Brady

I nominate @OA

I nominate @Bolster 

Aye

Seconding the amendment.

Favorite President: George Washington (I know it's cliche, but he was the founding father of American non-interventionism)

Favorite Historical Politicians: Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams

Favorite Modern Politicians: Josh Hawley, Tulsi Gabbard, Sherrod Brown, Richard Ojeda

I was planning to go Republican but then inspiration struck for a Blue Collar Caucus character, so maybe red again next round!

2 hours ago, Starnes said:

 

They are being awarded/rewarded access to a feature of the game with a huge impact that others cannot get. That's the most basic definition of a perk or privilege. Once you stop being an Admin, you no longer have to be "fair and balanced" and it will inherently benefit some players at the expense of others. If it's not possible for anyone to do this, you're cooking the books ahead of time.

And again, despite your insistence on repeating your point in every discussion in hopes eventually you'll repeat it enough the person who disagrees with you magically won't anymore, I don't see it as a perk or privilege. I see it as a sensible way to limit these PACs to people who have proven themselves trustworthy. Even if it were a perk, though, at least they've earned it by giving back to the game as admins in the past. Being an admin is a pretty thankless task due to, among other things, having to deal with people who seem to like arguing about anything and everything solely for the sake of arguing about anything and everything.

I will say I would prefer these Hybrid PACs not to exist at all than to let everyone have one. If everyone has one it will get ridiculous quickly with how many of them there will be and how much money will be flying around. So I hope if this complaint about giving former admins "perks" makes it not feasible to do it that way, the AB will simply get rid of the Hybrid PACs and won't let anyone and everyone have one.

I don't think looking at it as "being awarded for former service on the AB" is the way to look at it, like they're getting some kind of perk or privilege tbh. I'd instead look at it as they've proven in their past AB service they can be fair and balanced toward players regardless of party, an important component of this since these particular PACs are required to give to both parties. So I'd look at it more in terms of proven trust than looking at it as a privilege they get and the rest of us don't.

I personally don't have any problem with it, seems like a good way to make sure these type of PACs serve their purpose and there aren't way too many of them.

I like this a lot. I especially like that background fundraising based on actions is replacing most fundraisers. Chef kiss.

@Bolster If you're still planning to do this for R10, I'd love a logo for Sen. Christopher Hawthorne (D-OH).

Hawthorne ran for president in the next presidential election and lost somewhere along the way because his opponent(s) kept running ads about him liking human trafficking, prostitution, and porn. Don't feel bad for him, he did it to himself...

This is all pointless, unhelpful, and demonstrating a good argument for a reset and clean slate where all of this becomes "that stuff that happened in another round" imo. In any case I feel like dredging it all up isn't necessary to make a case for or against resetting.

There have been several arguments for a reset, actually:

1. To turn the page on the toxicity involved in this round, especially the rigging of an election by a former admin.

2. To give the entirely new AB a fresh start for their ideas instead of asking them to pick up where other admins left off.

3. Because some people want it. That is in fact an argument for it, because this is a game and what players want matters.

Whether you consider those good arguments or not is up to you, but conversely I haven't seen any good arguments against resetting except that it's bad to reset too soon. That doesn't seem like a very compelling argument if a reset is in the best interests of the game and players. It's also a little strange to me to hear from one player who is now adamantly opposed to a reset but who just a few days ago agreed with me that he hoped a new AB would reset soon. The only thing that's changed between then and now, I think, is a perception of gaining the political upper hand in game, and I don't think that is at all a compelling reason not to reset. People/parties fall in and out of favor all the time.

Putting in my two cents for a preference for 2025 over 2013. I don't mind the wait if it means a more exciting round than 2013 would give us. I think it would also be a lot easier to explain how Biden loses in 2024 than to plausibly explain Obama losing in 2012.

I think it would be a good idea to reset. You're starting out with a new owner/CA and entirely new AB, and I think it's a good idea whenever you're starting with a complete overhaul and not just a change here or there on the AB to reset. I have noticed a hint of underlying toxicity as well, though it seems to have mellowed out from where it was before I signed in and I'm glad to see that. Very much agree with SWM's point that people need to stop taking it so seriously and treat others with respect and dignity, both the AB and members of the other party. The game is the game and what you say and do in the game really shouldn't affect how you treat people outside its context.

I do think if there are going to be big changes to the way the game works, a reset is a good idea for that reason too.

I also don't feel like we're resetting too soon anyway. This round has been going on for fourish months if I recall correctly from when I looked back through the archives, which seems about on par with other rounds that seemed to run anywhere from four to six months. I get not wanting to reset too soon, but it's also important not to let things get stale and I do feel like we may be approaching the stale point. I can say I'm pretty bored right now, at least, though I have no plans to go anywhere whether we reset or not.

I think that system is more straightforward and easier to navigate than the Orbit system. Unless I'm missing something, which is possible since I wasn't here, it looks like it's optional too -- like you can still get along okay in the game without delving much into that. Also it has more to do with things you'd already be doing in the game than adding a bunch of new things you have to do. I think that's ideal so new people or returning people who just don't have a lot of time on their hands don't feel pressured to dive right into this if they'd rather settle into the basics first.

@LincolnHawthorne: Disgusted to see @FoxNews, which once called itself a fair and balanced news network, engage in such a partisan smear campaign against my friend and colleague @JasperStormNC.

@LincolnHawthorne: The only thing more absurd than equating the confirmation of Judge Hardiman with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 is lumping Senator Storm in with Strom Thurmond for taking a principled stand against Hardiman's confirmation.

@LincolnHawthorne: Since Fox News is clearly in need of a history lesson, I'll remind them that Strom Thurmond became a Republican in 1964 because he considered the GOP more consistent with his repugnant views. He would have loved Thomas Hardiman.

I'd personally rather it be as simple as possible, because to be honest with you it took me a week or two to decide whether to sign back in because I saw how complicated the Orbit system was and I wasn't sure I wanted to mess with all that.

I don't know that we need Personal Assets or Think Tanks. To the extent they're optional, I guess I'm okay with them, but I'd rather they not be required -- or "optional" but so crucial that they're actually required, because that kind of stuff just isn't what interests me about a polsim. I like the congressional debate stuff, the public relations and spin, and elections, and I'm not really wanting to get bogged down in too much extra stuff.

Madam President, I second the amendment and yield.

@LincolnHawthorne: Is @SenRivera really going to preach to us about the rule of law with a straight face while he and his party trash Senate rules left and right to get what they want without any bipartisan negotiation or compromise?

4 hours ago, SWMissourian said:

We don’t believe in injecting our own views into the Constitution. We believe in letting the words of the law and those who wrote it speak for themselves. That’s the rule of law. That’s what we are upholding. That’s what the American people voted for last year. 

I self-nominate.

@LincolnHawthorne: If you can't cite anything your party has done for Black Americans since 1863 or for women since 1920, it might be better to say nothing. These days the GOP is in the business of nominating a Chief Justice with no respect for the rights of either.

3 minutes ago, Gamerboy said:

@SpeakerUnderwood: @Storm says that GOP will set women and minorities right back but let us remember it was the Republican Party that fought to end slavery and work to hard to gain the voting rights of women. (2/3)

@LincolnHawthorne: FACT: In 2015, Thomas Hardiman ruled against approximately 1,800 truckers who were laid off and then on top of that ripped off for approximately $8 million they were rightly owed.

@LincolnHawthorne: FACT: Thomas Hardiman took the side of Allstate after 6,200 sales agents were fired and an attempt was made to force them to sign away their labor rights to be hired back as independent contractors.

@LincolnHawthorne: FACT: Thomas Hardiman ruled that Philadelphia paramedics weren't covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act and were ineligible for overtime pay. Maybe @SenatorJohnson's constituents should ask her about that.

@LincolnHawthorne: These aren't so-called "hot button social issues," these are issues that affect everyday working Americans. Thomas Hardiman is firmly on the side of predatory business practices, and Senate Republicans are ripping up Senate rules to confirm him.

@LincolnHawthorne: Republicans once again going it alone and refusing to negotiate, throwing out Senate rules when it suits them to confirm their ethically questionable nominee for Chief Justice after unprecedented obstruction of qualified nominees last session.

@LincolnHawthorne: The American people should take note that while Democrats are willing to negotiate in good faith, Republicans have decided to nuke hundreds of years worth of the Senate's deliberative traditions to get their way without bipartisan compromise.

Nay