Senator Xahar stays on as Pacific Council Speaker

[Flake]

Senator Xahar, a former Pacific Councillor, and the speaker has decided to stay on as the speaker even though he has been elected as a Senator, he hadn't announced who he would appoint as the new Pacific Council Speaker, as Pacific law states that each council speaker elects the new one. I had sent the Senator a personal message, asking who he was going to appoint as the new speaker, he had told me that:



The Senator never returned my message on why he would stay on as Speaker.

I introduced legislation to the Pacific Council to make it a requirement for the Speaker to hold an office in the Pacific Council and to not hold any other political office in Atlasia.

I do not know if that bill will pass, even though I and Pacific Councillor PJ support it, the three NM(AM) members might not support the bill, I hope they do, but Xahar is a member of NM(AM) so his influence might affect their votes.

Please contact your councilors to support this bill, as it is not right that someone who isn't even a councilor anymore has the power to govern over the council.

[PJ]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=178851.0

I'd also like to ask all Pacificans to read this thread. The Movement has not only denied common sense game reform that allows them to remain loony, but they also eliminated debate time on this bill and this bill alone. Xahar claimed in an interview that is because the bill has been discussed through messaging. As a councillor, I can confirm this did not happen. I am very disappointed in the Movement's behavior.

[Хahar 🤔]

As long as I have the support of a majority of the Council (which I do), I fail to see the problem here.

[PJ]

As long as I have the support of a majority of the Council (which I do), I fail to see the problem here.

The position is "Speaker of the Pacific Council." You are no longer a member of the council; why should you preside over the Council's duties. Not to mention you were a very inactive Speaker, I seriously doubt you can juggle two jobs when you neglected to actively preside over one.

[Napoleon]

As long as we have regional legislatures that only legislators care about we will face these problems. Voters don't care.

[Lumine]

As long as I have the support of a majority of the Council (which I do), I fail to see the problem here.

The way I see it, the problem here is the open hostility of the NM-AM towards what most of Atlasia considers democratic and politically correct methods. The problem here is not legal, it is the abuse of constitutional loop holes, the inactivity of your members to do anything when elected and the constant undermining of any alternative proposal as some kind of reactionary and pseudo fascist (yes, I know you don't use that specific word) method.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

As long as we have regional legislatures that only legislators care about we will face these problems. Voters don't care.

Abolishing the regions and creating one body or two bodies with about as many elected positions in total will lead to the same problem. For the most part, the people who care are active in the game as elected officials. Re-jigging where they serve will not eliminate this problem... if you could even call it a problem.

[Flake]

The problem is that, Xahar, you shouldn't be speaker. You should appoint it to someone who is serving as a councilman/councilwoman and I don't care if it's Kitteh or PJ or FuzzyBigFoot. They are serving for the people of the Pacific and they should be the speaker.

[PJ]

As long as we have regional legislatures that only legislators care about we will face these problems. Voters don't care.

Abolishing the regions and creating one body or two bodies with about as many elected positions in total will lead to the same problem. For the most part, the people who care are active in the game as elected officials. Re-jigging where they serve will not eliminate this problem... if you could even call it a problem.

-.- I have been trying to make the Pacific Council active and successful for a month now. The difference between the status-quo and the new proposal is that the NM-AM won't have a majority. The Federalists claim to be anti-movement, but by opposing a constitutional convention, you are simply giving the NM-AM more power.

[Adam Griffin]

You new kids are really, really whiny. I know you don't know better, but this game is and always has been run by cliques and cabals. When you ruffle feathers like this, you limit your ability to progress in the game. It's also good not to jump parties every week or two (sage advice for any newer peeps who may read this).

The main problem with the Pacific is that the Wolfenstitution is a disaster, the region has always sucked and not enough people care enough to change it anymore. The Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom decided to leave it in place. Oh well, I guess the region gets to continue enjoying it. Everyone threw a shit-fit over the most rational solution to the problem (putting a gun to the head of a chronically dead region and pulling the trigger), so I guess the majority and ruling party will have control until it no longer does.

There's no point to this game if you are not pushing constitutional law and statute to the limits. So tired of hearing this "everything is sacred" approach to constitutional law, regions, statute, etc - ESPECIALLY from individuals who frankly haven't been around long enough to know the difference (hell, I haven't even been around that long in the grand scheme of things). It's there to be ed with, duh. I can't possibly imagine how enjoyable it can be to draft some piece of legislation only to find out that five people before you drafted and passed the same thing.

Also, publishing a personal message can warrant you 10 death points from the mods.

(Not all of these critiques apply to everyone or to the same people so please pick and choose accordingly)

[PJ]

You new kids are really, really whiny. I know you don't know better, but this game is and always has been run by cliques and cabals. When you ruffle feathers like this, you limit your ability to progress in the game. It's also good not to jump parties every week or two (sage advice for any newer peeps who may read this).

The main problem with the Pacific is that the Wolfenstitution is a disaster, the region has always sucked and not enough people care enough to change it anymore. The Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom decided to leave it in place. Oh well, I guess the region gets to continue enjoying it. Everyone threw a shit-fit over the most rational solution to the problem (putting a gun to the head of a chronically dead region and pulling the trigger), so I guess the majority and ruling party will have control until it no longer does.

There's no point to this game if you are not pushing constitutional law and statute to the limits. So tired of hearing this "everything is sacred" approach to constitutional law, regions, statute, etc - ESPECIALLY from individuals who frankly haven't been around long enough to know the difference (hell, I haven't even been around that long in the grand scheme of things). It's there to be ed with, duh. I can't possibly imagine how enjoyable it can be to draft some piece of legislation only to find out that five people before you drafted and passed the same thing.

Also, publishing a personal message can warrant you 10 death points from the mods.

(Not all of these critiques apply to everyone or to the same people so please pick and choose accordingly)

If by pulling the trigger you mean Nix's proposal I am fully ready to do so, but the Federalists are making that exceedingly difficult.

[Maxwell]

What do you mean Federalists are making it "exceedingly difficult"? In the Senate, we debate. That is what is happening. Nix's proposal isn't even a formal amendment right now, so we are not even to the stage of something that is concrete.

Maybe you should look at what we are doing rather than what you think is going on.

[PJ]

What do you mean Federalists are making it "exceedingly difficult"? In the Senate, we debate. That is what is happening. Nix's proposal isn't even a formal amendment right now, so we are not even to the stage of something that is concrete.

Maybe you should look at what we are doing rather than what you think is going on.

I am referring to your party's opposition to the Constitutional Convention. This may seem as radicalism to your party, but the Movement has most of its power due to the regionalism that many Federalists have vowed to defend.

[Napoleon]

What do you mean Federalists are making it "exceedingly difficult"? In the Senate, we debate. That is what is happening. Nix's proposal isn't even a formal amendment right now, so we are not even to the stage of something that is concrete.

Maybe you should look at what we are doing rather than what you think is going on.

The overwhelming majority of your party won't even allow an open constitutional convention.

[Maxwell]

What do you mean Federalists are making it "exceedingly difficult"? In the Senate, we debate. That is what is happening. Nix's proposal isn't even a formal amendment right now, so we are not even to the stage of something that is concrete.

Maybe you should look at what we are doing rather than what you think is going on.

I am referring to your party's opposition to the Constitutional Convention. This may seem as radicalism to your party, but the Movement has most of its power due to the regionalism that many Federalists have vowed to defend.

What do you mean Federalists are making it "exceedingly difficult"? In the Senate, we debate. That is what is happening. Nix's proposal isn't even a formal amendment right now, so we are not even to the stage of something that is concrete.

Maybe you should look at what we are doing rather than what you think is going on.

The overwhelming majority of your party won't even allow an open constitutional convention.

A good amount of my party is wondering what the merits are of a constitutional convention, especially when we are already in the middle of considering legislation that would change the outlook of Atlasia as is. Let's not attack people just because they have different views on what the right course for our nation is.

[Lumine]

What do you mean Federalists are making it "exceedingly difficult"? In the Senate, we debate. That is what is happening. Nix's proposal isn't even a formal amendment right now, so we are not even to the stage of something that is concrete.

Maybe you should look at what we are doing rather than what you think is going on.

I am referring to your party's opposition to the Constitutional Convention. This may seem as radicalism to your party, but the Movement has most of its power due to the regionalism that many Federalists have vowed to defend.

I think you're being too tough on the Federalists this time. So far, we've seen some comments from Zuwo, Supersonic and Inks about not wishing to have a Convention, but the party doesn't have an official position, there are members backing the Convention and they are not even blocking anything right now.

[PJ]

What do you mean Federalists are making it "exceedingly difficult"? In the Senate, we debate. That is what is happening. Nix's proposal isn't even a formal amendment right now, so we are not even to the stage of something that is concrete.

Maybe you should look at what we are doing rather than what you think is going on.

I am referring to your party's opposition to the Constitutional Convention. This may seem as radicalism to your party, but the Movement has most of its power due to the regionalism that many Federalists have vowed to defend.

I think you're being too tough on the Federalists this time. So far, we've seen some comments from Zuwo, Supersonic and Inks about not wishing to have a Convention, but the party doesn't have an official position, there are members backing the Convention and they are not even blocking anything right now.

Also JCL, Hagrid, Goldwater, and PiT. You are right that some Federalists are in support of it, and I applaud them for that. However, the main opposition comes from Federalists.

[PJ]

Some Federalists oppose regional consolidation and will probably do whatever they can to mobilize opposition to my proposal or any other. But we should be careful not to paint the party with a broad brush on this issue. Both Federalists who were elected to the Senate in the August election support regional consolidation, and other prominent figures from the party have expressed interest in serious reform (e.g. Spamage). The Federalist Party isn't united behind a single position on this issue, and, to be frank, some of the most vocal opponents of regional consolidation are categorically opposed to any ideas that would involve changing the game.

I apologize if my comments generalized the Federalists, as this was not my intention.

[DemPGH]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=178851.0

I'd also like to ask all Pacificans to read this thread. The Movement has not only denied common sense game reform that allows them to remain loony, but they also eliminated debate time on this bill and this bill alone. Xahar claimed in an interview that is because the bill has been discussed through messaging. As a councillor, I can confirm this did not happen. I am very disappointed in the Movement's behavior.

This is all being looked into, and will be looked into thoroughly by my office. It takes constructive people to keep an eye on these things, so we'll handle it as necessitated by the law.

[Хahar 🤔]

As long as I have the support of a majority of the Council (which I do), I fail to see the problem here.

The way I see it, the problem here is the open hostility of the NM-AM towards what most of Atlasia considers democratic and politically correct methods. The problem here is not legal, it is the abuse of constitutional loop holes, the inactivity of your members to do anything when elected and the constant undermining of any alternative proposal as some kind of reactionary and pseudo fascist (yes, I know you don't use that specific word) method.

At no point has the National Movement ever tried to hide the fact that it is a revolutionary party. If people didn't want that, they wouldn't have voted for NMAM members.

The problem is that, Xahar, you shouldn't be speaker. You should appoint it to someone who is serving as a councilman/councilwoman and I don't care if it's Kitteh or PJ or FuzzyBigFoot. They are serving for the people of the Pacific and they should be the speaker.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

As long as we have regional legislatures that only legislators care about we will face these problems. Voters don't care.

Abolishing the regions and creating one body or two bodies with about as many elected positions in total will lead to the same problem. For the most part, the people who care are active in the game as elected officials. Re-jigging where they serve will not eliminate this problem... if you could even call it a problem.

-.- I have been trying to make the Pacific Council active and successful for a month now. The difference between the status-quo and the new proposal is that the NM-AM won't have a majority. The Federalists claim to be anti-movement, but by opposing a constitutional convention, you are simply giving the NM-AM more power.

Actually, to be honest, I would much rather see the regions have the opportunity to develop their own unique political character (Mustafiniacs or not) than have some blob of a federal government limit the voice of minorities in the regions to one-fraction of a veto power.

"The difference between the status-quo and the new proposal" isn't just "NM-AM won't have a majority." If that's your reason, it's incredibly shortsighted. As much as the process benefits NM-AM, it also benefits other smaller parties. How does this new proposal benefit the Progressive Union in the long term? Seems like another case of "let's just shake things up because I'm frustrated."

If that was my philosophy, we'd be playing this game in a goddamn blender.

[PJ]

As long as we have regional legislatures that only legislators care about we will face these problems. Voters don't care.

Abolishing the regions and creating one body or two bodies with about as many elected positions in total will lead to the same problem. For the most part, the people who care are active in the game as elected officials. Re-jigging where they serve will not eliminate this problem... if you could even call it a problem.

-.- I have been trying to make the Pacific Council active and successful for a month now. The difference between the status-quo and the new proposal is that the NM-AM won't have a majority. The Federalists claim to be anti-movement, but by opposing a constitutional convention, you are simply giving the NM-AM more power.

Actually, to be honest, I would much rather see the regions have the opportunity to develop their own unique political character (Mustafiniacs or not) than have some blob of a federal government limit the voice of minorities in the regions to one-fraction of a veto power.

"The difference between the status-quo and the new proposal" isn't just "NM-AM won't have a majority." If that's your reason, it's incredibly shortsighted. As much as the process benefits NM-AM, it also benefits other smaller parties. How does this new proposal benefit the Progressive Union in the long term? Seems like another case of "let's just shake things up because I'm frustrated."

If that was my philosophy, we'd be playing this game in a goddamn blender.

I don't support this proposal only because of NMAM. I believe that isolating regional governments is an ineffective way to do things in a game this small. If a group of congressmen become inactive, it doesn't slow down the congressional process because the other regions are there to pick up the slack.

[President Tyrion]

As the regional executive, allow me to make a statement. While I don't agree with Xahar's actions, and while I do believe he should choose a Speaker from within the Council, there is nothing obligating him to do so. The previous Council election could only reasonably be interpreted as a mandate FOR NMAM, and not against the movement.

While I don't agree with their methods, some good discussion will come of this, and we cannot shy away from that. Stay strong Pacificans and Take A Stand. If you agree with NMAM policy, vote for them next month. If not, vote elsewhere. In either case, make your voices heard.

[ZuWo]

Blaming the Federalists for being indirect NM-AM enablers is, quite frankly, absurd. (And so is the notion that there are Federalists who are opposed to change per se, but that's another story.) If you want the NM-AM to be out of power, convince a majority of Pacificans to vote for other candidates. Recruit new players and make them interested in regional affairs. There's a reason why the Mideast went from being a mediocre region with about 20 citizens to becoming the biggest Atlasian region within one and a half years. The same would be achieved in the Pacific if more people who always complain about the regional system actually tried to improve it.

[PJ]

Blaming the Federalists for being indirect NM-AM enablers is, quite frankly, absurd. (And so is the notion that there are Federalists who are opposed to change per se, but that's another story.) If you want the NM-AM to be out of power, convince a majority of Pacificans to vote for other candidates. Recruit new players and make them interested in regional affairs. There's a reason why the Mideast went from being a mediocre region with about 20 citizens to becoming the biggest Atlasian region within one and a half years. The same would be achieved in the Pacific if more people who always complain about the regional system actually tried to improve it.

During the election that elected IBDD and myself, I contacted many Pacificans, residents of other regions, and non-Atlasians about running for Pacific Council. We were stuck until Napoleon ran, and being a Senator, he didn't accept the position. So Spamage had to appoint someone; there was no competition for the seat, so he appointed NVGonzalez, a councillor who never swore in or voted on anything. Do you see the problem?