SENATE BILL: Troubled Teen Protection Act (Law'd) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 04:36:14 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: Troubled Teen Protection Act (Law'd) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: Troubled Teen Protection Act (Law'd)  (Read 2425 times)
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« on: February 12, 2014, 10:08:35 PM »

I introduced this on behalf of Devin, and I certainly think it's a worthwhile discussion. We may need to tighten up the wording in parts, but I do think we should pass something close to this. Devin can probably articulate better than I why this is a good idea, but I'll say that "troubled teen camps" which attempt to "reform" inherent traits are sheer lunacy and tantamount to child abuse.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2014, 06:06:12 PM »

Friendly, but I echo Talleyrand's concern
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2014, 06:06:48 PM »

Friendly, but I echo Talleyrand's concern

?
Your original bill included what could be interpreted as the law placing a limit on personal effects. My amendment of that clause was intended to clear up this ambiguity.

I literally introduced Devin's version. That's not necessarily reflective of my viewpoint.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2014, 09:54:36 PM »

Friendly, but I echo Talleyrand's concern

?
Your original bill included what could be interpreted as the law placing a limit on personal effects. My amendment of that clause was intended to clear up this ambiguity.
Sorry I am not the most articulate at typing. I put the limit in to keep it reasonable. How many personal items can you bring? Most of these camps are in rural Utah/Montana, so its not like you're going to be bringing an Xbox.

I think we can leave it up to the institution.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2014, 09:38:31 PM »


Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, Talleyrand, saw your amendment as you were typing mine. Would you like to incorporate your amendment into mine?
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2014, 12:09:54 AM »

While it's fine to make sure campers are allowed to bring some personal effects, camps should be able to prohibit items that don't fit in with the camp environment.  Do we want the DoIA to be reviewing appeals from kids who are told they can't bring their iphones?

Camps still have that right. I don't know if there's a better way to deal with recourse for involuntary campgoers.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2014, 10:42:34 PM »

I'm done, but if shua (or anyone else) wants to find a more efficient way to deal with the issue he brought up, I'd be game.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2014, 03:21:01 AM »

I'm done, but if shua (or anyone else) wants to find a more efficient way to deal with the issue he brought up, I'd be game.

Unless there are specific personal effects that we mean to make sure campers are allowed to bring, I think it makes sense to strike clause 3.  Camps shouldn't have to wonder what items they are allowed to tell campers they can't bring.

Hm, well involuntary campers are generally there for disciplinary reasons, so I can support cutting some of it.

I don't want to see "shall not be prohibited from bringing personal effects which are necessary for their well being" cut, though.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2014, 04:26:25 PM »

I'm done, but if shua (or anyone else) wants to find a more efficient way to deal with the issue he brought up, I'd be game.

Unless there are specific personal effects that we mean to make sure campers are allowed to bring, I think it makes sense to strike clause 3.  Camps shouldn't have to wonder what items they are allowed to tell campers they can't bring.

Hm, well involuntary campers are generally there for disciplinary reasons, so I can support cutting some of it.

I don't want to see "shall not be prohibited from bringing personal effects which are necessary for their well being" cut, though.

That seems like it will be very subjective in interpretation.

The entire point of this bill is to decrease the dictatorial power of these camps. They should not be allowed to deprive a camper of necessary medication or whatnot.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2014, 09:27:55 PM »

Friendly if he offers it Tongue
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2014, 04:39:00 AM »

Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2014, 04:52:53 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2014, 12:10:30 AM »


I am, yeah
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2014, 04:56:09 AM »

Aye
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 10 queries.