SENATE BILL: OSPR Amendment (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Third times the charm on changing that topic line, by the way. Stupid connection.

[CatoMinor]

aye

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Aye

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Aye

[Ban my account ffs!]

Nay.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Repeal Article 3, Section 3, so that the intent of Article 10, Section 1 is actually followed.

This is the reintroduction, correct? Yea, I have often wondered why 10:1 was the anti 3:3. It is also an incredible nuisance, at the beginning of each Senate term.

[bgwah]

...nay...

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

aye

[Bacon King]

Repeal Article 3, Section 3, so that the intent of Article 10, Section 1 is actually followed.

This is the reintroduction, correct? Yea, I have often wondered why 10:1 was the anti 3:3. It is also an incredible nuisance, at the beginning of each Senate term.

Yeah, exactly. I've never gone back and looked at the debate whenever 10:1 was added so I'm not entirely sure on the intention behind it, but it seems like it's saying "hey we shouldn't have to reintroduce bills" without actually repealing the relevant requirements.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I offer the following amendment as an addition to the current text.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

The amendment has passed 5-3.

[Napoleon]

Offering as friendly to Article 3, Section 2.

2. There shall be ten slots available for debating legislation on the Senate floor. Of these slots, three shall be available for any purpose; two shall be available for any purpose except the debating of Amendments to the Constitution; two shall be available only for legislation that the PPT considers to be related to forum affairs or emergency legislation which can be introduced pursuant to Article 8, Section 1 of this resolution; one shall be available for any piece of legislation, regardless of its location in the queue, at the PPT's discretion; one shall be available for debating veto overrides pursuant to Article 5, Section 3; and one shall be available for legislation related to foreign policy and international affairs.

[Marokai Backbeat]

What I would support is some mechanism that would give the PPT the power to determine what legislation meets the floor and win. People talk about reform but their ideas are tired. This would be something that actually leads to debates over a more concentrated legislative agenda. That being said, I doubt we would find support for such a measure at this time.

I'm curious what Bgwah thinks of this idea, considering that he once mocked and complained to me for mentioning how I used the power to strike legislation from the que because I didn't think it was worthwhile.

The power you speak of sort of already exists, but it's easily overridden. I don't think it would be wise to make the position so incredibly partisan, but I wouldn't be surprised to see you all go along with it, considering y'all were the ones to come up with it.

If it was passed I'm not sure it would really have the grand positive benefits you act like it will, though. If anything it'll just occasionally cause minor kerfuffles and at worst it makes the Senate controlled by biased PPTs who prefer their party's members or any ally's members more important than everyone elses' proposals for no reason.

[Napoleon]

I've said this before, but it isn't a "y'all" thing. I am thinking out loud about ways to make the game more interesting. I thought you were all about that. I guess my party registration means I can't come up with ideas, and any ideas I have become JCP policy.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I love it when people come up with ideas, I just think your idea either turns the Senate into a procedurally biased circus, or it has no effect at all. In either case I don't think that change would be worth it. I just found it curious. The only partisan point I came up with really was wondering how Bgwah would consider that proposal, considering that he once bitched at me for what you're arguing should be formalized.

[Napoleon]

Bgwah can like it or not. Of course I like bgwah but I don't serve him. If some people like my idea, I'm happy. If others don't, I understand. If I get an honest dialogue, it is worth it. All I ask is that these discussions don't become partisan bitchfests. When I lightheartedly reference a policy the JCP supported and the RPP opposed, I am called out. Neither party is monolithic and to treat the JCP as such insults myself and my colleagues. Trying to create a narrative where the JCP wins everything easily is immature and intellectually dishonest. My first vote was cast for a losing JCP ticket. You, Tmthforu, and Duke have all posted about how Snowguy is the next President. I support him, but I do not assume or take for granted a victory. I don't in my own race either. An unwillingness to budge will cost you support. Running on a platform of thinly veiled "reforms" essentially targeting the JCP instead of embracing policy based proposals isn't appealing. Especially when painting all of us with an "anti-reform" label can be proven untrue. Former Senator Shua earned respect from righties and lefties alike by actually participating in policy's discussions and offering opinions and ideas. That's why I can support people like ZuWo or JBrase that I often disagree with: they put their best foot forward, stand up for what they believe in, and don't try to turn everything into a partisan war.

[bgwah]

I offer the following amendment as an addition to the current text.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does the sponsor accept this amendment as friendly?

[Napoleon]

Friendly

[bgwah]

Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I like Napoleon's amendment on the slots. We need a foreign policy slot and second Emergency slot for sure.

[bgwah]

The amendment has passed. Onto the next amendment! Senators have 24 hours to object.

Offering as friendly to Article 3, Section 2.

2. There shall be ten slots available for debating legislation on the Senate floor. Of these slots, three shall be available for any purpose; two shall be available for any purpose except the debating of Amendments to the Constitution; two shall be available only for legislation that the PPT considers to be related to forum affairs or emergency legislation which can be introduced pursuant to Article 8, Section 1 of this resolution; one shall be available for any piece of legislation, regardless of its location in the queue, at the PPT's discretion; one shall be available for debating veto overrides pursuant to Article 5, Section 3; and one shall be available for legislation related to foreign policy and international affairs.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Since this is the last leftover from my Reign of terror and bgwah can't update OP to reflect text changes, here is the current text.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

The amendment has passed. Onto the next amendment! Senators have 24 hours to object.

Offering as friendly to Article 3, Section 2.

2. There shall be ten slots available for debating legislation on the Senate floor. Of these slots, three shall be available for any purpose; two shall be available for any purpose except the debating of Amendments to the Constitution; two shall be available only for legislation that the PPT considers to be related to forum affairs or emergency legislation which can be introduced pursuant to Article 8, Section 1 of this resolution; one shall be available for any piece of legislation, regardless of its location in the queue, at the PPT's discretion; one shall be available for debating veto overrides pursuant to Article 5, Section 3; and one shall be available for legislation related to foreign policy and international affairs.

The amendment has passed.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I guess this looks alright.  I'm still not sure about limiting any one senator to three bills at a time, but I guess it's fair.

I move for cloture on this bill.  It's time we take it to a vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We have included quite a bit in this one and adding further might be too much. We also have another OSPR amendment in the queue that shouldn't be that far away from coming up that we chould always attach five or six more changes to. Half of it has been included in this one, so it has plenty of room. But I think Napoleon should have final say over how much is overload here, since it is his amendment.