S1: Act to revise Bill 2's 'revision to the rules of the chamber of delegates'

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so that confirms that the purpose of this was actually to remove me as dean of the CoD.

Thank you for that, Cuber.

As for what happened during your last Speakership vote, you might want to ask Nev about what transpired behind the scenes.

But what would I know? I'm just an ACPer.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so that confirms that the purpose of this was actually to remove me as dean of the CoD.

Thank you for that, Cuber.

As for what happened during your last Speakership vote, you might want to ask Nev about what transpired behind the scenes.

But what would I know? I'm just an ACPer.

What the actual fk are you talking about

1. this has nothing to do with the speakership vote
2. if this were trying to remove you as dean, why didn't we follow through on that? seems like a poor conspiracy theory.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a reason you were ousted as Labor speaker that has nothing to do with me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it got blocked last session?

[NeverAgain]

Huh? This is a line directly taken from the Federal Rules, and Senates of years past (aka. before you). This had nothing to do with you, nor was it about anything related to you. The purpose of that is to stop inactive Deans so that things can move along. I, again, took most of this and relayed it through a Chamber lense when I wrote this. Nothing in the rules had anything to do with specific members or leaders of the Chamber in mind. Some things were to prevent things that had conspired, but never directly intended to remove or damage anyone.

The purpose of the section is quite clear. The Dean is not elected, and therefore the Chamber has no control over whom their Dean is, which is fine, until we come upon a Dean whom is inactive, and the only way we get rid of him or her, is through impeachment (again, fine process, but we shouldn't wait for weeks to get a Speaker vote, it's not fair to the Chamber). This just allows 2/3 (rounds up to 4/5 in our Chamber), so essentially the whole Chamber, except for the Dean, to vote out a Dean that they deem against the Chamber's interests.

I mean, the only thing this does is to allow the Chamber to pick their Dean, if necessary. I guess I just do not see why that is a bad thing.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then where's the activity clause? We had an inactive dean in Spenstar - that worked out ok.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seeing as Cuber wanted to use it to remove me, there are problems with politicizing what is inherently an apolitical position.

If you wanted to change it, all you'd have to do is something like, "if the Dean is inactive and hasn't started a vote within a week, then the next longest serving delegate may initiate a speaker vote."

[fhtagn]

I think having something that allows for overthrowing the Dean sets a pretty dangerous precedent.

Who is to say that this can't be abused by a party in power that doesn't like that the Dean is of an opposing party (such as Cuber's threat made a few comments above)?

[JustinTimeCuber]

I think having something that allows for overthrowing the Dean sets a pretty dangerous precedent.

Who is to say that this can't be abused by a party in power that doesn't like that the Dean is of an opposing party (such as Cuber's threat made a few comments above)?

WHAT THREAT!??

Is EVERYONE insane? I find it bizarre that saying "We obviously weren't plotting against you, because if we were, why didn't we actually carry out said plot?" is now considered a threat.

Seeing as Cuber wanted to use it to remove me, there are problems with politicizing what is inherently an apolitical position.

If you wanted to change it, all you'd have to do is something like, "if the Dean is inactive and hasn't started a vote within a week, then the next longest serving delegate may initiate a speaker vote."

Ben, I would appreciate it if you stopped lying about me. Thank you.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

? Spenstar was awakened, and came back only because he was spammed to do so. I wouldn't call that working out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Entirely agree, that's why this would require all members, excluding the Dean, to remove the Dean.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds good, I just think that could be added onto the existing legislation, as this would cover cases of not just inactivity, but cases of incompetence, extreme partisanship, or unforeseen circumstances that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd have to disagree, if four members agree (which is VERY rare in controversial circumstances) that a Dean should have their power taken away, then I think that provision should be in place. The only precedent it sets is stopping individuals who do not perform their responsibilities, which is one I think we should have.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would highly doubt a party would be able to obtain 4 seats in our highly polarized region. Even so, and the Dean is also the lone member of the opposing party, then I would assume they were able to get in that spot and win the election by being an active, competent member, so I don't think this would affect them. The only reason they (the 4 members of the opposing party) would want to get rid of the person would be because they (the long other member) are actively attempting to obstruct the election of a new Speaker, of whom would likely be of the opposing party, and then would require this in the first place. (Little confusing, but I think you get my point)

Anyways, I can certainly see how you would think this could be abused, but I think that it's implementation has the safeguards to stop highly partisan abuses of this.

[fhtagn]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Entirely agree, that's why this would require all members, excluding the Dean, to remove the Dean.

So, say all members besides the Dean are one party, or mostly one party and an ally to the party with the majority. This would allow that group to oust the Dean for completely silly, partisan reasons. Do you think that this is acceptable?

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Entirely agree, that's why this would require all members, excluding the Dean, to remove the Dean.

So, say all members besides the Dean are one party, or mostly one party and an ally to the party with the majority. This would allow that group to oust the Dean for completely silly, partisan reasons. Do you think that this is acceptable?

As stated, the only reason those of the other party (as I see it) would attempt to oust the Dean of an opposing party, was if they were intentionally trying to obstruct a Speaker vote for partisan reasons, thereby breaking their responsibilities as Dean. I do not see why anyone would do it otherwise, and I doubt they would get full majority from their party if they would do so.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He was also a Laborite nominee. How hard should it be to keep your people active, Nev?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As opposed to how it actually worked, Spenstar showed up and conducted the vote? The problem with your bill is that it permits removing a dean if the majority wants it. That's a bad precedent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yadda yadda. You disagree with the conduct of the Dean and so you seek the power to remove the Dean.

Once again, we've confirmed that the purpose of this is to punish a Dean that you don't like.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, rather than remove legislation which was introduced for an abusive purpose you'd rather keep it in. Not buying this. The best way to deal with abuse of this rule is to remove the rule altogether.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

now you're just deflecting and turning it into a partisan attack?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that doesn't mean that every dean would show up and conduct a vote, does it?

Let's say you aren't re-elected. I don't know if you plan to run for re-election, but say in July you don't swear in as delegate again. Say I do, but then forget about dean-ing. Would you support making someone else Dean?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

wrong

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not quite sure why the Labor chair is complaining about having to PM Laborites in order to get them active.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that I was speaker when Spenstar was Dean - I would do the exact same thing I did then. PM Spenstar and try to get him to show up for the vote.

If you swore in and were legally Dean, I would support you as the Dean, regardless of your activity levels.

The reason being that this isn't usually an issue is for a rather obvious reason. Dean is generally an active member given that they are the longest serving member. Less active members are less likely to survive long enough to be the longest serving delegate.

[fhtagn]

Mr. Cuber, let's take Ben out of the equation and look at it like this:

Say you become Dean. But also say that election cycle, the delegates are you, three members of the Federalist Party, and one member of the Atlas Conservative Party.

Would you find it fair that this rule would allow those four members to toss you as Dean, simply because you are a member of an opposing party? Because that's what this rule can allow.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Mr. Cuber, let's take Ben out of the equation and look at it like this:

Say you become Dean. But also say that election cycle, the delegates are you, three members of the Federalist Party, and one member of the Atlas Conservative Party.

Would you find it fair that this rule would allow those four members to toss you as Dean, simply because you are a member of an opposing party? Because that's what this rule can allow.

Fair? Not exactly, but the rule needs to be there for real reasons. I hope I can trust my political opponents enough that they wouldn't do that, but if the Chamber is full of right wing partisan hacks that would remove someone from a non-partisan position for partisan reasons, we have much more to worry about than who's Dean.

[fhtagn]

Mr. Cuber, let's take Ben out of the equation and look at it like this:

Say you become Dean. But also say that election cycle, the delegates are you, three members of the Federalist Party, and one member of the Atlas Conservative Party.

Would you find it fair that this rule would allow those four members to toss you as Dean, simply because you are a member of an opposing party? Because that's what this rule can allow.

Fair? Not exactly, but the rule needs to be there for real reasons. I hope I can trust my political opponents enough that they wouldn't do that, but if the Chamber is full of right wing partisan hacks that would remove someone from a non-partisan position for partisan reasons, we have much more to worry about than who's Dean.

So you have no issue with a rule that has real potential to be abused, and doesn't exactly solve any existing issues? Good to know.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Mr. Cuber, let's take Ben out of the equation and look at it like this:

Say you become Dean. But also say that election cycle, the delegates are you, three members of the Federalist Party, and one member of the Atlas Conservative Party.

Would you find it fair that this rule would allow those four members to toss you as Dean, simply because you are a member of an opposing party? Because that's what this rule can allow.

Fair? Not exactly, but the rule needs to be there for real reasons. I hope I can trust my political opponents enough that they wouldn't do that, but if the Chamber is full of right wing partisan hacks that would remove someone from a non-partisan position for partisan reasons, we have much more to worry about than who's Dean.

So you have no issue with a rule that has real potential to be abused, and doesn't exactly solve any existing issues? Good to know.

An abusive chamber could change the rules however they wanted with a 3/5 majority.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like you just did?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly my sentiments. Except for changing right wing to left wing. It's a bad law and should be tossed.

[NeverAgain]

Okay, too much hubbub to address everything, so I'll just sum up what I am hearing.

I can understand the worry that this can be abused, in the sense of a 4/5ths majority attempting to remove the minority, and as we know we as Atlasians take pride in the protection against mob rule and overarching power of the majority. Where I think we diverge, or start a bit of confusion is around first what the role does. The Dean's role is only, in our current proceedings, to do the Speakership vote. If four out of the five members of this Chamber view that they are not doing this job correctly, I think they should have every right to stop this individual from continuing in their position. I would be perfectly fine if we want to add "If 4/5ths of the Chamber view a Dean of the Chamber as wholly incompetent, entirely inactive, or unable to perform the basic functions of Dean, they reserve the right to call a vote. For the Dean to be removed, the vote must be by 4/5ths of the Chamber, including the vote of the current Dean. If the Dean is removed, the second-most senior member shall become the Dean, until the end of their tenure as Delegate." <-- Something like that.

