SENATE BILL: Party Hard Amendment (Failed)

[tmthforu94]

I support this amendment, though like Yankee, I think 5 is a better standard.

[tmthforu94]

5 is, I think, a little too low. Would 7 be a reasonable compromise?

Well, 5 is the number that had been used for years, and I never heard any complaints that it was too low. The only reason it was changed was because folks actually wanted it lower.

[tmthforu94]

Abstain

5 is a more appropriate number and would be easier to remember. 7 just seems...odd.

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

I find it quite odd that TNF is going after Napoleon so hard on inactivity, considering he has expressed multiple times that he will give his first preference in December to Xahar, the least active Senator by far.

[tmthforu94]

Please don't tell me you're insinuating that Napoleon and I try and start cat fights and you don't... And for the record, I think I've introduced four bills in total, two in response to constituent requests. Funny hearing that criticism coming from you considering all of the ridiculous bills you have been introducing lately.

Napoleon has admitted to his poor activity record and has confirmed he will not be running for reelection, contrary to what you're suggesting. And I have no clue what you're referring to in regards to backroom dealings - though I consider him a friend, Napoleon and I almost never discuss what is going on in the Senate, and I think our very different voting records show we aren't in cahoots.


I would urge Senators to accept the amendment in question - I think the intentions behind this whole thing is good, and feel reasonably confident that with a 5-limit threshold, it would pass a public vote.

[tmthforu94]

If there was a way to show who all I have been interacting with since I entered the Senate in August, I would certainly do so. I have spoken with Yankee, TJ, Maxwell, Spiral, Bore, Tyrion, and perhaps even you more than I have spoken to Napoleon, and have criticized his activity record numerous times, as I actually value active Senators (hence my approval of the job you're doing as my regional Senator). Perhaps it is just due to the fact that there has been an extreme sway in our relationship (from bitter enemies to now friends), but it continues to baffle me how folks constantly try and pair us together.

[tmthforu94]

I'm going to point out something mentioned earlier by Xahar. Why don't y'all just recognize organized parties with no number limit? It gets rid of unorganized three person parties, it would get rid of Liberal immediately, and new active parties can still assemble and be successful.

It's possible. How do we determine the definition of "organized" in such a case?

I'd defiantly be open to Senator Xahar's proposal if the above concern were addressed.

[tmthforu94]

I'll introduce it for discussion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

In hindsight, I regret not having a discussion on PJ's final proposal - things are picking up for me (as I'm sure with a couple others) in school with finals just a few weeks away, and I'm currently in a battle with some professors to maintain my GPA. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to address his proposal before a final vote, but I would hope to get at least a bit of input before this thread is officially dead. I personally don't think the status quo should continue, and judging by comments made in this thread, it looks like a solid majority agree.

Personally, I am receptive to the idea - in this game, it might be better to have a party be judged by it's content and commitment, rather than simple numbers. I would be open to hearing arguments to that, of course.