Be that as it may.

 

In your opinion.

To be honest I find this attitude quite offputting. If that's how the rest of this debate is going to go we might as well motion, second and get over with the vote.

It's always a sign of great things to come when someone who joined the Assembly a month ago acts in a manner like this.

You're right, but, just ignore it. Not really necessary to reply like that. Kris started off right, but the rest of it is just passive aggressive nonsense.

Vandy, you shouldn't be curt and give zero substance replies because others disagree with you or dislike the proposal/discussion. If you don't like it, ignore it or actually engage in debate.

I thank Moon, and agree, my apologies for all who may have been offended by my curt replies.

I advocate because I believe passionately in that which I have put forward, and really do believe that legislation should look to serve future South Pacificans, not simply those currently in residence.

And you're right, I joined this body a month ago, and in that time, have had few veterans of this Chamber, save for the Chair, reach out to offer assistance in orientating me to tradition, expectation, or the precedence of existing law and procedure.

Nor have I heard from any singular individual at the Ministry of Engagement, or elsewhere.

Yes there is a "guide", but that doesn't cover everything.

So, as it pertains to this position, I think it's important to have someone, familiar with the rules, procedure, privy to possible conflicts, and capable of pouring through the MDLA to identify possible issues, large and small, which the Assembly might want to fix (and, btw, the fact that Hiya is pretty much the only individual who is doing the latter, to any significant degree, thus far, and finding a great deal which, large or small, should be addressed, is proof that individual legislators are not doing it themselves, now, and haven't done it in the past).

To simply have it as an option, which, for one reason or another, has not been utilized, and may not be in the future, is, history and the present has born out, neither sufficent for this current session, and derelict in our obligation to leave a clear and operable government for future residents, that isn't dependent on the understanding and knowledge of a select few whose continued presence is not guranteed.

DELEGATE MINISTER to the SOUTH PACIFIC
from the FRR OF ADRIATICAN
CULTURE LEAD - NSCW
LEGISLATOR of the ASSEMBLY

(This post was last modified: 11-17-2020, 03:46 PM by Delegate Vanderpool.)

Reply

So you might want to not refer to people who aren't the Delegate as "the Delegate". I get that you are trying to Roleplay, but the Assembly isn't and never has been a Roleyplay envrioment.

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

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

So you might want to not refer to people who aren't the Delegate as "the Delegate". I get that you are trying to Roleplay, but the Assembly isn't and never has been a Roleyplay envrioment.

Sorry, that was more out of habbit then anything, my apologies, thanks for pointing that out Bel.

DELEGATE MINISTER to the SOUTH PACIFIC
from the FRR OF ADRIATICAN
CULTURE LEAD - NSCW
LEGISLATOR of the ASSEMBLY

(This post was last modified: 11-17-2020, 03:45 PM by Delegate Vanderpool.)

Reply

Madame Chair, as the minimum period for debate on the amendment proposed, has passed, I move that discussion be suspended and the item moved to a vote.

DELEGATE MINISTER to the SOUTH PACIFIC
from the FRR OF ADRIATICAN
CULTURE LEAD - NSCW
LEGISLATOR of the ASSEMBLY

Reply

I'll second it

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

Reply

This has been brought to vote here.

I have been things

Reply

(7) Any legislator may motion to cancel voting and withdraw a bill that has been brought to a vote so revisions can be made. The Chair may cancel voting on the bill, provided that there is a reason deemed sufficient by the Chair and has no objection within 24 hours of the motion being made and seconded. Should the motion and seconding be made within the final 24 hours of voting, the legislation shall not pass or fail until the Chair makes a ruling on the motion.

Given that this bill has been brought to vote seemingly for the purpose of getting this debate over with - given the overwhelming regional reaction - and the conduct of the proponent of this bill, I'd like to motion to cancel the vote. I'll cite the previous Whole India proposals as precedent.

(Probably a longshot, but figured I'd try.   )

(This post was last modified: 11-22-2020, 12:57 AM by Farengeto.)

Reply

Second, if I have to.

(This post was last modified: 11-22-2020, 02:37 AM by Domais.)

Reply

Given there is no plan for revision presented by the legislator moving for withdrawing, as is required, and it seems as though this is just trying to withdraw a bill before it fails, I object to the motion to withdraw.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

(This post was last modified: 11-22-2020, 05:07 PM by Omega.)

Reply

Given there is no plan for revision presented by the legislator moving for withdrawing, as is required, and it seems as though this is just trying to withdraw a bill before it fails, I object to the motion to withdraw.

Is there any sort of process to object to motions? If yes, I side with you on this one.

This bill is preposterous. Basically you’ve invented a position that will tell us whether or not to vote yay or nay on legislation? Whether or not legislation is good or bad for us? Why can we not figure it out ourselves?

[redcoat slayer]

Reply