SB 117-52: Civil Political Debate Act - Tabled

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

Civil Political Debate Act
An Act to Promote Civil Political Debate in the Senate

Section 1: Title and Intent
1. This act shall be known as the "Civil Political Debate Act".
2. The intent of this act is to empower the Senate President and President Pro Tempore to enforce civility in the Senate.

Section 2: Ban on Personal Attacks
1. No Senator may impugn the intent of, or ascribe motive to, a fellow Senator during debate on a bill in the Senate.
2. No Senator may comment in a personal nature on a fellow Senator during debate on a bill in the Senate.

Section 3: Enforcement
1. At any time, a Senator may ask the presiding officer of the Senate to adjudicate if a comment made by a fellow Senator violates this Act. If the presiding officer finds the comments of a Senator do violate this Act, the presiding officer shall suspend the offending Senator from all debate and voting for a 24-hour period.
2. After the presiding officer has made a ruling, a Senator may call a vote to reverse the ruling of the presiding officer. A 24-hour vote shall be held on the question after the motion is seconded and the opinion of the body shall be final.
3. If a Senator is found, either by an unreversed ruling of the presiding officer or by a vote of the Senate, to have violated this act three times in a single term, the offending Senator shall be suspended from introducing legislation for the remainder of the term.

Section 4: Enactment
1. This Act shall take effect upon its passage.

Sponsor: Dkrol
Occupying: Slot 3

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

Amendment:

Civil Political Debate Act
An Act to Promote Civil Political Debate in the Senate

Section 1: Title and Intent
1. This act shall be known as the "Civil Political Debate Act".
2. The intent of this act is to empower the Senate President and President Pro Tempore to enforce civility in the Senate.

Section 2: Ban on Personal Attacks
1. No Senator may impugn the intent of, or ascribe motive to, a fellow Senator during debate on a bill in the Senate.
2. No Senator may comment in a personal nature on a fellow Senator during debate on a bill in the Senate.

Section 3: Enforcement
1. At any time, a Senator may ask the presiding officer of the Senate to adjudicate if a comment made by a fellow Senator violates this Act. If the presiding officer finds the comments of a Senator do violate this Act, the presiding officer shall suspend the offending Senator from all debate and voting for a 24-hour period.
2. If the presiding officer finds the comments of a Senator do not violate this Act After the presiding officer has made a ruling, a Senator may call a vote to override reverse the ruling of the presiding officer. A 24-hour vote shall be held on the question after the motion is seconded and the opinion of the body shall be final.
3. If a Senator is found, either by an unreversed ruling of the presiding officer or by a vote of the Senate, to have violated this act three times in a single term, the offending Senator shall be suspended from introducing legislation for the remainder of the term.

Section 4: Enactment
1. This Act shall take effect upon its passage.

If we're going to ascribe this new power to the PPT, it should be challengeable in both directions just like the analogous motion IRL is.

[DKrol]

Amendment:

Civil Political Debate Act
An Act to Promote Civil Political Debate in the Senate

Section 1: Title and Intent
1. This act shall be known as the "Civil Political Debate Act".
2. The intent of this act is to empower the Senate President and President Pro Tempore to enforce civility in the Senate.

Section 2: Ban on Personal Attacks
1. No Senator may impugn the intent of, or ascribe motive to, a fellow Senator during debate on a bill in the Senate.
2. No Senator may comment in a personal nature on a fellow Senator during debate on a bill in the Senate.

Section 3: Enforcement
1. At any time, a Senator may ask the presiding officer of the Senate to adjudicate if a comment made by a fellow Senator violates this Act. If the presiding officer finds the comments of a Senator do violate this Act, the presiding officer shall suspend the offending Senator from all debate and voting for a 24-hour period.
2. If the presiding officer finds the comments of a Senator do not violate this Act After the presiding officer has made a ruling, a Senator may call a vote to override reverse the ruling of the presiding officer. A 24-hour vote shall be held on the question after the motion is seconded and the opinion of the body shall be final.
3. If a Senator is found, either by an unreversed ruling of the presiding officer or by a vote of the Senate, to have violated this act three times in a single term, the offending Senator shall be suspended from introducing legislation for the remainder of the term.

Section 4: Enactment
1. This Act shall take effect upon its passage.

If we're going to ascribe this new power to the PPT, it should be challengeable in both directions just like the analogous motion IRL is.

Accepted as friendly.

The political tenor in the Senate is, in my opinion, very negative and personal. I know that there are times when I open a debate and I’m worried to see what’s been said while I was away. I don’t like this and I don’t think anyone, who has a mandate from the people to serve, should have to be insulted in a personal manner.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I support this act.

[fhtagn]

Imagine if someone on the right submitted this while in power as an attempt to silence the minority in the Senate.

100% chance the people supporting this now wouldn't have the same support.

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

While the bill is for a good cause, that of decorum in the senate. It would make more sense that modelling the behaviour you want to see would make more sense. Common courtesy, rather than having a more than likely partisan presiding officer, that can and likely will lead to selective understandings and enforcement.

[DKrol]

I do not believe that simply “modeling” civil discourse will correct the issues I’ve seen this term. There needs to be a serious enforcement mechanism.

[fhtagn]

I do not believe that simply “modeling” civil discourse will correct the issues I’ve seen this term. There needs to be a serious enforcement mechanism.

Except this bill does not create any serious enforcement mechanism outside of opening the door to serious abuses of power.

Say in a few sessions the SNP were to take the majority: this could easily allow for stripping the ability to vote and submit legislation from any member of the Peace Party with a PPT willing to play along. Nothing about this bill would stop it from happening. Especially with the extremely vague reasons you're offering in this bill (which is up to one person's interpretation, which may not be correct) and only requiring a simple majority support if a vote is called to challenge the PPT's ruling. You are only contributing to the game's toxicity, whether you are willing to acknowledge this fact or not.

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

Amendment Adopted

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

I clearly need some sort of psychological evaluation because I'm actually finding the comments of the Senator from Virginia persuasive. If we can come up with some objective standards to base this on I'd be supportive but as it is it's just a way for the PPT to hold up the floor unilaterally without the added stigma of actually censuring or expelling someone, even at a higher threshold.

[Joseph Cao]

If y'all want a method to enforce firm, effective, and immediate penalties on offensive personal comments in the Senate, may I suggest having the two parties step outside the chamber and resolve it at ten paces?

Meme aside this is not a bill I think would work, because there are no objective standards for "civility" – we have a mod team on the forum for a reason. This is not something to be put wholly in the hands of one person.

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

Asking UC to table this

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I agree with Dwarven. So i give consent for tabling.

[DKrol]

I object. I believe this is a good bill with good intent that can do good for the Atlasian people.

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

Since Laki seconded we'll proceed to a vote on the tabling motion.

Aye

[Vice President Christian Man]

Nay

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

Aye to table

[DKrol]

Nay

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Aye

[fhtagn]

Aye

[RFayette]

Aye

[reagente]

Aye

[nerd73]

Aye

[Coastal Elitist]

Aye

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Nay