|
Title: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 27, 2009, 04:13:49 AM Quote High Authority for Ethics in Voting Act The High Authority for Ethics in Voting (HAEV) is hereby established. Section 1 : Nomination Process and Requirements 1. The High Authority for Ethics in Voting shall be composed of four members. 2. One member of the HAEV shall be nominated every two months. If there are already 4 members in office, the most recently nominated member shall replace the longest-serving member. 3. Every Senator shall have the right to suggest a candidate to the HAEV for the seat having to be filled. He or she shall do by posting in a thread dedicated to HAEV nominations. 4. A voting booth shall be opened in the Atlas Fantasy Government board immediately after a candidate to the HAEV has been suggested. Senators shall vote "aye" if they approve of the nomination of a candidate, "nay" if they disagree and "abstain" if they have no opinion. Every candidate receiving 7 or more "aye" votes shall become a member of the HAEV. 5. The President of Atlasia shall have the power to veto the nomination of a member of the HAEV. If he or she does so in the week following said member's nomination, the member's nomination shall be considered as invalid and the member in question shall not be deemed elected. Section 2 : Role and Powers 1. In accordance with Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Atlasian Constitution, the HAEV shall have the power to declare an Atlasian Citizen inactive, and therefore to remove the registration in question from the Registered Voters List. 2. Any Atlasian Citizen who is not declared inactive by the HAEV shall be considered as active, unless Atlasian law provides otherwise. 3. The HAEV shall deliberate in a public and dedicated thread located in the Atlas Fantasy Government board. 4. An Atlasian Citizen shall be declared inactive by the HAEV only if all four members express their agreement in considering he or she as inactive. Section 3 : Possibility of Appeal 1. An Atlasian Citizen who has been declared inactive by the HAEV shall have the right to appeal said declaration in the week following the HAEV's decision. 2. In the case previously specified, the Supreme Court shall have the power to annul the decision of the HAEV. Sponsor: Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on November 27, 2009, 04:19:53 AM On what basis would the Court decide whether a person was legitimately removed or not?
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: afleitch on November 27, 2009, 05:13:19 AM I'm having some difficulty in understanding this. We are establishing 4 posts known as a 'High Authority' to decide whether or not a voter is deemed to be inactive? The Constitution allows for the Senate to establish the rules and procedure, but surely we need rely on law and the Court if there is dispute rather than establishing an overseeing body. Why use a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on November 27, 2009, 08:13:18 AM FTR, I'm more inclined to support this proposition of Antonio than his previous one, in that it removes the stupid post requirements from zombie regulation attempts but I'm uneasy with the vagueness of the HAEV's job and how it open the door to potential abuse. I think if people are interested in this, which, knowing this Senate, they aren't, they prefer to vote NAY right now; some sort of regulations need to be established.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on November 27, 2009, 08:16:13 AM I think if people are interested in this, which, knowing this Senate, they aren't, they prefer to vote NAY right now Perhaps you could answer my question instead of just throwing insults at the Senate? Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on November 27, 2009, 08:18:38 AM I think if people are interested in this, which, knowing this Senate, they aren't, they prefer to vote NAY right now Perhaps you could answer my question instead of just throwing insults at the Senate? I did not write this legislation, as I made clear in the introduction thread. I have a few ideas of my own, but I'd like the real sponsor of this bill to address the Senate on the issue. And please don't deny the little interest this Senate has in zombie regulation. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on November 27, 2009, 08:35:37 AM I think if people are interested in this, which, knowing this Senate, they aren't, they prefer to vote NAY right now Perhaps you could answer my question instead of just throwing insults at the Senate? And please don't deny the little interest this Senate has in zombie regulation. I don't deny there are some members that show little interest, but I find it unfair to make such a statement as if it applied to the entire body when you know perfectly well that many of us believe in the intent of zombie reform, even if we have serious doubts about the effectiveness or viability of certain proposals. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 27, 2009, 11:28:55 AM Honorable Senators,
This is the second bill proposed by Hashemite and I to solve the issue of zombie voters. Many of you, during the debate of the Protection of Democracy Act, expressed their sympathy as regards the intent of this bill, but also their doubts concerning the method proposed to deal with it. That's why I worked to propose a different one. One of the main critic to the previous bill was that zombies could easily circumvent the post number requirement. I have to say that I agree in great part with those critics, and I wrote this bill in order to solve this issue. In general, every problem came from the fact that zombie voting can't be definited "mechanically". The notion of "zombie", even though being objective, needs some case-by-case analysis. The only way to have such analysis, is to have it done by a specialized authority. This authority will receive the powers necessary to decide who is a zombie voters. Of course, the fact that HAEV will have the power to ban anyone from voting also creates some risk if it reveals to be partisanly biased. We should absolutely avoid this risk, and this bill sets three important protections. First of all, a member shall receive 7 "aye" votes in order to be confirmed, meaning more than one third of all the Senator will accept it. This system will force multipartisan deals, all the more so the authority shall consist in 1 JCPer, 1 PCPer, 1 DAer and one member from another party or independent. Secondly, one member can be banned only if all the four HAEV members agree in banning him : no possibility of partisan bias at all. Finally, every member shall have the possibility to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, once again to avoid unfair bannings. Honestly, I think all these precautions re excessive, but I guess it's the only way for this to pass. Honorable Senators, you assured me that the purpose of my previous bill was good and that something needed to b done. Now it's time to prove your good faith. You are free to Amend this bill as you want. But your final vote must be affirmative. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Purple State on November 27, 2009, 11:31:20 AM My biggest problem with this bill is that it creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Maybe the HAEV should belong to the governors, who are closer to the people.
Also, the HAEV should just make recommendations, which the SoFA should then be able to approve/disapprove. This would better oversight and make it easier for people to file an appeal. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: DownWithTheLeft on November 27, 2009, 11:31:21 AM Despite a problem with the action of the committee, I have a problem with the selection process.
If the president can just veto anyone, then he'll keep vetoing people until only candidates from his party are inserted. Then, they can just remove voters they do not like Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Јas on November 27, 2009, 11:33:24 AM If the president can just veto anyone, then he'll keep vetoing people until only candidates from his party are inserted. You seem to be confusing the actual job of President with DWTL's guide on how to be President. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: DownWithTheLeft on November 27, 2009, 11:34:56 AM If the president can just veto anyone, then he'll keep vetoing people until only candidates from his party are inserted. You seem to be confusing the actual job of President with DWTL's guide on how to be President. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 27, 2009, 11:50:56 AM My biggest problem with this bill is that it creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Maybe the HAEV should belong to the governors, who are closer to the people. Also, the HAEV should just make recommendations, which the SoFA should then be able to approve/disapprove. This would better oversight and make it easier for people to file an appeal. Letting the power to ban people to the SoFA's discretion isn't a good idea IMO. The SoFA's powers are still very great and raising them would make him really dangerous. As for Governors, their honesty (or their competence) could be compromised as well. Plus, we have plenty of cases of governors getting inactive or amost inactive, and this would be terrible. I know that raising the number of officials can be a problem, but it remains the best solution. If the president can just veto anyone, then he'll keep vetoing people until only candidates from his party are inserted. You seem to be confusing the actual job of President with DWTL's guide on how to be President. The bill provides that HAEV shall contain one member for each of the three major parties by number of members. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: DownWithTheLeft on November 27, 2009, 11:52:58 AM Nowhere in the bill does it say anything remotely close to that
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 27, 2009, 12:16:59 PM Nowhere in the bill does it say anything remotely close to that It was in the bill I wrote. Seems that Hashemite removed it, and I'd like to know why he did. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 27, 2009, 12:36:04 PM Perhaps the Presidential veto should be transferred to the supreme court.
And by no method of counting can I see three major parties. You can say there are two, or four, or five, but three? Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 27, 2009, 12:54:18 PM And by no method of counting can I see three major parties. You can say there are two, or four, or five, but three? I mean the three biggest. For the simple reason that we have 4 seats and the fourth should not be definited as belonging to a particular party. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Јas on November 27, 2009, 12:58:52 PM One presumes the removal is that such a party enforced membership provision would render the committee useless.
I can't really foresee too many voters being adjudged inactive under the proposal as posted, but I'd be very surprised if the committee had any effect on anything if certain parties have guaranteed membership on the body. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 27, 2009, 01:19:59 PM One presumes the removal is that such a party enforced membership provision would render the committee useless. I can't really foresee too many voters being adjudged inactive under the proposal as posted, but I'd be very surprised if the committee had any effect on anything if certain parties have guaranteed membership on the body. This is true. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Purple State on November 27, 2009, 02:11:01 PM My biggest problem with this bill is that it creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Maybe the HAEV should belong to the governors, who are closer to the people. Also, the HAEV should just make recommendations, which the SoFA should then be able to approve/disapprove. This would better oversight and make it easier for people to file an appeal. Letting the power to ban people to the SoFA's discretion isn't a good idea IMO. The SoFA's powers are still very great and raising them would make him really dangerous. As for Governors, their honesty (or their competence) could be compromised as well. Plus, we have plenty of cases of governors getting inactive or amost inactive, and this would be terrible. I know that raising the number of officials can be a problem, but it remains the best solution. You missed both of my points.. The panel of governors idea is so that we do not create new offices, which Atlasia certainly doesn't need. The SoFA oversight idea does not give the SoFA much more power. He can only approve/disapprove of the committee's recommendations. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: MaxQue on November 27, 2009, 06:03:49 PM I have difficulties to believe than a party will accept to deregister his members.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 27, 2009, 06:05:39 PM By the way I oppose this if it wasn't already clear. I don't think this bill is workable, first of all, and could have potentially incredibly disruptive and chaotic effects on Atlasia.
I sympathize with what Antonio and Hash are trying to accomplish, but.. come on. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on November 27, 2009, 07:05:18 PM I sympathize with what Antonio and Hash are trying to accomplish, but.. come on. Do you feel that anything can be done? FTR, I'm personally open to giving these responsibilities to a more able body if need and demand be, such as the Courts, Senators or Governors even. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Fritz on November 29, 2009, 12:07:14 AM I agree with Marokai's assessment. And to answer your question, Hashemite, no- I do not believe anything can or should be done. As I've said numerous times, legislation of this ilk creates more problems than it attempts to solve. "Zombies" are an unfortunate fact of life here.
There are widely varying definitions of what constitutes a "zombie" in Atlasia. Personally, I define it as a voter who registers specifically for voting in one election, then disappears. Or perhaps comes to vote in the next election, barely meeting the post requirements to be eligible to do so. (I forget what the posting requirement between elections is, someone remind me.) I do not accept that an active poster in the forum who rarely if ever posts in Atlasia is a "zombie", and I have repeatedly opposed legislation that would eliminate such voters. By my definition of the term, zombies are by definition newbies. We have no way of knowing whether a newbie who registers to vote with the minimum post requirement will turn out to be a "zombie", or whether they will become active participants. Such registrants are therefore worthy of being given the benefit of the doubt. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hans-im-Glück on November 29, 2009, 12:27:24 PM I like the idea to build a High Authority for Ethics, but on the other hand then exists 4 more officeholders and do we really need them? Then Atlasia will be come to a "tribunal-state". This I don't want.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 29, 2009, 05:22:39 PM People, this bill is unperfect, true. But most of you are saying that its purpose is good.
Then please propose some amendments, and debate about then. it's up to you now. Just don't do nothing. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on November 29, 2009, 05:26:46 PM I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this....although I admit I'm somewhat spectical.
One thing has not been answered (as far as I can see). How is the Supreme Court to decide whether a removal was legitimate or not? On what basis? Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 29, 2009, 05:28:38 PM How is the Supreme Court to decide whether a removal was legitimate or not? On what basis? My purpose was to make so that the Supreme Court could annul a HAEV decision in case of blatant partisan/personal bias. Anyways, work on it guys. You are Senators, I'm not. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 29, 2009, 09:46:34 PM I'll let debate go on for a little while longer on this bill, and others, due to the recent technical issues plaguing the site.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 30, 2009, 12:46:39 PM Bump.
Don't let it die once again. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on November 30, 2009, 05:45:14 PM FTR, I'm personally open to giving these responsibilities to a more able body if need and demand be, such as the Courts, Senators or Governors even. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: MaxQue on December 01, 2009, 12:30:09 AM I have difficulties to believe than a party will accept to deregister his members. I still want an answer to that obvious problem. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 01, 2009, 12:33:32 AM Perhaps the Presidential veto should be transferred to the supreme court. And by no method of counting can I see three major parties. You can say there are two, or four, or five, but three? Seeing as the LNF and ARC are of comparable size, you can't really make a ruling for four major parties. It's either one or five. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 01, 2009, 07:19:00 AM I have difficulties to believe than a party will accept to deregister his members. I still want an answer to that obvious problem. I think you are right, if it's what you want to hear. Now, should I also propose all the Amendmets needed ? You are 10 and none of you has done for the moment. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 01, 2009, 07:28:28 AM Quote The High Authority for Ethics in Voting (HAEV) is hereby established. Section 1 : Nomination Process and Requirements 1. The High Authority for Ethics in Voting shall be composed of 2. One member of the HAEV shall be nominated every two months. If there are already 4. A voting booth shall be opened in the Atlas Fantasy Government board immediately after a candidate to the HAEV has been suggested. Senators shall vote "aye" if they approve of the nomination of a candidate, "nay" if they disagree and "abstain" if they have no opinion. Every candidate receiving 7 or more "aye" votes shall become a member of the HAEV. 5 Section 2 : Role and Powers 1. In accordance with Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Atlasian Constitution, the HAEV shall have the power to declare an Atlasian Citizen inactive, and therefore to remove the registration in question from the Registered Voters List effective one week after its decision. 2. Any Atlasian Citizen who is not declared inactive by the HAEV shall be considered as active, unless Atlasian law provides otherwise. 3. The HAEV shall deliberate in a public and dedicated thread located in the Atlas Fantasy Government board. 4. An Atlasian Citizen shall be declared inactive by the HAEV only if all Section 3 : Possibility of Appeal 1. An Atlasian Citizen who has been declared inactive by the HAEV shall have the right to appeal said declaration in the week following the HAEV's decision. 2. In the case previously specified, the Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 01, 2009, 07:30:03 AM Just to clarify this....I'm still not sold on this idea, and I remain sceptical of how this would work in practice.
I do think the changes I made would be positive, though. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on December 01, 2009, 07:52:08 AM I will accept this amendment as friendly if you change Section 3, clause 2 to 5 instead of 4. Or if not, a simple plurality could do, I suppose.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 01, 2009, 07:53:42 AM I said 4 because that is the same number required to block a constitutional amendment or kill a filibuster.
Meaning you need 7/10 in favor of eliminating a "zombie". Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 01, 2009, 01:21:00 PM I agree with almost everything, except the change to 3.2. Giving the power to overtun HAEV's decisions to the Senate would make decisions too partisan IMO, whereas the Supreme Court is supposed to be more independent.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 01, 2009, 01:26:11 PM I agree with almost everything, except the change to 3.2. Giving the power to overtun HAEV's decisions to the Senate would make decisions too partisan IMO, whereas the Supreme Court is supposed to be more independent. I understand that concern, but I don't see how the Supreme Court could rule on that matter. The Supreme Court is there to interpret law, and I don't see any legal basis to rule someone sufficiently active or entirely inactive. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 01, 2009, 01:40:40 PM I agree with almost everything, except the change to 3.2. Giving the power to overtun HAEV's decisions to the Senate would make decisions too partisan IMO, whereas the Supreme Court is supposed to be more independent. I understand that concern, but I don't see how the Supreme Court could rule on that matter. The Supreme Court is there to interpret law, and I don't see any legal basis to rule someone sufficiently active or entirely inactive. Let's put it that way. The law says that the HAEV shall not take decisions that are partisanly/personally biased. Therefore, the Supreme Court shall be able to interpret the law regarding a particular case, saying if this particular case shows some of the bias outlined by the law. Just change the bill to make it clear. ;) Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 01, 2009, 05:45:36 PM I like Franzl's amendment, but remain skeptical. I do think adding a way to remove trolls as voters is a good move as well. I mean people like Hamilton who are near unanimously seen as trying to disrupt the game and contribute nothing should be removed
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 01, 2009, 05:53:10 PM I don't think we're going to come up with anything we're truly comfortable with. I'm sceptical about it, but I dunno.
Maybe we should outline specific guidelines for the HAEV to use for consideration, even if they're non-binding. Or perhaps we should add a self-repealing provision if it isn't confirmed again, in like 6 months, by a future Senate. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 01, 2009, 06:08:16 PM I think the problem right now is not with zombies, but instead has shifted to trolls
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 01, 2009, 07:05:14 PM I think the problem right now is not with zombies, but instead has shifted to trolls It bounces back and forth between them. I am undecided on this right now. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on December 01, 2009, 08:13:42 PM I think the problem right now is not with zombies, but instead has shifted to trolls There is significant overlap between both categories. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 01, 2009, 08:17:03 PM I think the problem right now is not with zombies, but instead has shifted to trolls There is significant overlap between both categories. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 02, 2009, 02:05:23 PM Both problems need to be dealt, but we shouldn't make it fail again just because people currently lost attention.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 02, 2009, 02:06:26 PM Both problems need to be dealt, but we shouldn't make it fail again just because people currently lost attention. If Hashemite and Marokai don't mind, I would like to request a vote on my amendment, just to see how the Senate feels about it. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 02, 2009, 02:14:56 PM Both problems need to be dealt, but we shouldn't make it fail again just because people currently lost attention. If Hashemite and Marokai don't mind, I would like to request a vote on my amendment, just to see how the Senate feels about it. Fine wit that. But something needs to be done on the last clause. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Lief 🗽 on December 02, 2009, 04:38:40 PM I agree with Marokai's assessment. And to answer your question, Hashemite, no- I do not believe anything can or should be done. As I've said numerous times, legislation of this ilk creates more problems than it attempts to solve. "Zombies" are an unfortunate fact of life here. There are widely varying definitions of what constitutes a "zombie" in Atlasia. Personally, I define it as a voter who registers specifically for voting in one election, then disappears. Or perhaps comes to vote in the next election, barely meeting the post requirements to be eligible to do so. (I forget what the posting requirement between elections is, someone remind me.) I do not accept that an active poster in the forum who rarely if ever posts in Atlasia is a "zombie", and I have repeatedly opposed legislation that would eliminate such voters. By my definition of the term, zombies are by definition newbies. We have no way of knowing whether a newbie who registers to vote with the minimum post requirement will turn out to be a "zombie", or whether they will become active participants. Such registrants are therefore worthy of being given the benefit of the doubt. For what it's worth, I completely agree with this post. I don't think that there is a "zombie problem" and to the extent that there is one, it's parties registering people from off site by having them spam 50 posts and then voting in the next election and disappearing. The only way to prevent that is stricter posting limits before registration. On the other hand, I don't think that people who only post rarely in the elections board but still post in the rest of the forum are zombies. Not every voter needs to be fastidiously involved in the political debate here, just like in real life countries some voters are more informed and some take a greater part in civil society and interaction with politicians than others. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 02, 2009, 04:44:38 PM On the other hand, I don't think that people who only post rarely in the elections board but still post in the rest of the forum are zombies. Not every voter needs to be fastidiously involved in the political debate here, just like in real life countries some voters are more informed and some take a greater part in civil society and interaction with politicians than others. That's the main problem, yes, defining what constitutes a zombie. I'm very spectical there's any objective way to do it. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 03, 2009, 02:09:03 AM Apologies, I've been avoiding the debate on this bill and saw someone requested a vote :P
I hereby open up a vote on the following amendment, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain: Quote High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill The High Authority for Ethics in Voting (HAEV) is hereby established. Section 1 : Nomination Process and Requirements 1. The High Authority for Ethics in Voting shall be composed of three members. 2. One member of the HAEV shall be nominated every two months. If there are already 3 members in office, the most recently nominated member shall replace the longest-serving member. Immediately after passage of this bill, all three members shall be elected simultaneously. 3. The President shall nominate candidates to the HAEV with the advice and consent of the Senate. 4. A voting booth shall be opened in the Atlas Fantasy Government board immediately after a candidate to the HAEV has been suggested. Senators shall vote "aye" if they approve of the nomination of a candidate, "nay" if they disagree and "abstain" if they have no opinion. Every candidate receiving 7 or more "aye" votes shall become a member of the HAEV. Section 2 : Role and Powers 1. In accordance with Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Atlasian Constitution, the HAEV shall have the power to declare an Atlasian Citizen inactive, and therefore to remove the registration in question from the Registered Voters List effective one week after its decision. 2. Any Atlasian Citizen who is not declared inactive by the HAEV shall be considered as active, unless Atlasian law provides otherwise. 3. The HAEV shall deliberate in a public and dedicated thread located in the Atlas Fantasy Government board. 4. An Atlasian Citizen shall be declared inactive by the HAEV only if all three members express their agreement in considering he or she as inactive. Section 3 : Possibility of Appeal 1. An Atlasian Citizen who has been declared inactive by the HAEV shall have the right to appeal said declaration in the week following the HAEV's decision. 2. In the case previously specified, the Senate shall have the power to annul the decision of the HAEV. 4 votes in favor of overturning the HAEV's decision shall be required. Abstain I'm not really drawn into this debate enough to know if these changes are for the better or not, in all honesty. I don't know if this bill is the right thing to do, and I'm generally skeptical of "zombie" reform and so on, even if I understand the motives behind them. I'll abstain on the amendment so as to not stand in the way of the process, but the prospects for my vote for final passage are, admittedly, slim. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: MaxQue on December 03, 2009, 02:21:12 AM Nay
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Franzl on December 03, 2009, 05:12:49 AM Aye on the amendment.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Hash on December 03, 2009, 08:01:40 AM Aye
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Fritz on December 03, 2009, 08:34:17 AM Nay
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Hans-im-Glück on December 03, 2009, 12:59:50 PM AYE
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 03, 2009, 03:02:39 PM I'd like to "propose" an Amendment (obviously, since I have no power to do, some Senator should propose it).
Quote Section 3 : Possibility of Appeal Whereas : -The notion of "inactive" specified in Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Atlasian Constitution can be subject to different interpretations, and therefore the HAEV may abuse of this ambiguity by declaring as "inactive" an Atlasian citizen who shouldn't be considered so. - The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution in the case when its formulation is ambiguous. 1. An Atlasian Citizen who has been declared inactive by the HAEV shall have the right to appeal said declaration in the week following the HAEV's decision. 2. In the case previously specified, the Supreme Court shall have the power to annul the decision of the HAEV. The procedure used shall be the same as for any court case. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Hash on December 03, 2009, 04:05:24 PM Amendment offered:
Section 3: Possibility of Appeal Whereas: -The notion of "inactive" specified in Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Atlasian Constitution can be subject to different interpretations, and that the HAEV may potentially abuse this ambiguity by declaring as "inactive" an Atlasian citizen who should not be considered so. - The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution in the case when its formulation is ambiguous. 1. An Atlasian Citizen who has been declared inactive by the HAEV shall have the right to appeal said declaration in the week following the HAEV's decision. 2. In the case previously specified, the Supreme Court shall have the power to annul the decision of the HAEV. The procedure used shall be the same as for any court case. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: MaxQue on December 04, 2009, 01:32:08 AM I have a problem with a delay of only a week to appeal.
