I'm seeing an alarming trend here in South America, and that trend is that "legalism" (i.e. asking for clarifications, amending bills, and having rules) is considered bad because people have determined that was the "death" of Atlasia.
Exhibit A:
Is there any rule that states that the Speaker must be an MP?
Oh look: Atlasian-style legalism. It doesn't take long does it? But implicitly the chair of any assembly or group is a member of that assembly or group.
No, Al, asking an important question about rules is
not "legalism." It's a very legitimate question.
I mean, maybe if we had a basic Constitution Türkisblau could look at that to determine what's legal or not, but Atlasia had a Constitution, so we can't do that...
Exhibit B is also from Al, coincidently:
I move that we strike subsection six, paragraph eight, line four.
This is obviously satire, I get that, but it's rooted in the idea that amending bills is inherently evil. I mean, if subsection six, paragraph eight, line four is crap, you're damn right we should strike it!
Here's my point: being intentionally casual to avoid repeating the perceived mistakes of Atlasia is very, very,
very ridiculous. A legislative body is greatly weakened if there's a stigma against rules, asking for clarification on things, or amending bills.
Everyone seems to be going out of their way to oppose these things (rules, clarification, amendments) in a furious effort to be the anti-Atlasia. This isn't a long term strategy. If you're going to go through with this idiotic ban on simultaneous office-holding, the two nations will be directly competing with each other for active players. If this is the reality everyone wants, being nothing but the bitter anti-Atlasia is a losing strategy.
Turk gets it basically right:
You all really need to calm down, Jesus Christ.