ATLAS: Atlasians Thinking, Leading, Acting, Solving

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The problem with large drives to recruit newbies is that many of them either never get involved or fade away in a couple of months. When I've recruited people I have specifically asked them to drop by every couple days or so. It's been pretty successful in large part.

[Vepres]

     The problem with large drives to recruit newbies is that many of them either never get involved or fade away in a couple of months. When I've recruited people I have specifically asked them to drop by every couple days or so. It's been pretty successful in large part.

You seem to recruit many newbies, including me , so how many of these newbies become active and remain active?

[Purple State]

     The problem with large drives to recruit newbies is that many of them either never get involved or fade away in a couple of months. When I've recruited people I have specifically asked them to drop by every couple days or so. It's been pretty successful in large part.

You seem to recruit many newbies, including me , so how many of these newbies become active and remain active?

It cannot be truly measured yet. A sudden influx can easily disappear when people become dissatisfied or bored. The goal is to find ways to keep new members engaged. To bring us back to the topic, how can we best do that with the matters of dual office holding and term limits.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

     The problem with large drives to recruit newbies is that many of them either never get involved or fade away in a couple of months. When I've recruited people I have specifically asked them to drop by every couple days or so. It's been pretty successful in large part.

You seem to recruit many newbies, including me , so how many of these newbies become active and remain active?

Well many in fact.
Myself, you, Dan, Persepolis, tmforu94 and others I am sure I'm forgetting.

[Devilman88]

     The problem with large drives to recruit newbies is that many of them either never get involved or fade away in a couple of months. When I've recruited people I have specifically asked them to drop by every couple days or so. It's been pretty successful in large part.

You seem to recruit many newbies, including me , so how many of these newbies become active and remain active?

Well many in fact.
Myself, you, Dan, Persepolis, tmforu94 and others I am sure I'm forgetting.

PiT didn't recruit me, DTWL did. IIRC

[Vepres]

I have more thoughts on the term limits topic.

First, I think we need to have at least two people in every senate race, no matter how strong or weak one candidate is. It is ultimately up to the parties to encourage members to run for office. If they don't do this, we may have no choice but put legislative term limits in place to catalyze activity. I really don't want that to happen, but we have to do something to keep legislative races competitive without removing regional representation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

     The problem with large drives to recruit newbies is that many of them either never get involved or fade away in a couple of months. When I've recruited people I have specifically asked them to drop by every couple days or so. It's been pretty successful in large part.

You seem to recruit many newbies, including me , so how many of these newbies become active and remain active?

Well many in fact.
Myself, you, Dan, Persepolis, tmforu94 and others I am sure I'm forgetting.

PiT didn't recruit me, DTWL did. IIRC

Thats a surprise DWTL usually left that sort of thing to PiT as he was the Party Whip.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have more thoughts on the term limits topic.

First, I think we need to have at least two people in every senate race, no matter how strong or weak one candidate is. It is ultimately up to the parties to encourage members to run for office. If they don't do this, we may have no choice but put legislative term limits in place to catalyze activity. I really don't want that to happen, but we have to do something to keep legislative races competitive without removing regional representation.

I agree I am practically to the point of begging PS to find someone to run against me. I realise its a tall order in the South, we have pretty well locked down the area so I encourage, and thank god DWTL isn't here to read this, the DA to launch a massive recruiting effort to make the South competative.

[Vepres]

I have more thoughts on the term limits topic.

First, I think we need to have at least two people in every senate race, no matter how strong or weak one candidate is. It is ultimately up to the parties to encourage members to run for office. If they don't do this, we may have no choice but put legislative term limits in place to catalyze activity. I really don't want that to happen, but we have to do something to keep legislative races competitive without removing regional representation.

I agree I am practically to the point of begging PS to find someone to run against me. I realise its a tall order in the South, we have pretty well locked down the area so I encourage, and thank god DWTL isn't here to read this, the DA to launch a massive recruiting effort to make the South competative.

If only Bacon King weren't already in the senate, there would have been at least a chance an non-RPPer would win.

[Purple State]

I have more thoughts on the term limits topic.

First, I think we need to have at least two people in every senate race, no matter how strong or weak one candidate is. It is ultimately up to the parties to encourage members to run for office. If they don't do this, we may have no choice but put legislative term limits in place to catalyze activity. I really don't want that to happen, but we have to do something to keep legislative races competitive without removing regional representation.

I agree I am practically to the point of begging PS to find someone to run against me. I realise its a tall order in the South, we have pretty well locked down the area so I encourage, and thank god DWTL isn't here to read this, the DA to launch a massive recruiting effort to make the South competative.

I would agree, in theory, but some races are not always viable. It is hard enough to maintain relatively safe seats, not to mention attempting to avoid appearing far too dominant. It is as futile to oppose the RPP in the SE as it is to challenge the JCP in the Pacific. You also have to consider the size of the DA.

My bigger surprise is that neither the JCP nor RPP have attempted to encroach on the territory of the other. Both parties have the membership resources to challenge the regional seats.

Perhaps setting term limits for executive positions, such as Governors, would be smarter. Oftentimes senior members relegate themselves to a cushy governorship position that they maintain for as long as they continue to run. These members tend to be very popular, but lack the motivation to run for a higher office. Perhaps forcing governors to run for legislative offices, like the Senate, would allow regional governments to switch up more often, allowing assembly members to move up, new recruits to run for assembly, etc.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Back in October, the RPP tried to knock off a few super-safe incumbents. The result was that we were ridiculed for wasting our time. If the three major parties were to make a gentlemen's agreement to try to draft candidates for as many races as possible (other than ones that are the subject of certain other gentlemen's agreements ), that could go a long way towards boosting electoral interest as well as giving newbies something to get engrossed in.

[Vepres]

     Back in October, the RPP tried to knock off a few super-safe incumbents. The result was that we were ridiculed for wasting our time. If the three major parties were to make a gentlemen's agreement to try to draft candidates for as many races as possible (other than ones that are the subject of certain other gentlemen's agreements ), that could go a long way towards boosting electoral interest as well as giving newbies something to get engrossed in.

Well, as one of the "faces" of the RPP, you should engage in these gentlemen's agreements. I hope you can get somewhere with that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Back in October, the RPP tried to knock off a few super-safe incumbents. The result was that we were ridiculed for wasting our time. If the three major parties were to make a gentlemen's agreement to try to draft candidates for as many races as possible (other than ones that are the subject of certain other gentlemen's agreements ), that could go a long way towards boosting electoral interest as well as giving newbies something to get engrossed in.

Well, as one of the "faces" of the RPP, you should engage in these gentlemen's agreements. I hope you can get somewhere with that.

     That actually sounds like an idea. There's still time until the election, so maybe after this week's special election I'll go ahead & do it.

[Devilman88]

This has nothing to do with the topic, but I believe if the major parties would have primaries to elected their President/VP candidate it would make the parties stronger.

[tmthforu94]

This has nothing to do with the topic, but I believe if the major parties would have primaries to elected their President/VP candidate it would make the parties stronger.

Possibly. But it could also divide the party. If it is extremely close, the losing candidate could decide to run in the general, splitting the party.

[Vepres]

This has nothing to do with the topic, but I believe if the major parties would have primaries to elected their President/VP candidate it would make the parties stronger.

Possibly. But it could also divide the party. If it is extremely close, the losing candidate could decide to run in the general, splitting the party.

The voting system prevents splitting I believe.

[Associate Justice PiT]

This has nothing to do with the topic, but I believe if the major parties would have primaries to elected their President/VP candidate it would make the parties stronger.

Possibly. But it could also divide the party. If it is extremely close, the losing candidate could decide to run in the general, splitting the party.

The voting system prevents splitting I believe.

     The use of preference voting actually does give one incentive to do so as they would not materially damage their party's odds of winning. However, they would hurt their party in the long run by reducing the level of partisan solidarity between party members.

[Devilman88]

This has nothing to do with the topic, but I believe if the major parties would have primaries to elected their President/VP candidate it would make the parties stronger.

Possibly. But it could also divide the party. If it is extremely close, the losing candidate could decide to run in the general, splitting the party.

It is possibly, but it most  likely will never happen.

[Purple State]

This has nothing to do with the topic, but I believe if the major parties would have primaries to elected their President/VP candidate it would make the parties stronger.

Possibly. But it could also divide the party. If it is extremely close, the losing candidate could decide to run in the general, splitting the party.

It would also just take more effort than many parties are willing to expend, not to mention smaller parties would have a harder time.

[Purple State]

As this was a shorter topic, I will end it with the following summary:

Term limits and Dual office holding

• Term Limits = Possibly good for executive positions to shake up the regions and allow for advancement at all levels. Lack of term limits allows older members to stay put in comfortable positions, maintaining popularity but holding positions from newer members.
• Dual Office Holding = General consensus opposed this option as an obstacle to competition and open races.

The next topic is GM reform.

This is to say, what modifications would you like to see to the GM position? How can we ensure an active GM? What should the major responsibilities of the GM be and how can those be achieved on a regular basis?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The GM should be required a minimum level of activity. That aside, it would be nice if the GM worked with the President to implement the President's agenda, by emphasizing issues that tie into bills that the President would like to pass.

[Vepres]

Have certain things a GM must do in order to remain GM. A minimum activity level, biannual economic and budget reports (nothing fancy, but enough to make fiscal and economic issues matter), info on the relations between Atlasia and major countries around the world, and perhaps other things. I think that the position should be more structured so that we know we will get at least so much from every GM (hopefully they would do more, but at least the requirements are there).

[Purple State]

I think we should have some sort of artificial GM-determined markets that change daily. An Atlasian Stock Exchange, Oil, Gold and the Atlasian Dollar value change. A daily report, just a few lines, could really make for interesting economic action in the Senate.

[Vepres]

I think we should have some sort of artificial GM-determined markets that change daily. An Atlasian Stock Exchange, Oil, Gold and the Atlasian Dollar value change. A daily report, just a few lines, could really make for interesting economic action in the Senate.

That's not a bad idea. Considering all the economic issues in real life, I'm sure the senators are eager to know the situation in Atlasia.

By the way, could GM activity requirements be legislated, or do they have to be constitutional?

[Purple State]

I think we should have some sort of artificial GM-determined markets that change daily. An Atlasian Stock Exchange, Oil, Gold and the Atlasian Dollar value change. A daily report, just a few lines, could really make for interesting economic action in the Senate.

That's not a bad idea. Considering all the economic issues in real life, I'm sure the senators are eager to know the situation in Atlasia.

By the way, could GM activity requirements be legislated, or do they have to be constitutional?

Depends on the result of the current court case. I would argue it can be legislated (as I did before the Supreme Court) and plan to introduce legislation if the ruling is in my favor.