The Abolition Movement: The Quest to End Regional Inactivity and Indifference

[Purple State]

I've addressed this so many times, but I think the content of the original post speaks volumes of how much improvement we have seen in the regions over the past year or so.

The fact that we can say that the regional legislatures are inactive means that all the regions have legislative bodies... That is an amazing thing never before seen in Atlasia. We also see regional laws used as the foundation for federal laws on a frequent basis.

Also, as I have always argued, again and again, the region is where new citizens get their chops. It is how people are introduced to the game and build a resume that can be used to run for federal office or higher regional office. It is also how the voters are able to distinguish between those who deserve to be promoted and those who are do-nothings.

I am a result of the regional system. Badger is another excellent example. The regions are where people with no previous reputation can build a name and become something great. To do away with them would be a terrible mistake.

[Purple State]

Exactly what PiT said.

Also, there is something to committing to a strategy and letting it play out. It seems that every few months we see a lower chamber proposed to replace the regions, but that argument gets weaker as efforts to strengthen regional activity through other means are implemented. Changing horses midrace seems less and less appealing.

The case could have been made a year or two ago that regions were a meaningless piece of the game. That really isn't the case today. Let's see where the revitalized regions take us before we throw them under the bus.

[Purple State]

Exactly what PiT said.

Also, there is something to committing to a strategy and letting it play out. It seems that every few months we see a lower chamber proposed to replace the regions, but that argument gets weaker as efforts to strengthen regional activity through other means are implemented. Changing horses midrace seems less and less appealing.

The case could have been made a year or two ago that regions were a meaningless piece of the game. That really isn't the case today. Let's see where the revitalized regions take us before we throw them under the bus.

The case I'm making is that we aren't losing anything by disposing of the regions. This isn't a case of switching horses but rather feeding it a different type of nutrient-rich water for the stretch run after we observed that it was tiring.

Your idea might work, but we have no idea whether it will be the greatest boon to the game or whether it will kill the game. On the other hand, regions have proven to be a steady and reliable means of introducing new players to the game. Are they perfect? Surely not. Is there a better alternative? There always is. But I feel the risks involved in most of the proposed ideas is such that it far outweighs the benefits of switching.

Reform is only truly needed when something is broken or an alternative is clearly better. Until you prove that the regions are truly broken (which cannot be argued right now) or that your idea is proven to be beneficial (which is only possible by testing it in a region or two, partially boosting the opposing view), I can't get behind it.

[Purple State]

Exactly what PiT said.

Also, there is something to committing to a strategy and letting it play out. It seems that every few months we see a lower chamber proposed to replace the regions, but that argument gets weaker as efforts to strengthen regional activity through other means are implemented. Changing horses midrace seems less and less appealing.

The case could have been made a year or two ago that regions were a meaningless piece of the game. That really isn't the case today. Let's see where the revitalized regions take us before we throw them under the bus.

The case I'm making is that we aren't losing anything by disposing of the regions. This isn't a case of switching horses but rather feeding it a different type of nutrient-rich water for the stretch run after we observed that it was tiring.

Your idea might work, but we have no idea whether it will be the greatest boon to the game or whether it will kill the game. On the other hand, regions have proven to be a steady and reliable means of introducing new players to the game. Are they perfect? Surely not. Is there a better alternative? There always is. But I feel the risks involved in most of the proposed ideas is such that it far outweighs the benefits of switching.

Reform is only truly needed when something is broken or an alternative is clearly better. Until you prove that the regions are truly broken (which cannot be argued right now) or that your idea is proven to be beneficial (which is only possible by testing it in a region or two, partially boosting the opposing view), I can't get behind it.

Regardless, this is a conversation Atlasia needs to have when disputes are springing up like mushrooms after a rainstorm.

Oh don't get me wrong, I love these conversations. The more real discussions we have on a range of topics the better it is for the game. That's why I keep responding.

I've always seen promise in the regions and it is rewarding to see the progress the regions have made since I joined the game and the considerable benefit this has provided for the game. There is certainly room for discussions of alternatives, but understand that it will take quite a bit of convincing for me to change my mind (and I'm probably the least ideological supporter of regions in the game, so best of luck ).