I like #1 and #4 a lot.
#3 is alright--I like the idea of expansion as Adam suggested, I don't see that it's a threat to South America as Cris suggested in his otherwise excellent speech at the South American parliament, nor do I share the opinion of my Pacific pal Classic Conservative that we don't have the capacity to. To me it just seems like a way to make the game more fun by adding an extra facet to it.
Not a fan of #2--I've been on the record as much as maybe anyone against a ban on simultaneous officeholding. Some have even given me credit for bringing down Talleyrand's original proposal single-handedly, although I refuse to believe that on the grounds that a place where
I'm the voice of reason is a bad place. As Truman said, it would be disastrous for one or both games, which would be bad for us all. We've basically agreed that we can't sustain 5 regions in one game, why do some people think we can sustain 2 separate games without sharing players?
I'm glad that you seem to understand that, and thank Truman for explaining it so I didn't have to rehash the arguments I've already hashed ad nauseum.
I'm not at all surprised that some people, instead of reacting to the whole proposal, hanged onto one point
Indeed, I've found that people LOVE to do that, especially on the internet where people can re-read stuff to find irrelevent weak points. That's why I try to be as brief as possible to give detractors less fodder. Unfortunately I have a tendency to be the opposite of brief, so it ends up balancing out.
