Non confidence vote for speaker fhtagn

[Wisconsin+17]

Given that Speaker fhtagn closed the recent vote on S3, and tabled S1 when S1 and S3 were both still active,

I am now calling for a vote for non-confidence in Speaker Fhtagn.

Please vote here if you want to remove Speaker fhtagn.

You have 48 hours to discuss this motion.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Delete your account.

[Wisconsin+17]

The rules are pretty clear. The vote to extend debate was sustained within the time limit of the vote.

Ergo, Bill S3 is still alive. Fhtagn is certainly free to attempt to break the rules, but that has consequences.

This is not the first time that fhtagn has broken rules to override sustained opposition. Perhaps she should ask herself why she's getting sustained opposition.

[fhtagn]

[JustinTimeCuber]

The rules are pretty clear. The vote to extend debate was sustained within the time limit of the vote.

Ergo, Bill S3 is still alive. Fhtagn is certainly free to attempt to break the rules, but that has consequences.

This is not the first time that fhtagn has broken rules to override sustained opposition. Perhaps she should ask herself why she's getting sustained opposition.

Absolutely nothing in the rules about that.

I believe fhtagn can continue her operation as Speaker unless she is actually determined to not have the confidence of the Chamber, which isn't going to happen.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right now she can't until this is debated and voted on. Standard is 48 hours for discussion 24 hours to vote on this.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right now she can't until this is debated and voted on. Standard is 48 hours for discussion 24 hours to vote on this.

Says who? She hasn't been removed from her office as Speaker.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Motions of non-confidence have the highest priority. As well they should. Until the motion of non-confidence is disposed of, the rest of the business of the chamber cannot continue.

The reason for this is because, that's the whole point of a motion of non-confidence. If it passes, then the government falls. If it fails, then business carries on.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Motions of non-confidence have the highest priority. As well they should. Until the motion of non-confidence is disposed of, the rest of the business of the chamber cannot continue.

The reason for this is because, that's the whole point of a motion of non-confidence. If it passes, then the government falls. If it fails, then business carries on.

YOU ARE MAKING THIS UP AS YOU GO ALONG

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How else would the chamber of delegates remove a Speaker? This is the correct protocol.

[fhtagn]

the rest of the business of the chamber cannot continue.

Which is clearly what you wanted all along. You made that pretty clear many times.

At least you finally got the courage to admit it.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all. I asked for another day of debate, which is why I filed the motion to extend debate. We then would have voted on the legislation and business would have carried on.

Why did you choose to dismiss a sustained motion, fhtagn?

[JustinTimeCuber]

the rest of the business of the chamber cannot continue.

Which is clearly what you wanted all along. You made that pretty clear many times.

At least you finally got the courage to admit it.

I'm starting to think we need to recall him, but I'm waiting for NeverAgain's opinion on the matter.

[Barnes]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all. I asked for another day of debate, which is why I filed the motion to extend debate. We then would have voted on the legislation and business would have carried on.

Why did you choose to dismiss a sustained motion, fhtagn?

Again, popping in here, but it is generally never in order to move a motion of any kind while there is a division in progress, as the chamber in question is literally, you,know, divided. Generally, a body cannot dispatch more than one item at a time.

Just my thoughts.   

[Wisconsin+17]

If the vote is called and two delegates want to continue discussing the topic, then I don't see what is the problem with a motion to extend.

When I was Speaker, Nev asked for more time on two bills, both of which I granted the requested time (indeed, I gave him an extra day). After that day I called for the vote, which was then held.

Fhtagn called the vote here I came on and asked to get more input from Fremont, to extend for a day and then hold the vote. If I were asking for an indefinite period, then yes, I can see the issue. But I was not.

[Barnes]

If the vote is called and two delegates want to continue discussing the topic, then I don't see what is the problem with a motion to extend.

When I was Speaker, Nev asked for more time on two bills, both of which I granted the requested time (indeed, I gave him an extra day). After that day I called for the vote, which was then held.

Fhtagn called the vote here I came on and asked to get more input from Fremont, to extend for a day and then hold the vote. If I were asking for an indefinite period, then yes, I can see the issue. But I was not.

I have no opinion over the spat here, but my point is pretty much used in every deliberative body that I am aware of in that while an actual vote/division is in progress, a body is incapable of conducting other business until that vote is over. For Atlasia of course since we vote on multiple things at a time, the reasoning would be that no other business on that thread could be conducted until the division is finished.

It is just not possible to stop a vote halfway through in actual legislative bodies, so if there's an issue or further motion, that must be taken up once the vote is finished.

Anyway, that's all I have to add. Have fun.

[JustinTimeCuber]

If the vote is called and two delegates want to continue discussing the topic, then I don't see what is the problem with a motion to extend.

When I was Speaker, Nev asked for more time on two bills, both of which I granted the requested time (indeed, I gave him an extra day). After that day I called for the vote, which was then held.

Fhtagn called the vote here I came on and asked to get more input from Fremont, to extend for a day and then hold the vote. If I were asking for an indefinite period, then yes, I can see the issue. But I was not.

You were trying to rush through that bill, because you barely have 3 days even when there was legitimate discussion.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nev asked for a day. I gave him what he requested plus another day, which he did not post. Then I called for the vote.

[Representative simossad]

I hope you know that the stubbornness and the lack of will to cooperate of certain members has made the Southern Chamber of Delegates the least productive legislative body in Atlasia and that this institution is not taken seriously at the moment by the fast majority of the citizens in both your region and in the other regions.

Furthermore, it is obvious that a motion like this one does not help. Some members should think about their actions and their words first before they start to obstruct every intention of working for your region. I want to remind you that this chamber has already lost a delegate due to this silly disputes. Pull yourselves together and stop attacking each other.

[This account no longer in use.]

Mr. Kenobi, if anyone involved in this situation deserves to be removed from their office, it is you.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

<snort>

[Terry the Fat Shark]

We are attempting to resolve the situation on mibbit.com #southernchat right now

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the intent is to work with the other delegates, why didn't Speaker Fhtagn simply accept the sustained motion, and call the vote tomorrow after we had time to discuss it today?

[NeverAgain]

Holy washiedoodles. Sounds like Saturday would be a great time for a sitdown.

[fhtagn]