Also, there is no measures about something who was declared inactive, but who is wanting to become active a couple of months after he was declared inactive. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 04, 2009, 12:00:26 PM I have a problem with a delay of only a week to appeal. One week is a quite long time, actually. Making it last more would make the inactivity declaration too void. Quote Also, there is no measures about something who was declared inactive, but who is wanting to become active a couple of months after he was declared inactive. Well, that's an important concern. I guess the better way to handle this is, for the moment, to rely on the tolerance of future HAEV members, who will let users some delay before declaring them inactive. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 04, 2009, 06:54:17 PM 3 Ayes, 2 Nays, and 1 Abstaining. Could use some more participation.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: tmthforu94 on December 04, 2009, 07:12:57 PM Aye
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: MaxQue on December 05, 2009, 12:35:29 AM Quote Also, there is no measures about something who was declared inactive, but who is wanting to become active a couple of months after he was declared inactive. Well, that's an important concern. I guess the better way to handle this is, for the moment, to rely on the tolerance of future HAEV members, who will let users some delay before declaring them inactive. No, I mean than the poster was really inactive for months, so the HAEV declared him inactive. Six months later, the poster wants to come back in Atlasia. What is happening? Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 05, 2009, 06:21:37 AM Quote Also, there is no measures about something who was declared inactive, but who is wanting to become active a couple of months after he was declared inactive. Well, that's an important concern. I guess the better way to handle this is, for the moment, to rely on the tolerance of future HAEV members, who will let users some delay before declaring them inactive. No, I mean than the poster was really inactive for months, so the HAEV declared him inactive. Six months later, the poster wants to come back in Atlasia. What is happening? You pointed out an important thing. Anyone who is removed from Registered Voters list can re-register immediately thereafter. It's exactly as if you didn't vote for 3 consecutive elections. The only inconvenient is that you'll have to wait 10 days before voting. But well, it's not so grave. ;) Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: afleitch on December 05, 2009, 12:04:29 PM Aye ftr on the amendment.
I don't really care for this bill Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 05, 2009, 12:51:20 PM Abstain ftr
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 05, 2009, 05:35:21 PM Alright I think a good case can be made for some zombies, like the guy who just registered with the ARC after 50 posts and then when asked what to do was instructed to wait until told to vote
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 05, 2009, 05:36:07 PM Alright I think a good case can be made for some zombies, like the guy who just registered with the ARC after 50 posts and then when asked what to do was instructed to wait until told to vote lol! Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 05, 2009, 05:44:00 PM Alright I think a good case can be made for some zombies, like the guy who just registered with the ARC after 50 posts and then when asked what to do was instructed to wait until told to vote Does that mean you support this bill ? It would be pretty unexpected, bu that would mean Hamilton would've had some positive consequences... :P Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 05, 2009, 05:45:06 PM Alright I think a good case can be made for some zombies, like the guy who just registered with the ARC after 50 posts and then when asked what to do was instructed to wait until told to vote Does that mean you support this bill ? It would be pretty unexpected, bu that would mean Hamilton would've had some positive consequences... :P Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 05, 2009, 05:47:41 PM Alright I think a good case can be made for some zombies, like the guy who just registered with the ARC after 50 posts and then when asked what to do was instructed to wait until told to vote Does that mean you support this bill ? It would be pretty unexpected, bu that would mean Hamilton would've had some positive consequences... :P Troll reform will be dealt with soon, too. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 05, 2009, 05:48:22 PM None of these reforms will accomplish anything.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 05, 2009, 05:50:17 PM None of these reforms will accomplish anything good for me. Fixed. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 05, 2009, 05:51:12 PM None of these reforms will accomplish anything good for me. Fixed. These would help me. They only hurt JCP and PCP. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 05, 2009, 05:58:21 PM The fact is zombie is posting too little, trolling results in posting too much. How can you have a solution that fixes both?
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 05, 2009, 06:16:12 PM The fact is zombie is posting too little, trolling results in posting too much. How can you have a solution that fixes both? We'll have one solution for each one. But the thing you should learn is that the only way to improve things is to accept to do some compromises and to support bills you can see as unperfect. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating.] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 05, 2009, 06:57:23 PM 5 Ayes, 2 Nays, 1 Abstaining. This bill has been amended.
Now, was there another amendment presented for a vote, or was it accepted as friendly? Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Amendment At Vote] Post by: MaxQue on December 05, 2009, 11:48:11 PM The fact is zombie is posting too little, trolling results in posting too much. How can you have a solution that fixes both? Well, that is two different problems who are needing two different solutions. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 06, 2009, 03:52:43 AM 5 Ayes, 2 Nays, 1 Abstaining. This bill has been amended. Now, was there another amendment presented for a vote, or was it accepted as friendly? I think the bill is pretty good now. Has some Senator any particular concern ? Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Fritz on December 06, 2009, 11:23:13 AM Yes. It was a bad bill before it was amended, and it still is.
DWTL makes a good point about the latest new register. He registered after 50 posts, then asked what to do, and was told by his party leader that he would be told when to vote. This is classic and wholly obvious zombie-ism. In spite of that, we still have no way of knowing whether this newbie will become an active participant in the forum. And if the ARC has representation on the HAEV panel, that member would object to him being declared inactive. This bill makes the requirements for voting in an election subjective rather than objective. Since we can't legally define what exactly a zombie is, we'll have a panel decide who the zombies are. I preferred the bill in its original form, with the appeal leading to the court. That, I think, is where all of these cases will eventually land, in any event. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 06, 2009, 12:01:10 PM I preferred the bill in its original form, with the appeal leading to the court. It has indeed been restaured. With the current bill, nobody could be arbitrarily removed, the guarantees are extremely solid. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 07, 2009, 03:12:23 AM Amendment offered: Section 3: Possibility of Appeal Whereas: -The notion of "inactive" specified in Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Atlasian Constitution can be subject to different interpretations, and that the HAEV may potentially abuse this ambiguity by declaring as "inactive" an Atlasian citizen who should not be considered so. - The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution in the case when its formulation is ambiguous. 1. An Atlasian Citizen who has been declared inactive by the HAEV shall have the right to appeal said declaration in the week following the HAEV's decision. 2. In the case previously specified, the Supreme Court shall have the power to annul the decision of the HAEV. The procedure used shall be the same as for any court case. For what it's worth I consider this bill friendily amended with the above unless someone objects, considering it was offered by the sponsor himself. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 07, 2009, 03:16:09 AM Yes. It was a bad bill before it was amended, and it still is. DWTL makes a good point about the latest new register. He registered after 50 posts, then asked what to do, and was told by his party leader that he would be told when to vote. This is classic and wholly obvious zombie-ism. In spite of that, we still have no way of knowing whether this newbie will become an active participant in the forum. And if the ARC has representation on the HAEV panel, that member would object to him being declared inactive. This bill makes the requirements for voting in an election subjective rather than objective. Since we can't legally define what exactly a zombie is, we'll have a panel decide who the zombies are. I preferred the bill in its original form, with the appeal leading to the court. That, I think, is where all of these cases will eventually land, in any event. FTR, I thought it was blatantly obvious that I was merely saying that to piss people off given all the RPP controversies. I told the dude by PM to do some research on the candidates and find what fits him best and did not mind that he voted to endorse RPP members for high preferences. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 08, 2009, 12:40:25 PM Bump.
