Purple State and Marokai's BIG IDEA

[Purple State]

Fellow Atlasians -

Over the past month my running mate and I have presented to you our ideas to reform the game. These proposals were born out of our firm belief that this game has major problems holding it back and that these problems can be addressed through firm leadership.

Through our work, on streamlining forum affairs, Wiki reform, and greater executive involvement, we have found a system plagued by convoluted rules and patchwork reforms, where it has become too easy for constitutional changes and statutes to get lost in the shuffle.

The solution to this mess is simple: it is time to refresh Atlasia.

Here is what that means: First, consolidate the constitutional amendments into the Constitution. Next, implement some original changes that add new excitement to the game without altering the Atlasia we know and love. And lastly, reboot all but the most vital of legislation to allow for new conversations to emerge and new debates to be had.

Constitutional consolidation: The Constitution is now a patchwork of links to amendments that have huge impacts on the law. For veterans it may be navigable with some effort, but for a newer or less adept member it is nearly impossible. By putting the entire document in one place, and keeping it that way, we will ensure that amendments are not lost and the structural integrity of the game withstands the test of time.

Original changes: There are some things that can be added to the Constitution that add new excitement to the game while avoiding disruption. To promote activity and continued involvement by new or returning players, the Third Constitution will mandate the creation of elected regional legislatures. To create a check and balance for the Courts, the Third Constitution will include the presidential power to pardon. And to ease the rigid registration rules without opening the door to abuses, the Third Constitution will allow more frequent state changes within one region, while upholding the limit on changes from one region to another.

Legislative reboot: The debates in Senate have become stale. How many times have we debated some variation on regulating carbon, whether by tax, cap-and-trade or cap-and-dividend? It was around before my time, it was debated when I was in the Senate and it is being debated now. This is not an isolated incident, but the result of years of a game without a reboot. Even worse is the number of ancient laws (if five years can truly be called ancient) that have not be followed up on.

By starting fresh with an active government and a growing population, we can make sure that the same problems that we inherited in the current system are not replicated for future Atlasians.

Without further ado, here is a draft of the Third Constitution of Atlasia.

This thread is meant to foster a discussion; the process is not meant to be a two-person job. Please present your own ideas, your thoughts, your critiques. We will take your input seriously, so that when it comes time for implementation, the final product is the best possible.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would first like to say that all ideas we're discussing are in good faith. I've cast aside all my preconceptions about centralist vs. regionalist sentiment, all my prior reactions to certain ideas in a genuine attempt to make things work. I believe, as Purple State does, that Atlasia is growing a little too old in it's current system. Sometimes one has to make renovations to keep a house in working order, and that's all we're proposing here today; major renovations keeping within the current system to make the game more interesting than it currently is.

The Constitution as it stands is undeniably a confusing patchwork mess. Large sections of the constitution have been removed but still stand as original text, clauses have been removed, reinstated, then amended, amendments are sometimes completely forgotten and not even attached to the page they belong on. We constantly have the problem of trying to find out exactly what the constitution says because of the years and years of amendments and repeals.

Our goal is to institute a new Constitution based heavily off the current Constitution that is simpler to understand, consolidates all since-passed amendments, and makes changes here and there to the system that make the game more fun to play.

Let me repeat that for some of those out there wary of changing the system at all: We're not turning Atlasia on it's head with these ideas. We're cleaning up the system and doing things right from the getgo, we're restarting what we need to restart to keep Atlasia from growing more and more stale and predictable.

Our statute is a similar disaster. Things are all over the place and completely scattered, laws have been passed, ignored, repealed, amended, reinstated, all over the place. By consolidating important pieces of legislation necessary for maintaining the system, such as retaining our tax rates, healthcare system, criminal codes, election rules, and other misc. important legislation, we can carry those laws over to a new system where we can build the rest of our statute anew from the ground-up, reigniting important legislation wrangling.

I'm willing to work with anyone here, to include all concerns and work to rebuild Atlasia with the current system as a mold but a rebuilt cleaner system that is easier to understand and can re-spark all that's been lost in the past. I want to do this all in good faith, I want everyone to come to the table as long as we can all agree on the basic idea of doing something fundamentally different instead of just trimming around the edges.

Some of the original changes we made include making it slightly easier to impeach individuals, reversing a majority of the Senate and a two-thirds referendum, to a two-thirds Senate vote and a simply majority popular vote (giving individuals more power in who their officials are if there's a reason to impeach them), slightly increasing the posting requirement for registering to vote (from 50 to 75), reducing the penalty for moving when moves are done within a region (same states within a region), among other things.

There are alot of other things we can do though that haven't been included right away, and some ideas I personally think are good ones, such as giving the President and Vice President the power to introduce legislation, Americanizing the ratification process, making amendments passed by the Senate permanently in the national debate but going directly to the regional legislatures to ratify or not ratify when they please.

