SENATE BILL: The On Second Thought, We Do Have Expectations Amendment (STR)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:06:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: The On Second Thought, We Do Have Expectations Amendment (STR)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: The On Second Thought, We Do Have Expectations Amendment (STR)  (Read 4033 times)
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2013, 05:55:30 PM »
« edited: April 20, 2013, 02:53:09 PM by HagridOfTheDeep »

Nay

Honestly, I think it's an unfair standard. There's stuff for everyone to do. That said, I also just don't believe that this legislation will accomplish much.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2013, 11:22:08 AM »

Nay
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2013, 02:07:11 PM »

2-5-0-3

Clarence, jdb and sbane have yet to vote.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2013, 03:06:31 PM »

Is it an unreasonable imposition to inquire as to why we should pursue this matter in this fashion, in light of what I said previously, if it is so desired to be restricted only to the Senate?

I have made my position on this matter completely clear. There is absolutely no reason to require this of the Supreme Court, or most of the executive branch, and even less reason to have to specifically focused on the Government board and not all Atlasia boards.

We campaign for weeks, sometimes months, to elect a new President. Dozens of voters siding with each candidate, multiple debates, sometimes incredibly detailed platforms and pitches. And all of that would then be undone if the person didn't post on a specific board for seven days. That is not only absurd, but it takes the all consequences of the voters actions away, it excuses their poor decision making and encourages them only to make even more irresponsible choices, because don't worry! Vote for all the bad candidates you want! You don't have to make the hard decision anymore, because if they're inactive we'll just get rid of them for you!

The SoEA and GM have no need to be required to post on this board, the Supreme Court has absolutely no need to post anywhere unless a court case comes up, the Vice President only has specific and limited responsibilities that requiring him/her to post without any actual need to is ridiculous, and the SoFE has absolutely no need to be stuck to this requirement because 95% of an SoFE's work only occurs around elections. What do we gain by forcing them to post without any actual purpose? I guess the Senate can feel good about themselves, but that's about it.

I'm not "circling the wagons" here. The SoIA will be replaced imminently. I have been incredibly active and have participated in nearly every legislative debate, I have signed each piece of legislation presented to me within hours, sometimes minutes of them being officially deemed passed. My GM and SoEA I am very proud of. Duke does whatever we need him to do, whenever he is required to do it. I have no "guillty conscience" about this, I'm pissed that everyone here is being whipped into a pro-activity fervor, and then getting so excited with using their gun that you're missing the target entirely.

The Senate is where 90% of the inactivity lies, lately. But you get pissed, Yankee, whenever I suggest we require it of the Senate specifically, or even the Senate at all. Talk about circling the wagons! If you're not going to require it of the Senate, you're either going to pass a ridiculously strict requirement of officers that shouldn't have to post weekly anyway, or you're going to make such a convoluted mess of exceptions and loopholes for this position or that position ("Okay, the SoFE only has to post once every two weeks, while the Supreme Court only has to post twice a month, and maybe we can make the VP post once every ten days, instead, and then..."), that it's pointless and stupid.

Guess what the Senate has the power to do? Impeach people. If there's a hideously inactive or just plain bad official, whether it's the Supreme Court, the cabinet, or even me (the President), you have the authority to open impeachment hearings on getting rid of them. Why don't you do this? Because that would require you to make tough choices and make them personal. You would be campaigning against a specific individual, you might end up making enemies in the process, impeachment would be a difficult process for everyone who just wants to hold hands and gather around in a loving circle jerk each night, to actually initiate.

That's why I'm opposed and borderline offended by this entire Amendment, because that's what it does. It sets up these automatic ejection procedures that require no one to actually make hard choices or stand up for their ideals personally. Everyone gets to chest-beat about activity, but never actually do anything tough. You could impeach people for chronic inactivity, but you won't, because you're too afraid. You won't force the voters to make better choices next time, instead of letting them pick nice-but-inactive people to serve office, because that would require people to actually pay attention and make objectively better choices than just voting strategically or personally. No, we could NEVER do that, that would be cahraaazzyyy. Instead, we set up this saving face procedure that lets everyone have their cake and eat it too. It's cowardly and it misses the mark.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 20, 2013, 05:29:00 PM »

It is so nice when five minutes of bluster or pontificating renders null two weeks of preparation on something. Well that plan can be trashed... Roll Eyes

Your second parapraph is basically saying that creating a tough standard, actually causes the violation in the first place.

The rest of your post would only be accurate if I had called for an exception for the Senate, AND I DID NOT!!!!! I challenge you to find it, Maraoki.

What I did say was that we should avoid redundancy because WE ALREADY HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT DOES THE SAME THING!!, and that was only if this was made to apply only to the Senate, WHICH WAS YOUR IDEA!!! Roll Eyes I even offered to toughen the existing standard, twice, in multiple locations. Don't you dare lie about what I said!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

WTF, Man?!!! Like conviently trash FOUR years of experience dealing with somebody for the sake of making a momentary point. YOU THINK I GIVE A DAMN ABOUT PISSING SOMEONE OFF? This post should testify to the point that I don't. And if you throw another "you" at me in a derisive fashion, I'll shove it down your throat, man. Like what the hell have you been doing since 2009? Asleep? Blind? Got some memory issues there?

Of course people are too nice around here and aren't as willing to take such actions. You are preaching to the fing choir here. However, if I restrain from taking such an action as impeachment, it is because the reality of this place makes it impossible, and I refuse to engage in an activity that I think in the end might not only backfire, but also render the situation worse.  However, with such a situation as it is, I am not inclined to refrain from a strategic approach motivated in response to such a reality that still achieves the desired ends, something which you seem unwilling or incapable of doing. Perhaps if you should consider a similar approach and then maybe you wouldn't be left disatisfied in the end all the time.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 20, 2013, 05:35:55 PM »

And why bother trying to offer a compromise or an idea to bridge a gap, that will just get trashed too. I am sure the inactives will be really encouraged to participate with that kind of attitude, Mr. President. Roll Eyes

I meant crafting the standard so that it was most efficient for each office. Like a specific requirement for the Justices on a case by case basis for instance, as opposed to a post requirement? But hell, lets just fill in the details ourselves so we can trash the idea, because heaven forbid it might actually be a good one or something. Roll Eyes
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 20, 2013, 06:02:10 PM »
« Edited: April 20, 2013, 06:07:59 PM by President Marokai »

Deep breaths, Yankee.

Regarding impeachment, I don't see why you're acting like it's such an impossibility. Oakvale's Trial, Not Turnout Amendment was a dramatic rewrite of the impeachment procedure, making it significantly easier if only the Senate had the courage to go through with it when really needed. Impeachment shouldn't be used willy nilly, but if we really want to crack down on chronic inactivity, the Senate should actually do it. If you think a Justice is too inactive for your liking, or someone in the cabinet isn't doing their jobs to your satisfaction, impeachment has literally never been easier.

Is there a way to make this proposal better so everyone can get behind it? Probably, but I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of taking any consequences away from the public electing bad people. The public needs to start learning their lesson, elect better goddamn politicians, instead of electing the friendly-but-mediocre folks that so often we fall into the habit of electing. I fear that by putting in place strict automatic ejection procedures, all the consequence to electing a terrible/inactive person to office melts away.

I'm not "afraid" of any sort of activity requirement. As President I wouldn't ever actually be in danger of falling through the cracks, I'm positive. But applying it to all "federal officials" and making it as strict as just seven days is ridiculously strict. This shouldn't apply to Justices or the SoFE at all, and if it's going to apply to the executive branch it should be a longer zero-tolerance period than a single week. This is a lot of chest beating from people who have as of yet actually done anything themselves to make this problem go away.

I meant crafting the standard so that it was most efficient for each office. Like a specific requirement for the Justices on a case by case basis for instance, as opposed to a post requirement?

If you can craft a specified activity requirement that isn't convoluted and labyrinthine, go for it. But when the Amendment ends up looking like this:

Justices must post __ within __ or they're removed from office.
The SoFE must post __ within __ or they're removed from office.
The SoIA and SoEA must post __ within __ or they're removed from office.
The President must post __ within __ or they're removed from office.
The Vice President must post __ within __ or they're removed from office.
The Attorney General must post __ within __ or they're removed from office.
Senators must post __ within __ or they're removed from office.
The GM must post __ within __ or they're removed from office.

..is when you're going to start making this less and less attractive to the voting public who will have to ratify this spiders web of activity requirements. Which is why I feel like making this as simple as possible with the best bang for the buck possible (aka, just applying this to the biggest problem: the Senate) is the better course of action.

PS: I responded to you on the RPP board, so let's all calm down.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,205
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2013, 11:50:57 AM »

Nay
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2013, 03:52:49 PM »

Vote on Amendment 54:45 by Ben:

Aye (2): Averroës Nix and Ben
Nay (6): HagridoftheDeep, jbd, Matt From VT, Napoleon, NC Yankee and Snowstalker
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (2): Clarence and Sbane

The amendment has been rejected.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 25, 2013, 02:09:08 PM »
« Edited: April 26, 2013, 01:20:21 PM by Senator Ben »

A different amendment:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 25, 2013, 02:41:51 PM »

Ben I would recommend striking the word "he" in favor of "the said official" and thus remove the gender specific term. Thoughts? Tongue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 25, 2013, 02:56:33 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Unknown
Status: Pending Feedback on the Amendment
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 26, 2013, 01:20:32 PM »

Oops, my bad.  Fixed the gender issue.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: April 27, 2013, 03:56:42 PM »

I think I understand both Marokai and Yankee's concerns. For Senators, we already have our own rules. We could just tighten those up, instead of passing an amendment. On the other hand, federal officials is too broad and the Supreme Court and the SoFE should not be included in this amendment. I could support Ben's amendment, but I think we could include some more of the cabinet in the scope of this amendment.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: April 27, 2013, 06:51:31 PM »

Still need feedback from the sponsor here. If it isn't present by tomorrow, I will proceed with a vote on the amendment (in the preferred situation and if the Senate was more active, this would be my standard reaction after a set period of hours of no sponsor feedback, but such isn't the case and chances are the vote would take the full five days).

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: April 28, 2013, 06:23:04 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Not Given
Status: A vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: April 28, 2013, 06:25:37 PM »

Aye
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: April 28, 2013, 06:42:32 PM »

Aye
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: April 29, 2013, 02:29:36 PM »

Abstain
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: April 29, 2013, 08:41:51 PM »

AYE!!!


I will have an amendment tomorrow dealing with the Supreme Court.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: April 30, 2013, 05:44:20 PM »

Actually that might have to wait until the present one is finished, which is better because it will avoid confusion.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,205
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: May 01, 2013, 07:26:07 AM »

Abstain
Logged
Sopranos Republican
Matt from VT
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,175
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.03, S: -8.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: May 01, 2013, 08:20:10 AM »

Abstain
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: May 01, 2013, 05:17:36 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, talk to me people! Tongue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 01, 2013, 07:17:58 PM »

Read Section 2 Nix, it already has been placed there. Tongue
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 12 queries.