The Atlasian Sentinel

[Purple State]

Are we going to finish the whole debate before it even hits the Senate floor?

[Vepres]

Are we going to finish the whole debate before it even hits the Senate floor?

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

    

it is better than nothing.

As long as people are lazy and refuse to take responsibililty for the own well being, no reform will be affordable. A better term for this is third party Health care. People currently view health insurance the same way. Instead of comparison shopping, asking about prices and generics, they just hand over the card be done with it. Prices can very be as much as 19% among hospitals. 

There are a lot of things wrong with what you just said. First of all, unlike with a consumer good or something, health insurance doesn't follow a lot of the normal rules of supply and demand. You can "shop around" for a new TV because if you don't find one that you like or one that is cheap enough, you can just not buy one or buy a used one or buy a smaller one. With health insurance when you're sick, on the other hand, you either buy it or you die; the supplier has all the power and the consumer has very little. Secondly, in many areas, there's no such thing as choice between insurance options, as there are only one or two insurance providers in the area. This is especially problematic in rural areas. Finally, depending on your insurance plan, you might not be able to "shop around" when it comes to hospitals or treatments either, as often times your insurance company tells you where you should go or will only pay for treatment at certain hospitals.

You know you can walk into an ER for free and they have to take you.

As long as people are lazy and refuse to take responsibililty for the own well being, no reform will be affordable. A better term for this is third party Health care. People currently view health insurance the same way. Instead of comparison shopping, asking about prices and generics, they just hand over the card be done with it. Prices can very be as much as 19% among hospitals. 

1. They're often forced into one by their employer. As the business secures deals with the insurance company, it is far cheaper than if you bought it on your own. Very few people can afford to pay premiums without the aid of an employer.

2. The health insurance industry is not competitive at all. As to why, it probably has to do with over regulation combined with excellent lobbying.

And is there a reason why those two things can't be corrected. If people shopped around or at least those who could did, it will decrease prices making insurance more affordable and encourage price competition. You change regulation that hurts competition and work to again reduce prices through competition. I know, when my dad got laid off we would have to have paid three times as much for the insurance, allmost 1,000 dollars a month to keep it, then we did when he was employed. It was pretty damn good coverage two, and as such it had the price to match. We need to get those prices down and encourage ways to help people afford there health care once they get laid off. It will be much easier to cover everyone once we achieve what I am talking about, then to just jump in an pick up the tab.

Sure, they can be corrected, but it's not so simple. Yes, in theory, if everybody started shopping for their personal insurance it would drive prices down, but it is so much more expensive to do that, so much so that many literally cannot do it. As you said, your father had to devote $12k to health insurance. Now what of somebody who makes only 30k a year. Well, a third is taxed (not sure about Atlasia's tax code, is it even clear), so that leaves 20k. So over half of his income adjusted for taxes goes to health insurance. Not good.

I agree with you that there are regulations that hurt competition. Modernization, as well as removal of redundant laws are a step in the right direction. But realize that people cannot suddenly buy their own insurance in the marketplace en masse.

By the way, have medicare and medicaid been addressed in Atlasia?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are we going to finish the whole debate before it even hits the Senate floor?

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

    

it is better than nothing.

As long as people are lazy and refuse to take responsibililty for the own well being, no reform will be affordable. A better term for this is third party Health care. People currently view health insurance the same way. Instead of comparison shopping, asking about prices and generics, they just hand over the card be done with it. Prices can very be as much as 19% among hospitals. 

There are a lot of things wrong with what you just said. First of all, unlike with a consumer good or something, health insurance doesn't follow a lot of the normal rules of supply and demand. You can "shop around" for a new TV because if you don't find one that you like or one that is cheap enough, you can just not buy one or buy a used one or buy a smaller one. With health insurance when you're sick, on the other hand, you either buy it or you die; the supplier has all the power and the consumer has very little. Secondly, in many areas, there's no such thing as choice between insurance options, as there are only one or two insurance providers in the area. This is especially problematic in rural areas. Finally, depending on your insurance plan, you might not be able to "shop around" when it comes to hospitals or treatments either, as often times your insurance company tells you where you should go or will only pay for treatment at certain hospitals.

You know you can walk into an ER for free and they have to take you.

As long as people are lazy and refuse to take responsibililty for the own well being, no reform will be affordable. A better term for this is third party Health care. People currently view health insurance the same way. Instead of comparison shopping, asking about prices and generics, they just hand over the card be done with it. Prices can very be as much as 19% among hospitals. 

1. They're often forced into one by their employer. As the business secures deals with the insurance company, it is far cheaper than if you bought it on your own. Very few people can afford to pay premiums without the aid of an employer.

2. The health insurance industry is not competitive at all. As to why, it probably has to do with over regulation combined with excellent lobbying.

And is there a reason why those two things can't be corrected. If people shopped around or at least those who could did, it will decrease prices making insurance more affordable and encourage price competition. You change regulation that hurts competition and work to again reduce prices through competition. I know, when my dad got laid off we would have to have paid three times as much for the insurance, allmost 1,000 dollars a month to keep it, then we did when he was employed. It was pretty damn good coverage two, and as such it had the price to match. We need to get those prices down and encourage ways to help people afford there health care once they get laid off. It will be much easier to cover everyone once we achieve what I am talking about, then to just jump in an pick up the tab.

Sure, they can be corrected, but it's not so simple. Yes, in theory, if everybody started shopping for their personal insurance it would drive prices down, but it is so much more expensive to do that, so much so that many literally cannot do it. As you said, your father had to devote $12k to health insurance. Now what of somebody who makes only 30k a year. Well, a third is taxed (not sure about Atlasia's tax code, is it even clear), so that leaves 20k. So over half of his income adjusted for taxes goes to health insurance. Not good.

I agree with you that there are regulations that hurt competition. Modernization, as well as removal of redundant laws are a step in the right direction. But realize that people cannot suddenly buy their own insurance in the marketplace en masse.

By the way, have medicare and medicaid been addressed in Atlasia?

You misunderstood my post. My dad made 36,000 a year where he worked. He had to pay about 300 a month out his check for the insurance and the company paid 600. When he lost the job he would have had to pay 900 dollars to keep it. So I know what it is like to not be insured. I know Vepres that these little tweaks aren't enough alone, but I also said that I support a plan to cover the poor, didn't I. You are again taking me out of context. Damn Reporters . I am just trying to make sure that we don't subsidize irresponsible behavior, that we don't sacrifice qualitly when we don't have to, and we don't ration the supply to cut costs when again we may not have too, or have too to the same extent.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Great interview. I wish you will win...

[Vepres]

Are we going to finish the whole debate before it even hits the Senate floor?

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

    

it is better than nothing.

As long as people are lazy and refuse to take responsibililty for the own well being, no reform will be affordable. A better term for this is third party Health care. People currently view health insurance the same way. Instead of comparison shopping, asking about prices and generics, they just hand over the card be done with it. Prices can very be as much as 19% among hospitals. 

There are a lot of things wrong with what you just said. First of all, unlike with a consumer good or something, health insurance doesn't follow a lot of the normal rules of supply and demand. You can "shop around" for a new TV because if you don't find one that you like or one that is cheap enough, you can just not buy one or buy a used one or buy a smaller one. With health insurance when you're sick, on the other hand, you either buy it or you die; the supplier has all the power and the consumer has very little. Secondly, in many areas, there's no such thing as choice between insurance options, as there are only one or two insurance providers in the area. This is especially problematic in rural areas. Finally, depending on your insurance plan, you might not be able to "shop around" when it comes to hospitals or treatments either, as often times your insurance company tells you where you should go or will only pay for treatment at certain hospitals.

You know you can walk into an ER for free and they have to take you.

As long as people are lazy and refuse to take responsibililty for the own well being, no reform will be affordable. A better term for this is third party Health care. People currently view health insurance the same way. Instead of comparison shopping, asking about prices and generics, they just hand over the card be done with it. Prices can very be as much as 19% among hospitals. 

1. They're often forced into one by their employer. As the business secures deals with the insurance company, it is far cheaper than if you bought it on your own. Very few people can afford to pay premiums without the aid of an employer.

2. The health insurance industry is not competitive at all. As to why, it probably has to do with over regulation combined with excellent lobbying.

And is there a reason why those two things can't be corrected. If people shopped around or at least those who could did, it will decrease prices making insurance more affordable and encourage price competition. You change regulation that hurts competition and work to again reduce prices through competition. I know, when my dad got laid off we would have to have paid three times as much for the insurance, allmost 1,000 dollars a month to keep it, then we did when he was employed. It was pretty damn good coverage two, and as such it had the price to match. We need to get those prices down and encourage ways to help people afford there health care once they get laid off. It will be much easier to cover everyone once we achieve what I am talking about, then to just jump in an pick up the tab.