Please tell us if you have any precise concern, and if you have propose Amendment to improve the bill. :) Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on December 08, 2009, 08:21:56 PM ftr, I feel this is the closest we can come at making real zombie reform without instituting ridiculous posting requirements, activity checks and all that junk. I think this is probably the best thing if you really want zombie reform, and I guess that opposition to this is largely opposition to the principle of zombie reform in itself.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 08:32:23 PM It just seems to be too dangerous of a ground to tread... I don't plan on staying "active" here forever, that doesn't mean I don't want to vote for the candidates I approve of. Mr. Moderate once said the same thing, he went absent for a while and only recently became more active. I don't want a partisan board determining who is and is not a "zombie" unless there is a representative from every major party included.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Purple State on December 08, 2009, 10:42:04 PM It just seems to be too dangerous of a ground to tread... I don't plan on staying "active" here forever, that doesn't mean I don't want to vote for the candidates I approve of. Mr. Moderate once said the same thing, he went absent for a while and only recently became more active. I don't want a partisan board determining who is and is not a "zombie" unless there is a representative from every major party included. If such an authority is established, it would need to set up coherent guidelines that would make it clear what the process for this is. The issue with making party seats is that this is simply artificial polypartisanship and only creates deadlock. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 09, 2009, 11:19:02 AM It just seems to be too dangerous of a ground to tread... I don't plan on staying "active" here forever, that doesn't mean I don't want to vote for the candidates I approve of. Mr. Moderate once said the same thing, he went absent for a while and only recently became more active. I don't want a partisan board determining who is and is not a "zombie" unless there is a representative from every major party included. If such an authority is established, it would need to set up coherent guidelines that would make it clear what the process for this is. The issue with making party seats is that this is simply artificial polypartisanship and only creates deadlock. IMO, the Supreme Court is already a strong "guideline". In fact, this bills give it almost full powers on this domain. If anyone is interested in setting more precise guidelines, I'd like him to propose an amendment, so that we can discuss on it. ;) Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 03:21:45 PM I'm sorry, but three Democrats are sitting on the Supreme Court... I honestly don't want them judging who are and aren't "active" voters.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: MaxQue on December 09, 2009, 03:23:20 PM I'm sorry, but three Democrats are sitting on the Supreme Court... I honestly don't want them judging who are and aren't "active" voters. I'm sure than Sam Spade is happy to know that... Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 03:24:05 PM I'm sorry, but three Democrats are sitting on the Supreme Court... I honestly don't want them judging who are and aren't "active" voters. I'm sure than Sam Spade is happy to know that... Sam Spade is a Democrat and always has been. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Purple State on December 09, 2009, 04:01:47 PM Can someone explain in a short paragraph what the exact procedure is for this body, from choosing membership to the actual revocation of citizenship.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 10, 2009, 12:40:38 PM I'm sorry, but three Democrats are sitting on the Supreme Court... I honestly don't want them judging who are and aren't "active" voters. I'm sure than Sam Spade is happy to know that... Sam Spade is a Democrat and always has been. ::) Can someone explain in a short paragraph what the exact procedure is for this body, from choosing membership to the actual revocation of citizenship. Quote High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill The High Authority for Ethics in Voting (HAEV) is hereby established. Section 1 : Nomination Process and Requirements 1. The High Authority for Ethics in Voting shall be composed of three members. 2. One member of the HAEV shall be nominated every two months. If there are already 3 members in office, the most recently nominated member shall replace the longest-serving member. Immediately after passage of this bill, all three members shall be elected simultaneously. 3. The President shall nominate candidates to the HAEV with the advice and consent of the Senate. 4. A voting booth shall be opened in the Atlas Fantasy Government board immediately after a candidate to the HAEV has been suggested. Senators shall vote "aye" if they approve of the nomination of a candidate, "nay" if they disagree and "abstain" if they have no opinion. Every candidate receiving 7 or more "aye" votes shall become a member of the HAEV. Section 2 : Role and Powers 1. In accordance with Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Atlasian Constitution, the HAEV shall have the power to declare an Atlasian Citizen inactive, and therefore to remove the registration in question from the Registered Voters List effective one week after its decision. 2. Any Atlasian Citizen who is not declared inactive by the HAEV shall be considered as active, unless Atlasian law provides otherwise. 3. The HAEV shall deliberate in a public and dedicated thread located in the Atlas Fantasy Government board. 4. An Atlasian Citizen shall be declared inactive by the HAEV only if all three members express their agreement in considering he or she as inactive. Section 3: Possibility of Appeal Whereas: -The notion of "inactive" specified in Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Atlasian Constitution can be subject to different interpretations, and that the HAEV may potentially abuse this ambiguity by declaring as "inactive" an Atlasian citizen who should not be considered so. - The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution in the case when its formulation is ambiguous. 1. An Atlasian Citizen who has been declared inactive by the HAEV shall have the right to appeal said declaration in the week following the HAEV's decision. 2. In the case previously specified, the Supreme Court shall have the power to annul the decision of the HAEV. The procedure used shall be the same as for any court case. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Purple State on December 10, 2009, 02:00:10 PM Section 1(4) should read: Nominees to the HAEV shall be subject to a confirmation process as determined by the OSPR. The Senate must confirm the nominee by a two-thirds vote in favor.
Otherwise it is good and I support this. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 10, 2009, 02:18:14 PM Section 1(4) should read: Nominees to the HAEV shall be subject to a confirmation process as determined by the OSPR. The Senate must confirm the nominee by a two-thirds vote in favor. Seems right. I ask a Senator to introduce it. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 03:11:15 PM NO NO NO NO NO NO.
Majority party will not be allowed to determine who gets to vote. Is this Saddam's Iraq? Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Lief 🗽 on December 10, 2009, 04:17:16 PM NO NO NO NO NO NO. Majority party will not be allowed to determine who gets to vote. Is this Saddam's Iraq? I like to think it's Lief's Atlasia, but frankly I've been disappointed in the number of statues built in my honor. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Purple State on December 10, 2009, 08:01:02 PM NO NO NO NO NO NO. Majority party will not be allowed to determine who gets to vote. Is this Saddam's Iraq? Did you miss the part where 7 senators need to approve? The JCP can't force these things through. Plus, the Supreme Court tends to judge fairly when it doesn't involve constitutional interpretations. How about a security mechanism? I could live with that. If a senator would introduce the following amendment, in addition to the above one. I would recommend the following for Section 2, as clause 5: "The HAEV shall choose a presiding officer to ensure the proper functioning of the body. The HAEV shall create binding guidelines before acting in its designated capacity, the institution and future amendment of which must be affirmed by two-thirds of the Senate." Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 08:02:17 PM The JCP has 7 Senators.
Marokai Fritz Franken Hashemite Franzl afleitch MaxQue :P Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on December 10, 2009, 08:08:11 PM Amendments offered:
Section 1(4) is amended to read: "Nominees to the HAEV shall be subject to a confirmation process as determined by the OSPR. The Senate must confirm the nominee by a two-thirds vote in favor." Clause 5 is added to Section 2: "The HAEV shall choose a presiding officer to ensure the proper functioning of the body. The HAEV shall create binding guidelines before acting in its designated capacity, the institution and future amendment of which must be affirmed by two-thirds of the Senate." Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 11, 2009, 04:45:05 AM Amendments offered: Section 1(4) is amended to read: "Nominees to the HAEV shall be subject to a confirmation process as determined by the OSPR. The Senate must confirm the nominee by a two-thirds vote in favor." Clause 5 is added to Section 2: "The HAEV shall choose a presiding officer to ensure the proper functioning of the body. The HAEV shall create binding guidelines before acting in its designated capacity, the institution and future amendment of which must be affirmed by two-thirds of the Senate." Since you are the sponsor, this will be considered adopted unless someone rejects within 24 hours. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 11, 2009, 05:01:58 PM I would like to say... I support this bill. I will likely not be able to vote on it, but I support it's passage.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 11, 2009, 05:02:52 PM I would like to say... I support this bill. I will likely not be able to vote on it, but I support it's passage. Thank you very much. The current election blatantly shows how much this bill is needed. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Purple State on December 11, 2009, 05:04:09 PM With those changes, this body will now be considerably more structured and efficient. It should also help the Court determine whether the body is acting within its limits.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 05:04:22 PM Shouldn't this have to be an amendment?
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 11, 2009, 05:05:14 PM Shouldn't this have to be an amendment? Nice try, I know you would love to get our hands on ratification to block it with your zombies, but I see no reason why this has to be an Amendment. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 05:06:10 PM Shouldn't this have to be an amendment? Nice try, I know you would love to get our hands on ratification to block it with your zombies, but I see no reason why this has to be an Amendment. There is no where in the Constitution where I can find text that says the Senate has any authority to designate a body to edit voter rolls and determine voter eligibility. This would require a Constitutional amendment. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 11, 2009, 05:07:21 PM If nobody has anything to add, I'd like Mr PPT to open the final vote. There are 8 Senators so 5 votes are needed, right ?
