During which period was Atlasia more fun?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Well?

Option 2, imo.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Bump

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Only 23 votes as of this post, but so far the results suggest that those who have been complaining about how "awful" the events after DemPGH's resignation have been compared to the old status quo are simply a very vocal minority.  The current results suggest that, contrary to conventional wisdom, a large plurality/small majority of Atlasians have been having more fun during the events that occurred after DemPGH's resignation that they were under the old system  If nothing else, this proves considering the post-DemPGH events more fun than the old system is hardly the fringe position some have tried to portray it as being.  Food for thought!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I still don't understand what's going on or what has changed besides these little side movements, but maybe I'm missing something here.

There has been a lot more interactivity and we've had crisis that (barring an awful GM or exceptionally competent/responsive regional executive) can't be legislated away in two seconds or fixed with a single deus ex machina post.  More importantly, whatever you may think of the merits of recent events (Northeastern secessionism, race riots, the Midwest crisis, the Atlasian Civil War, etc), it is pretty clear that people have been enjoying themselves more than they were under the old status quo.  Marokai argued that what has happened since DemPGH's resignation (specifically the increase in non-legislative interactivity for all players under SoIA Cranberry) was fundamentally different from what Atlasia is.  That may or may not be true, but if it is and a large plurality/slim majority of Atlasians had more fun during the post-DemPGH period while only a very vocal minority preferred the old system, I don't think it is unreasonable to start discussing whether the game needs to undergo some significant structural changes so that it becomes more fun for as many of its players as possible.  I'm happy to try things like legislative reboots, restructuring the government, etc, but I suspect even those won't fix the game's deeper structural problems.  And then you have some who say all we need are minor mechanical adjustments, but I suspect the impact of such small tweaks will be so negligible as to render them akin to doing nothing.  But I digress...

k

Truth hurts  

More importantly, what's your alternative?  I don't feel I need to ask Duke this because while we may disagree on what the best way to reform the game is, I don't think anyone can accuse Duke of not having already laid out a pretty extensive concept for how to fix the game (bicameral federal legislature, consolidation IIRC, and probably more things I'm forgetting atm).  As I've said before, if you disagree with what I've called for that's fine, but then I'd like to hear what you'd suggest we do instead, particularly given that it is clear a large plurality/small majority of players prefer what's happened since DemPGH's resignation to the old status quo.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Only 23 votes as of this post, but so far the results suggest that those who have been complaining about how "awful" the events after DemPGH's resignation have been compared to the old status quo are simply a very vocal minority.  The current results suggest that, contrary to conventional wisdom, a large plurality/small majority of Atlasians have been having more fun during the events that occurred after DemPGH's resignation that they were under the old system  If nothing else, this proves considering the post-DemPGH events more fun than the old system is hardly the fringe position some have tried to portray it as being.  Food for thought!

This defeats the point of hiding the results, no?

It's also untrue. The majority of people in this poll voted an option other than "this last nonsense has been the most fun".

It was true when I made that post and option 2 still has nearly twice as many votes as "Atlasia was better when it was wounded animal begging to be put out of its misery."

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Also, I'm not trying to be antagonistic at all. I'm trying to understand what's going on..

I didn't take it as antagonistic   I guess my question for you would be this: who is to say that inserting race riots, economic crises, the occasional civil war or foreign invasion, etc into the game wouldn't make more people want to play and/or make it more fun for the greatest number of players?  What I had in mind was allowing players (and admittedly this would take some good-faith on everyone's part) to make up events and crises as we go and for the GM to incorporate them into a series of significantly more interactive story-lines whose outcomes depend upon how those involved (including elected officials) react (or fail to react in the case of the Midwest fiasco ).  I don't see what we have to lose from a month long trial period or something like that to see if it is sustainable in the long-term.