The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature

[Adam Griffin]

     Without any dissent, I will make my request.

[Adam Griffin]

I also declare my candidacy for Imperial Speaker in the next session.

[Adam Griffin]

I'd like to wish Jbrase a happy retirement and hope that one day he finds his way back into regional and national politics. While you've been around quite a while, you and I entered the Legislature in the same election and it'll continue to be strange not to see you on the ballot.

I'd also like to welcome Ben Kenobi to the Legislature.

[Adam Griffin]

Our pay grades are too high for this level of activity.

[Adam Griffin]

Our pay grades are too high for this level of activity.

Alrighty, so do we need Jbrase to open our speakership election or can I do it?

I have no objections to this, but perhaps the Emperor wishes to weigh in on this. I'm not sure any of us have the authority to do so.

[Adam Griffin]

[X] Adam Griffin
[ ] SJoyceFla

[Adam Griffin]

Sorry. I wasn't around last night. I really don't know. Both these guys would be good choices. I could do it based on seniority...

Am I a nerd for looking this up?

Total Days Served:

SJoyceFla: 138 days (4/24/12-5/14/12; 7/3/12-Present)
Adam Griffin: 132 days (6/19/12-Present)

Uninterrupted Days Served:

Adam Griffin 132 days (6/19/12-Present)
SJoyceFla: 118 days (7/3/12-Present)

Uninterrupted Days Served via Election Mandate:

Adam Griffin: 132 days (6/19/12-Present)
SJoyceFla: 98 days (7/23/12-Present)

Elections Won/Appointments:

Adam Griffin: 3/0
SJoyceFla: 2/2

While the Legislator from Florida has served a total of six days more than I in the Legislature, I have a 14 day advantage when it comes to uninterrupted seniority. When considering only terms served via winning an election, I have a 34 day advantage. In addition to this, I have won 3 election cycles - with 0 appointments - compared to SJoyce's 2 and 2, respectively.  

[Adam Griffin]

In the interest of full disclosure, the reason for my absence from service in the legislature was my service as Secretary of External Affairs during the end of the Polnut administration, not due to shirking my duties. Additionally, while I was Secretary of External Affairs, I remained active in regional issues, speaking on issues in the legislature and even proposing legislation. My second appointment to the regional legislature was shortly followed by confirmation in an election as well (my first was not due to my aforementioned appointment to the SoEA post). To construe the numbers to make it seem as though I have spent less time in this legislative body, or to make it seem as if I am less liked by the citizens of this region, is deceptive.

It was not meant to be 'deceptive'. Your time as SoEA has no bearing on seniority in the Legislature, nor does the amount of time you spent discussing issues as a citizen. It therefore was not mentioned. Also, seniority in most legislative or occupational bodies is measured by the amount of uninterrupted time served, not the total amount of time served, and yet I still included both metrics.

[Adam Griffin]

As for speaker, who wants it more? It seems like a monotonous position that would bore me to death.

I formally request that The People look into these eyes, in order to better see the true and total desire/intent for said office.



These are the eyes of a dedicated public servant.

[Adam Griffin]

     No comments on my suggestion?

How would that work in a practical sense?

[Adam Griffin]

I'm OK with this. I'd like to set a standard of how proposed legislation is brought to the floor: simple chronology. That's really the only fair way to do it.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm OK with this. I'd like to set a standard of how proposed legislation is brought to the floor: simple chronology. That's really the only fair way to do it.

Unless there's time constraints on the legislation, yes.

I concur.

So can we officiate this and get the Legislature running again?

[Adam Griffin]

Aye

[Adam Griffin]

I concur with the co-Speaker's suggestion of order. I believe this emphasizes the "ease of doing business", from the least controversial ascending to the most controversial.

Just to get the text all sorted into one place for inspection, here are the items currently on the docket:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

      Wasn't there an accompanying bill in the Senate that would have supported this action that failed?

I vaguely recall either this occurring, or that a proposed bill was mentioned but never brought onto the floor of the Senate.

[Adam Griffin]

Let debate on the first bill commence:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

I support the proposal's intent and structure; it would be great if each region had its own forum. However, I feel currently opposed to this bill on a technicality.

While Dave is very responsive when it comes to general Atlas inquiries, we all know that he is not very active - even downright unresponsive - when it comes to forum modifications, changes and the like. In the (probably unlikely) event that such a forum were created, it would most likely stand that way indefinitely without modification.

This thereby would crystallize 'The Imperial Dominion of the South' as the official name of the region now and forever, which is something that I simply cannot support.

[Adam Griffin]

     Nothing wrong with doing that. Regions rarely change names anyway.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there are technically two recognized names still on the books ("The Imperial Dominion of the South" & "Dirty South"). I was also thinking there was another variation in use at some point, but I cannot seem to find any documentation suggesting such. Regardless, this - when compared across the entirety of Atlasian history - has been the most unstable region and due to such, I believe the proposed board should have a more generic moniker. Which leads to...

And your proposed alternative is...?

"The South"? Or perhaps I should come up with a more nuanced alternative?

[Adam Griffin]

I believe that a bit more time should be allocated to allow our fifth Legislator the chance to express his concerns and questions. Generally speaking, a 48-hour period for discussion is not an unreasonable amount of time to allocate for even a simple proposal if there is dissent. The co-Speaker can weigh in on this and if he wishes, can go ahead and open this up for a vote.

Perhaps my '?' made it appear as if I was merely being facetious, but if the following amendment were accepted as friendly I will be in full support:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I said, I support the intent. From a mechanics perspective, The South has existed for 8 years. The Imperial Dominion of the South has existed for 2 1/2 years. The Dirty South has existed for 3 years. This forum could very well be around 8 years from now, and it would be possible that future Atlasians would be stuck with a regional forum that has a name out of sync with the actual name of the region if it were to change. This region has always attracted those who bring - in my opinion - a higher statistical likelihood of enacting such reforms.

In regards to the Legislator from Texas' suggestions that partisanship is behind dissenting opinions, that simply isn't true. The only possible correlation I could imagine would be that his party and national name happen to have the same word in them. I would remind the Legislator that the party name was derived from the region's name, and not the other way around. Also, I am not advocating for the other allowed name (Dirty South) in opposition. I simply want a generic title for the proposed forum that will maintain a constant relevance.

The only aspects of partisanship I see pertain to your oh-so-cute defiance in pretending that I am not an equal part Speaker in this chamber. Act as you please, but it does not change the reality of the situation.

[Adam Griffin]

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address the honourable member from the glorious state of Georgia.

Couple things here. One, I have been a member of the RPPs (and left), of the Whigs (and left), and now of the current Imperial party. They did not require that I switch party affiliations in order to join (in fact I think they would have preferred if I remained a whig).

I have no desire to inscribe the name of the party on the region. I would happily serve as a Whig legislator, but I felt that it would be gauche to not be a member of the same party that invited me to participate.

If the issue is that you would like to see a neutral name used for the region - then I have no problems supporting that amendment to the legislation, say to the South as you have suggested.

I don't see any reason this particular bill has to be partisan at all. I'd love to get some business done here on something where you don't have to compromise your ideals.

Would this be an acceptable compromise? 

Yes.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If nobody else has any comments or suggestions, this is be brought up for a vote later tonight.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Voting on the IDS Independence Act will now begin.

Please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.

[Adam Griffin]

Aye

[Adam Griffin]

The next item on the docket is hereby presented to the Legislature for debate and discussion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to amend the bill as following.

Duly registered; does the sponsor accept it as friendly?

The amendment is accepted as perky.

You must be logged in to read this quote.