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 05:07:55 PM This "bill" has to be an amendment.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 11, 2009, 05:08:54 PM This "bill" has to be an amendment. Please stop talking. You know nothing about Atlasian Constitution and procedures, nor you care about. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 11, 2009, 05:10:29 PM This "bill" has to be an amendment. Article 5, Section 2, Clause 3: A voter registration shall only remain valid if the voter remains an active member of the Forum at large. The Senate shall have power to define these activity requirements by appropriate legislation. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 05:16:25 PM This "bill" has to be an amendment. Article 5, Section 2, Clause 3: A voter registration shall only remain valid if the voter remains an active member of the Forum at large. The Senate shall have power to define these activity requirements by appropriate legislation. This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 11, 2009, 05:18:06 PM This "bill" has to be an amendment. Article 5, Section 2, Clause 3: A voter registration shall only remain valid if the voter remains an active member of the Forum at large. The Senate shall have power to define these activity requirements by appropriate legislation. This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents. ::) You really need to learn how to read. This bill creates an organization which shall be made up of three individuals (as last I read) which shall look over the activity of each individual brought forward, and remove them from the voter rolls if there is unanimous agreement. In other words, defining activity requirements, totally in the Senate's authority. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 05:19:43 PM This "bill" has to be an amendment. Article 5, Section 2, Clause 3: A voter registration shall only remain valid if the voter remains an active member of the Forum at large. The Senate shall have power to define these activity requirements by appropriate legislation. This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents. ::) You really need to learn how to read. This bill creates an organization which shall be made up of three individuals (as last I read) which shall look over the activity of each individual brought forward, and remove them from the voter rolls if there is unanimous agreement. In other words, defining activity requirements, totally in the Senate's authority. This doesn't define anything at all. It simply produces a body that can do whatever it wants. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 11, 2009, 05:22:17 PM You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 05:23:14 PM You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3. There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 11, 2009, 05:24:19 PM You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3. There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted. "Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 05:25:18 PM You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3. There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted. "Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine. Yeah, opebo and Marokai sound like perfectly objective checks on this organization. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 11, 2009, 05:26:16 PM You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3. There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted. "Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine. Yeah, opebo and Marokai sound like perfectly objective checks on this organization. I can promise you it won't be personal at all. If someone is active at the forum at large, then I would see no reason to be against their appeal. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 05:29:07 PM You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3. There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted. "Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine. Yeah, opebo and Marokai sound like perfectly objective checks on this organization. I can promise you it won't be personal at all. If someone is active at the forum at large, then I would see no reason to be against their appeal. Active? Why should people be forced to post? A lot of people like to just read. The JCP has plenty of voters like that. I never posted on this site until I was told to and now I post too much. As I told Yankee, I never had anything to say when I first signed up so of course I didn't post. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 11, 2009, 05:29:59 PM You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3. There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted. "Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine. Yeah, opebo and Marokai sound like perfectly objective checks on this organization. I can promise you it won't be personal at all. If someone is active at the forum at large, then I would see no reason to be against their appeal. Active? Why should people be forced to post? A lot of people like to just read. The JCP has plenty of voters like that. I never posted on this site until I was told to and now I post too much. As I told Yankee, I never had anything to say when I first signed up so of course I didn't post. I'll let this post speak for itself. I don't think I have to argue against someone who is actively defending people who don't post at all. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 05:32:27 PM You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3. There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted. "Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine. Yeah, opebo and Marokai sound like perfectly objective checks on this organization. I can promise you it won't be personal at all. If someone is active at the forum at large, then I would see no reason to be against their appeal. Active? Why should people be forced to post? A lot of people like to just read. The JCP has plenty of voters like that. I never posted on this site until I was told to and now I post too much. As I told Yankee, I never had anything to say when I first signed up so of course I didn't post. I'll let this post speak for itself. I don't think I have to argue against someone who is actively defending people who don't post at all. What should I care if people post 5 times a week or 50 times a day? Maybe they don't post, cuz they, um, have a job, or something normal like that. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Purple State on December 11, 2009, 05:37:17 PM Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate.
This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Lief 🗽 on December 11, 2009, 05:38:46 PM Can some, in like a paragraph or 100 words or so, explain to me what this bill will do? Because I am wary of creating more bureaucracy to solve a problem that does not exist.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 05:40:08 PM Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate. This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction. I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 11, 2009, 05:47:10 PM What is the obsession with post count and participation in Atlasia? It seems like the whole goal is to lock political opponents of yours into some sort of catch-22. If new members start to participate, they are attacked as zombies taking orders, so they end up avoiding Atlasia completely, which in turn lets you talk about how they are zombies who never post.
As a victim of this slander myself, it is getting old. Maybe they don't post, cuz they, um, have a job, or something normal like that. LOL, that's got to hurt. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on December 11, 2009, 05:48:39 PM This legislation has nothing to do with post counts. Reading the legislation more carefully would reveal that important aspect of this bill.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 11, 2009, 05:49:01 PM This legislation has nothing to do with post counts. Reading the legislation more carefully would reveal that important aspect of this bill. They're not interested in the truth. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 11, 2009, 05:52:19 PM This legislation has nothing to do with post counts. Reading the legislation more carefully would reveal that important aspect of this bill. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on December 11, 2009, 05:54:10 PM This legislation has nothing to do with post counts. Reading the legislation more carefully would reveal that important aspect of this bill. Ah, yes, I forgot about the evil dictators and the evil authoritarian fascist government. Sorry, please do carry on. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 11, 2009, 05:55:07 PM This legislation has nothing to do with post counts. Reading the legislation more carefully would reveal that important aspect of this bill. Rules and individuals which must be confirmed by the Senate, issuing decisions that must be agreed upon unanimously, followed up the appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn their decisions. It's abundantly clear you don't have a clue what you're talking about here, and are simply flocking to Hamilton (you must enjoy his.. company.. if you catch my drift) just to cause a ruckus and hope that a bunch of ignorant trolling, scaremongering, and debunked procedural worries derail the process. This is the Senate. A deliberative body. If you have something intelligent to contribute, then please, feel free. Otherwise, I kindly has you to take you uneducated opinions on this bill elsewhere. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Purple State on December 11, 2009, 05:58:45 PM Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate. This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction. I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination. I provided an amendment that Hash then proposed (which means it was accepted as friendly) that addressed the issue you brought up 2 pages ago or so. For someone who wants to be so involved in Senate debate, you should more closely follow the evolution of bills. For Lief (and anyone else): This body, made up of three members, will be appointed by the President and confirmed by two-thirds of the Senate. They will then form guidelines by which to judge whether individuals can be judged to be what we term "zombies" that are detrimental to the game. These guidelines and all future edits must be passed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The body may then only judge someone to be inactive and remove them by a unanimous vote. At this point, the ruling may be appealed by the affected individual to the Supreme Court, which may overrule this body for overstepping its guidelines or any other illegal action. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 06:01:00 PM Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate. This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction. I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination. I provided an amendment that Hash then proposed (which means it was accepted as friendly) that addressed the issue you brought up 2 pages ago or so. For someone who wants to be so involved in Senate debate, you should more closely follow the evolution of bills. The President doesn't even know what is going on in this trainwreck of a thread. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Purple State on December 11, 2009, 06:11:18 PM Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate. This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction. I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination. I provided an amendment that Hash then proposed (which means it was accepted as friendly) that addressed the issue you brought up 2 pages ago or so. For someone who wants to be so involved in Senate debate, you should more closely follow the evolution of bills. The President doesn't even know what is going on in this trainwreck of a thread. I didn't realize Senate discussions to improve a bill make a thread a train-wreck. If you don't like the sausage-making then don't get involved. If you want to get involved, make sure you know what you're talking about. The President didn't he attack the bill when he didn't know what was in it, which you seemed to have no trouble doing. Say your sorry, educate yourself, and then come back with a relevant response if you really want to be a part of Senate deliberations. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 11, 2009, 06:13:16 PM I would like to start a final vote as soon as possible, but debate is still ongoing at this time.
