The Crusader (Public Service Announcement)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The inaguration of the Yankee / DFW team in the White House a couple of weeks ago (a most curious couple on account of history) was historic for several reasons, but one of them may have been missed my most of the population.

When did "five days" become "a couple of weeks"?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't fancy the administration succumbing to the perils of ministerial leapfrog.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't fancy the administration succumbing to the perils of ministerial leapfrog.

While I do respect the nature of this game, real life always comes first by a mile for me: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=279443.msg6317019#msg6317019.

You misunderstood my intentions and my designs Transit. If a person needs to leave for RL or other important reasons I fully understand and support that decision but like I said a minute ago on chat, that person would be resigning anyway and thus the EO has not effect on them obviously.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

At the end of the day this is an elections game with an attached government simulator. To the extent that dueling is a part of it can on a limited basis serve to cause some intrigue and such forth but at the end of the day the people vote for officeholders with some reasonable expectation of them serving out their terms and people are appointed to positions likewise under the assumption they will carry out a specific task for a duration of time. Things happen and things change in a heart beat, having recently suffered the loss of a relative and also having endured repeated health issues myself, I understand this more than anyone and no one should think otherwise.

However, this should not give license to people who engage in and accept duels while also holding down these positions unless they have already resigned or are planning to resign anyway (and again then the EO doesn't' apply obviously), but in the alternative scenario where someone needlessly is risking their obligation I have a right to ask for their resignations and seek out people who will serve the public interest.

That is why I said in the first several duels that it was a conflict of interest for me, to vote more or less engage in them, because there is no way I can remain true to my oath while subjecting myself to such terms. I have been rather consistent on this point.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Rule #12: Never apologize!

GVU is a fraud!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And clearly we have vastly different visions as to what the extent of consitutional reform ought to be.

You are going to dog on me over "extent" when it took intense efforts to get War Powers through?

I never said I was done Lumine. I have not even been in office two months. I also never said I could do it alone. The only ones who are going to reform the constitution, are in the end the people. If they want it badly enough it will happen. Otherwise you get to see it ripped apart over arguments about whether the comma should be on line 1 or line 2 (I am being facetious here but it is not too far off with what happened with Pardon Reform. I made changes to satisfy one group of legitimate concerns, and in the process created another group of concerns).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

One of the most active congresses ever within Atlasian History both pre and post reset (perhaps the most active ever with nearly 55! bills passed through Congress, though I can't say the most as I am not the Atlasian history guru part of this ticket ) along with fixing up the Wiki by and large and implementing Constitutional reform, including one of your very measures that failed the first time, quite uninspiring indeed

One can be active while being uninspiring, Mr. Vice-President (hell, I should know), they're not mutually exclusive. And clearly we have vastly different visions as to what the extent of consitutional reform ought to be.

But hey, if you're actually having fun with the present state of affairs, I'm happy for you!

I think it is helping the game in the sense that it provides legislation to repeal or edit in the future if needed by a future generation which is not yet blooming but will soon enough, I also agree that we need numerous new players to run for positions after the Yankee/dfw administration concludes, whenever that may be.

I find it ironic that last October I was "putting too many inexperienced new people in the WH", now this October I am putting too much experience in it. Cannot win!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Lumine just likes to howl whichever fake narrative suits his personal agenda best at a given time.

I'm not particularly sure you're the best person to speak about self-interest, but I will do some soul-searching about that brilliant insight.

And clearly we have vastly different visions as to what the extent of consitutional reform ought to be.

You are going to dog on me over "extent" when it took intense efforts to get War Powers through?

I never said I was done Lumine. I have not even been in office two months. I also never said I could do it alone. The only ones who are going to reform the constitution, are in the end the people. If they want it badly enough it will happen. Otherwise you get to see it ripped apart over arguments about whether the comma should be on line 1 or line 2 (I am being facetious here but it is not too far off with what happened with Pardon Reform. I made changes to satisfy one group of legitimate concerns, and in the process created another group of concerns).

I mean, I think we can easily agree that Constitutional change is indeed quite a pain, just as you'll find no disagreement with me regarding the passage of the War Powers Amendment being both a win (in general terms) and a win in which the Administration did play a very important role despite prominent Federalists trying to get it killed. Having said that, it is also true that you have often taken a rather skeptical role of several reform attempts despite coming around to support some, and that we have a rather deep philosophical disagreement on Constitutional change as well.

It it was a matter of mere practical concerns I don't think we'd disagree as much as we do, but I think we're both rather aware it goes beyond a mere "it can't be passed".

I have my own philosophy about how government should operate just like you do. I repeatedly supported reforms like regional administration of the Senate seats for years only to have them get shot down on partisan lines. But these opponents were never labeled as obstructionists or "anti-reform" the way any conservative was so labeled for daring to protect regions from further erosion of their already reduced powers pre-reset. I supported more reforms than anyone else simply by sheer factor of time present, but I never consented to let anti-regionalists and radicals get control of the dictionary to determine what was reform and what was not (usually with the expected labeling each time). This was true in 2008, 2011, 2013 and 2015.

I support things based on what make sense to me and what seems likely to achieve a desired objective. If something doesn't work I like to find a way to make it work. And when I have been "skeptical" (first AntonioV's and then Duke's Consolidation plans), I went to great lengths to facilitate debate, or even went out of my way to give it a fair shot at ratification (when die-hard supporters failed to show up for the debate and vote). Skeptical maybe, but it is impossible to call me an obstructionist of reform. Skepticism is not a bad thing either, we should be careful when amending the constitution, we have seen crap get sneaked in that later proved to be very damaging in the wrong hands.

At the end of the day I think the regions should take the lead on most domestic affairs, with the Federal gov't focused on FP and serving as a supporting role to those regional efforts. I have pursued legislation on healthcare and education that is line with these goals over the course of the period since the reset, and I opposed efforts to curtail such and begin the long trek towards centralization that caused a number (not all but many) of the problems that led to 2015. I think the government structure should protect this dynamic from erosion be it in the form centralization or in the form of separatism (Which typically is the end result of centralization).

As President it is has been my goal to break one of the biggest barriers to newbie integration and that is inability to quickly find out what has changed versus real life. It was the basis for the "legislative reset" to begin with and when necessary I have rolled up my one sleeves and put hours into it alongside the Archivists. I would consider this just as valuable as any major reform that would be so difficult pass because 1) it would directly benefit our newest members and 2) the only thing that stands in the way of it getting done is the hours necessary to get it done. It doesn't mean I am not going to keep trying on constitutional amendments, though.

When reform dominates the discussion, the reforms themselves become an "issue" based discussion that is prone to be divided based on ideology. That is why no massive reform ever succeeds without broad consensus. There was opposition to War Powers, based on different constitutional views on what the President's power of war making should be. I am somewhat of a Whig when it comes to executive power and thus these concerns didn't bother me like they did some conservatives.

There are and should be policy differences. I don't believe in monopolies be they government sector or private sector in origin (which has led to me being labeled both a socialist and a libertarian depending on which monopolies I am targeting at a given time). I think consumers should be able to have the most alternatives and choices practical. That is a bit different from saying "I am pro-market" bit more nuanced, but it is purpose driven, towards an objective. Consumer choices being paramount and doesn't excuse private sector monopolies (cough power companies).

But getting back to reform, I have said repeatedly, that as long as it preserves important checks and balances and respects our traditions of freedom and democracy, I am fine with considering any reform and that I would keep an open mind. I have not opposed a single reform effort that I can think off, since becoming President and I have not violated any campaign promise I made in this regard, it is basically what I said in April and May.   

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Called it! I knew this was coming last Friday.

That being said, there are some presumptions in that article.

1. Contrary to popular belief, I have never been a duopolist. However, people of like minds tend to coalesce behind unifying goals and objectives, that is the nature of politics. No one agrees on everything, even in the Feds. There are prominent people in the Feds who are pro-choice for instance while a majority of the party is pro-life. There are a lot of conservatives who agree that we should try to keep the Nyman government small, that is why regionalism has been such an effective means of holding the right together for so long, whereas previously the right just evaporated at several points as attempts were made to imitate the RL GOP or some faction thereof and in the process ended up dividing and destroying the right. This contributed to the nearly 12 years of leftwing or liberal dominance that this game had.


2. Everyone likes to read their own narratives into the pre-con-con Atlasia. However, the notion that we were brought to death's door by the duopoly is just plain incorrect. Atlasia had FOUR major parties in 2014 (Feds, Labor, TPP and DR), and by 2015, the Feds had lost most all of their offices and were just starting to climb out of the deep hole when crap hit the fan.

