Users browsing this thread:

~~Unibot~~ · 01-23-2015, 07:32 PM

(01-23-2015, 07:17 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Again; not the Assembly Uni. Your authority in the GC is nebulous at best.

The delegate already said the GC would work very similar to the Assembly. Furthermore, there is no law with regards to how a GC should operate. Therefore, it does not need to work in the manner in which Hileville's GCs operated (which were fundamentally a constitutional free-for-all). There was never anything in the constitution which enabled that practice.

(This post was last modified: 01-23-2015, 07:32 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

Escade · 01-23-2015, 07:41 PM

I believe that the GC should be run as close to normal procedure to prevent shenanigans and in total agreement with Tsunamy in regards to that. However, that does not prevent people from voting to extend the GC.

Also, it would be kind of nice to be aware of the GC in some more tangible way. I mean I would probably send out mass TGs or advertise it loud and clear.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

***Tsunamy*** · 01-24-2015, 12:42 AM

(01-23-2015, 07:41 PM)Escade Wrote: I believe that the GC should be run as close to normal procedure to prevent shenanigans and in total agreement with Tsunamy in regards to that. However, that does not prevent people from voting to extend the GC.

Also, it would be kind of nice to be aware of the GC in some more tangible way. I mean I would probably send out mass TGs or advertise it loud and clear.

We sent a TG at the beginning.

Beyond that -- I just can't right now. Seriously.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***Tsunamy*** · 01-24-2015, 12:09 PM

Actually, I was trying to figure out what we're all horribly offended by, but honestly: tl;dr.

Now, someone summarize what the problem is? Because as I'm understanding it, we now what to vote on conflicting pieces of legislation because ... well obviously.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 01-24-2015, 12:23 PM by Admin.)

southern bellz · 01-24-2015, 12:19 PM

For the record, providing my full support.

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

***sandaoguo*** · 01-24-2015, 12:41 PM

@Tsu: Unibot is upset that I proposed this minutes after the deadline for the pleb on conflicting bills. Tbh, I just have good timing apparently, because I didn't even know there was a deadline.

We disagree over his interpretation that QD's proposal didn't contradict other bicameral proposals. I think those of us who supported it understood all along that it was an alternative to the other proposals, meaning voting for it would result in not having a bicameral legislature.

For some reason I don't really understand, Unibot thinks it's undemocratic or something to put this alternative up to vote. I don't really know. I just got angry messages when I was at work, and I'm far too exhausted for all that.

Bottom line is that I see no reason why we can't just vote on these at the same time. I don't understand why we wouldn't, considering it's supposed to be a choice between Hop's proposal and mine anyways.

***Tsunamy*** · 01-24-2015, 12:58 PM

(01-24-2015, 12:41 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: @Tsu: Unibot is upset that I proposed this minutes after the deadline for the pleb on conflicting bills. Tbh, I just have good timing apparently, because I didn't even know there was a deadline.

We disagree over his interpretation that QD's proposal didn't contradict other bicameral proposals. I think those of us who supported it understood all along that it was an alternative to the other proposals, meaning voting for it would result in not having a bicameral legislature.

For some reason I don't really understand, Unibot thinks it's undemocratic or something to put this alternative up to vote. I don't really know. I just got angry messages when I was at work, and I'm far too exhausted for all that.

Bottom line is that I see no reason why we can't just vote on these at the same time. I don't understand why we wouldn't, considering it's supposed to be a choice between Hop's proposal and mine anyways.

OK. Well, if they aren't conflicting proposals, there should be no problem voting on both at the same time. If they are conflicting proposals, then we should only vote an official vote on one of them.

Can we have a vote on all of the proposals with the understanding that the most popular will receive a full up-or-down vote?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 01-24-2015, 01:04 PM

A second vote seems redundant; if something doesn't attain 75% first time round why would we vote on it again?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Tsunamy*** · 01-24-2015, 01:13 PM

(01-24-2015, 01:04 PM)Belschaft Wrote: A second vote seems redundant; if something doesn't attain 75% first time round why would we vote on it again?

Well if nothing attains the 75%, we'll scrap it.

EDIT: Alright, Uni, will you be on board with this?

We'll list the proposals and see which we would vote for. Then we'll vote on the highest proposal over 75%.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 01-24-2015, 01:15 PM by Admin.)

**Belschaft** · 01-24-2015, 01:20 PM

That seems ideal. Of the various proposals I'd be inclined to vote for two, Glen one. Some might be willing to support all of them.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES