Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)

[Adam Griffin]

The number of regions I prefer is obviously a matter of public record, and quite frankly, the original reason why we're even having this ConCon in the first place!

[Adam Griffin]

It is worth reiterating that the whole "I'd add/remove/swap [this state]" stuff is extremely counter-productive at this point and really shouldn't be a part of the dialog right now. This was the entire purpose of CARCA - which everyone in both cases was invited to participate in - so that we could derive a crowd-sourced aggregate map that best reflected the wishes of the people.

It is also worth noting that the same map was chosen in both instances of CARCA (2013 & 2015), with each convention having very little overlap with the other in terms of participants. It is a superior map in terms of balancing the desires and wishes of the nation.

[Adam Griffin]

I have a lot of thoughts on this, and tend to lean AYE, but in short, I think we need to hash a bit more out on this particular matter before voting on a very fundamental element such as this.

Abstain

[Adam Griffin]

Just make a confederation of states that all have their own autonomy and be done with it.

That isn't a terrible idea. Perhaps create it in a way where the federal governments role is simple: monitor the regions.

It's a pretty bad idea. The only different would be that rabble-rousers would just start seceding counties or whatever the next relevant geographic area is at the time. It's a sentiment and not something contingent upon any one particular type of government.

[Adam Griffin]

Abstain

[Adam Griffin]

NAY (on principle - not because I'm inherently against the notion; this is like the third amendment of its kind now and this is getting ridiculous).

[Adam Griffin]

NAY (on principle - not because I'm inherently against the notion; this is like the third amendment of its kind now and this is getting ridiculous).

Please don't do this--that's really silly reasoning. I mean, voting "no" on protest won't keep people from making new ones anymore than simply protesting the number of amendments but still voting as normal. It could even make it last longer by making it harder to pass quality amendments!

Just vote on whether your against it or not, everyone. Sure, I guess it's a lot of amendments, but that's just because there's not a good consensus yet, and a number of different ideas. Trying to instill a "settle for less" attitude will just water down the Convention and make it far less productive than it can be--that it needs to be.

Yes, please do it, because we're literally at the point of casting successive votes on nearly identical amendments. Two of them were identical (this one and the past one), and the next two only differ based on 50% turnout versus 60% support.

This is getting rid-goddamn-diculous. It'll take a year at this rate to draft a new document, if we even get that far. If anything, nearly identical amendments should all be put up for a vote at once and if there is a conflict (as in, two or more variations pass), then hold a second "run-off" vote or whatever. There's no need for the procedure to be this tedious and extended. 

[Adam Griffin]

Nay

[Adam Griffin]

This reminds me of that time that Governor Tmth et al just kept droning the Mideast with one constitutional abortion ban after another until they finally got their way. It seems like it was like the 10th one that finally passed, probably because people just grew apathetic over voting against abortion bans one right after the other and stopped responding to GOTV PMs. I wonder if that's the aim here?

...

I propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I have said, this isn't about whether or not you support secession. It is merely about putting a process in place. I have proposed strict guidelines because I don't think secession should be easy. If 3/4s of a region want to secede, especially considering we are likely to have two-three diverse regions, rather then five currently, I think there should be a process in place that allows for them to.

I find this to be a reasonable compromise between what both sides are asking for. I urge others to withdraw their amendments and lets vote on this one.

[Adam Griffin]

Nay

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

Oh, for the love of fycking God.

This is exactly why we did CARCA in the first place - so everybody had a chance to weigh in on the concept of boundary lines. We did it - in 2013 AND in 2015 - and everybody in the game had an ability to weigh in on that map (if they chose not to participate, then tough titty!). We did it because we knew everybody and their mother would be saying "this is my map" and, well, rabble rabble rabble! The process produced a superior outcome with respect to balancing the desires and wishes of everyone involved, who came from a wide array of backgrounds. It won. Twice. Obviously that has to say something.

Now with regards to naming the regions: why? Just specify the boundaries of the regions in the Constitution and allow each region to name itself. Maybe even provide a framework (as in, names can come from the following places/types of people) to prevent absolutely asinine choices. Otherwise, we'll be objecting over "this guy was a slave-holder", "that specific regional moniker doesn't fit with this one state" or "this guy was a shitty Atlasian" for the next 10 pages.

[Adam Griffin]

For the record, this was the CARCA map winner from 2013 and from 2015. I'm not inherently against MN & IA being in the red region due to the likely population difference between red and blue, but the problem becomes one in which if we open up small changes here and there, then everybody wants to start flipping this state and that state, and so forth. I think there is a legitimate argument with respect to flipping those two states - a means to further ensure population balance naturally - but I do not think that any other considerations should be made along those or any other lines. I also tend to think that if we implement the regional legislative controls (if a region becomes too small or too big, then its legislative seats shrink) that the population between regions will naturally equalize a bit more.

If we could all agree that that particular flip needs to occur but would then proceed to honor the multiple verdicts given on these maps by the people, then that would be acceptable. Otherwise, it just devolves into a situation where we're debating completely re-doing boundaries or flipping a dozen states back and forth, and that will take ages and leave many people very upset (as opposed to everyone being just a tiny bit upset).

Map 6

[Adam Griffin]

Aye

Honestly, if we can just adopt this map and move on, I'd be perfectly fine with that - as I outlined above, this might (from a sheer population mechanics standpoint) be a better overall solution if we can just get some broad agreement on it. I'd just hate to spend 10 pages debating individual states. The fact is that several people raised a fuss over IA/MN being in either region in the initial CARCA debates (I remember Snowguy flipped out about MN being with the Pacific over the population argument, and threatened to derail the process) but it is a specific area that makes next to no sense being in either region.

[Adam Griffin]

Can someone explain which amendments we're voting on? I thought I voted on Truman's amendment but it seems there are two amendments and because we've been going back and forth for pages over individual states, I can't track down what the hell else we're voting on right now.

[Adam Griffin]

If we put Kansas into the South, then MN/IA are going to have to go in the western region. We risk de-populating the western region in natural terms by too much. I think that things will even out to a degree in terms of population if a legislative seat regulation remains in the provision, but we can't imbalance them naturally by too much.

When you take MN, IA & KS out of the western region, it is left with 28 people currently (out of 144). That's less than 20% of the game.

[Adam Griffin]

because historically, Minnesota and Iowa have been more closely aligned with the culture and politics of Wisconsin than of the Dakotas.

No; in Atlasian history, Minnesota and Iowa have been more closely aligned with the rest of the Midwestern region, both culturally and politically.

I'm not sure why the CARCA is being considered a reliable source of information about what Atlasians would prefer out of a three-region system.  Presumably, the only people who participated were people in support of regional consolidation; those of us who opposed regional consolidation had no reason to support a process whose end goal was something we disagreed with.

Well, that was a major misjudgment on your part, now wasn't it? The process was open to everyone and the bulk of active people in 2013 and in 2015 participated, with roughly 30 people in total competing. It is a certainly a better reflection and reliable source of information about what Atlasians would prefer than anything else anybody else can offer at this point.

[Adam Griffin]

I think we should give the Western Region a name that is more appropriate for its founding and culture. Perhaps "Cortés"? Also, the Southern name could be a lot better. Alexander Hamilton was from the West Indies...that's Southern enough, right?

[Adam Griffin]

Honestly I think we should just name the regions "Hamilton", "Griffin" and "Wolfen" since they represent three historic Atlasian figures and all have the same ending sound; none of the other historic figures knew how to pick proper names so they get excluded.

[Adam Griffin]

Aye, and so help me God, I will c**nt-punt anybody else who tries to move states around on this.

[Adam Griffin]

My argument makes complete sense - it amazes me how time and time again, individuals at this convention are trying to rush things through and stifle debate.

Your argument is the one that doesn't make sense - comparing this to a presidential election is like comparing apples to oranges.

I have a question for you, Windjammer, and others who are opposed to any changes because of CARCA: Was CARCA binding?

Sometimes it can be useful to compare apples and oranges by the way, and your argument still doesn't make no sense. CARCA was made in order to speed the process, not my fault if you chose to leave the game.

What an undemocratic way to look at things! "Oh, you weren't registered in the game when we talked about maps, so you can't have an opinion." Once again, if CARCA were binding, you would be absolutely correct. But it isn't. It was a group of random people, not determined by any legal document, who came up with a suggestion.

But you specifically were around in 2013 when the first CARCA occurred, you expressed concerns about how the ME might be divided, and yet you didn't join the process (presumably because the Federalists were lynching people right and left for daring to support consolidation), which did produce the very same map that was replicated by the process in 2015.


I really don't get how people want to say that this isn't the most crowd-sourced and objectively-supported solution we have at a moment. From the perspective that it was largely two different groups of people spread across two years (who were ideologically diverse, mind you), that tells us that the boundaries are objectively better with regards to making sense to players who have played at different points in history - long-term sensibility, in other words.  

Also, let's look at public opinion on the map in 2013 - which was when 60-65% supported consolidation and 35-40% opposed it. What were the opinions of more than 50 people?



This was the general public's findings - more than one-third of the registered voters at the time - and overwhelming majorities of those who supported consolidation said "yes, I support this map". Obviously those opposing consolidation wouldn't support the map, so you do the two-way model and can state that 87% of consolidation supporters in 2013 supported CARCA. Do any of the opponents who are opposing it for opposition and choice's sake have a solution ready to go that generates anywhere near that level of support from the public at-large?

Barring the faux outrage by some individuals in this body who are essentially making an argument similar to "I know how to spend my money better than the government!!!" and that it would likely permeate a public dialogue about it now, I think similar results would appear if surveyed today. The fact that it's now actually being formalized would polarize the discussion a bit more, but let's not pretend that anywhere near an informed majority would oppose this map or have something better ready to go that wouldn't require a similar process to CARCA.

[Adam Griffin]

On the condition that the current amendment being voted on passes, I offer the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What it does:

• Adds Oceania, which was forgotten in previous amendments
• Implements the entirety of Canada as an equally-playable series of provinces within our new game; no need to consult the U.N. since we are building a new time-line from scratch
• Because the A-CCM had to take into account providing provinces to all 5 regions in order to pass, the eastern provinces of Canada/the map overall looked goofy with Southern Canadian provinces completely separate from the rest of the region. As such, I propose a compromise that provides the Southern region with 5 formerly-sovereign Caribbean entities that would now be incorporated as states all the same. This ensures that all regions are properly represented in the expansion of playable game boundaries.
• I made promises to several individuals that I would no longer pursue annexation of Mexico or the entirety of North America, and I am standing by both of those promises.
• Visual representation (Oceania not pictured)

[Adam Griffin]

and yet you didn't join the process (presumably because the Federalists were lynching people right and left for daring to support consolidation),

Bullsh**t!!!


Tmth was overwhelmingly elected as Party Chairman in December 2013 as an aknowledged supporter of Consolidation, to replace another pro-Consolidation Chairman, Maxwell. Duke was nominated in October 2013, running as a pro-Consolidation independent with a Federalist VP, who also supported consolidation.

Of the three Federalist Senators, only one voted against the final FTR amendment, and that was after said single Federalist Nay exerted much effort to assist in structuring a workable process. This same Nay voter than expedited the process to bring the FTR back up after three lame-ass Senators you elected went AWOL and caused it to fail the first time. Of course you weren't here for that because you had pussed out like a err deregistered.

The  opposition that killed it at the ratification booth came to ahead in January 2014, by which time Duke had been damaged amongst Conservatives from the perception he was too compromising with TNF. I would also remind you that the first, albeit abortive, challenger to Duke, was pro-consolidation Maxwell.

Consolidation did divide the Party, but there was no effort to lynch pro-consolidation people because they were pro-consolidation and it was certainly not an overwhelming factor whilst CARCA 2013 was underway. It did get lumped onto many unfair critiques that was leveled at Duke and helped to fuel the Reaganfan challenge, in early 2014, not in 2013.

Once again your take on these events is clouded by the simple fact, that, as we painfully learned this summer, there is no substitute for being there.

All of that occurred after CARCA and after Hagrid more or less had stopped influencing the process by proxy. I was informed by pro-consolidation Federalists during that time that they were facing pressure not to be involved. In addition, I'm sure Federalist Independent President Duke can elaborate on just how much criticism (including a primary challenge) he faced over being pro-consolidation, but he can put it in his own words if he wishes!

[Adam Griffin]

and yet you didn't join the process (presumably because the Federalists were lynching people right and left for daring to support consolidation),

Bullsh**t!!!


Tmth was overwhelmingly elected as Party Chairman in December 2013 as an aknowledged supporter of Consolidation, to replace another pro-Consolidation Chairman, Maxwell. Duke was nominated in October 2013, running as a pro-Consolidation independent with a Federalist VP, who also supported consolidation.

Of the three Federalist Senators, only one voted against the final FTR amendment, and that was after said single Federalist Nay exerted much effort to assist in structuring a workable process. This same Nay voter than expedited the process to bring the FTR back up after three lame-ass Senators you elected went AWOL and caused it to fail the first time. Of course you weren't here for that because you had pussed out like a err deregistered.

The  opposition that killed it at the ratification booth came to ahead in January 2014, by which time Duke had been damaged amongst Conservatives from the perception he was too compromising with TNF. I would also remind you that the first, albeit abortive, challenger to Duke, was pro-consolidation Maxwell.

Consolidation did divide the Party, but there was no effort to lynch pro-consolidation people because they were pro-consolidation and it was certainly not an overwhelming factor whilst CARCA 2013 was underway. It did get lumped onto many unfair critiques that was leveled at Duke and helped to fuel the Reaganfan challenge, in early 2014, not in 2013.

Once again your take on these events is clouded by the simple fact, that, as we painfully learned this summer, there is no substitute for being there.

All of that occurred after CARCA and after Hagrid more or less had stopped influencing the process by proxy. I was informed by pro-consolidation Federalists during that time that they were facing pressure not to be involved. In addition, I'm sure Federalist Independent President Duke can elaborate on just how much criticism (including a primary challenge) he faced over being pro-consolidation, but he can put it in his own words if he wishes!

I will say I think Yankee's memory of what happened was a bit more rosy than what actually occurred

I was basically told I needed to soften/abandon my consolidation rhetoric or I would lose the primary to Reaganfan, and Maxwell had to do the same before he launched his primary challenge against me. Neither of us were really able to run on pro-consolidation because it was so toxic that the party would elect a troll as their candidate over anyone remotely serious. They didn't like that I held hands with TNF and flirted with the Labor Party all during my presidency from across the bar, I was famously told that if I didn't blanket VETO every TNF/Labor bill, I shouldn't be in office. That was great advice!

The consolidation debate is part of what pushed me to coming within a few minutes of switching to the Labor Party, I was so close I had written a speech announcing the switch which I still have somewhere on my computer, but at the end I decided to stay loyal mainly to Yankee and run with the Federalists because I'm a good friend and I don't abandon those who support me.

Well, in all fairness to Hagrid, he was trying to give his party's nomination to troll tickets long before you (and even before consolidation!).

[Adam Griffin]

Griffin, you may have already posted this argument somewhere, but what is the rationale for this amendment? I specifically have concerns with adding some of the Central American states. Shouldn't we be respecting their sovereignty?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I object.

I don't think we need Canada provincies and a few Central American states. I'm fully supporting the 50 states map + DC and PR.
If we keep Canada provincies and add these new states, a lot of them will be inhabited. Having these provinces/states will not bring any benefit to Atlasia.

I also object.

We already have lots of states that are uninhabited already - so adding new 'jurisdictions' to the game would leave more uninhabited. I feel 50 states + DC + PR is enough.

If uninhabited states is for some reason a huge concern, then we better go ahead and cede 5-10 US states to the Mexicans or whomever as well. It has no tangible negative impact on gameplay and I am confident that I am the only person in the game who could somewhat name off of the top of his head which states are currently uninhabited in the first place.

     I don't really see the point in adding more playable areas. The best argument for adding Canada was that Canadians could register where they live; my question is did any Canadians actually care? I'm pretty sure that there aren't any posters from the Caribbean to take advantage of those areas being added.

The best argument at the time behind the actual motivation was to add more playable areas and choice to the game in order to allow more people to live wherever they decided. Ultimately, anywhere from 5-10% of the game's population resided in Canada at any given point. Again, I'm just baffled at the amount of resistance there is to adding perfectly playable land to this new game when there are literally no tangible negative repercussions in doing so. "Oh no, empty space" - and what if there is? There always has been, except for that one time that somebody actually took the initiative to fully fill each state with people. I'm clueless as to why everybody is suddenly upset about it now.