3. Overlooked in the fixation on the Presidency has been the incredible success of the left wing parties in regional, Senate and House elections. Federalists victory in August will produce the first Fed majority in the House since Feb 2018, and conservatives were not in a majority since December. And Labor crushed the Federalists in a series of election in the late summer and early fall of 2017, including the August midterm elections of 2017.

4. Federalists have been able to compensate for these down ballot victories by running popular candidates with strong cross-over appeal in Presidential elections. This is nothing new. It was the same approach Federalists used in 2013 and 2014 with President Duke and one President Lumine.

5. What is different, is we have been able to empower newer people to rise up and reach those levels of political strength far quicker enabling Leinad, DFW and then Fhtagn to reach such in less than a year in the game. So it is not like we have been shutting new people out over the course of this period, on the contrary our record run has been built on enabling and empowering new people to reach levels of skill and strength that previously were only made possible by being in the game for 2 or 3 years if not more.

6. This is not like the JCP where they GOTVed two rather inactive hardliners into the Presidency over competent, moderate alternatives. This is also not like Labor where twice in less than a year, had administrations that engaged in criminal/treasonous activity that led to the two systemic game shocks. Federalist administrations have generally (with one or two exceptions) achieved some substantial project or have been generally successful across the board. They have been marked by high levels of bipartisan collaboration and a desire to get things done, while still making great strides on federalist causes: regional rights and market based approaches.

7. The voters have and will continue to make their choice as to who should be President. While the left has peeled itself apart like a banana because it has come up short in the race for the Presidency, the voters have repeatedly given them majorities and victories in other elections. At the end of the day elections are in this game are earned, and if the Presidency has not flipped it is because a majority have been satisfied with the candidates that have won in any given election and were that not the case than someone else would have been elected. This is an elections game and if the voters want something they will generally get it.

I think the worst thing we could try to do to this game would be try to arbitrarily alter the outcome or re-engineer the political geography through some kind of top down scheme. The last time that was tried, we set records for low voter turnout, activity and engagement that were only exceeded in the mist of the 2015 crisis. Political success, for parties and candidates is organic and it comes from the bottom up. If the Federalist model did not work, it would not be where it is today.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I knew this was coming too, it seems I can't make a point without recieving a dissertation on why I'm wrong - it is fun though -. Some things don't seem to change across the years, like our strong difference of opinion on this matter.

Isn't it more fun this way though? I am dogged and determined by nature and when I think something is incorrect, I am going to challenge it. If everyone player in this game did that, and yet kept it respectful at the same time, then yes this game really would be in solid shape in my opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suppose I have to give you the benefit of doubt on not being a duopolist, although I would note that I distinctly remember your opposition to Labor dissolving or disappearing, or to alter the Federalist brand. However, the fact that parties can have factions does not appear to - at least not to me - invalide the points I'm trying to make.

Yes, but I also opposed UA's Dissolution, TPP's dissolution, our own dissolution, DA's dissolution, the JCP dissolution, the RPP dissolution, the dissolution of the Liberals and the decline of Populares, UDL, and DRs. How could I be a duopolist, when I supported the preservation of so many parties?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't recall stating the duopoly was fully to blame for the crisis (perhaps the Editorial wrongly gave that impression), but I certainly argue it played a role, particularly in terms of promoting the poisonous political atmosphere which was a factor on the crisis. I certainly argued the party system was a problem for months (if not more than a year) before things got really bad. [/quote]

If the party system was the problem, then the decline of that system in late 2014 into early 2015 should have been the cure, it was not. It was what furthered the crisis. The decline of the Feds meant there was not firm opposition to Labor for that period and the rise to power of the Atlas forum clique was so powerful that different viewpoints were being chased out of the mainstream in favor of a cult that transcended TPP and had elements of support in both the Feds and Labor. It was the Atlasia that they dominated and led, that collapsed in July 2015. Not the Fed-Labor-TPP-DR paradigm where it was all split 50-50 and we went back and forth between contested elections going one way or the other by just a few votes including not just in several regions but nationally as well. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the Federalists could win elections as well under Labor presidents too, if I remember correctly. It didn't mean one party wasn't dominant over the other, as it has been the case for a while now.

Nix beat Matt by 2 votes, Duke won landslides and DemPGH won by 6. After December 2013, the right had control with a split Senate and the VP, which lasted until DemPGH became President and the split control lasted through October. Then the Senate raced towards the left in late 2014.

There was no Labor dominance in early 2014. Prior to that though, the left was very much dominant, a factor that was strengthen by the dissolution of the JCP/RPP as several anti-JCP liberals and moderates left and joined the new dominate party The Liberals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ultimately Yankee, if you want to portray this whole period as successful I can't stop you. Myself - as I've tried to make the case for some time - I don't find it particularly transformative, ambitious or fascinating, and while I won't claim that's the majority view I also don't think that's a view which is only held by me or a handful of people. There's a reason why polls constantly showcase players as being unhappy with the way things are or the way things are going, elections being won in spite of that because of other political factors which take more importance because of the way elections are done in Atlasia (which is to say, a popularity contest on who gets more players on board).

But is that really that much different from how you or Duke won though. Surely your popularity with a broad range of people enabled you to win, while just two weeks later a politician with very similar views to your own came up short in a special election (Cris). Popularity is the end result of success, competence and reasonable moderation. If you are not Ben Kenobi or TNF, if you are reasonably active, and if you hang out with a diverse enough crowd, you can become President. Cris lost because Bacon King was more popular with a number of voters that just a few weeks earlier had voted for you (including one or two who were registered Federalists at the time).

I certainly was glad many new players were taking on prominent roles, and I remember writing in very positive - even enthusiastic - terms about the fact that we had a new generation taking over which didn't seem to be influenced by the worst aspects of Atlasian political culture pre-crisis. But A. Most of the examples you give don't seem to owe their success to being Federalists (if we are to go with the factor of those rising stars leaving the party or joining from somewhere else), and B. Many in the new generation have shown a worrying tendency to fall into some of the behavior that made Atlasia rather toxic in the past, whether with the Discord shenaningans, political sabotage or some of the scandals we've seen.

As a matter of fact, were it not for that last factor I think my own stance across the months would have evolved differently.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes and no.

There is certainly a point to be made that ultimately the players choose the direction of the game and thus the responsibility falls upon them, that is to say, that they've chosen to continue with things as they are for a reason. There is also another more cynical side which relates as to how elections are actually won, and which extends way beyond people looking at things, finding them to be well, and then voting for the candidate. Without intending to fall into a dispute which isn't productive, I think it's pretty clear election victories haven't just been earned through people being satisfied with the way the nation is going.

Then again, I know I can't possibly claim the vast majority of players would side with me on this issue. If they did back my negative view of the present context in greater numbers I might have achieved a far better result in June, which strongly suggests - the other factors which led to my defeat notwithstanding - I am in the minority. I could, of course, simply shut up and take on a more comfortable role as it has been suggested to me, but if happen to believe in a counter-narrative to this highly positive portrayal of our current political context (which in my opinion isn't contested enough), I sort of feel obligated to fight for it.

It may not be worth it though, given the amount of trouble I've gotten since almost a year ago for advocating those views.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I won't speak about dissolution because it is certainly different to actually be there than read about it (and I only came into the game in the aftermath), although you know I don't particularly agree with you being so seemingly affected by that event to bringing it up whenever this debate comes up. I will, however, note that changing the party system becomes harder when there is a refusal for change and a mentality to make a party survive at all costs.

To get into what is perhaps the main point: the Federalist model has been electorally successful, and it can be argued it has been politically successful up to a point. But does that mean it is currently a new positive for the game, or that it makes the game more interesting or more engaging to players? Particularly when several have left the game - particularly new, once enthusiastic players - in dissappointment, frustration and a rapid death of the enthusiasm they once held?

For you, it seems it's legacy is overwhelmingly positive and such factors are attributable to other factors, and at least for now (and for the past few months) I disagree with that.

I said the administrations were largely successful or achieved some kind of success in terms of a big project legislatively. It doesn't translate to the game as a whole to the extent to which you say and this is where we differ Lumine. You have a rather strong view of the power and ability of the Presidency or the Congress, to fundamentally change the nature of the players for instance.

You say that discord is a problem for the game. Do you think the Atlasian government is capable of or should ban the use of discord by the players?

Do you think the gov't can compel people to join parties they don't to?

Do you think the gov't can compel election results that the voters don't go for?

Do you think the gov't can force people lacking in ethics to suddenly become angels?

