Owner Account

You'll be hearing from your new Owner soon, folks. Have yourself a good one.

Per the ruling made by the appeals council in the case of Anderson, we have assembled a revision of the rules in order to better enforce discipline and good behavior in our community. For future situations, we are embracing a three strikes-oriented policy, as laid out below. This will replace the previous warning point system.
 

First Strike - Warning, issued by the Chief Administrator (CA). The Chief Administrator may issue a 24 hour ban from the VGS Main Chat on Telegram or Discord if the first strike offense was on said platform.

Second Strike - One Week suspension, issued by the Chief Administrator (CA)

Third Strike - One Quarter suspension, issued by the Chief Administrator (CA)

Permaban or forward to Owner appeal on majority vote of AB

The AB may overrule any discipline issued by the Chief Administrator through a unanimous internal vote.

In order to better distance myself from the game (I am, after all, retired from active participation as I pursue career opportunities and my marriage), I am also instituting a new role to insulate the CA from my oversight and give him some independence. I think it is of critical importance that the word of the CA be taken as authoritative, and I have little interest in spending a significant chunk of my time going over disputes just to generally agree with at least the spirit of what has happened. Therefore, we are also instituting a new series of rules into the appeals process that will reduce the power of the Owner and increase the independence of the Administrative Board.

As it stands, I feel that the CA functionally has to make a ruling that has to appeal to multiple components: the individuals involved, the community at large, and then whatever my personal feelings happen to be. While I will continue to consult with the CA on disciplinary measures, I do not think that my considerations as an individual are necessarily useful in making the best decisions in all cases. I want it to be very clear that yes, I appoint Chief Administrators and I foot the bill for this place - however, I do not want to run it by fiat. I want the CA to have freedom on this front to act promptly, and not just freedom that I assert they have - I want it to be written in stone in the rules.

I would also like to stress the following: we have Terms of Service for this board, and we have long considered that, at least on paper, the Terms of Service do extend to our official Telegram chat room (not other, unofficial boards only informally associated with VGS). I want to reiterate the basic behavior outlined in our Terms of Service:

You agree not to use the website to upload, post, transmit, display, perform or distribute any content, information, or materials that one or more of the following:

1. Are libelous, defamatory, abusive, or threatening, excessively violent, harassing, obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or pornographic.

2. Constitute child pornography.

3. Solicit personal information from or exploit in a sexual or violent manner anyone under the age of 18.

4. Incite, encourage or threaten physical harm against another.

5. Promote or glorify racial intolerance, use hate and/or racist terms, or signify hate towards any person or group of people.

6. Glamorize the use of hard core illegal substances and drugs.

7. Violate any provision of this agreement

8. Is generally offensive or in bad taste, as determined by the operator of this website.

You represent and warrant that you will not use the website to do one or more of the following:

1. "Stalk" or otherwise harass any person, or contact any person who has requested not to be contacted.

2. Provide false, misleading, or inaccurate information to the operator of this website or any other member.

3. Impersonate, or otherwise misrepresent affiliation, connection, or association with, any person or entity.

4. Harvest or otherwise collect information about users of this website, including email addresses and phone numbers.

5. Use or attempt to use any engine, software, tool, agent, or other device or mechanism (including without limitation browsers, spiders, robots, avatars, or intelligent agents) to harvest or otherwise collect information from the website for any use, including without limitation use on third-party websites.

6. Access content or data not intended for you, or log onto a server or account that you are not authorized to access. 

7. Attempt to probe, scan, or test the vulnerability of the website, or any associated system or network, or breach security or authentication measures without proper authorization.

8. Interfere or attempt to interfere with the use of the website by any other user, host or network, including, without limitation by means of submitting a virus, overloading, "flooding" "spamming," "mail bombing," or "crashing".

9. Use the website to send unsolicited e-mail, including without limitation promotions or advertisements for products or services.

10. Forge any TCP/IP packet header or any part of the header information in any e-mail or in any uploading or posting to, or transmission, display, performance or distribution by means of, the website.

As you can no doubt see, the Terms of Service grant myself as the Owner, and the Chief Administrator as my functionary, a great deal of power in policing this site. We have granted leeway on this in the past. Part of this was because I, as Owner and during my stint as Chief Administrator, was rather loathe to heavily police language and content. However, over the past few weeks and several fights between players over the content of material in messages and ongoing disputes, it has become increasingly clear that the Administration may need, if they feel so inclined, to police behavior more directly. I think most of us agree that a laissez-faire community is the best for all of us, but we can only be as laissez-faire about things as the behavior of members of the community allows us to be. If we want a light hand from the administration, we must treat each other well. If we don’t treat each other well, then consequences will have to happen and both myself and the CA are fully empowered to take those steps.

3 minutes ago, GamerBoy#4872 said:

For me, I doubt that after 2020, Republicans would act similar to President Trump after losing Senate and the White House. I just feel maybe it would have been better suited for after 9/11. I think this idea of pushing further right, is mainly what I think is the non-realistic. Yes, their are going to be right-wing populist but will the Senate have those individuals?

We have to give people the right to play the characters that they create and, yes, make mistakes as those characters. We can't just stand up and say "This character is not a good fit for the state of play" and then force the character out. This is explored through scenario and approval ratings, which take a lot of time and effort and, as you can see from Fisher's most recent news post, is something currently unfolding - what will the GOP look like? 

We can't get mad at people for playing the way that they want to play - we can only simulate it and react to it. 

Quote

You have not once but twice referred to the players creating AB polling is because they are just mad about something. Is that not belittling, or am I tweaking?

 

Well I'm not entirely sure what you mean because the idea is incomplete there, but no I am not belittling anyone with concerns. I have just stressed that there is a protocol to this and that this is not it and that this is a really poor way to go about being heard because it is inherently combative as opposed to cooperative. That's not belittling. 

2 minutes ago, GamerBoy#4872 said:

I disagree that the comparison is a disservice but if being literal is the objective then okay.  You are still belittling the concerns, and you may stand by any idea you so choose to. But I would suggest that maybe we look at the history of the online forum and see maybe there may be a reason for its degenerative roster. I have done GovSims before and they lose traction the same time every time; they become more hyper-partisan or uniquely biased.

How exactly have I belittled concerns? 

1 minute ago, GamerBoy#4872 said:

I also will say, that the Admin should allow people to publicly poll the approval of the Admin. You do not see the United States government asking polling individuals on how they are doing every step of the way or not at all. But individuals who do not seat in public servant positions.

Administrators are people volunteering to run a game. They are not government officials, and I think that comparison really does a disservice to what they do. 
 

As to approval polling, Fisher has promised to post those once every IG year. I think that’s a better system than a player getting to do it whenever they are mad at an Administrator, and I really stand by that idea. 

8 minutes ago, OA said:

I don't think that the concerns raised by Jewell and others (inc. myself) are unwarranted or meritless. I think the idea was to have a positive discussion to make sure that the AB can function effectively with wide approval, not a mud-slinging fest against other players. 

Certainly never meant to imply that they were meritless, just that there are proper channels for this (direct communication with an Administrator or myself, the suggestions thread in this forum), whereas these just tend to turn into fights between players/administrators and hurt feelings. 

Yeah, so my strong opposition to opening approvals this early into an adminship is that the crew is still learning their exact role and how things are done and are figuring out how to operate. We are, I believe, two weeks into this reset. It’s going to take some time before it comes together into a perfect machine, and all rogue approvals do is trash an Admin’s emotional state for that day. Having also been on the receiving end of rogue approvals, it really, really sucks. 

I posted in the thread, but let me be super clear about this. 
 

1. If there are AB approvals, they will be posted by either myself or the AB if they are seeking feedback. Bluntly said, player driven AB approvals tend to just be opportunities for people who are mad about present rulings or something similar to lash out at an AB, and that is not something that is conducive to the creation of an independent AB.

2. This is not a new policy - it has been standing policy since Brink’s tenure as Chief Administrator. Please respect it. 
 

Thanks. 

I am going to reiterate what was posted the last time one of these was posted. 
 

The Player Board of Appeals on this case comprised of Brink, Richard, and Elliot Davis.

