((Actually, he mixed two paragraphs together. I was compairing putting China in our SOi to British India, but he mixed it with my expand Liberia paragraph, for whatever reason))
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yeah. Stupidly, I forgot to triple-check the Liberia-China bit. I'll fix it in case new voters come around.
As for the abolition thing. I'm not sure it would be good for US AAR (Interactive or normal) if we killed off the big talking point of slavery so early on. If you win Mr. King, I can't let you get complete abolition, but you'll probably manage to sway one or two of the border states to go anti-slavery.
Also, I might impose a rule after this, and explain it in the story, that forbids abolitionist (anti-slavery still allowed) legislation in Presidential candidates until around 1860.
Once again, this leaves me feeling like a dictator, so if anyone has better ideas, please tell me.
As for the abolition thing. I'm not sure it would be good for US AAR (Interactive or normal) if we killed off the big talking point of slavery so early on. If you win Mr. King, I can't let you get complete abolition, but you'll probably manage to sway one or two of the border states to go anti-slavery.
Also, I might impose a rule after this, and explain it in the story, that forbids abolitionist (anti-slavery still allowed) legislation in Presidential candidates until around 1860.
Once again, this leaves me feeling like a dictator, so if anyone has better ideas, please tell me.
I think the president should only be allowed to suggest laws to pass. I.e., If and when Florida becomes a state while it should be a Slave State under prior laws, the president can put it to a congressional vote if he so desires.
We could also postulate a law in which every new state switches off between slave and free (i.e. Maine for Missouri).
We could also postulate a law in which every new state switches off between slave and free (i.e. Maine for Missouri).
((Niether Projekt 919 nor Thomas J.L. Davis would object to BigBadBob/President jackson voting))
))
Its your AAR and you should exercise as much control as you want, and changing the rules about what policies are and are not open to candidates is an unfortunate necessity, but changing electoral policy during an election is kind of iffy.
I would say, just my opinion, that if the previous understanding was that the GM doesn't vote, that the new rule shouldn't apply until the next election. Stealing the election from the Whig candidate by changing the rules, when you've already changed it to make Whig policies not applicable even if Whigs do win, doesn't seem fair.
So I think that you shouldn't start voting until the next election, when everyone knows you'll be voting from the very beginning.
I would say, just my opinion, that if the previous understanding was that the GM doesn't vote, that the new rule shouldn't apply until the next election. Stealing the election from the Whig candidate by changing the rules, when you've already changed it to make Whig policies not applicable even if Whigs do win, doesn't seem fair.
So I think that you shouldn't start voting until the next election, when everyone knows you'll be voting from the very beginning.
Rogov, you make an excellent point, and for that reason I shall refrain from voting until next time.
However, the Texas question is currently at a draw. If no votes are made by 7PM GMT tomorrow, I'll declare the polls closed and move to a Golden Vote on Texas.
However, the Texas question is currently at a draw. If no votes are made by 7PM GMT tomorrow, I'll declare the polls closed and move to a Golden Vote on Texas.
((I wouldn't object to BBB voting.
In other tangentially related ideas, perhaps BBB could introduce laws and reforms to be voted on, beyond what the presidential candidates say. These would be coming from various elements of Congress - either BBB seeing that there's some support for a novel idea among non-president characters in the AAR (perhaps we could suggest legislation here: if it got only minor support, it would just be killed off in committee or something. If it got more major support, it would be said to go on to a general vote, represented by BBB placing it up to vote for in the next voting session) or from all the congressional members we aren't playing. For example, in this instance there would definitely be Senators (and probably are a few characters already here) who would introduce legislation contrary to the president's aims - and something like a Missouri Compromise or a One-Free-State-One-Slave-State deal would gain quite some support. In occasional cases where the presidential agenda was this (abolition, certain labor issues, etc.), this could be a way of moderating the specific issues which would be less probable, without being completely "dictatorial" (not that we, or at least I, mind that). If it was really thought that we all might sway more towards a (at that time) radical and improbable idea, some votes might be added toward legislation against it (or against legislation for it) to represent congressmen who did not have our hindsight. We could still vote it through, but we'd need more than just a slim majority.
Speaking of majority, it might be useful to count some of these major changes as something closer to Constitutional Amendments or other things requiring more than a simple majority. I don't think we could get a 2/3rds vote to abolish slavery here.
Another thing is that we don't have as much incentive here to avoid controversy as congress did at that time. Perhaps some hints and explanation of possible repercussions would help sway us. Maybe not a full out secession at the moment, but maybe a coup or a revolt* (at least some militancy). More probability of counter legislation crippling aims (for example, someone saying "complete abolition" would get legislation thrown against them that would stop them and hinder anti-slavery movements, while slowly using anti-slavery and mild pro-abolition actions would perhaps be more successful in eventually removing slavery), some chance of overthrow... that might moderate policies a bit.
*I can't imagine a revolt actually threatening the government in Vic 2, though, unless it was very big (and then it's just frustrating the other aims - such as military expansion, budget balancing, etc. [and maybe this could be emphasized. The president's agenda would slow down in game whenever there was a major revolt, thus encouraging presidents to avoid revolts] - it's not too hard to keep the government from changing unless militancy and other revolt factors were just thrown through the roof). It would make a good propaganda thing for later campaigns, though. A revolution actually succeeding would be cool, though. They could place in power the person closest to their aims (perhaps a popular statesman, the losing candidate in an election, or just someone with similar ideals). ))
In other tangentially related ideas, perhaps BBB could introduce laws and reforms to be voted on, beyond what the presidential candidates say. These would be coming from various elements of Congress - either BBB seeing that there's some support for a novel idea among non-president characters in the AAR (perhaps we could suggest legislation here: if it got only minor support, it would just be killed off in committee or something. If it got more major support, it would be said to go on to a general vote, represented by BBB placing it up to vote for in the next voting session) or from all the congressional members we aren't playing. For example, in this instance there would definitely be Senators (and probably are a few characters already here) who would introduce legislation contrary to the president's aims - and something like a Missouri Compromise or a One-Free-State-One-Slave-State deal would gain quite some support. In occasional cases where the presidential agenda was this (abolition, certain labor issues, etc.), this could be a way of moderating the specific issues which would be less probable, without being completely "dictatorial" (not that we, or at least I, mind that). If it was really thought that we all might sway more towards a (at that time) radical and improbable idea, some votes might be added toward legislation against it (or against legislation for it) to represent congressmen who did not have our hindsight. We could still vote it through, but we'd need more than just a slim majority.
Speaking of majority, it might be useful to count some of these major changes as something closer to Constitutional Amendments or other things requiring more than a simple majority. I don't think we could get a 2/3rds vote to abolish slavery here.
Another thing is that we don't have as much incentive here to avoid controversy as congress did at that time. Perhaps some hints and explanation of possible repercussions would help sway us. Maybe not a full out secession at the moment, but maybe a coup or a revolt* (at least some militancy). More probability of counter legislation crippling aims (for example, someone saying "complete abolition" would get legislation thrown against them that would stop them and hinder anti-slavery movements, while slowly using anti-slavery and mild pro-abolition actions would perhaps be more successful in eventually removing slavery), some chance of overthrow... that might moderate policies a bit.
*I can't imagine a revolt actually threatening the government in Vic 2, though, unless it was very big (and then it's just frustrating the other aims - such as military expansion, budget balancing, etc. [and maybe this could be emphasized. The president's agenda would slow down in game whenever there was a major revolt, thus encouraging presidents to avoid revolts] - it's not too hard to keep the government from changing unless militancy and other revolt factors were just thrown through the roof). It would make a good propaganda thing for later campaigns, though. A revolution actually succeeding would be cool, though. They could place in power the person closest to their aims (perhaps a popular statesman, the losing candidate in an election, or just someone with similar ideals). ))
Candidate:Thomas McAttack
Texas: Abstain
Though I cannot condone the spread of slavery, I do not support forcing my views on the good people of Texas, who have fought and died for their independence.
Texas: Abstain
Though I cannot condone the spread of slavery, I do not support forcing my views on the good people of Texas, who have fought and died for their independence.
haha, so the golden vote is going to get to tie-break both the presidential and the Texas vote? That should be exciting.
Well, with that, I can't see any reason to stretch the deadline further.
With the situation at 7/7 on both Texas and the Presidential, the main polls are closed. We are at Golden Vote. (DRAMATIC MUSIC).
One could cut the tension with a very sharp knife.
With the situation at 7/7 on both Texas and the Presidential, the main polls are closed. We are at Golden Vote. (DRAMATIC MUSIC).
One could cut the tension with a very sharp knife.
((This is when I jump in and mess things up, right?))
Character: Arthur de Jong
Born: 1781 (55)
Position: Whig Congressman for Massachusetts. Descendant of the original settlers of New Amsterdam, he moved north in the 1800's and established a prosperous textile mill. Married into the Boston Brahmins. Former member of the board of the Bank of Massachusetts and 3rd mayor of Boston (1829-1832)
Here goes my vote:
(cue DRAMATIC MUSIC)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
President: King
Texas: Free
Character: Arthur de Jong
Born: 1781 (55)
Position: Whig Congressman for Massachusetts. Descendant of the original settlers of New Amsterdam, he moved north in the 1800's and established a prosperous textile mill. Married into the Boston Brahmins. Former member of the board of the Bank of Massachusetts and 3rd mayor of Boston (1829-1832)
Here goes my vote:
(cue DRAMATIC MUSIC)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
President: King
Texas: Free
Well, there you have it folks. Texas goes free, and the next president of the Republic is Arthur King.
Congratulations Mr. King.
Mr. McAttack, I wish you the best of luck, and hope you run next election.
I'll be back to report how the next 4 years go, sometime tomorrow.
Congratulations Mr. King.
Mr. McAttack, I wish you the best of luck, and hope you run next election.
I'll be back to report how the next 4 years go, sometime tomorrow.
I wish to congratulate President King on his victory.
However the prospect of forcing Texas to free her slaves against her will troubles me and makes me fear for the Union.
However the prospect of forcing Texas to free her slaves against her will troubles me and makes me fear for the Union.