Talk Elections

Proposal: Making the Game Moderator more effective. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130090.msg2776328#msg2776328)

Purple State, Campaign Promise: This is what we mean... (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130090.msg2775806#msg2775806)

---

Hello there, Atlasia, and Happy New Year!

I've spent alot of time thinking about this, since October; thinking about the state of the game, and my future here.

Under the Purple State/Marokai Blue Administration, we accomplished several critically important things.

• A regional government childboard was kicked off under our Administration.

• Massive and unprecedented (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=120815.0) amounts of wiki consolidation (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=124086.0) were undertook.
• We penned and fought for a broad legislative agenda (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=120372.0) that most other Administrations would shy from.
• Elections (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=119918.msg2625857#msg2625857) the process behind them (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Election_Administrator_Guidebook) were streamlined.
• And we fought tirelessly for and eventually got ratified, a brand new Constitution (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=120987.0).

A great deal of things were done, but not everything we wanted to accomplish could have been done in our single term. Many things in Atlasia remain to be reformed, and many more things need the incentive to be as active as they need to be.

I am announcing that I will be running for President to try and finish that job.

Purple State joins me in this effort, and I've considered him a close friend in Atlasia after our time working together. He is hardworking, persistent, and needs no introduction. You all know the workhorse that Purple State is. His accomplishments speak for themselves, and I will let him speak on his own behalf.

You also know my experience, my efforts, my past. I have been Attorney General (twice, and during this time I took initiative to overhaul the intro thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=95897.0)), Supreme Court Justice (penning several lengthy opinions myself), Senator (passing alot of important legislation (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Marokai_Blue#Passed_Legislation_as_Senator)), and Vice President (remaining very active in the role). This doesn't factor in all my other small roles. ;)

I care about Atlasia a great deal, and making this game work well and be more fun to play is one of my passions. I like to think that I've proven, time and again, that I'm up to the task, even when things get in the way. Like, say, my cat ruining my laptop after I was re-elected Senator last year in August, leaving me with nothing but a terrible computer that overheats after ten minutes. :P

I've quoted this paragraph from Lief alot in the past, and I'd like to do so again, because it really resonated with me ever since he said it, in early-mid 2009.


Myself and Purple State are not running to take part on a personality contest. We are running to do hard work once again and fix the problems that plague Atlasia. It's not about silly little personal issues, nor should we be content with votes based on party or ideological lines. There are many problems and we've got to fix them without reacting in a reactionary or bitter way.

Over the next few weeks I will outline in detail, what exactly it is that I plan to do, if elected. On the list? Senate reform, alterations made to executive powers and responsibilities, amending the CCJA to allow for exceptions such as Mint, alternatives to the way we elect Senators now that don't step on too many toes, GM reform, continued Wiki consolidation, domestic policy proposals, especially in regard to further credit card laws, making our best effort to force the Senate to respond to the concerns and statements of the GM, and much more.

So stay tuned, and feel free to ask any questions you like. :)

Onward to February!

Well, I'm back.

After wandering through the wilderness of Atlasia in my post-presidency daze, I realized that my work was only partly complete. While we had a new Constitution, a much better organized Wiki, clearer election rules, and an improved GM position – along with the right people to maintain those reforms – what we lacked was excitement in the game.

Once I realized that something was draining the fun from the game, it didn't take very long to figure out what the source was: the Senate. And I don't mean the individual senators, who in most cases make good faith efforts to have meaningful and productive debate. What I mean when I say that the Senate is sapping the life from Atlasia is that the institution has become too unwieldy and too old and decrepit to bring any sort of excitement to the game.

Case in point is the recent economic crisis in Atlasia. For nearly a month (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=125947.msg2745046#msg2745046) we have heard news from the GM about our deteriorating economy. Soon after it was clear that this wasn't a one-off event, but a crisis, I urged the federal government to start caring about the economy (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=129092.0). But has the Senate acted? Well, they have tried (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=129123.0). But despite the urging of the President, the Secretary of Internal Affairs and the President Pro Tempore, there has been progress, but no final resolution. And even if you believe that the slow nature of the Senate is a useful way to promote productive debate, we can all certainly agree that the debate in that thread is not what any of us have in mind.

When I first joined the game, this was clearly not the case. As an up-and-coming player of the game, I dove head first into Senate debates where the great minds of Atlasia debated policy that caught the interest of everyday players. From education to foreign policy to criminal justice, the Senate looked at the issues that mattered to Atlasians. As a result, new members became active at the regional level in the hopes of building a record and someday reaching the Senate, a major indirect boon to overall activity.

This is why I've decided to run for Vice President with Marokai. As President I was able to change the foundations of the game for the better; as Vice President, and President of the Senate, I promise to change the institution that makes the game go 'round.

So where did it all go wrong? That is somewhat harder to identify, but I have some ideas. The Senate burns people out, pure and simple. We are all busy people and Atlasia is a game, and when people spend too much time in the Senate, they run out of ideas and they run out of steam. That is why this ticket will push for a broader discussion on consecutive term limits for federal officials.

It also is apparent that the Senate deals with far too many issues at once, meaning each bill receives too little attention and each senator is expected to juggle too many distinct topics. This can be solved by revising and reducing the legislative slots system. To many of you this sounds like an odd idea, but when the Senate considers seven pieces of legislation at once, it harms the game.

This is just a sneak peak to some of the ideas that Marokai and I have to make the Senate a more exciting place and help build a vital institution of the game. I look forward to working with the people, the Senate and the PPT to make this happen if you vote Marokai/Purple in February.

Oh, and happy new year everyone. ;)

Your signature needs editing. :P

This will have to do until we do another signature contest.

Happily endorsed :)

()

You've always been a great supporter Sewer. ;) I'll use that until we hold a real contest, where you will have to compete just like last time. (Hint, hint: everyone start thinking about ideas.)

!sdrowkcab si tekict egt GMO

Thanks much, Sewer. :P

Term limits? Bleh.

GO MB/PS!!!!!!!!

This is so confusing to me. PS, why didn't you just run for a second term?

My thoughts exactly.  Atlasia's population is too small for term limits; after a few elections we would run out of people to replace the good 'ol boys.  Especially when one takes into consideration what percentage of this citizens are active and willing to run for federal office.

Well, they could be put off by just joining the game, then having to face off against this established poster. While the population is small, i'm sure theres something that would work.

     The beauty of regional offices is that they allow newbies to start off at a lower level, getting their sea legs & gaining crucial allies that will give them a real shot at winning a Senate seat.

Heartily endorsed! :)

Our rough draft on the term limits idea would only be "consecutive terms." So as an example, if we set the limit at two consecutive terms, you would run for Senate, win, run again, win, then be capped from running again, but then the next election you could run again.

This way people take some sort of break from office to roam the wilderness (like I did). ;)

And Duke, I didn't run for a second term as president because my work as president was completed. I came into office to reform the Constitution, reform the Wiki, reform the executive branch (mainly SoIA, SoEA and GM) and reform election rules. After four months that was all completed and I wanted people more policy-oriented to come in and take advantage of the foundation built by my administration.

Now another four months later, I see new challenges to the game. But I don't believe it requires as much reform as last time. All it needs from the president is policy-oriented leadership, which Marokai has exemplified in his time in the Senate, as Attorney General and as my Vice President. Where the reform is now needed is in the policymaking apparatus: the Senate. And I can best reform that as Vice President.

I should have drank the whole bottle last night, I knew it. Unfortunately it was non-alcoholic of course so it would have only served to make me sicker now. oh well!

Oh, a remake of an old TV show.

Well, the first one was good, let's hope than the remake will be as good or even better than the original run.

Good luck, and you are endorsed by an irrelevent former senator.

Thanks, Purple State.

Yes, as he said, these are consecutive term limits. It would be silly to conflate consecutive and non-consecutive term limits. There's a simple problem with the Senate: It elects much of the same people over and over again, and this ultimately leads in the long term to much more stagnation and inactivity and predictability than there would be other wise.

If people actually want the Senate to get more interesting, there are very few ways to do that, considering the reactions most people have to changing the way people are elected. One of the simplest solutions would be to just tell people that there's a two-term-consecutive limit. It cycles new people in consistently and keeps things more fresh. People talk and talk about the problem, but no one really wants to entertain how to fix it. We've just got to man-up and talk about the solutions, and that's one of 'em.

And really, it's the least directly impacting and inconvenient, when you think about it. A Senator has a term of 4 months. Setting the consecutive limit at 2 means that Senator can hold office for 8 whole months. I really don't think that's so unfair given the nature of Atlasia. They set out of office for a term and then they can get back in the game, if they can prove to people they deserve to be in over the people that replaced them. It's good for keeping the wheels moving and deserves discussion, I think.

(And thanks for all the support from the people who've endorsed us. And I take delight in Yankee's distress :P)

I guess I'm a bit of an anomaly. My first real position was Attorney General, and I went from there. I was never very involved at the regional level. :P

God, the term limit policy is threatening my job security, and I don't want to become unemployed during these economic times. How can this ticket support such a job killing measure, and what benefits will I receive when I'm forced to leave office? Did we extend unemployment? ;)

If cushy unemployment packages for ex-Senators is the compromise we'll need to make, I'll consider it. :P

     My first position was Senator, but my situation was definitely an anomaly. I just happened to ride the resurrection of the Atlasian right-wing to a resounding victory over an established member of the forum. :P Those circumstances would be difficult, though actually not impossible, to replicate today.

     The point is that it's definitely possible to make it without ever holding office on the regional level, but it's far more difficult & highly luck-based. It's easier if you are established on the forum at-large, but I don't think that should be a requirement to starting a political career in Atlasia.

You'll see the pitchforks come out otherwise... :P

Certainly not.

I am not the one who is in the distress. :P I suggest you reread my statement for alternate potential meanings that you have appearently overlooked.

Unfortunately it is not the only thing "being overlooked" in this discussion.

Oh don't lie Yank, you loved it the first time. I promise it will go down just as smoothly the second. ;)

Of course, I loved it the first time, but that is always the case for the spectator watching from afar isn't it. Such is not the case for those down in ring. :P

My spidey-sense tells me you're running...as Tmth's VP pick? Maybe that's more wishful thinking than anything else, but I hope I'm right. It's been a while since we had a good ol' fashioned policy brawl and it would sure make the Vice Presidential debates more fun.

EDIT note: And yes, I would really like multiple debates in this campaign, among the presidential candidates and vice presidential candidates. The sooner we can set these up the better.

     As for the term limits proposal, there's a fifth-term Senator right now who happens to be the primary reason the Senate is even functioning at all at this point. Sounds great on paper, slightly less so in practice. :P

Yankee is moving the Senate along because he's Yankee. It has nothing to do with him being a fifth-term Senator. You and I both know he's the exception. It's impossible to make the Senate more interesting and functional, and get new people in the game at all, when the same people dominate the positions of the game time and time again.

Consecutive term limits alone won't solve that problem, but they're one of the crucial pieces in doing so. I think serving 8 months is plenty of time for someone to be a Senator. Hell, I was PPT and passed a ton of legislation as Senator, and I didn't even serve 8 months myself.

I mean, the way I see it, we either do something to actually change the way the Senate operates and the people in it, or we just stop complaining altogether. People lose alot of credibility when their rallying cry is "The Senate is inactive and sucks!" but when people brainstorm, they just sort of quietly mumble "But I don't really wanna do anything about it and stuff.." It's hard to take direct action and change people's behavior, but we have no room to talk if we do nothing beyond crossing our fingers.

     I did not mean to suggest that the length of his tenure was at all relevant. Rather, I meant to suggest that any change that would deprive the Senate of his continued leadership would be unfortunate. I sort of doubt that this change would be that crucial to making the Senate more active, though, as opposed to just creating a reasonable activity requirement for Senators that actually has a basis in the requirement.

I considered some sort of activity requirement when I was brainstorming a few weeks back, but there's no activity requirement for a Senator that I could think of that could be both reasonably implemented to have a real impact, and that would be realistic. What would we do, make people introduce a minimum amount of legislation, post a minimum amount of times in the Government board? It doesn't really get to the heart of the problem and you really can't just force people to debate if they have no desire to do it.

The only requirement I could think of would be some sort of Amendment that would expel a Senator if they miss x number of votes. But it's a pretty harsh idea that would either end up being so weak it doesn't actually make a difference, or it would expel people who were away for the weekend, or some sort of equivalent.

Any solution has to keep in mind that Atlasia can't be made to be someone's second job. Things should be tough, but still fair and give room for people to actually enjoy being a Senator. I don't want to make the job hell for people. :P

     How about combining that suggested requirement with the current one? Expel someone if they miss all votes for 10 or 14 or however many days, unless of course the number of votes is less than some reasonable minimum (say five). That way they don't have to debate, but they also have to actually show up to engage in critical matters of Senate business.

You've got my endorsement!


Provided you give me a job :P

Awesome, glad I'll be outta here before the elections!

Please remember to have your VP declare he is running.

