consumption.  If that hurdle was overcome, I would be willing to make a new channel to hold the debate in to prevent trolling and moderate the debate.

That would be so freaking rad.

This raises another problem, though; how would we actually ensure that the participants are not impersonators?

IP checks.

Or alternatively, forum PM check.

Yeah, I was thinking make a video, send it to Yelnoc via pm and then have him upload it to the account.

IRC + transcript later on the forum.

Probably won't work, as we all may not be present to participate.

I think all presidential candidates are on Eastern Time except Oakvale who's 5 hours ahead of that.

True, but we all have differing schedules because I have school from 7am-3pm and after that I have to work until about 6pm so it might be awkward.

Well- I usually have nothing to do but if this debate occurs when I'm in Europe I'll probably have to decline

I'd support debates in these multiple formats. Having debates on Youtube, for instance, is exactly the kind of change that we need to import activity. Message boards are old hat, they're a thing of the past now. New mediums like through Youtube or perhaps audio-only through Soundcloud would be perfect, and add more realism to this whole thing. One debate in IRC would be interesting too, just to see how well it plays out. Everything should be tested first before debate season, imo.

Just think about what's done IRL. TV Debate=YouTube. Radio Debate=Soundcloud. Print Debate=Forum. Internet Debate=IRC. There's all those different formats IRL, so it seems logical to apply them here.

How about a Skype debate?  I would be available to moderate that also.  I have a recording app with which I could record it, make a few quick cuts in Audacity, and then upload it to Youtube and link it to the Atlas.

Down with this.

I'll not be doing a Skype debate.

I'll also go ahead and rule out participating in a Skype debate.

WELP

Ben and Oakvale, would you object to the IRC debate or the Youtube debate?

I'm not particularly keen on either, although I'd be open to the IRC debate if we can organise it effectively and post a transcript here.

I agree with Oakvale.  No youtube debate, I'm somewhat against IRC.

I will be declining as well, sorry. I would prefer a traditional three debate format, hosted on the forum.

Can we at least make videos for the lulz? :(

This is a fine example of why Atlasia is dying. Even a shred of basic change that could rejuvenate activity and provide fun, while giving people a reason to join the game, is turned down for frivolous excuses. I'm no Tweedist, but at least he's taken the initiative to post videos and push for changing the conversation. If we stick to the same format that's been around for so many years, this whole thing will be a distant memory.

I still think video debate responses should be encouraged from those who would be willing to make them.  There is no rule against using those.

Campaigns are free to incorporate whichever methods they find effective. However, declining a video debate or whatever, is not killing the game. Duke is closer to seeing the problem: people are more concerned with who has the biggest grin on the face than the fact that we can't even get people to follow through after we elect them. President Polnut has actually done a good job sticking to doing what he said he would do if elected President, but his legacy almost hinges as much on what follows him than what he accomplishes. This election gives us many choices, but I don't think having more videos than the next guy or popping up in the IRC chat a lot means much from a game perspective.

I agree with Napoleon - this is nonsense. Atlasia's "dying" because of some mild disagreement upon the proposed media for a couple of debates?

There's no reason that campaigns can't make their own videos if they so wish, but holding debates in text form on this board has worked just fine for as long as the game's existed, and I don't see any particular reason to change that.

To re-iterate, I'd possibly agree to an IRC debate if the other candidates were willing and a transcript would be posted on here, but I'm not going to be phoning people on Skype or making grainy Youtube videos.

I would do an IRC- or a skype

Really guys. Almost every candidates lives in EST and refused the irc debate. It's quite sad.
I know this isn't the actual problem, but it reflects the actual problem: people don't want to change Atlasia but want it to slowly die instead. Theoretically Atlasia should be constantly growing since there are more new users registered each election cycle, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. The main reason people want an IRC debate is because it's interactive and IRC is fun for most people who visit the Atlas.

How's this proposal?

Second week of May - informal IRC Q&A with some or all candidates, open to the public.

Fourth week of May - first formal debate, held on the forum.

First week of June - second formal debate.

Couple of days before the election - third and final formal debate.

Sound good-ish? :)

That is basically what Clarence and I thought as well.

Great! :)

I do think an informal IRC Q&A would be an interesting idea, and I'd certainly take part - it's just that a formal debate over that format would be quite tricky, IMO.

A Q&A session would also let regular users ask questions as opposed to the moderator.

Yes, this is the point I was trying to make, though clearly my wording was misunderstood. I'm in no way arguing that refusing to take part in a modern debate means you want Atlasia to die, nor that the absence of such a debate would directly contribute to Atlasia's "death", but that everyone cooperating in such a thing could lead to increased game activity and attract new users to the forum, thus lengthening its lifespan. The fact that most people are against these small changes is sad, indeed, simply because of their potential to make this process more interesting.

Now to quickly address a couple of these points made against my idea. I for one, do not believe that holding a video debate would lead to people getting elected simply because of their visual appeal or performance in that one debate. I'd like to believe that very few of us are dim-witted enough to vote for a candidate based solely on his or her appearance, and being 'politicos', we need substance, and that would only be added through video. I would never think less of a candidate if they didn't participate in a video debate, nor one with IRC. I guarantee you the polls would display the same results they do now. Also, I disagree sharply with the sentiment "it's worked fine this long, so..", but I am a leftist, after all.

Oakvale, I would propose the addition of one Youtube debate (if only candidates expressing their own ambitions) and one IRC debate to that calender, both being completely optional and open to public view and scrutiny. It is only an experiment, and might just fail, but I'm sure many of us would like to see this play out. :)

As someone who's (probably a little paranoid, sure, but...) never posted a photo and is pretty sure maybe one or two people here know my real name I wouldn't feel that comfortable doing a Youtube video, to be totally honest. :P

Certainly I appreciate your sincerity, and it might indeed be an interesting idea, but I'm afraid I'd have to sit that one out if it does happen. :)

Absolutely understandable if you're concerned about privacy.
That's why I would stress it being optional. :>