On the issue of inactivity, the inactivity I am talking about is not one that is resolvable by multiple PMs, but the likes of Golfman, evergreen, etc. (all of whom were impeached for being so). These members were consistently unresponsive and ignoring any attempts to outreach them. I think this is a bit different then the Spenstar situation, who was away for a couple days, at most, not consistently out of reach for weeks on end.

I completely understand the concerns, but I think there is a compromise (possibly similar to the one above), that both ensures this is not for partisan hackery, but out of concern and demand for action that an unelected individual be responsible for their actions and duties. I think we can agree on that.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no real need for this.  We have a method of removing inactive delegates already that hasn't been used in quite some time.

The only time we've ever had an issue concerning the dean was with Spenstar. I resolved that successfully without having to resort to removing him.

So I have to ask again, what does this rule actually contribute?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FFS. It's not a political position. Literally the only reason Spenstar was dean was that he signed on right before I did back in November. That was it. The reason we have the Dean do this is because it's a sensible rule.

If you're so concerned about 'partisan hackery', then you should support removing this clause from the bill entirely.

[JustinTimeCuber]

ftr, Celtic voted for the rules, is he an abusive leftist?

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I explained, first the issue with Spenstar is not really what the rule was intended for. He was in-and-out, not entirely inactive. Secondly, the other "method of removing" delegates, and therefore the Dean, is impeachment, which frankly can take a good while if it is contentious, and that just denies the Chamber from getting to work with a Speaker. Plus, this is a role beyond that of a delegate, and there are circumstances where you might not want to impeach a person, that you also view should not be the Dean (incompetence, obstruction, etc., as mentioned). That's why this rule is in place.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Deanship should not be a political position, but it can become one if individuals (Deans) disparage or deny a Speaker vote for inherently partisan reasons. I entirely agree it shouldn't be, but I think you can say a whole lot of positions shouldn't be political, but are made out to be. A la Supreme Court.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But that really wouldn't solve what we're, or at least, I am looking at. Partisan hackery is not a one-way street. In fact, as we're looking at the possibilities of abuse, I'd say it is much more likely to have a Dean who is abusing their power for political obstruction or gain, than to have a 4/5 majority for a political party in the Chamber, doesn't mean one or the other will never happen, but just pointing that out there. So, I would disagree, removing the clause entirely doesn't really advance us against partisanship, and can put us further behind in the case of a Dean acting irresponsibly or inappropriately, for political reasons, where there would be only impeachment to stop him or her from continuing such actions.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not, because the only reason for this rule is to remove me. All you have to do is beat me in an election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And why would it be contentious? There's a reason for that. If you're looking for a quick and dirty way to get a delegate out of the way that's the major reason for this clause.

And why we're saying that it's the reason why it should not exist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, what it would do is take a toy out of your pram and that's not what you want. Let's get real you don't care about partisan hackery.

You care about getting rid of me. However you can.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No... Because as I will state for the third time (listen up now), Spenstar was a different case than the types of inactivity meant through this clause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No... If a delegate's four peers view them as unable to do their unelected position, then there should be a method of removing them from it. I don't view it as "quick and dirty," I view it as bringing democracy to an unelected position, of which persons may stay for a infinite amount of terms (if they are re-elected).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess maybe I am not being clear, because you keep repeating the same stuff over and over again [insert definition of insanity]. The reason is quite clear as I've mentioned. If you or anyone is having trouble understanding my words, I'd love to organize a breakdown of them, if needed, because I really don't like rehashing the same stuff over and over again, with no new results.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, it's kind of my job now, so I do, haha. But seriously, I won't get into the moral indignation side of it, just not worth it. You are welcome to believe whatever you want about me or my beliefs, that is your right. And is mine. And with my right I desire to create a chamber where we may have true democracy within our ranks, and stop the full-on partisan bloodshed without any light of reprieve. Do not get me wrong, we sometimes need partisanship (I love me some gladiators). But when there is an individual who is using an unelected, supposedly non-partisan position as a point of power over other delegates based on their political beliefs, it has gone too far. This needs to continue to be an option, so that members of our chamber are not held hostage by one person, when all five were elected to lead our region.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would say "Sweetie, you're not that important, get over yourself." But I don't want to engage in personal attacks, it's beneath us as individuals.

[fhtagn]

there are circumstances where you might not want to impeach a person, that you also view should not be the Dean (incompetence, obstruction, etc., as mentioned).

Reasons you are clearly giving for a situation that for some reason you are trying really hard not to name.

So I'm just going to ask you outright, will you please name a recent scenario where incompetence or obstruction has taken place that would warrant the majority removing the Dean? When has this actually happened that this rule could help fix?

Because as it stands now, this rule does not fix an existing issue, or even a potential issue. But it has plenty of potential to cause issues.