Ideally, you should post the entire ticket that is running and both members should certify they are indeed running on said ticket. Since "tickets" are elected and not people, you could technically run a multitude of combos (expanded in ben's thread if you are curious)

Best of luck to you, Marokai. :)

Good Luck guys.

I think the point of the proposal is that if it were implemented, you wouldn't need someone like Yank to keep things going in the first place. The Senate as a whole would become more active because players wouldn't burn out. So while you may lose someone like Yank (for a few months), you also have no need for his ability to keep the Senate scraping along.

I'll preface by saying I am trying to save my job, but the way I see it, term limits are impractical because we don't have enough people who are genuinely interested in holding office to have a turnover every two terms. If it is just two consecutive terms, then we'll have a lot of senators who are placeholders for one term until the former senator forced out of office is allowed to run again. That's harmful to the game if he start down that road. The system in place today is not a bad one. It isn't the fault of the senators that some inactive people are elected to office simply due to party affiliation while other active senators are kicked out for that very same reason. just food for thought.

I can think of at least 2 regional senate elections where active candidates or incumbents were kicked out for less than active replacements. That certainly didn't help the game at all. Imagine if that happened everywhere, and Yankee also was barred from running, what would happen then? I don't think this proposal would work as flawlessly as it sounds.

I should note right here that the proposal is only in a rough draft form that will benefit from these kinds of debate. We appreciate your willingness to push us on this because it helps us think through it all.

So is the idea flawless? Certainly not. But we also think it has considerable merit Duke. The system we have now is pretty darn broken. I'm not sure what exactly changed from a year or two ago, when Senate debate was extremely lively and productive. But the Senate really has become the place that voters send people to be ignored for four months. Do you have ideas on how to make some kind of term limits proposal work? Do you have other ideas to improve the Senate? This campaign relies on your input, so shoot me a PM if you have anything you want to discuss.

Between a debate on term limits, revising the legislative slots system and a broader look at the OSPR, I think we can make the Senate fun again, both for the senators there and those who aspire to higher office. That certainly won't happen without having the discussion though.

Perfect ideas or no, I'm actually kind of proud that the first thing that causes argument and pages of posts in our campaign thread is one of our proposed ideas. That's exactly the sort of reaction I wish we had more of around here. :P

There are a bunch of other possibilities we have locked up for discussion in the campaign that still address this problem, so highlighting the strong and weak points of each individual idea is exactly the sort of thing in a contest of ideas that we want to do.

Regardless, ignoring the merits of the idea entirely and just saying this generally, we just can't have it both ways here. At some point, something's gotta change, and people can't say that they wish new people were involved in the game and that we had more people doing things while at the same time trying to protect the job security of the old guard. If we actually want to solve problems, we need to make the tough and challenging decisions to actually solve them. We can't just always pay the idea of being newbie-friendly lip service without putting our money where our mouth is. (I never understood that saying.)

As someone who is and always has been hilariously in the dark on the back room dealmaking of this game, I just want everyone to take a deep breath. We have all just started what will be a very long and hopefully meaningful two month campaign. There will be policy proposals, debates and probably a few dramas along the way.

It is especially important at the beginning of this process to remain calm while all of the early shifting takes place. We will have some twists and turns all along the way, with surprise candidates and endorsements and policies, but let's not confuse the excitement of the game and the campaign with personal affronts and true anger.

Just a quick thought for all those dishing out early endorsements: let the campaigns get more than two feet off the ground before making your decisions. I know there are a lot of friendships on/off and forum and in this game, but at least wait until the platforms are unveiled or the debates begin to make your decision.

And let's all just make it through this with our sanity, mmk?

Now *hughughug* and let the fun begin.

~PS

*hughughug!* ;D :D ;D

TPTTAA:
Marokai. Given what's come out in the recent "brawl" between you and Oakvale, do you feel you are qualified to be President?

(nothing personal)

Nothing personal taken, Teddy.

The decision for Oakvale to run on his own was very personally upsetting, for many reasons that I've outlined today several times over. I reacted in a way that I would expect anyone to act. And really, I didn't do anything too crazy or out of line for anyone that knows me. :P

I remember you asked me a question about tact the last time I was running back in May-June. This was my response:


And really, that's still my response today when it comes to attitude. I feel very strongly about that.

But when it comes right down to qualifications, purely on an objective level, I like to think I'm far and away the most qualified and experienced individual in the race. I've been Attorney General (twice), ConCon delegate, SDP Leader, JCP Vice-Leader, and UDL Founder. A Senator, PPT, Supreme Court Justice, Budget Committee member, and Vice President.

I've written and gotten passed countless pieces of very important legislation. During my time on the Court I accumulated a great deal of (honestly very fun) experience with law and wrote detailed opinions. I revived the Intro thread from it's wasting away, and have published countless pieces of platform ideas and legislation in the past. I work on the ConCon of nearly two years ago and helped Purple State write part of the draft that became the Constitution we have now. I have loved pretty much everything I've done in Atlasia, and I like to think I've succeeded in most of what I've tried to do.

I remember making this post in December of 2009 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=105121.msg2255384#msg2255384), summing up just what I had done as Senator.

In short, to answer your question, yes, I believe I'm firmly qualified, and have demonstrated my abilities of working hard by myself and with others countless times in the past. :)

Enthusiastically endorsed ! :D

Merci. :P

*Removes rifle site from Marokai's head*

You have no idea.

*Retrains rifle site on Marokai's head*

:P

I think most people know I'm not exactly newbie friendly. ;)

In all seriousness, how do we define a newbie-friendly environment? I sometimes love to tout the free market, and this is an area where I'd say the free-market would work more efficiently than a regulated one in the sense that we simply do not have enough active people in this game to have a turnover every two terms. Hell, look at this election. It isn't like there are many new faces running (and your own ticket is a flip of a previous administration), and this position has term limits!

At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say we'd see placeholders running for seats if parties could not have their preferred candidate run again to keep it warm for four months. We have to give voters the responsibility to keeping this game successful. If they elect inactive people over active ones, then they dug their own grave. We don't need any hand-holding, Marokai. I stopped doing that when I graduated high school! ;)

Now you might say "well Duke, you're just shamelessly trying to save your job," and it's true, but I still hope I made some valid points! :P

There is certainly something to just saying, "Well hey, you elected them so you get what you vote for," but we have to recognize that inactive senators ruin the game. We shouldn't let the "seriousness" of Atlasia to get in the way of the fun of the game.

If debate in the Senate is meaningless or boring or nonexistent, people won't run. And if people don't run, the election sim that is the core of Atlasia gets real boring real fast, and there goes the game.

Through my time in Atlasia I like to think I've carved a pretty decent reputation on game reform and the one part of the game we haven't touched yet is the Senate. Everything else, by most metrics, has improved since we started these efforts. The Wiki is better. The GM is better. The regions are much better, both internally and in the regional Senate elections. The Constitution is easier to read and navigate.

What I think Marokai and I want to make clear is that we aren't going to just say "game reform, game reform, rah rah." We have ideas and are willing to engage in the discussions that will lead to productive changes. We are not only active, but we are also capable of actually seeing these efforts through from start to finish.

Oh, and we love cake, long walks on the beach and other fun, non-game-related activities that everyone holds in such high regard. :P

Thanks for handling that question for me in my absence, PS. I'm feeling a little under the weather, and we've been moving, so I'm extra tired on top of that. I'll be back on top in a day or two, and will quickly begin posting platform planks in greater detail and explanation as PS and I have done in the past.

Thanks everyone. :)

You'r our only hope, Obi Wan Marokai.

Well, yes...

One thing I would like to feel people out on is opening up the ability to deregister. It seems like something that would make the experience of leaving the game smoother and less stressful for those who want to take a break from or permanently leave the game.

Any such allowance would need to be crafted in a way that avoids the abuses of the past, but I think we're seeing growing consensus that there needs to be a way to let people just stop playing. While Teddy's efforts to create a "Do Not PM" list are a good patch in the meantime, it is clearly not enough.

So what ideas would you like to see in an attempt to allow deregistration?

Simply allow it in the Voter Registration Thread. Maybe require a short waiting period (e.g. 5 days) before one can reregister so as not to overly burden the GM.

Deregistration is a terrible idea that was abolished because it creates a legal mess. Don't bring it back, ever.

As I announced early this week, I will introduce legislation allowing de-registration once I am sworn in. I think a simple process, allowing voters to post that they want to deregister in the registration thread, followed by a short waiting period, as Badger suggested, is the best way to go here, and a simple solution.

How so? Not to be obtuse, but doesn't legalizing it do away with any potential legal issues?

Quite the opposite. It was abolished because Sam Spade deregistered in the middle of an election which he won, causing a legal morass.

I tend to agree that all it would take to alleviate Xahar's concerns is a waiting period and a clarification of election laws in the event of an untimely deregistration during elections. The waiting period could be something like a month or two, and I doubt it would be very difficult to amend the election laws to include provisions for this. In fact, I will likely write up a draft when I return from my hiatus later this month to alleviate the worries of Xahar and Tmth on this idea.

---

Unrelatedly, I'm just going to rip something from the Oakvale/Snowguy thread:


I would just like to make clear that, at least from my perspective, this race should be about ideas, not about personalities or drama. I know there are people that think the fighting makes the elections fun, but what I remember most fondly about the elections I've considered most fun were those where legitimate policy debates were held frequently and ideas were really developed through discussion.

As a quick example, I very much enjoyed the back and forth with Duke about senatorial term limits. At the very least I heard a different perspective and I think the original idea improved as a result.

So let's all just leave the fighting aside and focus on more fun. :)

I'm confident the legal issues surrounding the idea could be worked out in some fashion. What concerns me more is the court's idea of what is someone's "identity." The court would have to establish, at some point somehow, that when someone deregisters and reregisters later, that they are the same individual. It's been implied at times that when someone is deregistered they cease to exist entirely and the slate is wiped clean. It's a bit of a grey area that I wish I could've resolved when I was a Justice, but never got the opportunity.

That's really my only concern.

Just an idea.

- User X deregisters (using the register thread).
- We let 5-10 days without doing nothing. If the poster retracts his deregistration, then we do nothing.
- If no retractation before the deadline, the RG removes user X from the registered voter roll and adds him to a deregistered user list.
- Deregistered users can't vote, run for elections, be tried, bring charges against another user. Any candidate running for an office who deregistered has his candidacy invalidated.
- Deregistered users are kept on the deregistered user roll for 2 months. Until they are on it, they can't re-register.
- After this time, they are definitely removed from Atlasia, but they can come back when they wish.

Two months seems an AWFULLY long mandatory inactive period. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose to have it that long, and may discourage people from rejoining Atlasia (i.e. they'd like to rejoin after cooling off a week or two after deregistering, but can't for two months, and lose interest in the meantime after rediscovering how nice real life is :P).

I think deregistering for one week or two would be a horribly awful thing to do, it would create mess for no reason. If one really wants to go, then he must go for real.

IMHO, it comes down to the RG's opinion as to the feasability of any time frams involved.

My issue with the bolded portion is that it could wreak havoc on counting elections. It is common enough for candidates to ask voters that change their minds to disqualify their own vote so as to boost their chances. Now imagine if they could ask them to de-register to disqualify their vote, but then that person had five days to change their mind and re-register. Would the vote remain disqualified or would it count? Would it depend on whether the election was already certified?

I say leave it as simple as possible. If you announce you want to de-register, the RG removes you and you cannot re-register for 2 weeks.

Marokai, of course, brings up a good point on re-registering and identity. I'm ambivalent on whether you are legally deemed a "new person" or the same person, but I'd like to hear thoughts on that.

If you must have deregistration, make it so that it doesn't take effect until the next Wednesday or something so that it doesn't mess with elections.

Before I comment on the merits of this, I just want to say that win or lose, we can now declare that this campaign has been a success: Xahar has just offered a substantive policy proposal. I don't think that's happened in a whiiiiile.

Anyway, yes, that's a great idea. De-registration should simply be delayed until the Tuesday or Wednesday following the de-registration post, possibly with the opportunity to retract the request before it goes into effect, so that it avoids messing with elections.

Acting Nice vs. Being Productive

I was thinking about some things today about "bipartisanship" and "including everyone" in process. This is really what caused me to want to write about this:


First of all, I'd like to comment on the irony of the question. It asks if Tmth will "look past ideology" referencing how Fritz and, according to some Purple State, had left-wing cabinets. Tmth then says that yes, he will look past ideology.. by including that as one of his judging criteria for cabinet officials.

But that's not my beef, my comment here is in regard to what an effective cabinet is. Has Badger done poorly as Game Moderator? Nay, one can only realize he is a worthy successor to Purple State, and has done a good job.

Has Teddy done a poor job? No, as his mistakes have been negligible and he is clearly the most passionate of the entire cabinet for his position and cares for it deeply. His activity is almost unparalleled among the other cabinet members, including myself.

Is Hashemite a poor SoEA? Not at all, as he knows his stuff and cares deeply about actually making people care about foreign affairs. Is Hans a poor Registrar General? Unless someone considers constant updates to party numbers and voter rolls "poor," one could assume that's a flat "no."

