SB 8605: More Deputy Game Moderators Act (Passed)

[Sestak]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
[/quote]

Sponsor: Sestak
Status: At final vote

[Sestak]

As I am entitled to do under Article 10, Section 2 of the rules, I am unilaterally suspending Article 3 and Sections 1-4 of Article 4 of the rules and proceeding to a final vote immideately. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Edit: Aye.

[Pericles]

Aye.

[Lechasseur]

Aye

[Lachi]

Aye

[Sestak]

This has the votes to pass. 24 hours to vote or change your vote.

[Sestak]

Passes 4-0-0, 2 NV

Aye: Lechasseur, Lok, Pericles, Sestak

Not Voting: Zaybay, NC Yankee

[Sestak]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]


[/quote]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye FTR

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We have well established at this point that we can when necessary expedite stuff to get things passed in a quick fashion through both chambers. It is great and wonderful thing that we have this ability and I support it completely.

However, there are some things that this is good for and there are others that it really should not be used for. If a hurricane strikes, a foreign policy crisis, etc, then you need to pass relief bills and such forth quickly. If there is an election snafu or something of that nature, as well.

However, while this certainly has merits and certainly was worthy of support I am reminded of a line from Walter Cronkite's portrayal of Ben Franklin in Liberty's Kids. "That you know you are of merit is a great thing, it doesn't mean that others are aware of the fact".

We have minimum debate times for a reason. We also should be requiring advocacies to be posted by the sponsors. Just because we are expediting something doesn't mean you should also skip the advocacy, if anything that is more important because you are saying what and why and more to the point why it is important to be expedited. So in any scenario we should always have a sponsor advocacy so we know what the hell is going on and why.

Furthermore, when it comes to the bill in question we have just expanded the Game Moderator staff and while may indeed be a good idea, I am unable to find out where this idea came from? Was it a recommendation of the GM for instance? Furthermore, on such a critical matter of reforming the GM team, we should not have found ourselves in a such a position that we had to rush this bill through without debate, amendment or even the slightest bit of discussion as to why this is being done, just days before Christmas. There was also no notification of the members that such was being expedited.

We are the most deliberative body for a reason, we are suppose to discuss, deliberate and debate things. The die has already long been cast on this Congress as being a colossal failure in terms of getting stuff done, sacrificing debate even its minimalist of forms strikes me as being a scenario where we are robbing Peter to pay Paul and ending up with neither. Certainly so on a matter so important as the Game Moderation team, to rush a bill through both houses without debate, or any reasonable justification that I can see, just days prior to Christmas strikes me as an unfortunate disservice to our mission and purpose in this game as a Congress.

Productivity should come with and as a part of deliberation, not at it's expense.

[Sestak]

We have well established at this point that we can when necessary expedite stuff to get things passed in a quick fashion through both chambers. It is great and wonderful thing that we have this ability and I support it completely.

However, there are some things that this is good for and there are others that it really should not be used for. If a hurricane strikes, a foreign policy crisis, etc, then you need to pass relief bills and such forth quickly. If there is an election snafu or something of that nature, as well.

However, while this certainly has merits and certainly was worthy of support I am reminded of a line from Walter Cronkite's portrayal of Ben Franklin in Liberty's Kids. "That you know you are of merit is a great thing, it doesn't mean that others are aware of the fact".

We have minimum debate times for a reason. We also should be requiring advocacies to be posted by the sponsors. Just because we are expediting something doesn't mean you should also skip the advocacy, if anything that is more important because you are saying what and why and more to the point why it is important to be expedited. So in any scenario we should always have a sponsor advocacy so we know what the hell is going on and why.

Furthermore, when it comes to the bill in question we have just expanded the Game Moderator staff and while may indeed be a good idea, I am unable to find out where this idea came from? Was it a recommendation of the GM for instance? Furthermore, on such a critical matter of reforming the GM team, we should not have found ourselves in a such a position that we had to rush this bill through without debate, amendment or even the slightest bit of discussion as to why this is being done, just days before Christmas. There was also no notification of the members that such was being expedited.

We are the most deliberative body for a reason, we are suppose to discuss, deliberate and debate things. The die has already long been cast on this Congress as being a colossal failure in terms of getting stuff done, sacrificing debate even its minimalist of forms strikes me as being a scenario where we are robbing Peter to pay Paul and ending up with neither. Certainly so on a matter so important as the Game Moderation team, to rush a bill through both houses without debate, or any reasonable justification that I can see, just days prior to Christmas strikes me as an unfortunate disservice to our mission and purpose in this game as a Congress.

Productivity should come with and as a part of deliberation, not at it's expense.

To answer your question about where this came out of, Mr. R nominated Encke to be a second Deputy GM. I introduced this to make sure there was a clear statutory backing for this.