| Changes to Parole |
I think there has already been a thread regarding competing/contradicting legislation.
In regards to HEM's absence, I spoke with him very briefly yesterday or the day before, and he said he thought he had the flu. I haven't seen him online since them, so it's probably safe to assume his illness is keeping him away.
Since the legislation is already at vote, I'll simply express my dismay at the dysfunction of this body. Having two competing bills at vote simultaneously makes absolutely no sense. (12-05-2014, 03:36 AM)Sopo Pacifica Wrote: I'll simply express my dismay at the dysfunction of this body. Having two competing bills at vote simultaneously makes absolutely no sense. This is why I opened up a discussion on contradicting bills last month; the Court just recently rejected the notion of discretionary powers on the part of the Chair. At most I could have waited until one or the other motion passed, but I would have still had to have brought both to vote if no-one withdrew their motion-or-second (and this appeared to be the case). There were hostile protests from one side that I was being biased to the other for not running a simultaneous (and potentially paradoxical) vote. Our current system relies on the Assembly participating in good faith and considering different reform ideas with genuine sincerity -- as soon as "race to the queue" attitudes appear, the system lacks a control valve and contradictions can easily arise and debate can be stonewalled/circumvented. It was an issue I brought up a few weeks ago, and we're starting to see the fuller consequences as I had argued, of the Court's ruling. Do we need legislation regarding contradicting bills, discretionary powers and a better system that avoids the "race to the queue" syndrome? Yes, absolutely.
I proposed some. No one cared.
The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) Provost, Magisterium Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army Journalist, East Pacific News Service Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific
This situation wouldn't have occurred if you'd done your job and brought the first resolution to vote when you should have, instead of refusing to do so until the Court had to be involved.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
Your attempt at using the court to score political points against Unibot hardly impacted his decision, considering you had submitted your case a while ago.
Unibot put both up to vote because he was sick of your recall baiting. If you guys cause a shitfest with our laws and legal systems, so be it. (12-05-2014, 06:31 AM)Unibot Wrote:(12-05-2014, 03:36 AM)Sopo Pacifica Wrote: I'll simply express my dismay at the dysfunction of this body. Having two competing bills at vote simultaneously makes absolutely no sense. I don't necessarily blame you; it appears to be a systemic problem. I'll go look at that discussion.
(12-05-2014, 10:12 AM)Belschaft Wrote: This situation wouldn't have occurred if you'd done your job and brought the first resolution to vote when you should have, instead of refusing to do so until the Court had to be involved. It's a good thing HEM's proposal wasn't brought to vote so quickly. If it was, those flaws in it might never have been found.
This has passed with 65% - meeting the necessary 50+1% threshold.
With 25% support, this proposal has failed to reach the necessary 50+1% support threshold.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |