A few thoughts from your PO; AMENDMENTS AT VOTE

[ilikeverin]

What "massive" reform do I advocate now? Because if a CoG and all nationally-elected Senate seats is too "massive" for people, then we might as well shut down the ConCon right now.

Agreed. Seriously the stuff being proposed, if one takes even a slight glance, will clearly help the game. Regional Senate seats are crap. Governors are crap. But by creating a separate chamber, a CoG, and removing regional senators, we can make newly competitive, activity-inducing positions for the game.

I'm supportive of a Council of Governors, but if we eliminate regional senate seats while adding the Governors to the legislature, aren't we basically just eliminating overall offices and giving a new name to regional Senators? I mean, it's essentially just shuffling things around a bit.

Edit: All the while reducing overall participation.

I made the same point earlier, but it's still better than the current system.

[MasterJedi]

What "massive" reform do I advocate now? Because if a CoG and all nationally-elected Senate seats is too "massive" for people, then we might as well shut down the ConCon right now.

Agreed. Seriously the stuff being proposed, if one takes even a slight glance, will clearly help the game. Regional Senate seats are crap. Governors are crap. But by creating a separate chamber, a CoG, and removing regional senators, we can make newly competitive, activity-inducing positions for the game.

I'm supportive of a Council of Governors, but if we eliminate regional senate seats while adding the Governors to the legislature, aren't we basically just eliminating overall offices and giving a new name to regional Senators? I mean, it's essentially just shuffling things around a bit.

Edit: All the while reducing overall participation.

I made the same point earlier, but it's still better than the current system.

No it isn't. All it is doing is Lief trying to get rid of as many regional offices as possible. We don't need any drastic reform like that. We should just shut this down and have everything go through the Senate like normal.

[Lief 🗽]

I want to get rid of regional offices because they're pointless and hurt the game. None of the regional senate seat supporters have yet given a reason why they should stay, despite their strange argument that the regions are for some reason deserving of representation.

[Lief 🗽]

What "massive" reform do I advocate now? Because if a CoG and all nationally-elected Senate seats is too "massive" for people, then we might as well shut down the ConCon right now.

Agreed. Seriously the stuff being proposed, if one takes even a slight glance, will clearly help the game. Regional Senate seats are crap. Governors are crap. But by creating a separate chamber, a CoG, and removing regional senators, we can make newly competitive, activity-inducing positions for the game.

I'm supportive of a Council of Governors, but if we eliminate regional senate seats while adding the Governors to the legislature, aren't we basically just eliminating overall offices and giving a new name to regional Senators? I mean, it's essentially just shuffling things around a bit.

Edit: All the while reducing overall participation.

We're not eliminating overall offices. We'll still have 10 senators and 5 governors.

And the council of governors would function differently than an additional 5 regional senators. They would not be proposing legislation or anything, not to the degree that the Senate does, and instead function as a sort of upper house, signing off on legislation that has been passed by the Senate.

At the moment, both regional senators and governors have structural problems, as far as offices go. By combining the two (sort of), we give them more prestige and desirability, hopefully increasing competition and election activity for the offices.

[MasterJedi]

I want to get rid of regional offices because they're pointless and hurt the game. None of the regional senate seat supporters have yet given a reason why they should stay, despite their strange argument that the regions are for some reason deserving of representation.

And you have yet said anything at all that indicates how they actually "hurt the game".

People need to realize that change for the sake of change isn't what's needed. Notice how the game worked fine when people were really active and now is working fine again? Yep, nothing much is needed except keeping people active so that the game functions, which is what it's doing now.

Down with the useless ConCon! Down with the anti-region people who want fake reform that won't make any bit of difference because everything hinges on activity, not on changes in the game.

[Vepres]

I want to get rid of regional offices because they're pointless and hurt the game. None of the regional senate seat supporters have yet given a reason why they should stay, despite their strange argument that the regions are for some reason deserving of representation.

Lt. Gov and CJO are pointless. However, the regional offices give newer players, or those with less time on their hands, and ability to participate in the game and hold an office. Besides, I personally like the idea of regionalism in general, if only for the fact that it can make politics more interesting.

[Lief 🗽]

I want to get rid of regional offices because they're pointless and hurt the game. None of the regional senate seat supporters have yet given a reason why they should stay, despite their strange argument that the regions are for some reason deserving of representation.

And you have yet said anything at all that indicates how they actually "hurt the game".

People need to realize that change for the sake of change isn't what's needed. Notice how the game worked fine when people were really active and now is working fine again? Yep, nothing much is needed except keeping people active so that the game functions, which is what it's doing now.

How are four out of five uncompetitive and boring regional elections every 2 months "fine"? How is the game "functioning" when 4 out of 5 elections, the foundation of our game, are practically uncontested?

I want to get rid of regional offices because they're pointless and hurt the game. None of the regional senate seat supporters have yet given a reason why they should stay, despite their strange argument that the regions are for some reason deserving of representation.

Lt. Gov and CJO are pointless. However, the regional offices give newer players, or those with less time on their hands, and ability to participate in the game and hold an office. Besides, I personally like the idea of regionalism in general, if only for the fact that it can make politics more interesting.

Yeah, I have no problem with regional legislatures. If you want to keep those, fine, whatever. I'm talking about regional Senate seats.

[MasterJedi]

I want to get rid of regional offices because they're pointless and hurt the game. None of the regional senate seat supporters have yet given a reason why they should stay, despite their strange argument that the regions are for some reason deserving of representation.

And you have yet said anything at all that indicates how they actually "hurt the game".

People need to realize that change for the sake of change isn't what's needed. Notice how the game worked fine when people were really active and now is working fine again? Yep, nothing much is needed except keeping people active so that the game functions, which is what it's doing now.

How are four out of five uncompetitive and boring regional elections every 2 months "fine"? How is the game "functioning" when 4 out of 5 elections, the foundation of our game, are practically uncontested?

How are national senate elections where only 2 seats are competitive "fine" and "good for the game"? Besides this Presidential election they haven't been anywhere near close either. No matter what change you want it's just going to change the order of the game, not give any more activity.

[Vepres]

Yeah, I have no problem with regional legislatures. If you want to keep those, fine, whatever. I'm talking about regional Senate seats.

Ah. I thought you were referring to regional offices in general.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

None of these reforms whether advocated by PS or by ILV or Lief or even myself is guarrenteed to create Activity. There is no subsitute for involvement and I find it strange that PS criticize my position using the very same line I used against him. I said very plainly that unless people are willing to be active and to get involved, you might as well take all of your damned reforms and put them where the sun don't shine. Regional Senators are innactive. So are National Senate seats and Presidential election. Expanding every seat or position to the National level is not going to solve the problem. You can't legislate a solution to this problem. All of these supposed solutions can easily end us up right back were we started.

[MasterJedi]

None of these reforms whether advocated by PS or by ILV or Lief or even myself is guarrenteed to create Activity. There is no subsitute for involvement and I find it strange that PS criticize my position using the very same line I used against him. I said very plainly that unless people are willing to be active and to get involved, you might as well take all of your damned reforms and put them where the sun don't shine. Regional Senators are innactive. So are National Senate seats and Presidential election. Expanding every seat or position to the National level is not going to solve the problem. You can't legislate a solution to this problem. All of these supposed solutions can easily end us up right back were we started.

Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner here folks! Unless people are active (which they now are under the current system) nothing we do will make a difference.

[Lief 🗽]

None of these reforms whether advocated by PS or by ILV or Lief or even myself is guarrenteed to create Activity. There is no subsitute for involvement and I find it strange that PS criticize my position using the very same line I used against him. I said very plainly that unless people are willing to be active and to get involved, you might as well take all of your damned reforms and put them where the sun don't shine. Regional Senators are innactive. So are National Senate seats and Presidential election. Expanding every seat or position to the National level is not going to solve the problem. You can't legislate a solution to this problem. All of these supposed solutions can easily end us up right back were we started.

But that's just not true at all...

And surely it's better to attempt to solve the problem than ignore it and hope it'll go away.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

None of these reforms whether advocated by PS or by ILV or Lief or even myself is guarrenteed to create Activity. There is no subsitute for involvement and I find it strange that PS criticize my position using the very same line I used against him. I said very plainly that unless people are willing to be active and to get involved, you might as well take all of your damned reforms and put them where the sun don't shine. Regional Senators are innactive. So are National Senate seats and Presidential election. Expanding every seat or position to the National level is not going to solve the problem. You can't legislate a solution to this problem. All of these supposed solutions can easily end us up right back were we started.

But that's just not true at all...

And surely it's better to attempt to solve the problem than ignore it and hope it'll go away.

Off course I want to solve these problems. You guys just assume your plans will work but they won't unless there is the necessary level of activity. I have just been more honest to real hard truth.

[Purple State]

Look, activity is necessary no matter what for any plan to work, even the current form. However, no amount of current activity will help if elections aren't competitive. We need to fit the game to work for any number of scenarios, not just what we have now. We have uncompetitive elections and the only way to fix it is to reduce the number of seats, period. Otherwise, what happens when activity slows? Even now, with lots of activity, people grow complacent and comfortable in their positions. And for good reason, they rarely lose. If record activity can't make even a majority of seats competitive, we need a reduction.

What "massive" reform do I advocate now? Because if a CoG and all nationally-elected Senate seats is too "massive" for people, then we might as well shut down the ConCon right now.

Agreed. Seriously the stuff being proposed, if one takes even a slight glance, will clearly help the game. Regional Senate seats are crap. Governors are crap. But by creating a separate chamber, a CoG, and removing regional senators, we can make newly competitive, activity-inducing positions for the game.

I'm supportive of a Council of Governors, but if we eliminate regional senate seats while adding the Governors to the legislature, aren't we basically just eliminating overall offices and giving a new name to regional Senators? I mean, it's essentially just shuffling things around a bit.

Edit: All the while reducing overall participation.

No and here is why. Currently it would take all five regional senators to vote Nay on a bill to unite against the national senators and defeat legislation. With a separate CoG, it would only take three of the governors to unite and defeat a bill when it came from the nationally elected Senate.

@Vepres, we cannot force parties to conduct primaries, so regardless of how effective that would be, we can't initiate that by amending the Constitution.

@MJ, the national elections, even though there may only be a turnover of one or two seats, are exciting to watch, hard to predict and involve universal participation. The regional elections are usually predictable, even when there is a challenger. By removing five seats, you instantly guarantee increased competition. You force current governors to actually care and remove complacency. Every so often we need to knock some heads, shake it up to make sure everyone is doing what they are supposed to.

[ilikeverin]

And I'll try a third argument that I don't think has been used before: I agree with MasterJedi and NC Yankee in that it's possible that despite our best efforts these reforms will not fix anything involving activity in Atlasia.  So why not try to scale the size of the government to match the activity of Atlasia, rather than the other way around?  Having fewer positions will push the few members that we have who are always active into races against each other, and having those positions be national will ensure that all active members will be beneficial to all the nation rather than 1/5.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And I'll try a third argument that I don't think has been used before: I agree with MasterJedi and NC Yankee in that it's possible that despite our best efforts these reforms will not fix anything involving activity in Atlasia.  So why not try to scale the size of the government to match the activity of Atlasia, rather than the other way around?  Having fewer positions will push the few members that we have who are always active into races against each other, and having those positions be national will ensure that all active members will be beneficial to all the nation rather than 1/5.

I hate to break it to you but that is the second arguement. I say scale the size of the game upward. We can still get just as complacent and uncompetative with the other systems you guys are proposing.

[MaxQue]

Well, to create activity, we must create competitive elections. We must adjust the number of elected office avaliable to that.

[Purple State]

And I'll try a third argument that I don't think has been used before: I agree with MasterJedi and NC Yankee in that it's possible that despite our best efforts these reforms will not fix anything involving activity in Atlasia.  So why not try to scale the size of the government to match the activity of Atlasia, rather than the other way around?  Having fewer positions will push the few members that we have who are always active into races against each other, and having those positions be national will ensure that all active members will be beneficial to all the nation rather than 1/5.

I hate to break it to you but that is the second arguement. I say scale the size of the game upward. We can still get just as complacent and uncompetative with the other systems you guys are proposing.

We may not even be able to fill all the seats you propose creating though. That's the bigger problem than uncompetitive elections. It is already hard enough filling the Mideast Assembly when people keep running for higher office/turning out to be socks of other people. Creating even more offices would result in that on a greater scale I fear.