When Purple State was President, he and I both decided that appointing Winston would be a great idea for SoIA. He was active, controversial enough without being a detriment to his effectiveness in Atlasia. He wanted the position badly and had ideas. He was also a communist and that generated a fair amount of controversy. The fact of the matter is, his ideology wasn't a factor to our decision either way. We believed he was the best person for the job and we went with him.

To expect anything different from a President is, in my opinion, irresponsible and silly. Effectiveness and competence is always going to be my top criteria. I will always try to include as many people as possible, but that will not take priority over actually getting things done unless enough people stand in the way that I need to woo them because passage would be impossible otherwise.

When PS and I proposed a restricted Constitutional Convention, we did so because the last ConCon did alot of good for making everyone feel involved and appreciated, but it didn't do a whole lot of good for actually making things happen. This is the sort of counter-proposal our progress in the redesigned ConCon got in October when it was nearing it's end:


It's very easy to play politics with serious Atlasian issues and trot out the Populist card of "what the people want, make the people involved, make the people feel in charge," etc. It's alot harder to charge ahead with a vision and get stuff done. Had we gone ahead with this sentiment, we wouldn't have passed a consolidated Constitution. Should we go ahead with Tmth's vision for how cabinets should be made, you'll get alot of people that feel happy and included and Tmth will look nice from it, but you'll be neglecting people that are the best for the job.

Style and smiles are inferior to substance and progress.

Why is deregistration so important? If you don't want to participate, just don't vote and you'll be removed in due time. Surely a PM here and there to go vote isn't THAT intrusive. If it is, those people need to chill out. :P

There just seem to be too many intangibles around it for it to work without causing the RG to go insane.

Can YOU decipher a straightforward message from the following post?


See if you can figure out a stable and not-at-all-waffly principle from the above post! If you can find a message that makes sense, you WIN!*

*Note: Winners do not win any actual prizes.

I think you misunderstood my point. During the 5-10 days period, the user remains a registered voter with its full rights. And only if he doesn't retract his deregistration, this deregistration occurs 5 days after. If the guy was campaigning, his candidacy is immediately invalid. If he had been elected, the office is deemed vacant. That couldn't be simpler.

Damn it! I lost!

The biggest issue with showing Atlasians why deregistration is important is that none of the people active in the debate want to deregister. And those who want to deregister aren't active enough to be involved in the debate.

All I can say is that a representative of the people should represent all of the people to the best of his or her ability. It seems to me that there is a substantive portion of citizens that have asked for the ability to deregister and I don't think that's an absurd request. I wouldn't mind hearing from Fritz or Hans to get an RG's perspective on this though.


Ah, then I misunderstood and we are actually on the same page. :)

I must insist that we at least provide cake and free *hughughug*'s to winners. And maybe an all-expenses-paid date with bgwah.

Senator NCY recently posted this in the stimulus bill thread over on the government board:


This is exactly why this ticket has committed itself to finding creative solutions to the inactivity of the Senate. When arguably the most active and productive current government official becomes so frustrated that he reduces his level of involvement, the system is clearly broken. Marokai and I don't have all the answers, but we certainly have the balls to start the discussions necessary to find them.

I would also like to announce that if elected as your Vice President, I will keep the Senate running under my powers as President of the Senate. This means that I will not only cast tie-breaking votes, the minimum amount of work, but I will model Bacon King during his time as Vice President: an extremely active VP starting threads for legislation, opening and closing votes and making sure the trains run on time.

He personally supports off-site recruitment but would not push for it in his administration because he knows that people are dicks and if new people flooded into Atlasia they would all be called socks.

I knew that was just too truncated. There was far more to it then just frustration over the Senate's activity level. The PM's allowed me to adequately deal with that. Instead it was a combination of things that led me to make my decision not to run for PPT. One of the big ones was the start of a new semester.


And PS "running" the Senate like you say would just divide the load between the PPT and yourself but the two of would still find yourselves struggling. Having another person to manage Senate operations, while helpfull, is a solution for a different problem.

Understandable, but that it plays a role at all is cause for concern. And even here you admit it was a part of the decision.


I tried to clearly de-link the issue of Senate activity and my decision to participate in the running of the Senate. The only connection is that both were highlighted or spurred by your decision not to run for the position of PPT again. Had you decided to run again, I would avoid getting in your way given your effectiveness as PPT. Seeing as you have decided not to serve as PPT in the next Senate, I promise to make sure as VP that the Senate remains in order.

I'm afraid I don't really completely understand your problems with what PS said, Yankee. You wanted others to step up so you wouldn't be doing it all yourself. You wanted help to get the people moving. PS has now stepped up to that challenge, and if past is any prologue, he can definitely do it. Is that not the sort of thing you wanted? It's okay to admit when your political opponents have the right idea. :P

Making the Game Moderator more effective.

Having an effective Game Moderator has become a necessity in Atlasia as of late. Spoiled by Purple State's effective tenure as GM, we've become used to getting constant reports on employment, population, poverty, debt and revenue, news reports, evaluations of policy proposals, and more.

There is, however, a common problem since Purple State's departure from that office: the load on the individual has become too great to bear alone. Badger has done a very respectable job at handling the responsibilities, but more can always be done, and when Al was briefly GM, there was great difficulty in handling it alone. And that is understandable, it's a heavy load.

That's why I believe it is time for the implementation of "Game Advisors." Two GM "assistants", if you will, that assist and periodically perform the duties of GM themselves when the Game Moderator himself is unable to do so. This will allow people who do not want to or are not able to do the entirety of the duties themselves, to still participate in running the game. Considered the "Junior Game Advisor" and "Senior Game Advisor", these two individuals will be directed by the Game Moderator himself.

For example, the Game Moderator himself could divide duties between himself and the two Game Advisors, by allowing the Junior Game Advisor to handle foreign affairs, the Senior Game Advisor to handle Economic Affairs, and the GM himself handles Misc. news stories and legislative analysis. Such a division of duties, or any combination thereof, could allow a much lighter load shared by the three. By sharing the burden, I believe it is possible for much more effective and frequent updates from the office of the GM.

Badger has done a very good job, all things considered, of being Game Moderator. But more and more help could always be used.

And of course, I'm happy that something I scribbled down in notepad 4 months ago or so and circulated privately a few times, has finally become so openly accepted by the other two major nominees:

(In a PM to Fritz, Bgwah, and Kalwejt, after Fritz privately asked for ideas on proposals in the October campaign, I sent this as part of the partial platform I drafted for myself (screenshot if someone wants absolute proof) (http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2695/mypast.png) before I backed out of the race officially.)


Everyone coming around to the general idea of more GMs is a very welcome thing indeed. :)

Ironically, something extremely similar this is planned in my platform, and I'd actually thought of a while ago. (Badger can atest to it) Looks like you beat me to posting it! :P

I can also attest to the committee idea

President Fritz's decision to pardon Mint is, I believe, the right decision. It shows a recognition that Mint's intent was not to circumvent the system, but rather to simply start over.

With that said, I would like to make a broader point. Under a Marokai/Purple State administration, Mint is never prosecuted in the first place. Why? Because Mint would have had the chance to deregister his original account, as we have proposed, and so there would not have been double registration issues.

Imagine the time and resources saved by a simple change to allow for deregistration. Not only that, but the court case clearly disillusioned Mint, who looks like he gave up on the game because of a court case that could have been avoided by a basic rule change. Imagine that, losing an active and productive member seeking to return to the game, losing interest because we didn't have deregistration in place.

Vote Marokai/Purple State and help us bring positive change to the game.

Or, alternatively, you can change the law so that it wouldn't apply in this case.

Sure, but then you leave considerable uncertainty about what exactly the line is. So you will continue to have court cases and it will be up to judges to decide what the intent of citizens was at the time.

Conversely, you can just solve the problem and save time, "money" and stress.

So I'm unconvinced by your resistance to deregistration.

I should note that I also have the idea of adding on a GM: the GM for Foreign Policy.  It'll make the job of GM easier, and allow for more stories to be released.

Both should certainly be done, of course.

I really don't see why you didn't just shoot Mint a pm advising him to de-register quickly, or he'd be banned. I know you were ordered by Fritz, but I think it would have been fine if you would have at least waited more than 3 minutes to give Mint a chance to de-register. Would of saved a lot of people a lot of time.

Tmth, dear.. People can't de-register.

Also: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=34355.msg2748235#msg2748235

Someone had already quoted his registration. I couldn't have asked him to just delete his new registration if I wanted to.

Now, will you move on with your transparent attempt to make political hay out of a non-issue?

He could have done what NiK did, though, to be able to stay on without being prosecuted.

If I recall correctly, NiK had lost access to his original account. Mint voluntarily changed his account.

You know the one person who seems to not actually care about this issue? Mint himself. He's already been pardoned apparently (although I personally think that's inopportune timing) so move on and stop looking for something to try and distract people with.

I'm just glad that, additional GMs, a proposal I came up with 4 months ago (and shared with Fritz), now enjoys commonplace acceptance. :P

I'm not trying to distract people, I was making a simple inquiry. I would have posted this yesterday in the actual court case thread, but you locked it as I was typing the message.

Stop it. You thought you caught Marokai, but really you just made a mistake.

You thought Mint could de-register, but he couldn't. Instead, Marokai and I are proposing that people be allowed to do that to avoid exactly this situation.

You thought Mint could do what NiK did, but he couldn't because NiK was locked out of his account while Mint was not.

At the end of the day, Attorney General Marokai did his job and prosecuted a violation of the law. And President Fritz, rightly in our opinion, pardoned Mint under a provision Marokai and I successfully pushed for in the Constitutional Convention.

I don't see how exactly you can turn this into a winning political issue, but I guess you will keep trying.

Marokai didn't want Mint to be pardoned until after the election. That's certainly concerning to me, as to others. With my OP, I wasn't trying to "make an issue out of it".  While I am a Presidential candidate, I am also a citizen, and Marokai is a public official. So I have every right to question him.

You have every right to question a public official, but at least try not to be ignorant of the facts while doing so. It was as though you didn't realize de-registration isn't allowed, or the reasoning behind NiK's vindication and Mint's prosecution, respectively.

So as not to butt in while the presidential candidates are debating... Oakvale said this on the second page:


The bolded part is only partially true. As President, I did initially veto (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=119918.msg2581833#msg2581833) hiring incentive legislation due to concerns that the bill left unacceptable room for fraud and abuse. The bill was also quite costly and did not include adequate revenue-raising provisions.

However, just two weeks later I signed a much stronger (and paid for) version (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=119918.msg2598978#msg2598978) of the Hiring Incentives Act that accounted for my previous concerns. I was pleased that the Senate, then-Vice President Marokai and I could work through my earlier concerns to pass a law that was much better for Atlasia.

EDIT: I should also note that while candidates may want to strengthen the provisions of that law, the current level of hiring incentives don't expire until August of 2011.

I'm glad to see my comments on welcoming new members in the vice presidential debate resonating beyond that single thread.

Here is what I said:


So far Tmth has already gotten on board (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130099.msg2778311#msg2778311), showing that efforts to make Atlasia more welcoming to new members is not a partisan or political issue, even if there are still disagreements about recruiting.

I think we can all agree that regardless of your views on recruiting, it is unacceptable to treat new members with derision or hatred before they even have a chance to prove themselves. I know when I first stumbled into Atlasia it was only with the help and mentorship of Peter, Inks, Al, Afleitch and countless others that I was able to really feel comfortable getting involved and taking an active role.

So let's commit to help new players along by being mentors and helpers, not haters.

Hey folks. Go check out our awesome platform (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130446.0). :)

All questions and comments welcome!

I will be on a leave of absence starting now through January 20. I planned it perfectly so as to cause the lease inconvenience possible, of course. :P

Play nice in the meantime and *hughughug* y'all.

How can we trust in PS if he takes two week leave of absences like this? At a time of war no less? What's going to happen to Marokai during these rough days?? The horror!

I'm lost without my other half. :P

I actually have some views on this that are somewhat similar, but with some important distinctions. I would actually support keeping the offices of SoIA and SoEA, but that they be endowed with the authority as "assistant GM" for domestic and foreign affairs respectively under the authority of the GM. There are numerous advantages to such a role such as increasing the power of these under used offices, allowing greater delegation of GM duties, and allowing some actual impact on policy (again, subject to GM veto) by changes in the executive branch.

I've actually done that informally with Hash and Dr. Cynic, and its worked out pretty well thus far.

I would oppose, however, having entirely separate domestic and foreign affairs GMs. There is simply too much interaction and causality between the two to have to create a two headed beast trying to create "reality". The ongoing (well, temporarily suspended for the holidays at Hash's request, and then the last week due to some sadness in my home) Chinese financing crisis is a perfect example. Is that domestic or foreign? It clearly falls in both categories. Yes, maybe two GM's can work together on such a project, but the final call on what's happening in the world should fall to one GM, preferably with two able assistants serving as SoIA and SoEA.

