The State Department

[Adam Griffin]

Welcome back!

[Adam Griffin]

Welcome back!

I've been simulating negotiations with Cynic, who had a LOA. When he returned, we finished the deal.

[Adam Griffin]

It has been a while since we've heard from you on non-election-related issues?

Seems like over a month?

[Adam Griffin]

Dude, you're not going to start attacking others for not doing your own job as a way to draw attention away from it.

You didn't do anything of substance for a month. Stop blaming everybody else you can find in sight as justification for that. There's a whole wide world out there for you to be assessing and interacting with; the world doesn't stop because the GM was having difficulties in the final 20% of your inactive period or because the budget that you're not even technically responsible for has had some hiccups. As a former GM who was widely considered an active and successful one, I can report that the only excuse for you not to be publicly active in the arena for a month is the same reason why you disappeared and ultimately resigned as ME Governor, and the same reason behind your inactivity in the Pacific.

Furthermore, it's despicable and disgusting that people here are defending these inactions, just like we see every time someone completely fails to do their job and their buddies come rushing in to defend them. Cabinet positions are constantly being subjected to this dynamic and the condoning of this BS is why it continues to be a problem. The whole "well I'm sure he had good reasons!", "Atlasia takes precedent over real life", and all the other weaksauce nonsense. If those things are true, then fycking resign and stop mucking up the game for those who actually have the time to be active participants.

[Adam Griffin]

For the record, I won't support impeachment. How many bloody times do we need to go down this path?

Impeachment should only be used in extreme circumstances.

But on topic, the SoEA should be able to actually do their job, regardless of the GM. I know, when I was SoEA, I didn't rely on the GM to do the job.

You were the one to originally point this out...and yet you still don't support the removal of someone who's been inactive for an entire month? I thought you were one of the "serious ones". How exactly do we break the cycle of this behavior when there are no repercussions whatsoever for the behavior in the first place? When someone knows that an armada of people from all political walks of life is going to defend their chronic and/or recurring inactivity for weeks or months on end, then there is obviously no incentive whatsoever for them to do their jobs. I'd much rather the position go vacant than continue to encourage this precedent.