When should the Regions decide?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Since apparently we have a lot of concern trolling and fear mongering (some bad-faith, other probably just confusion) over a potential constitutional amendment to enshrine Regional Rights, which topics do you feel it is appropriate for each Region to decide for itself within our constitutional framework?

Options being considered are:

Abortion (To restore the decades long precedent from the ZuWo case)

Agriculture Policy (Which the Federalist Papers argued was not a federal power)

Capital Punishment (Which the Regions are denied the power to decide)

Parole Eligibility (Which Labor tried to mandate on the Regions)

Maximum Sentences (Which Labor tried to mandate on the Regions)

Right to Work (Which Labor tried to deny to the Regions)

Minimum Wage (Which is geographically biased)

Maximum weekly hours (Which Labor tried to mandate on the Regions)

Education Policy (Which has traditionally been a Regional function)

Energy Exploration (Which is a localized decision that Labor tried to deny to the Regions)

Mining Policy (Which the Federalist Papers argued was not a federal power)

Gun Control (Which Labor tried to mandate on the Regions)

State and Local Elections (Which was a massive failure when conducted by the GM)



Its been sad but unsurprising to see the very serious people crowd try to dishonestly stir up animosity over what could be an amendment (that would apply equally to all regions) that boosts and improves on gameplay. Rather than having 1 party dominate the game federally and deny choice and opportunity in policy making, clearly delineated Regional Rights permits the 3 Regions to have 3 different paths so that everyone can play in harmony. This only threatens would-be one party rulers who want top down control. It has nothing to do with the South not paying taxes or all this other nonsense Griffin and Pericles are deliberately making up to scare people. If they hadnt abused the game for so long, this proposed amendment likely wouldnt even be necessary. I for one, support Regional Rights and think express Constitutional protection for them would make us a more harmonious union.

[Lumine]

NPC state and local elections resulted in some of the highest level of engagement and player activity we've seen in years, successfully conducted by more than one GM. Though I take responsibility for not properly addressing its long term viability and its legal issues, to call them a massive failure is a bad-faith argument.

I won't judge on the specific merits of each cause, but speaking from experience, I'm grateful the federal government has been there to curb some of the insane stuff the regions (all of them, at various points and contexts, and even from different ideological points of view) churn out from time to time. I would even argue that, in some cases, excessive regional autonomy has led to otherwise avoidable problems or even crisis.

[Mr. Reactionary]

NPC state and local elections resulted in some of the highest level of engagement and player activity we've seen in years, successfully conducted by more than one GM. Though I take responsibility for not properly addressing its long term viability and its legal issues, to call them a massive failure is a bad-faith argument.

I won't judge on the specific merits of each cause, but speaking from experience, I'm grateful the federal government has been there to curb some of the insane stuff the regions (all of them, at various points and contexts, and even from different ideological points of view) churn out from time to time. I would even argue that, in some cases, excessive regional autonomy has led to otherwise avoidable problems or even crisis.

What kind of engagement though? I was told if you just post "I am campaigning in Alabama. Vote Labor" and no one else makes a similar post in Alabama, the Alabama is now Labor. It sounds devoid of factors other than just who makes the most low-engagement spam posts. And as a result we just had to Retcon (by a 17-1 vote) a storyline where NPC state governments that were so out of step with the reality of the Region nullified laws in a most perplexing manner (such as the South Carolina government threatening to secede due to their love of bestiality sex toys).

Requiring simulated elections for NPCs puts a big strain on the GMs to keep regular and can lead to some nonsensical outcomes, like the South having a 3-1 Federalist registration advantage yet being like 3rd place as far as party control over States because 2 years ago WB made a youtube video.

Im not trying to indict anyone here, its not like ive never had bad ideas, just pointing out that that idea was tried and resulted in more problems than solutions. Thats why I think the Regions should figure out the internal mechanisms within their boundaries. Then maybe 1 Region does do activity simulated elections, perhaps another adopts a formula, and a third just leaves it to the GMs. We can experiment that way and see what works best.

