Alternative History

This goes agenst Outer Lands.--Sunkist- 05:10, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

That only refers to the islands. Arstarpool 16:00, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

No the Islands are still part of Outer Lands--Sunkist- 18:45, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

The Map was changed. Cape Cod as in the continental part is not part of the Outer Lands, because the Outer Lands are only the lower islands of Cape Cod. Arstarpool 18:57, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the extension of the peninsula out to Cape Cod is not an island, but it does seem that this Republic can not be a reconstituted "Plymouth Colony" if the "Outer Lands" continues as a separate confederation. The reason that the Outer Lands became a survivor state was that they were isolated from the mainland. If Plymouth was successful, it would probably come to encompass the whole peninsula as did the original Plymouth Colony. This would not be an affront to the Outer Lands, though. Their confederation is largely one of convenience anyway. SouthWriter 20:12, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

With the county government surviving, I would see no reason for Cape Cod to form the "loose confederation" that is the Outer Lands. Arstarpool 02:19, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Arstarpool, this contradicts what's been established as canon for Outer Lands in regards to Cape Cod. Cape Cod itself is part of Outer Lands, not just the islands. That said, I don't have a problem with establishing some kind of movement for the establishment of a Plymouth colony or Plymouth survivor state; in fact, establishing new survivor states as of 2010 is a rarity in this timeline. I would support the groundwork for a future Plymouth nation being laid at present, perhaps building towards some kind of declaration of independence by 2012. BrianD 03:01, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
No thanks. How about the Cape Cod area would be given an ultimatum of joining Plymouth at a future date, or possibly something that has already happened recently? If possible, could you give me a map showing the areas controlled by Outer Lands? Do you really think that a county whose county seats survived would actually fork over control to a small, weak, loose confederation? Arstarpool 03:30, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
There was no map. The five boroughs, if you will, are listed on the Outer Lands page. The proposal - which was approved by the other editors as canon long before you developed Plymouth - took into account the destruction of Boston and other sites in eastern Massachusetts, and that those islands would have been the most likely places for people to have survived the blasts, and avoid the fallout and radiation from those blasts. If I could have put survivors in eastern Massachusetts, I would have. But I saw no possible way for that to happen; hence, the situation as is in that part of New England.BrianD 04:07, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
I read the description, but its not very descriptive. Plymouth had no nearby strike zones other than Boston, as with Barnstable. So I thought that it would be logical for them to cooperate with each other. If you could just allow me to use the northern tips of the Cape, that would be good. Arstarpool 04:16, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
You know...that's fine. Best wishes to the Plymouth survivor nation. BrianD 04:21, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
I concur, the Commonwealth of Plymouth did not come into existence immediately. The Outer Lands were organized rather haphazardly and very quickly. It makes sense that the people of Plymouth and Barnstable (towns representing the earliest "New England") would seek to organize a state as soon as they realized the national and state governments were gone. I propose that the history of the Outer Lands be amended to include overtures by Plymouth to incorporate the islands. The islands, having lost their largest borough to annexation anyway, would probably agree since the alliance is only for convenience anyway. The miracle of the Outer Lands could peacefully become part of a stronger, more coherent state. --SouthWriter 14:23, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Second colony, not the first !

Sorry, but Plymouth postdated Jamestown by 18 years! The Pilgrims were headed to Virginia when they got blown off course. Jamestown celebrated their four hundreth anniversary almost a decade ago -- in a big way, actually! Jamestown itself was the second colony established, nearby Roanoke Island (NC) having failed miserably (hostile native population!). The south was actually a far better place to set up housekeeping. That first winter, before actually building a settlement, half of those aboard the Mayflower died. But they had found a place to call their own, and the rest is history, SouthWriter 15:00, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

This error has not been changed, even though the article is now graduated. What gives? You recently editied the article, but old mistakes still remain. I know time is precious to most of us, so would be okay if we made changes and THEN posted here? Undo is fairly simple. :-) SouthWriter 18:18, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

