SB 111-15: RETCON Again Act (Debating)

[WD]

SENATE BILL

To allow the GM to revoke past canon under exigent circumstances


SECTION I. SHORT TITLE.

This bill shall be referred to as the Responsible Excision of Timeline Canon in case of Overt Nonsense Again Act, or, for short, the RETCON Again Act.

SECTION II. PROVISIONS.

SB 110-12, the Game Engine Restructuring and GM Team Creation Act, is hereby amended as follows:

iii. The word of a game moderator, once spoken, is Canon, and may not be revoked by them or their successor unless a request to revoke canon status from a specific game engine proclamation or set of proclamations is approved by eight-ninths of the full senate.

Introducing this as the GM Team Creation act accidentally repealed the RETCON act when I didn't mean for it to.

Sponsor: Weatherboy

The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I only I had a hundred dollar bill for every time that something accidentally deleted/repealed in Atlasia.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Right so, the GM team creation act accidentally repealed the RETCON Act. After the mess regarding NPC elections (which we are internally considering non-canon at the moment, and I won’t write anything else on them at least for the time being), we need to walk back our rookie mistakes to avoid a lot of headache.

[Joseph Cao]

Given the GM team brought this up in discussion I'm hoping we can act on this with all appropriate speed. IIRC, nobody voted against this the last time the Senate considered it.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

considering the need for this to pass ASAP, motioning for unanimous consent to suspend the rules regarding minimum debate time and proceed to a final vote.

[WD]

A final vote is now open. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Is no one going to vote on this?

[Saint Milei]

So we don't even get to discuss this or motion for anything?

if final vote is open, nay just because of my question.

[Joseph Cao]

A final vote is now open. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain

Shouldn't unanimous consent have been declared first?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

A final vote is now open. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain

Shouldn't unanimous consent have been declared first?

WB did post this:

considering the need for this to pass ASAP, motioning for unanimous consent to suspend the rules regarding minimum debate time and proceed to a final vote.

[Joseph Cao]

A final vote is now open. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain

Shouldn't unanimous consent have been declared first?

WB did post this:

considering the need for this to pass ASAP, motioning for unanimous consent to suspend the rules regarding minimum debate time and proceed to a final vote.

Yeah, and usually the PPT makes the observation that yes, unanimous consent has been declared, because theoretically part of being PPT is that nothing happens in the chamber without their say-so.

WB's motion was made, it hasn't been recognized technically.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

A final vote is now open. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain

Shouldn't unanimous consent have been declared first?

WB did post this:

considering the need for this to pass ASAP, motioning for unanimous consent to suspend the rules regarding minimum debate time and proceed to a final vote.

Yeah, and usually the PPT makes the observation that yes, unanimous consent has been declared, because theoretically part of being PPT is that nothing happens in the chamber without their say-so.

WB's motion was made, it hasn't been recognized technically.

WB is Deputy PPT though: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=521053.msg8753370#msg8753370 , so he is able to advance motions himself. Unless you're trying to argue that he specifically has to say 24 hours to object or whatever.

[Joseph Cao]

A final vote is now open. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain

Shouldn't unanimous consent have been declared first?

WB did post this:

considering the need for this to pass ASAP, motioning for unanimous consent to suspend the rules regarding minimum debate time and proceed to a final vote.

Yeah, and usually the PPT makes the observation that yes, unanimous consent has been declared, because theoretically part of being PPT is that nothing happens in the chamber without their say-so.

WB's motion was made, it hasn't been recognized technically.

Unless you're trying to argue that he specifically has to say 24 hours to object or whatever.

Yes. Someone has to say that.

I had a whole thing going on several times when I was PPT with running back and forth from the podium to do precisely this.

[Senator-elect Spark]

I'm in favor of this bill.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A final vote is now open. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain

Shouldn't unanimous consent have been declared first?

WB did post this:

considering the need for this to pass ASAP, motioning for unanimous consent to suspend the rules regarding minimum debate time and proceed to a final vote.

Yeah, and usually the PPT makes the observation that yes, unanimous consent has been declared, because theoretically part of being PPT is that nothing happens in the chamber without their say-so.

WB's motion was made, it hasn't been recognized technically.

Unless you're trying to argue that he specifically has to say 24 hours to object or whatever.

Yes. Someone has to say that.

I had a whole thing going on several times when I was PPT with running back and forth from the podium to do precisely this.

Yes Cao is right. It is very much possible for WB to put on both hats, even in the same post. However, in this case, he only really put on the first, that of Senator motioning for something.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

aye

[WD]

Aye

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

aye

[PragmaticPopulist]

Aye

[Utah Neolib]

Aye

[Devout Centrist]

Abstain

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye