|
Post by Rick Warder on Jan 28, 2006 15:35:23 GMT -5
Tyler,
Due to disagreements with Gavin over how I handled the election results on the West Coast I've decided to resign from the game both as GM and as player.
If you wish to revise the California election results, I suggest you do so. Gavin has refused to tell me what his concerns are but I am sure he will confide in you and let you know, so that you can make proper amends.
I think it's best if I leave the game now and wish everybody a very good time.
Take care.
E.
|
|
William Reynolds
DNC Chair
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Posts: 100
|
Post by William Reynolds on Jan 28, 2006 16:47:55 GMT -5
Gooooood lord.
If anyone wants to know what he's actually talking about and, unlike Mr. Elfers here, can keep a civil tongue in your head, feel free to drop me a line. Erik has refused to HEAR what my concerns were, which is his right of course, but I'm not going to take a lashing for something which I didn't do.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Tyler on Jan 28, 2006 18:02:57 GMT -5
Okay, lets be civil about this and not make any rash decisions. I'd like to know what this disagreement is about and would hope you will IM me your rationale behind your beliefs that the outcome was incorrect. I'm out of town on someone else's computer right now but I want everyone to remain cool in the time being.
I'm expecting some PMs regarding concerns/courses of action to remedy hostility.
Tyler
|
|
William Reynolds
DNC Chair
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Posts: 100
|
Post by William Reynolds on Jan 28, 2006 18:25:58 GMT -5
This is long, so don't feel compelled to read it. I did not save the conversation I had with Erik, but if he did maybe he would be kind enough to post it.
I did not think the outcome on the West Coast was incorrect, I thought that the manner in which it was conducted was a little confusing and unfair, and when I attempted to raise my concerns about the issue, I was blatantly insulted and subjected to harassment.
My main concern was this: if President Warder had campaigned heavily on the West Coast, I think California might have done as the results say. However, he didn't. This game is built around personal appearances and money spent. Nothing was written about Warder appearing that the Democrats could have reacted to and no money was ever spent to really indicate Warder's campaigning except for a last minute 'Warder endorsement' without any description that was posted after the deadline (due, I'm led to understand, to a perfectly legitimate leave of absence by Chairman McL). Erik anticipated that comment and replied that, as the GM, he didn't feel comfortable with Warder campaigning. But, now that he wasn't the GM anymore, he felt that Warder WOULD have, and so had given the Republicans a huge retroactive bonus.
I replied by saying that this made me somewhat aghast, and said, in the course of the discussion, "that's like... cheating" within the context of the rest of the discussion. He objected to the use of the word and, after that, began to insult me and refused to hear me explain the concern I wrote out above or even listen to the fact that I said "I didn't mean maliciously or purposely cheating, I just thought it was unfair". After about 15-20 minutes of my trying to type in an explanation only to be interrupted by Erik indicating to me that I was an idiot, I said that this lack of transparency regarding the Warder character was why so many Democrat players have quit the game. Which is true, as I've talked to them to try and convince them to stay and had to listen to their complaints. This, apparently, was a hot button subject.
Erik then offered to kill off Warder or have him resign because he "wasn't interested in the game anymore." He wanted to concentrate on his new Roman game. Of course, he has made no mention of that in this thread, so I presume he wanted you all to think that he WANTED to be in this game but I drove him away. *shrugs*. I had replied saying I didn't want Warder (or Erik the player) out of the game, but asked that Erik ask Tyler to sim the West Coast election himself (privately, not to replace the results, but just to see if someone neutral agreed with me), keeping in mind Erik's comments that the last minute advertising and such that the Republicans did after the deadline was counted for a lot less than the rest of the campaign because we Dems didn't have a chance to reply to it. Before I could even finish explaining this proposal, Erik flipped out and yelled at me some more, and then seemed to calm down and said "No no, explain your points" (the first time he had mentioned that during the entire conversation) and I grew hopeful. I began to type out what my actual concern was at which point Erik added in "Just cut all the bullshit." I felt that I had been disrespected enough throughout the course of the conversation and then ended it.
So yes, my apologies everyone if I've done something horrendous here. I didn't think, and still don't think, that I had done anything wrong, which is why I remain so confused about all these personal attacks. I've known Erik for a long time, and have never seen anything like this happen before. So, you'll pardon my bewilderment I hope. However, as this is just a message board, internet computer game, I don't see any particular reason why I should stand by and be repeatedly insulted by someone who, I feel, never had good cause to be so disrespectful.
Either way, that's that.
Cheerio, Gav
|
|
|
Post by Rick Warder on Jan 28, 2006 19:38:16 GMT -5
Maybe you've never seen anything "like this" happen before because it's only happening in your mind. I'm always quite willing to listen to your concerns - but you kept beating around the bush and contriving objections to what I was saying. That's why I told you to cut the bullshit and get to the point - and you STILL haven't told me precisely what it is you thought was unfair.
I'm not interested in the game because I'm not getting any respect. That's why. It has nothing to do with my new game. I would happily play here as well, but not if it means I get screwed and attacked for things I didn't even do or intend to do.
Thanks.
E.
|
|
|
Post by Cody Shea on Jan 28, 2006 20:23:25 GMT -5
That is just downright false, E. Nowhere has anyone on here showed you any disrespect, but just like with the last Capitol Hill, someone had an objection and instead of dealing with it rationally you flew off the handle and quit. That's fine. If both of you feel that quitting over something this petty is worth it then by all means, do so. I, however, think it says something about your true character that doesn't reflect the person I atleast thought I knew.
- Will
|
|
|
Post by Rick Warder on Jan 28, 2006 20:51:11 GMT -5
Will, for me, dealing with this rationally means quitting.
I haven't 'flown off my handle', and the parallel to CH 2 is misplaced.
You shouldn't draw such sweeping generalizations.
E.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Warder on Jan 28, 2006 20:59:34 GMT -5
P.S. I'm still waiting to hear Gavin's objections. If you want to tell me concretely what is wrong with the election result, I'm perfectly willing to hear it. All I'm hearing, though, is "favoritism" and "cheating" which is hardly what I need in order to revise my result intelligently. As far as I'm concerned, until I get the facts laid out (i.e. "until the bullshit gets cut") there's no point in even looking at the election results a second time. That will be all.
|
|
Jack Jenkins
Democrats
Being a Ranger is a function of attitude and state of mind, as well as a matter of training.
Posts: 78
|
Post by Jack Jenkins on Jan 29, 2006 13:34:05 GMT -5
Ok here's what I'm seeing on this matter:
Agreed: The Republicans did, and should have, won the West Coast Election
Disagreed: Republicans were allowed to post events after the deadline (due to a leave of absence by the RNC Chair.)
Disagreed: GOP in California was given a bonus to the campaign based on the campaigning that President Warder would have done had he been a real player and not a player/GM.
Disagreed: That the player/GM experiment was without flaw or subjectivity.
Disagreed: I'm not getting the proper respect (both parties think this).
Those are the disagreements right now for the most part. Seeing as I know both parties, and have talked to both of them privately regarding this matter, I am going to refrain from posting an opinion on the subject because I feel it would be unfair to both parties to breach those private conversations. I do want to see this resolved, but that has to come from Gav and Erik, no one else.
- Phil.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Tyler on Jan 29, 2006 13:45:00 GMT -5
I tend to agree with Phil. I am fine with the results of the elections personally but I feel that any argument needs to be resolved between you two and not by other players interjecting their two cents worth on the matter. I can see both sides of this argument; however, I don't think this is something really worth arguing over since the Democrats won a majority anyways.
Just the GMs two cents worth.
Tyler
|
|
William Reynolds
DNC Chair
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Posts: 100
|
Post by William Reynolds on Jan 29, 2006 16:49:54 GMT -5
Erik's primary objection appears to be that I still "haven't told him my objection". Given that my objection is laid out, I thought, pretty clearly in my long post above, I'm just going to say scroll up. If all Erik is hearing is "favoritism" and "cheating" I would submit that it's a matter of selective reading as opposed to it not being all that clear.
To everyone else, I'm not quitting regardless of what Erik does, so that's his call. And it was his decision to quit, and his repeated statements to me over the past couple weeks that indicated that he is "bored" with this game and wanted to move on. So now he can. You won't lose two players over this because, frankly, this doesn't bother me all that much. I cannot control how someone else acts, so I'm resolved not to get too frustrated about it.
Once again, as I think these posts indicate, I attempted to lay out the point I was making and am, instead of rational discussion, getting yelled at.
In terms of 'working this out', I rescinded the word 'cheating' about 30 seconds after I said it during my original conversation with Erik because it seemed to bother him, even though I didn't see why he was feeling so offended about it. The berating and insults continued. There's not a whole lot else I can do on that subject. Frankly, Erik has been talking about wanting to quit for awhile and now he has an excuse so he doesn't feel bad about it. It's unfortunate, but there you go. I don't want to get into a flame war about it.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Warder on Jan 29, 2006 18:37:39 GMT -5
Gavin,
I re-read your comments and I am even more turned off than I was before. Your characerization of me as a raving lunatic is out of place and very offensive. I don't see how I can discuss this rationally.
If you want me to change things so that you have a Democrat landside, fine.
The fact is that the Republicans had a president in the White House. This conveys a benefit, especially when that president hasn't seriously fouled up. And when that president's home state reflects about 80% of the votes in the West Coast region, that's a significant bonus.
That is the bonus I was calculating in. Why do I have to punish myself, if I am supposed to be a player? I was resigning my GM spot. A landslide for the Democrats would have been a serious embarassment to Warder. In other words, I would have been (as a GM) giving a big disadvantage to a player (Erik). As long as I was planning to retire Warder in 2 months real time, this is not an issue; but if I'm supposed to be a player, then why should I give you guys that ammo? It's not fair from a GM standpoint to give a player a disadvantage for being restricted from getting involved in the game. You see?
All right, I'm done.
Erik
|
|
William Reynolds
DNC Chair
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Posts: 100
|
Post by William Reynolds on Jan 31, 2006 0:08:47 GMT -5
Apologies all, this is long. It's not very interesting (in terms of flaming and other exciting stuff), so only read on if you have an interest in elections and the like. Erik: As for depicting you as a raving lunatic, I respectfully submit that you are reading too much into things. If you mean I've charactertized you as being offensive and attacking me ever since I mentioned "Warder" and "election" in the same sentence, yes. That is intentional. Because it's true. I apologize for any offense I might have caused you in the process, and I really do mean that. I never had any intention to try and attack you or make you feel bad. I have only presented my side of things here, as I tried to make clear, and I don't see a cause for the disrespect I have received and merely can see the fact that you have decided to go after me for no real reason I can fathom and have refused to let me speak my piece without harassment. In terms of the election: the Democratic strategy was TAILORED to the fact that Warder wasn't taking a big role in the election. After about the third day, we decided that we obviously weren't going to have to deal with him that much. If the Republicans post an ad saying one thing, we respond with an ad saying something else. If we're campaigning against Kenneth Green, we take a different tact that we would against Rick Warder. Warder was never stated to have come out and said anything, so we never tried to take Warder on. A real election might not always be ideally transparent, but a game election (ESPECIALLY one being run by a GM who is also a player) has to be. At no point did I ever say I wanted a Democratic landslide. As I said to YOU, privately, I'd rather the Republicans maintain a strong standing in the House simply for gameplay purposes even if we didn't even consider the election itself. Also, frankly, you are simply incorrect about the President's effect on elections. As a