No one knows what exactly caused the Roanoke colony to fail. There are many theories (ranging from the mundane to the supernatural), but no one can know for sure. The true fate of the colony is lost to the sands of time seeing that nobody lived to tell tales about it. Yankovic270 15:35, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I'll grant you that, Yank. Historical evidence is available, but contradictory. There seems to have been a significant drought (tree-ring evidence, for what it's worth) the same years that the colony was settled. When the island was abandoned, the only message left behind was the word "Croatoan" (their name for a nearby tribe) on a post and "Cro" (apparently an abbreviation) on a tree on the way out of town. There was no cross etched into the wall of the fort, which was supposed to have indicated a violent end. The stories of the local tribes seem to indicate that there had been survivors, and local peoples in the following century seem to have had European features as well.
The best evidence so far is that the population was assimilated into the local indigenous tribes. The immigrants probably became part of the "native" population, not an unprecedented occurrence (as noted by DNA evidence in Great Britain). --SouthWriter 16:14, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout Patterns

Once again, fallout becomes a problem from the wrong source. Plymouth may have suffered from fallout the bombing of

Fallout US48.png

Providence, RI, but not from that of Boston, MA. As this map shows, the prevailing winds on the east coast (even without a tropical storm bearing down on Virginia) would be in a northeasterly direction. Providence is about the same distance from Plymouth, but west instead of north of that city. Even with the biggest bombs (not likely, but possible, at 10.5 mt) the radiation from air bursts would not be significant to kill thousands outside of the actual bombed cities. This map, by the way, is already available in this wiki's database.

The same faulty logic, by the way, affected the articles on Cuba and Puerto Rico, among others, that assumed radiation clouds descending from the north. There is no way that the southern hemisphere was affected by any of the northern hemisphere's destruction -- winds just do not "work" that way! SouthWriter 15:42, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the case, you can see in the map that it suffered the least (i'm assuming that yellow means less fallout?). I'll write in a death toll of about 80,000. Arstarpool 16:11, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

With "death toll," do you mean an overall loss due to all causes in the counties of Barnstable and Plymouth? The death toll among refugees of radiation sickness would most likely have been high, for they would have suffered from local dust that settled soon after the initial blasts over Boston and Providence. Figuring how many of those made the twenty-mile trek to Plymouth should not be too hard. How big a blast do you want over the targets? SouthWriter 16:36, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing 3 1MT blasts over Boston, and a couple 500KT blasts over Providence. The "death toll" means Plymouth and Barnstable residents. Arstarpool 17:01, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Viability of article

Since Arstarpool has apparently left the TL, I want to reopen discussion on Plymouth and Outer Lands, to come to a consensus on what ultimately is the most probable scenario for the region.BrianD 00:47, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm still here! But what the hell, let's come to a group consensus. I want to make this quick and without becoming a big argument, so I will just take a poll. Arstarpool 01:29, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

On second note I have decided to decline a consensus. Brian clearly allowed me to use the northern part of Cape Cod, and I will not, under any circumstances, return the entire Cape Code region to him. I will however, make small and/or slight changes to the border if we must. I have learned from my last border mediation that the mediator does not give a neutral opinion, it is always sided with one of the users. My experience with polls is bad too, after one of our users multi-voted 6 times. Arstarpool 16:45, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feal cheated with recent events, but as far as I can tell it was done fairly by Zack. Furthermore, if you have a dispute with Brian and if you cannot work it out between the two of you, then you bring it to the community. Since the Outer Lands article was graduated first, information written there takes preempts any info that is in dispute with it on this article. Mitro 21:25, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
In this instance, Arstar was so aggressive it wasn't worth it to fight over a minor article (Outer Lands), so I turned it over to Arstar to be done with it. I won't make that mistake again. If Arstar is here, then he still is caretaker until he turns it over to someone else, and therefore because he hasn't left and still has an interest in the article my proposal is null. This is not a hill I want to die on. I will say that I wrote Outer Lands in as realistic of a manner as I could, and took into account the Plymouth area in Massachusetts. The Plymouth article as written by Arstar was canonized, regardless of any conflicts with Vermont or Outer Lands. BrianD 21:37, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
If there are conflicts they should be addressed. The Editorial Guidelines has a procedure for that. Mitro 21:39, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
I have put the article "under review." My earlier suggestion - that the Outer Lands join Plymouth - would work well. It only takes a little tweeking of the older article and a minor change to the history of the establishment of the Plymouth state. But both cannot exist as canon as they now are. Since Outer Lands was there first, Plymouth will be under review until both articles are made to agree. The note that a border dispute is underway does not resolve it, since the capital of Outer Lands is in Cape Cod (claimed by Plymouth). SouthWriter 18:54, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
I would be fine with Outer Lands and Plymouth joining up, per South's suggestion.BrianD 19:40, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


It does not look like Arstarpool is budging, but he has given control of Outer Lands back to Brian without so much as suggesting any changes. Therefore, it is Plymouth that must change. I have stated that I am in favor of the Outer Lands seeking union with Plymouth, but Plymouth seems to have gotten strong quickly and would have probably been in place too soon for the Outer Lands to ever have to have come into existence.

