The YT Logs

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

As NYE said earlier tonight, the main reason he left was because of manipulation and belligerency on the behalf of YT.

He was not alone in being subject to that. He attempted (and at times even succeeded) in manipulating the GM team through 1-on-1 DMs to do his bidding. We eventually put our foot down with GM Team Directive #01 to stop any further attempts to do this.

Tonight, the first iteration of the GM Team has agreed to post our compiled logs of what exactly YT said and did, as well as messages amongst ourselves in the GM Team Server.

I very much agree with Forumlurker's statement, and I do not have much to add besides it. The logs speak for themselves. I ask everyone to take a look.

The YT Logs

[It’s so Joever]

Statement from GM Forumlurker regarding the Greenland Crisis and GM Concerns, 5/4/2023

It is with long deliberation that I have decided to come out about what happened behind the scenes between the GMs and YT, specifically my personal role within these talks as a GM member and my private DMs which I have decided to release tonight for the transparency Atlasia should have received long ago. Since late January throughout much of February, there was a constant back and forth dialogue between me and YT throughout the Greenland talks. I know I wanted to early on make clear that while nothing was impossible, a deal would not be easy nor likely. I knew deep down and still believe that Greenland is not simply a nation that can be bought with money, especially when the issue is up to the Greenlandic people themselves, who have time and time again shown that they do value their freedom and autonomy as a people.

However, I wanted to be fair in all my proceedings, I did want to be as impartial and open as possible. However, over time as I read through my past messages, I can not help but say I was slowly pressured into a decision that I did not believe in, and that is because I did not ever say no.

Being able to say no in a social situation is simply a skill I have never learned in my life, because….I never really was in a position I strongly had to (I never had many friends either which helped lol) and I did believe that coming into this position last fall, I was my own independent and strong person…and I could not have been more wrong both online and in real life. If these past few months have taught me anything, it is that I am FAR more susceptible to peer pressure and going along with things I simply do not agree with. This is of course a strange departure from my more…argumentative persona I do play on here sometimes, although honestly, I think some of that is because that is who I want to be a bit more of in real life, but simply don’t currently have the confidence to. Both in real life with a very…strong “friend” group that I eventually cut ties with after much deliberation, and now online with my GM position, I simply am learning I need to stand more firm in my convictions, that is my job as a GM and I do believe that on that end, I did not fulfill my role adequately at that point in time.

Back to Atlasia, at this point in time as I was dealing with the Greenland talks, I also was dealing with my “friend” group pressures I was mentioning above, and adjusting to a new workplace. Needless to say, I was not in the greatest position of thinking myself, and that combined with existing issues I didn't even know I had was just a vicious combination. I will not say directly whether YT intended to push me in one direction as that is not something I can claim as I am not YT, but it certainly felt as if I had to go a certain way. I did feel pressured, and after weeks of trying to hedge, I along with the rest of the GM team posted an update to Greenland that in hindsight, I strongly regret.

The night of that update, I was still unsure, I knew deep down that Greenland voting outright and by such a large margin in support of joining an unstable region of a country such as Atlasia with half the domestic politicians of Atlasia not even supportive of such a move just for the possibility of Southern oil companies to come in (something that isn't even seen positively by every Greenlander) was stupid, and I knew and do know that people do not vote based on a balance book, even when financial interests are a thing. Yet, I, along with my other GM colleagues at the time did feel pushed into making a hasty decision, one that I wish I could reverse with all my power.

I will not outright attack YT, I do not know his intentions and will not presume on such. However, I will say that with hindsight, I strongly think the entire discussion should have been handled better and I do believe that there was an attempt to influence the GMs to make a situation more favorable and to receive advice on how to make a situation more favorable that borders on impropriety and something that I would condemn from any figure here. I won’t outright say too much, I encourage you all to read the full DM log, specifically the parts demanding leeway and specific steps on how to get Greenland to join the South.

These reasons were why new structural reforms to how request and talks from here on out were made (with both WB and I forming these new structures) as well.

For moving on, I think the next few weeks will be a time of damage control. While I am not so sure if we will make the strong decision to use GM powers to make an event non-canon (I would much rather prefer finding a way to explain what happened to avoid another backtrack) I do believe that either way, the public must know what happened. Especially since I know that trust in the GMs is rightfully low, and there can not be trust without full transparency going forward.

I will not be resigning, as I do believe that over these past few months, I have learned and now am far more prepared and willing to prevent such future possible occurrences. Plus I enjoy writing dumb stories   However, I remain open to all feedback and comments on here. As for the other parties involved, both the GMs, YT, and other officials who I believe should have had more of a say in this….I will leave that to them. God bless Atlasia in all of its unity, we will move forward as a better nation and a supportive community. Even this doomer thinks so.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I've broken the link for the moment due to a request, as potential personal information was accidentally included in the logs. I will be going through to fix things up.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Is putting this amount of stress and attempting to manipulate the GM team a violation of the constitution? Aside of that, yes, I understand why people think this way and I indeed have the feeling that without the outside pressure Greenland would've never happened as it is simply not a realistic thing to have happened. In general, i think I have discovered - and not just me, but plenty of us - if not now than maybe three years ago that it is simply very hard to say no to Young Texan or not be manipulated by him.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Deeply disturbing...

[Devout Centrist]

So am I correct in understanding YT privately messaged you guys asking pretty please with sprinkles on top to move forward on the Greenland deal and the GM team worked *with* him to get the story written?

[NewYorkExpress]

So am I correct in understanding YT privately messaged you guys asking pretty please with sprinkles on top to move forward on the Greenland deal and the GM team worked *with* him to get the story written? If so, how is that not a massive conflict of interest?

Indeed. It's one of the reasons I ultimately resigned, because I had enough of trying to deal with YT.

I can sort of see where there might be hypothetical grounds for impeachment of Weatherboy and Forumlurker, but quite frankly, the fault here is YT's for not allowing the team to try and come to a Greenland story independently of his extortionist demands.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

It would be helpful if one of the GMs did their story in the lawsuit case YT vs Laki, because pressuring GM's is not done.

[NewYorkExpress]

It would be helpful if one of the GMs did their story in the lawsuit case YT vs Laki, because pressuring GM's is not done.

I asked Weatherboy to do so and got a no.

[It’s so Joever]

So am I correct in understanding YT privately messaged you guys asking pretty please with sprinkles on top to move forward on the Greenland deal and the GM team worked *with* him to get the story written?

To clarify, our role was playing Greenland in the negotiations which is our task. As for working *with* him to get things moved, eh I provided some general advice as a response but did draw a line when I was pressed on being given specific instructions on how to get what he wanted. Whether or not I should have even given general advice is a fair question, although I would do it for someone else as well. As for the story that was written, there was a lot of pressuring and eventually we did decide as a team to just go with it, although I think we all didn’t really want to and should have stood our ground. If you are referring to a specific message in question I can give full details as provided. You could say that by acting against my instincts, I did breach my job’s integrity.

[It’s so Joever]

So am I correct in understanding YT privately messaged you guys asking pretty please with sprinkles on top to move forward on the Greenland deal and the GM team worked *with* him to get the story written? If so, how is that not a massive conflict of interest?

Indeed. It's one of the reasons I ultimately resigned, because I had enough of trying to deal with YT.

I can sort of see where there might be hypothetical grounds for impeachment of Weatherboy and Forumlurker, but quite frankly, the fault here is YT's for not allowing the team to try and come to a Greenland story independently of his extortionist demands.

This is my stance as well. There are theoretical ground for my impeachment (I won’t speak on WB) and I did not exercise my best judgement by the end of this. Whether or not that is the “right” or most productive thing to do, I would disagree on, but I won’t deny my role here. I messed up badly.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

So am I correct in understanding YT privately messaged you guys asking pretty please with sprinkles on top to move forward on the Greenland deal and the GM team worked *with* him to get the story written?

To clarify, our role was playing Greenland in the negotiations which is our task. As for working *with* him to get things moved, eh I provided some general advice as a response but did draw a line when I was pressed on being given specific instructions on how to get what he wanted. Whether or not I should have even given general advice is a fair question, although I would do it for someone else as well. As for the story that was written, there was a lot of pressuring and eventually we did decide as a team to just go with it, although I think we all didn’t really want to and should have stood our ground. If you are referring to a specific message in question I can give full details as provided. You could say that by acting against my instincts, I did breach my job’s integrity.

Section 4: Internal Deliberations of the GM team and Public Updates
a) Any major decision by the GM team regarding information given to government officials in but not limited to the National Security Council, shall be put to an internal vote if any member of the team objects. A majority of votes shall be required to pass a major decision. Should a vote come to a tie either due to vacancy or absence, the most senior sitting member of the GM team who is not an elected official shall break the tie. No major decision's vote may come to an end with less than 2 members of the GM team voting. The GM team may internally delegate certain topics to certain members by internal vote. Should the member of the team who is delegated to a topic leave the team, a new member my have the topic designated to them, or the team may choose to split responsibility for the topic amongst themselves.

The question would be more like: "was the GM team unanimous" about advising YT? And were there objections at the time you provided advice to YT.

[NewYorkExpress]

So am I correct in understanding YT privately messaged you guys asking pretty please with sprinkles on top to move forward on the Greenland deal and the GM team worked *with* him to get the story written?

To clarify, our role was playing Greenland in the negotiations which is our task. As for working *with* him to get things moved, eh I provided some general advice as a response but did draw a line when I was pressed on being given specific instructions on how to get what he wanted. Whether or not I should have even given general advice is a fair question, although I would do it for someone else as well. As for the story that was written, there was a lot of pressuring and eventually we did decide as a team to just go with it, although I think we all didn’t really want to and should have stood our ground. If you are referring to a specific message in question I can give full details as provided. You could say that by acting against my instincts, I did breach my job’s integrity.

Section 4: Internal Deliberations of the GM team and Public Updates
a) Any major decision by the GM team regarding information given to government officials in but not limited to the National Security Council, shall be put to an internal vote if any member of the team objects. A majority of votes shall be required to pass a major decision. Should a vote come to a tie either due to vacancy or absence, the most senior sitting member of the GM team who is not an elected official shall break the tie. No major decision's vote may come to an end with less than 2 members of the GM team voting. The GM team may internally delegate certain topics to certain members by internal vote. Should the member of the team who is delegated to a topic leave the team, a new member my have the topic designated to them, or the team may choose to split responsibility for the topic amongst themselves.

The question would be more like: "was the GM team unanimous" about advising YT? And were there objections at the time you provided advice to YT.

I honestly can't recall if the team was unanimous or not (and I left partway through the Greenland debacle), but I was generally more focused on other details during my time with the team, which is why YT's insistence on buying Greenland was so aggravating.

[It’s so Joever]

So am I correct in understanding YT privately messaged you guys asking pretty please with sprinkles on top to move forward on the Greenland deal and the GM team worked *with* him to get the story written?

To clarify, our role was playing Greenland in the negotiations which is our task. As for working *with* him to get things moved, eh I provided some general advice as a response but did draw a line when I was pressed on being given specific instructions on how to get what he wanted. Whether or not I should have even given general advice is a fair question, although I would do it for someone else as well. As for the story that was written, there was a lot of pressuring and eventually we did decide as a team to just go with it, although I think we all didn’t really want to and should have stood our ground. If you are referring to a specific message in question I can give full details as provided. You could say that by acting against my instincts, I did breach my job’s integrity.

Section 4: Internal Deliberations of the GM team and Public Updates
a) Any major decision by the GM team regarding information given to government officials in but not limited to the National Security Council, shall be put to an internal vote if any member of the team objects. A majority of votes shall be required to pass a major decision. Should a vote come to a tie either due to vacancy or absence, the most senior sitting member of the GM team who is not an elected official shall break the tie. No major decision's vote may come to an end with less than 2 members of the GM team voting. The GM team may internally delegate certain topics to certain members by internal vote. Should the member of the team who is delegated to a topic leave the team, a new member my have the topic designated to them, or the team may choose to split responsibility for the topic amongst themselves.

The question would be more like: "was the GM team unanimous" about advising YT? And were there objections at the time you provided advice to YT.

That’s where the answer is a bit muddy to be honest. YT did message all of us to differing degrees, and at times “advice” also was more personal opinion on how Greenland would stand but not necessarily the full thoughts on the team. For instance I said that Denmark probably wouldn’t put up a huge fight, that was and still is my opinion (the Danish have little to lose and the PM deferred responsibility of the decision to Greenland irl when asked) and that they probably would just want mineral rights. That was my personal opinion but not the body’s nor had a decision been made. Honestly I think it’s tough and not a yes or no which is why we released everything so that you all can make that judgement yourselves as well. We did never have an explicit vote on “providing advice” to YT, whether it is advice or personal opinion on how things would go is another thing. We also knew that he was messaging us privately and at times did share with the team what was being said. Never was there an objection, but again never was there an explicit vote.

[It’s so Joever]

So am I correct in understanding YT privately messaged you guys asking pretty please with sprinkles on top to move forward on the Greenland deal and the GM team worked *with* him to get the story written?

To clarify, our role was playing Greenland in the negotiations which is our task. As for working *with* him to get things moved, eh I provided some general advice as a response but did draw a line when I was pressed on being given specific instructions on how to get what he wanted. Whether or not I should have even given general advice is a fair question, although I would do it for someone else as well. As for the story that was written, there was a lot of pressuring and eventually we did decide as a team to just go with it, although I think we all didn’t really want to and should have stood our ground. If you are referring to a specific message in question I can give full details as provided. You could say that by acting against my instincts, I did breach my job’s integrity.

Section 4: Internal Deliberations of the GM team and Public Updates
a) Any major decision by the GM team regarding information given to government officials in but not limited to the National Security Council, shall be put to an internal vote if any member of the team objects. A majority of votes shall be required to pass a major decision. Should a vote come to a tie either due to vacancy or absence, the most senior sitting member of the GM team who is not an elected official shall break the tie. No major decision's vote may come to an end with less than 2 members of the GM team voting. The GM team may internally delegate certain topics to certain members by internal vote. Should the member of the team who is delegated to a topic leave the team, a new member my have the topic designated to them, or the team may choose to split responsibility for the topic amongst themselves.

The question would be more like: "was the GM team unanimous" about advising YT? And were there objections at the time you provided advice to YT.

I honestly can't recall if the team was unanimous or not (and I left partway through the Greenland debacle), but I was generally more focused on other details during my time with the team, which is why YT's insistence on buying Greenland was so aggravating.

This too. We all were swamped irl at this point in time. That also may partially explain why less desirable/hasty decisions were made.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

So am I correct in understanding YT privately messaged you guys asking pretty please with sprinkles on top to move forward on the Greenland deal and the GM team worked *with* him to get the story written?

To clarify, our role was playing Greenland in the negotiations which is our task. As for working *with* him to get things moved, eh I provided some general advice as a response but did draw a line when I was pressed on being given specific instructions on how to get what he wanted. Whether or not I should have even given general advice is a fair question, although I would do it for someone else as well. As for the story that was written, there was a lot of pressuring and eventually we did decide as a team to just go with it, although I think we all didn’t really want to and should have stood our ground. If you are referring to a specific message in question I can give full details as provided. You could say that by acting against my instincts, I did breach my job’s integrity.

Section 4: Internal Deliberations of the GM team and Public Updates
a) Any major decision by the GM team regarding information given to government officials in but not limited to the National Security Council, shall be put to an internal vote if any member of the team objects. A majority of votes shall be required to pass a major decision. Should a vote come to a tie either due to vacancy or absence, the most senior sitting member of the GM team who is not an elected official shall break the tie. No major decision's vote may come to an end with less than 2 members of the GM team voting. The GM team may internally delegate certain topics to certain members by internal vote. Should the member of the team who is delegated to a topic leave the team, a new member my have the topic designated to them, or the team may choose to split responsibility for the topic amongst themselves.

The question would be more like: "was the GM team unanimous" about advising YT? And were there objections at the time you provided advice to YT.

That’s where the answer is a bit muddy to be honest. YT did message all of us to differing degrees, and at times “advice” also was more personal opinion on how Greenland would stand but not necessarily the full thoughts on the team. For instance I said that Denmark probably wouldn’t put up a huge fight, that was and still is my opinion (the Danish have little to lose and the PM deferred responsibility of the decision to Greenland irl when asked) and that they probably would just want mineral rights. That was my personal opinion but not the body’s nor had a decision been made. Honestly I think it’s tough and not a yes or no which is why we released everything so that you all can make that judgement yourselves as well. We did never have an explicit vote on “providing advice” to YT, whether it is advice or personal opinion on how things would go is another thing. We also knew that he was messaging us privately and at times did share with the team what was being said. Never was there an objection, but again never was there an explicit vote.

Is there any legal way to remove the events from GM canon?

[It’s so Joever]

So am I correct in understanding YT privately messaged you guys asking pretty please with sprinkles on top to move forward on the Greenland deal and the GM team worked *with* him to get the story written?

To clarify, our role was playing Greenland in the negotiations which is our task. As for working *with* him to get things moved, eh I provided some general advice as a response but did draw a line when I was pressed on being given specific instructions on how to get what he wanted. Whether or not I should have even given general advice is a fair question, although I would do it for someone else as well. As for the story that was written, there was a lot of pressuring and eventually we did decide as a team to just go with it, although I think we all didn’t really want to and should have stood our ground. If you are referring to a specific message in question I can give full details as provided. You could say that by acting against my instincts, I did breach my job’s integrity.

Section 4: Internal Deliberations of the GM team and Public Updates
a) Any major decision by the GM team regarding information given to government officials in but not limited to the National Security Council, shall be put to an internal vote if any member of the team objects. A majority of votes shall be required to pass a major decision. Should a vote come to a tie either due to vacancy or absence, the most senior sitting member of the GM team who is not an elected official shall break the tie. No major decision's vote may come to an end with less than 2 members of the GM team voting. The GM team may internally delegate certain topics to certain members by internal vote. Should the member of the team who is delegated to a topic leave the team, a new member my have the topic designated to them, or the team may choose to split responsibility for the topic amongst themselves.

The question would be more like: "was the GM team unanimous" about advising YT? And were there objections at the time you provided advice to YT.

That’s where the answer is a bit muddy to be honest. YT did message all of us to differing degrees, and at times “advice” also was more personal opinion on how Greenland would stand but not necessarily the full thoughts on the team. For instance I said that Denmark probably wouldn’t put up a huge fight, that was and still is my opinion (the Danish have little to lose and the PM deferred responsibility of the decision to Greenland irl when asked) and that they probably would just want mineral rights. That was my personal opinion but not the body’s nor had a decision been made. Honestly I think it’s tough and not a yes or no which is why we released everything so that you all can make that judgement yourselves as well. We did never have an explicit vote on “providing advice” to YT, whether it is advice or personal opinion on how things would go is another thing. We also knew that he was messaging us privately and at times did share with the team what was being said. Never was there an objection, but again never was there an explicit vote.

Is there any legal way to remove the events from GM canon?

We more or less did so with Ukraine. While I would be hesitant to completely remove them if there can be a way to reconcile what was stated with the shift (and I believe there is and am willing to explain for input if the rest of the GM team is okay with it) It has been kinda done before and *could* be done again if needed as a last resort action.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

So am I correct in understanding YT privately messaged you guys asking pretty please with sprinkles on top to move forward on the Greenland deal and the GM team worked *with* him to get the story written?

To clarify, our role was playing Greenland in the negotiations which is our task. As for working *with* him to get things moved, eh I provided some general advice as a response but did draw a line when I was pressed on being given specific instructions on how to get what he wanted. Whether or not I should have even given general advice is a fair question, although I would do it for someone else as well. As for the story that was written, there was a lot of pressuring and eventually we did decide as a team to just go with it, although I think we all didn’t really want to and should have stood our ground. If you are referring to a specific message in question I can give full details as provided. You could say that by acting against my instincts, I did breach my job’s integrity.

Section 4: Internal Deliberations of the GM team and Public Updates
a) Any major decision by the GM team regarding information given to government officials in but not limited to the National Security Council, shall be put to an internal vote if any member of the team objects. A majority of votes shall be required to pass a major decision. Should a vote come to a tie either due to vacancy or absence, the most senior sitting member of the GM team who is not an elected official shall break the tie. No major decision's vote may come to an end with less than 2 members of the GM team voting. The GM team may internally delegate certain topics to certain members by internal vote. Should the member of the team who is delegated to a topic leave the team, a new member my have the topic designated to them, or the team may choose to split responsibility for the topic amongst themselves.

The question would be more like: "was the GM team unanimous" about advising YT? And were there objections at the time you provided advice to YT.

That’s where the answer is a bit muddy to be honest. YT did message all of us to differing degrees, and at times “advice” also was more personal opinion on how Greenland would stand but not necessarily the full thoughts on the team. For instance I said that Denmark probably wouldn’t put up a huge fight, that was and still is my opinion (the Danish have little to lose and the PM deferred responsibility of the decision to Greenland irl when asked) and that they probably would just want mineral rights. That was my personal opinion but not the body’s nor had a decision been made. Honestly I think it’s tough and not a yes or no which is why we released everything so that you all can make that judgement yourselves as well. We did never have an explicit vote on “providing advice” to YT, whether it is advice or personal opinion on how things would go is another thing. We also knew that he was messaging us privately and at times did share with the team what was being said. Never was there an objection, but again never was there an explicit vote.

Is there any legal way to remove the events from GM canon?

We more or less did so with Ukraine. While I would be hesitant to completely remove them if there can be a way to reconcile what was stated with the shift (and I believe there is and am willing to explain for input if the rest of the GM team is okay with it) It has been kinda done before and *could* be done again if needed as a last resort action.

Potentially i can introduce an act to remove the Greenland parts from the canon if it passes in the senate.

Alternatively, given there's still opposition in Greenland in the game canon and them seeing how "stable" their new country is, they could also choose to become independent or make a move (though I agree that Denmark will not retake it anymore). In this case Greenland would be a fully independent nation. It can sustain itself on an economy based on their rare resources, one of the reasons YT took it.

But I feel like the way specific / some users have pressured the GM team into stories getting their way is at the very least highly unethical and threatens the idea of independent and neutral game moderators.

[OBD]

The link is still broken. But if I'm understanding this correctly YT tried to do exactly what we did a year ago with an extra sprinkle of Southern nationalism?

How unoriginal. Get new material!

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The link is still broken. But if I'm understanding this correctly YT tried to do exactly what we did a year ago with an extra sprinkle of Southern nationalism?

How unoriginal. Get new material!

Yes you're the left wing equivalent of YT.

[OBD]

The link is still broken. But if I'm understanding this correctly YT tried to do exactly what we did a year ago with an extra sprinkle of Southern nationalism?

How unoriginal. Get new material!

Yes you're the left wing equivalent of YT.

Excuse me, but I did it first. YT is the poseur here, don't diminish my legacy!

[It’s so Joever]

The link is still broken. But if I'm understanding this correctly YT tried to do exactly what we did a year ago with an extra sprinkle of Southern nationalism?

How unoriginal. Get new material!

I apologize, there was non Atlasian information involving personal stuff that we are checking to make sure isn’t in there. Atlasia is still at heart a game, and not one anyone should feel their privacy jeopardized over so we want to be sure everything is combed through. We will update when the link is restored.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

So am I correct in understanding YT privately messaged you guys asking pretty please with sprinkles on top to move forward on the Greenland deal and the GM team worked *with* him to get the story written?

To clarify, our role was playing Greenland in the negotiations which is our task. As for working *with* him to get things moved, eh I provided some general advice as a response but did draw a line when I was pressed on being given specific instructions on how to get what he wanted. Whether or not I should have even given general advice is a fair question, although I would do it for someone else as well. As for the story that was written, there was a lot of pressuring and eventually we did decide as a team to just go with it, although I think we all didn’t really want to and should have stood our ground. If you are referring to a specific message in question I can give full details as provided. You could say that by acting against my instincts, I did breach my job’s integrity.

Section 4: Internal Deliberations of the GM team and Public Updates
a) Any major decision by the GM team regarding information given to government officials in but not limited to the National Security Council, shall be put to an internal vote if any member of the team objects. A majority of votes shall be required to pass a major decision. Should a vote come to a tie either due to vacancy or absence, the most senior sitting member of the GM team who is not an elected official shall break the tie. No major decision's vote may come to an end with less than 2 members of the GM team voting. The GM team may internally delegate certain topics to certain members by internal vote. Should the member of the team who is delegated to a topic leave the team, a new member my have the topic designated to them, or the team may choose to split responsibility for the topic amongst themselves.

The question would be more like: "was the GM team unanimous" about advising YT? And were there objections at the time you provided advice to YT.

That’s where the answer is a bit muddy to be honest. YT did message all of us to differing degrees, and at times “advice” also was more personal opinion on how Greenland would stand but not necessarily the full thoughts on the team. For instance I said that Denmark probably wouldn’t put up a huge fight, that was and still is my opinion (the Danish have little to lose and the PM deferred responsibility of the decision to Greenland irl when asked) and that they probably would just want mineral rights. That was my personal opinion but not the body’s nor had a decision been made. Honestly I think it’s tough and not a yes or no which is why we released everything so that you all can make that judgement yourselves as well. We did never have an explicit vote on “providing advice” to YT, whether it is advice or personal opinion on how things would go is another thing. We also knew that he was messaging us privately and at times did share with the team what was being said. Never was there an objection, but again never was there an explicit vote.

Is there any legal way to remove the events from GM canon?

Yes, the RETCON act allows a retcon of events as long as 8/9 of the senate agrees to it. The threshold is so high because obviously it should only be used in extreme circumstances.

Personally, I think it'd be best for us to write up a way to eventually end this out while still making sense and without the need to resort to retconning.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I believe any potential personal info has been removed. As such, the link has been fixed, and I am posting it here as well.

Updated Link

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

EmperorToucan — 02/12/2023 5:06 PM
Oh well that’s sh**tty but not really the same meta level
Either way the way YT has been asking for advice is unprecedented
weatherboy1102 — 02/12/2023 5:07 PM
yeah he really does think that we're just issuing our opinions as canon
that's not our job
it's why he keeps putting greenland in quotes
it's code for "what do you want" rather than "what does greenland want"
EmperorToucan — 02/12/2023 5:09 PM
He has a fundamental misunderstanding of Atlasia I think

So in the poll a number of people have answer in terms of whether or not this is an elections game or a governmental simulator or both.

Its rather obvious how one would go about cheating in the elections side of things, all the various avenues that are now all illegal (hopefully), from registering socks, to intimidating voters and so forth right on down.

But has anyone given any thought to what cheating on the government simulator side of things would like? I would certainly think that intimidating the GM is the clearest means by which such would occur.

As to not understanding Atlasia, I think that it is accurate and he is certainly finding that out the hard way.