Unibot, you can't stop this from happening. It has my full support and others seems to support it as well.

He's going to try however, and for one simple reason; to present a false dichotomy of his favored reform vs. no reform, and in doing so gain the votes of people who want reform but perhaps of a more limited kind.

It's partisan hackery.

I have to say, even though I back Unibot in most things, I agree 100% with Belschaft on this one.

Belschaft: Because Tsunamy already declared that the Great Council would operate with as little deviation from usual procedure as possible - partly because he had bad experiences in the Great Councils that you ran, which saw lax procedure pushing through colossal constitutional reform.

I imagine a vote beginning on a proposal whose text won't even be ready until a day prior to voting, would count as one of those things we were trying NOT to do with this Great Council.

Besides the issues of a rushed legislature, it's also totally possible for two contradicting proposals to go to vote and for both pass if people don't understand they're contradictory and I have a duty to ensure that contradictory proposals do not pass together. I established a plebiscite to decide that and you did not prepare your proposal in time for it - and then proceeded to make a mockery of our legislative process by seconding a procedure only mere moments after proposing it! 

Considering I've never run a great council - though I did convene one - someone is talking complete crap.

If this doesn't go to vote, the GC will be a sham. The original proposal was framed as an ALTERNATIVE to more radical proposals, until you, Unibot, decided to reframe it as simply a tag on ministry. Why would I support the original proposal if it would end up giving MORE power to the Gameside? It's common sense.

All I did was restate what the supporters of the original proposal understood it to be all along.

It doesn't matter if it was an "alternative" - the proposals could be simultaneously passed without contradiction - so they were not contradicting laws. My job is to pay attention to the details and prevent a contradiction of laws, not to make everything work the way you thought it might.

The proposal was "effectively" a tag-on ministry IF both proposals passed; and there was no reason written in law why the two proposals couldn't pass together.

I very much resent the accusation that the GC is a "sham". I'm doing my best to ensure policy and procedure is upheld. My best suggestion would be to run a resolution right now in the GC to delay voting for another week (or more) to give time for the GC to discuss your proposal, plus the demilitarisation issue and hold a plebiscite with any contradicting legislation on a new set date.

A plebiscite is a distraction, still designed to provide a false dichotomy at an eventual vote. The logical thing is to bring all proposals to simultaneous vote and allow citizens to vote for as many or as few as they like.

(01-23-2015, 07:10 PM)Belschaft Wrote: A plebiscite is a distraction, still designed to provide a false dichotomy at an eventual vote. The logical thing is to bring all proposals to simultaneous vote and allow citizens to vote for as many or as few as they like.

And ignore my duties as Chair to prevent contradicting legislation from going to vote: hell no. 

Again; not the Assembly Uni. Your authority in the GC is nebulous at best.