NS Parliament RP [OOC/OPEN]

[New Lindale]

If we are not above the Constitution sir, then how come no action is being taken? How come I am being ignored, by the government that has claimed to be for the people? We should be able to take action if we are above the Constitution. I have given a clear violation of the rights of our citizens, yet I am being classified as only being against a single issue, which my bill does not contain. I am addressing an array of issues that affect the people of this great nation since it is my responsibility to represent them.

…You-are award this is OOC, right?

This is a matter of protest, my good sir. The right of the people are being ignored, and I cannot in good conscience take this sitting down.

[Alozia]

…You-are award this is OOC, right?

This is a matter of protest, my good sir. The right of the people are being ignored, and I cannot in good conscience take this sitting down.

How so?

[New Lindale]

This is a matter of protest, my good sir. The right of the people are being ignored, and I cannot in good conscience take this sitting down.

How so?

To put it simply, it is discriminating, since we are putting people in positions on the basis of their skin color or sex, rather than on an objective standard such as their GPA. This assumption that we have to lower the already uniform standards for people on the basis of their skin color or sex is actually racist and sexist. If our Universities we're really discriminating, then they would already apply to committing a crime through the Constitution or other sections of the bill.
In conclusion, where we have bills that make discrimination illegal, meaning that creating a different standard for one on the basis of skin color or sex, is already a crime. Affirmative Action in this regard is not neccesary, and actually is hypocritical since it creates the very problem that you claim exists but does not.

[Alozia]

Ok

If we are not above the Constitution sir (Filip Stenbeck) then how come no action is being taken? How come I am being ignored, by the government that has claimed to be for the people? We should be able to take action if we are above the Constitution. I have given a clear violation of the rights of our citizens, yet I am being classified as only being against a single issue, which my bill does not contain. I am addressing an array of issues that affect the people of this great nation since it is my responsibility to represent them.

This is a word salad, I swear.

[Martune]

…You-are award this is OOC, right?

This is a matter of protest, my good sir. The right of the people are being ignored, and I cannot in good conscience take this sitting down.

Look. I love the RP but this is the OOC thread. I’m more than happy to hold a RP in the Life Outside thread once voting is over.

[New Lindale]

Also, since the Parliament is a soveregn legislature, and after the situation with the EENDA, a bill infringing on the rights of the citizens could go through. It would be in the same situation as now, where we would pass the bill despite the violation of the rights, because they do not want to face defemtion.

[Alozia]

How so?

To put it simply, it is discriminating, since we are putting people in positions on the basis of their skin color or sex, rather than on an objective standard such as their GPA. This assumption that we have to lower the already uniform standards for people on the basis of their skin color or sex is actually racist and sexist. If our Universities we're really discriminating, then they would already apply to committing a crime through the Constitution or other sections of the bill.
In conclusion, where we have bills that make discrimination illegal, meaning that creating a different standard for one on the basis of skin color or sex, is already a crime. Affirmative Action in this regard is not neccesary, and actually is hypocritical since it creates the very problem that you claim exists but does not.

Wait, I thought we were discussing your bill. And you said it had nothing to do with affirmative action.

Anyway it's the OOC thread, I honestly couldn't care less about debating you rn. Get a life.

Also, since the Parliament is a soveregn legislature, and after the situation with the EENDA, a bill infringing on the rights of the citizens could go through. It would be in the same situation as now, where we would pass the bill despite the violation of the rights, because they do not want to face defemtion.

You don't know what words mean. You honestly argue in the most dishonest, bad faith manner I've seen. Everything you say should carry [Citation needed] at this point.

[New Lindale]

To put it simply, it is discriminating, since we are putting people in positions on the basis of their skin color or sex, rather than on an objective standard such as their GPA. This assumption that we have to lower the already uniform standards for people on the basis of their skin color or sex is actually racist and sexist. If our Universities we're really discriminating, then they would already apply to committing a crime through the Constitution or other sections of the bill.
In conclusion, where we have bills that make discrimination illegal, meaning that creating a different standard for one on the basis of skin color or sex, is already a crime. Affirmative Action in this regard is not neccesary, and actually is hypocritical since it creates the very problem that you claim exists but does not.

Wait, I thought we were discussing your bill. And you said it had nothing to do with affirmative action.

Anyway it's the OOC thread, I honestly couldn't care less about debating you rn. Get a life.

