February 2018 Vice Presidential Cage Fight! (Debate)

[Adam Griffin]

I'm grateful for the opportunity to have this forum; it hasn't always been something available to Vice Presidential candidates in the past.

I'll cut to the chase: I'm running because I believe that after almost 2 years of unilateral executive control by one faction and one party, a majority of people would like to see a change in this game. It may or may not be exactly what my ticket or the ticket of Pericles and Wells is offering, but choices in elections are never perfect.

My goal, if elected, is to be a competent administrator representing a broader administration of change in Atlasia. For those who may not know me, I've done about everything there is to do in this game over the years. My presence on this ticket isn't to enhance my ego, cement a legacy or otherwise advance a career.

I realize there are some (including some who don't know me) for whom various aspects of my highly-successful past career are sticking points. Allow me to reassure those individuals: I'm not here to build a party or ideology, influence the game to my benefit or otherwise revive my past endeavors. I'm here to give people a choice and to be an effective, competent administrator in the role of Vice President. I will perform those roles and provide advice when asked.

Several years ago, I offered the game a great, new vision that all of Atlasia enjoys today. Three years ago, we built a coalition and pushed forward. Two years ago, I staked both of my terms as President on guaranteeing passage of a new game that would be healthier and more vibrant than its past incarnation. We succeeded - because of a great many people who helped build the effort, but also because I'm good at what I do.

I'm applying for the job once again: allow me to be an effective administrator in the role as Vice President, and you will see why so many people from across the political spectrum complement me on my effectiveness (even if they're cussing me simultaneously under their breath).

I believe the ticket of Spiral and myself offers not only a change in how Atlasia can operate, but also brings to the table a breadth of experience that surpasses even the current administration in the aggregate.

This combination of change and experience is a powerful force, and it belongs in the hands of the Atlasian people - all they need do is choose it.

[Adam Griffin]

With regard to my ideas for game reform, I cannot say that I have too many: all of the major ones I championed (save for one; mentioned below) became the law of the land during my Presidency and the Constitutional Convention, and manifest in the game every Atlasian citizen enjoys today.

Of course, the broader concept of "game reform" is an issue that is frequently addressed by people from all walks of life, and - more often than not - relates to the amount of time spent in the game. One generally becomes more skeptical of the topic of "reform" the longer they've been here because they've been around long enough to see various "reforms" wreak havoc on the game. I certainly was an anomaly in this regard, as my advocacy for (sensible) reform only grew with age.

However, the reset has largely addressed the primary issues it was intended to address: the prevalence of too many offices and the lack of general activity. These two problems have been - in my opinion - the only metrics by which reform is generally always justified; otherwise, it tends to be quite subjective. While we do still have issues when drilling past the surface level on this front, I have to say that by and large, the structure of the game seems sound and considerably active. I certainly have qualms with the landscape of the game present-day in terms of how it's played, but not with its foundations.


One of the reasons why I decided to jump back into the arena and run for Vice President was due to the reforms to the office that have recently occurred.

For years, I opposed the existence of the Vice Presidency and advocated for its abolition, up until I lost that one battle during the Constitutional Convention of 2015-2016. My opposition to the position was rooted in the fact that the Vice President had no responsibilities whatsoever, and basically only existed to 1) break ties in the Senate and 2) serve as political candy to convince people to vote for tickets they might not otherwise support.

At least now, we've given the VP position some raison d'etre. While it is managerial and administrative in nature (and therefore not very glamorous), it was certainly a step in the right direction.  If memory serves, after losing the battle to abolish the position during the ConCon, I then advocated for giving the VP an enhanced role in one of the two chambers, including the right to vote under all circumstances. I'm glad to see that some progress has been made on that front, if albeit later than desired.

As many older players might remember, I have never been a fan of the real-life decorum that plagued the doings of our legislative branch, and the current VP makes a good point about being able to actively intervene in cases where (in my view) arcane procedure can result in even a relatively simple bill taking ages to push its sludge through both chambers. Admittedly, a huge part of the reason why I could never keep focused on legislation as a party leader was because of the sheer time it took to go anywhere, so I'm generally in favor of anything that expedites the process when it does not impact the quality of the legislation itself. Those would be my two underlying metrics in measuring the value of any reforms to the office.

[Adam Griffin]

I think most people who know me know that I am a staunch non-interventionist, and have always taken this position. Arguably, at least one of my two presidential victories was made possible because I won sufficient isolationist conservative support due to my non-interventionist and generally libertarian policies on foreign affairs.

Personally and in this context, however, I do believe that the opinions of the Vice President on matters of foreign policy - within the confines of what the administration if elected will do - are a bit irrelevant. This is why I'm late to answering, actually: I do not want to speak for my running mate as to what specific policies he may or may not embrace if elected. However, if the situation were to arise that I found myself in the Oval Office once again, the public can expect a non-interventionist stance from me in all but the most egregious of circumstances. We had no major wars or conflicts during my tenure as President, and I would expect the same to occur if I found myself in the position again.

Any involvement in the Korean war was and is - obviously - very shortsighted, should not be encouraged further and any existing engagement should be ended as soon as possible. When I questioned the libertarian bonafides of the past two administrations on the matter of foreign policy during their tenures/elections, I was largely mocked and ridiculed. Yet here we are. As to my personal opinion, let Korea be Korea: it's not our job to be meddling there or anywhere else.

[Adam Griffin]

With regard to unemployment, I obviously favor a heavy-handed and targeted approach to the matter. Ultimately, we all have to realize that figures projected in-game are handled by the person(s) managing the game engine, and can - depending on the circumstances - be quite subjective.

I say this as somebody who has served as GM not once but twice. I also want to be perfectly clear that I am not accusing any present officials of subverting policy for their own ideological preferences. I'm merely mentioning this to underline the fact that actual people are responsible for determining what's going on in the nation economically, and their interpretation of policies can be different from person to person. I have seen the effects this can have in the past.

With that being said, we would ask for a comprehensive analysis of where the unemployment is disproprotionately present. This doesn't just mean by region or state, but by previous profession, educational level, household income and other factors. Then, we tailor an investment package that'll put these individuals back to work and pay for job training simultaneously (if need be) to return them to the workforce permanently.


In my opinion, no, deficits are not a major concern in and of themselves. As long as the nation's long-term ability to repay is not in jeopardy and our debt as a share of GDP is manageable, we can afford to spend and collect as we see fit.


Being integral to not one but two budgets as Game Moderator, I understand the fundamentals of the federal budget. However, I am sure that the line items have changed considerably since then (and admittedly, the budget passed near the end of my Presidency did not have any substantial input from myself due to the reset occurring at the same time). Because of this, I will need to analyze the structure of the current budget to render an appropriate verdict as to whether I would increase or reduce spending (in net terms).

However, I am willing to wager that after two years of right-of-center dominance in the federal government, our historical levels of spending are far below where they once were (if not, what have conservatives been voting for?). I'm a firm believer that the amount we spent during the years of Labor dominance were in line with what we needed as a country and what was sufficient to run a government and country of our size.


I am cut from the cloth of Old Labor values, which means that I do not define myself as a proponent of free trade like many others. I am not of the persuasion that free trade is wrong in absolutes and certainly support specific examples of it, but my default position without any specifics provided on this topic is one of fair trade.