I would change your campaign banner if I were you. It's easily pastiched ;)

()

Not true. And the pic is copyrighted for Sewer. :P

That could be worked out that way if it turned out it would be the best way to do it, there just needs to be some way to set those responsibilities in stone. That's part of the reason my proposal was simply "Game Advisors" instead of blanket commitments for new Game Moderators entirely, the goal was never to give competing GMs, but merely to give people, if necessary existing offices if people have no problem with the idea, power to formally advise and assist the GM. Something needs to lighten the load, while still making it a team. Whatever you think would work best under the current proposals, is what we should do, as ultimately, you're the person affected by these ideas the most.

I think we're actually on the same page here, Marokai, and at most merely differing over semantics. ;)

I share your vision of what two assistant GMs/game advisers can do, as well as the need for them. My view is if we're going to formally create these roles then they would be best assigned to the SoIA and SoEA. Better to expand the role and responsibilities of two underutilized jobs rather than creating two more new offices, and it also allows a more clearly drawn division of labor between domestic and foreign matters than simply two general adviser positions.

Question for the candidate:
What's your opinion on the recent Presidential nomination, and subsequent  withdrawal of nomination, of Taft4Prez for Secretary of Forum Elections (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130639.0)?
And what can you tell us about how you would propose to come up with Presidential nominees for such positions as may arise during your prospective tenure?

Thanks.

I think it was probably a good thing for him to withdraw if he didn't feel he was definitely up to the task. As others said in the confirmation thread, it's probably the most important job in the game, terms of just keeping things running at all, so it matters that the person feel ready and qualified. I hope he remains interested in future jobs as time goes on and continues to gain experience.

As for what I would do if faced with openings, as I would be sure to at some point or another, I would ask interested individuals to PM me if they wanted the job. I wouldn't reject anyone that didn't PM me though. I'd seek out some of my personal choices for the positions and see if they're interested, and if so, I'd compare them to those that actually applied.

But that confirmation hearing is an interesting example of what more confirmation hearings should be like. You need to know if the nominees are up to the task, and the only way to do that is present them with questions and scenarios and ask how they would act in them. Taft4prez felt he couldn't perform up to the task, and withdrew himself. If people hadn't questioned him, it's possible he would've been confirmed, and we could've had a major crisis on our hands. That's exactly why we have those hearings in the first place and more of them should have those tough questions.

I also believe, of course, in the situation of absolutely no one willing or able to serve in the position and/or everyone in the SoFE and DoFA positions missing in action, the President has a last-resort authority to open a voting booth on their own, and given that emergency scenario, I would do so as best I could. I'd have to double check the constitution and election statute, though, since the last time that issue ever came up, we had a differently Constitution!

Thanks for that.
Just for the record though, it was the President, not Taft4Prez, who withdrew (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=130639.msg2789583#msg2789583) the nomination.

He first withdrew himself, then retracted that.  So we opened a vote, then people questioned the vote because they thought Fritz withdrew the nomination... but he didn't.. but then he did, in the middle of the vote.

If you can get all that... you are a better man that me.

Understandable confusion, then. :P

I would just like to expand slightly on this answer if I may:

Let me start by saying that I hope that T4P will make a great SoFE down the road if he remains committed and engaged in Atlasia, but the last thing we should do is put him in the spotlight before he is ready. It would be a shame to see someone with such promise crash and burn because we overburdened him.

Our best bet may be to allow T4P to stay on as deputy and have Fritz count the votes, as he has expressed a willingness to do. It would be hasty and risky, in my opinion, to push for T4P's confirmation when both he lacks experience and our president is a former Registrar General. While Fritz may not have been responsible for tallying votes as RG, his length of service to the game and work in the Department of Forum Affairs is reassuring.

Alright, so things are getting boring in this race. To mix things up a bit, Marokai and I are going to give you all a taste of something we started under our administration and plan to refine if we are elected: Question Time (QT).

So here is the plan: In one week's time (let's call it for Sunday, January 30 at noon EST) we will open a QT thread for questions from the public. From there we will answer every question, regardless of its nature, as honestly (or wittily, depends on my mood) as possible. This will last for at least 24 hours, or longer if the questions keep flowing. If you are unavailable that day and want to get your questions answered, feel free to send me a PM with any questions you have and we will intersperse those in the slower moments of QT. Follow ups will be encouraged.

Let the fun begin. :)

I thank all of the UDL members who voted for me in the primary for selecting me as the United Democratic Left's candidate officially. :P

But that was the easy part (which is scary, frankly) compared to what's left to come. We have an entire campaign left to finish, and hopefully we can get back to the serious stuff, the things that matter.

A question time, as Purple State and I have decided to do, is the perfect way to kick off the second stage of our campaign.

It is my sincere hope, of course, that we in the UDL and all left-wingers that desire a serious Administration running purely for Atlasia's sake, can unite strongly behind our ticket and support all responsible left-wingers elsewhere.

Anyway, I don't want to waste everyone's time with silly speeches. I'm not very good at those. :P Thank you all again, and I look forward to finishing out this campaign with no obstacles left in the way.

Congratulations on winning the primary. We can finally unite behind one candidate. We must stand United and live up to our party's name. Tally ho!

Thank you and Ben for stepping up and voluntarily withdrawing from the race. It's rare in this game for people to stick to their word.

Congratulations.

As Chair, I was not in a position to endorse anyone, for what it's worth I'm happy to formally endorse you and will do whatever I can during this campaign.

Congratulations again. :)

I also thank Ben for dropping out for the party's good. Such an attitude is good. The attitude of leaving the party over such things is not.

What is your position on Foreign Policy Reform Act of 2010?

We should all gather around Marokai's campaign now.

Funny contradiction with your earlier declaration and a banner you have in your signature.

I'll still cast my first preference for Oakvale, but as I've stated aloud a lot of times before, I just don't want this to go to Tmth by default.

That's a fair point. I'm affraid I'd have to do the same, even if a likehood of preventing Tmthforu from winning seems to be small.

We appreciate your full throated endorsement...


..and we appreciate your second preference. Holding on to grudges wouldn't get us anywhere.


It's alright I guess. I'm not sure why the GTO Ambassador role couldn't have been fulfilled by the SoEA, leaving out an extra layer of bureaucracy, but I guess it let us make use of Atlasia's two in-house hyper-foreign-policy oriented individuals, Ben and Hashemite. I would say the Game Moderator Duty Clarification Act was more consequential for foreign policy issues in the game than the FPRA.

On the other hand FPRA actually ensured regular foreign-related events, without which requirements, all foreign policy reforms are worthless.

