Confirmation Hearing: Zanas46 For Deputy A.G. (Confirmed)

[DemPGH]

Will be good to have an assistant!

In accordance with Exec Order 011:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, 72 hours, good luck, go.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is your opinion about what happened in the Pacific?


As Deputy AG, do you anticipate focusing more on the legal matters or more on the wiki and so forth?

[Zanas]

Well as soon as I've learned about that preliminary appointment, I've launched the process of getting wiki access. I am already a regular corrector on wikipedia, and I can be quite meticulous about details when I feel in the mood. What brings me in the mood, shall you ask ? Fun. If I find something fun, I'll give it a lot of free time and energy. So when I have wiki access, I can see myself going on tours once in a while to see if everything is up to date in this or that sector.

While I don't have the access, though, I'll be available for the AG and the President for legal consultations if they feel they need them. I have a better background in civil law than common one, but I think this fresh look at things can on occasions bring new and unthought solutions to the table. I can also use this knowledge of other legal systems and more broadly of other laws to help the Averroes administration draft some of its legislation.

I'm also willing to step in to fill the AG position by interim if need be, although  cannot say that I would fill it as well as DemPGH does.

I'll answer to the question about the Pacific later, as it needs a few developments, and it has a lot to do with what I said in my first paragraph about fun.

[Zanas]

Well, back on the Pacific Rimjob thingy.

I come from a political background where I don't think anarchy as a necessarily bad thing. Some experiences of it have been successful, albeit on relatively small scales and not for large periods of time. Anyway, if it's the people's will, they can have anarchy, and a part of me will envy them, if they make it work.

Of course, the question at hand is was it the people's will ? Well, the regime that was in place before the Final Constitution was one of representative democracy via elected delegates. Of course, these elected representatives don't get an imperative mandate from their voters to do just exactly this and that, and nothing else. They maintain an amount of free will, and it's more of a moral contract that ties them to those who elected them. If they somehow break this moral contract, the voters won't elect them the next time.

So a bunch of people were elected, and established anarchy. Frankly, I see nothing wrong about that. Where I can follow some of the critics there have been, is on the point that they made the new "non-constitution" permanent and intangible. That was wrong. But I don't really think it was enforceable anyway. I mean, I always think that the people get to decide what it wants to do, to exercise its sovereignty, by any mean. So what, their government was abolished and eventually they don't like that ? Well, to me the inhabitants of the lands that composed the Pacific Region form a general assembly, an Ecclesia of sort, where they can of course decide what to do next.

The Final Consitution was a hard reboot. You all know that sometimes it's the best way to make your computer or phone work well again. So I don't think it was a bad thing.

Plus, we can never forget that we're playing a game. Of course, we try to play it as realistically as possible, and there has been an in-game recession that is worrying. But it stays a game. None of us were harmed in our real lives with what happened. Well I hope not, because it would be sad, very sad.

So what happened created havoc. But creative havoc. We had to make several court trials, several law initiatives, we had to scratch our heads. This is fun.

Oh, you may be thinking "he wasn't in the Pacific, what does he know ?" Well, I can tell you fair and square that even if I had been in the Pacific, I wouldn't have minded. And even without knowing beforehand, which by the way was the case.

I would only have said to myself "well, there's something new, what are we going to make of it ?"

Actually, I think the Game Moderator could be much more interventionist and create situations of that type for all of us to react. That would stir up acitivity in periods where it stands low.

So that's what I think. Questions are welcome.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

hmmmmm

In your view, would the hostile responses to the rimjob be included as a justifiable aspect of the activity generated by the event?


This has a little over a day left by the way.

[Zanas]

hmmmmm

In your view, would the hostile responses to the rimjob be included as a justifiable aspect of the activity generated by the event?


This has a little over a day left by the way.

Let's put it this way : if you play Monopoly, and an opponent puts a hotel and a house on some street, then ask you to pay more than you should. Of course you're going to have a hostile response ! You're gonna have an argument, he'll tell you he can do just that, you'll tell him he can't, and you'll go and seek who's right in the rules.

Then, you'll see you were right. So you'll only give him what he should have for a hotel. Is it really important to make him remove his house as well, as you are only going to assume the hotel is here ? Is it necessary to say "you cheated !" and have him withdraw the hotel and the house ? Or even start the whole party over ?

And more importantly, didn't that episode just awoke the both of you, whose heads were starting to sway and whose eyes were starting to close ?

[DemPGH]

We're beyond time. There weren't a lot of questions, but I think we need to move to a vote here. Five days, and since we have two seats vacant at the moment, we may need that, but we'll see.

Affirmative or Negative. Go.

[Napoleon]

aye

[MaxQue]

Aye

[Gass3268]

Aye

[TNF]

Aye.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

Though I do have some disagreements with the monopoly comparison. I think the comparison would be more apt if the cheating player were to destroy one or more of the pieces, because that is tantamount to the effect of what they did and we are fortunate that it didn't render the game unplayable, because it could have easily had that effect.

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

But I do regret some of your leniency towards the Mustafiniacs, Zanas...

[DemPGH]

At 7-0 I'm pretty sure I can end this and call it confirmed.

Well, the problem with "Rimjob" - the Pacific fiasco - is that they locked out the government under deceptive maneuverings, so it got pushed beyond anarchy, which was inexcusable. JMO.

[Zanas]

I am extatic about the unanimous vote guys ! Though someone did tell me once "if in politics you get a unanimous approval on something, you are doing something wrong"... I don't think I did this time.

Looking forward to working in the Cabinet !