Also, since the Parliament is a soveregn legislature, and after the situation with the EENDA, a bill infringing on the rights of the citizens could go through. It would be in the same situation as now, where we would pass the bill despite the violation of the rights, because they do not want to face defemtion.

You don't know what words mean. You honestly argue in the most dishonest, bad faith manner I've seen. Everything you say should carry [Citation needed] at this point.

Oh really, then you can ask the Speaker herself on her quote. You can also go through my discussion in Chamber on page 56. Maybe you need to do some investigating. I also know what Defamation means. In this context, I am saying that if one would have voted against the bill, they more likely then not would have been called a racist, even though they wanted the rest of the bill except 3C. Is this your little theory then, on why I was not given a response to my letter, or if anyone noticed, because you think they share the opinion of yours that you think I'm a loon?

[Alozia]

Oh really, then you can ask the Speaker herself on her quote.^[1] You can also go through my discussion in Chamber on page 56. Maybe you need to do some investigating. I also know what Defamation means. In this context, I am saying that if one would have voted against the bill, they more likely then not would have been called a racist, even though they wanted the rest of the bill except 3C. Is this your little theory then, on why I was not given a response to my letter, or if anyone noticed, because you think they share the opinion of yours that you think I'm a loon?

Should I ask the Speaker in the same manner you asked the Speaker or should I be even more intellectually dishonest?

Sir, according to the Speaker that is not true. According to him, the Parliament is sovereign in terms of the Constitution. I have already brought this up in the chamber.

Nope. Said “in our sovereignty” as a means to say on our own as an independent legislature. And that at the moment the chamber saw it wasn’t a violation. No one said we were above the constitution.

Calling someone racist isn't defamation, especially if someone's opposition to AA is coming from the same place as yours, don't try to deny it. If someone is scared of voting on a certain issue either way simply because they're scared of being called bad words then, maybe, you should direct your resentment towards them. As for defending AA - just because you're requiring companies to have their workplaces be representative of the larger population doesn't mean that you're forcing them to hire mumbling idiots. If you think that there are honestly no qualified PoC then you just might, perhaps, maybe, be racist,

I haven't seen anyone call you a loon, tbh, so speak for yourself. I haven't called you a loon and I don't appreciate putting your words in my mouth.

[New Lindale]

Oh really, then you can ask the Speaker herself on her quote.^[1] You can also go through my discussion in Chamber on page 56. Maybe you need to do some investigating. I also know what Defamation means. In this context, I am saying that if one would have voted against the bill, they more likely then not would have been called a racist, even though they wanted the rest of the bill except 3C. Is this your little theory then, on why I was not given a response to my letter, or if anyone noticed, because you think they share the opinion of yours that you think I'm a loon?

Should I ask the Speaker in the same manner you asked the Speaker or should I be even more intellectually dishonest?

Nope. Said “in our sovereignty” as a means to say on our own as an independent legislature. And that at the moment the chamber saw it wasn’t a violation. No one said we were above the constitution.

Calling someone racist isn't defamation, especially if someone's opposition to AA is coming from the same place as yours, don't try to deny it. If someone is scared of voting on a certain issue either way simply because they're scared of being called bad words then, maybe, you should direct your resentment towards them. As for defending AA - just because you're requiring companies to have their workplaces be representative of the larger population doesn't mean that you're forcing them to hire mumbling idiots. If you think that there are honestly no qualified PoC then you just might, perhaps, maybe, be racist,

I haven't seen anyone call you a loon, tbh, so speak for yourself. I haven't called you a loon and I don't appreciate putting your words in my mouth.

Fair enough, I do see ill informed, because I don't think I've worded myself properlly until now. The objection to AA, is that we are no longer basing our decision on how well we think they will perform, but only because they are a POC. Also, this bill does not specify if it is POCs or not, so if this is trying to minority demographics in an area, with blacks or asians as a majority, then this policy would be having white people taking seats away from them. There are just some people that are better at the job for the position than others, and AA no longer makes the basis for the position on skill, not to mention it is not neccesary, since having someone be denied a position on the basis of race.

[Alozia]

Should I ask the Speaker in the same manner you asked the Speaker or should I be even more intellectually dishonest?

Calling someone racist isn't defamation, especially if someone's opposition to AA is coming from the same place as yours, don't try to deny it. If someone is scared of voting on a certain issue either way simply because they're scared of being called bad words then, maybe, you should direct your resentment towards them. As for defending AA - just because you're requiring companies to have their workplaces be representative of the larger population doesn't mean that you're forcing them to hire mumbling idiots. If you think that there are honestly no qualified PoC then you just might, perhaps, maybe, be racist,

I haven't seen anyone call you a loon, tbh, so speak for yourself. I haven't called you a loon and I don't appreciate putting your words in my mouth.

Fair enough, I do see ill informed, because I don't think I've worded myself properlly until now. The objection to AA, is that we are no longer basing our decision on how well we think they will perform, but only because they are a POC. Also, this bill does not specify if it is POCs or not, so if this is trying to minority demographics in an area, with blacks or asians as a majority, then this policy would be having white people taking seats away from them. There are just some people that are better at the job for the position than others, and AA no longer makes the basis for the position on skill, not to mention it is not neccesary, since having someone be denied a position on the basis of race.

I like how you assumed that minority people are inherently worse/less qualified than the members of the majority. Again, just because you require companies to have a workforce representative of the general population in a certain area, doesn't mean that you have to hire unqualified people. Minorities can be and in fact are well educated in a diverse range of studies making them fairly qualified for a plethora of jobs and saying that introducing minority quotas would make minority status the only hiring requirement is incredibly dishonest. By legislating AA we can ensure that minorities are not being discriminated against, are able to generate wealth through generations (remember - generational wealth is very important) and that the products that are created are representative of the general population (where needed).

[Alozia]

First draft of the United Left's logo.

[The Archipelago Territory]

Fair enough, I do see ill informed, because I don't think I've worded myself properlly until now. The objection to AA, is that we are no longer basing our decision on how well we think they will perform, but only because they are a POC. Also, this bill does not specify if it is POCs or not, so if this is trying to minority demographics in an area, with blacks or asians as a majority, then this policy would be having white people taking seats away from them. There are just some people that are better at the job for the position than others, and AA no longer makes the basis for the position on skill, not to mention it is not neccesary, since having someone be denied a position on the basis of race.

I like how you assumed that minority people are inherently worse/less qualified than the members of the majority. Again, just because you require companies to have a workforce representative of the general population in a certain area, doesn't mean that you have to hire unqualified people. Minorities can be and in fact are well educated in a diverse range of studies making them fairly qualified for a plethora of jobs and saying that introducing minority quotas would make minority status the only hiring requirement is incredibly dishonest. By legislating AA we can ensure that minorities are not being discriminated against, are able to generate wealth through generations (remember - generational wealth is very important) and that the products that are created are representative of the general population (where needed).

You guys are aware this is OOC, right? It’s kind of weird to call people ‘sir’ in an OOC thread

[Alozia]

I like how you assumed that minority people are inherently worse/less qualified than the members of the majority. Again, just because you require companies to have a workforce representative of the general population in a certain area, doesn't mean that you have to hire unqualified people. Minorities can be and in fact are well educated in a diverse range of studies making them fairly qualified for a plethora of jobs and saying that introducing minority quotas would make minority status the only hiring requirement is incredibly dishonest. By legislating AA we can ensure that minorities are not being discriminated against, are able to generate wealth through generations (remember - generational wealth is very important) and that the products that are created are representative of the general population (where needed).

You guys are aware this is OOC, right? It’s kind of weird to call people ‘sir’ in an OOC thread

I haven't called anyone sir, sir.

[Kowani]

First draft of the United Left's logo.

(Image)

We rise up!

[The Archipelago Territory]

You guys are aware this is OOC, right? It’s kind of weird to call people ‘sir’ in an OOC thread

I haven't called anyone sir, sir.

I was talking to two other people in the forum who I think are confusing this with IC by saying “Mr. Speaker” and “sir”

[Alozia]

I haven't called anyone sir, sir.

I was talking to two other people in the forum who I think are confusing this with IC by saying “Mr. Speaker” and “sir”

Okay then not-Mr.Speaker.

[The Archipelago Territory]

I was talking to two other people in the forum who I think are confusing this with IC by saying “Mr. Speaker” and “sir”

Okay then not-Mr.Speaker.

Yes not-sir

[New Lindale]

Fair enough, I do see ill informed, because I don't think I've worded myself properlly until now. The objection to AA, is that we are no longer basing our decision on how well we think they will perform, but only because they are a POC. Also, this bill does not specify if it is POCs or not, so if this is trying to minority demographics in an area, with blacks or asians as a majority, then this policy would be having white people taking seats away from them. There are just some people that are better at the job for the position than others, and AA no longer makes the basis for the position on skill, not to mention it is not neccesary, since having someone be denied a position on the basis of race.

I like how you assumed that minority people are inherently worse/less qualified than the members of the majority. Again, just because you require companies to have a workforce representative of the general population in a certain area, doesn't mean that you have to hire unqualified people. Minorities can be and in fact are well educated in a diverse range of studies making them fairly qualified for a plethora of jobs and saying that introducing minority quotas would make minority status the only hiring requirement is incredibly dishonest. By legislating AA we can ensure that minorities are not being discriminated against, are able to generate wealth through generations (remember - generational wealth is very important) and that the products that are created are representative of the general population (where needed).

A. I did not at all comment in saying any race was inferier, you are putting words in my mouth. B. we already have non-discrimination laws in place, there AA is not neccesary. C. why are you not taking in account my statement on how this will have the opposite affect?
Everyone in society is the same, meaning giving equal treatment. I am saying we do not need to make a quota giving people positions on the basis on something they cannot change. I did not say anywhere that we should be denying people on this basis, but providing no exclusivity. That is what you quota is doing, providing exclusivty based on what ever group they belong to, which is actually in turn racist. I want people to be hired on their skills, and nothing else. If you think we have to lower the requirements, just because someone is a different skin color, you are being the one who is racist, and belittling them tinking we have to help them when they don't need it. If you really want to ensure more disadvaantaged people are more likely to get a position in higher education, try maybe proposing a tutor program for example, to help improve their studies and raise their GPA.

[Martune]

Someone should submit those standing orders

[Alozia]

I like how you assumed that minority people are inherently worse/less qualified than the members of the majority. Again, just because you require companies to have a workforce representative of the general population in a certain area, doesn't mean that you have to hire unqualified people. Minorities can be and in fact are well educated in a diverse range of studies making them fairly qualified for a plethora of jobs and saying that introducing minority quotas would make minority status the only hiring requirement is incredibly dishonest. By legislating AA we can ensure that minorities are not being discriminated against, are able to generate wealth through generations (remember - generational wealth is very important) and that the products that are created are representative of the general population (where needed).

A. I did not at all comment in saying any race was inferier, you are putting words in my mouth. B. we already have non-discrimination laws in place, there AA is not neccesary. C. why are you not taking in account my statement on how this will have the opposite affect?
Everyone in society is the same, meaning giving equal treatment. I am saying we do not need to make a quota giving people positions on the basis on something they cannot change. I did not say anywhere that we should be denying people on this basis, but providing no exclusivity. That is what you quota is doing, providing exclusivty based on what ever group they belong to, which is actually in turn racist. I want people to be hired on their skills, and nothing else. If you think we have to lower the requirements, just because someone is a different skin color, you are being the one who is racist, and belittling them tinking we have to help them when they don't need it. If you really want to ensure more disadvaantaged people are more likely to get a position in higher education, try maybe proposing a tutor program for example, to help improve their studies and raise their GPA.

I literally haven't used the word "race" a single time in my last statement. You are unwilling to engage in an honest debate, choosing instead to twist my words to better fit your narrative. You are ready to say anything to hit a zinger or to make sure that your talking point fits into whatever you're trying to put together. I have explained my side of things a couple of times yet you go back to the starting point since you're unwilling to actually respond to what I said. Further debate is pointless as it will lead to nowhere.

[Roosevetania]

bill.submit

Standing Orders of Parliament
Authors: Alexander Norberg (NPP), Anna Nilsson (PLP)
Sponsors: Austin Miller (NPP), James Penta (Green), Dorgival R. Seč (SDP)

---

---

A bill to establish the rules of procedure of the Parliament of Saint Hilda per the Constitution of Saint Hilda

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED, as follows:

---

---

§1 - The Speaker and Speaker's Conference

1. The Speaker shall preside over Parliament and shall have the authority to enforce the Standing Orders.
2. The Speaker may appoint Deputy Speakers and a Sergeant-At-Arms.
3. At the beginning of a Parliamentary term, nominations for Speaker shall be held for twenty-four hours. Nominees must be Members of Parliament and may nominate themselves. A nomination must acquire two seconds to be recognized.
4. After nominations conclude, a vote shall be held. Should only one candidate meet the requirements, an aye/nay confidence vote shall be held. Should two candidates meet the requirements, an adversarial vote using first-past-the-post shall be held. Should more than two candidates meet the requirements, a vote using ranked choice voting shall be held.
5. During nominations and voting for Speaker, one of the most senior Members [OOC: one of the admins] shall preside as Acting Speaker. The winner of the vote shall be Speaker for the remainder of the Parliamentary term.
6. The Speaker must be politically independent and unbiased.
7. There shall be a Speaker's Conference composed of party leaders. The Speaker shall consult with the Speaker's Conference on matters of Parliamentary proceedings.

§2 - Regulations on Behavior

1. Members shall address their remarks to the Speaker.
2. Members shall address all other Members, including the Speaker, appropriately and with proper titles.
3. Members shall not:
   
   1. use second person pronouns.
   2. speak out of turn or interrupt other Members.
   3. needlessly obstruct the business of Parliament or interrupt voting periods unless conveying urgent information to the Speaker.
   4. use language or conduct unbecoming of an elected official.
   5. utter remarks that are, to the best of their knowledge, false.
   6. impugn the intelligence or dignity of other Members.
   7. advocate or perpetrate violent, illegal, or otherwise inappropriate activities.
4. Should a Member violate these rules, the following disciplinary actions may be undertaken at the discretion of the Speaker:
   
   1. Informal warning: a warning given by the Speaker during the course of debate, with no further action.
   2. Formal warning: a warning given by the Speaker by interrupting debate and reading out the section of the rules violated.
   3. Removal from the Chamber: the Speaker temporarily removes a Member from the Chamber for a designated amount of time.
   4. Censure: another member may motion to officially condemn another member through censure. Should the motion receive five seconds, the Parliament shall vote on the censure.
   5. Expulsion: after persistent violation of the rules, the Speaker or a Member may move to expel a Member. When not proposed by the Speaker, the motion requires five seconds. Should the requirements be met, the Parliament shall vote on the motion. The Member shall be expelled if two-thirds of votes are in favor.

§3 - Points and Motions

1. Those items designated “motions” need five Members to second the motion followed by a vote; those items designated “points” do not need either. The list is arranged from highest to lowest precedence; questions of higher precedence shall be resolved before those of lower precedence.
2. Votes on motions may take place concurrently to any other business. Motions shall be considered adopted if a majority of votes are in favour.
3. Motion to adjourn: That Parliament adjourn until a specified time.
4. Point of personal privilege: To draw the attention of the Speaker to a lack of comfort, safety, audibility of the person speaking, etc.
5. Motion to extend debate: That debate on the question at hand be extended for a specified additional duration.
6. Motion to immediately vote: That the debate be closed and voting on the question at hand be immediately begun.
7. Motion to close the debate: That the debate be closed and the next scheduled debate be immediately begun.
8. Motion of no-confidence in Speaker: That Parliament has lost confidence in the Speaker to sevre.
9. Motion to appeal the Speaker’s decision: That the Speaker's decision be put to a vote. Requires seven seconds.
10. Motion of censure: That a Member be officially condemned by the Parliament.
11. Point of order: To draw the Speaker’s attention to a specific violation of these rules.
12. Point of inquiry: To clarify a point regarding these rules.
13. Point of information: To clarify a point regarding the business at hand, or the order of business, or the queue of bills.
14. Motion to re-order the queue: That the queue of bills be re-ordered in a specific order.

§4 - Voting

1. No vote shall last for an amount of time less than twenty-four hours.
2. Any clear indication of assent or dissent shall be counted as a valid vote.
3. During votes, members shall be silent, other than when they are casting their vote or conveying urgent information to the Speaker.
4. A majority of votes must be cast in favor for a bill or resolution to pass, with abstentions not being counted as votes.

§5 - Bill Process and Parliamentary Schedule

1. There shall be a queue for proposed bills.
2. Proposed bills and resolutions must gain three sponsors other than the author before they enter the bill queue.
3. The Prime Minister may designate bills in the queue as Government bills. The Leader of the Opposition, who shall be the leader of the largest political bloc not in Government, may designate bills as Opposition bills.
4. The Speaker, in consultation with the Speaker's Conference, shall introduce two to three bills per week. Each bill shall be debated for at least twenty-four hours, followed by a voting period of at least twenty-four hours.
5. As is possible, one Government bill, one Opposition bill, and one private bill shall be introduced per week. Should this be impossible, Government bills shall take priority over Opposition bills, which shall take priority over private bills.
6. As is possible by following the guidelines above, bills shall be introduced in the order they entered the queue, barring extenuating circumstances as determined by the Speaker and the Speaker's Conference.
7. Amendments to a bill may be proposed and shall be considered if they receive five seconds other than the author. Should they be considered, they shall be put to a vote after debate concludes.
   
   1. Should amendments conflict, an adversarial vote may be held.
   2. Should an amendment pass, the bill shall be appropriately altered and there shall be twenty-four hours of debate on the altered version before the vote.
   3. Should no amendments pass, a vote on the original bill shall be held.
8. Every week, as far as possible, there shall be some time, not less than twenty-four hours, allotted as Question Time. During this time, Members may ask questions to the Prime Minister and other Ministers. Ministers shall be compelled to reply to all such questions, unless doing so would create a grave danger to national security. Sufficient time shall be given to members of the Opposition to ask questions.
9. Should time allow, other debates on various issues may be held by the Speaker in consultation with the Speaker’s Conference.
10. It is acceptable for the weekly schedule to occasionally take more than a week due to time spent on amendments.

[New Lindale]

A. I did not at all comment in saying any race was inferier, you are putting words in my mouth. B. we already have non-discrimination laws in place, there AA is not neccesary. C. why are you not taking in account my statement on how this will have the opposite affect?
Everyone in society is the same, meaning giving equal treatment. I am saying we do not need to make a quota giving people positions on the basis on something they cannot change. I did not say anywhere that we should be denying people on this basis, but providing no exclusivity. That is what you quota is doing, providing exclusivty based on what ever group they belong to, which is actually in turn racist. I want people to be hired on their skills, and nothing else. If you think we have to lower the requirements, just because someone is a different skin color, you are being the one who is racist, and belittling them tinking we have to help them when they don't need it. If you really want to ensure more disadvaantaged people are more likely to get a position in higher education, try maybe proposing a tutor program for example, to help improve their studies and raise their GPA.

I literally haven't used the word "race" a single time in my last statement. You are unwilling to engage in an honest debate, choosing instead to twist my words to better fit your narrative. You are ready to say anything to hit a zinger or to make sure that your talking point fits into whatever you're trying to put together. I have explained my side of things a couple of times yet you go back to the starting point since you're unwilling to actually respond to what I said. Further debate is pointless as it will lead to nowhere.

You just said I think that I think minorities are less qualified, which includes the catagory of race, sex, etc. Race in this context fits into that catagory, and also considering previously you had directly refered to POC. You are under the assumption that just because they are a POC that they automatically will be qualified. That is the case of any person regardless of whatever skin color, whatever anatomy they have, etc. There will be people that are more qualified than others. I do not care about these factors, because I want to see results that are not dependant on race color or any other factor except their actions. The only person who is going by assumptions is you. (had an oof moment, typing fast sometimes can make you leave out things.)

[Alozia]

I literally haven't used the word "race" a single time in my last statement. You are unwilling to engage in an honest debate, choosing instead to twist my words to better fit your narrative. You are ready to say anything to hit a zinger or to make sure that your talking point fits into whatever you're trying to put together. I have explained my side of things a couple of times yet you go back to the starting point since you're unwilling to actually respond to what I said. Further debate is pointless as it will lead to nowhere.

You just said I think that I think minorities are less qualified, which includes the catagory of race, sex, etc. Race in this context fits into that catagory, and also considering previously you had directly refered to POC. You are under the assumption that just because they are a POC that they automatically will be qualified. That is the case of any person regardless of whatever skin color, whatever anatomy they have, etc. There will be people that are more qualified than others. I do not care about these factors, because I want to see results that are dependant on race color or any other factor except their actions. The only person who is going by assumptions is you.

[Merni]

You just said I think that I think minorities are less qualified, which includes the catagory of race, sex, etc. Race in this context fits into that catagory, and also considering previously you had directly refered to POC. You are under the assumption that just because they are a POC that they automatically will be qualified. That is the case of any person regardless of whatever skin color, whatever anatomy they have, etc. There will be people that are more qualified than others. I do not care about these factors, because I want to see results that are dependant on race color or any other factor except their actions. The only person who is going by assumptions is you.

I'm not an admin, but could we keep it related to the RP? Thanks in advance.