[Sestak]

NPC state and local elections resulted in some of the highest level of engagement and player activity we've seen in years, successfully conducted by more than one GM. Though I take responsibility for not properly addressing its long term viability and its legal issues, to call them a massive failure is a bad-faith argument.

I won't judge on the specific merits of each cause, but speaking from experience, I'm grateful the federal government has been there to curb some of the insane stuff the regions (all of them, at various points and contexts, and even from different ideological points of view) churn out from time to time. I would even argue that, in some cases, excessive regional autonomy has led to otherwise avoidable problems or even crisis.

What kind of engagement though? I was told if you just post "I am campaigning in Alabama. Vote Labor" and no one else makes a similar post in Alabama, the Alabama is now Labor. It sounds devoid of factors other than just who makes the most low-engagement spam posts. And as a result we just had to Retcon (by a 17-1 vote) a storyline where NPC state governments that were so out of step with the reality of the Region nullified laws in a most perplexing manner (such as the South Carolina government threatening to secede due to their love of bestiality sex toys).

Requiring simulated elections for NPCs puts a big strain on the GMs to keep regular and can lead to some nonsensical outcomes, like the South having a 3-1 Federalist registration advantage yet being like 3rd place as far as party control over States because 2 years ago WB made a youtube video.

Im not trying to indict anyone here, its not like ive never had bad ideas, just pointing out that that idea was tried and resulted in more problems than solutions. Thats why I think the Regions should figure out the internal mechanisms within their boundaries. Then maybe 1 Region does do activity simulated elections, perhaps another adopts a formula, and a third just leaves it to the GMs. We can experiment that way and see what works best.

I may be wrong here, but isn't this already the case? The GM simulations were, to my recollection, based on authorizations by regional law, not federal.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

NPC state and local elections resulted in some of the highest level of engagement and player activity we've seen in years, successfully conducted by more than one GM. Though I take responsibility for not properly addressing its long term viability and its legal issues, to call them a massive failure is a bad-faith argument.

I won't judge on the specific merits of each cause, but speaking from experience, I'm grateful the federal government has been there to curb some of the insane stuff the regions (all of them, at various points and contexts, and even from different ideological points of view) churn out from time to time. I would even argue that, in some cases, excessive regional autonomy has led to otherwise avoidable problems or even crisis.

What kind of engagement though? I was told if you just post "I am campaigning in Alabama. Vote Labor" and no one else makes a similar post in Alabama, the Alabama is now Labor. It sounds devoid of factors other than just who makes the most low-engagement spam posts. And as a result we just had to Retcon (by a 17-1 vote) a storyline where NPC state governments that were so out of step with the reality of the Region nullified laws in a most perplexing manner (such as the South Carolina government threatening to secede due to their love of bestiality sex toys).

Requiring simulated elections for NPCs puts a big strain on the GMs to keep regular and can lead to some nonsensical outcomes, like the South having a 3-1 Federalist registration advantage yet being like 3rd place as far as party control over States because 2 years ago WB made a youtube video.

Im not trying to indict anyone here, its not like ive never had bad ideas, just pointing out that that idea was tried and resulted in more problems than solutions. Thats why I think the Regions should figure out the internal mechanisms within their boundaries. Then maybe 1 Region does do activity simulated elections, perhaps another adopts a formula, and a third just leaves it to the GMs. We can experiment that way and see what works best.

I may be wrong here, but isn't this already the case? The GM simulations were, to my recollection, based on authorizations by regional law, not federal.

The elections were authorized to occur at the regional level, meaning regions decided stuff like term length and # of seats in each legislature, but 100% of the simulation/results itself was controlled by the [federal] GM - the regions did not control the formula for how campaigning translated into success.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Abortion (To restore the decades long precedent from the ZuWo case)
Yes

Agriculture Policy (Which the Federalist Papers argued was not a federal power)
No

Capital Punishment (Which the Regions are denied the power to decide)
Yes

Parole Eligibility (Which Labor tried to mandate on the Regions)
Undecided

Maximum Sentences (Which Labor tried to mandate on the Regions)
Undecided

Right to Work (Which Labor tried to deny to the Regions)
No

Minimum Wage (Which is geographically biased)
Should be just like RL, federal govt. sets a minimum standard and regions can go higher if they want

Maximum weekly hours (Which Labor tried to mandate on the Regions)
No

Education Policy (Which has traditionally been a Regional function)
No

Energy Exploration (Which is a localized decision that Labor tried to deny to the Regions)
Undecided

Mining Policy (Which the Federalist Papers argued was not a federal power)
Yes

Gun Control (Which Labor tried to mandate on the Regions)
No. The assault weapons ban stopped many mass shootings while it was in place.

State and Local Elections (Which was a massive failure when conducted by the GM)
Yes, if this is just the state and local. I would oppose any unique exclusion of voters from regional elections.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I voted yes on most of these but I take a moderate stance on some as well. I don't support capital punishment under any circumstances, I generally favor some federal abortion protections that at least contain the usual exceptions, I oppose mountaintop removal mining, and I believe that regions should always be allowed to protect areas from drilling or energy exploration (such as the ANWR). Gun control is an issue I never want to debate federally again.

I'm not sure how the NCP elections were a failure. They were very successful in bringing activity and engagement to an elections game that rewards GOTV and registration numbers to actual campaigns -- until interest waned and we had to make the tough decision to discontinue them until if/when activity picks up (among all the major parties).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would favor most of these being handled by the regions. I am ambivalent on some, but adamant when  it comes to abortion, "as much of education as practical" and parts of healthcare. I would say guns, but at the same time I feel like the right to bear arms is a constitutional right so there are limits to how much the regions have leeway in that regards from a guns rights perspective.

I have in the past advocated for regionally and even locally tailored minimum wage formulas, so yeah that is one I could support.

I think it is also not just a question of constitutional limits, but also of game playability. Sure there are times when regions over stepped, but when you "federally decided some thing" in this game it has an permanence to it that shuts down playability potential. That is certainly the case with the abortion issue.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I would favor most of these being handled by the regions. I am ambivalent on some, but adamant when  it comes to abortion, "as much of education as practical" and parts of healthcare. I would say guns, but at the same time I feel like the right to bear arms is a constitutional right so there are limits to how much the regions have leeway in that regards from a guns rights perspective.

I have in the past advocated for regionally and even locally tailored minimum wage formulas, so yeah that is one I could support.

I think it is also not just a question of constitutional limits, but also of game playability. Sure there are times when regions over stepped, but when you "federally decided some thing" in this game it has an permanence to it that shuts down playability potential. That is certainly the case with the abortion issue.

100% Especially when "federally decided some thing" with abortion was a poorly reasoned partisan decision from an unelected oligarchs club that has clogged the arteries of this nation for seven years. Last year they threw out the long standing ZuWo precedent claiming "Roe v Wade is law in the US and is therefore law in Atlasia and is therefore binding precedent". Then mere months later, upon being presented with direct US supreme court precedent they didnt like, the same oligarchs club said "actually, other than Roe v Wade, no other Supreme Court decision is binding precedent." Thats contradictary, bad-faith, and blatantly partisan reasoning by the Court. They rigged the issue forever which isnt fun. We merely discuss judicial reform and the court freaks out about how mean it is to not have a literal lifetime appointment. 

Its a shame some people lack the vision. Game reform is coming whether invested players want it or not. Tonight the Senate will pass forward a Constitutional Amendment to allow for direct referenda. We are debating a Constitutional Amendment to unclog the judicial branch. Over 80% of the South last weekend felt that some sort of reform in how the federal government dominates the Regions is necessary. This poll shows that Regional sovereignty over particular issues isnt fringe or novel. And for merely broaching the topic, for merely discussing that we want to discuss an amendment on Regional Rights to secure our sovereignty, as well as that of Lincoln and Fremont, over purely internal matters, we get Labor screeching and the GMs deciding that what, there are now mobs of people demanding violence? The forces of reaction may seem powerful when their cries are loud, but those are the death cries of a dying animal. We will have peace. We will have federalism. We will have game reform. For the people want these things.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have longed desired a clear settlement on which issues are the exclusive preserve of the regions. If we were to have an amendment before the Senate that listed those out, it would have my support.

The model of enumerating the federal powers, while vaguely leaving the rest to the regions, has clearly not worked. I think for both constitutional balance and for game playability, we should explore enumerating as many "exclusive" and/or "partial" preserves that are the regions to address.

[It’s so Joever]

I would favor most of these being handled by the regions. I am ambivalent on some, but adamant when  it comes to abortion, "as much of education as practical" and parts of healthcare. I would say guns, but at the same time I feel like the right to bear arms is a constitutional right so there are limits to how much the regions have leeway in that regards from a guns rights perspective.

I have in the past advocated for regionally and even locally tailored minimum wage formulas, so yeah that is one I could support.

I think it is also not just a question of constitutional limits, but also of game playability. Sure there are times when regions over stepped, but when you "federally decided some thing" in this game it has an permanence to it that shuts down playability potential. That is certainly the case with the abortion issue.

100% Especially when "federally decided some thing" with abortion was a poorly reasoned partisan decision from an unelected oligarchs club that has clogged the arteries of this nation for seven years. Last year they threw out the long standing ZuWo precedent claiming "Roe v Wade is law in the US and is therefore law in Atlasia and is therefore binding precedent". Then mere months later, upon being presented with direct US supreme court precedent they didnt like, the same oligarchs club said "actually, other than Roe v Wade, no other Supreme Court decision is binding precedent." Thats contradictary, bad-faith, and blatantly partisan reasoning by the Court. They rigged the issue forever which isnt fun. We merely discuss judicial reform and the court freaks out about how mean it is to not have a literal lifetime appointment. 

Its a shame some people lack the vision. Game reform is coming whether invested players want it or not. Tonight the Senate will pass forward a Constitutional Amendment to allow for direct referenda. We are debating a Constitutional Amendment to unclog the judicial branch. Over 80% of the South last weekend felt that some sort of reform in how the federal government dominates the Regions is necessary. This poll shows that Regional sovereignty over particular issues isnt fringe or novel. And for merely broaching the topic, for merely discussing that we want to discuss an amendment on Regional Rights to secure our sovereignty, as well as that of Lincoln and Fremont, over purely internal matters, we get Labor screeching and the GMs deciding that what, there are now mobs of people demanding violence? The forces of reaction may seem powerful when their cries are loud, but those are the death cries of a dying animal. We will have peace. We will have federalism. We will have game reform. For the people want these things.

NYE reached out to you for comment to clarify anything, correct? Why didn’t you make the case that this was just a “regional power affirmation”, also lol the whole “economic partnership with Atlasia” stuff makes this seem like a call for secession. Of course you can expect people to not agree with this in game.

[It’s so Joever]

Anyways if this all indeed is some grand misunderstanding, then I think an official statement clarifying things given how clearly confused everyone is about the entire situation is warranted.

[Mr. Reactionary]

NYE reached out to you for comment to clarify anything, correct?

No. My last Discord DM from NYE was on January 10th.

I must need to fire my press secretary. Reading that I was unavailable for comment surprised me.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NYE reached out to you for comment to clarify anything, correct?

No. My last Discord DM from NYE was on January 10th.

I must need to fire my press secretary. Reading that I was unavailable for comment surprised me.

I used to toy with the concept of NPC staff, and even created characters Trump-John Barron style for such purposes back in the 2010-2011 period.

[Pericles]

The amendment explicitly said that the South would be 'sovereign', so people not in the know about the secret plot wouldn't know it's 'merely' an attempt to roll back federal jurisdiction.

People across the nation have an interest in setting minimum standards on certain issues. There was no death of regional activity because of it, so this is clearly a case of the PPT inventing a problem that doesn't exist.

He is getting far too excited with his own agenda to push things he has no mandate for, we will show him that the support he wants for it does not exist.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Bump