SENATE BILL: Committee and Oversight OSPR Amendment (Passed)

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

I'm all for comittees. That would be great.

[Governor Scott]

As Yankee explained

At most there would be two, perhaps three. With three members on each. And they would be purpose driven.

This bill would be a great way of creating a more active Senate and reforming part of the game without doing anything drastic or unnecessary.

Except, you know, they're unnecessary, because we're a group of 10 and don't have all that much business to take care of in the first place...

Committees would create business to take care of.

[ilikeverin]

As Yankee explained

At most there would be two, perhaps three. With three members on each. And they would be purpose driven.

This bill would be a great way of creating a more active Senate and reforming part of the game without doing anything drastic or unnecessary.

Except, you know, they're unnecessary, because we're a group of 10 and don't have all that much business to take care of in the first place...

Committees would create business to take care of.

Ah, yes, that argument.  And how?  Why would they create anything that hasn't already been created?

[Governor Scott]

As Yankee explained

At most there would be two, perhaps three. With three members on each. And they would be purpose driven.

This bill would be a great way of creating a more active Senate and reforming part of the game without doing anything drastic or unnecessary.

Except, you know, they're unnecessary, because we're a group of 10 and don't have all that much business to take care of in the first place...

Committees would create business to take care of.

Ah, yes, that argument.  And how?  Why would they create anything that hasn't already been created?

...

They would simply hold hearings and subpoena people after an event takes place, such as the anthrax incident, thereby making the Senate more productive.

[Senator Napoleon]

As Yankee explained

At most there would be two, perhaps three. With three members on each. And they would be purpose driven.

This bill would be a great way of creating a more active Senate and reforming part of the game without doing anything drastic or unnecessary.

Except, you know, they're unnecessary, because we're a group of 10 and don't have all that much business to take care of in the first place...

Committees would create business to take care of.

Ah, yes, that argument.  And how?  Why would they create anything that hasn't already been created?

Ah, yes, this argument. Wait. What argument? Exactly.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What I am concerned about now the functionality and effectiveness of the procedures in the current text. I am essentially wargamming the creation of a committee, writing the resolution to do so, the process for assigning membership as dictated and looking at efficiency.

If you think there is a better way to improve the functionality of Section 3 specifically, please feel free to share.

I still expect to have a vote open by tonight unless feedback is substantial enough to push for modificaitons for the sake of what is described above.

[ilikeverin]

As Yankee explained

At most there would be two, perhaps three. With three members on each. And they would be purpose driven.

This bill would be a great way of creating a more active Senate and reforming part of the game without doing anything drastic or unnecessary.

Except, you know, they're unnecessary, because we're a group of 10 and don't have all that much business to take care of in the first place...

Committees would create business to take care of.

Ah, yes, that argument.  And how?  Why would they create anything that hasn't already been created?

Ah, yes, this argument. Wait. What argument? Exactly.

"By mindlessly creating this new level of bureaucracy, the new level of bureaucracy will create activity.  As such, activity levels will go through the roof!"

Rather than, you know, the new level of bureaucracy simply distributing the activity we have across more channels of government (and, in this case, making it so less individuals can influence policy discussions).

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

ILV, these committees won't be passing any laws. That is and will remain the whole Senate's job. They will explore issues and create the impetus for the creation of laws.

On top of that no committees will be created by this OSPR amendment. It merely gives the Senate the ability to do so if it chooses, and lays out a process to do that.

Furthermore there is already section that deals with half of this in the OSPR, this just lengthens it and modifies it to allow for standing committees.

To put it another way, what cost possed by this is so arbitrary as to preclude it from even being tried? The answer I keep coming up with is nothing.

I find the arguement much more convincing then the arguement you want to make for changing the election method for half Senate, when last I checked both halfs were struggling from inactivity and such an alteration wouldn't acheive much in the way of fixing that for either.

[Governor Scott]

As Yankee explained

At most there would be two, perhaps three. With three members on each. And they would be purpose driven.

This bill would be a great way of creating a more active Senate and reforming part of the game without doing anything drastic or unnecessary.

Except, you know, they're unnecessary, because we're a group of 10 and don't have all that much business to take care of in the first place...

Committees would create business to take care of.

Ah, yes, that argument.  And how?  Why would they create anything that hasn't already been created?

Ah, yes, this argument. Wait. What argument? Exactly.

"By mindlessly creating this new level of bureaucracy, the new level of bureaucracy will create activity.  As such, activity levels will go through the roof!"

Rather than, you know, the new level of bureaucracy simply distributing the activity we have across more channels of government (and, in this case, making it so less individuals can influence policy discussions).

It's not bureaucracy, it merely gives the Senate another task so that it actually does more than just debate bills.  You are making a very weak case against this bill and I would like to know how you think this would harm the game instead of helping it and promote activity, which this game severely lacks.

[Senator Clarence]

NC Yankee has to pull us by the ear to get us to vote at times...I don't know if committees are a good idea or if they will just sit there after we choose the names and chairman like half the political parties and caucuses did

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I just remembered I can only open votes if debate has ceased for 24 hours, or procedural actions have been taken and completed. Oh well, I don't really have time tonight to do what I wanted to here anyway.

[ilikeverin]

ILV, these committees won't be passing any laws. That is and will remain the whole Senate's job. They will explore issues and create the impetus for the creation of laws.

On top of that no committees will be created by this OSPR amendment. It merely gives the Senate the ability to do so if it chooses, and lays out a process to do that.

