Sorry

[Хahar 🤔]

Yes, Yankee, I was mistaken in that respect. I don't remember what exactly had led me to that conclusion; I may have been looking at the wrong thing.

If you could point me to this "wrong" thing, it would be most helpful. That way I can warn the incuming Senators about it and thus avoid some confusion. Was it that ancient 2005 OSPR that is somewhere on the wiki or something else?

That must have been it, yes.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Well, I want to stay out of this, but on the subject of inactivity there's something that's not been said that must be. In the last At Large election Sjoyce was the odd man out - he could have helped the Senate, and his expertise in foreign policy there could been majorly helpful. But instead we got someone who was almost entirely inactive, and managed even to be snarky about it, yet gave us. . . a bit of comic sans.

I don't disagree that Senator Xahar has been an extremely inactive Senator (at best), but I don't see how that excuses Senator Napoleon's inactivity.  Honestly, I'd argue that they should've both resigned their seats a while ago if they knew they weren't going to be able to be the sort of active Senator that The People deserve (as I did when it became clear I wouldn't be able to be as active as I anticipated).  With all due respect, that is what putting The People ahead of simply holding a position looks like.  However, I think you can really criticize Senator Xahar's inactivity (and his attitude about it) unless you are also willing to be just as hard on Senator Napoleon for both his inactivity in the Senate and the fact that some of this stuff seems timed to allow him to just miss being expelled from the Senate for inactivity.  For those who weren't around during his Presidency, he also had a tendency to wait until the last possible second to sign/veto legislation during a significant chunk of his Presidency, IIRC.  He was also given another chance when he was elected to the Senate during his second term as President despite extremely low approvals.  

Ultimately, I believe everyone deserves a second chance in Atlasia, and often a third chance (there is literally nothing at stake here).  However, giving Senator Napoleon another chance doesn't mean we should simply forget about his inactivity in the Senate.  Giving someone another chance doesn't mean unconditionally giving them a blank slate, it means keeping an open-mind so that they have an opportunity to earn back the trust that they lost and I think some of the folks in this thread are forgetting that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I agree with Mr. X's last paragraph. There has to be some degree of obligation, even in a game situation, towards those are also playing it so as to maintain the fun for everyone involved. That was what I was trying to stress in my campaign speeches. It is thusly that some degree of account much be held for actions, lest they get out of hand and ruin it for everyone. Inactivity is one such action that has that potential.

[DemPGH]

'Mkay. Are we talking about a tougher activity requirement than the 19th? I'll be among the first to support it! I've been very active and I believe that activity makes the game run more smoothly and function better. I also recognize that, you know, sometimes you get to a point where you need a break, even if you've been active and productive, as some have. So, take a break. I wouldn't support an activity requirement that's too tough, though, because there is RL. Also, when I call someone out or rip on them, I'm taking into consideration what I think are their intentions as well.

[PJ]

Yeah, the key point here is that I never indicated I would be a good Senator.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you complain about inactivity in the Senate? Or was it only the Pacific?

Xahar was the cause of Pacific inactivity in the 5th council.