SR 113-36: Domestic Tranquility Amendment for Atlasia (Amendment Vote)

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Abstain

[Sirius_]

Nay

Aye.

Why do you believe treason should have no punishment for some? Is there a statute of limitations for treason?

I don't recall WD's actions being on the same level as the others listed, and I don't believe that this is a list we should be adding people to liberally.

[West_Midlander]

Nay

Aye.

Why do you believe treason should have no punishment for some? Is there a statute of limitations for treason?

I don't recall WD's actions being on the same level as the others listed, and I don't believe that this is a list we should be adding people to liberally.

I think you should re-visit his comments and actions at the time if you think so.

[Vice President Christian Man]

Nay

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

A vote is now open on the WM amendment

Why is WM's amended vote first when My amendment was brought to the floor first?

Anyway, I clearly object to both the Muaddib and WM amendments as it's a bad faith filibuster at this point.

If anyone is doing arguing in bad faith it's the Honorable senator for the Upper South. The amendment I've proposed simply makes the punishments for treason in line with each other. It is clear to me that arguing otherwise is simply a case of not having equal justice for equal crimes. Anything additional beyond treason would be a separate charge.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay. Not relevant to the issue being addressed now.

[West_Midlander]

A vote is now open on the WM amendment

Why is WM's amended vote first when My amendment was brought to the floor first?

Anyway, I clearly object to both the Muaddib and WM amendments as it's a bad faith filibuster at this point.

If anyone is doing arguing in bad faith it's the Honorable senator for the Upper South. The amendment I've proposed simply makes the punishments for treason in line with each other. It is clear to me that arguing otherwise is simply a case of not having equal justice for equal crimes. Anything additional beyond treason would be a separate charge.

No one objected to your amendment.

[West_Midlander]

Nay. Not relevant to the issue being addressed now.

Crimes punished only for some, then?

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

A vote is now open on the WM amendment

Why is WM's amended vote first when My amendment was brought to the floor first?

Anyway, I clearly object to both the Muaddib and WM amendments as it's a bad faith filibuster at this point.

If anyone is doing arguing in bad faith it's the Honorable senator for the Upper South. The amendment I've proposed simply makes the punishments for treason in line with each other. It is clear to me that arguing otherwise is simply a case of not having equal justice for equal crimes. Anything additional beyond treason would be a separate charge.

No one objected to your amendment.

The quote from LT says otherwise.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay. Not relevant to the issue being addressed now.

Crimes punished only for some, then?

This should've been considered after last April if we wanted to handle the issue that way.

[Sirius_]

A vote is now open on the WM amendment

Why is WM's amended vote first when My amendment was brought to the floor first?

Anyway, I clearly object to both the Muaddib and WM amendments as it's a bad faith filibuster at this point.

If anyone is doing arguing in bad faith it's the Honorable senator for the Upper South. The amendment I've proposed simply makes the punishments for treason in line with each other. It is clear to me that arguing otherwise is simply a case of not having equal justice for equal crimes. Anything additional beyond treason would be a separate charge.

The other amendment received objection first, and I did not notice LT's objection because it was in the middle of a diatribe. I will open the vote on the Muaddib amendment now, and, for simplicity, I will leave the other vote open until this one ends.

[West_Midlander]

The vote on my previous amendment was not closed ftr.

[West_Midlander]

Nay. Not relevant to the issue being addressed now.

Crimes punished only for some, then?

This should've been considered after last April if we wanted to handle the issue that way.

The notion of banning certain players individually in the Constitution was only breached now and do you sincerely think a statute of limitations of one year on treason is wise?

[Sirius_]

The vote on my previous amendment was not closed ftr.

That amendment fails

[West_Midlander]

Nay

Why?

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Muad'Dib Amendment AYE
Westy Amendment AYE

[WD]

NAY

[Vice President Christian Man]

Nay

Why?

He survived a recall attempt and I'm opposed to regime change. I'm also generally opposed to lifetime bans and impeachments but by OSR moving he implied he didn't want to keep his job and Reactionary had already quit the game so I didn't see it making much of a difference. However if he invaded the Union then that would be a different conversation.

[West_Midlander]

Nay

Why?

He survived a recall attempt and I'm opposed to regime change. I'm also generally opposed to lifetime bans and impeachments but by OSR moving he implied he didn't want to keep his job and Reactionary had already quit the game so I didn't see it making much of a difference. However if he invaded the Union then that would be a different conversation.

This is an amendment vote, not a final vote, and the lifetime ban is off the table. This amendment being voted on now does not affect YT whatsoever.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay. Not relevant to the issue being addressed now.

Crimes punished only for some, then?

This should've been considered after last April if we wanted to handle the issue that way.

The notion of banning certain players individually in the Constitution was only breached now and do you sincerely think a statute of limitations of one year on treason is wise?

If we're going to ban every single poster accused or convicted of treason, we'd have to throw in Snowstalker (who's banned), TNF, Xahar, Al, and probably other names Yankee would recall.

[West_Midlander]

Nay. Not relevant to the issue being addressed now.

Crimes punished only for some, then?

This should've been considered after last April if we wanted to handle the issue that way.

The notion of banning certain players individually in the Constitution was only breached now and do you sincerely think a statute of limitations of one year on treason is wise?

If we're going to ban every single poster accused or convicted of treason, we'd have to throw in Snowstalker (who's banned), TNF, Xahar, Al, and probably other names Yankee would recall.

Seems like a straw man argument to justify keeping one active treasonous poster above the law.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay. Not relevant to the issue being addressed now.

Crimes punished only for some, then?

This should've been considered after last April if we wanted to handle the issue that way.

The notion of banning certain players individually in the Constitution was only breached now and do you sincerely think a statute of limitations of one year on treason is wise?

If we're going to ban every single poster accused or convicted of treason, we'd have to throw in Snowstalker (who's banned), TNF, Xahar, Al, and probably other names Yankee would recall.

Seems like a straw man argument to justify keeping one active treasonous poster above the law.

Is activity why Truman is part of the amendment?

[Sirius_]

The point of this is for extraordinary circumstances. It isn't supposed to replace impeachment or criminal trial. Everyone who did something wrong isn't supposed to be on this list, otherwise we'd have put several other secessionists on it.

[West_Midlander]

Nay. Not relevant to the issue being addressed now.

Crimes punished only for some, then?

This should've been considered after last April if we wanted to handle the issue that way.

The notion of banning certain players individually in the Constitution was only breached now and do you sincerely think a statute of limitations of one year on treason is wise?

If we're going to ban every single poster accused or convicted of treason, we'd have to throw in Snowstalker (who's banned), TNF, Xahar, Al, and probably other names Yankee would recall.

Seems like a straw man argument to justify keeping one active treasonous poster above the law.

Is activity why Truman is part of the amendment?

Seems like you are avoiding the elephant in the room.

You must be amenable to striking Truman and keeping OBD who is somewhat active and WD who is more active, if you are only against banning inactive treasonous citizens?

[West_Midlander]

The point of this is for extraordinary circumstances. It isn't supposed to replace impeachment or criminal trial. Everyone who did something wrong isn't supposed to be on this list, otherwise we'd have put several other secessionists on it.

If this is your stance, shouldn't we table this and leave it to the Court?