Sure, they can be corrected, but it's not so simple. Yes, in theory, if everybody started shopping for their personal insurance it would drive prices down, but it is so much more expensive to do that, so much so that many literally cannot do it. As you said, your father had to devote $12k to health insurance. Now what of somebody who makes only 30k a year. Well, a third is taxed (not sure about Atlasia's tax code, is it even clear), so that leaves 20k. So over half of his income adjusted for taxes goes to health insurance. Not good.

I agree with you that there are regulations that hurt competition. Modernization, as well as removal of redundant laws are a step in the right direction. But realize that people cannot suddenly buy their own insurance in the marketplace en masse.

By the way, have medicare and medicaid been addressed in Atlasia?

You misunderstood my post. My dad made 36,000 a year where he worked. He had to pay about 300 a month out his check for the insurance and the company paid 600. When he lost the job he would have had to pay 900 dollars to keep it. So I know what it is like to not be insured. I know Vepres that these little tweaks aren't enough alone, but I also said that I support a plan to cover the poor, didn't I. You are again taking me out of context. Damn Reporters . I am just trying to make sure that we don't subsidize irresponsible behavior, that we don't sacrifice qualitly when we don't have to, and we don't ration the supply to cut costs when again we may not have too, or have too to the same extent.

Taking things out of context is one of the cornerstones of reporting.

[Vepres]

Apologies for a lack of an update, I've had my mind on other things of late. I should have one tomorrow however.

[Vepres]

The Atlasian Sentinel

Debate Over Stimulus Bill in Senate
by Vepres

The "2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill" is currently being debated in the Senate. Introduced by Senators Marokai and MaxQue on behalf of the President, the bill does a number of things to attempt to aid the ailing economy. The bill includes additional funding for welfare programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, and disabled worker rehabilitation and training, among others. It also apportions money for infrastructure investment, aid to the auto industry, and fiscal relief for the regional and local governments. Finally, it includes tax cuts for small businesses and "responsible individuals".

The early debate was largely between Senators Marokai, North Carolina Yankee, and Franzl. Franzl questioned the "buy Atlasian" provision, as well as the nationalization of the Atlasian auto industry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marokai countered by saying:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The debate grew when Senator North Carolina Yankee delivered his opinion of the bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sen. Marokai responded simply with an ad hominem attacks on Sen. North Carolina Yankee and the debate quickly dissolved into more of a substanceless argument.

Finally, Sen. Purple State proposed an amendment that quelled the two other Senators.

Internal investment is best, but we need to make sure we are getting the most for our money with this package. Spending far too much just so we can pay an inefficient American contractor doesn't allow the bad companies to die. So, rather than simply repealing the "Buy America" clause, how is this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Discussion then shifted to spending on alternative energy sources. The general consensus that seemed to emerge was a government partnership with private corporations.

Southeast Lt. Governor SPC offered his opinion of the bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

However, Sen. Marokai criticized him for his lack of details and analysis. SPC replied simply by saying that there is nothing wrong with a statesmen voicing their opinion of a bill.

The Senate is currently voting on an amendment which would eliminate this clause:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Opposition to the amendment cited the superior alternative as their reason for voting nay. The current tally is 4-4.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I sort of resent that characterization. I did a great deal of indepth discussion here that I wish this newspaper focused on rather than one short paragraph from me and then saying "afterward Marokai continued just to insult him."

NCY was going on and on about a doomsday scenario with no basis in reality and continually compared my provision to Smoot-Hawley, which is about as ridiculous a comparison as I could imagine.

The problem is you're dreaming up fantasy scenarios with no basis in reality. You argument is "It could be a problem to others, I dunno how, but it could be. It could be like Smoot-Hawley, but I'm not comparing them or anything!"

We did this already in the stimulus bill, and it was a much stricter provision, and it didn't result in the crashing of global trade or a wave of protectionist policies. Your fantasy scenario has yet to realize under harsher conditions in the real world.

