| Poll: How much of a extension do you want? You do not have permission to vote in this poll. |
|||
| No Extension | 2 | 7.41% | |
| Five Day Extension (Feb 05) | 5 | 18.52% | |
| A Week Extension (Feb 07) | 6 | 22.22% | |
| Ten Day Extension (Feb 10) | 8 | 29.63% | |
| Two Week Extension (Feb 14) | 6 | 22.22% | |
| Total | 27 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
| Resolution to Extend the GC |
|
I'm sorry for pressing this suggestion so soon, but I think there is a need for extending the GC - the proposers of the alternative bicameral proposal were busy in RL, plus the Assembly does not seem settled on any side with regards to demilitarization ... and there is little text formulated for those different proposals yet.
Quote: If we can bring this to vote tonight, it will decide whether we extend the GC or go to vote with what we have prepared.
That extension seems a bit too long to me, more than 2 weeks. Not opposed to an extension.
Perhaps only a week-long extension would suffice?
(01-23-2015, 07:18 PM)Aramanchovia Wrote: That extension seems a bit too long to me, more than 2 weeks. Not opposed to an extension. Bearing in mind we need 5 days for vote. So it extends discussion really until Feb 10. That's 10 more days of discussion than we were expected to have. A week extension would be Feb 07. We'd need to start voting by Feb 02. This is possible. Would people prefer that?
I'll be honest and say that an extension would be a little bit irksome given I worked to bring a proposal to completion within the time limit despite RL work demands. That being said, if there is to be an extension, I would agree with Aram and say that 2 weeks seems more appropriate.
I know, I appreciate you were on time with your proposal, but at this point, Glen-Rhodes and Belschaft are accusing the GC of being a "sham" for not allowing their proposal to go to vote, when they just brought it to house with less than two days for us to formulate text for it and discuss it.
Unless we're willing to put aside their concerns, an extension seems to me to be the fairest way within our policy to pursue.
I've added a poll to this thread to help decide. Please use it. You can vote multiple times.
(01-23-2015, 07:25 PM)Unibot Wrote: I know, I appreciate you were on time with your proposal, but at this point, Glen-Rhodes and Belschaft are accusing the GC of being a "sham" for not allowing their proposal to go to vote, when they just brought it to house with less than two days for us to formulate text for it and discuss it. Sorry if I was a bit snappy, just a little frustration. I don't envy you the task of overseeing all this! I need to have a think on this but probably will cast a vote in favour of a short extension.
Do we need a resolution on this? Why don't we just informally agree to extend it, and continue discussing?
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Previous Positions
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |