Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MrAnderson

July AB Approvals

July AB Approvals  

11 members have voted

  1. 1. Who you have a positive opinion of their work as an admin?

    • Anderson
      9
    • Avner
      8
    • Ollie
      4
    • Fisher
      7
    • None
      0
  2. 2. Which areas is the AB doing its best work?

    • Elections
      4
    • Domestic Scenarios
      6
    • General Character Coverage
      4
    • Legislative Coverage
      4
    • Providing Realistic Real World Responses
      6
    • Fairness Towards All Players
      4
    • Fostering A Positive Gaming Atmosphere
      2
    • None
      0
  3. 3. Which areas is the AB not meeting your expectations?

    • Elections
      1
    • Domestic Scenarios
      5
    • General Character Coverage
      5
    • Legislative Coverage
      4
    • Providing Realistic Real World Responses
      3
    • Fairness Towards All Players
      5
    • Fostering A Positive Gaming Atmosphere
      4
    • None
      1


Recommended Posts

You guys know the drill. 

 

Comment below to expand on your answers, provide suggestions, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really appreciate some coverage on the economy. How can I possibly attack wilder if I don't know how many jobs were lost?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Storm said:

I would really appreciate some coverage on the economy. How can I possibly attack wilder if I don't know how many jobs were lost?

 

I'll see if we can't whip up some economic data for you angsty types. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the prison scenario could have been executed a lot better. I know our concerns in private weren't really addressed (as far as I know) but the current set up makes it very hard for Republicans to do anything. How can we be the party tough on crime (generic Republican policy) when that means going against prisoners who have been so very badly mistreated? Doesn't that precipitate a lose-lose scenario for Republicans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I tend to believe there are some issues which are lose-lose for one side. 

 

I haven't checked the admin responsibilities area in a while, but has it been updated recently? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Brink said:

Unfortunately, I tend to believe there are some issues which are lose-lose for one side. 

 

Then if the issue was dug into more, why is the AB sending out scenarios which are a lose-lose for one side? I'm not for one second saying the AB is throwing one side a bone but shouldn't scenarios should be based on player actions or at least... started from an equal footing for both parties?

 

Edit: In other words, shouldn't it have been an action by the President to unearth these abuses rather than the AB?

Edited by Conrad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AB firmly believes that the prison scenario is not a lose-lose for anyone. In fact, we were concerned that it would place Democrats in an unwinable situation if it hit anyone. 

In fact, the prison reform idea was based largely on a Bush policy and GOP bill from the mid-2000s. I understand the "tough on crime" dynamic, but rarely is such a universal policy expected to function IRL. Look at Trump, who is "tough on crime" but trying to change the law on opiod addiction by lowering punishments and increasing treatment. 

 

So I guess the point was that we were kind of expecting/hoping players would step up to a more complicated scenario that required Executive action, spin, legislative action, etc. Rather than an easy talking-points shouting match like Right-to-Work where we pretty much know the outcome ahead of time. *shrug* 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

The AB firmly believes that the prison scenario is not a lose-lose for anyone. In fact, we were concerned that it would place Democrats in an unwinable situation if it hit anyone. 

In fact, the prison reform idea was based largely on a Bush policy and GOP bill from the mid-2000s. I understand the "tough on crime" dynamic, but rarely is such a universal policy expected to function IRL. Look at Trump, who is "tough on crime" but trying to change the law on opiod addiction by lowering punishments and increasing treatment. 

 

So I guess the point was that we were kind of expecting/hoping players would step up to a more complicated scenario that required Executive action, spin, legislative action, etc. Rather than an easy talking-points shouting match like Right-to-Work where we pretty much know the outcome ahead of time. *shrug* 

 

We were more concerned that maybe the optics of the GOP refusing to advance prisoner rights as the "tough on crime" policy aspect would play badly in the press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GOP is leading in popular polling concerning this issue, on the prisoner rights issues; that's a debate over which party can spin it better. Can Republicans spin not advancing "prisoner rights but concrete methods to prevent abuse from happening?" Or can Democrats convince voters this abuse scandal is much more than preventing abuse but securing the rights of prisoners. Its up to both parties to decide how they want to spin. I just decide how it works out in the bigger picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Avner said:

The GOP is leading in popular polling concerning this issue, on the prisoner rights issues; that's a debate over which party can spin it better. Can Republicans spin not advancing "prisoner rights but concrete methods to prevent abuse from happening?" Or can Democrats convince voters this abuse scandal is much more than preventing abuse but securing the rights of prisoners. Its up to both parties to decide how they want to spin. I just decide how it works out in the bigger picture.

 

Thank you for clarifying this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is an old thread, but still a vehicle to offer feedback nontheless. I know @Fisher  was out with a back operation this week and I hope he is recovering well. But in future, maybe ARs could be posted together rather than President > DNC > RNC. Just seems like we would eliminate the almost 2 week wait that we had this time around and allow Fisher, or whoever is doing ARs, to relax while they are recovering or busy or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Conrad said:

I know this is an old thread, but still a vehicle to offer feedback nontheless. I know @Fisher  was out with a back operation this week and I hope he is recovering well. But in future, maybe ARs could be posted together rather than President > DNC > RNC. Just seems like we would eliminate the almost 2 week wait that we had this time around and allow Fisher, or whoever is doing ARs, to relax while they are recovering or busy or whatever.

 

Thank you for your feedback. Your recommendation actually is our policy. I try and will continue to release ARs on the same day. The four day delay was the result of an unfortunate real life accident where I sprained my back and required medical attention for several days. Also unfortunate, I must not have articulated and explained that reality well enough to you when I answered your several inquiries over TG as to when the approvals would be released. Rest assured, I don’t anticipate any severe rhomboid sprains interfering with the release of approvals in the future and expect ARs will be released uniformly or in quick succession in the future. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.