The Crusader (Public Service Announcement)

[Lumine]

Editorial Info: Modified and relaunched after a brief hiatus, The Crusader makes its return to Atlasia no longer a newspaper but as an evolved news platform which is meant to better grasp the wider focus that goes from stories to interviews, to scandal-breaking, to election results coverage.

The Crusader, still the property of former President Lumine and of Reuental Media Group (RMG), has also undergone some changes into its editorial line to move beyond the original "center-right leaning" roots into a more pro-reform and independent-minded line, maintaining its interest on having interviews across the political spectrum while seeking to include more political satire and pledging to take extra precautions on leaks and scandal-breaking following some unfortunate manipulation in the past.

Former President Lumine as editor makes it clear he takes full responsibility for published content outside of interview comments or guest editorials (which we will be happy to publish), including memes of satirical comments presented by The Crusader. As always, The Crusader will not pretend to be 100% objective or impartial on its reporting (something we don't actually wish to be).

[Lumine]

The Crusader will be opening later on with an editorial, news and our first poll. Should any Atlasian be interested in becoming one of our first interviewees for the relaunch, you know where to find me.

[Lumine]

What Comes Next?

Federalist domination almost the longest in history

Editorial, by Lumine

The inaguration of the Yankee / DFW team in the White House a couple of days ago (a most curious couple on account of history) was historic for several reasons, but one of them may have been missed by most of the population. Ever since Atlasia was founded the nation has undergone several periods of single-party domination in terms of elections, usually by the leading party of the left or the center left. It has gone on and on to the point in which the domination of the Jesus Christ Party (JCP) at the end of the last decade led to widespread party dissolution and the introduction of a new system between Labor, the Liberals and the Federalists, which in turn led to the system we have to day.

With the Labor Party gaining the upper hand above the Federalists and managing the feat of sixteen consecutive months in government under Bore (ending in Bloody July) and Griffin (ending with the Fourth Constitution), our new system was born once the tables turned and the once zombified Federalists not only won the White House back, they held it with an unprecedented level of electoral victories with only the brief Truman and Blair presidencies (almost two years ago!) as the sole center-left administrations of this most curious party system which, while offering a far wider offer in terms of parties than the old Labor/Federalist Party system, has proven even more opressive in terms of White House domination.

And that is because as of July the Federalist Party has broken two historic hallmarks: it has surpassed the Jesus Christ Party and the Labor Party in terms of longest continuous control of the White House (both boasting 16 months as their record, opposed to the Federalists's 18 and counting), and it has also surpassed the Labor Party in overall control over the White House, having surpassed Labor's total of 30 months in office. Even more surprising, before the Yankee Presidency is over the Federalist Party will actually surpass the grand total of the Jesus Christ Party on its existence of 32 months holding the White House, and it will do so after the midterms.

We are, as these words are written, in uncharted territory. Never has a party ruled the Republic continously for so long and the main opposition (whether of the Labor Party or the Progressive Union) proved so continously unsuccessful in regaining the White House from the dominant party, falling in third in already two of the last three Presidental Elections. It is therefore most curious that despite this long dominance Atlasia hasn't necessarily changed all that much, or seen many dramatic policy developments beyond a war which most of the population is surprisingly silent on (even successive administrations haven't said much despite working on the issue).

So the question is, what comes next? Shall Federalist domination go on and on for months and months to go? Shall the "opposition" win an election anytime soon? And if it does continue, will it take on a more centrist or right-wing form? Will it drop policy entirely in favor of friendship votes? Or drop friendship votes in exchange for policy? Dissolution of our current party system certainly must be ruled out as viable on account of the historic refusal of certain individuals to ever let a political party die and be replaced, and so, where does Atlasia go from here?

Records have been broken, and with a President and Vice-President in office with every intention to complete their terms without problems it doesn't look likely that such records will end anytime soon. It will be most curious to see just what exactly the dominant Federalism does with that record moving on.

[Lumine]

In the News:

July 10th, 2018

New leadership for the House of Representatives

Speaker Pericles

After a close 5-4 vote, past (and bitter) rivals Pericles and Fhtagn become Speaker and Deputy Speaker,
Mr. Reactionary re-elected PPT without opposition

War Powers Amendment on the Rise

With seemingly broad consensus in the House and a so far 4-1 vote in the Senate,
last surviving measure of the "Sulla Plan" may reach the public yet

Attorney General resigns, Dereich nominated

After the sudden departure of Attorney General TJ,
Yankee picks former Justice Dereich to fill the vacancy
Confirmation hearings likely to be successful

Abortion continues at the Forefront

Sudden push for pro-life legislation continues in the South,
some methods restricted, sale of fetal tissue to be banned

Drug debate at Fremont

Attempt to legalize drugs such as cocaine heavily amended by Parliament,
potential passage of new version left to next House of Commons

[Lumine]

Silly me, it was meant to read days!

(almost edited that post by accident, my apologies)

[Lumine]

Discord Poll:

Broad use of Discord among Atlasians, but a predominantly negative view is held

Do you use Discord for Atlasia-related matters?

YES: 65%%
NO: 35%

On the whole, do you think Discord is currently a positive or a negative part of Atlasia?

NEGATIVE: 50%
UNDECIDED: 25%
POSITIVE: 25%%

In your opinion, has the influence of Discord on the game been worse or better than the IRC once had?

NEVER KNEW IRC: 30%
UNDECIDED: 30%
WORSE: 15%
BETTER: 15%%

To you knowledge, have you ever been a victim of negative behavior in or from Discord?

NO: 40%
YES: 30%%
UNDECIDED: 30%

Should a large part of Atlasia-related gameplay be conducted in Discord or via instant messaging?

NO: 70%
YES: 15%%
UNDECIDED: 15%

Should official business such as votes be conducted via Discord?

NO: 85%
UNDECIDED: 10%
YES: 5%%

What is the first word that comes to mind when it comes to Discord and Atlasia?

Drama (4)
*shrugs*
Cancer
Communication
Leaks
N/A
Me losing my Senate seat
Opportunity
Pathetic
Poisonous
Scandal
Strategy
Taken too seriously
Transparency
Bullying
Confusion
Cringe

What would you say is Discord's greatest advantage?

Ease of communication
Ability to engage in discussions on policy etc at a faster pace
N/A
Everyone is equal when the patients run the madhouse.
Holding detailed conversations
It is more versatile than IRC.
Allows for better communication among party leadership and members
Messages are instant
fast
It is easy to access and most of Discord is non-atlasia
Speed and efficiency
none
Real time responds
Instant communication
Less formal than the forum.
real time communication
Coordination within politics parties during elections.
Real time communication
None
Edibles 4 kids

And what is Discord's greatest drawback?

People I don't like are there and people I like aren't there
Addictiveness. Also this kind of "spirit of sabotage" we've been seeing.
N/A
Do talentless Machiavellian wannabes really need a bullhorn? I think not.
Controlled by cliques
Like with #Atlasforum on IRC, the potential for cliques, but as of yet Discord has not reach the levels of villainy that dripped like the blood of corpses of the July Anarchy out of #Atlasforum. No Region has been held hostage by terrorists, and no game threatened by a wide ranging Anarchist movement populated a group congregated on Discord.
Atlas drama and potential for abuse
Messages are instant
doesn't give you time to think about what you're saying like a post on the forum does
You aren't on it
Not everyone has access
Transparency
confusing
Increase in gossip
The cults that form around certain charismatic individuals.
toxic environment
Dumb lawsuits.
Memes
Lack of transparency
Tupac is alive and well

[Lumine]

Bedlam in the West:

Fremontians reflect on Senate Race

[Lumine]

Meanwhile, in the Oval Office:

Administration takes bold action

[Lumine]

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

Your prerogative, Mr. President, most certainly.

[Lumine]

The Centrists are Coming!

Centre Party achieves majority in Fremont Parliament

[Lumine]

The Art of Dueling

Editorial, by Lumine

Much has been said about dueling these days, much of it unsurprisingly negative.

A proposal on the table for a while until it became law, the first attempts at dueling back in 2013 proved a failure as those challenged made a decision not to accept the challenges even when matters of honor were involved, and so it fell to our present era to see dueling reintroduced but lay dormant until now. It has only been a few days since dueling re-entered the stage with an important social mission - not the one it's meant to have, but a social mission nonetheless -, and in the course of it we've seen fascinating, memorable and rather fun gameplay events as a select group of brave, honourable men and women have embraced dueling and fought duels of serious risk and serious consequence.

So, assuming the reader is well aware of these events, why should I be describing them today? Well, because I think some have taken it upon themselves to give dueling a far more negative meaning that it really should have, and because others have fundamentally ignored its meaning and purpose to create bastardized, risk-free versions unworthy of being considered - or even described as dueling. Dueling, my friends, is a historical tradition with centuries of rich history among men of honor, men who believed dignity and respect were worth fighting for, even worth dying for against foes who did not - or would not - display the basic amount of respect a gentleman of honor and respect was entitled to. It harkens back to the glory of single combat and the countless stories of heroes, of men of great renown.

This may sound like an excessive glorification of past, but it seems to me that dueling strikes right at the heart of the single biggest problem with the Republic of Atlasia in the past, in the dull and uninspiring present, and in the grim future that awaits us under continued single-party dominance: the lack of consequences. Evidently, any Atlasian politician which antagonizes his friends or whoever supplies the votes is bound to face electoral consequences and political ruin, but unless the players stop voting for you, you can be certain that you can act away and never face the realistic sort of consequences that would emerge in a better designed simulation. To be hypothetical, you can drive the economy into a cliff or start World War III and still be re-elected and face no punishment if you hold onto enough numbers of voters.

The same applies to political discourse. If you have enough friends to shut down any noise and fill the airwaves with whatever narrative you want (or hound players who disagree with you), you face few restraints other than the Terms of Service when it comes to what you can say about another player. Unsurprisingly, you'll find no shortage of players who won't think twice to smear or resort to the most unacceptable insults because they don't seem to think they have to face the results. Why does this connect to dueling? Because here is a tool which can be wielded for people to respond when their honor is questioned, and one that can generate consequences, real and lasting consequences which extend beyond the popularity contest. Dueling, my friends, can be a net positive in ensuring our civil discourse becomes a bit more civil and restrained, allowing those who are victims - or feel insulted - to fight back through legal, hopefully socially-accepted means.

That is not say, of course, that dueling has been given that positive sense these days. As it stands, due to the apparent lack of legal deregistration dueling is your only legally-safe way to leave the game through the old deregistration concept, and as long as it remains the only way it is only right that Atlasians who have grown tired of the game take advantage of it to solve their dilemma. That is an important social function for the game, and if people may wish to stand against the idea of deregistration then by all means, let dueling serve said purpose until the old process is brought back to life.

But dueling can mean a lot more. Dueling should not be a tool for you to get rid of someone with a transparent, silly plot. Dueling shout not be subject to the indignity of a "challenge" in which you change your registration - something people already do for a few laughs -. Dueling could, and should, be a way to improve our political discourse and a sense of civility and honor, and to restrain those who feel entitled to the truth and entitled to hounding players out of the game by giving those insulted a chance to fight for the sake of their basic dignity and their sense of honor.

Whether Atlasia will ever give them said meaning, and whether people will actually have the courage to fight for their honor once the deregistration crisis is solved is yet to be seen, and there's reason to believe dueling may be ignored by those unwilling to face consequences over actions. But there is a positive, useful road ahead for this tradition, and all we require is the courage to be willing to explore it and see were it leads us.

[Lumine]

Do you intend to offer an apology for those you have previously maligned?

Well, if asked for one and if I believe my rhetoric was wrong in a particular moment (and it has happened on some occasions), then yes.

[Lumine]

And the drama continues:

Fremontians ponder on the future with Senate winner unclear,
Pericles accused of committing fraud by candidate

[Lumine]

Clash of Titans:

Federalists, PUP fight over coveted
Fremont Senate seat at the Supreme Court

[Lumine]

Election Special N°1:

A Strange Phenomenon:

Scientists make startling discovery

Four More Months:

Yankee and DFW unveil inspiring banner for re-election

The Man with a Plan:

AZ enters the race with a clear, unambiguous agenda

Friendly Welcome:

Federalist HQ stages a warm welcome to the first opposition candidate

[Lumine]

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!

[Lumine]

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".

[Lumine]

Also I'm surprised you didn't note that after all the TPH vs HenryWallaceVP drama, the seat ended up changing hands in the regular election not more than a month later!

Ah, that's one of the problems of not being able to update this regularly. Still, if the Presidential Election is a fun affair (or creates satire-worthy material) I do expect to publish more often.

[Lumine]

Look, Yankee, I don't mind having the constitutional debate with you from time to time, but it does get a bit tiresome to be forced to have it on places which are not exactly meant by it (and by that I mean this particular thread).

As a general commentary I'd have to say that I am glad that my - not particularly clever - attempts at political commentary and satire seem raise an immediate response, but it's tedious to see that any attempt to raise a criticism or make fun of something regarding what are now almost two years of dominance immediate results in a hijack by the Federalist brigade to either raise insults or pose long dissertations as to why Federalism or a given public figure is actually awesome.

Anyway, there is a right for people to answer back if feelings are somehow hurt and a personal intention not to be deterred regardless of being hounded from time to time, but it is a dynamic which gets old quickly.

For time being, I'll be pondering on whether to return to interviews as well after recieving a new request.

[Lumine]

Showdown at Lincoln:

Ninja campaign setting up new run-off strategy
after MB shuts the door on a split-term

[Lumine]

October 2018 Presidential Election (Poll)

President Yankee a clear favorite for re-election

Atlasians would like a different challenger, more diverse field

Despite support for the President, most Atlasians believe the nation is going through the wrong direction

Who do you plan to vote for?

Yankee /DFW: 40%
1184AZ / Reagan/Clinton: 10%%
Other: 20%%
Undecided: 30%

Are you satisified with the present match-up?

NO: 70%
YES: 10%
Undecided: 20%

Is there another candidate you'd like to see running?

YES: 75%
NO: 25%

If so, who?

Full List: Siren (2), Ninja (2), Pericles (2), Griffin (2), Mike Wells (2), PUP Candidate (1), Weatherboy  (1), Vern (1),  None (3), Other (2), Unsure (2)

What is your opinion of Yankee?

Positive: 50%
Negative: 30%
Undecided: 20%

What is your opinion of DFW?

Negative: 50%
Positive: 30%
Undecided: 20%

What is your opinion of 1184AZ?

Positive: 45%
Negative: 35%
Undecided: 20%

What is your opinion of ReaganClinton?

Positive: 45%
Negative: 35%
Undecided: 20%

Is Atlasia going through the right direction?

NO: 55%
YES: 25%
Undecided: 20%

What is the first word that comes to your mind when it comes to Yankee?

Full List: President (2), Determination (2), DWTL Killer, Dad, Dull, Effective, Federalist, Flip-Flopper, History, Knowledgeable, Me-but-good, Old, Principled, Rambler, Wise, Dedicated, Established, Old.

What is the first word that comes to your mind when it comes to DFW?

Full List: Flip-Flopper (3), Doof (2), Vice-President (2), April 2, Autonomy, Snake, Manipulator, Mean, Obsessive, Mom, Opportunist, Winner, rolling eyes emoji, sneaky, unorthodox.

What is the first word that comes to your mind when it comes to 1184AZ?

Full List: Irrelevent, Backstabber, Ninjas running mate, Intelligent, Inconsistent, Incompetent, Game Moderator, idiot, badgrammar, Liberal, Maverick, not sure, Flip-Flopper, Peace, Texas, Weak, Competent, Bannon, Flipflopper, Waffle.

What is the first word that comes to your mind when it comes to ReaganClinton?

Full List: Ineffective, Loony, Leader, Smart, Bizarre, Immature, Alliance, Who?, stupid, Conservative, Governor, Unremarkable, Ok, Country above party, Indy, Decent, Secretive, Moderate, Centrist, nice.

Finally, which word would you use to define the present state of Atlasia?

Full List: progressing, Mixed, Alright, Stagnant, Boring (2), Nauseating, Promising, Ugh, dire, Desperate, Improving, Stale, Inspiring, Disaster, Lost, Broken, Bland, A sh*tshow, husk.

[Lumine]

Revenge of the Labor:

Who is behind the revival of the Labor Party?

[Lumine]

Editorial

Back to the Federalist-Labor duopoly

Editorial, by Lumine

As an avowed supporter of a dynamic party system which accounts for change and allows parties to evolve, rise or disappear I must confess that I'm not a fan of the developments of the past few days, even if such a disatisfaction puts me on a small minority. The reason - far from being practical - is actually one of principled and how I happen to envision party politics and their role in Atlasia, a vision which is dramatically at odds with the old guard at the core of what we know as the Federalist Party and the Labor Party, and their almost continued existence and dominance of the game over the span of the last six years.

The Good:

So let us get the good news out first: after the inability of the Progressive Union to actually pose a challenge to the ruling party and provide the nation with a healthy party system it would seem a more credible alternative is developing within the new Labor Party. And I say that heavily disliking the emotional baggage associated with the "Labor" brand, because the nation does need at least a semblance of political alternance if its going to avoid going stale, boring and insufferable as it was during the height of Labor dominance, and as it has shown clear signs of going under Federalist dominance. Questions on whether there was large-scale Federalist involvement aside (and as to the actual position of new leader Sestak on the left-right scale, which is a bit confusing), it would on the surface look like an interesting development with potential.

The Bad:

The bad news, of course, is that in order to get a more balanced party system (or rather, the potential for one) we are forced to see the revival of an old party which already existed for several years, had plenty of time to implement its political programme and drew the nation into some less than pleasing times. Indeed, the demise of said Labor Party actually created an interesting dynamic within the game before PUP proved it did not had what it took to succeed even in the face of positive demographics and numbers. And the far worse news is that the Federalist and Labor old guard seem committed to the continued existence of both parties as needing each other, perpetuating a party system which may very well be fun for those who get to be a part of those near inmortal party structures, but rather frustating for some of us outside of it.

Whether that frustration is broadly shared or not I do not know - I did note I felt in the minority of the argument -, but it does exist. Not every player can conform to becoming either a Federalist or a Laborite to achieve/remain in power, forcing some of us to awkward travels in the hopes that there will be a party of a group outside of such a narrow political structure. It is said that centrist, moderate or open tent parties are more of a danger to the game than the existence of the two old parties, an assertion I would happen to strongly disagree with. Something which doesn't work well with the nation is keeping things stagnated for long (lest we forget about the disastrous landscape pre Con-Con), and to have to deal with the same two parties taking over each other over the repeated span of six years isn't exactly a dynamic situation.

The Ugly:

Perhaps more concerning is the question: will it ever end? Because it would seem that if left to that handful of individuals seemingly obsessed with keeping a particular "brand" alive even if it is not to the benefit of the game there is no end in sight, not even across the years. And the old players may not be getting younger, but that still leaves several years worth of potential for the continued dynamic of Federalism v. Laborism. Is this going to continue for six more years, and then some more if those same people remain committed to stopping new party systems from developing and evolving just to keep us all on the same game of choosing between two realistic alternatives? I certainly would find such a perspective about as boring, dull and insufferable at it gets. And even worse, I'd consider it a sign the game is in for some very dark times.

What's Next?

Then again, political predictions have a habit of being wrong.

After all, the Labor revival could collapse amidst infighting or sabotage, failing to present a proper alternative to a White House seemingly unstoppable for re-election. Or Federalism could actually lose an election, and open the door to some degree of alternance and a change of pace. Or new generations within both parties could push for change rather than repeat the mistakes of 2012-2016 - unlikely at it seems, given the rising viciousness among some of our younger players -. A third party could develop and gain steam to match the success of the Liberal Party, or TPP. Perhaps even the party system and by extention the game could be filled with a fascinating and invigorating uncertain future.

But if what we're going to see is a repeat of those old, tired, bitter and downright poisonous years before the nation came within an inch of collapse... well, may the last person to leave Atlasia please turn out the lights.

[Lumine]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm going to have to defer to Poirot here, partly because the point he makes is a correct answer, and partly because you certainly know that answer of yours is an incomplete explanation of the process. Elections are far more likely to be won through the combination of an electoral machine, zombie or relatively inactive voters and a series of tactics the present Federalist Party has learned to game well despite being critical of some of those in the past. Otherwise it would be hard to explain some of the decisions that have been made or some of the background stuff that's been hinted or partly revealed, and which does paint a picture far more cynical than this idealized version of the present.

I could certainly make the argument there is a degree of difference, starting with one of the most basic decisions a Presidential candidate has to make.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.