Is the South seceding? And does the federal executive/legislative branches support it?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1. I wrote in Muaddib because I saw he wrote himself in and I felt obligated to express my support for him because it is a post he has wanted for a long time. The last conversations I had with YT were firm about his desire to avoid the game bc of real life objectives, a decision I did felt obligated to support out of respect for his wishes. While that certainly may have shifted, there has been little to no communication in this regards towards me.

These were the two things running through my mind when I made my vote.

2. Under no circumstance will I favor secession or Southern independence. I feel like this vote should have been more clearly noted and not buried near the bottom of a list of rather mundane referendums.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I generally agree, but I also will say that unless either the federal legislative + executive branches have ruled on a matter (or two-thirds of the federal legislature + two-thirds of the regions subsequently vote similarly), virtually any matter is left to individual regions unless found unconstitutional by the courts.

True, but at the same time that creates the dynamic or perhaps expectation that any range of playable actions exists on "until some activist majority in Nyman decides all of the sudden to handle federally" basis. Slow drip centralism, as I have described it in the past.

This was in large measure a major motivator of the 2015 reset for example, though it tied in with generalized concerns about just how far afield the game had diverged from real life so as to create a barrier to entry for new people as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm not exactly opposed to regions being able to be independent, but that wouldn't be good for the game given we have 150 registered people, and a lot of them don't actively participate. The numbers aren't simply there to have a right-wing dominated Atlasia game and a left wing dominated Atlasia game. It would also remove competition from the game, resulting in an Atlasia where the dominant left wing party always win an election, and an Atlasia where the dominant right wing party always win an election.

Fundamentally it also ignores what this game has been about for near 80% of its existence. The struggle against the other side. Yes, scoring wins matters in the policy arena too, but without the competition its over. Whenever any particular group, isolated in their echo chambers, gets to thinking that absent the other side, they can just tick off the wish list, very quickly it becomes apparent that once the wish list is gone through there is no purpose in playing the game anymore. The left has made this mistake numerous times.

Ironically you could argue that it has been the source of the damage to regional powers and influence in previous contexts, since often the wish list on that side involves a lot of centralist action to address various issues.

Tribalism matters more than policy, and many times I have lamented that fact because of the negative impacts on the government side of things, but the core this game really is the contest between the parties, always has been. Everything else, is just a side effect of that happening. For example, our difficulty in recent years with officeholder activity and engagement of players and such, stems from the shifts in how that contest takes place, the reliance on ever less active voters maintained through the connectedness of discord, who otherwise would have dropped away.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nobody ever listens to me. Nobody ever pays attention.

After all these years, increasingly I wonder why I even keep wasting my breath...

Why did you think it was a good idea to offer YT a deal. I am genuinely curious? Especially if you thought they were hell bent on a hard exit from the get go. Do you really think they would be interested in being the 30% controlled opposition to a renewed Labor dominance within Atlasia?

Let's assume for a second that hard exit was the end goal all along, it probably was for at least some in the now infamous SEXIT chat (obviously less so for others as subsequently demonstrated), it would serve to examine the motivations. The basic justification for them would obviously be a "safe space" free from the restraints of the constitution and the "left" dominated national government to do what they pleased (leaving aside all of the miscalculations on their part for the sake of time).

Either they would be extracting something to facilitate secession later on, or they would be essentially giving up the major part of their purpose for existing in the first place.

Just all seems like an out of character misjudgment, or perhaps you came to a different interpretation of their motives?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nobody ever listens to me. Nobody ever pays attention.

After all these years, increasingly I wonder why I even keep wasting my breath...

Why did you think it was a good idea to offer YT a deal. I am genuinely curious? Especially if you thought they were hell bent on a hard exit from the get go. Do you really think they would be interested in being the 30% controlled opposition to a renewed Labor dominance within Atlasia?

Let's assume for a second that hard exit was the end goal all along, it probably was for at least some in the now infamous SEXIT chat (obviously less so for others as subsequently demonstrated), it would serve to examine the motivations. The basic justification for them would obviously be a "safe space" free from the restraints of the constitution and the "left" dominated national government to do what they pleased (leaving aside all of the miscalculations on their part for the sake of time).

Either they would be extracting something to facilitate secession later on, or they would be essentially giving up the major part of their purpose for existing in the first place.

Just all seems like an out of character misjudgment, or perhaps you came to a different interpretation of their motives?

It's called low-ball diplomacy, Yankee. I wanted him to further trust that the honest info I was giving him was in fact honest - by offering an option where collaboration (even in the most unlikely of theories) was possible. Fortunately, he took the truth much more willingly than I had expected. That's why we're all having so much fun now!

I almost left that part out when I contacted him, to be honest. Regardless, there was less than a 1% chance he'd agree to such a deal, and within that specific range of scenarios, less than a 1% chance he could then deliver upon my requested arrangements (end/reverse secession crap, reestablish regional elections). If somehow he said "yes, Griff, I agree to restore the Republic in its entirety and reestablish democracy" and then actually delivered, well...I guess I would have found myself in a pickle! Fortunately, no one with a lick of sense or who's trying to axe-grind would ever think such was ever realistic.

You can count on one disfigured hand with fingers to spare the number of people who have more beef with YT than myself. It cost me nothing. Bad-faith fools can make all the accusations they want about me for doing such, as they always have. The fact you could read my quote in its entire context, and - as a purported defender of the Republic - only draw from such the equivalent of "LOL - you made an impossible offer to the same guy I've been colluding with for years now!" speaks volumes.

You are as you said an opportunist. If as you say it was to "establish trust", then the logical question was "to what end".

What did you gain by making "the secessionist" aware of "plots against him". If there was a multi party coalition being formed for the express purposes "reigning him in", why torpedo that in this fashion?

To outside observers it reeks of placing partisan interest ahead of the interest of the republic, and as much as you are "acclaiming to the title of 'savior of the Republic", we all know your first priority is Labor and its success and dominance. Destroying Peace's efforts, enabled yours and gives you a chance to revive Labor's dreadful image.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Didn't want to create another thread, here seemed good enough for something south related-

Hadn't noticed it before, it's rather... "interesting" what the South's legislative process has devolved to. A bill thread is posted, YT instantly declares his "legislative prerogative" whatever the fck that is and the bill instantly passes unopposed.

What a unique take on the legislative process! Clearly taking inspiration from the National People's Congress or the Volkshammer.

I can now see why meme maroon communists are offering critical support to YT on his quest to destroy the Republic

I cannot unpack this on my phone but it's less useful to look at this ideologically and more in terms of attitude toward the game. In that sense the SNP share the same motivation as the Dengists, the AAD crowd and AtlasforumIRC. They all hated the game, they all have a dismissive view of most of the people who play it hence the lack of qualms about trollish behavior, and a strong desire to take it from the "nerds/furies" and/or destroy it with a very vague concept of a replacement, if at all, that usually lacks much in the credibility department.

If we were ever to get the whole of sexit, and were to compare it to Dengcord, I would bet they read very similarly.

I have said it a million times, the who in any given situation is less important than what those people represent in that context.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If somehow he said "yes, Griff, I agree to restore the Republic in its entirety and reestablish democracy" and then actually delivered

I'm genuinely glad to see others speaking out about this. In the above statement (underlined), this was exactly what I was referring to specifically: one year terms even by themselves are intolerable, let alone the practical (or actual) inability to recall.

With the HoB having the authority to amend the constitution by unanimous vote without consulting the voters its even worse than that, because they can just extend the term lengths via unanimous vote and never hold another election.