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

[NeverAgain]

I have some comments that I'll present tomorrow afternoon.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We haven't been operating under them, until you withdrew the lawsuit...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why don't we actually try and follow the rules as is, before we make major changes to a document that hasn't even been tested in action yet?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Speakership elections are not the same as Federal Elections and shouldn't follow the same procedure. A Body of 5 vs. the entire nation, should definitely have different procedures, ESPECIALLY after the stunts pulled in a recent speakership race. All Delegates should be able to vote, and that shouldn't depend on who the Dean is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This entire section shall be struck. [/quote]

I'd be more than happy to join you in striking it, if you'll come up with another anti-clogging/spamming measure. The reason this is (and has been an essential part of Legislature rules) here, is because of the danger that spamming/clogging the legislature performs on the body. If you want to find a way to limit the clogging, and have some assurances that it cannot happen, I'd be more than happy to join you in that measure. Otherwise, this must stay, and go into effect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

This chamber can handle more than two threads open... Also, the Speaker and Governor must have the power to address issues that are facing our region, without waiting months for the bill to come up. The Federal Government has this (expanded, but the same concept), and has done wonders for clearing up and helping address important issues. This is very much needed in our Chamber.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

This Chamber shouldn't be forced to deal with legislation where the Speaker has since left or is not even a member of the Chamber. Everyone should have their chance to put legislation forward, not to keep dealing with legislation session after session by members who aren't even there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This shall be struck[/quote]

Why should co-sponsors have any say in what happens to the legislation, other than advocate for it. The Sponsor is the sponsor for a reason, and it must be up to them, not other members, what they do with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Why?! This just seems like obstruction for obstruction sake! The only purpose of this is to get debate going! Why in the world would we change that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Again, the chamber should have easy access to make decisions on the timing of bills. I don't see why we should get rid of these provisions, other than to confuse newer members and leave all discretion to the Speaker, which can lead to a whole lot of problems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Again see above. The Chamber shouldn't be forced to deal with inactive or non-members legislation, which has been proposed in prior sessions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

/quote]

Again, flooding prevention must be in place. The Speaker must have the authority to help get things to go along, just as the sponsor has every right to challenge their decision. Another thing that the feds have.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Again, lessening clarification is not helpful here. This is very (deathly) specific to help lessen the amount of arguments over timing, etc. that can and has certainly happened. We do not need another Constitutional Crisis due to unclear rules.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

I mean, I am fine with this, just as long as we add something that says like: "if no majority is reached for a veto override, the vote must be taken again, or will follow the Governor's veto".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would also ask that this be stripped, as defamation of my and Fhtagn's character is just ridiculous. If you believe either one of us overstepped our powers, sue me or her, otherwise this is defamation of our character's and must be removed.

I will try and respond with more if there are rebuttals, but I have a band concert tonight, and a Trip Tomorrow.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

? I don't know what this means.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think we have come close to requiring this in some circumstances, yes. But our rules shouldn't be solely based on what has been, but more so pre-emptive, on the what could be. I have no doubt that there is the possibility for a Dean, in the future, to overuse and abuse their powers to gain some leverage over the choosing of the next Speaker of this Chamber. We need to be ready for that, so therefore this is here. I'd be more than happy to more it more specified so that it is clearly for reasons of the Dean, and not based on the possible political orientations of their counterparts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mean, there are problems with it's broadness, no doubt, but to say it doesn't solve a potential issue is just not true. I would be more than happy to specify it for abuses of the Dean's powers, and not on the basis of the politics of the four other members. As I had just said on this note, I think it to be more likely that we'd have a Dean overreach, than have a Chamber made up of persons whom are all, except for the Dean, of an opposing party.

Anywho, if we'd like to work on trying to clarify the wording, I'd be all for that. You can see my proposal up there for reference, at least as a starting point.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course I do, that's why the goal should be to keep it that way and not let politics intercede, but sadly, it does. So, I think this has to be an option.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My assumption is that it would be the 2nd in seniority would initiate a vote after all 4 delegates have made a motion against the Dean.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, as Governor, I am not part of the Chamber...? The other four would be the ones to do that, led by the 2nd in seniority, which we can certainly add to it. Good linkage, thanks

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, there is no binding rule that states that the Chamber cannot conduct a vote solely without the Speaker, but that's a pretty gray area. But if we want to add that it's 2nd in seniority, just to clarify, sounds great to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Problem solved! Teamwork

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yup, and there was nothing about it in the rules, then. But now we can add it! What fun!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By bill, I assume you mean this section? Well, as I said, I'll have to pass the kudos to the folks of the old Senate, because I actually didn't write that (other than to change it to more CoDify this part). And it does work, now that we, together, have established a chain of command. I don't know why I would ever want to get rid of you, when we brainstorm these great ideas together . Keep it up!

[NeverAgain]

And with that, after all this brain fun, I am going to hit the hay and get to work bright and early on more ways we can revitalize this clause. Thanks everyone !

I hope tomorrow is even more fun than today (hard to do, though).

Night everyone, love you all .

[NeverAgain]

I had to check the lovely progress we were making, to find that Oh No! I said that the clause is fatally flawed even though I never said that. It's okay though, I am just an idiotic awful creature who should cry in amazement of how I was tricked into saying my clause is flawed (IT RHYMES SO IT'S TRUE). .

Lovely Benny Boo, I don't think little ole' me actually said that. My assumption was something that I thought that when we work together on to add into the clause. Because I think that you are not listening to me, which is being a vewwy vewwy naughty daughty.

Since I am not a member of this chamber, I cannot actually propose amendments, so my "assumption" was the start of a possible reform we could all make to help the clause become able to be more representative of the Chamber. I didn't mean that I was assuming the current clause said so, nor did my small, inconceivably stupid brain comprehend the words to say that I think it's flawed.

Now, I am really going to bed. Oof da ishta.

[NeverAgain]

I mean this is an election for Speaker, not for a Federal Election, they should obviously have different rules. The rules set a pretty clear standard and are specific to our Chamber. I see no reason to change them.