Terrus’ message was violation of the rules and as a admin he should have known better. That being said, it does not meets the seriousness or frequency to warrant a suspension. Fisher’s punishments were a sensible initial reaction to the situation, and Sweet Daddy’s change to Anderson’s penalty was necessary, we believe, in offering a reminder that the Administrative Board and its members must face a higher standard of responsibility. Similarly, we believe that we all are supposed to be grown people here, and we should be able not only to avoid arguments like this which get personal quickly but also to stand down in the heat of the moment.
 

The official recommendation of the Player Board of Appeals is that Sweet Daddy, as owner of the game, should establish a working group of players, comprised especially those with experience as a leader or admin in other games of this nature, tasked with updating the rules and regulations related to the disciplinary process. It is our belief that the current threshold for disciplinary action taken is too high and, as such, only antagonizes without actually averting the issue.

Howdy folks,

Nathan has exercised his right as a member of this community to appeal the decision of the Owner. In accordance with the rules, an appeal board has been assembled under the rules:

1. An active player selected by the Administration
2. An active player selected by the individual appealing the Administration’s ruling
3. The two Party Administrators
4. One former Chief Administrator currently not serving on the Administrative Board, if available, selected by the Owners; this individual will serve as presiding officer of the Administrative Review Board
5. The Owners, excepting any Owner currently serving on the AB, in a non-voting capacity

Currently, the appeals board consists of Brink, Raul Sarcastro, and myself in a non-voting fashion. A third appointment is forthcoming, and the Party Administrator requirement is waived due to those positions not currently being filled. 

Thank you.
 

Howdy folks,

Anderson has, as is his right and the right of every player on this board, opted to appeal the decision to institute a temporary suspension and issue him a warning point to me as the Owner.

General Findings:

- Disputes of this nature are not without context, and this did not come from thin air. As many of us in the Telegram chat have seen, there have been mounting hostilities between the two individuals involved in this situation for the better part of a week.

- As best I can tell, the root of this dispute is what the Capitol protestors should be charged with, a dispute that I never foresaw as spilling over to the level of what happened today. That said, this is not without context – I know tensions are high, I know feelings are high. When feelings have been high in the past, we have granted significant leeway to players to express those feelings; this may have been in error, as it has created a standard of interpersonal behavior that is not ideal.

- The chat suspension instituted by Fisher towards both parties is in line with previous justifications for bans from the chat room and the board.

- Corollary to the above point, one of the individuals involved was an Administrator and that does require a higher standard of behavior from Ownership. Additionally, while I understand that this individual felt seriously antagonized on this front, the most significant line crossing in this event was committed by the Administrator. I believe that this does not call for equal punishment, but unequal punishment.

- Second corollary to the above point, I do not want to create a tradition on this board where an Administrator issues a punishment and then an Owner comes in to extend that punishment without the consultation of the administrators themselves. However, a certain level of unequal punishment is required in this situation given that one of the parties was in a place of authority.

Therefore:

- In my estimation, it is unlikely that the specific chain of events that happened today will occur again, and if they do they must be met with definitive action. As it stands, the only punishment against either individual was a temporary chat suspension now expired and the issuance of a single warning point for each individual. In order to express the differences in action taken, Anderson is having his warning point reduced to a half warning point, which displays on the board as no warning points.
 

- I also ask, as I have often in the past, that everybody love everybody even if you don’t like each other.

- As a person, not an Owner, I would just like to say that both parties are reasonable, intelligent people, and there is no reason for either one of you to behave poorly to the other. This is supposed to be a fun environment, on account of it fundamentally being a game. If two people here have issues, not interacting with each other is possible – not needling or trolling or going after each other is more than possible. You have two different takes on an issue where said takes aren’t even that far apart; neither one of you is a fascist, neither one of you is a bad person – you disagree, and that’s okay. Making it personal is not okay, but maybe for the foreseeable future just don’t disagree with each other if it can’t be done civilly.  

- Please note that if this ruling is unsatisfactory to the individuals involved, there is a final appeals step that is laid out in the rules. Both individuals are free to take advantage of this course of action should they find it appropriate.

Howdy folks, 

Some words were said in emotional haste here earlier, and for that I want to apologize to everyone but especially to Nathan, who I do cherish and who has been a great boon to this ownership team. 
 