Therefore, though I don't see any reason why Plymouth would not have survived, and so doing getting into contact with Cape Cod and the other Outer Lands fairly soon, if we let the proposal over-rule a canonized article, we set a bad precedent. For that reason, based on it being over thirty days since the introduction of Plymouth - and it not being fixed it to the satisfaction of a majority - I am against it continuing as is. I suggest that Plymouth (the town) be an isolated city-state somehow surviving long enough for Cape Cod fishermen running into one of their fishing boats. The revived Plymouth might then become a center from which the Association could connect with the rest of the world. Maybe not as early as 1997, but not as late as 2007.

I really like the idea of the earliest "independent" (they did have a charter, but for land in Virginia) colony being re-established in some way. But it can't happen at the expense of a well meaning article that has already passed the discernment of the community. I hope that this article can be scaled back to conform to earlier articles. I will await the opinion of the community before further action on my part. --SouthWriter 04:45, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

I changed my mind...I will keep a loose hold on Outer Lands but not more than that. I recently let Nuclear Vacuum work on it and he has a good reputation so I think it is good he works on it.
South, the idea is that there is a border dispute in the articles. Its like the West Bank or Gaza or something, where you see a Gaza soldier and your an Israeli soldier and you think they are "encroaching" on your "lands" and you have border war there. Nobody knows who controls what and where the border ends. It's what makes Plymouth, well, Plymouth. Plymouth was in border disputes since before America was founded although with other nations.
P.S: No offense but I kinda don't like your idea regarding the city-state thing. Arstarpool 05:44, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Alex, you do not control Outer Lands. Nuke is working on it at the behest of the creator and present caretaker of the article. I have made it clear that the Plymouth article will not meet the requirements of the timeline in its present form. The border between the counties of Plymouth and Barnstable was most likely turned into a nuclear wasteland when Otis AFB was destroyed (remembering QAA - "If in doubt, it was nuked"). This leaves Cape Cod an "island," which technically it was because of the Cape Cod Canal. It also leaves the city of Plymouth very close to a massive nuclear explosion less than 30 miles almost due south (meaning a dump of local debris, some of it radioactive).

And as far as border disputes goes, that is not what Outer Lands is all about. The Association of five counties, largest of which is Cape Cod, is not out for "territory," and would gladly join up with a more stable state if there were one. But it would not have even formed if the Plymouth of your article were developing at the same time. But since it came first, and you created Plymouth with that knowledge, we have a repeat of California/SNU on our hands. This is up to the community - Outer Lands exists, and Plymouth is up for debate. I would like to see them both existing together as the sucessor to Massachusetts. But changes have to be made with both articles.

No offense taken, as far as I'm concerned. But when I looked and saw Otis Field, the possibilities dwindled for a large Plymouth state and Brian's original idea of the conditions seemed more probable. Brian has been working the time line a lot longer than Nuke who saw possibilities for his home state. I am not sure as to Nuke's ideas on Plymouth, but so far he hasn't made any changes on Outer Lands that coincide with what you have written into the Plymouth article. As far as changes to be made, we will be working on 30 days from Aug. 31 for the community to debate and the decision to be made. If Outer Lands remains as created, then big changes need to be made on Plymouth. If Outer Lands is rewritten, smaller changes need to be made. But remember the guidelines -- especially QAA and QSS. SouthWriter 15:54, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

First, thank you Alex for your reply. In order to best answer the following remarks, I am going to place my remarks in line and in italics. SouthWriter

But I'm not in doubt, so it was not nuked. I am not debating this. Remember the infamous words I ask on every article "any objections?". If you thought Otis was nuked that would have been an objection, and I asked and there were none. So technically that is not changeable unless you request another review after this one is finished.

I brought up Otis as an example of why Brian would have thought that New England was cut off from the Outer Lands. HE was in doubt, so he assumed that base was nuked. That put Barnstable pretty close to the destruction, but far enough away to function as a survivor town. When you created many of your articles you put "Any Objections" right next to them and then graduated your own articles without any discussion. Sometimes we miss these things. The first objection you got was after you had already graduated the article from someone that had not been following the proposal page. Otis is not the point, the claim of the parts of Cape Cod that are necessary for you article is what made this go up for review.

You claiming there is a need for major changes is based on that you believe that this article may not remain as is because it is not mentioned in Outer Lands as existing as a stable nation state, which is bull. The thing is is that Plymouth is not as stable as you portray it, sir. They still require food imports and are very dependent on the Celtic Alliance. However they have made small annexations of Barnstable County and obtained surviving military installations. You are starting another California/SNU and you know it! If you look at the new map I gave up most of Cape Cod except for the part containing the military installations and Barnstable.

First, my claim has nothing to do with the lack of mention of Plymouth, but rather on the claim of Plymouth to land already part of a canonized nation. I am on record as saying that if Outer Lands could be changed to conform with the new nation, then both could exist. I assumed that you claimed all of Cape Cod because it was part of the original colony. That would make sense. The problem is, that land was already "claimed" and you gave Brian such a hard time that he "gave in," allowing you to go ahead with your plan.
Second, your annexation of just the military installations is not the only indication that you want a powerful Massachusetts successor state. You have the new constitution proclaiming claim to all of the former state. Yours would not be the only state to have done this, and it is to be expected. However, it is not I, but you, who is "starting" a boundary dispute. This time, though, you butted in on an existing article. Nuke Vacuum has done an admirable job there, but has not changed the article to align with what you are claiming for Plymouth. Without Barnstable and/or Provincetown there is no fifth borough (county) of the Association of Outer Lands. You have claimed both of them. SouthWriter 05:09, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Remember the hypocrites of this wiki, who at times have had several military bases (Fort Knox, Kentucky) or cities (Charleston, W Virginia or Lincoln, NE) or even have had different missiles hit in their direction (Piedmont Republic) or have greatly exaggerated their nations potential (South Florida or W Penn) and have then turned around and stated something as implausible or impossible. So if it is implausible for Fort Otis not to get hit than Piedmont should be hit with real nukes. Now naturally you are going to say "well, different issue" but in reality whats the difference?

To call someone a hypocrite is a serious matter, Alex, and I am not sure how each of the editors you mention (including yourself!) are to be considered "hypocrites" in these cases. To have inconsistencies is not to be pretending to be someone that you are not. With Fort Knox, Zack received permission from a consensus that the installation would be missed. He even had the authorities there totally surprised that they came out untouched. I, for one, pointed out how nearby nukes might have affected the base, but the community as a whole went with the story that Zack had written. On the other hand, Yank's inventions caused quite a stir, and in many ways are improbable, but they blazed a trail into the southeast as understood at the time. That he stood up for you, and then pointed out what he believes are mistakes, does not make him a hypocrite.
You emphasize, by underlining my flagship article, the fact that I am a "hypocrite" for changing the payload to a conventional warhead versus a nuclear one. The fact is, I inserted the missile even hitting the nuclear power station. The fact is, the FEMA map shows the power station as a target, but the WCRB report did not mention it, so I could have left it fully operational (as it seems you did in South Florida). In fact, I included the strike against the Savannah River plant that somehow the WCRB report also missed. I asked about these, and rather than go with the FEMA map, it was agreed that the WCRB was to be the guide around which we would work in the Southeast. I decided that rather than buck the system, I would work within it. And that is what I am looking for in articles written for 1983DD. Like anyone, I am able to put an article up for review, it is up to the community to judge whether changes are made before further action is taken.
The most remarkable thing about this remark, though, is that you include yourself - creator of West Pennsylvania and major contributor to South Florida, as being among the "hypocrites." I have never accused you of being a hypocrite for questioning the viability of someone's article after having received the same criticism from another. Viability is viability. I have prepared a scenario by which the troops at Otis would have escaped - and the supplies at a nearby facility retrieved, in order for Plymouth to have their military much as it is in your proposal. The point is, if Otis survived unscathed, then it would have been utilized by the Outer Lands (Barnstable) before it was used by Plymouth. Proximity matters in these story lines. SouthWriter 05:09, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

We all did something that really wouldn't happen in a real "Doomsday" and we should all know it. We wanted a positive nation state, and that's why we had governors escape and militaries take over Virginia, and Australia and New Zealand combine into the most powerful nation on the planet and a new United Nations form. But it is these positive impossibilities that are an escape for some of us younger members.

Who are we to say that things would not have happened this way in a real doomsday scenario? That is the point of a feasible alternate history - to speculate what might have happened. The community has been charged with being too positive by the apparent creator (denied to be such by some), and many of the editors tend toward the pessimistic view. And this is okay. Going just by the FEMA maps, I don't feel it is as bad as many think it would have been. But I based my article on march larger yield than what is indicated by the maps (excepting the hits ignored by the WCRB article. We have governors escape and military troops take over states to make good stories. I created a terrorist attack that killed more people than died in OTL on Sept 11, 2001. That is not "positive," but it is in a nation-state that used its resources wisely in the course of 27 years. It is as close to real as I can get it based on perimeters that I did not set. SouthWriter 05:09, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Look at our user VENEZUELA; his country is in shambles under the control of a de facto dictator and this wiki is an escape from his troubles. Maybe Sunkist/Perryz wanted Indiana to survive as a large republic because maybe he had some troubles and making that page would give him an escape from reality. Yank has Asperger's and might find this an amusing hobby that he can be himself and as an escape from the real world and his condition and just have fun

Me, I am a teenager who grew up with his parents divorced when he was very young and his father out in Colombia or Bolivia or Nicaragua toppling communists and dictators and could never teach his own son how to play football and a mother who's not the most mentally sound person in the world I will leave it at that. I went from living the good life to the not-so-good life about twice early in my life and I taught myself how to live. This wiki is a place I can do whatever I want to and don't have to care of whatever crap is happening in the real world I don't have to be concerned with.

I have lamented the way the teenagers - possibly the majority of the editors - tend to treat this as a game. I can appreciate that, but the creators of the wiki have tried to keep the role playing to other wikis. This wiki is for lovers of history, not fantasy. Alternate history is a genre that depends on truth and consequences. It can be fun, but it also needs to be a discipline to keep it separate from all the other genres of literature that are just as fun. I can appreciate the forces that might propel a young person to this pastime, and I can feel for their escapism. I likewise am using it for escapism while in an attempt to keep my creative juices flowing as a frustrated fiction writer.
However, this wiki is not a place where you can "do what [you] want to" because there are guidelines within which you are expected to comply. This is especially true if you are participating in a group project like 1983DD. Of course, the wiki is a lot more than group projects, and just about anything goes in solo projects, but there is not much fun in writing stuff no one is reading (based on lack of remarks, etc.) so being a part of a group project is indeed more fun. All we ask is that it be fun for us all. SouthWriter 05:09, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

The thing is is that the "worst case scenario" mentality is driving the users overboard. Look at Perryz/Sunkist, when he was criticized over his Indiana article and when I used to hate his article North Florida he left the wiki, and weeks later as Sunkist, and he even admitted he was ashamed of what happened. You have to understand that this time line can never be totally plausible. It is a unique gem that none can copy and keeps the Wiki together. It is the last of its kind, a true cooperative time line. But in order to cooperate we must understand that some of us don't want Fort Knox nuked, others want to reclaim all of Virginia, others want their hometown to survive, and some just want a large nation state. We have to accept that we all have varying beliefs on what would have happened and we must continue cooperating until the very last article is created, the very last proposal template removed, because we cooperate and that means that we must agree, must come to a compromise sometimes. If we just think about applying our beliefs that only small communities survive or that all military bases were nuked then we are just going to bicker and never accomplish anything. We have to accept that even though we are not the most plausible time line it is still fun but our different beliefs together are what make it fun. Do you think it would be fun if only nation states existed? Do you think it would be fun if there were five or six small towns left in the world and that was "humanity"? No, but these two beliefs put together are what produced 1983: Doomsday as it stands today, and maybe Outer Lands would like to remain a loose confederation and Plymouth a centralized nation state, but you want them to be either a unified nation or a city-state and a confederation, and there is no fun in that, sir. Arstarpool 01:48, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

PS: Arstarpool 01:48, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

This long paragraph seems to make the point that we must compromise. To that I most certainly agree. I have bent over backwards to accommodate both Plymouth and Outer Lands. I suggested several times that the two be reconciled. The only thing that I can see is that will make the two separate is for there to be a weaker Plymouth. If something else will work, please suggest it. But it remains true, though, that a new article should not supplant an older one without a very good reason. An editor cannot proclaim his version as accepted just because no one is watching at the time. These things, Alex, are what remove the "fun" from the 1983DD project. Before you reject this whole page, I want you to look at these revisions I have worked on in an honest attempt to make both nations exist in the time frames which both authors have set (I put two "pages" in the same article). I am not out to get you, Alex. I just want to "play fair and have fun." SouthWriter 05:09, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Dont take Otis or Edwards, please, thats all I will say. Arstarpool 05:18, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Since both are in the Outer Lands, there needs to be a disconnect. My suggestion (see my sandbox) is to have the troops evacuate both and return to Edwards which escapes complete destruction. They would then go back to Plymouth as the larger town (Barnstable being in chaos and losing many to Plymouth due to the destruction of Otis. Just read the articles and get back to me. SouthWriter 05:32, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Alex, I'm sorry for the difficulties you've had in your life, and I don't want to make light of them. Everyone here has had challenges in their lives to overcome, and for all of us in one way or another this wiki is an escape from the crap we all deal with in reality. You're also right in that this TL can never totally be plausible, although plausibility is something we all need to strive for as much as possible so we don't fly off into ASB-land. But it's not entirely true you can do whatever you want to here, because of what you raised elsewhere in your post: this is a true cooperative timeline. It only works if everyone goes along, and that goes for you as well as the rest of us. Some of what South, fx, Mitro, et al have to say in way of criticism comes from having many more years of life experience, how people act, how politics works because they're adults. Work with that. Use that to your advantage. People here will help you and work with you if you extend the same courtesy. BrianD 02:16, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Tobacco as a crop

I was interested in the addition of tobacco as a product of the economy. It didn't seem right, but I looked it up. There it was, a

Tobacco farms.png

minor player in a huge industry dominated by Kentucky! I lifted this map from an article. It shows the number of Tobacco farms in the US. This is a map for 2002, after a decline of about 50% over 20 years. We can assume the planters remain the same, with only the number of farms declining. Production per acre increased in those years.

That being said, Tobacco has a problem with radiation -- it soaks it up like a sponge!! In my opinion, that is why it causes so much cancer these days -- the land in Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina has deposits of uranium that produce radon gas, and radioactive tobacco! This may offer salvation to the post doomsday Kentuckians (there having a large amount of fallout from Missouri. Once discarding the tobacco, the lands could be cultivated for food crops largely radiation free!

In Plymouth, though, there would be a lot less fallout, but the tobacco could be harvested, discarded, and replaced with food crops during their shorter growing seasons. This would relieve the food shortages that plague the area. Already, the Virginian Republic has gone to processing tobacco leaves into fabric! [Note to Yank, that would mean mildly radioactive underwear. You might want to rewrite that part.] SouthWriter 20:03, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

There should be at least some tobacco seeds that are radiation-free. The pre-Doomsday crop was discarded, and a portion of the land it occupied (about 25-30%) was re-planted with the radiation-free tobacco. Either that, or they reaquire seeds from another tobacco producing country. Besides, the highly engineered tobacco fibers are only a small part of the "recipe" that makes up the Virginian fabric. The rest of it consists of a blend of pretty much every synthetic fiber known to man at the time (at least the fibers used for fabric). Besides, the extensive preperations needed to prcess the tobacco could involve intensive decontamination treatments.

Yankovic270 02:38, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Mark Stankiewicz

Mark Stankiewicz left office to work for the governor's office. Since there is no government in Boston in TTL, Stankiewicz should remain as president with Melissa Arrighi as vice president. This is, of course, assuming either person would be existing post-doomsday. SouthWriter 19:20, September 6, 2010 (UTC)


Im posting this on the Plymouth talk page and on the main talk page but can somebody make a new flag? Arstarpool 02:41, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes

First, it's good to see some action in the time line. But a few points on the changes.

You seem to be concerned about the fallout that would have affected the population, or more specifically the population growth. I would like to see your research, or links to some of the information to justify the reductions in established populations.

Also, I don't think the change to "city-state" is needed in this case. Though centered in the town of Plymouth, the area of control and the claim to the eastern third of the state would at least be a "nation-state." Your old designation of 'small nation' would suffice since many smaller entities claim to be "nations" as well.

If, however, the "Commonwealth" is reduced to a county-city consolidation with a fishing industry keeping it alive, then the claim it has on Provincetown (the original landing spot for the Pilgrims) probably would not hold up against those of the more organized Outer Lands. SouthWriter 13:23, February 1, 2012 (UTC)