Crane for Game Moderator: nomination thread

[Utah Neolib]

The nominee shall make an opening statement as is precedent, and afterwards senators can ask questions.

[Ancestral Republican]

I want to begin by thanking the President for placing my name in nomination for this most important position. I am flattered and humbled to have been selected. If confirmed, I assure the Senate that I will approach the enormous task energetically and enthusiastically and will endeavor to the best of my ability tolive up to the confidence placed in me.The role of a game manager is central to ensuring the enjoyment of Atlasian citizens. After all, it is chiefly an exercise in leisure, allowing the average election enthusiast to practice their passion in a controlled environment without the consequences, time constraints, and other considerations limiting their ability to participate in their own country's political process. Therefore, my job should primarily be to facilitate these exercises in a way that allows them to continue to the satisfaction of all interested parties, while making a conducive atmosphere for new players to join to whatever degree of participation they would like.
I've served in multiple positions in Atlasian government and have a prior term as Comptroller General, and seeing the difficulty of that position has made me want to fix its many issues, and I intend to work with the president and other former CG's as a first priority.
I'm happy to answer any questions members of the committee may have. Thank you.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

[Former President tack50]

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

I am seconding this question. The Kansas issue is by far the thing that makes me most scared about the nominee.

[West_Midlander]

Let's not forget that this nominee was also an active participant in the refusal to accept the Southern January 2021 elections (IIRC).

This nominee has consistently pursued game-damaging and potentially game-destroying policies in the interest of "shaking things up."

[Ancestral Republican]

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

I am seconding this question. The Kansas issue is by far the thing that makes me most scared about the nominee.

Excellent questions! To clarify, my only posts about the issue have been to report on specific details of military actions that occurred. I took no position one way or the other and as a southerner I have no interest in the region actively losing territory. I certainly intend to abide by all previous pronouncements, and the current president has indicated he is complying with the recent court order. In the future my intention is to seek equitable resolutions for any narrative arcs that arise.

[Ancestral Republican]

Let's not forget that this nominee was also an active participant in the refusal to accept the Southern January 2021 elections (IIRC).

This nominee has consistently pursued game-damaging and potentially game-destroying policies in the interest of "shaking things up."

Didn't you do literally the exact same thing you accuse me of (baselessly, I may add) several months earlier?

[West_Midlander]

Let's not forget that this nominee was also an active participant in the refusal to accept the Southern January 2021 elections (IIRC).

This nominee has consistently pursued game-damaging and potentially game-destroying policies in the interest of "shaking things up."

Didn't you do literally the exact same thing you accuse me of (baselessly, I may add) several months earlier?

When?

EDIT: Also, what relevance is anything I have done when this is your confirmation hearing, sir?

[West_Midlander]

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

I am seconding this question. The Kansas issue is by far the thing that makes me most scared about the nominee.

Excellent questions! To clarify, my only posts about the issue have been to report on specific details of military actions that occurred. I took no position one way or the other and as a southerner I have no interest in the region actively losing territory. I certainly intend to abide by all previous pronouncements, and the current president has indicated he is complying with the recent court order. In the future my intention is to seek equitable resolutions for any narrative arcs that arise.

Your post sought to put the South in a bad light, so clearly you have a bias. Presumably, your move to the South was only to challenge Governor LT and out of no personal (non-political) regard for this region. Your pronouncement was also directly contradicted after the fact by then-GM Lumine. Given that Lumine's leadership had been by and large greatly successful and wholly unbiased it seems that if you are confirmed you could take the GM department in a direction where the canon of the game becomes overwhelming anti-South, anti-Federalist, anti-civility, and anti-democracy as governmental leaders and yourself have pushed for in the past several days over Kansas.

[West_Midlander]

Let's not forget that this nominee was also an active participant in the refusal to accept the Southern January 2021 elections (IIRC).

This nominee has consistently pursued game-damaging and potentially game-destroying policies in the interest of "shaking things up."

Didn't you do literally the exact same thing you accuse me of (baselessly, I may add) several months earlier?

Ok, I understand your thought process. I just disagree that moderator action is warranted here. Let "Governor" LT defend himself on his own "merits."

EDIT:

Congratulations Governor-elect! [directed at Donerail]

We ran a tough campaign, but ultimately the People made their decision and I have no doubt it will be a successful one!

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Blatantly lying and saying those posts were neutral has me extremely worried about this. I can’t support the nominee at the moment.

[S019]

I believe that the nominee is qualified and he has a strong record of being active, he has my support.

[Ancestral Republican]

Blatantly lying and saying those posts were neutral has me extremely worried about this. I can’t support the nominee at the moment.

Can you walk me through why you felt those posts were non-neutral?

[Ancestral Republican]

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

I am seconding this question. The Kansas issue is by far the thing that makes me most scared about the nominee.

