Nomination Thread: Meeker for HAEV

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Alexander Hamilton a Republican from California is going to join, as soon as he gets enough posts.

I beleive you were already on the forum at that point sir.

[Meeker]

My issue with those voters is that they've been brought onto the Forum with the sole purpose of modifying election outcomes. It'd be akin to bringing in Mexican immigrants and then registering them to vote in San Antonio, assuming such activities were legal.

Very few members have been brought onto the forum just to vote. I can easily admit now that I did recruit CindyWho to join Atlas, in hopes that she would like it here. She didn't really like it, and I didn't push it. She no longer comes on here. I made the mistake of instantly recruiting her to Atlasia, instead of waiting to make sure she planned on staying on Atlas. My bad. If HAEV decided to remove her from the voter list, I would be perfectly fine with it.  There are plenty of Atlasia members who aren't heavy posters, but that doesn't mean they were recruited here.

Well, I don't imagine the HAEV removing a large number of voters, so I guess this fits in line with my vision.

You are just saying that, being appointed to the HAEV, you will work to make it useless ? Congratulations !

That's not what I said at all. The HAEV should remove as many voters as are appropriate to remove under the criteria that we decide upon. You seem to be suggesting that we should remove voters just so we have something to do.

[Meeker]

As I stated earlier, I leave for vacation tomorrow and will have limited internet access until the New Year (I know I won't have any at all for the next two days). I hope my answers thus far have been helpful in aiding the Senate in making a decision on my nomination. If there's a burning question that Senators still absolutely need answered then I suppose procedural steps can be used to hold off a final vote until I'm able to answer it.

I realize some of the opinions I have expressed here may not fall exactly into line with all Senators' opinions. However, I urge the Senate to set aside these differences and consider the fact that throughout these hearings not a single concern has been raised regarding my professional qualifications for the office. Over my time in Atlasia I feel I have shown a great concern for the future of the game in addition to a great sense of personal respect and a high level of integrity. To reject President Lief's nomination on the basis of a semantic difference over what a "zombie voter" is seems an inappropriate thing for this body to do, and I hope you all will confirm me on the basis of my qualifications and dedication to this game.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I was recruited via Earl via Wikipedia in 2005

SHAME ON YOU EARL FOR BEING IN THE RPP RECRUITING A ZOMBIE LIKE ME GOING AWOL!

Also, what is your opinion on the idea that contributions to the atlas are not contributions to atlasia; vice versa; and which is preferred?

[Antonio the Sixth]

My issue with those voters is that they've been brought onto the Forum with the sole purpose of modifying election outcomes. It'd be akin to bringing in Mexican immigrants and then registering them to vote in San Antonio, assuming such activities were legal.

Very few members have been brought onto the forum just to vote. I can easily admit now that I did recruit CindyWho to join Atlas, in hopes that she would like it here. She didn't really like it, and I didn't push it. She no longer comes on here. I made the mistake of instantly recruiting her to Atlasia, instead of waiting to make sure she planned on staying on Atlas. My bad. If HAEV decided to remove her from the voter list, I would be perfectly fine with it.  There are plenty of Atlasia members who aren't heavy posters, but that doesn't mean they were recruited here.

Well, I don't imagine the HAEV removing a large number of voters, so I guess this fits in line with my vision.

You are just saying that, being appointed to the HAEV, you will work to make it useless ? Congratulations !

That's not what I said at all. The HAEV should remove as many voters as are appropriate to remove under the criteria that we decide upon. You seem to be suggesting that we should remove voters just so we have something to do.

Zombie voters are a significative share of Atlasian voters. If we remove only one tenth of them, then the HAEV will be useless.

[Bacon King]

The 72 hour time limit has now expired.

Senators, please vote aye, nay, or abstain on the confirmation of this nominee.

[Hans-im-Glück]

AYE

[Hash]

AYE

[tmthforu94]

Nay

[Fritz]

Aye

[Alexander Hamilton]

AYE

I thought "zombie reform" was a "two-way street."

Guess not.

[Hash]

AYE

I thought "zombie reform" was a "two-way street."

Guess not.

I have confidence that Meeker will understand that zombie reform is indeed a two-way street, since he's always been an intelligent fellow and has rarely been much of a partisan hack.

Now, if I'm proven incorrect, I'll be the first to criticize actions which I disagree with.

[Alexander Hamilton]

AYE

I thought "zombie reform" was a "two-way street."

Guess not.

I have confidence that Meeker will understand that zombie reform is indeed a two-way street, since he's always been an intelligent fellow and has rarely been much of a partisan hack.

Now, if I'm proven incorrect, I'll be the first to criticize actions which I disagree with.

I'm sure your "criticism" will rectify all the expected problems.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Purple State]

AYE

I thought "zombie reform" was a "two-way street."

Guess not.

I have confidence that Meeker will understand that zombie reform is indeed a two-way street, since he's always been an intelligent fellow and has rarely been much of a partisan hack.

Now, if I'm proven incorrect, I'll be the first to criticize actions which I disagree with.

I'm sure your "criticism" will rectify all the expected problems.

You do realize that: a) the HAEV must create guidelines, to be approved by a Senate supermajority, before acting; b) the HAEV must then agree unanimously to remove a voter while abiding by its guidelines; and c) the Supreme Court can overrule the decision of the HAEV.

I don't expect very many problems, even if I disagree with one or even two members of the HAEV.

[Alexander Hamilton]

AYE

I thought "zombie reform" was a "two-way street."

Guess not.

I have confidence that Meeker will understand that zombie reform is indeed a two-way street, since he's always been an intelligent fellow and has rarely been much of a partisan hack.

Now, if I'm proven incorrect, I'll be the first to criticize actions which I disagree with.

I'm sure your "criticism" will rectify all the expected problems.

You do realize that: a) the HAEV must create guidelines, to be approved by a Senate supermajority, before acting; b) the HAEV must then agree unanimously to remove a voter while abiding by its guidelines; and c) the Supreme Court can overrule the decision of the HAEV.

I don't expect very many problems, even if I disagree with one or even two members of the HAEV.

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to kno the only types of voters this particular group has any interest removing. Peter may be a bit fair, but the unanimous consent means that only what Meeker wants can get through.

[Purple State]

AYE

I thought "zombie reform" was a "two-way street."

Guess not.

I have confidence that Meeker will understand that zombie reform is indeed a two-way street, since he's always been an intelligent fellow and has rarely been much of a partisan hack.

Now, if I'm proven incorrect, I'll be the first to criticize actions which I disagree with.

I'm sure your "criticism" will rectify all the expected problems.

You do realize that: a) the HAEV must create guidelines, to be approved by a Senate supermajority, before acting; b) the HAEV must then agree unanimously to remove a voter while abiding by its guidelines; and c) the Supreme Court can overrule the decision of the HAEV.

I don't expect very many problems, even if I disagree with one or even two members of the HAEV.

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to kno the only types of voters this particular group has any interest removing. Peter may be a bit fair, but the unanimous consent means that only what Meeker wants can get through.

It also means that only things Peter or Barnes allows will go through, thus ensuring that only the most egregious zombies are removed. This is consistent with the limited intent of this body. I don't want to see the rolls "purged," but rather the most harmful zombies removed.

Neither the pro-HAEV, nor anti-HAEV should overstate the power this body will have. It is more of a regulator, with the ability to bring questions to light and discuss issues with voters, rather than an all-powerful zombie regulator. This is an improvement, but not the end to zombies.

[Alexander Hamilton]

AYE

I thought "zombie reform" was a "two-way street."

Guess not.

I have confidence that Meeker will understand that zombie reform is indeed a two-way street, since he's always been an intelligent fellow and has rarely been much of a partisan hack.

Now, if I'm proven incorrect, I'll be the first to criticize actions which I disagree with.

I'm sure your "criticism" will rectify all the expected problems.

You do realize that: a) the HAEV must create guidelines, to be approved by a Senate supermajority, before acting; b) the HAEV must then agree unanimously to remove a voter while abiding by its guidelines; and c) the Supreme Court can overrule the decision of the HAEV.

I don't expect very many problems, even if I disagree with one or even two members of the HAEV.

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to kno the only types of voters this particular group has any interest removing. Peter may be a bit fair, but the unanimous consent means that only what Meeker wants can get through.

It also means that only things Peter or Barnes allows will go through, thus ensuring that only the most egregious zombies are removed. This is consistent with the limited intent of this body. I don't want to see the rolls "purged," but rather the most harmful zombies removed.

Neither the pro-HAEV, nor anti-HAEV should overstate the power this body will have. It is more of a regulator, with the ability to bring questions to light and discuss issues with voters, rather than an all-powerful zombie regulator. This is an improvement, but not the end to zombies.

So how do we get rid of left-wing zombies?

Oh, wait. They aren't "harmful."

[tmthforu94]

Hamilton, you must remember the following...
Right-Wing "zombie voters" are bad, because many don't post a lot on Atlas, and they make conservative parties competitive in elections.
Left-Wing "zombie voters" help make elections interesting, as it creates drama as to whether or not they'll turn up. They help the game.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Hamilton, you must remember the following...
Right-Wing "zombie voters" are bad, because many don't post a lot on Atlas, and they make conservative parties competitive in elections.
Left-Wing "zombie voters" help make elections interesting, as it creates drama as to whether or not they'll turn up. They help the game.

Ah. No wonder PS is all up on Meeker like he was some dude at the club.

[Hash]

If this body turns out to be dominated by partisan interests, hacks, unfairness or all sorts of sh**t; I will introduce legislation to abolish it. I made that clear the day I voted for it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think some people need to read the legislation more carefully. Purple State is right about this. Quit making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Hash]

I think some people need to read the legislation more carefully. Purple State is right about this. Quit making a mountain out of a molehill.

The legislation is rather good in that it can guard off against the hijacking of this new body by partisan interests like some are eager to do.

[tmthforu94]

Basically, I think HAEV is a good idea, I'm just deeply concerned that it will turn into a partisan issue. I am already seeing it, and it will get worse, I guarentee. I am starting to regret voting for HAEV. It looked all nice and dandy, but it's going to create a lot of needless conflict.

[Hash]

Basically, I think HAEV is a good idea, I'm just deeply concerned that it will turn into a partisan issue. I am already seeing it, and it will get worse, I guarentee. I am starting to regret voting for HAEV. It looked all nice and dandy, but it's going to create a lot of needless conflict.

Let's calm down and give it and its new members the benefit of the doubt. The appeal process can effectively prevent unfair hackish actions by the body.