Humans are naturally flawed creatures and are prone to make big mistakes. The only people who can correct for that and change that for any one individual is that individual themselves. You are right we did have a wave of new people who were hopefully not going to resort to the old hostile tactics and I was just as happy as you were with that. But remember this, Hamilton brought his type of tactics into the game with him. Old people are not the only source of bad habits, but one thing that old people do bring is context, balance and past mistakes of others as a guide to the future. To the extent this sage advice is ignored, is often the extent of which people end up getting hurt in this game.

The gov't cannot control human behavior maybe that is just my political bias coming through but I think the biggest difference between us is your definition of success in gov't to my eyes involves the government pursuing, achieving and succeeding in accomplishing things that is completely incapable of doing. Only the people can change their own behavior and the limits of the gov't to regulate that are the laws and enforcement of those laws on the books.

I can call on people to be better, to do better, to respect each other and to listen to one another just as you have and I have done so repeatedly. I cannot dictate it by force of fiat or send the iron boot of the army down on people to enforce such desired character traits.

As for the Federalists, I cannot also control what the left has done and is doing. Just last night I stated my dismay at the lack of commitment to a given vehicle without jumping to a new one after a few tough elections. I cannot see how this game will be fun or energetic if the right cripples itself out of some misguided sense of fairness and thereby reduces our level to that seen on the left recently. That will only cause the net cumulative engagement level to drop, not increase, yet that is what you seem to want us to do, almost like some kind of redistribution of wealth but for electoral success.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But is that really that much different from how you or Duke won though. Surely your popularity with a broad range of people enabled you to win, while just two weeks later a politician with very similar views to your own came up short in a special election (Cris). Popularity is the end result of success, competence and reasonable moderation. If you are not Ben Kenobi or TNF, if you are reasonably active, and if you hang out with a diverse enough crowd, you can become President. Cris lost because Bacon King was more popular with a number of voters that just a few weeks earlier had voted for you (including one or two who were registered Federalists at the time).

success, competence, moderation? Popularity is more the result of having a network and having many friends.

A bit going off topic but if you're talking of this special election
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/November_2014_Special_Senate_Election
in reality Crid didn't come up short by one vote. It should have been a tie. If I remember well, it was in that election there was one voter who posted a ballot twice and deleted. It was not reported (or nobody could provide proof maybe). At that time posting double ballot meant invalid vote and it would have ended in a tie.

Extremists don't tend to get many friends though. Certainly not enough to become President, which was my point. TNF didn't get very close to Duke for instance, so my point still stands.

It is a different case for House, where you can win on just 12 votes. The fewer votes you need, the easier it is to get elected in spite of ideological rigidity and yes incompetence. It is typically not so for a Presidential election, where it is very tough to win 70 plus votes needed unless you have a reasonable expectation of doing your job and also you don't alienate enough people so as to preclude reaching that number.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're going to have to agree to disagree there, Yankee, because I certainly don't see a big legislative project (the big concept beyond vague ideas on regional rights, I'd say) despite the number of bills passed, nor do I think issues like Korea lend themselves to a triumphalist narrative. You certainly know I've often made the point that a President can positively influence the game through the public discourse, engagement with the people, the advantages of the bully pulpit and so on, which is not to say a President can solve everything (a point I've most certainly never made).

If you want me to give you an example, I'd wonder why despite the fact we've been involved in a war for months successive Federalist administrations have hardly engaged with the public on the matter or explained their basic stance beyond a couple of examples. When was the last time the Sec. of State or the President engaged with the public and state what is going on and what is intended?

July when I posted my inaugural, would be the most concrete example. I have generally been reluctant to get ahead of negotiations or speak in a manner that could get in the way of things as to where they are presently at. I want NK sovereignty free of foreign interference, be it by China or anyway else and I want the conflict to be resolve in a way that avoids any further escalation that risks global security. There was also a spacing out of reports and feedback, which is understandable and I respect Truman for the work he has done on this story line.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, let's not try to divert the argument into such a convenient ground to stand, because I hardly think anyone has suggested the government needs to step in and excercise control of the political process. Furthermore, the notion that seems to come up on some of your dissertations that a large amount of issues are reduced to this fight between those who want bigger or smaller government (or federalism vs centralism) is in my opinion an oversimplification (particularly for those of us who are not heavily influenced by the US political discourse) which hardly explains the problem.

Clearly the President, Congress or Government as a whole can't (and shouldn't) intervene on all four directly through imposition or force. That is not to say it cannot lead by example, or take other actions, or be a bit less tolerant of some of the stuff that takes place.

I wasn't trying to divert, because it seemed like where you were going with this. I have repeatedly condemned these actions and behaviors. People keep doing them because they see a reward for them. It did not use to be this way, and wasn't the case pre-cottonfield, when a lot of these more unsavory tactics would lead to decline in political success. There have been several instances where I have repeatedly said certain things should not be done. A good example, which has come up again, is the contacting of people after they vote. Virtually every election when I am on a discussion with people and someone brings this up, I say it is a bad idea and not to do it, once a vote it is in, it should be left alone. Why anyone would do this after what happened in 2016 is beyond me and I have certainly made my point clear on that.

Even when brought up as I joke, I immediately stop any talk of invalidating or deleting ballots as a means towards achieving election results.

I made public statements in December, January and February, when I basically said that if you cannot uphold the platform in dealings with each other, regarding treating each other with respect than you do not belong in the party. 

In June, I even went so far as to put a public disclaimer on my endorsement list, saying that I did not condone and in fact that I condemned any and all unethical behavior on part of anyone present on this list. How many campaigns have taken that kind of step, to risk pissing of their own endorsed supporters in the name of taking a public stand opposing such behaviors?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right. So what exactly is the point of offering a few words to condemn something and do little more if scandals continue to pile up or people with a questionable record are either forgiven in rapid fashion and promoted to high office? I don't think this is the first time we've seen you condemning a particular action or behavior committed by a Federalist member, only for things to remain as they are and another scandal to appear soon as the older scandals are forgotten and people act as if nothing happened. Without intending to suggest that an unrealistic role should be taken, I have to wonder if the posture is always going to be "What else can we do?" after some words of advice or rejection are given.

You said it, not me. One minute you are saying that I am not vocal enough, the next minute you are saying I am condemning such behavior too much without results? I love how you call for me to act and then always critique my impotence in this regard without ever providing a concrete, specific suggestion, concrete enforcement mechanism that is also legal and ethical in and of itself. "Without intending to suggest an unrealistic role", that is practically unspoken here, Lumine. I cannot forever stop the next energetic newbie with an irrepressible and impatient urge to conquer the world from breaking the Ming vase. I can tell them before hand why it is bad idea, some of them will listen and not repeat the mistakes of others. Some have to experience it themselves.

This will probably not satisfy you, hell it will probably enrage you further. But as leader of the Federalists, I have always maintained a flexible and open leadership structure that has enabled people to rise to the top based on skill. It also means that a lot of people are engaging in stuff without official sanction or position within the party, and sometimes these involve actions that I have repeatedly asked not to be done and I have declined to appoint people when they have engaged in scandal and were on track for a position in the party. I also "fired" LT from his position of Secretary after his scandal with Pericles (though technically his position had already lapsed).

You always seem to act like I have done absolutely nothing/remained silent (previous paragraph) or spent my time talking to the wall (this paragraph).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, let's dispense with the government overreach narrative, because it isn't the point. The point is that you can promote change, lead by example and achieve some change in the discourse without having to overregulate as you seem to imply is the proposal (it isn't). I don't find it unreasonable to suggest a President can promote a given set of values or inspire other people, or take an assertive stance on a given issue or when it comes to political behavior.

Is it really enough to call on people to do better but then sit aside when they fail to change, and then carry on while people forget? Seems a bit of a helpless stance to me, at least one which hasn't benefited the country if you consider the problems some of these scandals have brought to other players.

Dude calm down it is the same post. My only other citations of this have been as a means to lay out where the party stands and what my views are and thus discussions over any accomplishments along those lines would naturally revolved around them, obviously.

 I realize American politics enrages you (I am not fond of it myself- Koch brothers, gerrymandering etc), but if you could look past this one unsavory aspect in your view, we have brought the Federalists far and away from the RL GOP and the RL conservative movement's tactics and priorities. I think you could at least give us credit for that much. I think "federalism" is a small price to pay for having a reasonable center-right movement.

Again, should I drop everything, and shut the party down because LT did some hanky panky with Pericles? Screw Lechasseur, TheSaint250, Fhtagn and a number of others who did nothing wrong except to be in the wrong party at the wrong time?  I took action on LT within the party and voters took action at the ballot box.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, a very convenient way for you to frame the argument, as if I would ever suggest to redistribute electoral success. I'm certainly not demanding a law is passed banning or dissolving a party, nor am I asking for the center-right to take a step aside and give up, which should be rather obvious given how ridiculous the concept sounds.

I do, however, have a right to point out that an excessive desire to keep things exactly as they are and continued success on that task isn't healthy for the game either, nor does it seem to make the game interesting or fun for many players, particularly new ones.

It is a ridiculous concept. But you have been very critical of the formulation that has for ten years been the dominant force on the right in this game (which predates my presence by the way). Not because of me or PiT or anyone else, but because that is the formula that has worked best with blocks that have made up the right in this game over that period of time. The Populares nearly displaced the RPP and at one point were more pro-region than the RPP was.  Most of the splinter right and libertarians parties that have come up have likewise been of similar viewpoints on that issue. The Federalists were doggedly pro-region even when I was irrelevant and Hagrid chafed under its overwhelming power while in charge as chairman. If parties that are basically in rebellion against the dominant conservative party, are still taking the same view on something, that should say something about its demographic base of support. The demographics make the right the way it is, be it non-interventionist on FP or supportive of regions or the number of other things you respectfully disagree on.

Back to the obstructionist narrative are we, Lumine? You are very skilled at framing arguments yourself.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So I am curious, why the use of the term "federalism" as opposed to "Federalists" in some places, Lumine?

I actually kind of like it, don't get me wrong.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So I am curious, why the use of the term "federalism" as opposed to "Federalists" in some places, Lumine?

I actually kind of like it, don't get me wrong.

Huh first time I noticed the just presumed it said "Federalists" lol. I'm guessing it's a typo bit I'll let Lumine speak for himself.

He also used it in the bumped RIP Federalists thread though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'll be honest, the reason why a full edition of this hasn't come out is that I'm actually not sure if it's actually proper for me to do it.

In retrospect some mistakes made a while ago probably did cross the line in terms of what is actually appropiate, something I do feel rather guilty of. As I've taken on a more active role dealing with appropiate content on the board (racism, personal attacks, trolling and so) I've actually wondered if it's not rather... contradictory to be at the same time policing inappropiate content but producing a newspaper/satire news media that could also fall into that stuff without intending to.

So yeah, I'm still meditating what to do with The Crusader. I'd appreciate some feedback if anyone has an opinion on it, but still haven't decided what to do here.

Let me put it this way, I would rather have a board moderator that is involved in the game than one that is not.

Hot take: If there is a conflict, Keep the paper, resign the modship.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'll be honest, the reason why a full edition of this hasn't come out is that I'm actually not sure if it's actually proper for me to do it.

In retrospect some mistakes made a while ago probably did cross the line in terms of what is actually appropiate, something I do feel rather guilty of. As I've taken on a more active role dealing with appropiate content on the board (racism, personal attacks, trolling and so) I've actually wondered if it's not rather... contradictory to be at the same time policing inappropiate content but producing a newspaper/satire news media that could also fall into that stuff without intending to.

So yeah, I'm still meditating what to do with The Crusader. I'd appreciate some feedback if anyone has an opinion on it, but still haven't decided what to do here.

Let me put it this way, I would rather have a board moderator that is involved in the game than one that is not.

Hot take: If there is a conflict, Keep the paper, resign the modship.

I mean, the only other Atlasia moderator is Gustaf, which I think is a fairly inactive mod? Though he was technically involved in Atlasia way back in the day, even being Atlasia's 2nd president

Atlasia isn't exactly one of the hardest boards to moderate I imagine (although it's getting worse lately?). But I agree it's best to have someone involved. Then again most mods are involved with Atlasia in at least some capacity, even if it's only as a zombie voter.

MasterJedi was moderator of the board from 2006 until 2015. He was active in the game until 2009 but after that, Gustaf was more active of the two.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Don't blame Me, I voted Option 4.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

facts don't care about your regional affiliation!

I would like to harness facts for political purposes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The thought of Truman as Union General is hilarious, even more so because the real Harry Truman referred to himself on several occasions as an "Unreconstructed Democrat", with obvious connotations.


