Populares Convention

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

x Dallasfan65

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I nominate Yelnoc.

Thankyou.  I guess I'll nominate me too.

So what exactly does the chairman of the convention do?

The chairman of the convention runs the convention (opens up nominations for Leadership positions, brings forth proposals for debate and a vote, closes votes, etc.) It's a procedural role.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Wow, this might be pretty competitive.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

So are we going to get stuck nominating people?

Patience damn it, these things usually take awhile.

The Chairman has notified me that he may not have internet access for tomorrow/Friday - a vote will most likely take place for the Chair this Saturday.

Three new Hamiltons?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Can someone tell me what the point of being in this party is if Hamilton makes up half the membership?

He doesn't.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Can someone tell me what the point of being in this party is if Hamilton makes up half the membership?

He doesn't.

But he did.

However, I wish you the best in getting standing over your own legs.

My point was more or less that this party is beyond that, though some people either can't or simply won't accept that fact.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Can someone tell me what the point of being in this party is if Hamilton makes up half the membership?

He doesn't.

But he did.

However, I wish you the best in getting standing over your own legs.

My point was more or less that this party is beyond that, though some people either can't or simply won't accept that fact.

It doesn't bother you that Hamilton has posted in this three page thread with four different personalities and has interacted with himself?

Who in this thread is Hamilton? I'm not aware of any socks of his.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

In a separate post (since this isn't directed to anybody in particular),

If someone is going to allege that there's a Hamiltonian presence, can they atleast, if not substantiate it, then name a specific poster and explain why they think that to be the case? Because to do otherwise is dishonest and ill-intentioned.

Can someone tell me what the point of being in this party is if Hamilton makes up half the membership?

He doesn't.

But he did.

However, I wish you the best in getting standing over your own legs.

My point was more or less that this party is beyond that, though some people either can't or simply won't accept that fact.

It doesn't bother you that Hamilton has posted in this three page thread with four different personalities and has interacted with himself?

Who in this thread is Hamilton? I'm not aware of any socks of his.

I'm assuming he's referring to Yelnoc, feeblepizza, comeandtakeit, and zacoftheaxes.

Now we're on to something.

Can I get an explanation as to why you feel these posters are Hamilton?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I didn't say they were. I was just answering your question about who useful idiot was referring to.

Then who are the "Three New Hamilton's"?

That leaves:

Jbrase
Hantheguitarman
SvenssonRS
Dallasfan65
Daniel Adams
Useful Idiot
AndrewCT
RosettaStoned
Libertas
redcommander
ajc0918
electoraljew2
Mechaman

I'd like to get to the bottom of this, I'll tell you what.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

The "Introduction to Atlas Fantasy Elections" says that there are 35 members of the POP....

Well, I was referring to those that signed in to the convention.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Now we're on to something.

Can I get an explanation as to why you feel these posters are Hamilton?

Because they're new posters who almost immediately came to Atlasia and joined the Populares, while already knowing quite a bit about how things work. That's Hamilton's MO.

If these guys are on other sites, fine, but it's certainly not outside the bounds of reason to assume that new members are Hamilton. He's had tons of socks and used them in Atlasia. He still posts under several socks. It's not like I'm going out on a limb here.

Well, understandable, but I did my best to try and acquaint these guys with the game and get them active - if that clears up some doubt. (I apologize if I came off as a bit of a dick, earlier.)

x shua

i know i haven't been active very lately, but . . . you started a convention and didn't tell me

My apologies!

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

[ i ] Hantheguitarman
[ii] Yelnoc
[iii] FeeblePizza

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

First off, I can't say enough how honored I am to chair this convention. I not only feel humbled, but I feel responsible, and I will put my best work into running this convention.

So let's get this party started. I believe we congregated here to edit our bylaws?

Yes - someone should bring a proposal to the table, or better yet, several proposals, so we could discuss their merits.

