HAEV Guidlines (Passed)

[Badger]

If you opposed the HAEV, then introduce legislation repealing it. However voting against this is not a way to express your opposition to that body.


AYE

Haven't quite crossed that Rubicon of opposition, my friend. I just can't in good conscience sign on in favor at this point.

Of course, abstaining is not the same as opposition....

[segwaystyle2012]

I think people would agree that even by the most strenuous interpretation of "JCP zombies" in the last election I still would've been comfortably elected. If anything I think the ARC (Populares) would've been hurt worse, but I'm just as leery about weeding them out when those so called "zombies" may wind up being strongly contributing Atlasians in the future.

Hold it right there...

Last election I would have been considered a zombie, Dallasfan would have been considered a zombie, FallenMorgan would have been considered a zombie, etc.

Now none of us are zombies. That is the purpose of the Populares: we are by nature anti-zombie, and our solution is to increase activity, not filter out those who we have a vendetta against.

Looking back, JCP candidates totaled more zombies than Mint did. That's not debatable.

Yeah, don't think so.

You would have been a newbie, and you've obviously had more than ten posts in the past two months (that's in the Atlasia Section).

Not at that time.

[Barnes]

I think people would agree that even by the most strenuous interpretation of "JCP zombies" in the last election I still would've been comfortably elected. If anything I think the ARC (Populares) would've been hurt worse, but I'm just as leery about weeding them out when those so called "zombies" may wind up being strongly contributing Atlasians in the future.

Hold it right there...

Last election I would have been considered a zombie, Dallasfan would have been considered a zombie, FallenMorgan would have been considered a zombie, etc.

Now none of us are zombies. That is the purpose of the Populares: we are by nature anti-zombie, and our solution is to increase activity, not filter out those who we have a vendetta against.

Looking back, JCP candidates totaled more zombies than Mint did. That's not debatable.

Yeah, don't think so.

You would have been a newbie, and you've obviously had more than ten posts in the past two months (that's in the Atlasia Section).

Not at that time.

What I'm saying is that it would be very obvious that you were a newbie, and we probably wouldn't have even considered removing you. Now, if you stayed nearly inactive for a few months, then we could consider it.

Also, this isn't the time or place for this discussion, and I think the Senate would prefer if we moved it somewhere else.

[Purple State]

I think people would agree that even by the most strenuous interpretation of "JCP zombies" in the last election I still would've been comfortably elected. If anything I think the ARC (Populares) would've been hurt worse, but I'm just as leery about weeding them out when those so called "zombies" may wind up being strongly contributing Atlasians in the future.

Hold it right there...

Last election I would have been considered a zombie, Dallasfan would have been considered a zombie, FallenMorgan would have been considered a zombie, etc.

Now none of us are zombies. That is the purpose of the Populares: we are by nature anti-zombie, and our solution is to increase activity, not filter out those who we have a vendetta against.

Looking back, JCP candidates totaled more zombies than Mint did. That's not debatable.

That none of you are zombies now does not mean you were not zombies then. Now, I won't make the judgement call on whether you were too new to be expected to do much else, but at that point you were simply serving as a zombie vote, without having contributed anything to the game.

I applaud all of your recent uptick in activity, but your current status does not impact what you may have been previously.

[Peter]

4-0-2

Can the remaining Senators please vote as it may be 2 months since the passage of the original act before we actually see a voter considered.

[Antonio the Sixth]

4-0-2

Can the remaining Senators please vote as it may be 2 months since the passage of the original act before we actually see a voter considered.

Does the two-thirds majority refer to every vote or only valid votes (ayes and nays) ? If it's the second option, the guidelines are already passing.

[Peter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These sort of distinctions are always difficult to be sure on. In light of CheeseWhiz v. Senate of Atlasia, I am inclined to try for 7 votes, especially as I wrote it!

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These sort of distinctions are always difficult to be sure on. In light of CheeseWhiz v. Senate of Atlasia, I am inclined to try for 7 votes, especially as I wrote it!

Well, I'm glad to learn you wrote the verdict that will make these guidelines almost unpassable.

If this is gonna pass it would be by no more than 7 votes. I hope all isn't lost...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators voting in the affirmative: Hans-im-Gluck, Hashemite, NC Yankee, Tmthforu94

Senators abstaining: Badger and Fritz


WTF IS GOING ON HERE?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Aye

[afleitch]

Aye.

Sorry; when I saw 'HAEV' I switched off - never liked the idea much...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

MaxQue and Mint. This bills fate is in your hands. Both of you would have to vote for this to pass.

[Barnes]

MaxQue and Mint. This bills fate is in your hands. Both of you would have to vote for this to pass.

Mr. President, may I respectfully ask that you remind Senators Mint and MaxQure of this vote? The Senate needs to pass these meaningful regulations.

[MaxQue]

MaxQue and Mint. This bills fate is in your hands. Both of you would have to vote for this to pass.

Mr. President, may I respectfully ask that you remind Senators Mint and MaxQure of this vote? The Senate needs to pass these meaningful regulations.

Sorry, I am very busy those days, I barely have time to come here.

Aye

[Mint]

Abstain

[Antonio the Sixth]

There are 7 ayes and 3 abstentions. So it passes.

[tmthforu94]

Rereading the bill, I have a serious question...

Why does what a citizen did (American) years ago matter? If they're inactive, they should be removed, regardless.

[Purple State]

Rereading the bill, I have a serious question...

Why does what a citizen did (American) years ago matter? If they're inactive, they should be removed, regardless.

Don't ask how the sausage is made so long as it tastes good in the end, eh?

Obviously there are parts everyone can disagree with, but the intent was to find something that could pass a unanimous HAEV and a two-thirds Senate majority. Compromises are never all that pretty, but they can be effective.

[tmthforu94]

Rereading the bill, I have a serious question...

Why does what a citizen did (American) years ago matter? If they're inactive, they should be removed, regardless.

Don't ask how the sausage is made so long as it tastes good in the end, eh?

Obviously there are parts everyone can disagree with, but the intent was to find something that could pass a unanimous HAEV and a two-thirds Senate majority. Compromises are never all that pretty, but they can be effective.

I'm not sure if it tastes good, though, and I wish I would have been able to get back to Senate debate earlier to fight this. I don't like that there will be special treatment to some inactive members over others, just because they were an active part of Atlasia years ago.

[Peter]

My interpretation of the clause is that it might be allowed to rescue a former office holder just under the activity requirements that a non office holder would probably be removed for. I do not see it as protecting all former office holders regardless of their activity.

[tmthforu94]

My interpretation of the clause is that it might be allowed to rescue a former office holder just under the activity requirements that a non office holder would probably be removed for. I do not see it as protecting all former office holders regardless of their activity.

But, how does holding office in the past make them any more relevent? That's what I'm not getting...

[Meeker]

My interpretation of the clause is that it might be allowed to rescue a former office holder just under the activity requirements that a non office holder would probably be removed for. I do not see it as protecting all former office holders regardless of their activity.

But, how does holding office in the past make them any more relevent? That's what I'm not getting...

It shows that you had, at least at some point, a commitment to the game and weren't just brought in here as an import for voting purposes.

As others have said, it's not like we're going to blanket allow anyone who's held an office to remain a voter if they're completely inactive, but we felt it was a factor that should be taken into consideration.

[tmthforu94]

My interpretation of the clause is that it might be allowed to rescue a former office holder just under the activity requirements that a non office holder would probably be removed for. I do not see it as protecting all former office holders regardless of their activity.

But, how does holding office in the past make them any more relevent? That's what I'm not getting...

It shows that you had, at least at some point, a commitment to the game and weren't just brought in here as an import for voting purposes.

As others have said, it's not like we're going to blanket allow anyone who's held an office to remain a voter if they're completely inactive, but we felt it was a factor that should be taken into consideration.

It also shows that since they no longer have a commitment to the game, they no longer care about the game. I would make a case that newer members have more of a reason to stay; some don't get active right away. A lot of us on here probably didn't heavily jump into things right away. I was registered in Atlasia for 5 months before I got active. I probably would have been removed if we had HAEV, I never would have gotten active, and I wouldn't be posting this right now.

So basically, what you're saying, is an inactive member who was a Senator 2 years ago is less likely to be removed than an inactive member who hasn't posted a lot. People are slow to catch on, and need some time to get their feet wet.

[Antonio the Sixth]

PPT please ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

PPT please ?