Well then what's the point at all?  These will be optional committees without any power... so they'll just bicker endlessly without any result?  (Sounds like the Senate in general )

Furthermore there is already section that deals with half of this in the OSPR, this just lengthens it and modifies it to allow for standing committees.

Has this section ever been used?

To put it another way, what cost possed by this is so arbitrary as to preclude it from even being tried? The answer I keep coming up with is nothing.

I find the arguement much more convincing then the arguement you want to make for changing the election method for half Senate, when last I checked both halfs were struggling from inactivity and such an alteration wouldn't acheive much in the way of fixing that for either.

That proposal has very little to do with activity, except indirectly, and I'm not sure I ever said it did have something to do with that.  In fact, I'm not sure I have ever really articulated my reasons for supporting a switch from regional to district seats at all.  Instead, it has to do with fairness: Northeasterners are systematically underrepresented, and the rest of us are hindered by having a smaller pool of potential candidates for half of our seats.

As Yankee explained

At most there would be two, perhaps three. With three members on each. And they would be purpose driven.

This bill would be a great way of creating a more active Senate and reforming part of the game without doing anything drastic or unnecessary.

Except, you know, they're unnecessary, because we're a group of 10 and don't have all that much business to take care of in the first place...

Committees would create business to take care of.

Ah, yes, that argument.  And how?  Why would they create anything that hasn't already been created?

Ah, yes, this argument. Wait. What argument? Exactly.

"By mindlessly creating this new level of bureaucracy, the new level of bureaucracy will create activity.  As such, activity levels will go through the roof!"

Rather than, you know, the new level of bureaucracy simply distributing the activity we have across more channels of government (and, in this case, making it so less individuals can influence policy discussions).

It's not bureaucracy, it merely gives the Senate another task so that it actually does more than just debate bills.  You are making a very weak case against this bill and I would like to know how you think this would harm the game instead of helping it and promote activity, which this game severely lacks.

I just don't see how this bill will help anything.  The problem with Atlasia isn't that it isn't complex enough, nor is it that the Senate doesn't have enough to do.  We have plenty to do if we get around to it.  Just look at all the bills we're debating now.  But how will this make the affiars of the Senate more salient for the average Atlasian?  How will this get more people running for office?

[Governor Scott]

ILV, these committees won't be passing any laws. That is and will remain the whole Senate's job. They will explore issues and create the impetus for the creation of laws.

On top of that no committees will be created by this OSPR amendment. It merely gives the Senate the ability to do so if it chooses, and lays out a process to do that.

Well then what's the point at all?  These will be optional committees without any power... so they'll just bicker endlessly without any result?  (Sounds like the Senate in general )

Furthermore there is already section that deals with half of this in the OSPR, this just lengthens it and modifies it to allow for standing committees.

Has this section ever been used?

To put it another way, what cost possed by this is so arbitrary as to preclude it from even being tried? The answer I keep coming up with is nothing.

I find the arguement much more convincing then the arguement you want to make for changing the election method for half Senate, when last I checked both halfs were struggling from inactivity and such an alteration wouldn't acheive much in the way of fixing that for either.

That proposal has very little to do with activity, except indirectly, and I'm not sure I ever said it did have something to do with that.  In fact, I'm not sure I have ever really articulated my reasons for supporting a switch from regional to district seats at all.  Instead, it has to do with fairness: Northeasterners are systematically underrepresented, and the rest of us are hindered by having a smaller pool of potential candidates for half of our seats.

As Yankee explained

At most there would be two, perhaps three. With three members on each. And they would be purpose driven.

This bill would be a great way of creating a more active Senate and reforming part of the game without doing anything drastic or unnecessary.

Except, you know, they're unnecessary, because we're a group of 10 and don't have all that much business to take care of in the first place...

Committees would create business to take care of.

Ah, yes, that argument.  And how?  Why would they create anything that hasn't already been created?

Ah, yes, this argument. Wait. What argument? Exactly.

"By mindlessly creating this new level of bureaucracy, the new level of bureaucracy will create activity.  As such, activity levels will go through the roof!"

Rather than, you know, the new level of bureaucracy simply distributing the activity we have across more channels of government (and, in this case, making it so less individuals can influence policy discussions).

It's not bureaucracy, it merely gives the Senate another task so that it actually does more than just debate bills.  You are making a very weak case against this bill and I would like to know how you think this would harm the game instead of helping it and promote activity, which this game severely lacks.

I just don't see how this bill will help anything.  The problem with Atlasia isn't that it isn't complex enough, nor is it that the Senate doesn't have enough to do.  We have plenty to do if we get around to it.  Just look at all the bills we're debating now.  But how will this make the affiars of the Senate more salient for the average Atlasian?  How will this get more people running for office?

Sigh.

It expands the game, basically.  It stimulates involvement and activism and participation.  And if we go along with the "game reset" plan that the Game Reform Panel is proposing, we'd be able to play off of real life events and current issues going on in the real world, and committees could help play a part in this.  If we add more things to do, it will look more appealing to people who haven't played before- it's a hell of a lot better than doing nothing to encourage growth.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have decided to leave it the way it is for now. We can amend it for efficiency later on. Then we will know whether it is worth it to begin with.

Vote starts tomorrow.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators, the Committee Overshight OSPR Amendment is now at vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Governor Scott]

Aye.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE


Go Green!!!

[TJ in Wisco]

Aye

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

Aye

[ilikeverin]

Nope

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

Aye.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This vote needs one more Aye, or it will last till time expires.

[Senator Sbane]

Aye

[Senator Clarence]

Aye

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This has enough votes to pass, Senators have 24 hours to change their vote.