Reducing the number of offices has the reverse affect. We would see real competition, voting for people because they are the best option, not the only option. We need to scale down the seats, regardless of activity level, in order to make sure we get some actually exciting elections around here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And I'll try a third argument that I don't think has been used before: I agree with MasterJedi and NC Yankee in that it's possible that despite our best efforts these reforms will not fix anything involving activity in Atlasia.  So why not try to scale the size of the government to match the activity of Atlasia, rather than the other way around?  Having fewer positions will push the few members that we have who are always active into races against each other, and having those positions be national will ensure that all active members will be beneficial to all the nation rather than 1/5.

I hate to break it to you but that is the second arguement. I say scale the size of the game upward. We can still get just as complacent and uncompetative with the other systems you guys are proposing.

We may not even be able to fill all the seats you propose creating though. That's the bigger problem than uncompetitive elections. It is already hard enough filling the Mideast Assembly when people keep running for higher office/turning out to be socks of other people. Creating even more offices would result in that on a greater scale I fear.

Reducing the number of offices has the reverse affect. We would see real competition, voting for people because they are the best option, not the only option. We need to scale down the seats, regardless of activity level, in order to make sure we get some actually exciting elections around here.

Or people are turned away by the intense competation and repetative losses. You guys think that you pass a big reform all at once and hope to reform this problem. This has be done one piece at a time. Thats how I intend for my reforms to be done at least.

[MaxQue]

And I'll try a third argument that I don't think has been used before: I agree with MasterJedi and NC Yankee in that it's possible that despite our best efforts these reforms will not fix anything involving activity in Atlasia.  So why not try to scale the size of the government to match the activity of Atlasia, rather than the other way around?  Having fewer positions will push the few members that we have who are always active into races against each other, and having those positions be national will ensure that all active members will be beneficial to all the nation rather than 1/5.

I hate to break it to you but that is the second arguement. I say scale the size of the game upward. We can still get just as complacent and uncompetative with the other systems you guys are proposing.

We may not even be able to fill all the seats you propose creating though. That's the bigger problem than uncompetitive elections. It is already hard enough filling the Mideast Assembly when people keep running for higher office/turning out to be socks of other people. Creating even more offices would result in that on a greater scale I fear.

Reducing the number of offices has the reverse affect. We would see real competition, voting for people because they are the best option, not the only option. We need to scale down the seats, regardless of activity level, in order to make sure we get some actually exciting elections around here.

Your plan transforms 17 important positions into 17 important positions. We don't scale down anything.

[Purple State]

And I'll try a third argument that I don't think has been used before: I agree with MasterJedi and NC Yankee in that it's possible that despite our best efforts these reforms will not fix anything involving activity in Atlasia.  So why not try to scale the size of the government to match the activity of Atlasia, rather than the other way around?  Having fewer positions will push the few members that we have who are always active into races against each other, and having those positions be national will ensure that all active members will be beneficial to all the nation rather than 1/5.

I hate to break it to you but that is the second arguement. I say scale the size of the game upward. We can still get just as complacent and uncompetative with the other systems you guys are proposing.

We may not even be able to fill all the seats you propose creating though. That's the bigger problem than uncompetitive elections. It is already hard enough filling the Mideast Assembly when people keep running for higher office/turning out to be socks of other people. Creating even more offices would result in that on a greater scale I fear.

Reducing the number of offices has the reverse affect. We would see real competition, voting for people because they are the best option, not the only option. We need to scale down the seats, regardless of activity level, in order to make sure we get some actually exciting elections around here.

Or people are turned away by the intense competation and repetative losses. You guys think that you pass a big reform all at once and hope to reform this problem. This has be done one piece at a time. Thats how I intend for my reforms to be done at least.

I really don't want massive changes here either. Just a few small strands need to be plucked. Remove regional Senate seats (easy enough to do) and create a CoG. That is pretty much all I envision for us to do at a federal level. And those go hand-in-hand and have to be done all at once. I don't want this through the Senate because, first, this involves more people and, second, we have unlimited time for debate.

I don't think competition and losing would deter people from trying again though. Look at Gporter. Look at Bayh. Look at Fritz. I think, if anything, it would keep people accountable and result in more office-flipping back and forth between a few qualified candidates. Plus, we would hopefully have regional legislatures to hold those members who had recently lost, to keep them busy until the next election.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And I'll try a third argument that I don't think has been used before: I agree with MasterJedi and NC Yankee in that it's possible that despite our best efforts these reforms will not fix anything involving activity in Atlasia.  So why not try to scale the size of the government to match the activity of Atlasia, rather than the other way around?  Having fewer positions will push the few members that we have who are always active into races against each other, and having those positions be national will ensure that all active members will be beneficial to all the nation rather than 1/5.

I hate to break it to you but that is the second arguement. I say scale the size of the game upward. We can still get just as complacent and uncompetative with the other systems you guys are proposing.

We may not even be able to fill all the seats you propose creating though. That's the bigger problem than uncompetitive elections. It is already hard enough filling the Mideast Assembly when people keep running for higher office/turning out to be socks of other people. Creating even more offices would result in that on a greater scale I fear.

Reducing the number of offices has the reverse affect. We would see real competition, voting for people because they are the best option, not the only option. We need to scale down the seats, regardless of activity level, in order to make sure we get some actually exciting elections around here.

Or people are turned away by the intense competation and repetative losses. You guys think that you pass a big reform all at once and hope to reform this problem. This has be done one piece at a time. Thats how I intend for my reforms to be done at least.

I really don't want massive changes here either. Just a few small strands need to be plucked. Remove regional Senate seats (easy enough to do) and create a CoG. That is pretty much all I envision for us to do at a federal level. And those go hand-in-hand and have to be done all at once. I don't want this through the Senate because, first, this involves more people and, second, we have unlimited time for debate.

I don't think competition and losing would deter people from trying again though. Look at Gporter. Look at Bayh. Look at Fritz. I think, if anything, it would keep people accountable and result in more office-flipping back and forth between a few qualified candidates. Plus, we would hopefully have regional legislatures to hold those members who had recently lost, to keep them busy until the next election.

When you use GPorter as an example to defend your ideas, you lose all the gains with me towards supporting your proposal, there wasn't any to begin with, but it doesn't help. If thats the case there won't be much room for newbies though especially if offices will be rotating between a few competetant people which can easily turn into a few people dominating all the offices cutting out competatione and making us worse of. THanks for helping me make my point.

[Purple State]

New members will be running for lower offices, like regional legislatures, at first. Once they build up a reputation and knowledge of the game they will be able to challenge the other competent members. This game has always been open to fresh blood. I made it to the Senate pretty quickly, going through regional office first.

I am not set on this proposal, but I have yet to see anything better. The idea that expanding offices will help the game just can't work. If we can't sustain current levels, how are we supposed to support even higher levels? Your assumption also imagines that we will have continued large floods of new and committed members. This is not likely to be the case.

So if you could write an amendment right now, what would it be?

[Purple State]

Look, I really don't care whether we have a House of Reps, a CoG, or whatever. My goal is to see what has the best, most productive ripple affect and implement it. I wouldn't mind reducing the number of nationally elected seats to make those more competitive, but we need to find a way to induce regional reform. I don't believe legislatures are inherently better than initiatives, but I believe active governors are necessary. So how can we make races for governor more competitive? That's really the biggest question?

EDIT: I would even support a sort of rotating Speakership, where one Governor at a time heads the Senate. We could implement that by coinciding the changes with the elections to regional seats and leave that seat "vacant" while giving the Governor full voting rights for his term. Does that work for anyone?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

New members will be running for lower offices, like regional legislatures, at first. Once they build up a reputation and knowledge of the game they will be able to challenge the other competent members. This game has always been open to fresh blood. I made it to the Senate pretty quickly, going through regional office first.

I am not set on this proposal, but I have yet to see anything better. The idea that expanding offices will help the game just can't work. If we can't sustain current levels, how are we supposed to support even higher levels? Your assumption also imagines that we will have continued large floods of new and committed members. This is not likely to be the case.

So if you could write an amendment right now, what would it be?

I wouldn't amend anything right now, I would however actively encourage members to take the intiative to revive there regions. If that were to fail I would agree with Duke that this game is dead.
Not all the regions need assemblies, if the MW sticks with the initiative process I think they can make it work cause whether its that or assembly it can be sustained as long as the activity is there in the first place.