Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 01-23-2015, 05:50 PM

Since the Chair is insistent on saying QD's proposal to move in baby steps is compatible with adopting a bicameral legislature, I'm moving my own proposal.

We should have a Minister of Gameside Affairs, which would be a Cabinet level ministry. The Minister would function as the Chair does, acting as a liaison between the forums and the game-side. The minister would have a full vote in the Cabinet.

This idea would be adopted as an alternative to any other bicameral legislature proposal. The game-side may continue to vote in non-binding polls, which the Minister would help communicate about between the forum and the game-side. The Minister would be elected by plurality, as other ministers, through a game-side poll limited to long-time residents (whatever that option is called).

(This post was last modified: 02-06-2015, 03:40 PM by Tsunamy.)

**Belschaft** · 01-23-2015, 05:51 PM

WA/Influential is the one your looking for.

Also, seconded.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

Aramanchovia · 01-23-2015, 05:53 PM

Less than a minute for a second. Is that a new record?

**Belschaft** · 01-23-2015, 05:55 PM

It's not a new idea. It's an old one being submitted by a new sponsor after prior withdrawal. And I was a previous supporter.

We're simply trying to bring this back into play despite it's unconscionable omission.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

Aramanchovia · 01-23-2015, 05:59 PM

I wasn't saying I was against it btw. Wouldn't be my first choice, bur I am in favour of giving people on the main site more say, and although not a major improvement, this does do that.

~~Unibot~~ · 01-23-2015, 06:03 PM

Your proposal is too late - we already posted the plebiscite. Posting a "seconding" two minutes after you've posted your idea doesn't make this maneuver any more encouraging.

Given you've announced you're withdrawing your proposal, Belschaft and the Glen-Rhodes proposal was proposed too late - we will begin on December 25 to vote on Hospolis's bill and any other private member bills that do not contradict Hospolis's bill will also go to vote - that includes QuietDad's proposal.

We can consider your rival (contradicting) proposal at any time AFTER the Great Council. I'm not going to rush to put something to vote two days after it was seconded - when it was seconded within two minutes. That's ridiculous and you know it - both of you should have known better.

**Belschaft** · 01-23-2015, 06:03 PM

This is something that most people concerned about the nature of the more extreme proposals could live with. I personally favor unicameral enfranchisement - I'm not sure what Glen's exact position is.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Belschaft** · 01-23-2015, 06:06 PM

(01-23-2015, 06:03 PM)Unibot Wrote: Your proposal is too late - we already posted the plebiscite. Posting a "seconding" two minutes after you've posted your idea doesn't make this maneuver any more encouraging.

Given you've announced you're withdrawing your proposal, Belschaft and the Glen-Rhodes proposal was proposed too late - we will begin on December 25 to vote on Hospolis's bill and any other private member bills that do not contradict Hospolis's bill will also go to vote - that includes QuietDad's proposal.

We can consider your rival (contradicting) proposal at any time AFTER the Great Council. I'm not going to rush to put something to vote two days after it was seconded - when it was seconded within two minutes. That's ridiculous and you know it - both of you should have known better.

Upon what basis do you decide that only Hopolis' proposal will be presented to the Great Council? There are at present three separate proposals in active promotion, each with separate supporters. All three can be voted on at the same time.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Unibot~~ · 01-23-2015, 06:09 PM

Contradicting proposals cannot go to vote at the same time.

Quote:Section 3 – Contradicting Legislation
1. The Chair shall use their discretionary powers to avoid opening votes on contradicting legislation or resolutions simultaneously.
2. If multiple, contradicting proposals have been proposed, the Chair may elect to hold a plebiscite to decide which proposal shall be voted on first.

I gave you a time/date for the plebiscite and you missed the plebiscite. We're going to vote on Jan 25 for the proposals that don't contradict the only Bicameral proposal that was prepared for Jan 23. We can open a vote on this proposal sometime after the Great Council.

Bear in mind, if I were to bring this proposal to vote on Jan 25, voters would have had less than two days to discuss this proposal. That would be unacceptable.

(This post was last modified: 01-23-2015, 06:12 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

**Belschaft** · 01-23-2015, 06:17 PM

This is not a new proposal, nor is this the Assembly - it's rules do not apply.

Please provide one good reason not to allow citizens to vote on all proposals, with - in the unlikely event that more than one receives the necessary 75% majority - the most popular being enacted?

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

PREVIOUS ROLES