Aside from Griffin, Yankee, and Windjammer...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

...are there any active players who've been in Atlasia for over a year that are happy with the current state of Atlasia?  Someone joked that there didn't seem to be (I certainly can't think of any), but if it is indeed the case then we should really take a moment to reflect on that.  It seems pretty clear that only a tiny (albeit very loud and very verbose) minority of active players don't think that Atlasia should not continue to exist in it's current form.  This isn't even a controversial issue when you look at the numbers (especially once you remove zombies and people who haven't really been here long enough to get frustrated with the utter wasteland Atlasia has turned into).

[windjammer]

Well,
I guess I should give a more detailed opinion:
I don't want this game to dissolve. My opinion is that the major problem of this game is that there are too many "offices" for the number of players. That's why I would support replacing the 5 region system by a 3 region system.

[Blair]

Hey, I may of be here for only 7 months but I'm the 3rd longest serving senator

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Atlasia needs to die off, but the people doing it right now for their own glory isn't the answer. All it is is showing us how sh*tty the game can be for everyone. I've never been so disgusted with this game as I am right now.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Atlasia needs to die off, but the people doing it right now for their own glory isn't the answer. All it is is showing us how sh*tty the game can be for everyone. I've never been so disgusted with this game as I am right now.

No one is doing that though, Duke.

[Adam Griffin]

...so presumably my name is being dropped in the pursuit of political capital, or...?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Atlasia needs to die off, but the people doing it right now for their own glory isn't the answer. All it is is showing us how sh*tty the game can be for everyone. I've never been so disgusted with this game as I am right now.

No one is doing that though, Duke.

I think what happened with The Party is a pretty clear indication of people vying to be those who shape the future of this game and seek to gain the most from it. Instead of having a discussion with everyone, a new political party was formed by gutting another. It's a classic tactic, just not one I thought my "friends" would ever do to me.

And if that's how you all think this game will be saved, well, good luck with that.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

...so presumably my name is being dropped in the pursuit of political capital, or...?

Why would mentioning your name gain anyone political capital?  This attack doesn't even make sense on it's own terms (although I do like how even you aren't disputing the substance of the OP).

[Adam Griffin]

...so presumably my name is being dropped in the pursuit of political capital, or...?

Why would mentioning your name gain anyone political capital?  This attack doesn't even make sense on it's own terms (although I do like how even you aren't disputing the substance of the OP).

You're implying I'm against fixing the game. Putting me and certain others on one side of the equation is a rallying cry for some; a way to accrue political capital for a cause. I haven't weighed in because it's an absolute custerfluck and people have knee-jerked historically against what I say and do on matters like these. Also, including that bolded part admits what you were trying to do here (otherwise, it wouldn't be a concern of yours worth noting) - you're so bad at this!

[Blair]

Duke makes a good point-apart from some former laborites (who were out of office) this New Start Party is just the people's party isn't it?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

...so presumably my name is being dropped in the pursuit of political capital, or...?

Why would mentioning your name gain anyone political capital?  This attack doesn't even make sense on it's own terms (although I do like how even you aren't disputing the substance of the OP).

You're implying I'm against fixing the game.  Putting me and certain others on one side of the equation is a rallying cry for some; a way to accrue political capital for a cause. I haven't weighed in because it's an absolute custerfluck and people have knee-jerked historically against what I say and do on matters like these. Also, including that bolded part admits what you were trying to do here (otherwise, it wouldn't be a concern of yours worth noting) - you're so bad at this!

You are against fixing the game; I'm not implying anything.  Once again, regarding the bolded part, your attack doesn't even make sense.  So in your mind, pointing out that you didn't even bother to dispute the point I made means...err...what exactly?

[Adam Griffin]

...so presumably my name is being dropped in the pursuit of political capital, or...?

Why would mentioning your name gain anyone political capital?  This attack doesn't even make sense on it's own terms (although I do like how even you aren't disputing the substance of the OP).

You're implying I'm against fixing the game. Putting me and certain others on one side of the equation is a rallying cry for some; a way to accrue political capital for a cause. I haven't weighed in because it's an absolute custerfluck and people have knee-jerked historically against what I say and do on matters like these. Also, including that bolded part admits what you were trying to do here (otherwise, it wouldn't be a concern of yours worth noting) - you're so bad at this!