Excellent questions! To clarify, my only posts about the issue have been to report on specific details of military actions that occurred. I took no position one way or the other and as a southerner I have no interest in the region actively losing territory. I certainly intend to abide by all previous pronouncements, and the current president has indicated he is complying with the recent court order. In the future my intention is to seek equitable resolutions for any narrative arcs that arise.

Your post sought to put the South in a bad light, so clearly you have a bias. Presumably, your move to the South was only to challenge Governor LT and out of no personal (non-political) regard for this region. Your pronouncement was also directly contradicted after the fact by then-GM Lumine. Given that Lumine's leadership had been by and large greatly successful and wholly unbiased it seems that if you are confirmed you could take the GM department in a direction where the canon of the game becomes overwhelming anti-South, anti-Federalist, anti-civility, and anti-democracy as governmental leaders and yourself have pushed for in the past several days over Kansas.

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to this? As I explained, while what I wrote was an attempt to provide an interesting narrative to the game events, I've obviously abided by the game manager's pronouncements since that time. It seems you have some pre-existing anger you're working out through your rants in this thread, and I just don't think that's a productive use of yours, the Senate's or my time. Also I resent your challenge to my southern residency, I live in Virginia and am very loyal to the region.

[WD]

How will the nominee conduct himself as GM?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

I am seconding this question. The Kansas issue is by far the thing that makes me most scared about the nominee.

Excellent questions! To clarify, my only posts about the issue have been to report on specific details of military actions that occurred. I took no position one way or the other and as a southerner I have no interest in the region actively losing territory. I certainly intend to abide by all previous pronouncements, and the current president has indicated he is complying with the recent court order. In the future my intention is to seek equitable resolutions for any narrative arcs that arise.

Your post sought to put the South in a bad light, so clearly you have a bias. Presumably, your move to the South was only to challenge Governor LT and out of no personal (non-political) regard for this region. Your pronouncement was also directly contradicted after the fact by then-GM Lumine. Given that Lumine's leadership had been by and large greatly successful and wholly unbiased it seems that if you are confirmed you could take the GM department in a direction where the canon of the game becomes overwhelming anti-South, anti-Federalist, anti-civility, and anti-democracy as governmental leaders and yourself have pushed for in the past several days over Kansas.

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to this? As I explained, while what I wrote was an attempt to provide an interesting narrative to the game events, I've obviously abided by the game manager's pronouncements since that time. It seems you have some pre-existing anger you're working out through your rants in this thread, and I just don't think that's a productive use of yours, the Senate's or my time. Also I resent your challenge to my southern residency, I live in Virginia and am very loyal to the region.

I think the concern with your interesting narrative is that it sought to assume control over another player's duties and powers. Only the Southern Governor had the right to deploy national guard (which never happened) and you wrote a fake news post claiming that southern national guard had not only been deployed (which was not true) but also that they had murdered civilians (which is crazy inflammatory). This fake news hoax appears to be a main reason that tweedledumb and tweedledumber illegally invaded Kansas over the weekend which resulted in NPCs dying.

[Ancestral Republican]

How will the nominee conduct himself as GM?

I intend to fully take all parties into account when considering the direction the gameplay takes. I'm not planning to do anything rash that compromises the interest and enjoyment players have in the game.

[Ancestral Republican]

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

I am seconding this question. The Kansas issue is by far the thing that makes me most scared about the nominee.

Excellent questions! To clarify, my only posts about the issue have been to report on specific details of military actions that occurred. I took no position one way or the other and as a southerner I have no interest in the region actively losing territory. I certainly intend to abide by all previous pronouncements, and the current president has indicated he is complying with the recent court order. In the future my intention is to seek equitable resolutions for any narrative arcs that arise.

Your post sought to put the South in a bad light, so clearly you have a bias. Presumably, your move to the South was only to challenge Governor LT and out of no personal (non-political) regard for this region. Your pronouncement was also directly contradicted after the fact by then-GM Lumine. Given that Lumine's leadership had been by and large greatly successful and wholly unbiased it seems that if you are confirmed you could take the GM department in a direction where the canon of the game becomes overwhelming anti-South, anti-Federalist, anti-civility, and anti-democracy as governmental leaders and yourself have pushed for in the past several days over Kansas.

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to this? As I explained, while what I wrote was an attempt to provide an interesting narrative to the game events, I've obviously abided by the game manager's pronouncements since that time. It seems you have some pre-existing anger you're working out through your rants in this thread, and I just don't think that's a productive use of yours, the Senate's or my time. Also I resent your challenge to my southern residency, I live in Virginia and am very loyal to the region.

I think the concern with your interesting narrative is that it sought to assume control over another player's duties and powers. Only the Southern Governor had the right to deploy national guard (which never happened) and you wrote a fake news post claiming that southern national guard had not only been deployed (which was not true) but also that they had murdered civilians (which is crazy inflammatory). This fake news hoax appears to be a main reason that tweedledumb and tweedledumber illegally invaded Kansas over the weekend which resulted in NPCs dying.

Respectfully, I'm not sure what influence, if any, that post had on subsequent actions. Nevertheless let me state emphatically for the record that I unequivocally support Kansas as a Southern state barring any legal constitutional process undertaken to change that status.

[West_Midlander]

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

I am seconding this question. The Kansas issue is by far the thing that makes me most scared about the nominee.

Excellent questions! To clarify, my only posts about the issue have been to report on specific details of military actions that occurred. I took no position one way or the other and as a southerner I have no interest in the region actively losing territory. I certainly intend to abide by all previous pronouncements, and the current president has indicated he is complying with the recent court order. In the future my intention is to seek equitable resolutions for any narrative arcs that arise.

Your post sought to put the South in a bad light, so clearly you have a bias. Presumably, your move to the South was only to challenge Governor LT and out of no personal (non-political) regard for this region. Your pronouncement was also directly contradicted after the fact by then-GM Lumine. Given that Lumine's leadership had been by and large greatly successful and wholly unbiased it seems that if you are confirmed you could take the GM department in a direction where the canon of the game becomes overwhelming anti-South, anti-Federalist, anti-civility, and anti-democracy as governmental leaders and yourself have pushed for in the past several days over Kansas.

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to this? As I explained, while what I wrote was an attempt to provide an interesting narrative to the game events, I've obviously abided by the game manager's pronouncements since that time. It seems you have some pre-existing anger you're working out through your rants in this thread, and I just don't think that's a productive use of yours, the Senate's or my time. Also I resent your challenge to my southern residency, I live in Virginia and am very loyal to the region.

I ask my fellow Senators to oppose this nomination. Personal attacks only add to the grave concerns myself and some of my colleagues have.

Sir, the purpose of this body is to vet and vote on nominees, not to ignore recent inflammatory comments and blatant lies by the nominee.

[WD]

Does the nominee agree with the statement “Kansas is Fremont”?

[Ancestral Republican]

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

Considering the posts you made as the current Kansas Crisis began, can you say now that you will both remain neutral on this (and other future crises) and not attempt to ratify or otherwise retroactively make true the statements you made, ones that the previous GM has already said were false?

I am seconding this question. The Kansas issue is by far the thing that makes me most scared about the nominee.

Excellent questions! To clarify, my only posts about the issue have been to report on specific details of military actions that occurred. I took no position one way or the other and as a southerner I have no interest in the region actively losing territory. I certainly intend to abide by all previous pronouncements, and the current president has indicated he is complying with the recent court order. In the future my intention is to seek equitable resolutions for any narrative arcs that arise.

Your post sought to put the South in a bad light, so clearly you have a bias. Presumably, your move to the South was only to challenge Governor LT and out of no personal (non-political) regard for this region. Your pronouncement was also directly contradicted after the fact by then-GM Lumine. Given that Lumine's leadership had been by and large greatly successful and wholly unbiased it seems that if you are confirmed you could take the GM department in a direction where the canon of the game becomes overwhelming anti-South, anti-Federalist, anti-civility, and anti-democracy as governmental leaders and yourself have pushed for in the past several days over Kansas.

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to this? As I explained, while what I wrote was an attempt to provide an interesting narrative to the game events, I've obviously abided by the game manager's pronouncements since that time. It seems you have some pre-existing anger you're working out through your rants in this thread, and I just don't think that's a productive use of yours, the Senate's or my time. Also I resent your challenge to my southern residency, I live in Virginia and am very loyal to the region.

I ask my fellow Senators to oppose this nomination. Personal attacks only add to the grave concerns myself and some of my colleagues have.

Sir, the purpose of this body is to vet and vote on nominees, not to ignore recent inflammatory comments and blatant lies by the nominee.

I'm more than willing to engage on a professional level with people who present the same attitude. Besides, my comment was merely constructive advice as to how you might be best served using the time you have in this chamber, which I'm saddened to see you haven't taken heed of.

[Ancestral Republican]

Does the nominee agree with the statement “Kansas is Fremont”?

Absolutely not.

[WD]

Does the nominee agree with the statement “Kansas is Fremont”?

Absolutely not.

Can you elaborate?

[Ancestral Republican]

Does the nominee agree with the statement “Kansas is Fremont”?

Absolutely not.

Can you elaborate?

What's there to elaborate on? There's no constitutional basis for anyone to make that claim and frankly that's an impediment to the established dichotomy of regional sovereignty. Hopefully we can put this matter to bed now that the Supreme Court has weighed in.

[windjammer]

I'm not a member of the senate but I would support the nominee. He's actually active