Sorry

[Napoleon]

Fool me once etc.

You should've had to common courtesy to see that you might not be as active as you can, and given up a sponsorships so that the Senate can do its work. If you've had some issues, sorry about that, but really, I think it was kind of a slap in the face of those that want to do things here that you did that. Just straight up.

Pretty much. Look, I'm not mad at you like you suggested last night - you haven't really done anything to merit that for awhile - but as Nix very vaguely suggested, this is a song and dance that we've seen several times. Since I'd rather be light-hearted and detailed as opposed to drawn-out and verbose (and because any image I make is bound to actually be read), I put together this graph that details what I've been witnessing since late 2012.

Ooh! Make one for Xahar next.

[tmthforu94]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Labor Party the primary reason Xahar pulled off the upset? Seems kind of ironic to be going after Napoleon with such vengeance.

[Maxwell]

Xahar should be kicked out of the Senate too. No question.

[Napoleon]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Labor Party the primary reason Xahar pulled off the upset? Seems kind of ironic to be going after Napoleon with such vengeance.

I won't speculate as to the reasons for the one-sided criticism but I created this thread to offer my sincere apology.

[Adam Griffin]

Ooh! Make one for Xahar next.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Labor Party the primary reason Xahar pulled off the upset? Seems kind of ironic to be going after Napoleon with such vengeance.

I'm certainly not being vengeful - just a historian. I remember several of us discussed this very same concept via PM probably three months ago when the last instance of this topic was created. Napoleon drops off the radar, comes back and apologizes, says he may leave the game, gets people to sympathize, shortly thereafter announces his candidacy, runs for re-election and wins. I'm just outlining the roles in this great cyclical process.

[Napoleon]

Well I won't be running for reelection so there's that.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yeah, the key point here is that I never indicated I would be a good Senator.

[Lief 🗽]

Does this mean you're finally leaving?

oh god I was wondering how to do comic sans! Thanks Xahar, didn't even think of the MS at the end!

[Sbane]

Yeah, the key point here is that I never indicated I would be a good Senator.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you complain about inactivity in the Senate? Or was it only the Pacific?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You should've had to common courtesy to see that you might not be as active as you can, and given up a sponsorships so that the Senate can do its work. If you've had some issues, sorry about that, but really, I think it was kind of a slap in the face of those that want to do things here that you did that. Just straight up.

This would have been my preference as well. There should be atleast some obligation to activity for the sake of one's collegues and at the very least being around to deal with procedural requests (mainly on amendments), which is the precise reason I designed the "No post in 24 hours = motion to table policy" so as to kill too birds with one stone (get some advocacy and ensure availability for time saving procedures like friendly amending). By the way any Senator can co-op and enforce that policy, since tabling isn't limited to the presidicing officer.

The trouble is that is doesnt' work so well if the Senator is at the clogging limit and the next several bills are his. Granted, I could have probably declared them functionally impractical or something, but then Polnut would have suffered as well as the already delayed education reforms being delayed yet once again.

Seriously though, when we get to the part about sponsorship in the OSPR consolidation project, remind me to include a procedure to strip a bill of it's sponsor by like a 2/3rds vote or something. If we finish the current one fast enough, I might just be able to slide the floor debate one through soon afterwards.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Maxwell,

Would you be willing to also include a reduction to seven days the base time for explusion in your recently introduced OSPR amendment? There is no sense having a 14 day standard in the rules whne the Constitution has seven now.

[Maxwell]

Maxwell,

Would you be willing to also include a reduction to seven days the base time for explusion in your recently introduced OSPR amendment? There is no sense having a 14 day standard in the rules whne the Constitution has seven now.

Yes I would be. We can make some sort of change as soon as we get it to the floor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just change it now, while no one is looking.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You should've had to common courtesy to see that you might not be as active as you can, and given up a sponsorships so that the Senate can do its work. If you've had some issues, sorry about that, but really, I think it was kind of a slap in the face of those that want to do things here that you did that. Just straight up.

This would have been my preference as well. There should be atleast some obligation to activity for the sake of one's collegues and at the very least being around to deal with procedural requests (mainly on amendments), which is the precise reason I designed the "No post in 24 hours = motion to table policy" so as to kill too birds with one stone (get some advocacy and ensure availability for time saving procedures like friendly amending). By the way any Senator can co-op and enforce that policy, since tabling isn't limited to the presidicing officer.

The trouble is that is doesnt' work so well if the Senator is at the clogging limit and the next several bills are his. Granted, I could have probably declared them functionally impractical or something, but then Polnut would have suffered as well as the already delayed education reforms being delayed yet once again.

Seriously though, when we get to the part about sponsorship in the OSPR consolidation project, remind me to include a procedure to strip a bill of it's sponsor by like a 2/3rds vote or something. If we finish the current one fast enough, I might just be able to slide the floor debate one through soon afterwards.

^
I reposted the soon to be amendment in question with the additional clause in my office thread for review. I plan to introduce it tomorrow or Monday.

[Maxwell]

You should've had to common courtesy to see that you might not be as active as you can, and given up a sponsorships so that the Senate can do its work. If you've had some issues, sorry about that, but really, I think it was kind of a slap in the face of those that want to do things here that you did that. Just straight up.

This would have been my preference as well. There should be atleast some obligation to activity for the sake of one's collegues and at the very least being around to deal with procedural requests (mainly on amendments), which is the precise reason I designed the "No post in 24 hours = motion to table policy" so as to kill too birds with one stone (get some advocacy and ensure availability for time saving procedures like friendly amending). By the way any Senator can co-op and enforce that policy, since tabling isn't limited to the presidicing officer.

The trouble is that is doesnt' work so well if the Senator is at the clogging limit and the next several bills are his. Granted, I could have probably declared them functionally impractical or something, but then Polnut would have suffered as well as the already delayed education reforms being delayed yet once again.

Seriously though, when we get to the part about sponsorship in the OSPR consolidation project, remind me to include a procedure to strip a bill of it's sponsor by like a 2/3rds vote or something. If we finish the current one fast enough, I might just be able to slide the floor debate one through soon afterwards.

^
I reposted the soon to be amendment in question with the additional clause in my office thread for review. I plan to introduce it tomorrow or Monday.

Great idea Yank!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My hope is we can avoid amendments on yours and then do my second one all by the end of next weekend. Then I will still have time to bring up one of the Mental Health bills, and all in the PPT slot.

We gonna burn that slot into the ground over the next two weeks.

[Flake]

Hey Griffin can you do one of me?

[Adam Griffin]

Hey Griffin can you do one of me?

You'll have to get to the Senate first.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you really want to make that comparison, at least Xahar showed up to vote for the Basic Income Guarantee, and he's made several substantive comments on the Fix the Regions Amendment.

Not to distract from your overall point, but since when did "substantive" become the same thing as baseless, Nix?

Virtually everything I could find that involved a vote says "majority" or "enough votes to pass or fail", and none of them give a number of six in any instance and are all thus dependent references to the size listed in the Constitution. Meaning the size can in fact be altered without having to also rewrite the rules at the same time.

At most some minor tweaks would be in order for efficiency purposes and such could be done later on without a noticeable impact, especailly when you are considering such a small change as the Senate being debated in that thread (I think it is 12 members instead of ten), and I cannot even think of any off hand that would be rendered less efficient to the extent that we would have to abolish Regional Senate seats when a simple OSPR amendment could tweak them when the need came about.

It has been five days since I posted about this in the thread without a response from the good Senator.

[Flake]

Hey Griffin can you do one of me?

You'll have to get to the Senate first.

Okay this Christmas... is that a good time for you?

[President Tyrion]

Hey Griffin can you do one of me?

You'll have to get to the Senate first.

Okay this Christmas... is that a good time for you?

Zip up your pants. Your confidence is showing.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yes, Yankee, I was mistaken in that respect. I don't remember what exactly had led me to that conclusion; I may have been looking at the wrong thing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, Yankee, I was mistaken in that respect. I don't remember what exactly had led me to that conclusion; I may have been looking at the wrong thing.

If you could point me to this "wrong" thing, it would be most helpful. That way I can warn the incuming Senators about it and thus avoid some confusion. Was it that ancient 2005 OSPR that is somewhere on the wiki or something else?

[homelycooking]

I'm joking. you're doing great work buddy.

That may be the case, but this isn't the first time you've attacked me and my office in jest or otherwise. I'm sure you don't mean any harm by it, but I don't find your jokes very funny. Allegations of misconduct brought against my office are taken seriously.

The work of the SoFE is, and must be, about SERIOUS BUSINESS. Please respect that.

[DemPGH]

Well, I want to stay out of this, but on the subject of inactivity there's something that's not been said that must be. In the last At Large election Sjoyce was the odd man out - he could have helped the Senate, and his expertise in foreign policy there could been majorly helpful. But instead we got someone who was almost entirely inactive, and managed even to be snarky about it, yet gave us. . . a bit of comic sans.