You are against fixing the game though.  Once again, regarding the bolded part, your attack/smear doesn't even make sense.  So in your mind, pointing out that you didn't even bother to dispute the point I made means...err...what exactly?

No, I'm not. I've been trying to fix it for years now, when many said it wasn't necessary and many others wanted to haggle over the most asinine of details. As far as I'm concerned, this recent dialogue is vindication! And again: you wouldn't have bothered to point out what I bolded (even if it's wrong, you thought you were making some clever point) if that's not what you were trying to paint by making this thread in the first place. You wanted to say "haha look, Griffin doesn't agree!". Fail. And it makes absolute sense.

Oh, and heads-up: the cool kids aren't going to like you any more for doing this.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

...so presumably my name is being dropped in the pursuit of political capital, or...?

Why would mentioning your name gain anyone political capital?  This attack doesn't even make sense on it's own terms (although I do like how even you aren't disputing the substance of the OP).

You're implying I'm against fixing the game. Putting me and certain others on one side of the equation is a rallying cry for some; a way to accrue political capital for a cause. I haven't weighed in because it's an absolute custerfluck and people have knee-jerked historically against what I say and do on matters like these. Also, including that bolded part admits what you were trying to do here (otherwise, it wouldn't be a concern of yours worth noting) - you're so bad at this!

You are against fixing the game though.  Once again, regarding the bolded part, your attack/smear doesn't even make sense.  So in your mind, pointing out that you didn't even bother to dispute the point I made means...err...what exactly?

No, I'm not. I've been trying to fix it for years now, when many said it wasn't necessary and many others wanted to haggle over the most asinine of details. As far as I'm concerned, this recent dialogue is vindication! And again: you wouldn't have bothered to point out what I bolded (even if it's wrong, you thought you were making some clever point) if that's not what you were trying to paint by making this thread in the first place. It makes absolute sense.

Oh, and heads-up: the cool kids aren't going to like you any more for doing this.

You're against doing what is necessary to fix it (dissolving the current game and starting some sort of new election sim).  Regarding the bolded part, you're clearly not going to enlighten the rest of the world as to whatever point you thought you were making, but whatever.

[windjammer]

...so presumably my name is being dropped in the pursuit of political capital, or...?

Why would mentioning your name gain anyone political capital?  This attack doesn't even make sense on it's own terms (although I do like how even you aren't disputing the substance of the OP).

You're implying I'm against fixing the game. Putting me and certain others on one side of the equation is a rallying cry for some; a way to accrue political capital for a cause. I haven't weighed in because it's an absolute custerfluck and people have knee-jerked historically against what I say and do on matters like these. Also, including that bolded part admits what you were trying to do here (otherwise, it wouldn't be a concern of yours worth noting) - you're so bad at this!

You are against fixing the game though.  Once again, regarding the bolded part, your attack/smear doesn't even make sense.  So in your mind, pointing out that you didn't even bother to dispute the point I made means...err...what exactly?

No, I'm not. I've been trying to fix it for years now, when many said it wasn't necessary and many others wanted to haggle over the most asinine of details. As far as I'm concerned, this recent dialogue is vindication! And again: you wouldn't have bothered to point out what I bolded (even if it's wrong, you thought you were making some clever point) if that's not what you were trying to paint by making this thread in the first place. It makes absolute sense.

Oh, and heads-up: the cool kids aren't going to like you any more for doing this.

You're against doing what is necessary to fix it (dissolving the current game and starting some sort of new election sim).  Regarding the bolded part, you're clearly not going to enlighten the rest of the world as to whatever point you thought you were making, but whatever.

Not that I want to be a part of this exchange.

I just want to point out though that you can change this game without being forced to abolish it.

[Adam Griffin]

...so presumably my name is being dropped in the pursuit of political capital, or...?

Why would mentioning your name gain anyone political capital?  This attack doesn't even make sense on it's own terms (although I do like how even you aren't disputing the substance of the OP).

You're implying I'm against fixing the game. Putting me and certain others on one side of the equation is a rallying cry for some; a way to accrue political capital for a cause. I haven't weighed in because it's an absolute custerfluck and people have knee-jerked historically against what I say and do on matters like these. Also, including that bolded part admits what you were trying to do here (otherwise, it wouldn't be a concern of yours worth noting) - you're so bad at this!

You are against fixing the game though.  Once again, regarding the bolded part, your attack/smear doesn't even make sense.  So in your mind, pointing out that you didn't even bother to dispute the point I made means...err...what exactly?

No, I'm not. I've been trying to fix it for years now, when many said it wasn't necessary and many others wanted to haggle over the most asinine of details. As far as I'm concerned, this recent dialogue is vindication! And again: you wouldn't have bothered to point out what I bolded (even if it's wrong, you thought you were making some clever point) if that's not what you were trying to paint by making this thread in the first place. It makes absolute sense.

Oh, and heads-up: the cool kids aren't going to like you any more for doing this.

You're against doing what is necessary to fix it (dissolving the current game and starting some sort of new election sim).  Regarding the bolded part, you're clearly not going to enlighten the rest of the world as to whatever point you thought you were making, but whatever.

Oh really? Or maybe I was just keeping my mouth shut because whenever I've advocated for reform, a whole cadre of people knee-jerk against it. Looks like I can't even RIP anymore without some cretin being proactive in name-dropping, though.

At any rate, my Atlasian pay grade is too high to be debating anything of substance with those who have no influence whatsoever over affecting it, so bye-bye!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

...so presumably my name is being dropped in the pursuit of political capital, or...?

Why would mentioning your name gain anyone political capital?  This attack doesn't even make sense on it's own terms (although I do like how even you aren't disputing the substance of the OP).

You're implying I'm against fixing the game. Putting me and certain others on one side of the equation is a rallying cry for some; a way to accrue political capital for a cause. I haven't weighed in because it's an absolute custerfluck and people have knee-jerked historically against what I say and do on matters like these. Also, including that bolded part admits what you were trying to do here (otherwise, it wouldn't be a concern of yours worth noting) - you're so bad at this!

You are against fixing the game though.  Once again, regarding the bolded part, your attack/smear doesn't even make sense.  So in your mind, pointing out that you didn't even bother to dispute the point I made means...err...what exactly?

No, I'm not. I've been trying to fix it for years now, when many said it wasn't necessary and many others wanted to haggle over the most asinine of details. As far as I'm concerned, this recent dialogue is vindication! And again: you wouldn't have bothered to point out what I bolded (even if it's wrong, you thought you were making some clever point) if that's not what you were trying to paint by making this thread in the first place. It makes absolute sense.

Oh, and heads-up: the cool kids aren't going to like you any more for doing this.

You're against doing what is necessary to fix it (dissolving the current game and starting some sort of new election sim).  Regarding the bolded part, you're clearly not going to enlighten the rest of the world as to whatever point you thought you were making, but whatever.

Oh really? Or maybe I was just keeping my mouth shut because whenever I've advocated for reform, a whole cadre of people knee-jerk against it. Looks like I can't even RIP anymore without some cretin being proactive in name-dropping, though.

At any rate, my Atlasian pay grade is too high to be debating anything of substance with those who have no influence whatsoever over affecting it, so bye-bye!

k

[DemPGH]

I mean, this is sensationalist. The point, whether there's a concon or not, is to reduce and consolidate the number of positions for fewer active and interested people. Threads like this lose sight of that. The focus needs to be on making adjustments to suit a less active group of people! This debate has been going on since I got here, and now it's at the breaking point.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

This place could sustain the number of offices it currently holds if it actually offered something interesting. Right now it's a glorified circle jerk that only welcomes the same tired wankers. The game is not accessible to new players because it has drifted so far from reality that it's not even worth playing. Add onto that the fact that we've already tackled the big issues, and it's no surprise people have lost interest.

We do not need to lower the bar. We need to cast it aside and use a completely new bar. Atlasia? What's that? We need a new country, a new system of government, a new process for electing officeholders, and a blank slate. Period. Consolidation will not solve anything. Because in two years we wouldn't have enough players for three-region Atlasia, either.

Drastic change.

Griffin won. And look where we are because of it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'd be happier if my IRL circumstances didn't mean I had to post from a lousy tablet.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There's a lot in this thread that I agree with... but a lot that I think is a little ill-informed and I hope doesn't cause irreparable harm to relationships going forward.

The systemic problems with this place started a lot longer ago than people here perhaps realise. Many of us, sure, in TPP and in other parties until recently, have seen these issues fester but without a clear solution as to how to address them. They should have been clear to others. 

When the focus in on amassing voters, quantity over (maybe) quality, over getting people to run and participate in the game (beyond voting) ... then this is kind of the end result.

I understand where people like AG, Yankee are coming from on this. I'm hardly known as a radical, usually, as TNF would put it, "liberal weenie" etc, but this is not new. One of the great strengths of the old TPP was it showed that a small but active and engaged party could participate and be major players. But, then we became just another party and focused on recruiting and voter management.

This isn't the fault of AG or Yankee or oakvale or Talleyrand or the lack of a type of GM or manners ... but all of us, absolutely myself included, have allowed this pretty obvious set of problems to fester for too long. I think a constitution convention will fail... I've seen it before, and frankly, we're still fixing the consequences of the last one. I don't know, with not that much longer left in my term we're I'm personally going to go on this. But I know superficial platitudes and half-measures will do nothing.

On another point, as someone who has been around way too long and should have left for good a long time ago... I saw first hand when some key members during early days in Atlasia were personally very vicious and aggressive towards me, both publicly and privately. Granted, I made mistakes and people were right to question me, but what offended me most, was the tone of ownership. They'd built "it" and they didn't want anyone who might damage it or change things. I worry I'm hearing the same tone from some now. No one owns this game, or any party, the time and effort you put into doesn't grant you special rights... it has to rise and if necessary, fall on its own merits and the strength of its purpose.

Yes, this is wordy... but f*** it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, no one owns this game and that is why no one has exclusive rights to destroy it.


Hagrid is right that consolidation alone will not fix this game and I think he is spot on about chasing a ever shrinking and dwindling pool of voters.

But it is hard for me to swallow that being turned around and used to push for a complete restart of the game being pushed for and advocated for by many of the same people who have pushed for consolidation and even outright abolition of the regions, using the same tactics, the same methods and same biases for over half a decade if not more. In that sense Duke is right also, about this being pushed for alterior motives. He mentioned glory, I am not sure if it is glory or not but it sure as hell is something. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I never recruited a single person in this game without the hope that they would someday run for office or become active generally. I have long been opposed to zombie voting, just as I opposed strategic registration. People say we focused too much on numbers and not enough on quality, I can tell you right now there was never my intent to create a Party of zombies. I hate the fact that so many of the Federalist Party inactive. And you are right in a sense that for too long the party relied too much on numbers and got lazy and that is why it fell so badly when a good number of its most popular people (Cris, Lumine, Duke, Hagrid) all hit the road. We are trying to fix that, but it doesn't happen over night. But we do need newer and active people, people like Leinad who will take risks and run for office and not be scared away by these old timers seeking to impose the apocalypse. Lets bring in new people and let them have their shot like you had yours.

It is also easier for centrists to build out from small parties. The DA won three At-Large Senate seats from just a 20 man party in April 2009. That is an extreme example, but that is the kind of appeal you can have. What about the Conservative or leftist? When they enter the game, they enter as a suspect until they prove themselve wtih the "it" crowd or become cool enough to pull a Keystone Phil and become President based off the support liberals who knew him from when the site practically began. What conservative is going to wait four years?

Rimjob supporters screamed until they were blue in the face at me and others in 2013 that this was just a game. And then many of them turn around and treat their Conservative opponents like enemies on a freaking battle field, who not only must be defeated they must be wiped out for all of time. Hyprocits, the lot of them.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yes, no one owns this game and that is why no one has exclusive rights to destroy it.


Hagrid is right that consolidation alone will not fix this game and I think he is spot on about chasing a ever shrinking and dwindling pool of voters.

But it is hard for me to swallow that being turned around and used to push for a complete restart of the game being pushed for and advocated for by many of the same people who have pushed for consolidation and even outright abolition of the regions, using the same tactics, the same methods and same biases for over half a decade if not more. In that sense Duke is right also, about this being pushed for alterior motives. He mentioned glory, I am not sure if it is glory or not but it sure as hell is something. 

I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but I don't really see any ulterior motives from those who have discussed the issue with me. I don't see what "glory" is gained from this.

Of course, no one has the right to unilaterally destroy it, and no one can do that. There are definitely those who are much stronger in pushing this change, but it's clear a real national discussion about this needs to happen. But not one stymied by process over real debate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

...are there any active players who've been in Atlasia for over a year that are happy with the current state of Atlasia?  Someone joked that there didn't seem to be (I certainly can't think of any), but if it is indeed the case then we should really take a moment to reflect on that.  It seems pretty clear that only a tiny (albeit very loud and very verbose) minority of active players don't think that Atlasia should not continue to exist in it's current form.  This isn't even a controversial issue when you look at the numbers (especially once you remove zombies and people who haven't really been here long enough to get frustrated with the utter wasteland Atlasia has turned into).

Who comes up with these notions and why do they not get challenged? Why do Liberals stop being liberals whenever it comes to questioning the latest canard spun by the IRC regulars and then crapped all over this game and bought religiously by their vast network.

I am by nature never satisfied. I am not Nero fiddling whilst Rome burns. I keep going because I have vision for what this game can be and it is certainly not the hellhole that many people have brought to being. I enjoy playing this game and I know I will enjoy it a hell of lot more with these problems addressed.

I disagree with your approach. Destroy first Rimjob 2.0, has all the reason and good sense of a fanatical cult of doomsday prophets trying to actively make their bonkers predicitions come true.

There is no way, no means by which to even do what you are trying to achieve as step one. And even if there was, there is no way anyone not swept away in this madness would not come away scratching their heads at the notion that we are going to destroy the game and then trust that it will be rebuilt when the same promise was made when they destroyed the Pacific left it lockedo ut of itself and the region from amending the Consitution. Breaking the federal Cosntitution is not going to break the game, it is only going to liberate the regions.

I like you Mr. X, I know you are discouraged. I know you are disatisfied, but these people and their crazy notions are not going to save you or this game. They will destroy it and leave it dead, they aren't even afraid to openly admit it now. This is the real trap.   

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

...are there any active players who've been in Atlasia for over a year that are happy with the current state of Atlasia?  Someone joked that there didn't seem to be (I certainly can't think of any), but if it is indeed the case then we should really take a moment to reflect on that.  It seems pretty clear that only a tiny (albeit very loud and very verbose) minority of active players don't think that Atlasia should not continue to exist in it's current form.  This isn't even a controversial issue when you look at the numbers (especially once you remove zombies and people who haven't really been here long enough to get frustrated with the utter wasteland Atlasia has turned into).

Who comes up with these notions and why do they not get challenged? Why do Liberals stop being liberals whenever it comes to questioning the latest canard spun by the IRC regulars and then crapped all over this game and bought religiously by their vast network.

I am by nature never satisfied. I am not Nero fiddling whilst Rome burns. I keep going because I have vision for what this game can be and it is certainly not the hellhole that many people have brought to being. I enjoy playing this game and I know I will enjoy it a hell of lot more with these problems addressed.

I disagree with your approach. Destroy first Rimjob 2.0, has all the reason and good sense of a fanatical cult of doomsday prophets trying to actively make their bonkers predicitions come true.

There is no way, no means by which to even do what you are trying to achieve as step one. And even if there was, there is no way anyone not swept away in this madness would not come away scratching their heads at the notion that we are going to destroy the game and then trust that it will be rebuilt when the same promise was made when they destroyed the Pacific left it lockedo ut of itself and the region from amending the Consitution. Breaking the federal Cosntitution is not going to break the game, it is only going to liberate the regions.

I like you Mr. X, I know you are discouraged. I know you are disatisfied, but these people and their crazy notions are not going to save you or this game. They will destroy it and leave it dead, they aren't even afraid to openly admit it now. This is the real trap.   

Um... why is this suddenly a political ideology thing?