I just wanted to take Nathan for being my partner for several years now - I don’t think I could have done it alone, and I am sad to see him go, but I wish him the absolute best. 
 

Tamgentially related, I feel that there is now a need to make a ruling on when Nathan should be allowed to participate in the player base, should he choose to do so. By my reading of the rules, Nathan should be able to return to the player base at the end of the standard admin time period, and I hope he takes advantage of the opportunity and continues his many years of excellent contribution to our community. 

43 minutes ago, Brink said:

I'm assuming all members of Congress will have received the vaccine, or having been forced to accept it upon swearing in after election?

Probably not forced, but if any member of Congress refused to get the vaccine they'd probably be denied personal, individual access to say, McConnell or other older Senators. 

Quote

 

I read the COVID article, but it is unclear what restrictions remain in place. Are people gathering in large crowds now (major sports events), are mask mandates still being enforced by businesses, are bars/restaurants open nationwide? 

This is the only one I can really clarify.

1. Largely, most restrictions have disappeared. There is now herd immunity in most of the United States, so the places where restrictions remain and there is a threat of a localized outbreak are not major cities. 

2. Yes, major sports events and the like are largely re-opened, but some stadiums and arenas in the Great Plains and Pacific northwest would still have some restrictions on attendance due to continued threat of community spread to the non-vaccinated. Nothing more onerous than vaccine verification slips and temp checks at this point, though. 

3. Some private businesses may still enforce mask bans out of an abundance of caution - however, this has largely gone the way of the dodo outside of places where there is an active community outbreak (which are, again, rare).

4. Yes, restaurants and bars are re-opened at this point in time and have been since 2021. 

A happy New Years from the owners to all of you! 

1 minute ago, TexAgRepublican said:

Speaking of senate races, I am not a fan of the way we do it where people are pressured to run in some random state with a throwaway character they'll never use. I don't think anyone is truly motivated to do that despite the IVS bump. It's a lot of work for not much reward, and that's why we see so many defaults every cycle. 

That is definitely a reality, and one that I think is hard to resolve because the opposite is players in bigger, more meaningful states having to run for re-election essentially every cycle. I actually like that, but that could be my more wonky aspect coming home to roost and it might be as big a turn off to trying to be the, say, Ohio Senator (though this could also be a benefit, essentially guaranteeing that those states have continuously active representation). 

Yes, that is a far simpler model than what I proposed and accomplishes the same thing. I like that one. 

Spitballing about the SIG thing, we could actually simplify it further by creating a kind of slider - you could basically have three tiers of background fundraising (grass roots, mixed, SIG) which someone selects, and this could dictate public perception but also lead to semi-regular player response/SIG ‘quests’ and go up/down based on how someone operates in-game. 

One thing I have suggested, and would like to see implemented if there is interest in it, is the consolidation of all infrastructure spending into one broad column; essentially, if you've played the Political Process, I think they do a good job of putting all infrastructure into their Field Office format. I think that is very workable in a board format as a model to pull from. I always liked the office placement game and staff training and the like - but I also recognize this was a big barrier to entry and a lot of people struggled with figuring out exactly what this did, so I think it needs to go the way of the dodo, but I would like to hear broader thoughts on that front as well.

Leonard Reed was accidentally MeToo'd in 2019 after a case of mistaken identity. CNN higher ups did not bother to correct this error. 

Dutch Savage bought a new family  off the dark web. They also all died of sadness. 

Joseph Hand gave up news broadcasting to join ESPN, becoming the go to play-by-play guy for the Denver Broncos. Due to a series of unforeseen but suitably comedic events, he became the Denver quarterback in 2024 - the oldest in league history - and was fully paralyzed during his first full contact practice in the pre-season. 

30,900,000

32,050,000

So, our new Chief Administrator is ready to go and wants to announce some hires and initiatives, so there is no point in delaying the announcement: everyone, please join me in welcoming @Fisher as our new Chief Administrator.

Per Fisher's request, I have also been asked to put out feelers for those that would be willing to participate on the Administrative Board and make this transition and the new round as successful as it possibly can be - so please, feel free to reach out to Fisher if you want to play a part in building a great new round (or reach out to me and I will relay the message). Thank you all.