High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating]

[Lief 🗽]

Can some, in like a paragraph or 100 words or so, explain to me what this bill will do? Because I am wary of creating more bureaucracy to solve a problem that does not exist.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate.

This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction.

I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

What is the obsession with post count and participation in Atlasia? It seems like the whole goal is to lock political opponents of yours into some sort of catch-22. If new members start to participate, they are attacked as zombies taking orders, so they end up avoiding Atlasia completely, which in turn lets you talk about how they are zombies who never post.

As a victim of this slander myself, it is getting old.

Maybe they don't post, cuz they, um, have a job, or something normal like that.

LOL, that's got to hurt.

[Hash]

This legislation has nothing to do with post counts. Reading the legislation more carefully would reveal that important aspect of this bill.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This legislation has nothing to do with post counts. Reading the legislation more carefully would reveal that important aspect of this bill.

They're not interested in the truth.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This legislation has nothing to do with post counts. Reading the legislation more carefully would reveal that important aspect of this bill.

Hmm, true, its actually almost completely subject to the arbitrary whims of some dictatorial "High Authority."

[Hash]

This legislation has nothing to do with post counts. Reading the legislation more carefully would reveal that important aspect of this bill.

Hmm, true, its actually almost completely subject to the arbitrary whims of some dictatorial "High Authority."

Ah, yes, I forgot about the evil dictators and the evil authoritarian fascist government. Sorry, please do carry on.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This legislation has nothing to do with post counts. Reading the legislation more carefully would reveal that important aspect of this bill.

Hmm, true, its actually almost completely subject to the arbitrary whims of some dictatorial "High Authority."

Rules and individuals which must be confirmed by the Senate, issuing decisions that must be agreed upon unanimously, followed up the appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn their decisions.

It's abundantly clear you don't have a clue what you're talking about here, and are simply flocking to Hamilton (you must enjoy his.. company.. if you catch my drift) just to cause a ruckus and hope that a bunch of ignorant trolling, scaremongering, and debunked procedural worries derail the process.

This is the Senate. A deliberative body. If you have something intelligent to contribute, then please, feel free. Otherwise, I kindly has you to take you uneducated opinions on this bill elsewhere.

[Purple State]

Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate.

This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction.

I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination.

I provided an amendment that Hash then proposed (which means it was accepted as friendly) that addressed the issue you brought up 2 pages ago or so. For someone who wants to be so involved in Senate debate, you should more closely follow the evolution of bills.

For Lief (and anyone else): This body, made up of three members, will be appointed by the President and confirmed by two-thirds of the Senate. They will then form guidelines by which to judge whether individuals can be judged to be what we term "zombies" that are detrimental to the game. These guidelines and all future edits must be passed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The body may then only judge someone to be inactive and remove them by a unanimous vote. At this point, the ruling may be appealed by the affected individual to the Supreme Court, which may overrule this body for overstepping its guidelines or any other illegal action.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate.

This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction.

I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination.

I provided an amendment that Hash then proposed (which means it was accepted as friendly) that addressed the issue you brought up 2 pages ago or so. For someone who wants to be so involved in Senate debate, you should more closely follow the evolution of bills.

The President doesn't even know what is going on in this trainwreck of a thread.

[Purple State]

Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate.

This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction.

I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination.

I provided an amendment that Hash then proposed (which means it was accepted as friendly) that addressed the issue you brought up 2 pages ago or so. For someone who wants to be so involved in Senate debate, you should more closely follow the evolution of bills.

The President doesn't even know what is going on in this trainwreck of a thread.

I didn't realize Senate discussions to improve a bill make a thread a train-wreck. If you don't like the sausage-making then don't get involved. If you want to get involved, make sure you know what you're talking about.

The President didn't he attack the bill when he didn't know what was in it, which you seemed to have no trouble doing. Say your sorry, educate yourself, and then come back with a relevant response if you really want to be a part of Senate deliberations.

[Franzl]

I would like to start a final vote as soon as possible, but debate is still ongoing at this time.

As to my own vote...I remain completely undecided.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate.

This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction.

I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination.

I provided an amendment that Hash then proposed (which means it was accepted as friendly) that addressed the issue you brought up 2 pages ago or so. For someone who wants to be so involved in Senate debate, you should more closely follow the evolution of bills.

The President doesn't even know what is going on in this trainwreck of a thread.

I didn't realize Senate discussions to improve a bill make a thread a train-wreck. If you don't like the sausage-making then don't get involved. If you want to get involved, make sure you know what you're talking about.

The President didn't he attack the bill when he didn't know what was in it, which you seemed to have no trouble doing. Say your sorry, educate yourself, and then come back with a relevant response if you really want to be a part of Senate deliberations.

I explicitly referred to the text of the original post in my analysis. I have no need to apologize. Stop trying to play victim all the time.

[Purple State]

Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate.

This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction.

I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination.

I provided an amendment that Hash then proposed (which means it was accepted as friendly) that addressed the issue you brought up 2 pages ago or so. For someone who wants to be so involved in Senate debate, you should more closely follow the evolution of bills.

The President doesn't even know what is going on in this trainwreck of a thread.

I didn't realize Senate discussions to improve a bill make a thread a train-wreck. If you don't like the sausage-making then don't get involved. If you want to get involved, make sure you know what you're talking about.

The President didn't he attack the bill when he didn't know what was in it, which you seemed to have no trouble doing. Say your sorry, educate yourself, and then come back with a relevant response if you really want to be a part of Senate deliberations.

I explicitly referred to the text of the original post in my analysis. I have no need to apologize. Stop trying to play victim all the time.

Show me where you made that explicit. I sure don't see it.

[Alexander Hamilton]

This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents.

[Purple State]

This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents.

Then I stand corrected on that point. Duly noted.

I would urge you in the future to discuss the bill as it stands, rather than what you may see in the first post. It doesn't help to rehash debates that have already been had earlier in the thread. Also, I wrote an amendment as a direct response to a worry you had a few pages back. Would be nice if you checked back to see that people are taking your worries into account, rather than ignoring them.

Again, if you want to be involved in making the sausage, you have to keep track of what is being put in or being taken out.

[Alexander Hamilton]

This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents.

Then I stand corrected on that point. Duly noted.

I would urge you in the future to discuss the bill as it stands, rather than what you may see in the first post. It doesn't help to rehash debates that have already been had earlier in the thread. Also, I wrote an amendment as a direct response to a worry you had a few pages back. Would be nice if you checked back to see that people are taking your worries into account, rather than ignoring them.

Again, if you want to be involved in making the sausage, you have to keep track of what is being put in or being taken out.

I apologize for not having the time to dig through an 8 page thread looking for the text of a bill that may or may not be Constitutional while an election is going on...

That being said, it would be nice if Marokai updated the initial post.

[Purple State]

This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents.

Then I stand corrected on that point. Duly noted.

I would urge you in the future to discuss the bill as it stands, rather than what you may see in the first post. It doesn't help to rehash debates that have already been had earlier in the thread. Also, I wrote an amendment as a direct response to a worry you had a few pages back. Would be nice if you checked back to see that people are taking your worries into account, rather than ignoring them.

Again, if you want to be involved in making the sausage, you have to keep track of what is being put in or being taken out.

I apologize for not having the time to dig through an 8 page thread looking for the text of a bill that may or may not be Constitutional while an election is going on...

That being said, it would be nice if Marokai updated the initial post.

The initial post shouldn't be updated. It helps to be able to see the evolution of the bill when it is Wiki'd.

You had already posted in this thread. If you hadn't checked the thread since that post, there would have been a little "New" icon. If you clicked it you would end up right where you left off, which is right where I put forward an amendment fixing your problem with the bill.

As for the constitutional issue, you could have figured that out if you read the relevant part of the Constitution. It didn't necessitate so many posts.

[Alexander Hamilton]

This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents.

Then I stand corrected on that point. Duly noted.

I would urge you in the future to discuss the bill as it stands, rather than what you may see in the first post. It doesn't help to rehash debates that have already been had earlier in the thread. Also, I wrote an amendment as a direct response to a worry you had a few pages back. Would be nice if you checked back to see that people are taking your worries into account, rather than ignoring them.

Again, if you want to be involved in making the sausage, you have to keep track of what is being put in or being taken out.

I apologize for not having the time to dig through an 8 page thread looking for the text of a bill that may or may not be Constitutional while an election is going on...

That being said, it would be nice if Marokai updated the initial post.

You had already posted in this thread. If you hadn't checked the thread since that post, there would have been a little "New" icon. If you clicked it you would end up right where you left off, which is right where I put forward an amendment fixing your problem with the bill.

Depends on how you enter the thread. I could have clicked the last page, or been viewing the initial page while logged out and logged in from there. I never saw your post.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This legislation has nothing to do with post counts. Reading the legislation more carefully would reveal that important aspect of this bill.

Hmm, true, its actually almost completely subject to the arbitrary whims of some dictatorial "High Authority."

Rules and individuals which must be confirmed by the Senate, issuing decisions that must be agreed upon unanimously, followed up the appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn their decisions.

It's abundantly clear you don't have a clue what you're talking about here, and are simply flocking to Hamilton (you must enjoy his.. company.. if you catch my drift) just to cause a ruckus and hope that a bunch of ignorant trolling, scaremongering, and debunked procedural worries derail the process.

This is the Senate. A deliberative body. If you have something intelligent to contribute, then please, feel free. Otherwise, I kindly has you to take you uneducated opinions on this bill elsewhere.

But of course. After all, the whole point of this bill is to institutionalize the idea that only you and your boyfriends should be allowed to participate in Atlasia.

[MaxQue]

This legislation has nothing to do with post counts. Reading the legislation more carefully would reveal that important aspect of this bill.

Hmm, true, its actually almost completely subject to the arbitrary whims of some dictatorial "High Authority."

Rules and individuals which must be confirmed by the Senate, issuing decisions that must be agreed upon unanimously, followed up the appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn their decisions.

It's abundantly clear you don't have a clue what you're talking about here, and are simply flocking to Hamilton (you must enjoy his.. company.. if you catch my drift) just to cause a ruckus and hope that a bunch of ignorant trolling, scaremongering, and debunked procedural worries derail the process.

This is the Senate. A deliberative body. If you have something intelligent to contribute, then please, feel free. Otherwise, I kindly has you to take you uneducated opinions on this bill elsewhere.

But of course. After all, the whole point of this bill is to institutionalize the idea that only you and your boyfriends should be allowed to participate in Atlasia.

The new body won't delete of the voter rolls, you are active!

[Lief 🗽]

For Lief (and anyone else): This body, made up of three members, will be appointed by the President and confirmed by two-thirds of the Senate. They will then form guidelines by which to judge whether individuals can be judged to be what we term "zombies" that are detrimental to the game. These guidelines and all future edits must be passed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The body may then only judge someone to be inactive and remove them by a unanimous vote. At this point, the ruling may be appealed by the affected individual to the Supreme Court, which may overrule this body for overstepping its guidelines or any other illegal action.

Thank you. Would these people have to be citizens who currently do not hold office? And why does the Senate feel it needs to give away its authority to pass these "guidelines" regarding zombies?

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, can we have a final vote please ?

[Franzl]

So, can we have a final vote please ?

I would like to, but I feel that debate is still ongoing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, can we have a final vote please ?

I would like to, but I feel that debate is still ongoing.

The debate is cause by people who are not Senators, and who don't bring anything contructive.