It was a different time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would say it is more accurate to say Discord has harnessed Atlasia for meme purposes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Pretty sure I made this my signature before both of your Williamson shout-outs

Your signature actually gave me the idea. That and the Newsweek article I read at work.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The concept of a very hipsterish, anti-war Jesus is rather fitting considering Atlasian history.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It makes no sense to me why any self-described nationalist would want to embrace neo-confederacy. If lets say after Brexit, a group of wealthy people wanted to continue trading with the EU in a manner detrimental to the British interests and also were importing cheap third world labor, you can bet hell would be raised by nationalists over this occurring.

And yet no one seems to realize that the Southern Planter class were not nationalists, they were a financial elite, whose profits necessitated free trade with our former colonial oppressor and the cheapest of all foreign labor one could have.

If you were an economic nationalist in 1860, the only the candidate who represented your views was Lincoln.

I will never understand why any libertarian would embrace neo-confederacy. If say we had discussion of a place like the Soviet Union, which was built likewise by slave labor and the detriment of the free market that inevitably arises from such and also including the rampant violations of free speech and other natural liberties necessitated to enable such a system, you be assured that they would be among the first to criticize such a crime against the human condition existing any such Communist or totalitarian regime.

And yet it is forgotten that that the South and its slave economy were preventing economic growth and preventing market competition from occurring in the labor market. It should also be noted that slavery could not have existed without massive government intervention to prop it up, and preserve it. And of course there was a massive infringement on freedoms of speech, press, religion and assembly, not to mention associate when it came to those who sought to oppose this system. Furthermore you could be compelled to join in its preservation via the fugitive slave act, which meant that your rights to your own conscience were tossed aside to enable the governments forceful intervention to preserve what had become in effect a labor monopoly at the expense of a free labor market.

If you were a libertarian in 1860, the candidate who best matches your views would probably have been Douglas, but I would make a strong pre-administration case for Lincoln as well though obviously his economic nationalism would be hostile to a libertarian view as well.

Lastly, I will never understand why any constitutionalists (including any believe in State's Rights) would be favorable towards the Confederacy. If we had any other situation where someone was espousing a set of beliefs while routinely deviating and violating those beliefs, any such true constitutionalists would call out their hypocrisy if this is happening today.

And yet it is forgotten that in the run up to the conflict, it was the South that crowed about State's Rights only to insist on the introduction of a Fugitive Slave Law, which in effect denied state's rights to the Northern States. It was the South that insisted upon slavery being expanded to the territories even if they themselves did not want it (Rush to Kansas), and it was of course the Southern Justices and their partisan allies that wrote the horrendous Dred Scott decision overturning decades of precedent and obvious constitutional history to arrive at a ruling that again crapped all over the state's rights of the North, not to mention human deceny.

Historically when one looks back at antebellum Southern Politicians one finds a level of hypocrisy demanding constitutionalism for me, but not for thee; state's rights for me and not for thee. This grows over time, certainly as a direct result in the growth of the enslaved population relative to the free population and the fears of slave revolt causing a Haitian style blood bath (an event just a few decades prior). The economic factor must be noted as well as preserving profit via subverting national economic interest (remaining dependent on British trade dominance) and also using massive government interventions and violations of civil liberties to prop up a labor market monopoly to maximize the profits of a few.

Simply put, whether you are a nationalist, whether you are a libertarian, whether you are a constitutionalist, there is no redeeming aspect to the Confederacy that should warrant its embrace or defense. While it is fair to discuss the preservation of things like the statues, it must be said that there is no defense for the confederacy itself or the Southern Politicians who brought it about. They are for the most part, dishonest and hypocritical oppressors who had no qualms about taking a dump all over the Constitution, the free market, or national economic interests, all in the name of preserving planter profits. We would not condone that anywhere else or any other place in time, and we should not do so here nor rewrite history to make it more justifiable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When will the corrupt Lumine media report on the ongoing dispute over the Bill of Rights in the South? Many in the South appear to believe a bill of rights means making the text more right wing! Some have said the Yankee deep state is planning to rig elections in Fremont in order to also make the region more right wing, but this has been unconfirmed by reputable sources such as Breitbart and Drudge Report, so we can't confirm it either. Will the Corrupt Lumine media please let us know if this is fake news or not?

The only thing I am going to be rigging in the near future is most likely going to be power generation because of this damn storm.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We couldn't even get Superique into the Senate (because certain centrist voters preferred a known to them Labor sock to a centrist from the wrong side of the tracks because back then personality divides on the left spilled over into the center too). Would have loved to have had him as President.


Scott/Superique would have been on the level of a Duke/Cincy, but alas politics.