Cabinet Officers and Structure Bill

[Jake]

I hereby open formal debate time on this bill.

JFK, I think debate time is up for this bill, it is a week, yes?

[Jake]

I urge my senators to vote against this bill.  In my capacity as GM, I can assure you that grouping the Depts of State and Defense together will have a negative effect on our diplomacy around the world.

[Jake]

BUMP-6 senators need to vote

[Jake]

I urge my senators to vote against this bill.  In my capacity as GM, I can assure you that grouping the Depts of State and Defense together will have a negative effect on our diplomacy around the world.

Jake,

I think the point is not that we get too heavily tied to a reality driven government here. There is absolutely little to no point in having two Cabinet departments that deal with largely international issues when in fact international issues have little to no part to play in Atlasian life since we have no genuine "other" governments to deal with.

We do however have many internal issues. Certainly a EHW secretary would often have to work with the Regional governors on a wide variety of issues: Certainly I intend to have some fun inundating this Secretary if he comes into existence on the joke that is the federal funding formula for education. Economic Affairs is needed largely for the budget, but also for other issues such as dealing with the issues generated by the Clean Energy Act with respect to the Regions. He'll also get to deal with Al the next time he strikes.

The AG and Forum Affairs need to continue exist for rather obvious reasons.

I appreciate that a GM must largely look to the international scene for creating scenarios, but a lot of people, myself included, have expressed doubts about continuing to allow all manner of artificial scenarios to be cooked up when we have more than enough that we can create on our own.

Many have expressed an opinion for wanting a reactive GM.  I have decided to more of that.  I am merely warning them that the world will not be very acceptive of this idea. 

[Jake]

I appreciate that a GM must largely look to the international scene for creating scenarios, but a lot of people, myself included, have expressed doubts about continuing to allow all manner of artificial scenarios to be cooked up when we have more than enough that we can create on our own.

Also, I don't understand your last comment in bold. Explain

[Jake]

I appreciate that a GM must largely look to the international scene for creating scenarios, but a lot of people, myself included, have expressed doubts about continuing to allow all manner of artificial scenarios to be cooked up when we have more than enough that we can create on our own.

Also, I don't understand your last comment in bold. Explain

Well we will always be able to create enough gameplay on our own through the simply progression of the game.

The Fritz v. Ernest crisis was a prime example of this with its own consequences that forced reactions from various levels of government.

The Constitutional Convention is certainly enough of a self-made scenario to keep enough of us going. I imagine there will be more conflicts between federal and regional at some point. Then there's the spin-offs from things like the Clean Energy Act, which we've yet to see where Regions attempt to implement those federal polices. Those present real challenges as opposed to artificial ones.

Not to mention that we are meant to be based around elections and not a massive government, which is what we are soon becoming. The Senate these days is more of a stupifying bureaucracy and this administration in a governing role (as opposed to the facilitating role of SoFA and AG) with one exception has to date been impotent.

Rather than complaining about the fact that Defense and State might merge, I'm honestly surprised that the Rt Hon Jack Straw wasn't complaining about the fact that our State department is permenantly headless.

Hughento said in his resignation speech that he wanted a more pro-active GM, others have said they want a pro-active GM.  I want a mix.  The GM's job is to react to the government's decisions and to occasionally introduce new scenarios for the government to react to.  The only scenario I've seen that has caused much of any reaction was the Fritz v. Ernest situation.  That is why the abortion lawsuit, the Mag-Lev groups response, and Straw's response were posted. To react to the government's actions. If you don't like the way I am GM'ing take it up with PBrunsel and convince him to get rid of me. 

[Jake]

I hereby open formal debate time on this bill.

JFK, I think debate time is up for this bill, it is a week, yes?

It is indeed, I didn't get much time on the computer yesterday and so little on the forums heh.


I hereby open the voting on this bill, all Senators vote yea, nay or abstain.

I think voting on this bill ended last Thursday.  The vote takes place for one week, 1/20-1/27 and no senator motioned to extend voting. 

[Jake]

I hereby open formal debate time on this bill.

JFK, I think debate time is up for this bill, it is a week, yes?

It is indeed, I didn't get much time on the computer yesterday and so little on the forums heh.


I hereby open the voting on this bill, all Senators vote yea, nay or abstain.

I think voting on this bill ended last Thursday.  The vote takes place for one week, 1/20-1/27 and no senator motioned to extend voting. 

Yes, you're right.  Thanks for that.

Well... according to my count, with four senators in favor to two against, and with four abstaining, this bill passes.

Or, if we choose to ignore the votes occurring after January 27, the bill passes with two senators in favor to one against, with seven abstaining.  Either way, the bill passes.

I hereby deliver it to PBrunsel for his signature.

What did we decide with regards to abstentions.  Are they even votes?  If not, the bill doesn't get a quorum of the senate. I don't think the votes should count, because they just failed to show up, they didn't vote abstain. 

[Jake]

With PBrunsel's veto, I now open the floor to any senators who wish to call a vote to override the Presidential Veto.

(PS: Is there an official time limit for how long we have before a veto becomes official?  If not, there really should be... I'll make it a week.)

Can't you only call a veto overide without a 2/3rds majority?  If not ignoire me