The Independent

[Purple State]

While I like and respect Fritz, and his Presidency, I just wanted to note for the record I've always opposed off-site recruiting. If you are so opposed to off-site recruiting, you wouldn't have done it in the past, and you would've turned Fritz down. You're clearly not so opposed, as it's benefitted you almost every time.

I oppose off-site recruiting because members who are recruited off-site are often looked down upon, and aren't given much of a chance. If members of Atlasia as a whole began to accept off-site recruiting and had a more favorable opinion of it, I'd support it in a heart beat. This isn't about what I specifically want. It's about what I think is best for the game, and right now, I don't think off-site recruitment would be good for the game.

So you support off-site recruiting, but disagree with how those members are treated. Just say that.

The way you phrased it in your answer is the equivalent of someone saying, "Well, I oppose voting rights for women, but only because people don't think women are smart. But if everyone started liking women I would support giving them voting rights." At the end of the day, just stand up for what you think is right, rather than equivocating on your beliefs. Sure, people will disagree with you, but it's better than looking like a silly panderer.

[Purple State]

While I like and respect Fritz, and his Presidency, I just wanted to note for the record I've always opposed off-site recruiting. If you are so opposed to off-site recruiting, you wouldn't have done it in the past, and you would've turned Fritz down. You're clearly not so opposed, as it's benefitted you almost every time.

I oppose off-site recruiting because members who are recruited off-site are often looked down upon, and aren't given much of a chance. If members of Atlasia as a whole began to accept off-site recruiting and had a more favorable opinion of it, I'd support it in a heart beat. This isn't about what I specifically want. It's about what I think is best for the game, and right now, I don't think off-site recruitment would be good for the game.

So you support off-site recruiting, but disagree with how those members are treated. Just say that.

The way you phrased it in your answer is the equivalent of someone saying, "Well, I oppose voting rights for women, but only because people don't think women are smart. But if everyone started liking women I would support giving them voting rights." At the end of the day, just stand up for what you think is right, rather than equivocating on your beliefs. Sure, people will disagree with you, but it's better than looking like a silly panderer.

There's no pandering being done. I think off-site recruitment could increase activity, but won't actively support it until a majority agrees, because unless people agree, those who joins won't be given a chance.  

I guess the point I really want to make is that you can either lead by example or be led by the example of others.

If you had said you strongly believe in off-site recruitment and will work hard to convince people of its merits, I could respect that, even if I disagree. That is leading by example. That is starting a real discussion to move the ball forward. Instead, you're just saying that the status quo environment isn't good for off-site recruitment so you won't do it. If I had your attitude when Marokai and I proposed a new Constitution, it never would have gotten off the ground.

EDIT: Just as an example, you yourself came around to the idea of a Constitutional Convention only after we pressed the issue and made our case to the public. The only reason we got it done was because we engaged people in the discussion, rather than simply accepting the status quo.