I'll work on something tonight.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Okay, here's a proposal - it's the Chairman's discretion what he'll do with this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, for prohibiting candidates from being on the ballot line...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Okay, here's a proposal - it's the Chairman's discretion what he'll do with this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, for prohibiting candidates from being on the ballot line...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I like the intent of both acts. For Not Our Candidate! are you saying that their affiliations with the Populares party will not appear on the ballot (The (POP) thing after their name in the ballot), or are you saying we're taking them completely off the ballot? I don't think we have the power to do the latter and I don't we should do the latter anyway.

Does anybody else have any revisions or suggestions for either of the two laws? If not, I think we should hold a vote on them tomorrow.

Basically, they would appear as "Independent", or whatever party did decide to endorse them, if any.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Okay, here's a proposal - it's the Chairman's discretion what he'll do with this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, for prohibiting candidates from being on the ballot line...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seems to work, but will this be based on a separate vote on whether we choose to endorse non-POP candidates, or just our regular endorsement votes? Will we allow party members to nominate non-POP candidates and then vote on whether they will receive our endorsement? We should make that clear.

Also, I think all party officers should be able to contact the SoFE with regard to ballot access. There are deadlines and tense negotiations always can run late. In the past we've had chairmen who were inactive in Atlasia and the whip's office has certainly been intricately involved in the party's interpartisan negotations since the party's founding, even going back to the ARC era. Party officers include the chairman, vice chairman and whip. It could potentially cripple our diplomacy efforts otherwise.

Perhaps we might also allow the conventions themselves to elect for a time someone who would be the official representative of the convention to report on endorsements and ballot access to the SoFE.

Here are my tentatively proposed amendments:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though we'd still need to address the first issue I mentioned.


Also, since we now control our ballot line, should we do like other parties do and automatically endorse our own party's candidates ahead of others before the convention votes?

I imagine we'd just use our existing endorsement process (as we had so far) but with the option for our leadership to place people on our ballot (given that they get a majority/supermajority.)

Also, I accept your modifications to my own amendments, unless someone else in the party has a gripe against it - upon latter reflection, I think anybody in the Leadership should have the authority to notify the SoFE.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd support that, as long as there was a mechanism for our members to "anti-endorse" like it says in "Not Our Candidate!"

I'm drunk

Just put this before all your posts.

I've posted while imbibed quite often and it's only gotten me in trouble once or twice.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Fusion Voting [Aye]
Not Our Candidate [Aye]

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I nominate NiK to Secretary.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

As far as I know, incumbents don't automatically appear.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Chairman

• Jbrase

[] Write In: _____________

Vice-Chairman

• hantheguitarman

[] Write In: _____________

Whip

• Libertas

[] feeblepizza
[] Write In: _____________

Secretary

• NiK (Psychic Octopus)

[] Write In: _____________

Chief Director

• SvenssonRS

[] Write In: _____________

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Just bringing this up, I think after the vote we should discuss a color change.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Just bringing this up, I think after the vote we should discuss a color change.

I concur. JCP also uses a form of green; we should try something else.

Perhaps a form of yellow?

@Sargent, those are good, but I like the logo. I'm open to discussion, though.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I guess I represent the non-libertarian wing (is there one?)

There most certainly is.

Anywho, upon latter reflection, I won't be supporting a color change unless it has border-line unamimous support/desire in the party.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I guess I represent the non-libertarian wing (is there one?)

There most certainly is.

Anywho, upon latter reflection, I won't be supporting a color change unless it has border-line unamimous support/desire in the party.

The problem is that changing colors would essentially be surrendering to terrorism.

In case it isn't common knowledge here, our party color on the Wiki has been vandalized repeatedly by a member of the JCP, who suddenly decided it was his prerogative to change our color without asking. The edit wars continue to rage on.

We've also been threatened with legal action by JCP leaders if we didn't agree to change our color.

So why exactly are we giving in to them and even considering changing colors unilaterally?


I really don't know why we are wasting time debating established party colors and logos when we have important election campaigns coming up, and lots of recruitment and other work to be done.

This.

Anywho, yeah, let's drop the talk of color-change until later.