SENATE BILL: OSPR Amendment (Passed)

[Napoleon]

I would like to include other amendments so long as they would not impact the bill's chance of passing.

However, I will deem this amendment friendly. 72 hours may be too long for objections though.

[Napoleon]

So, if the Senate feels it is appropriate, there are other OSPR amendments I would like to make. Should they be included in this and just make all the changes at once?

[Napoleon]

I do not support the Anti-clogging rule.

Ok, so I will I introduce two amendments within a few hours.

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

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.

Like they do in the real world. It'd make the PPT position more partisan, possibly, but sometimes there are certain bills that need to be passed before other bills. I scratch my head often when I see something pretty irrelevant (such as the currency bill) being debated when there are much more important bills waiting in queue.

It would also change the dynamics between the executive and the Senate. My SOAP for the Northeast Assembly actually does something similar, called Priority. In Legislative Slot 2, the Speaker gets Priority and would determine the legislation reaching the floor there.

Under this proposal, the PPT would become more of a majority leader type of position. People are already saying PPT elections are partisan, why not make the position more partisan? And by that I mean giving the PPT more tools, a PPT wouldn't necessarily have to use those tools to their extreme and arguably shouldn't. This would be balanced by the VP being well positioned to perform administrative duties when necessary.

[Napoleon]

Very hostile.

[Napoleon]

Nay

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Napoleon]

Friendly

[Napoleon]

AMENDMENT

Article 3, Section 2.3 is removed.

[Napoleon]

No

[Napoleon]

AMENDMENT

Article 3, Section 2.3 is removed.

[Napoleon]

I offer this amendment to Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Friendly

[Napoleon]

Aye

[Napoleon]

I call for a final vote.

[Napoleon]

AMENDMENT

Article 3, Section 2.3 is removed.

Again we passed this amendment. Please reflect it in the text.

[Napoleon]

Napoleon, the amendment you offered removes this from the current OSPR:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of these are amendments to the OSPR, so by not specificing, you create an amendment to the current OSPR, not the underlying bill.

I even posted that this was what your amendment removed while we were debating it. And you never gave an indication that it wasn't the case.

No don't even go there. If I offer an amendment, is to the text we are debating. That is the only relevant text concerning amendments. Furthermore I am not seeing where the power to stop this vote came from.

[Napoleon]

Aye

[Napoleon]

Of course not

[Napoleon]

Aye

[Napoleon]

Aye