|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 07, 2020, 06:16:38 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  The Convention for Agreement on Regional Consolidation in Atlasia (Voting)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print
Author Topic: The Convention for Agreement on Regional Consolidation in Atlasia (Voting)  (Read 5721 times)
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,031
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: August 10, 2015, 04:28:08 pm »

Adam, why are you so opposed to have regions that are more balanced honestly?

Logged
Biden/Abrams Voter
Adam Griffin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,631
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: August 10, 2015, 04:39:51 pm »

Adam, why are you so opposed to have regions that are more balanced honestly?

I'm not "opposed" to it (you sound like a certain pro-Israel poster who responds with non-sequiturs!); the term "balanced" is subjective and multiple, and the definition used to achieve that is often shoddy. There are loose tendencies in terms of regional population trends, not absolutes. I think it's a bad idea to try to pin it to such an individual metric inherently because you'll end up creating national maps where the trend is only strong in select areas.

Practically any map created will have the western region with the fewest people in it based on your definition of "balance" (unless you put CA & HI in the same region as MS or IL). Practically any map created on the population of today will be flawed because a disproportionate number of people from select regions have de-registered. Practically any map created based on real-life population will be flawed based on that balance not existing in-game. Creating a map that very loosely takes those items into consideration should be done, with the remainder of balance being sorted out by parties, movements, power-players, candidates who want to be elected and international recruits.

To use one simple example I know you'll understand: imagine three regions. After a few months due to movements (which you also inevitably have to allow when redrawing the maps the first time), one region is solidly leftist, one is solidly conservative, and one is a swing region. Both hemisphere inevitably get into a heated contest like Hagrid and I did in the South (which took it from the smallest region to the second largest at one point), pouring members from their strongholds into the region. Before you know it, the swing region has many more people than the other two regions from a war of attrition. The point is that there is no guarantee for "balance" - you analyze as many elements as possible, consider them, and them remind yourself that the game will sooner or later piss all over the concept of any balance. I think in a three-region system, this is much more likely, since there will inevitably only be one competitive region and one region solidly held by each faction sooner or later.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,031
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: August 10, 2015, 04:54:24 pm »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
If you want to play this game:
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

1-1

------------------------
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Adam,
I do not believe my map is perfect or whatever, but when you have a region that is so big and an another region that is so small, this is a huge problem.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The problem Adam is that the size of regions didn't really change a lot for a while: the ME and the NE have been for a while the 2 biggest regions of this game. Indeed, a region can become extremely big because of registration tactics. But it doesn't justify the fact that the size of regions shouldn't matter. For example, I invaded last year and it was already the biggest region, and it became an even more bigger problem for the size. Any region can be invaded and we don't know *which* region. For instance,y ou invaded the south that was conservative at hell 2 years ago. So why not trying to have *relatively* equal regions in order to make sure that the partisan registrations tactics do not change the dynamic too much?
Logged
Biden/Abrams Voter
Adam Griffin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,631
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: August 10, 2015, 05:57:24 pm »

Instead of comparing your convention participants to psychopaths and attacking everyone's ideas as soon as they are presented, maybe you should relax, take a chill pill, and let everyone get their ideas out and discuss them with one another before proceeding. That's what this convention is supposed to provide. I'm sure we all thought we were signing up for the "Convention for Agreement on Regional Consolidation in Atlasia" and not the "Have Jambles Harangue Us Immediately and Constantly Until/Unless We Agree with Him".

The problem Adam is that the size of regions didn't really change a lot for a while

The sizes of identical areas/states compared over time did change. We're not keeping entire regions whole. Compare these two maps (which are nearly identical in boundaries) over two years to see how the population changed considerably relative to the national population.



It's the same one that I had posted a few weeks ago. Keeps 4/5 regions wholly intact and is roughly equal in population (57 South, 57 Northeast, 55 West). Oceania to Pacific, Puerto Rico to South).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though not relevant, the regions' populations changed quite a bit in relation to one another, considering we have roughly the same number of people as we did two years ago:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Adjusting the populations in the 2013 map above to account for differences in boundaries and under a stable population scenario, the red region would have right now about 45 people, the green region around 45, and the blue region a little over 60. Perfectly acceptable, aesthetically pleasing, culturally reasonable, keeps 4/5 regions largely intact, etc.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,031
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: August 10, 2015, 06:01:37 pm »

Lmao I love you, your sensitivity is so funny, and I'm being sincere. Tongue
 
Logged
pikachu
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: August 10, 2015, 09:46:02 pm »

While I peronally support a more aesticslly pleasing plan (like windjammer's or Truman), I do think that this idea has geographic contiguity while have somewhat more equitable regions:

Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,999


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: August 11, 2015, 05:16:36 pm »

While I peronally support a more aesticslly pleasing plan (like windjammer's or Truman), I do think that this idea has geographic contiguity while have somewhat more equitable regions:



I would recommend putting WV in the red Region: it makes for a cleaner border.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,031
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: August 11, 2015, 05:25:01 pm »

Well guys, I guess we need "schedules" Tongue. So people have until the end of the week to submit the maps. Then we will proceed to a debate.
Logged
rpryor03
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,668
Bahamas


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: August 11, 2015, 05:40:35 pm »



Three regions, all around 48 in population. PR is in the green region. Each region, instead of being named after a geographic location, is named after an Atlasian icon from each region.

Red: Harry
Blue: Gustaf
Green: YoungRepub
Logged
pikachu
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: August 17, 2015, 11:57:01 pm »

Well guys, I guess we need "schedules" Tongue. So people have until the end of the week to submit the maps. Then we will proceed to a debate.

So, we move onto debate now?
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,031
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: August 22, 2015, 11:56:50 am »

Right, Here all the maps proposed:
Kalwejt:
Map 1


Harry S Truman
Map 2

PLAINS   17+OC       DIXIE   15+PR       GREAT LAKES   18+DC

Map 3


Windjammer:
Map 4


vivaportugalhabs:
Map 5



Adam Griffin:
Map 6
[/center]


Pikachu:
Map 7


Rpryor:
Map 8



I hope I didn't forget any map. I will contact the sponsors so they will be able to advocate for their map.
Logged
VPH
vivaportugalhabs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,481
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: August 22, 2015, 06:19:11 pm »

I support my map because I believe 3 regions is too few. First of all, 4 is better than the status quo and provides for more newcomer/player choice. Also, it preserves regional identities and longtime traditions. I feel that it's important to maintain the political cultures of the regions in general and also the laws and ways of working that have been established. I feel that 4 is a good starting point from which we can further evaluate the situation.
Logged
Leinad
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,843
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: August 23, 2015, 01:03:37 am »

I'd like 2, 4, or 6. Or simply just merging the Midwest and Pacific into a West region.
Logged
pikachu
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: August 23, 2015, 01:47:13 am »

Tbh, I'm not particularly attached to my map, but it has population balance (which is something that people were worried about), is aestically pleasing, has three regions, and makes some sense culturally and geographically. Also, it dramatically changes each region.

Ftr, my favorite maps are 2, 4, and 6.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,999


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: August 23, 2015, 05:42:25 pm »

Maps 2 and 6 are virtually identical and have the advantage of being grounded in real life cultural and geographical trends. Maps 3 and 4, meanwhile, are slightly less appealing from an aesthetics standpoint, but more evenly balance the Atlasian population. I would strongly suggest that the convention reject the maps that put states like Maine and Minnesota in the same Region as Florida and Texas.

Ultimately, I think Griffin is right in saying that the populations of the three Regions will balance out over time. If each Region only has 5-6 offices (1 Governor, 3 Legislators, a CJO and possibly a Lt. Governor), it doesn't make sense that 60-70 people will crowd into one Region if there is an opportunity to get elected somewhere else. We've seen this happen recently in the Pacific, with citizens from other Regions (Lumine, Classic Conservative) relocating to take advantage of vacant offices there.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,031
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: August 24, 2015, 04:35:08 pm »

People have until the end of this week to defend their preferred map.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,031
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: August 28, 2015, 03:53:40 pm »

BUMP.
(Just to let this thread on the first page)
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,763
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: August 28, 2015, 04:35:00 pm »

I endorse maps 2, 4, and 6.
Logged
Leinad
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,843
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: August 29, 2015, 12:53:07 am »

Everyone seems to like 2, 4, and 6.

Let me break that down a little bit here:

Each map has three (3) regions. Basically: west, north/northeast, and south/southeast.

States which are in each region in all 3 maps:

West: Current Pacific, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.

North: Current Northeast (minus Delaware), Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan.

South: Current South, Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and West Virginia.

Now, as far as substantive differences are concerned, these 3 maps have different fates for Minnesota-Iowa (grouped together) and Maryland-Delaware-DC (also grouped together).

Map 2: MN-IA and MD-DE-DC both in the North.

Map 4: MN-IA in the West and MD-DE-DC in the South.

Map 6: MN-IA in the North and MD-DE-DC in the South.

Honestly, I'd go with an alternate that has the other combo: MN-IA in the West and MD-DE-DC in the North. Why would we move Delaware, currently in the Northeast, to the South? And if we put MN-IA in the West instead of the North, it keeps the entire Midwest region intact except Oklahoma--although merged with the Pacific.

When making these maps, it's important to consider the current borders and not change things too drastically. I understand the cries for radical change, and I often agree with those cries, but when drastic change works, it's when it's objectively better than before. Sending the new regions into chaos because of a map that slices old regions with no regard to past boundaries will not help anything.

Something like this would work, I think:

The Leinad Plan:



An alternate would be to move Oklahoma to the west, which would thus make it where the Mideast is the only region not staying in tact, although even then it will retain most of it's core. Even without that, this map makes sense, and is only very slightly different to the 3 consensus maps.

To me, this is the best of both worlds of map 2 and map 4. I suppose it's rather late, but again, it's only slightly different to some maps already proposed.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,763
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: August 29, 2015, 11:31:51 am »

I endorse that, too.
Logged
Biden/Abrams Voter
Adam Griffin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,631
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: August 30, 2015, 02:26:03 am »

The justification for my submission (#6) is simple yet multi-faceted. You can find a more detailed explanation at the end of the second page and the beginning of the third page of this thread, but here's why in essence:

  • It is culturally/geographically as sound as a map can be with three regions
  • While the western region will continue to remain the smallest, a more competitive regional climate will lead to more equalization in population across regions over time
  • This map is the winner of the first CARCA, being the most-preferred crowdsourced map based on the input/votes of ~20 individuals
Logged
Leinad
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,843
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: August 30, 2015, 03:25:54 am »

I like your map, but have doubts (which I expressed with the creation of my way-after-deadline map)--why would we move Minnesota, Iowa, Delaware, and to an extent Maryland and DC to different regions? You addressed that the West would have less people, so why can't we simply keep Minnesota and Iowa out there, maybe Oklahoma as well? And Delaware, which is currently in the Northeast, being moved to the South of all places seems a bit odd to me as well--culturally I'd say MD, DC, and DE fit in with the Northeastern states more so than states like Alabama or Texas.

Those 5 states are the only substantive differences between maps 2, 4, 6, and mine. We should try to provide logical reasons to put each state in a region--if we do that the decision will be easy, whatever that ends up being.
Logged
Biden/Abrams Voter
Adam Griffin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,631
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: August 30, 2015, 03:46:39 am »

You addressed that the West would have less people, so why can't we simply keep Minnesota and Iowa out there, maybe Oklahoma as well?

Some people explicitly and proactively protested including MN & IA with the western region last time, which led to the map I've posted being the overall winner in the 2013 CARCA.

And Delaware, which is currently in the Northeast, being moved to the South of all places seems a bit odd to me as well--culturally I'd say MD, DC, and DE fit in with the Northeastern states more so than states like Alabama or Texas.

Mason-Dixon line simplicity. In addition, even though I believe populations will even out more than may be obvious right now, adding more territory to the South is needed to prevent the Northeastern region from truly being overpopulated.
Logged
Leinad
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,843
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: September 01, 2015, 05:13:59 am »
« Edited: September 01, 2015, 06:00:39 am by Governor Leinad »

I'm still not convinced, but those are fairly solid reasons why your map makes sense.

I'd like any of those 4 maps I discussed (2, 4, 6, and my own one that's unnumbered because it's not technically a map since I submitted it several days after the deadline). They all seem fairly sensible; they reduce the number of offices (thus increasing competition) but still have some basic recognition of the old borders.
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,031
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: September 01, 2015, 09:31:19 am »

Kalwejt:
Map 1


Harry S Truman
Map 2

PLAINS   17+OC       DIXIE   15+PR       GREAT LAKES   18+DC

Map 3


Windjammer:
Map 4


vivaportugalhabs:
Map 5



Adam Griffin:
Map 6
[/center]


Pikachu:
Map 7


Rpryor:
Map 8



I hope I didn't forget any map. I will contact the sponsors so they will be able to advocate for their map.

Leinad
Map 9

[/quote]


CARCA ENDORSEMENT BALLOT:

PLEASE READ: The method of this vote is score voting (0-9), not PR-STV. Please rank each map based on your preference, with 0 being the least favorable and 9 being the most favorable. Multiple maps can be assigned the same number, unlike PR-STV.

Voting will commence immediately and will last for 168 hours, or until all 17 CARCA convention members at the time of the opening of this voting booth have voted. The map with the highest overall score at the end of the vote will automatically be endorsed as the selected map of this convention.

[   ] Map 1
[   ] Map 2
[   ] Map 3
[   ] Map 4
[   ] Map 5
[   ] Map 6
[   ] Map 7
[   ] Map 8
[   ] Map 9
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines