ICP Poll: 57.7% supports the ConCon

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Poll will run for 2 days

[Marokai Backbeat]

My support goes without saying, but it should be repeated again and again that this effort's goal is a very measured and sensible approach to moving the game forward without turning the game on it's head.

A new ConCon, I think we can all agree, should be scaled back and something that seeks to change the system we have by working within it and making sensible changes in good faith, and anything else we can think of to simply make the game more fun and extend it's shelf life.

Consolidating the Constitution, making minor changes, rebooting our statute if at all possible. These things are, to me, the least we can do to move the game forward, and has always been PS and my goal. I hope people have that in mind with this poll, and that we can all work together this time, as opposed to breaking off into radicalist game reform factions or refusing to work with anyone. This is a genuine and good-faith effort to improve the game in any way possible, no matter how large or small, so I hope everyone treats it that way.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think I will poll this question as well. But later, too many polls up right now.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Seems like a good idea to me. The huge number of amendments makes the Constitution unwieldly & confusing for those unpracticed in the navigation of its seas. There are some other changes that would be interesting to consider, such as granting the President the power to pardon.

     I am not enthused by the idea of a legislative reboot, though. A large portion of what the Senate has passed deals with issues that there is a broad consensus on, such as legalizing marijuana or establishing civil unions for both heterosexual & homosexual couples or establishing free trade with the European Union. I could see a legislative reboot leading to a period of multiple Senates where the bulk of the time is spent merely slogging through bills that had been passed eons ago & for which there is little to no purpose to be served by further discussion.

[bgwah]

Not really. A convention isn't necessary to change the way we add amendments to the Wiki and I don't support a legislative reboot.

[Fritz]

Constitutional Convention: yes
Legislative re-boot: no

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Absolutely not.

[Franzl]

Constitutional Convention: yes
Legislative re-boot: no

[Marokai Backbeat]

Absolutely not.

You don't support constitutional consolidation and statute cleanup? We're talking simple stuff here, dude.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Absolutely not.

You don't support constitutional consolidation and statute cleanup? We're talking simple stuff here, dude.

We already toyed around with a consitutional convention a few presidencies ago. It was a disaster.

I'm not convinced that this one will be any more successful, nor that it is in any way desirable to begin with (just like the other one).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Absolutely not.

You don't support constitutional consolidation and statute cleanup? We're talking simple stuff here, dude.

We already toyed around with a consitutional convention a few presidencies ago. It was a disaster.

I'm not convinced that this one will be any more successful, nor that it is in any way desirable to begin with (just like the other one).

There was a reason for that. Do you know what it was?

I think the mere phrase Constitutional Convention has become toxic.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Absolutely not.

You don't support constitutional consolidation and statute cleanup? We're talking simple stuff here, dude.

We already toyed around with a consitutional convention a few presidencies ago. It was a disaster.

I'm not convinced that this one will be any more successful, nor that it is in any way desirable to begin with (just like the other one).

Do you listen to anything we say? I'm genuinely curious, because judging from what you're saying it's like you're hearing "ConCon" for the first time.

There are several key differences:

The last ConCon had no specific focus. Pretty much all the proposals were wild redesigns of the game, many of which I hated anyway, but all the proposals were seeking to find a completely different structure to the game, this one will not. The purpose of this ConCon, if we get it, is specifically for constitutional consolidation and only minor modification.

The last ConCon had little to no actual progress in writing new things. A few articles were written for proposals here and there, but this time, we actually have a draft.

The last ConCon involved way too many people. Almost all votes required a quorum, which we could never meet, because we loaded up the ConCon with a ridiculous number of delegates making running the thing and getting anything through it a logistical nightmare. With a pinch of luck, a new ConCon will have less people involved while still maintaining maximum outside imput from citizens.

We are not abolishing regions. We are not changing the game in any radical way. We have not drafted and will not draft an unrecognizable constitution. We will not have ~30 people involved in an official capacity. This is an effort to work within the system, cleaning up the foundation of the game so it is simpler and easier to acclimate to, and setting the stage for future battles that can make the game more interesting without working on the patchwork system we have now.

I think the mere phrase Constitutional Convention has become toxic.

Ugh, it's so true. People hear "Constitutional Convention" and automatically think "vast logistical nightmare composed of ~30 people trying to redesign the entire game that gets nothing done." What people fail to realize is how simple a ConCon really is, and how the structure of a ConCon is decided by the Senate each individual time.

[k-onmmunist]

I support it, but am concerned by the legislative reboot.

[Franzl]

Why would we want to reboot everything we've accomplished in Atlasia? Seems very disrespectful to all those that have played this game for a while.

Amend...that's fine, and reforms are necessary from time to time, but we're a country supposedly, and we can't just reboot our entire history.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Why would we want to reboot everything we've accomplished in Atlasia? Seems very disrespectful to all those that have played this game for a while.

Amend...that's fine, and reforms are necessary from time to time, but we're a country supposedly, and we can't just reboot our entire history.

I understand the hesitancy toward rebooting the statute, but seriously now, this is a forum game. It's our collective responsibility to change things up from time to time to keep the game interesting and more enjoyable to play. Let's not lose perspective.

[Franzl]

Why would we want to reboot everything we've accomplished in Atlasia? Seems very disrespectful to all those that have played this game for a while.

Amend...that's fine, and reforms are necessary from time to time, but we're a country supposedly, and we can't just reboot our entire history.

I understand the hesitancy toward rebooting the statute, but seriously now, this is a forum game. It's our collective responsibility to change things up from time to time to keep the game interesting and more enjoyable to play. Let's not lose perspective.

Then use the appropriate legislative process to amend existing statute. What is the Senate for if we're simply going to abolish everything it did in the last several years through a "reboot"?

This is a game, yes, but it's supposed to be a simulation of a government....and yes, a country. You can't simply "abolish" everything the legislature has done and start over.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm fine with a scaled back approach toward consolidating our statute. Real countries and states frequently clean-up old legislation. And as I said, I understand your concern completely.

[tmthforu94]

I'm starting to warm up to the idea, especially since I get the feeling that the incoming administration have a direct plan for the ConCon, meaning it won't be mass chaos like last time.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Supports: 15 (57.7%)
Oppose: 7 (26.9%)
Neutral: 4 (15.4%)

[Hash]

I'm starting to warm up to the idea, especially since I get the feeling that the incoming administration have a direct plan for the ConCon, meaning it won't be mass chaos like last time.

Why the hell is there a yellow dot here? wtf lol

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'm starting to warm up to the idea, especially since I get the feeling that the incoming administration have a direct plan for the ConCon, meaning it won't be mass chaos like last time.

Why the hell is there a yellow dot here? wtf lol

     He put it there himself after seeing it on Derek's post on the Atlas board.