Since I don't remember foreign policy issue playing a role in your campaign, in a clear contrast to Ben's, I wonder if you two, once elected, would try to make it more important part of the game?

It wasn't bad legislation, just not something I see as particularly influential considering I was reporting on foreign events far more frequently than once a month during my stint as GM. But it should hopefully be a useful way of maintaing some semblance of future GM activity.


Personally, I've been trying to make it a more important part of the game since I was GM. Recall who reminded everyone that the Global Treaty Organization existed in the first place. ;) So as the GM and current events warrant action by a Marokai/PS administration, we will act both proactively and reactively in the best interests of Atlasia.

EDIT: One thing to add is that I can sit here and write wonderful statements about how important foreign policy and that FRPA are to me, but honestly this election should come down to who has demonstrated an ability and willingness to take the steps necessary to make it actually happen. We aren't just writing nice words; we have taken actions in the past that have reformed the game in substantial ways and brought foreign policy to the fore (recall that Hugo Chavez is no longer the president of Venezuela in this game... how did that happen?).

Gin and Tonic Organisation? A bad idea from the early days that we signed up to for no real reason. Was just the way things were going, you know. KILL IT>

I recall you being the one who brought the GTO to my attention in the first place. Revive it to kill it? Quite cunning of you. ;)

I don't understand the conception of yours. PS and I have been more than supportive of focusing more on foreign affairs and trying to find ways to strengthen them. That was part of the reason we tried to shake up the SoEA office when were last in power by giving the position to Ben himself.

As I've said multiple times by now, we sill be supportive of either a new GM, GM assistants directed by the GM, or empowering the SoEA office to act as a foreign policy GM in itself, to bring more foreign policy issues to the forefront and make the Senate have to respond to them more effectively and with more thought.

First of all, it is my sincerest hope that we can get through this horrific incident with as little casualties as possible, as it appears so far that none have died yet in this tragic incident.

I call upon the President to initiate a full scale investigation into this organization, "Reality or Nothing", using Atlasia's finest intelligence agencies. Critical to bringing this organization down are seeking out their motives, their means, their numbers.

We must not bow down to organizations like this, but we must also not react in a way that explodes their numbers. We must be reasonable, yet effective, in our response. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are the key. By responding in a way that uses the military, or charging ahead in a fashion that disregards our rights, we risk inciting more hatred and helping our enemies such as Reality or Nothing.

Security must be improves at buildings such as these, on this I have no doubt. But now, in this moment, should be time the time that we come together to help the victims and those hurt by this incident recover and move on with their lives, and rebuild this building stronger and sturdier than it was before. No matter how some would want us to react, our best response is to remain undeterred.

Terrorism of this sort is not meant for direct destruction. It is to sew panic, fear, intimidation, paranoia. There will always be crazies out there that are able to concoct a half-assed explosive devices of some sort or another, but if we respond by being fearful and overreacting, that is the moment that they will really have won.

It's difficult for me to discuss issues surrounding the GTO, because I was the only Senator to publicly say at the time we were discussing expanding it, that I wanted to scrap ti altogether. :P

I'd like to point out, now that the dust has settled, how crazy things got without Purple State. I think I called this before it happened. I will now accept my accolades.

Congrats, Phil!

Question from The Porcupine

Do you believe you overreacted here where you threatened to draft articles of impeachment for Sam Spade and then attacked Bullmoose for essentially agreeing with him too much?

 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103153.0

Fascinating question! I never expected to get questioned on that.

I may have jumped the gun slightly on what I was trying to do, but I found Spade's commentary on homosexuality as potentially being a medical disorder as disgusting and generations old.


I still stand by my decision to cause a ruckus over that opinion. It opens a terrifying can of worms on what we can or can't do in relation to religious institutions or gay-to-straight therapy methods. Spade's opinion basically gives carte blanche to religious institution decisions and ties the Senate's hand on medically dubious and physically and mentally harmful therapy methods as long as religious institutions consider them useful to their religious beliefs. It was one of the worst rulings ever laid down by the court, in my opinion, and in my opinion, should be challenged again.

Bullmoose did admit, I believe, that had he read these lines more carefully, he would've changed some of the opinion, but he did seem as if he signed onto Spade's rulings seemingly out of reflex. Opebo, I think, also should've made more of an effort to stop it behind the scenes. I don't lay the entirety of the blame on Spade's shoulders, but it was a ruling I still strongly disagree with to this day.

And I even asked everyone to play nice. Apparently *hughughug* only works when ILV uses it. ???

---

On an unrelated note, I would like to extend my heartfelt sympathies to the victims of the GTO bombing and their families. Acts of terrorism in a peaceful democratic society like ours always come as a saddening reminder of the evil that exists in our world.

As the President's investigation commences and new facts emerge about today's attack and the group that perpetrated such violence, I hope that we can move forward as a stronger more unified nation in confronting the challenges ahead. There will be such moments of difficulty, but I am confident that we can face each one in a way that reflects our core values.

We are a strong and prosperous nation. We must not waver in the face of this challenge. We can and will defeat this enemy and create a safer world for the future.

A question from The Porcupine:

If you were president right now, would you veto or sign into law the current Progressive Tax bill proposed by Antonio?

It depends. My first inclination would be to stand by my desire to not raise taxes anymore during this time, but sometimes the situation does demand it. I would ask the GM, were I President right now, to evaluate the effects it would have and how much revenue it would raise, as well as any potential impact it would have on the economy at large. I would also ask for a snapshot of our deficit. If our deficit was still ballooning out of control, and this Act would raise revenue, then I would lean toward signing it, or asking for the Act to be a temporary increase.

If, however, it doesn't raise that much money, I wouldn't sign an Act just to raise taxes for the sake of it. We already raise a substantial amount of revenue with our taxes as things stand, and if we can get by on our current rates, I would veto the Act. Though, of course, I'm sympathetic to Antonio's intentions.

What a smashing success that was. :P

Eh, I try. When the left-wing of the game is determined to tear itself asunder for an election cycle, there is not much that anyone can do to stop that.

At the very least we should all take a step back and enjoy the significance of this turn of events. Just think about the history: We have left-wing administration after left-wing administration in Atlasia, even with an emergent right-wing. Eventually the right-wing implodes under its own weight, yet we end up with two centrist, non-ideological administrations, giving the right-wing time to rebuild. Now, the centrists are out, the right wing is back at full strength, and the left-wing is in the process of destroying itself. Just really interesting stuff.

What is your reaction to the Breaking News?

Someone should slap some super glue on it before it gets broken completely.