The global economy is indeed slumping and other countries have alot of work to do when it comes to stimulating our own economies. But the idea that I'm "ignoring the consequences of my own actions" is ludicrous. The U.S. (aka Atlasia) should not be stimulating the world on our own, other countries should stimulate their economies on their own. We can maintain trade, and make things easier for people to get into the market, but we need to be realistic about the real effect certain policies have on the economy, and, for one, "Buy Atlasian" ain't got nuthin' on Smoot-Hawley.

Smoot-Hawley jacked up tariffs to record levels (more than quadrupling them) on over 20,000 types of imported products and effectively choked off trade to Europe and other areas of the world very quickly. This provision does nothing of the sort and pretending it does is the height of ignorance. This clause of the bill simply mandates that a great deal of the manufacturing material involved in projects funded by the stimulus package will be created/manufactured from Atlasian businesses and workers, it doesn't stop other projects from being funded by foreign sources, it doesn't block foreign sources from doing trade with us in any other way, and it still allows a full 33% of stimulus project materials to be obtained from other countries.

Protectionism is never a great policy when it's the only solution, and raising tariffs is seldom a bright idea when it comes to fixing the economy or raising revenue, but this is neither serious protectionism nor tariff raising, nor any other sort of trade restriction. I'm baffled that you would even pretend that they're on the same level.

He panicked over tariffs, which aren't going to be touched. Claimed there could be economic armageddon through a great trade war, which hasn't materialized under stricter circumstances in the real world. Then he claimed that protectionist people at the helm could give the wrong idea to other countries (wtf?) and could spark protectionism world-wide no matter the policies, which makes no sense given that Obama and Clinton both railed against free trade throughout the campaign and Republicans throughout the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century were very protectionist with tariffs and manufacturing. It makes no sense. NCY was dreaming up doomsday scenarios.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I sort of resent that characterization. I did a great deal of indepth discussion here that I wish this newspaper focused on rather than one short paragraph from me and then saying "afterward Marokai continued just to insult him."

NCY was going on and on about a doomsday scenario with no basis in reality and continually compared my provision to Smoot-Hawley, which is about as ridiculous a comparison as I could imagine.

There is a definite basis in reality that you simply brush aside due to your own partisan realities. In these types of economic environments the call to take action particulary from protections or otherwise anti-free trade elements grow louder and gain a wider audience. It is my belief that you are naively assuming there will be no reaction at all and then attempt to brush it aside using flimsy comparisons from the RL that really don't hold water. The fact is you did insult me and you called in to question my judgement over an issue of partisan disagreement.

The problem is you're dreaming up fantasy scenarios with no basis in reality. You argument is "It could be a problem to others, I dunno how, but it could be. It could be like Smoot-Hawley, but I'm not comparing them or anything!"

We did this already in the stimulus bill, and it was a much stricter provision, and it didn't result in the crashing of global trade or a wave of protectionist policies. Your fantasy scenario has yet to realize under harsher conditions in the real world.

The global economy is indeed slumping and other countries have alot of work to do when it comes to stimulating our own economies. But the idea that I'm "ignoring the consequences of my own actions" is ludicrous. The U.S. (aka Atlasia) should not be stimulating the world on our own, other countries should stimulate their economies on their own. We can maintain trade, and make things easier for people to get into the market, but we need to be realistic about the real effect certain policies have on the economy, and, for one, "Buy Atlasian" ain't got nuthin' on Smoot-Hawley.

Smoot-Hawley jacked up tariffs to record levels (more than quadrupling them) on over 20,000 types of imported products and effectively choked off trade to Europe and other areas of the world very quickly. This provision does nothing of the sort and pretending it does is the height of ignorance. This clause of the bill simply mandates that a great deal of the manufacturing material involved in projects funded by the stimulus package will be created/manufactured from Atlasian businesses and workers, it doesn't stop other projects from being funded by foreign sources, it doesn't block foreign sources from doing trade with us in any other way, and it still allows a full 33% of stimulus project materials to be obtained from other countries.

Protectionism is never a great policy when it's the only solution, and raising tariffs is seldom a bright idea when it comes to fixing the economy or raising revenue, but this is neither serious protectionism nor tariff raising, nor any other sort of trade restriction. I'm baffled that you would even pretend that they're on the same level.

He panicked over tariffs, which aren't going to be touched. Claimed there could be economic armageddon through a great trade war, which hasn't materialized under stricter circumstances in the real world. Then he claimed that protectionist people at the helm could give the wrong idea to other countries (wtf?) and could spark protectionism world-wide no matter the policies, which makes no sense given that Obama and Clinton both railed against free trade throughout the campaign and Republicans throughout the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century were very protectionist with tariffs and manufacturing. It makes no sense. NCY was dreaming up doomsday scenarios.

I resent you saying that I panicked. I had a political disagreement with you that you ratcheted up to a level where it never should have gone. It did not say that policy choices did not matter, I said that because of our current leaders "relative" Protectionism to the RL the policies that foreign countries expect them to enact would be far more damaging then what was expected of either Senators Hillary CLinton or Barak Obama in RL. You need only look at the recent interpretation of recent LGBT Trade Amendement by the distinguished Secretary of External Affairs, which Senator Purple State showed at least a little dismay over how it was interpreted. As to the RL I don't remember either Senators Clinton or Obama railing against Free Trade, I remember critizing some of the methods of George Bush on that issue and pandering to the union vote, bought overall the theme of Clintons campaign was a return to the 90's and under her husband Free Trade made more strides then it had under any previous President, and most foriegn countries still believe that both US parties support Free Trade. The calls for renegotiating NAFTA was nothing more then propaganda in a tight election campaign, which if I recall both candidates have since then backpeddled on. President Obama wants internation Trade talks resumed and is working to move some more Free Trade deals. Not exactly what you would expect from a "so-called" raving Anti-Free Trade candidate. The facts don't match your arguement that Obama and Clinton were more protectionist and yet still got away with "Buy American" provisions in RL. The Truth is most foriegners gave him a free pass on that cause they believe that real Protectionism is dead in America as a movement, however here in Atlasia it is not.

Now we get to that silly arguement about the GOP in the 19th and early 20th century, so what. Who cares what position a party took back 90 years ago, that was then, and now we know that they were just as much wrong then as the arguement for protectionism is today. The GOP got burned on protectionism not only in 1930 but also in 1890, and several previous times. So what does this have to do with anything I am arguing, because I am a Republican in RL I can't take a certain position cause some digwad President in my Party took a different approach 60 years before I was even born. Protectionism has never worked, when the country was largely Cotton based it hurt the economy(1830's), and when it was Industrial based it hurt the economy(1890 and 1930). This last arguement involving the GOP is pointless and has nothing to do with what we are talking about, they were wrong then, just as you are now.

[Purple State]

Just a few fixes, Vepres. The title says "Interview with Fritz." Also, the vote can't be tied 8-8 (only 10 Senators) and the clause being repealed is clause i. of that section, not a.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just a few fixes, Vepres. The title says "Interview with Fritz." Also, the vote can't be tied 8-8 (only 10 Senators) and the clause being repealed is clause i. of that section, not a.

I guess thats what you call errors of the Main Stream Media. Kind of like the idiot who does all the Letterboards and teleprompters at Fox News.

[Vepres]

Just a few fixes, Vepres. The title says "Interview with Fritz." Also, the vote can't be tied 8-8 (only 10 Senators) and the clause being repealed is clause i. of that section, not a.

I guess thats what you call errors of the Main Stream Media. Kind of like the idiot who does all the Letterboards and teleprompters at Fox News.

At least my errors aren't biased.


Marokai, I don't deny that you only responded with ad hominem, however, at that point you were being dismissive, instead of explaining your position. Certainly earlier in the thread you had compelling arguments.

[Vepres]

Just a few fixes, Vepres. The title says "Interview with Fritz." Also, the vote can't be tied 8-8 (only 10 Senators) and the clause being repealed is clause i. of that section, not a.

In my defense I was very tired.

Edit: I believe I fixed it all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just a few fixes, Vepres. The title says "Interview with Fritz." Also, the vote can't be tied 8-8 (only 10 Senators) and the clause being repealed is clause i. of that section, not a.

In my defense I was very tired.

CAn you at least get the clause I am trying to amend correct, right now. The current form is extremely misleading.

Edit: That is much better, thank you.

[Vepres]

The Atlasian Sentinel

Interview With Swedish Cheese
by Vepres

Vepres: First of all, I would like to thank you for allowing us to interview you.

Now, why did you decide to start the ARNA? Was it a specific event, was it a series of events, or was it just the general atmosphere of Atlasia?

Swedish Cheese: You’re welcome. It’s an honour that you’re interested in our organisation.

Well a little bit of both number 1 and 3. It was mainly the behaviour I saw from a few senior members here on the forum. They basically seemed to consider everyone who was new to the game to be an idiot and voting slave. However it was while reading the discussion in the Sentinel’s Referendum Tracker that I became inspired to start the organisation. There was a comment from a poster that I thought was not only stupid but also discriminating. I have never been able to stand it when people judge a whole group of people on a few bad individuals of that group. I was tired of being ladled an idiot, and realised that we newbies needed to start stand up for ourselves.


What are you're organization's primary goals, and how will you go about achieving them?

Our first and foremost goal is to be a helping hand for new Atlasians. The game can be a bit confusing when you’re new, and when I first came here I was kind of surprised that there wasn’t even a FAQ thread or similar. It’s my opinion that if we helped people to get a better understanding for the game from the start, newbies would be able to get involved quicker and make better contributions.

We also want to work to eliminate the current prejudice and discrimination that exists towards new members. We have a lot of new fresh ideas to contribute with, and deserve to be treated with respect. I’m confident that newbies and senior posters would get along just fine if we just gave each other a chance. As a matter of fact most older members are very friendly and helpful, so I’m positive. Creating this organisation is a first step to show that newbies are not just dumb and lazy voting slaves, but that we do in fact have great ideas and intelligent minds too. We have to prove that we can contribute, and that we are as worthy as people who have been here since 05.

We also intend to work against legislation that we believe violates our rights as citizens. To achieve this goal we will of course campaign for such legal proposals to fail.


Do you think there is anything from a legislative perspective that would help your cause?

Well since it looks like the Intelligent Voting Amendment will pass in a landslide, repealing it would be helpful. However I don’t think there is any need for special laws for newbies, we want to be treated like everyone else. We just don’t want any laws limiting our rights to run for offices for example. So I don’t think there is any law that could pass that would help us. What is really helpful to us is friendly older citizens with open minds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Sentinel would like to thank Swedish Cheese for the interview, and we apologize for not being able to ask more questions. Time zone differences, as well as other activities of mine prevented me from interviewing him further.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Great Swedish Cheese !

Now, it's time for ARNA to become an important political organization, for the rights of newbies and a more friendly Atlasia.

[Vepres]

The Atlasian Sentinel

Some of the ConCon Delegates Protest PO
by Vepres

A number of delegates, MaxQue, Marokai, and bgwah, have signed a protest against the current Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, Purple State. Marokai, a delegate of the Pacific region, asserted that Purple State has "lost sight of not only what we've been trying to accomplish, but also of what his job is supposed to be and the simple procedure here".

Purple State spoke in his own defense today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He stated that he would not step down and that if any delegate had a formal proposal that he would gladly introduce it for them.

Pacific Delegate Marokai retorted:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Emphasis mine. Point is, you show favoritism with what you want to write up and what you just want to ignore, and you propose things even though you should most definitely not have that power. You were elected to your position amongst the delegates to do what we told you, to propose what we wanted, and to follow our suggestion, and you were elected because I pushed for you to be in the position.

Now you're here acting like the God of Reform. Listening to what you want to listen to and not entertaining anything else.[/quote]

It is unclear as to what will happen to the current Presiding Officer. The outcome of this could affect the direction of the convention as whole.
 
Update: President Lief also supports the removal of Purple State as Presiding Officer.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Lief now supports it as well.

[Vepres]

Lief now supports it as well.

Alright, updated.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Lief now supports it as well.

Alright, updated.

BK does too now, but you don't need to update it again if you like

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The CC needs to be killed off and burried already. Has it resulted in anything of value yet?

We don't need a new constitution, and changes needed in the old one can be handled by the Senate.

[Vepres]

Swedish Cheese, more people will probably hear your opinion if you post in the convention thread.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

What does it have to do with the Assembly elections?

[Vepres]

What does it have to do with the Assembly elections?

Nothing, I just don't want to overshadow them, or visa versa.

[Vepres]

A message from the Atlasian Sentinel editor in chief, Vepres:

As you know, I am running for Governor of the Midwest. I will continue to run the Sentinel, and hopefully provide coverage on all major events in Atlasia. I know there may be a conflict of interest between my politics and the accurate reporting of the news. Just know, that I work as hard as I can to keep the paper unbiased (except of course, for op-eds).