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

[JustinTimeCuber]

The rules work just fine as they are. We don't need to fix something that isn't broken.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your complaint that "I never intended the rules to work the way I wrote them", suggests strongly that there are significant problems with Bill 2.

You wrote the bill and even you didn't want to follow it.

Okay, now you're just going back to your stupid frivolous attacks.

I said that I didn't intend for that language to be interpreted strictly, but there was no other rigorous way I could think of to write that part. Ideally, if we had a Chamber full of 5 people who want to make progress instead of 4, it wouldn't have been an issue. If you want to offer an amendment to Article IV of the rules, go right ahead, but this bill is just getting rid of parts of the rules that might inconvenience your obstructionism.

Also, I didn't *write* the bill. I wrote two amendments.

I would like you to provide me with an example of how these rules have actually failed to work in practice, so that I could address that.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By quoting you? and taking that out of context, yeah

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I warned you very clearly in the thread that there were problems with what you were proposing. You chose to ignore my comments altogether. Now it's been proven that this part of Bill 2 does not work. that's a logical leap the likes of which only Kellyanne Conway would dream of making.

Clearly then you should be supporting amending that portion out of the rules permitting bills to carry over as they always have done. no, I don't... we shouldn't be considering bills from f**king March in July.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The issue is with wiping out the slate. There are problems with it that you did not foresee. We need to go back to the older rule set. mhmm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, pretty sure that's exactly what I'm doing. There are 20 different changes to Bill 2 here. That's not a small number. I'm specifically talking about Section IV, subsection 1, which you are complaining about. You also seem to deny the existence of my amendments to S2. Maybe you should have done your homework.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And even then you're not happy with what you wrote. That speaks volumes. I'm perfectly happy with it. Stop taking what I say out of context. However, I didn't remember the exact wording, and thought I was right to pre-file the bills at the end of the election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I already quoted you here. The whole setup of 'prefiling bills' and erasing the queue does not work. We should go back to just letting the queue carry over from session to session. Then why do real state legislatures do that?

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because women can't do logic? Pretty sexist IMO. really, really funny. ha. ha. ha.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When I was in the majority we cleared out the queue. so clearing out the queue is okay then? huh

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You should probably read the bills you write once in awhile. You want me to know the exact wording of every bill or amendment I've written but you did so little homework that you forgot that S2 was amended.
Talk about double standards.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Real state legislatures also don't have 5 members. Just because it's done in real life doesn't make it right to do it here. Not a valid disanalogy. Delaware and Nevada only have 21 state senators. What counts as "too few"? 10? 9? 13? 20? 5?

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely hysterical. I didn't take Labor as being the party of troglodytes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, we actually got through all of them.
because no one spammed the queue

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have this thing called the internet. It allows us to research stuff. Yes, and although I should have been more familiar with the rules, someone who doesn't even notice that the rules were amended, WHILE THEY WERE A SITTING DELEGATE, had zero room to talk.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

21!=5. It's pretty clear to me that there are significant differences between the game and real life. 21! definitely isn't equal to 5. I can play stupid games too you know.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Just for the record, I'm not "complaining about how they're operating". I made a mistake, now fk off.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I get that you're annoyed by Ben, Mr. Cuber. I really do. But can we please not sink to cussing at each other over what is going on? Surely we are all old enough to express our opinions in a much more mature fashion.

Sorry, I have a low tolerance for people putting words in my mouth.

[JustinTimeCuber]

As debate seems to have died down, I move for a final vote.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Just call all the votes at once or something.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Editing ballots is bad. Why? Because I said so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Surely you understand that the other delegates can override such a decision.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

UP TO 6. If the queue is clogged, it would be much easier to get through it with 6 open threads.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A whole lot of BS here.
First, it is literally in the Southern Constitution that the Governor can propose bills. I'm sure a strict constitutionalist like you would have read the Constitution.
Second, that's not true, NeverAgain DID propose legislation. It's currently numbered as Bill S19, the Taxpayer Receipt Act, which I co-sponsored.
Also, it's not that NeverAgain's opinion matters MORE, but as the duly elected Governor he should at least have a non-voting presence in the Chamber, and it's weird that you're fighting this as it is in the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think the clause you are repealing means, because it definitely isn't that.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I'm opposed to 2, 3, and 4, as they all make the rules less clear and don't fix anything.

[JustinTimeCuber]

But you're not opposed to sub amendment one? Ok.

I motion for a vote on sub amendment 1 of the Revision bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The clause 'who is not the Speaker' is struck.

[/quote]
No objection to part 1. Seems like a trivial change, but it would increase the clarity of the rules.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that debate has persisted, nope we ain't doing this.

How about actually discussing things rather than trying to shut the process down, Mr. Cuber?

Great, more loaded questions.

I'm willing to debate any bill, but as it appeared that debate had drawn to a close, I thought we were ready for a final vote.

I find it funny that someone who flooded the queue with things like a regional tree act and a regional beverage act would talk to someone about shutting down the process.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excluding the case where the Speaker is the Dean makes no sense to me either.

Since we're in agreement, are you going to second my motion?

Second.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Aye

[JustinTimeCuber]

What if the Dean is inactive or refuses to follow the procedure?
It's not about making the position political. Notice how no one tried to remove you as Dean this time.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So this was purely motivated as an attack on me? Glad we cleared that up.

I don't see vindictiveness as a good basis for law. 

Um...

What?


When exactly did I even come close to implying that?

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seeing as this bill was introduced last term, logically it follows that this section of the bill was intended to provide a way to remove me as dean.

But if it were some evil Labor plot, why didn't we use it? Look, we might have used it if you cheated like you did last time, but you didn't, so we didn't.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so that confirms that the purpose of this was actually to remove me as dean of the CoD.

Thank you for that, Cuber.

As for what happened during your last Speakership vote, you might want to ask Nev about what transpired behind the scenes.

But what would I know? I'm just an ACPer.

What the actual fk are you talking about

1. this has nothing to do with the speakership vote
2. if this were trying to remove you as dean, why didn't we follow through on that? seems like a poor conspiracy theory.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I think having something that allows for overthrowing the Dean sets a pretty dangerous precedent.

Who is to say that this can't be abused by a party in power that doesn't like that the Dean is of an opposing party (such as Cuber's threat made a few comments above)?

WHAT THREAT!??

Is EVERYONE insane? I find it bizarre that saying "We obviously weren't plotting against you, because if we were, why didn't we actually carry out said plot?" is now considered a threat.

Seeing as Cuber wanted to use it to remove me, there are problems with politicizing what is inherently an apolitical position.

If you wanted to change it, all you'd have to do is something like, "if the Dean is inactive and hasn't started a vote within a week, then the next longest serving delegate may initiate a speaker vote."

Ben, I would appreciate it if you stopped lying about me. Thank you.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

now you're just deflecting and turning it into a partisan attack?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that doesn't mean that every dean would show up and conduct a vote, does it?

Let's say you aren't re-elected. I don't know if you plan to run for re-election, but say in July you don't swear in as delegate again. Say I do, but then forget about dean-ing. Would you support making someone else Dean?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

wrong

[JustinTimeCuber]

Mr. Cuber, let's take Ben out of the equation and look at it like this:

Say you become Dean. But also say that election cycle, the delegates are you, three members of the Federalist Party, and one member of the Atlas Conservative Party.

Would you find it fair that this rule would allow those four members to toss you as Dean, simply because you are a member of an opposing party? Because that's what this rule can allow.

Fair? Not exactly, but the rule needs to be there for real reasons. I hope I can trust my political opponents enough that they wouldn't do that, but if the Chamber is full of right wing partisan hacks that would remove someone from a non-partisan position for partisan reasons, we have much more to worry about than who's Dean.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Mr. Cuber, let's take Ben out of the equation and look at it like this:

Say you become Dean. But also say that election cycle, the delegates are you, three members of the Federalist Party, and one member of the Atlas Conservative Party.

Would you find it fair that this rule would allow those four members to toss you as Dean, simply because you are a member of an opposing party? Because that's what this rule can allow.

Fair? Not exactly, but the rule needs to be there for real reasons. I hope I can trust my political opponents enough that they wouldn't do that, but if the Chamber is full of right wing partisan hacks that would remove someone from a non-partisan position for partisan reasons, we have much more to worry about than who's Dean.

So you have no issue with a rule that has real potential to be abused, and doesn't exactly solve any existing issues? Good to know.

An abusive chamber could change the rules however they wanted with a 3/5 majority.

[JustinTimeCuber]

ftr, Celtic voted for the rules, is he an abusive leftist?

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ben, this isn't about you. Stop being a snowflake.