Provisional Parliament: Voting on Amendment

[Leinad]

Nay.

I like the idea of needing a supermajority to elect the president. The PM will already be elected by majority; it would be boring to do the same system for both.

[Leinad]

I see no reason to have that clause at all.

Well, the Prime Minister needs to have the confidence of a majority in Parliament, right? The President can't just choose a member of a fringe party that doesn't have support as PM. We're not trying to make the President a dictator.

[Leinad]

I object.

This is basically to only make the president temporary? Or to have us change it? Not sure why this needs to be done. If the role is inadequate, certainly we can come back and change the legislation on it.

Now, what's the argument in favor? (So that we can get each side before we vote.)

[Leinad]

Hmmm...I see your point, yeah, but why couldn't we just redo it if it doesn't work? I mean, it's not like this is set in Miliband-esque stone, we can change it later.

[Leinad]

Abstain.

So...how exactly are we planning on finding this [Name]? Thorough debate and then IRV vote? Informal consensus? Names out of a hat? Game of Warren G. Harding trivia?

[Leinad]

I'll be voting nay as well.

"But wait, you proposed the amendment!" Yes, but I just proposed it as an alternative to the two-thirds amendment, for those who would've prefered a simple majority (which is by far my least favorite option of the 3). As it looks like 2/3rds is the consensus choice, there's no need for a compromise. (I think "fallacy of the mean" is a silly argument against it, but whatever.)

[Leinad]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right...thanks for reminding me I could do that!

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to withdraw my amendment.

[Leinad]

I concur that Hash would be a good president, but why are we making it our habit to rush through these decisions?

Hagrid has declared that he wants the job. Why not at least formally figure out who's better, instead of doing what we've been doing: going with the first good idea, instead of trying to determine what the best idea is.

[Leinad]

I concur that Hash would be a good president, but why are we making it our habit to rush through these decisions?

Hagrid has declared that he wants the job. Why not at least formally figure out who's better, instead of doing what we've been doing: going with the first good idea, instead of trying to determine what the best idea is.

Because this is an elections game, Leinad. Our rules and government should be conceived by an elected Parliament, not the first twenty people who saw the thread and were interested. The Interim President will be swiftly declared, Parliament will be dissolved, and we will hold elections to determine the future of the game. As of now, we are unelected bureaucrats. Time to change that.

I get your point, but I find it ironic how "this is an elections game" is the argument in favor of, as you said, unelected bureaucrats informally and hurriedly making key decisions.

Anyway, it's not just the Interim President. I understand that it's a role that, in the grand scheme of things, won't decide important policy or whatnot. But it's only the 3rd worst offender: the decisions on both the location and name were made far too quickly. The name decision, I suppose, could be changed, and it's not really like it fundamentally alters the game--but the location decision can not be changed by an elected Parliament later on. I'm not arguing with the choice (South America isn't a bad location at all) I'm simply arguing with how the choice was made.

Look, I'm not trying to be the no-fun-police, or "clutching my lapels" (still have no idea what that means...maybe I'm just streets behind...) and I'm not even getting that upset by it (I'm actually an easy-going fellow), I just think that we should go about this the right way--as in, be open to considering other ideas. I think that we went about the location decision the wrong way, and I think that we went about the name decision the wrong way--can't I get 1 out of 3?

[Leinad]

christ are you always on?

Always on what?

On-topic? Not really. On-the-record? No. On-demand? Almost. On-goal? No, I'm a poor shooter. On the rebound? From what? Ontario? Never been there, yet.

As the great prophet Yogi Berra sayeth, "it's deja vu all over again."

If you mean what Oakvale meant earlier, about me "clutching my lapels," I'd like to reiterate I haven't the slightest idea what that means.

[Leinad]

By the way, noticing that I hadn't already done so officially, I object this amendment. Let's at least put it to a vote.

One thing to note is that no one has raised any questions about Hash. No one has questioned his competence or his ability to serve as President for our first term. We've found a candidate that is capable of providing stable leadership, who has already garnered support from members of at least three parties, across the ideological spectrum. Considering that this is a temporary appointment, I don't see any reason to delay any further. Let's move this along, and let the elected representatives of the people deliberate on a more permanent selection.

I agree, he'd be good for the job. And compared to the other decisions, rushing through this one wouldn't be as harmful. I'm still not a fan of rushing through decisions like we have, simply accepting the first good proposition instead of ensuring it's the best proposition, for reasons I've already elaborated on ad nauseum.

[Leinad]

Amen, Hagrid. They seem to think there's a deadline to start, or we need to hurry so everyone doesn't get bored.

Hash is a great choice (normal). Please don't object to amendments you have no problem with. This is a waste of time.

I said I thought he'd be a good choice. I never said I thought he'd be the best choice. My reasons for objection are clear: I'd rather Hagrid be Interim President, and I'd also rather we take it to an actual vote instead of this rushed system where all dissenting opinions are treated like heresy.

(At the moment, Hash is only at 54% in the poll, by the way. Considering the small sample size of that poll, it's impossible to say he's such a favorite that we shouldn't even vote on the matter.)

[Leinad]

I'm alright with Hash as president. With Hagrid's statement, it seems like he's the only real candidate, and I never thought he'd be bad at the job.

So, I presume we're doing Talleyrand's bill next.

I object to this bit here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seriously, why the heck do we need that? It achieves nothing other than making it harder for both to co-exist--maybe you're okay with that, but I'm very much not.

[Leinad]

All 3 of you have already concluded that Atlasia's dead, Al and Talleyrand even leading the charge to kill it before they left (I'll give Blair credit; he was very much pro-Atlasia for a while, and when he got bored left quietly without trying to ruin it for everyone else).

My point is that it's not the most unbiased of opinions. So someone like me who still has hope that Atlasia can continue but has enough time to do both can't do both?

[Leinad]

Individuals can still run for office while an officeholder in Atlasia; all that clause does is force them to choose which one to serve in should they be elected to an office in South America as well. It doesn't force anyone to automatically pick anything.

By definition it forces people to pick.

[Leinad]

Aye.

[Leinad]

Just to clarify: "aye" is in favor of striking that clause, and thus allowing people to hold office in both, while "nay" is in favor of keeping the clause, forcing someone to choose between one or the other?

Or have I misunderstood, and got that backwards?

[Leinad]

Aye on striking the clause/Nay on the clause itself.

the ban would be vital to ensuring that people are active and engaged in their office, instead of putting a half-assed effort toward two positions.

I get what you mean, but I think that some people (myself included) will be able to do both, and should have that option open. If someone's doing both and not doing well, they could be voted out--or maybe if we point it out to them they'll realize they can't do both and voluntarily give one up.

[Leinad]

Aye.

[Leinad]

The vote has passed.

And that concludes the Provisional Parliament, ladies and gents.

I'd say it went well. A little rushed, here and there, but it got the job done. That guy with the yellow GA avatar needed to shut up, but most members were pretty good.

Anyways, I think I speak for all of us when I say: let's do this!

[Leinad]

The vote has passed.

And that concludes the Provisional Parliament, ladies and gents.

I'd say it went well. A little rushed, here and there, but it got the job done. That guy with the yellow GA avatar needed to shut up, but most members were pretty good.

Anyways, I think I speak for all of us when I say: let's do this!

Speaking of yourself in third person really doesn't make you any more likeable.

Eh, I generally find self-deprecating humor makes people more likeable, although I wasn't really trying to improve my likeability. I was just trying to make a joke in that sentence--the main point of the post was stating my opinion that the Provisional Parliament was successful in it's job, and to voice eagerness in starting the real thing.

I'm not sure what purpose critiquing my posts does, but hey, whatever floats your boat, I guess.

[Leinad]

I'd say it went well. A little rushed, here and there, but it got the job done. That guy with the yellow GA avatar needed to shut up, but most members were pretty good.

Anyways, I think I speak for all of us when I say: let's do this!

Speaking of yourself in third person really doesn't make you any more likeable.

Eh, I generally find self-deprecating humor makes people more likeable, although I wasn't really trying to improve my likeability. I was just trying to make a joke in that sentence--the main point of the post was stating my opinion that the Provisional Parliament was successful in it's job, and to voice eagerness in starting the real thing.

I'm not sure what purpose critiquing my posts does, but hey, whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Well, if that was a joke, then we really have quite a different sense of humour.

Does critiquing needs a specific purpose? Is it not more acquainting someone of your opinion on a certain action of your opposite? The case could be made that such is a purpose, in which case we have found that specific purpose you were speaking of, but that should be left to every one's individual interpretation, should it not?

I wouldn't be shocked if we did have quite different senses of humor--mine seems to be not-normal. Oftentimes my jokes are kind of subtle (which is sometimes the nice word for "not funny enough to even tell it was a joke").

Yeah, you're right, it doesn't need a specific purpose, and it should be left up to the individual. Hence my line of "whatever floats your boat." Just as how you are allowed to critique me, shouldn't I be allowed to critique your critiquing of me? Especially when your critique seemed to be based on the faulty premise that I value being liked above all.

Anyway, I look forward to working with you and the others when this begins for real!