But most of all, I think expanding regional representation and the size of the Senate deserves a discussion. All of these things can be discussed in the upcoming weeks and throughout our term if we are lucky enough to be elected.

What remains absolutely clear though, is that we are committed in any way we can, to changing Atlasia in ways that many have failed in the past. We're not going to be too afraid to do things because they might be hard, we're not going to be content with trimmings, or little token changes. We want to do things that we believe are absolutely necessary, and things we believe that everyone always knows we must one day do, but seldom admit.

Some things have to change to make the game interesting as time goes on, things must be altered over time to make Atlasia evolve. What we are proposing is merely a step in the evolutionary process of the game. So let's all talk in good faith about this ticket's ideas and others, and no longer respond with knee-jerk responses from both sides of the game reform spectrum.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While I agree that elected regional legislatures is a good thing, I am not sure how I feel about forcing elected legislatures on the Midwest & the Pacific. Part of the beauty I see in the regions is that different regions run themselves in different ways, depending on the attitudes of their residents. Requiring the regions to all elect a legislature removes one degree of latitude they have for differentiation, requiring homogeneity for the most part in how they vest their legislative power.

[Marokai Backbeat]

     While I agree that elected regional legislatures is a good thing, I am not sure how I feel about forcing elected legislatures on the Midwest & the Pacific. Part of the beauty I see in the regions is that different regions run themselves in different ways, depending on the attitudes of their residents. Requiring the regions to all elect a legislature removes one degree of latitude they have for differentiation, requiring homogeneity for the most part in how they vest their legislative power.

Personally I see nothing wrong with universal regional legislatures. Electing them certainly adds an interesting element to the game, but if we're encouraging activity I think it could be done either way. It's a good thing to include in the discussion at the very least, but I myself personally would feel no loss if we merely mandated a regional legislature elected or unelected.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Is Purple State a Hamilton sock?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Is Purple State a Hamilton sock?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A broken clock...

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While I agree that elected regional legislatures is a good thing, I am not sure how I feel about forcing elected legislatures on the Midwest & the Pacific. Part of the beauty I see in the regions is that different regions run themselves in different ways, depending on the attitudes of their residents. Requiring the regions to all elect a legislature removes one degree of latitude they have for differentiation, requiring homogeneity for the most part in how they vest their legislative power.

Personally I see nothing wrong with universal regional legislatures. Electing them certainly adds an interesting element to the game, but if we're encouraging activity I think it could be done either way. It's a good thing to include in the discussion at the very least, but I myself personally would feel no loss if we merely mandated a regional legislature elected or unelected.

     I was merely thinking that regions should have latitude to institute legislative processes that are not terribly conducive to activity if they so wish. The end result of that would be making their region less attractive to newer citizens, but if they are fine with that then the notion does not really bother me.

     FWIW, I think requiring either an elected or unelected legislature would be completely uncontroversial. Only the Midwest still uses neither, & as someone (Lewis?) pointed out, the loose, informal nature of the initiative process there is already very close in practice to constituting a universal legislature.

[Purple State]

     While I agree that elected regional legislatures is a good thing, I am not sure how I feel about forcing elected legislatures on the Midwest & the Pacific. Part of the beauty I see in the regions is that different regions run themselves in different ways, depending on the attitudes of their residents. Requiring the regions to all elect a legislature removes one degree of latitude they have for differentiation, requiring homogeneity for the most part in how they vest their legislative power.

I want to be as clear and upfront about this as possible: Nothing in the proposal would force any region to fundamentally change the structures of their regional government.

Looking at the language, there is no minimum and no maximum size for the mandatory elected regional legislatures. If a region like the Pacific wanted a legislature large enough to accommodate its entire populace, they are within their right to do so. However, I strongly believe that they should still hold elections, even if the number of seats makes the race essentially uncontested.

Why? Because this game is both a government and an elections sim. Currently, regions without elected legislatures only fulfill the governing aspect. That is what I want to change.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While I agree that elected regional legislatures is a good thing, I am not sure how I feel about forcing elected legislatures on the Midwest & the Pacific. Part of the beauty I see in the regions is that different regions run themselves in different ways, depending on the attitudes of their residents. Requiring the regions to all elect a legislature removes one degree of latitude they have for differentiation, requiring homogeneity for the most part in how they vest their legislative power.

I want to be as clear and upfront about this as possible: Nothing in the proposal would force any region to fundamentally change the structures of their regional government.

Looking at the language, there is no minimum and no maximum size for the mandatory elected regional legislatures. If a region like the Pacific wanted a legislature large enough to accommodate its entire populace, they are within their right to do so. However, I strongly believe that they should still hold elections, even if the number of seats makes the race essentially uncontested.

Why? Because this game is both a government and an elections sim. Currently, regions without elected legislatures only fulfill the governing aspect. That is what I want to change.

     Fair enough, though wouldn't a region making its legislature equivalent to the size of its population run into the issue of having to hold a special election for every new resident or else have new registrees be disenfranchised until the next election rolls around? Maybe regions could still have universal legislatures with no elections to be a part of it, but then they would have to hold elections for senior officers in the legislature, who would have additional powers & privileges in the activities of the legislature.

[Free Palestine]

How about a bicameral national legislature?  The lower house would be elected by PR, while the upper house would consist of a member for each region, also elected.  The way I see it, a national legislature like that would make things more fun and competitive, with a larger number of members in a single house.  Of course, this may detract from regional legislatures, since it would probably detract from the potential pool of officeholders.

[Marokai Backbeat]

How about a bicameral national legislature?  The lower house would be elected by PR, while the upper house would consist of a member for each region, also elected.  The way I see it, a national legislature like that would make things more fun and competitive, with a larger number of members in a single house.  Of course, this may detract from regional legislatures, since it would probably detract from the potential pool of officeholders.

Bah! Be careful, please. This is often the problem with these efforts. One idea is proposed, then people try to radically change everything around. The very point of the system is to keep the general mold of what we have already but working within it. While I'm all for outside imput, we have to be careful not to fall into the old traps that always end up killing game reform. Our idea at it's heart is a reboot with some modifications. Reboot being a key word. It's not really a reboot if we turn the national legislature upside down.

There's no real point in having bicameralism for the sake of bicameralism, especially if that sentiment kills off half the support.

[k-onmmunist]

The key problem is that there is little to do anymore. What further legislation is there that can be passed? Unless we're to start from scratch, I don't see what can be done.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

     While I agree that elected regional legislatures is a good thing, I am not sure how I feel about forcing elected legislatures on the Midwest & the Pacific.

I'm already trying

[Vepres]

Are you advocating for a complete legislative reboot? As in, we become the US at x year?

[Marokai Backbeat]

The key problem is that there is little to do anymore. What further legislation is there that can be passed? Unless we're to start from scratch, I don't see what can be done.

The key problem is that there is little to do anymore. What further legislation is there that can be passed? Unless we're to start from scratch, I don't see what can be done.

That would be the general goal, if people want it. IMO there comes a point where you have to do something to wipe the slate clean in any game, and I see this as a critical element for any sort of restart.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Peter]

The idea is fundamentally sound - there are a few things I would like to still do a bit of work on in a Convention - much of it non-controversial. The present Article VIII, Section 2 needs a re-write though - you've kept too many of the old offices (SoFA!)

[Marokai Backbeat]

The idea is fundamentally sound - there are a few things I would like to still do a bit of work on in a Convention - much of it non-controversial. The present Article VIII, Section 2 needs a re-write though - you've kept too many of the old offices (SoFA!)

MaxQue brought up a similar point to me last night, Section VIII certainly needs work. Thankfully it's a simple draft.

[Bacon King]

Mandatory regional legislatures is a horrible idea- a region should be able to decide on its own how it should be run. I'm also unsure on the reboot thing. I love the idea of the compact Constitution though.

[Oakvale]

I quite like the idea of a 'reboot' since, as someone posted earlier, most of the 'controversial' stuff has been debated, passed, repealed, debated again, passed again etc, etc.

Also, as a newcomer to the game, I can attest that trying to make any sense of the rambling and incoherent Constitution is not an easy task.

[President Mitt]

The idea of game reboot is very tempting for me. But somehow I guess that the game planning stages in the Constitutional Convention were probably very painful. Could some of the game veterans enlighten us on this?

[ilikeverin]

The idea of game reboot is very tempting for me. But somehow I guess that the game planning stages in the Constitutional Convention were probably very painful. Could some of the game veterans enlighten us on this?

Planning?  During a Constitutional Convention?

What?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The idea of game reboot is very tempting for me. But somehow I guess that the game planning stages in the Constitutional Convention were probably very painful. Could some of the game veterans enlighten us on this?

Planning?  During a Constitutional Convention?

What?

He's new here, remember. He'll learn.

[Vepres]

The key problem is that there is little to do anymore. What further legislation is there that can be passed? Unless we're to start from scratch, I don't see what can be done.

The key problem is that there is little to do anymore. What further legislation is there that can be passed? Unless we're to start from scratch, I don't see what can be done.

That would be the general goal, if people want it. IMO there comes a point where you have to do something to wipe the slate clean in any game, and I see this as a critical element for any sort of restart.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think any should be excluded from being voided. Otherwise, all the interesting stuff, like the healthcare bill, will be carried over.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The trouble with a total restart is that it kind of destroys what we've done so far. Instead of wiping the slate clean, perhaps we ought to consider buying a new slate.

[fezzyfestoon]

Maybe we should create a competing nation and have kind of a South/North Korea thing going.