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

[Adam Griffin]

If I've misread, please clarify. From what I've seen thus far, though, that appears to be the case.

Can we get some clarification on this matter from those potentially involved?

[Adam Griffin]

The amendment does not remove the South from Atlasia automatically, it merely calls on Southern Legislators to begin negotiations with Nyman on the South's status within Atlasia.

All or nothing, IMO: there are multiple boards on this forum in which to start one's own simulators and fiefdoms. We even saw such back in 2015! "If you don't like it then you can giiiiiiit ouuuuuut!"

It also leaves open the possibility of a "soft exit", under which the South could retain voting rights but be exempt from many federal laws.

Not aimed at you, to be clear, but sorry: this is the only thing I can think of:

I think it's far too early to tell what the final outcome of this will be. Given the lack of energy many people seem to put in this game, it could end up just fizzling out and resulting in literally nothing.

I can tell you: "South America, 2015". A high percentage leave for the real game, with 10-15 Terminally Online geezers all TNF'ing massive scrolls of reform while nobody pays attention or cares. Not to disparage TNF, mind you: his legislation actually affected hundreds of players!

[Adam Griffin]

While this is uncharted territory and I cannot predict anything with complete certainty, I think I can confidently say Yankee and Cao both have huge incentives to make it be known at least privately that independence is off the table, and that greater autonomy is clearly something that the South's regional leadership can at least credibly claim a mandate of some kind for. But that does not mean that it will inevitably happen. Terra incognita, everyone!

I've been hearing whispers to the contrary with regard to our current President. Granted, it is hearsay and I cannot speak for him personally, so I welcome public forum clarification on the matter.

Yankee and I have been dueling for more than a decade, but we do have a core of commonalities and I feel confident in saying that the Past, Present and/or Future King of the Federalist Party would never endorse outright succession under any circumstances.

[Adam Griffin]

Problem is, how much sway does Yankee actually have on his membership? Given that his party voted for secession despite him personally voting No, and that YT won despite a number of higher-up federalists backing a write-in candidate, it does not seem that the King is controlling the commoner.

Which is why we need clarification from our CiC. I'm quite confident where Yankee stands on the matter.

I was assuming that since the Federalist Party is basically at least ordinarily unelectable without its Southern voters, there's no way the President would allow the South to leave. But I don't know Cao as well as I know Yankee, so...

One would think...but even allowing "autonomy" sets what kind of precedent? What if another region doesn't want to pay taxes? What if another region wants to make beheading mandatory for jaywalking? There is no logical explanation for why you can give certain leeway to one region and not allow them for all.

In reality, you're either in or you're out: we've already had this debate years ago in terms of what flexibilities each region gets to enjoy. We've also already experienced what happens when a certain segment of players wants to experience their own environment. To them, I say this: frig off.

The only thing I can imagine is - in conjunction with the far-right's other recent, aggressive moves toward the federal government - is that they want to install a regional Electoral College where every region gets equal say but not equal contribution.

Ultimately (even under their ideal regional dreams), neither they nor I can see a scenario where this doesn't end up being 10-15 Mr R types residing there, with 5-7 of them debating about circumcising infants with crucifixes or whatever & falling into utter inactivity beyond the levels of what any federal or regional government has experienced thus far. Because that's what this will end up being in the end if allowed to occur.

[Adam Griffin]

To be clear in regard to TimTurner's question, I imagine many Southrons were innocently persuaded into voting for this. Between the obscure wording and the fact that more than a dozen questions (not to mention the "vote yes/no for all!" option) were included on the ballot, I doubt all that many not in the know even bothered to scour the full extent of what was being asked. Those in the know knew exactly what they were doing.

Truly a master-stroke of legislative genius, as only someone like myself would know  - assuming some inactive dullard like me didn't bring it up for debate after seeing it transpire!

[Adam Griffin]

Your post reminded me of the autonomy Quebec has within Canada IRL.
Maybe something like that's what the end goal here is. It only really seems possible as a long-term status quo if the Senate votes for it and other regions tolerate it though.
Regarding people leaving...we already saw Weatherboy leave. That's the non-right-leaning share of the electorate going down another 2% or so. Every vote will count in a region that has always had political influence larger than its raw population would suggest.

Irrespective of real-life examples, I can look at it cursorily for 5 minutes and tell what they're planning. I might be a has-been and not follow this closely day-to-day, but I have a decade of experience and know a scheme when I see it. It's a veritable coup they're engaging down there, Tim.

You've been a loyal office-holder in the South for what, 7+ years now? This is the first regional election you lost that I can recall. It's the beginning of a purge on their front. Once many realize what they're planning - and if they're allowed to get away with it - they will follow what WB has already done. You'll always have a home elsewhere. Perhaps it's time you move up a ladder into federal government - as much as I know you've always loved regional service, it's long overdue, anyway!

[Adam Griffin]

One would think...but even allowing "autonomy" sets what kind of precedent? What if another region doesn't want to pay taxes? What if another region wants to make beheading mandatory for jaywalking? There is no logical explanation for why you can give certain leeway to one region and not allow them for all.

Greater autonomy in wanting to have "the privileges" of being in Atlasia but not wanting to share the burden or costs. It's why regions in a lot of different nations fight over each other, like Italy, Spain & notably (i should know) Belgium.

I have told before that i'm open to greater autonomy on social issues or clarifying what the task or authority of a region should be and what a federal authority should be. I'm open to bringing more social issues to the regions, even controversial ones. But it's something all people should say in, and that federally should be agreed on, not just something a one-sided self-declaration from said region.

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. That is, unless I've missed some major constitutional or statue overhaul. It's not as if the Southern region has not been able to experiment greatly and deviate from the wishes of the national populace for many years on a variety of issues. Such was my greatest failure and compromise of the Constitutional Convention of 2015-16!

The only reason I can see why such renewed "autonomy" would be desired is to circumvent the aforementioned processes and secede from agreed-upon decision-making processes - in which case and if allowed, said supporters should be permanently barred from interfering with the rest of the nation's decisions.

[Adam Griffin]

I am literally on a bus right now and will be back tonight but was informed I needed to respond to this.

“Whispers” about me are grade-A trash unless they come from my keyboard directly. I don't plant rumors, I don't plot, I don't scheme, I don't talk about people behind their backs, I tell people when I am thinking of something, and I don't breach whatever trust people put in me. I am also the elected leader of a united nation and I intend to make sure it stays that way.

As this has been a fearfully busy few days it should also be said that I have no objection to “opening negotiations” in case YT is thinking of blowing up my DMs further, but number one, you’ll have to wait a bit longer, and number two, no independence, just putting that out right now. The concept makes no sense to me and I do not intend to cross that line. More to come!

This is somewhat/tentatively reassuring.

I hope everything is alright? It's been a bit since you've posted the above. I am sure many of us will be happy to hear your elaboration on this matter!

[Adam Griffin]

When one side can actively ban other participants in active discussion of policymaking, the game is effectively broken.

Glad to see that the South has finally seceded so that we can actually work on substantive policy matters without having to be overruled by the majority that sees 'winning' as the only point of this game.

Some of our best times that I remember serving is working together to craft interesting policies that would have significant in-game impacts. That's part of the fun, in seeing what cool things we *can* do. One side would rather stomp out all opposition to their policies by increasingly fencing off things that they believe are 'no longer debatable'.

If you believe that there are topics that cannot be discussed in Atlasia, fair enough, but there needs to be open discussion. If you don't like that the game might talk about some very difficult issues, then why are you here? To be another body that 'votes the right way'?

I see the current Southern Governor liked your response stating that the South has seceded. Can we get clarification from him on whether he considers the South has in fact seceded from Atlasia?

[Adam Griffin]

YT 4 Prez in June (Motto: '3x's the Charm!'):
"I Stand For Pretending 2 Care About You on Discord & Giving Non-Denials That Will Get Your Vote"

[Adam Griffin]

YT 4 Prez in June (Motto: '3x's the Charm!'):
"I Stand For Pretending 2 Care About You on Discord & Giving Non-Denials That Will Get Your Vote"

I’m glad you think this game is what I’ll be focusing on when I go to France in June lol. Appreciate the support and love Adam, as always!

See you next election!

[Adam Griffin]

YT 4 Prez in June (Motto: '3x's the Charm!'):
"I Stand For Pretending 2 Care About You on Discord & Giving Non-Denials That Will Get Your Vote"

I’m glad you think this game is what I’ll be focusing on when I go to France in June lol. Appreciate the support and love Adam, as always!

See you next election!

When were you moving to the South?

The June Presidential, you silly billy! Guess the forum meme is lost upon you:

See you next week.

[Adam Griffin]

Nobody ever listens to me. Nobody ever pays attention.

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

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

Sorry: I meant to quote this in your thread! Transferring now.