Shall we fix Atlasia?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Everyone place your ideas below.  Try to limit them to a few sentences apiece.  Also avoid the blaming game, complaining, or general whining.  

If we can get through this thread without doing those things, it will prove that Atlasia needs to be fixed.  If not, I think it becomes fairly obvious that it's not the game that's screwed up.  

1)  Atlasia needs a better mechanism to make real world events, as well as simulated events, more applicable to policy making in Atlasia... especially at the federal level.  The president's cabinet should have more authority in this while the GM "sums things up".

2)  The regions need to be reformed.  I've suggested throwing everyone's name into a hat and drawing names out randomly.  Elections to the regions' various legislative bodies would then occur.  Only once the bodies and offices were set up in each region would anyone be allowed to move.

3)  All federal senate seats should become at-large.  It would free people from moving to certain regions just to support a senate candidate.  Instead, all senators would be responsible to all participants in Atlasia.

4)  Registration requirements should be relaxed so new posters can join.  Over the next year, Atlas is going to have a lot of new registrants excited about the 2012 elections.  Let's try to recruit them and keep them around by making it easier for them to get involved.

5)  Every person should have a position in Atlasia.  There should be no "regular, voting citizens"... we're not a nation simulation game.. we are an election simulation game.  What is the point of joining if your prospects of holding an office of some kind are completely null?

[Napoleon]

Hmm I wouldn't support any of those...

Fix Atlasia you say? No more whining, in this thread or any other thread. That's all it takes.

[Cincinnatus]

1)  This is the most important issue you bring up IMO.  A better mechanism to create responses to legislation, ect is essential to the game.  I'm not sure how you want to involve the cabinet, but I'd certainly like to hear your opinions.  Of course, SOIA and GM have to start working together to respond to regional issues more often.

2)  This would be interesting, if everyone agreed to it.  I can't see the majority allowing this to happen, and I would be rather disappointed to leave the Northeast without first helping to get a new constitution and reform in the works.

3)  I like regional Senate seats, so this is an area where we have a difference.  

4)  I abstained from the last lowering registration amendment, on grounds that I wasn't here for the whole "troll" episode I heard so much about.  Of course, the game does need new citizens to step up, so lowering registration requirements might be necessary.

5)  How do you propose to give everyone an office?  I'm not sure I like the idea of everyone having an office, because some are taking a break, or campaigning for their first term.  I want citizens to become involved, but I don't think empty do-nothing offices is the way to go.    

[OAM]

Can I contribute too, even though I'm not officially a citizen?

2)  I looked at the map and I didn't like the regions at all, but maybe that's just because Illinois isn't in the Mid-West.

3)  I like the idea of regional seats too, but perhaps we could double the at large number.

4)  Bias here *snickers*

5)  Eh, I think some shouldn't have an office, otherwise what's the point of running if you're guaranteed to get a spot somewhere?

[Marokai Backbeat]

1. The problem is not the way the system works, the problem is finding the right people for the position and actually respecting their authority while they are there. The GM cannot "sum things up", nor can the Cabinet make events, if their authority is undermined by petty individuals who oppose them.

2. Or we could just have universalist regional legislatures like I've always believed is the best way to proceed. Elected regional bodies inevitably decay.

(If you reintroduced redistricting, that could be interesting, though.)

3. Regional Senate elections should be improved, not abolished. With your idea here in #3 along with #2 you would practically be making regions irrelevant.

4. Again? Jesus Christ, just get rid of them already. We already lowered them earlier in the year just a handful of months ago and it was you that was leading that charge then! It didn't magically solve any problems then, why the hell would it now?

At the time I was screaming up and down in the Senate "This isn't going to do anything, the problem isn't getting new recruits, it's keeping the game interesting enough to have peoples' attention" which has continued to be glaringly obvious ever since you passed them and absolutely nothing different happened. We haven't seen any rise in the consistent recruiting that was already going on before the requirements were lowered, and the game hasn't been any better. (It's arguably in worse condition than it was before.) So why should be again pursue a policy that has been empirically ineffective in it's goals?

What I'm really sick and tired of, however..

We're not going to see a bunch more people hopping on board from that sort of minor (very minor) change, and if this isn't actually going to have an impact, I don't understand why we would waste our time doing it. What's the point of doing something that isn't really going to matter? All this does is end up in a bullet-point list on someone's election resume that allows them to say "I pushed for lower registration requirements because I newbies! Vote me!". This isn't a serious approach to any sort of problem.

..is this issue constantly being used as a political football, which is another thing I was arguing. It's plainly gross that this keeps coming up in campaigns. Just abolish registration requirements if all people are going to do is keep campaigning on whittling them away one Amendment after another. You're certainly not going to get the desired effect of new recruits unless you get rid of them altogether anyway.

5. And what's the point of an election simulation where everyone walks away a winner? The only way of doing this that doesn't completely eviscerate the balance Atlasia has between elections and government is to make regional legislatures universal. Two of them already are, and don't have very high activity in them anyway, and you can't force people to be active unless you start cracking down with those evil registration and membership requirements you want to keep cutting in perpetuity like a Republican with taxes.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

1. Atlasia has always been a game of elections. Policy usually takes a back seat, for better or for worse. The GM position has always been a tough one to fill because a lot of their work goes unappreciated by most people. Are you saying you want the president's cabinet to create world events? I'm not exactly sure I am following you here.

2. OK. That may make things interesting at first, but how would we keep it up? Have a continual shuffle? I suppose we have a more traditional approach now. Some regions have big names and popular figures and others don't. I guess if we go by your plan, we sort of lose that. It would shake things up, but not for long.

3. I think the regions need to be given more power over their senator. The compromise we have now works. I think if we implement this change, your #5 would become even more impossible because the regions would play even a lesser role in the game. We need to be increasing their participation, because if you do want to accomplish #5, which doesn't make sense to me because it defeats the entire reason we play this game, elections, taking more control from the regions sort of works against this.

4. I never thought the requirements really drove anyone away from the game. I expect getting rid of them would not have much of an effect anymore. I'm neutral on this issue.

5. I don't particularly think this is a good idea or does it make any sense. Either your proposal means we cut back the citizenry by a large number, or we make up a lot of meaningless positions. If we cut back on the citizenry, it would not mesh with your proposal in #4.

Some of these ideas do have merit, but not all in tandem.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

So long as people think it's okay to be rude, Atlasia will never be fixed.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So long as people think it's okay to be rude, Atlasia will never be fixed.

I would also like to echo this. We have a significant culture problem in this game. There's a particular nasty shallow streak running through some people at the moment and I don't like what it does to the game. I was hoping we had eliminated it when the Populares disintegrated, but it seems to be resurfacing lately. It's not hard for us to be a tad more serious, respectful, and genuine. If we each actually believe we're right, we have nothing to fear from that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1. No matter how far you spread it out and how many cooks you bring in on making the broth, you can't change how it is received by people. If the game is to be interesting, then the GM or whoever else you bring into the act, has/have to be able to create vibrant, dynamic and engaging stories that are somewhat realistic, but not so tightly bound to anyone's preconcieved notions as to make it boring. This holds the key to effective game moderation structure.

Napoleon may have the right idea on this. "Stop whining" may not solve every problem regarding this issue of game moderation, but it is where we need to start.

2. All five regions need reforms, because Atlasia as a whole is in trouble. Randomized compulsory region reassignments, placing people in places they don't want to be, is hardly going to solve any problems. It will likely just drive more to leave.

3. I have already commented on my opinion of this alleged unfairness based on the number of constituents. The reason for this is we are trying to do with one house, what would be done with two in a perfect world, but obviously can't be done here because of logistics. It is not a cause of any major problem facing Atlasia, as there is no differential regarding the existance of competativeness issues. Both have issues, and both get worse when Atlasia as whole does badly. There isn't that much randomization in At-Large seats, as results of three and sometimes even four of the seats are known going into the election. Making them all At-Large would only seve to remove the issues caused by one, by ignoring the problems of the other. That doesn't sound like a legitimate reason to trash checks and balances between the representatives of regional interests and the representatives of the people as whole in the Atlasian Senate. 

4. What sane person would join this game, if they knew everything about it going in? Recruitment is essentially the suckering of newbies and selling them a bill of goods about this game being fun. It isn't fun anymore, because there is too much abrasiveness, bitterness, and vindictiveness. It doesn't matter who is doing it, what matters is that it is occuring and it only serves to drive people away. There are people in this game in all the parties who need to change their tactics. You can't legislate that. The only solution is for those who can to step up, stop enabling it, and say "No mas, por favor". You can't grind your opposition into dust, and you can't whine and complain what you don't like away.   

We do need to find some people, but bringing in more people in this condition, is like trying to bail out the Titanic. Atleast Atlasia's holes aren't quite that terminal, yet.

5. Nice goal, but your solution does the exact opposite of that. You can't have an election sim and at the same time have everyone holding an office. That is the exact process by which to turn this into a government simulation only. You need both governing and you need elections.

I am reminded of the complaints that Libertas used to lodge at the RPP, that advancement was impossible for anyone recently recruited. The response to this is the same as it was to him back then. Advancement and opportunity is available for those who are driven internally to seek success. Not only are there a billion examples of this, but the most extreme example is well known to anyone from 2009 and before, Hamilton. If Atlasia, was closed off to all new talent, there is no way he could have gone from nothing to a driving force that was taking the game in a bad direction, in just two or three months. He never got elected to a prominent office, yet his actions reshaped both the politics and tenor of this game for well over a year after his ban. Atlasia's problem isn't that too few are winning, it is that too few even bother to try for a variety of reasons.




Sorry for pushing the limits on the length requirement.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I appreciate all the responses.  I didn't mean it to be a thread where I propose changes and you guys all critique them, though

I meant for you to throw in your own ideas as well.

I've gotten a lot of "your ideas won't work because"... but not a lot of "so here's what I propose instead" which is obviously what we need MORE OF.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't mean to sound hostile in saying this, but I don't get how you can think there hasn't been a ton of brainstorming already. The reform committee alone proposed about three different things for every singled-out subject. You disliked almost everything proposed, as did most of your party's Senators. Hell, people have been proposing random things for over a year on a regular basis. At some point we kind of run out of ideas if they're shot down repeatedly.

I like to consider myself a pretty creative person, especially in the realm of coming up with new game reform ideas. But if everything on that list is off the table we've kind of run out of options barring a massive overhaul that will never actually pass.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well perhaps I can summarize what my proposal was for the GM in that Opus.


1. Find a bold, aggressive, energetic, intelligent and imaginative nut case, and  make them GM.
2. Give a free hand, pay attention to what he says, and don't ignore it because you don't like it.
3. Respond to the events and energetically advocate for solutions to the problems presented in them.
4. Don't treat people like garbage or write them off, because it doesn't follow the playbook handed down by the RL political movements on either side.


If he creates a war, we will be at war. Don't like it, start a peace movement in San Francisco. That is the idea of a Game Moderator.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'll be honest.  I didn't like most of your proposals, Marokai.  It had nothing to do with any bad blood between us.  I just don't like them and I don't think they would make the game better.

I made my own set of proposals and you treated it as if I was just mocking you.

There are some good proposals:  Getting the VP a cabinet position... getting the senate to consolidate legislation... getting rid of regional senators and making all seats at-large. 

In regards to my last point in my original post:  I shouldn't have said it like that.  What I meant is that each person should have some kind of involvement other than just being "a voter".. even if it means being party chair or party secretary or head of a fraternal organization that lobbies for certain causes.

We have some grassroots stuff like that that pops up and fizzles out... but I wouldn't mind seeing "special interests" in the game.. it would make it more interesting.  Especially if it's a special interest you're not interested in in real life.  It also could be tied in with the caucus system you proposed.  None of that will require approval... but it will require action by people.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Well perhaps I can summarize what my proposal was for the GM in that Opus.


1. Find a bold, aggressive, energetic, intelligent and imaginative nut case, and  make them GM.
2. Give a free hand, pay attention to what he says, and don't ignore it because you don't like it.
3. Respond to the events and energetically advocate for solutions to the problems presented in them.
4. Don't treat people like garbage or write them off, because it doesn't follow the playbook handed down by the RL political movements on either side.


If he creates a war, we will be at war. Don't like it, start a peace movement in San Francisco. That is the idea of a Game Moderator.

Marokai is aggressive, energetic, intelligent, and imaginative, and a nut case... and he was a good GM. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well perhaps I can summarize what my proposal was for the GM in that Opus.


1. Find a bold, aggressive, energetic, intelligent and imaginative nut case, and  make them GM.
2. Give a free hand, pay attention to what he says, and don't ignore it because you don't like it.
3. Respond to the events and energetically advocate for solutions to the problems presented in them.
4. Don't treat people like garbage or write them off, because it doesn't follow the playbook handed down by the RL political movements on either side.


If he creates a war, we will be at war. Don't like it, start a peace movement in San Francisco. That is the idea of a Game Moderator.

Marokai is aggressive, energetic, intelligent, and imaginative, and a nut case... and he was a good GM. 

Which is the point. We never got all four of the above. Only 1 at a time. Hence why we haven't gotten results.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

So long as people think it's okay to be rude, Atlasia will never be fixed.

I would also like to echo this. We have a significant culture problem in this game. There's a particular nasty shallow streak running through some people at the moment and I don't like what it does to the game. I was hoping we had eliminated it when the Populares disintegrated, but it seems to be resurfacing lately. It's not hard for us to be a tad more serious, respectful, and genuine. If we each actually believe we're right, we have nothing to fear from that.

It's not just from the right, or, just from the left.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     People are too entrenched on game reform for anything substantial to ever gain support. I cannot really claim to be an agent of game reform given my past in Atlasia, but I've seen enough game reform efforts to know that they all flounder in the end. If Atlasia will be fixed, it will be because of an influx of new members next year rather than any laws that might be passed.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

i. Involve more people in creating game events. Not just the GM and/or SOIA/SOEA.  There are a lot of laws passed that don't get responded to. People have different interest, different knowledge of things going on in their region, etc. and so it makes sense to allow more than a couple people to come up with ideas about what impact enacted laws will have, or what events are important in the various regions.  I haven't figured out exactly how this could be done, but I think it's worth exploring.  Maybe it could include allowing every citizen to have a town/city where they can decide/report on how the issues in Atlasia are effecting people's lives there.

ii. Encourage referendums at both the regional and national level. Encourage petitions, including constitutional amendments that are then voted on by the Senate if they have sufficient support, not just leaving it up to the Senate to develop these.

[Marokai Backbeat]

ii. Encourage referendums at both the regional and national level. Encourage petitions, including constitutional amendments that are then voted on by the Senate if they have sufficient support, not just leaving it up to the Senate to develop these.

Complete agreement with this, Shua. One thing I wanted to do if I had gotten elected in June was to introduce a formal procedure for some sort of "citizen legislating" that would then pass on their petitioned ideas to the Senate.

Empowering citizen-legislating by creating regional or national petition drives for legislation crafted by the citizens themselves when they believe the Senate has gone awry.

When given the time to brainstorm, one could think of many ways to improve the game by spicing up regions or making improvements through regions.

Unfortunately the citizens of the NE decided the other way, I guess.

[Napoleon]

Uh I've actually done just that in the Constitution I authored so...grow up.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Uh I've actually done just that in the Constitution I authored so...grow up.

I was kidding around. If there's consensus on that idea, let's go for it. Any change we can get is good.

[Napoleon]

Uh I've actually done just that in the Constitution I authored so...grow up.

I was kidding around. If there's consensus on that idea, let's go for it. Any change we can get is good.

I think petitioning at the national level could be used to pressure the Senate but I don't want to make it formal. I'd be open to having referenda however. At the regional level these will be more interesting I think. The Senate tends to work pretty well as is IMO.

[Marokai Backbeat]

There's nothing really special doing them on the regional level that isn't already or hasn't already been done. The Midwest and Pacific have universalist legislatures, so any bill in those two regions are already de-facto referenda, and the Southeast had regular voter initiatives awhile back (before you joined Atlasia) that were interesting, but were more often than not fraught with legal issues more than anything else.

At least citizen-legislating on the national level we've never tried before (to my knowledge) and could be worth a shot, especially if it was formalized IMO. No harm in trying it.

We could try national referenda formalized on a two-month schedule, staggered in between federal election months. November, January, March, May, etc. Require, say, 15 signatures on something to get it in a group of initiatives that will all be voted on in one voting booth on that two month schedule. Should obviously place some restrictions on that, limiting the ability for referenda to tinker with the national finances too much or anything, but it could be a fun addition to have in the humdrum months.

[Napoleon]

Your party should boot you for treason.

Seriously, having that would completely marginalize the right.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Your party should boot you for treason.

Seriously, having that would completely marginalize the right.

Are you finally admitting your party has a structural advantage?