I have had the same signature since 2012. 
So we have a nominee who served all of one month as GM prior, who has admitted that he very well may only serve one month again, has admitted that he'll be absent for one-quarter of that time period and people are chomping at the bit to confirm him? Man, I wish I could have had a confirmation hearing this easy.
I hate to step on the administration's toes as I know pickings are very slim and confirmation hearings have been a farce for the administration as of late, but I'm amazed at the laxness in all of this. If I didn't know any better, I'd say there was a partisan element in who gets confirmed and who doesn't.
Dude, we are questioning the man, it is not as if the gushing support has come at the expense of such not occurring. I would like to think have taken the same hard line all the way through since you complained in July.
Well I mean, someone else managed to slide through such strict perimeters after that. I only control one vote in these things, unlike some of your friends who think otherwise regarding themselves.
Also, the mechanics of the game as a msall population come into play with things like a beloved figure like Torie.
Adam was a great GM. If he wants it, I'd step aside.
I just ideally want someone who's going to commit to the task and do the job fairly. It seems so little to ask. But I'll have to tack on to my original request:
Is that an invitation to apply? Only if I didn't have to go through a fourth confirmation hearing.
The Senate would also need to ban Simfan from the game.
[/quote]
Is that legal.
I have suggested banning people who ignore the GM but no one ever responds to the suggestion enough to discuss legalities.
