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

[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?

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?

I'm done after this term and I'm not going to focus on stuff not related to the amendment that's over a year old now. This should've been discussed then.

[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?

I'm done after this term and I'm not going to focus on stuff not related to the amendment that's over a year old now. This should've been discussed then.

As I said before "The notion of banning certain players individually in the Constitution was only breached now." I'm sorry we didn't break those norms then?

[Joseph Cao]

Abstain on the Westy amendment.

I do not think norms should be broken more than absolutely necessary, and the whole reason this is on the floor in the first place is because of the consensus that YT’s presence in the game and interactions with its players in and of themselves have strong potential to destabilize the game. That is an exceptionally high bar that WD fails to clear despite crimes that I also remember very well and who only escaped punishment last time because as I recall there wasn't the appetite to impeach and remove a PPT who had already resigned and grovelled to half a dozen people.

While I generally do not, under any circumstances, gotta hand it to WD, he has largely behaved himself and any institutional support he might have had for more Downfall shenanigans died once three-quarters of Downfall quit the game. That means he doesn't fit the very high criterion established here for issues going beyond run-of-the-mill crimes.

I see Sirius has already said this much less verbosely but consider that my part of the record.

[PPT Spiral]

Nay on both amendments

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

Is activity why Truman is part of the amendment?

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.

[West_Midlander]

Western Democrat made multiple comments in favor of Truman as recent as four days before he voted for his conviction under extreme threat of suffering punishment himself. WD undertook actions to further treason and end Atlasian democracy, unlike OSR who mostly made comments in favor of secession, and moved residences, afaik, although both are guilty of treason IMO and I voted for the latter's impeachment and removal from office.

WD's case is one of clear cowardice in the interest of evading justice. Even if one chooses to make excuses for Western Democrat since he abandoned Truman at the last possible moment to prevent his own prosecution, how can one justify voting against punishing OBD and Truman in this amendment as Senator Spiral has? Should there be unequal punishment for all parties when it comes to leading treasonous movements in the last 14 months? Furthermore, IMO banning reagente as there has been private discussion of, would be an incredible miscarriage of equal protection under the law if WD is not added to this list. Personally, I have expressed a willingness to add reagente, making five total persons affected by this list, but there has been no public response from any Senator. It is incredibly puzzling why the vast majority of this body is strongly interested in unequal punishments for incredibly similar crimes.

[windjammer]

Honestly it's a very bad idea to ban people. Atlasia is composed by petty and childish players who always react rashly when things don't go their way.
 

[windjammer]

Honestly it's a very bad idea to ban people. Atlasia is composed by petty and childish players who always react rashly when things don't go their way.
 

I am very petty!

I just don't care one way or the other anymore after everything. Could not be bothered.

For the record I wasn't even thinking about you!

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

Honestly it's a very bad idea to ban people. Atlasia is composed by petty and childish players who always react rashly when things don't go their way.
 

I am very petty!

I just don't care one way or the other anymore after everything. Could not be bothered.

For the record I wasn't even thinking about you!

No I know, I just wanted to be vain for a moment and assume you were.

YT's Anthem

[Sirius_]

Muaddib amendment fails
West_Midlander amendment fails

[West_Midlander]

Muaddib amendment fails
West_Midlander amendment fails

It looks like the Muaddib amendment is tied 1-1 although it is ambiguous whether or not WD's vote is against my amendment which he objected to or Muaddib's. WD furthermore clarified that his objection was against my amendment and not Muaddib's earlier. I highly doubt WD intended to not vote on my amendment and to only vote on Muaddib's which he seemingly had no stance toward. It's also highly likely that he, too, missed the opening of the Muaddib amendment vote. Furthermore, Cao, seemingly, and I, missed the Muaddib amendment vote since the opening of the Muaddib amendment vote was buried in a paragraph. The fact that the vote had only 2-3 votes suggests that the opening of the vote was not communicated to the Senate clearly.

[West_Midlander]

I re-sponsor this amendment. I am sponsoring/introducing this in the event that the rules are not suspended to continue the Muaddib amendment vote for perhaps 24 hours since the vote was not clearly opened with the vote opening statement being buried in a paragraph and not bolded or emphasized in any way.

I said I would not seek further amendments but this is a previously introduced amendment (not a further or new amendment) that is being sponsored in the interest of getting a fair vote of the full Senate, or as much of it as possible, on this. I also feel that those who elected me were borderline disenfranchised since I have been continually active in this body but I was unable to vote on the amendment due to incredibly confusing and inconsistent parliamentary choices. In the past, I believe it was typical to vote on two amendments with the vote beginning on both at the same time, or on amendments one at a time if objections were not made and/or recognized at the same time.

I have considered time-change amendments but I think those are unlikely to pass. I do not foresee any more amendments from me on this should this pass or fail under an effective re-vote, or if the original vote is extended in which case this amendment will be withdrawn.

An Amendment to the Fifth Constitution of Atlasia
To truly preserve the stability, integrity, and democratic nature of the Republic by excluding the disruptive force to the very foundation of Atlasia itself

Section 1. Title

This shall be known as the Domestic Tranquility Amendment for Atlasia.

Article I of the Constitution of Atlasia shall be amended as follows:

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the Republic of Atlasia, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, except those explicitly listed on Article I, Section 15, are citizens of the Republic of Atlasia and of the Region in which they reside, and shall in all cases be afforded equal protection under the law.

Section 15.

Although no Bill of attainder may be passed by either the Senate or the Regions, this Constitution reserves the exceptional right to exclude individuals from citizenship in the Republic of Atlasia, in order to preserve the stability, integrity, and democratic nature of the Republic.

The following individuals under their current or future username or verified sock accounts of the listed individuals, are hereby listed as excluded from such rights in perpetuity and shall not be permitted to hold any office, elected or appointed, or vote in any election, in any region or any other entity under jurisdiction of this Constitution:

-TexasConservative, also known as Young Texan, until January 1, 2028.
-Harry S Truman, also known as Unconditional Surrender Truman, until January 1, 2027.
-OBD, also known as Oregon Blue Dog, until January 1, 2027.

Article VIII of the Constitution of Atlasia shall be amended as follows:

Section 2. Supremacy of the Atlas Forum.
1. Actions taken by Administrators or Moderators of the Atlas Forum are separate and distinct from their actions as citizens of Atlasia and they shall not be restricted, nor obstructed by Atlasian constitutional or statutory provision, in their enforcement of the Terms of Service by Atlasian constitutional or statutory provision.
2. Nothing in this section shall be construed as to provide immunity to moderators who violate any
statutory provision that does not conflict with or obstruct enforcement of the terms of service.
3. Administrators and Moderators of the Atlas Forum shall be permitted to declare an account to be a sock account for the purpose of compliance with Article I, Section 15.

Amendment Explanation

The addition of Section 15 to Article I establishes a mechanism to ensure that individuals who threaten the very existence of this game we know and love as Atlasia can be banned through the highest legal means there is -- the amending process of the federal Constitution. The addition of the third clause to Article VIII, Section 2 allows the forum moderators and administrators to be able to enforce the banning of users through sock checks as a banned user may make a sock account to go around the game ban.

[Sirius_]

The voting statement was included in a three sentence post and voting was open for five days. At that point senators are responsible for their own missed votes, I can not overturn the rules over an inability to read three sentences (all of which were about the same topic) and post an aye or nay within five days. If anything buried the announcement, it was the persistent argument during the voting period.

[West_Midlander]

The voting statement was included in a three sentence post and voting was open for five days. At that point senators are responsible for their own missed votes, I can not overturn the rules over an inability to read three sentences (all of which were about the same topic) and post an aye or nay within five days. If anything buried the announcement, it was the persistent argument during the voting period.

You have bent the rules to prevent the tabling of bills twice before when you saw fit and also failed to close an amendment vote for days while another vote was started on this bill. You also further saw fit to unilaterally assume the office of "President pro tempore" when the rules said that you could only assume the Acting position without being elected.

Furthermore, what you consider argument, I consider debate. Or should this body only post votes without debate in your view?

[Sirius_]

The voting statement was included in a three sentence post and voting was open for five days. At that point senators are responsible for their own missed votes, I can not overturn the rules over an inability to read three sentences (all of which were about the same topic) and post an aye or nay within five days. If anything buried the announcement, it was the persistent argument during the voting period.

You have bent the rules to prevent the tabling of bills twice before when you saw fit and also failed to close an amendment vote for days while another vote was started on this bill. You also further saw fit to unilaterally assume the office of "President pro tempore" when the rules said that you could only assume the Acting position without being elected.

Furthermore, what you consider argument, I consider debate. Or should this body only post votes without debate in your view?

You're allowed to debate at any point, but I am simply stating that doing it during the voting periods can lead to confusion. I can not stop you, but maybe you should keep that in mind. And frankly, you're flip flopping on the interpretation of the rules. I did not take this position with the intention of regularly bending the rules, I had a frankly sh**t situation at the start that I wanted to clean up, and now that has been done. But now you're complaining that I'm following the rules. I am not responsible if senators don't show up to vote. I am not responsible if they don't pay attention to what I say. I have never complained and demanded a redo when I have missed votes before. And the "acting" thing is just ridiculous, styling myself without that qualifier does not change what my actual position is.

[West_Midlander]

The voting statement was included in a three sentence post and voting was open for five days. At that point senators are responsible for their own missed votes, I can not overturn the rules over an inability to read three sentences (all of which were about the same topic) and post an aye or nay within five days. If anything buried the announcement, it was the persistent argument during the voting period.

You have bent the rules to prevent the tabling of bills twice before when you saw fit and also failed to close an amendment vote for days while another vote was started on this bill. You also further saw fit to unilaterally assume the office of "President pro tempore" when the rules said that you could only assume the Acting position without being elected.

Furthermore, what you consider argument, I consider debate. Or should this body only post votes without debate in your view?

You're allowed to debate at any point, but I am simply stating that doing it during the voting periods can lead to confusion. I can not stop you, but maybe you should keep that in mind. And frankly, you're flip flopping on the interpretation of the rules. I did not take this position with the intention of regularly bending the rules, I had a frankly sh**t situation at the start that I wanted to clean up, and now that has been done. But now you're complaining that I'm following the rules. I am not responsible if senators don't show up to vote. I am not responsible if they don't pay attention to what I say. I have never complained and demanded a redo when I have missed votes before. And the "acting" thing is just ridiculous, styling myself without that qualifier does not change what my actual position is.

It breaks precedent in this body to quietly open another vote once one has already started. As I said, in the past, votes typically coincided, beginning at the same time, or votes took place one after the other, but nothing I can say could convince you of your wrongdoing in any case since you were even adamant about refusing to immediately recognize bills as tabled in accordance with Senate rules. When you saw fit, you also motioned for the rules to be waived, so do not lecture me about following the rules to a T in all cases even in spite of poor and unclear management of this body. I am also not aware of any case where you missed a critical vote because of a vote quietly being opened while another was already ongoing so your false equivalency doesn't hold water. Finally, do you stand by your assertion that WD's critical vote was against the Muaddib amendment in spite of the low likelihood of that? Even if the Vice President breaks the tie against the amendment (likely), I do not believe a likely invalid vote count should be upheld.

[Sirius_]

If you had a problem with both votes being held concurrently, you should have raised that objection when I opened the vote and not after I closed it. Multiple concurrent amendment votes is definitely something that has occurred in recent memory. And do I need to announce everything in big colorful letters now?

Earlier today I had it in my head that West_Dem's vote was not crucial, I was wrong about that. I will invite the Vice President to break the tie, but it doesn't look like it will matter as your latest amendment has received no objection.

[West_Midlander]

If you had a problem with both votes being held concurrently, you should have raised that objection when I opened the vote and not after I closed it. Multiple concurrent amendment votes is definitely something that has occurred in recent memory. And do I need to announce everything in big colorful letters now?

Earlier today I had it in my head that West_Dem's vote was not crucial, I was wrong about that. I will invite the Vice President to break the tie, but it doesn't look like it will matter as your latest amendment has received no objection.

I do not have an issue with concurrent votes but with concurrent votes beginning at different times, i.e., once one of the votes has already begun, as I explained already twice.

[Dr. MB]

nay on all the amendments

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I officially object to the new re-introduced amendment by WM. Truman and OBD shouldn't be snuck in this kind of manner.

[Sirius_]

The objection has been heard, we are currently awaiting the tiebreaker

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

Whatever we're voting on, I vote No on all of it

[West_Midlander]

I officially object to the new re-introduced amendment by WM. Truman and OBD shouldn't be snuck in this kind of manner.

"Snuck in" in what kind of manner, exactly? Do you believe that an amendment without an objection is always an amendment being snuck in? Or is everything you support, at a particular moment in time, done in a supposedly untoward way?

Also, it is incredibly puzzling how Senators LT and Wulfric clearly oppose the OBD+Truman amendment but only abstained on the OBD+Truman+WD amendment? Is WD "so bad" in y'alls opinion that the first amendment moves your vote to abstain but otherwise you must vote Nay? But he's at the same time not bad enough to vote Aye?

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I officially object to the new re-introduced amendment by WM. Truman and OBD shouldn't be snuck in this kind of manner.

"Snuck in" in what kind of manner, exactly? Do you believe that an amendment without an objection is always an amendment being snuck in? Or is everything you support, at a particular moment in time, done in a supposedly untoward way?

Also, it is incredibly puzzling how Senators LT and Wulfric clearly oppose the OBD+Truman amendment but only abstained on the OBD+Truman+WD amendment? Is WD "so bad" in y'alls opinion that the first amendment moves your vote to abstain but otherwise you must vote Nay? But he's at the same time not bad enough to vote Aye?

This is something that should have a vote of the full Senate. I could still vote abstain again.

[West_Midlander]

I officially object to the new re-introduced amendment by WM. Truman and OBD shouldn't be snuck in this kind of manner.

"Snuck in" in what kind of manner, exactly? Do you believe that an amendment without an objection is always an amendment being snuck in? Or is everything you support, at a particular moment in time, done in a supposedly untoward way?

Also, it is incredibly puzzling how Senators LT and Wulfric clearly oppose the OBD+Truman amendment but only abstained on the OBD+Truman+WD amendment? Is WD "so bad" in y'alls opinion that the first amendment moves your vote to abstain but otherwise you must vote Nay? But he's at the same time not bad enough to vote Aye?

This is something that should have a vote of the full Senate. I could still vote abstain again.

OK. I have said as much in the past without accusing the sponsor of trying to "sneak" things in.