The Convention for Agreement on Regional Consolidation in Atlasia - MAP SELECTED

[Ban my account ffs!]

I, Snowguy716, publicly support regional consolidation. I understand that regional consolidation requires compromise and collaboration. In the pursuit of progress and in the spirit of collaboration, I hereby join the Convention for Agreement on Regional Consolidation in Atlasia. I shall have the right to debate, to submit a map proposal for regional consolidation and to vote on all entries submitted during the submission period.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Atlasia must have three regions that make some sense IRL.  I place low importance on balancing population since everybody is just going to move around once a new map is adopted anyway to get in on their preferred region.

And having regions with balanced populations is less of a big deal in a 3-region map, since there are only 3 regional governments and we've pretty much always had at least 3 somewhat active regions in our 5-region setup.  I really doubt we're gonna see 80 people crowd into one region when each region has a limited number of positions available.

SO STOP WITH THE STUPID BALANCED POPULATIONS

AND STOP WITH THE WACKY MAPS THAT PUT STATES LIKE MINNESOTA IN THE SAME REGION AS FLORIDA.  That's gross.  We like our wetlands filled with spruce and moose, not dumb alligators and snakes and God knows how many other deadly, poisonous creatures.

The regions should have some cohesiveness and should make sense in real life.

So I would put the northern plains, upper midwest, Great Lakes, and NE together in one region, the southeast into another.. and then have an enormous western region where all the freaky deaky dutch can do their westy things like bitch about water and grow marijuana.

Mostly I think we should create a map that doesn't split up major metropolitan areas (like Minnesota and Wisconsin.. two of the most similar states of any two states in the country... separated because it somehow looks good on a map or BALANCES THE POPULATION (aww great here we go again)

So.. poo on you, poo on your maps, poo all over the sink handles and door knobs and in your dish washer... here's my map, which I present to you with utmost humility and good will.

No major metros split except Nyman (which is appropriate) and Cincinnati (sorry gais)

And yes, I know Texas is in the west.  To me, Texas belongs in the west more than in the southeast.  It's cattle ranching and oil... but obviously it could go to the SE just as easily.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I feel extremely strongly about this issue to the point that if we adopt a map that sticks my state in with the west, I probably will just stop playing the game.

I find it a bit offensive the way the north-central part of the country is split every which way in order to balance the population out while preserving a Northeast and Southeast region.

What will happen is you will have a western region dominated by California, Oregon, and Washington with a few people in Minnesota with hardly anyone in between.  Minnesota's interests have nothing in common with California or Hawaii... while there is some cultural continuity between Minnesota and the northeast because of the fact that Minnesota was settled from the east, rather than from the west like many western states.

So Minnesota would be drowned out and marginalized by being in a region dominated by the interests of west coast players.

At least if Minnesota and the Dakotas are in the east (since they are midwestern states), you would have two poles in the MW/NE region... one in the midwest comprised of the former mideast and midwest areas.. and the northeast.  But the economy and culture is more continuous this way.

The only thing worse than lumping Minnesota in with California is lumping it in with Florida.

There is an argument to be made for reducing the number of regions in order to counteract inactivity in the regions.  But there is no argument to pay attention to balancing population numbers... because people will be moving around a lot once the new map is adopted anyway, and there's just no feasible way we're gonna have an inactive region when there are only 3 of them.  Not unless we see a mass exodus from the game.

My map preserves cultural continuity.  It does not arbitrarily split up major metropolitan areas (Xahar's map splits up the Fargo/Moorhead, Omaha/Council Bluffs, and Kansas City metros which are all the largest metros in those plains states while the maps that lump MN into the west split up the Twin Cities by putting Wisconsin in the east).

I know most of you guys are from coastal areas and consider this area of the country flyover country... but I find it unfair that most are unwilling to split up the south or northeast or west while they slice and dice the north-central part of the country every which way.

Minnesota is, in fact, the central point of the region known as the "Upper Midwest" which includes Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and the Dakotas.  There is cultural continuity.. and by lumping some of these states intot he west, you marginalize them... which will pretty much destroy any interest I'd have in participating in regional politics.

So I would argue that unless we can adopt a map that takes these things into account, it would be better not to reduce the number of regions at all.  At least as it stands now, Minnesota isn't dominated by interests from the west coast states even if the midwest is known for inactivity.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I don't mean to imply that I would leave Atlas in a huff if I don't get my way.  I'm saying that adopting a map that lumps my state in with Florida or California pretty much negates the purpose of regions completely.  I would have no interest in participating in such a region, where water usage and earthquake or hurricane preparedness are a big deal... and likely I'd just kinda fade away and fall off the registration roles.

My preferences.

1.  Map 8
2.  Map 1 (though this will pretty much ruin any chances of the Dakotas being relevant to the game)
3.  Map 4
4.  Map 6
5.  Map 5
6.  Map 2/3
7.  Map 9
8.  Map 7

[Ban my account ffs!]

[8] Map 1
[4] Map 2/3
[7] Map 4
[5] Map 5
[6] Map 6
[2] Map 7
[9] Map 8
[3] Map 9

[Ban my account ffs!]

I would ask people to consider assigning high points to map 8, and if you don't like map 8, assign them to map 1.  I really believe Minnesota belongs in an eastern region rather than a southern or western one (and by extension, the Dakotas as well... but I can stomach the split being at the MN/ND border).

The regions should have some cultural continuity... so people who want to play the game from their IRL home state have more of a reason to do so.

Everyone is going to move around when we adopt the new map, so don't take current populations into account as much.

Remember:  NINE for map 8, and EIGHT for map 1!

[Ban my account ffs!]

There is nothing that says you cannot edit your vote.  If you want to edit it, please do so.  Don't ask Adam to edit your vote for you.  That will make it extremely confusing for him when tallying up the scores.

If you want to change your rankings, please do so ASAP by editing the post with your vote in it.