rule, in mid-term elections, the President's Party LOSES seats. For example, in California, in 1982 during Reagan's first "mid term year" the Democrats gained 8 seats in California alone. The "home state advantage" is negligible in mid-term election years. The coat tails effect is a factor in Presidential election years. Data on the 1982 election in particular: clerk.house.gov/members/electionInfo/1982election.pdfReagan's election year for comparison: clerk.house.gov/members/electionInfo/1980election.pdfAnd before you lecture me on how different Reagan and Warder are, I suggest you go look at other elections throughout American history; you're going to find the same thing. There are a lot of factors that go into this: the people who turn out to vote in mid-term elections are generally the angry ones. The content people don't bother. Or the fact that Americans have always preferred to see Presidential and Congressional power split. Or that candidates are always billed as being much more than they are, and disappointed people will vote in a new candidate. Your 'bonus' to Erik the player constitutes, in my opinion, a conflict of interest. You say that Warder is a popular President who hasn't screwed up, but you are also playing him. From the point of view of a lot of people in our 'sim' nation, he has screwed up. And when Warder didn't have to spend 1 dollar or 1 minute of his time writing up speeches and the like for the campaign, that is, frankly, unfair. Especially when the very good rules which you wrote governing campaigning are very specific about it. And especially when players (Democrat and Republican) have spent so much time on the 'real' process of campaigning in the game. Even if Warder HAD campaigned heavily, there's a lot of election evidence that indicates that 'campaigning' Presidents are not viewed in a very positive fashion. Presidents are supposed to do their work, not go out canvassing for the party, especially in the middle of a crisis such as Iran. So, frankly, what happened in the West Coast went against the rules, went against historical precedent, and went against the actual campaigning that was going on in the West. You have the Republicans winning in the upbeats and moderates while the Republican campaign wasn't tilted to them and focused on the conservative base. You have the fact that Californians are some of the most vicious voters when aroused by a campaign that they think alienates them and every other liberal constituency in the country in game was out raged and being mobilized. And this is ALL counteracted by the 'Warder bonus'. THAT was my concern. And still is. Frankly, I don't have that much of a problem with the Republicans getting that extra day to campaign. We have a small group of players at the moment and when a really important one needs a leave of absence, that's fine. Real life always takes precedence over games. What I DO have a problem with is the way in which the West Coast election in particular was handled. So, for those of you counting, here's a summary. 1.) As Democrats we never had any indication that Warder was campaigning in any way. In fact, the Republican campaign was largely, except for 'fiscal responsibility', un-Warder. It wasn't tailored to appeal to moderates, as the system we saw used in the Heartland showed. 2.) The 'Warder effect' is, somehow, the exact opposite of the effect of other Presidents, popular or otherwise, throughout history. Even in home states, the mid-term election 'bonus' is non-existant. 3.) The Warder campaigning was conducted without any expenditure until a last minute appearance which was never described, which certainly doesn't constitute a lasting campaigning effort on the part of the President. 4.) Even if Warder HAD campaigned heavily, 'campaigning' Presidents are not usually viewed in a very positive fashion. 5.) Having the departing GM give his future character a bonus, even if conducted by the most even-handed of men such as Erik, is still a conflict of interest and something which should be avoided. And that's about all I have to say about that. If anyone wants to see any more of the evidence I've talked about in this post (a lot can be learned simply by going through the U.S. Clerk's Office election records) feel free to contact me. I have all the info lying around. Regards, Gav
|
|
|
Post by Cody Shea on Jan 31, 2006 0:33:50 GMT -5
.. but I feel that any argument needs to be resolved between you two and not by other players interjecting their two cents worth on the matter. This is clearly addressed to me and I flatly reject the idea that I cannot comment on a matter that effects everyone in the game and is posted on a public forum. If you don't want me commenting then kick me out, otherwise I'm going to say what I feel needs to be said. That's that. - Will
|
|
|
Post by Admin Tyler on Jan 31, 2006 7:50:52 GMT -5
Whoah now. I didn't intend to offend anyone with that statement and if I did so I would like to apologize now.
|
|