As to my own vote...I remain completely undecided. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 06:15:47 PM Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate. This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction. I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination. I provided an amendment that Hash then proposed (which means it was accepted as friendly) that addressed the issue you brought up 2 pages ago or so. For someone who wants to be so involved in Senate debate, you should more closely follow the evolution of bills. The President doesn't even know what is going on in this trainwreck of a thread. I didn't realize Senate discussions to improve a bill make a thread a train-wreck. If you don't like the sausage-making then don't get involved. If you want to get involved, make sure you know what you're talking about. The President didn't he attack the bill when he didn't know what was in it, which you seemed to have no trouble doing. Say your sorry, educate yourself, and then come back with a relevant response if you really want to be a part of Senate deliberations. I explicitly referred to the text of the original post in my analysis. I have no need to apologize. Stop trying to play victim all the time. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Purple State on December 11, 2009, 06:18:14 PM Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate. This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction. I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination. I provided an amendment that Hash then proposed (which means it was accepted as friendly) that addressed the issue you brought up 2 pages ago or so. For someone who wants to be so involved in Senate debate, you should more closely follow the evolution of bills. The President doesn't even know what is going on in this trainwreck of a thread. I didn't realize Senate discussions to improve a bill make a thread a train-wreck. If you don't like the sausage-making then don't get involved. If you want to get involved, make sure you know what you're talking about. The President didn't he attack the bill when he didn't know what was in it, which you seemed to have no trouble doing. Say your sorry, educate yourself, and then come back with a relevant response if you really want to be a part of Senate deliberations. I explicitly referred to the text of the original post in my analysis. I have no need to apologize. Stop trying to play victim all the time. Show me where you made that explicit. I sure don't see it. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 06:19:57 PM This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Purple State on December 11, 2009, 06:32:53 PM This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents. Then I stand corrected on that point. Duly noted. I would urge you in the future to discuss the bill as it stands, rather than what you may see in the first post. It doesn't help to rehash debates that have already been had earlier in the thread. Also, I wrote an amendment as a direct response to a worry you had a few pages back. Would be nice if you checked back to see that people are taking your worries into account, rather than ignoring them. Again, if you want to be involved in making the sausage, you have to keep track of what is being put in or being taken out. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 06:34:22 PM This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents. Then I stand corrected on that point. Duly noted. I would urge you in the future to discuss the bill as it stands, rather than what you may see in the first post. It doesn't help to rehash debates that have already been had earlier in the thread. Also, I wrote an amendment as a direct response to a worry you had a few pages back. Would be nice if you checked back to see that people are taking your worries into account, rather than ignoring them. Again, if you want to be involved in making the sausage, you have to keep track of what is being put in or being taken out. I apologize for not having the time to dig through an 8 page thread looking for the text of a bill that may or may not be Constitutional while an election is going on... That being said, it would be nice if Marokai updated the initial post. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Purple State on December 11, 2009, 06:37:04 PM This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents. Then I stand corrected on that point. Duly noted. I would urge you in the future to discuss the bill as it stands, rather than what you may see in the first post. It doesn't help to rehash debates that have already been had earlier in the thread. Also, I wrote an amendment as a direct response to a worry you had a few pages back. Would be nice if you checked back to see that people are taking your worries into account, rather than ignoring them. Again, if you want to be involved in making the sausage, you have to keep track of what is being put in or being taken out. I apologize for not having the time to dig through an 8 page thread looking for the text of a bill that may or may not be Constitutional while an election is going on... That being said, it would be nice if Marokai updated the initial post. The initial post shouldn't be updated. It helps to be able to see the evolution of the bill when it is Wiki'd. You had already posted in this thread. If you hadn't checked the thread since that post, there would have been a little "New" icon. If you clicked it you would end up right where you left off, which is right where I put forward an amendment fixing your problem with the bill. As for the constitutional issue, you could have figured that out if you read the relevant part of the Constitution. It didn't necessitate so many posts. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 11, 2009, 06:41:12 PM This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents. Then I stand corrected on that point. Duly noted. I would urge you in the future to discuss the bill as it stands, rather than what you may see in the first post. It doesn't help to rehash debates that have already been had earlier in the thread. Also, I wrote an amendment as a direct response to a worry you had a few pages back. Would be nice if you checked back to see that people are taking your worries into account, rather than ignoring them. Again, if you want to be involved in making the sausage, you have to keep track of what is being put in or being taken out. I apologize for not having the time to dig through an 8 page thread looking for the text of a bill that may or may not be Constitutional while an election is going on... That being said, it would be nice if Marokai updated the initial post. You had already posted in this thread. If you hadn't checked the thread since that post, there would have been a little "New" icon. If you clicked it you would end up right where you left off, which is right where I put forward an amendment fixing your problem with the bill. Depends on how you enter the thread. I could have clicked the last page, or been viewing the initial page while logged out and logged in from there. I never saw your post. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 11, 2009, 06:49:15 PM This legislation has nothing to do with post counts. Reading the legislation more carefully would reveal that important aspect of this bill. Rules and individuals which must be confirmed by the Senate, issuing decisions that must be agreed upon unanimously, followed up the appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn their decisions. It's abundantly clear you don't have a clue what you're talking about here, and are simply flocking to Hamilton (you must enjoy his.. company.. if you catch my drift) just to cause a ruckus and hope that a bunch of ignorant trolling, scaremongering, and debunked procedural worries derail the process. This is the Senate. A deliberative body. If you have something intelligent to contribute, then please, feel free. Otherwise, I kindly has you to take you uneducated opinions on this bill elsewhere. But of course. After all, the whole point of this bill is to institutionalize the idea that only you and your boyfriends should be allowed to participate in Atlasia. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: MaxQue on December 11, 2009, 07:23:11 PM This legislation has nothing to do with post counts. Reading the legislation more carefully would reveal that important aspect of this bill. Rules and individuals which must be confirmed by the Senate, issuing decisions that must be agreed upon unanimously, followed up the appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn their decisions. It's abundantly clear you don't have a clue what you're talking about here, and are simply flocking to Hamilton (you must enjoy his.. company.. if you catch my drift) just to cause a ruckus and hope that a bunch of ignorant trolling, scaremongering, and debunked procedural worries derail the process. This is the Senate. A deliberative body. If you have something intelligent to contribute, then please, feel free. Otherwise, I kindly has you to take you uneducated opinions on this bill elsewhere. But of course. After all, the whole point of this bill is to institutionalize the idea that only you and your boyfriends should be allowed to participate in Atlasia. The new body won't delete of the voter rolls, you are active! Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Lief 🗽 on December 11, 2009, 08:11:25 PM For Lief (and anyone else): This body, made up of three members, will be appointed by the President and confirmed by two-thirds of the Senate. They will then form guidelines by which to judge whether individuals can be judged to be what we term "zombies" that are detrimental to the game. These guidelines and all future edits must be passed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The body may then only judge someone to be inactive and remove them by a unanimous vote. At this point, the ruling may be appealed by the affected individual to the Supreme Court, which may overrule this body for overstepping its guidelines or any other illegal action. Thank you. Would these people have to be citizens who currently do not hold office? And why does the Senate feel it needs to give away its authority to pass these "guidelines" regarding zombies? Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 12, 2009, 03:50:01 AM So, can we have a final vote please ? ;)
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 12, 2009, 06:09:39 AM So, can we have a final vote please ? ;) I would like to, but I feel that debate is still ongoing. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 12, 2009, 06:14:33 AM So, can we have a final vote please ? ;) I would like to, but I feel that debate is still ongoing. The debate is cause by people who are not Senators, and who don't bring anything contructive. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 12, 2009, 06:16:36 AM So, can we have a final vote please ? ;) I would like to, but I feel that debate is still ongoing. The debate is cause by people who are not Senators, and who don't bring anything contructive. I'm required to wait 24 hours after the last debate among senators. Unless someone wishes to move to invoke cloture, but that would require one more vote than regular passage. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 12, 2009, 06:21:45 AM So, can we have a final vote please ? ;) I would like to, but I feel that debate is still ongoing. The debate is cause by people who are not Senators, and who don't bring anything contructive. I'm required to wait 24 hours after the last debate (b]among senators[/b]. Unless someone wishes to move to invoke cloture, but that would require one more vote than regular passage. Precisely. Hamilton&co aren't Senators. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 12, 2009, 06:22:21 AM So, can we have a final vote please ? ;) I would like to, but I feel that debate is still ongoing. The debate is cause by people who are not Senators, and who don't bring anything contructive. I'm required to wait 24 hours after the last debate (b]among senators[/b]. Unless someone wishes to move to invoke cloture, but that would require one more vote than regular passage. Precisely. ;) Hamilton&co aren't Senators. Yet. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Fritz on December 12, 2009, 11:58:20 AM I will continue to oppose this legislation, no matter how it is amended.
The legality of voter registration must be clearly defined in the law. This bill allows an appointed body to subjectively make a determination that a particular voter is ineligible. While the bill has improved somewhat, putting in additional checks and balances, it still allows for a voter who has met every legal requirement to vote to be disqualified based on popular opinion of that voter. I will not vote in favor of any bill that makes that allowance. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 12, 2009, 12:26:32 PM I hereby open a final vote on this bill.
Quote Section 1 : Nomination Process and Requirements 1. The High Authority for Ethics in Voting shall be composed of three members. 2. One member of the HAEV shall be nominated every two months. If there are already 3 members in office, the most recently nominated member shall replace the longest-serving member. Immediately after passage of this bill, all three members shall be elected simultaneously. 3. The President shall nominate candidates to the HAEV with the advice and consent of the Senate. 4. Nominees to the HAEV shall be subject to a confirmation process as determined by the OSPR. The Senate must confirm the nominee by a two-thirds vote in favor. Section 2 : Role and Powers 1. In accordance with Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Atlasian Constitution, the HAEV shall have the power to declare an Atlasian Citizen inactive, and therefore to remove the registration in question from the Registered Voters List effective one week after its decision. 2. Any Atlasian Citizen who is not declared inactive by the HAEV shall be considered as active, unless Atlasian law provides otherwise. 3. The HAEV shall deliberate in a public and dedicated thread located in the Atlas Fantasy Government board. 4. An Atlasian Citizen shall be declared inactive by the HAEV only if all three members express their agreement in considering he or she as inactive. 5. "The HAEV shall choose a presiding officer to ensure the proper functioning of the body. The HAEV shall create binding guidelines before acting in its designated capacity, the institution and future amendment of which must be affirmed by two-thirds of the Senate." Section 3: Possibility of Appeal Whereas: -The notion of "inactive" specified in Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Atlasian Constitution can be subject to different interpretations, and that the HAEV may potentially abuse this ambiguity by declaring as "inactive" an Atlasian citizen who should not be considered so. - The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution in the case when its formulation is ambiguous. 1. An Atlasian Citizen who has been declared inactive by the HAEV shall have the right to appeal said declaration in the week following the HAEV's decision. 2. In the case previously specified, the Supreme Court shall have the power to annul the decision of the HAEV. The procedure used shall be the same as for any court case. Please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 12, 2009, 12:34:21 PM I've made my decision.
Despite my initial and, to be perfectly honest, ongoing sceptical views about how this would work in practice, I believe we should give the idea a chance. There are very many safeguards in place to ensure that people aren't denied their right to vote for mere political reasons. Not only the supermajority required to confirm members of the HAEV, but also the fact that it requires a 3-0 vote there to actually remove someone from the voter list. Not to mention the possible appeal to the Supreme Court. I'm willing to see how it turns out if implemented. I vote Aye. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on December 12, 2009, 12:40:46 PM A strong Aye, and I encourage all other Senators to give this proposal a chance. If it works, keep it, but if it ends up not working once implemented, we will have all the rights to repeal this.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: tmthforu94 on December 12, 2009, 12:41:11 PM I'm willing to see how this turns out, and if how much it helps Atlasia.
Aye Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Fritz on December 12, 2009, 12:54:35 PM Nay
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 12, 2009, 12:56:20 PM Aye: 3
Nay: 1 2 more votes in favor are required for passage. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Lief 🗽 on December 12, 2009, 01:10:31 PM So, can we have a final vote please ? ;) I would like to, but I feel that debate is still ongoing. The debate is cause by people who are not Senators, and who don't bring anything contructive. um... excuse me? If apparently my questions aren't "constructive" then I can just veto this silly bill like I had originally planned. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on December 12, 2009, 01:20:16 PM I can just veto this silly bill like I had originally planned. Your support is appreciated. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 12, 2009, 01:33:02 PM So, can we have a final vote please ? ;) I would like to, but I feel that debate is still ongoing. The debate is cause by people who are not Senators, and who don't bring anything contructive. um... excuse me? If apparently my questions aren't "constructive" then I can just veto this silly bill like I had originally planned. You perfectly know I wasn't alluding to you. Please don't be so touchy and understand my irritation to see Hamilton doing everything he can to block a bill he doesn't approve. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 12, 2009, 01:34:42 PM So, can we have a final vote please ? ;) I would like to, but I feel that debate is still ongoing. The debate is cause by people who are not Senators, and who don't bring anything contructive. um... excuse me? If apparently my questions aren't "constructive" then I can just veto this silly bill like I had originally planned. You perfectly know I wasn't alluding to you. Please don't be so touchy and understand my irritation to see Hamilton doing everything he can to block a bill he doesn't approve. Why not? You are in here trying to support a bill you foolishly approve of. That is some okay but what I do isn't it. lol. Man, you people get worse with time, don't you? Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Lief 🗽 on December 12, 2009, 01:40:17 PM Well, my questions are still unanswered despite the pushiness of some people here to end debate immediately. And at the moment I'm inclined to agree with Fritz, as I have been since this bill was introduced.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 12, 2009, 01:46:45 PM Would these people have to be citizens who currently do not hold office? Since the Atlasian law prohibits to hold more than one office, yes, they should. Quote And why does the Senate feel it needs to give away its authority to pass these "guidelines" regarding zombies? Because last time it tried to do this, it was accused of being uneffective/counterproductive. Delegating this authority to people which are here to deal with the issue is the best thing we can do. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: MaxQue on December 12, 2009, 01:55:09 PM Aye
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hans-im-Glück on December 12, 2009, 02:06:42 PM AYE
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on December 12, 2009, 02:07:58 PM Yeah! Now, off to the hard part(s).
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 12, 2009, 02:23:44 PM This bill has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 12, 2009, 03:05:08 PM Aye ftr
I am a little skeptical of this as well, but we shall have to see how it turns out. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 12, 2009, 04:26:33 PM Well done, Senators.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on December 12, 2009, 04:30:22 PM Well done, Senators. It feels weird to have your support in this now :P Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 12, 2009, 04:31:37 PM Well done, Senators. It feels weird to have your support in this now :P It's worth a try ;) Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Fritz on December 12, 2009, 04:34:02 PM I hope Lief vetoes this.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Hash on December 12, 2009, 04:35:10 PM Otoh, I obviously ask Lief to give this proposal the benefit of the doubt like a majority of Senators have clearly asked.
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 12, 2009, 04:39:34 PM I hope Lief vetoes this. If senators stand to their votes, there are sufficient to override. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Purple State on December 12, 2009, 05:58:14 PM Let me apologize to Lief for not getting back to him. The sabbath will tend to do that.
For Lief (and anyone else): This body, made up of three members, will be appointed by the President and confirmed by two-thirds of the Senate. They will then form guidelines by which to judge whether individuals can be judged to be what we term "zombies" that are detrimental to the game. These guidelines and all future edits must be passed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The body may then only judge someone to be inactive and remove them by a unanimous vote. At this point, the ruling may be appealed by the affected individual to the Supreme Court, which may overrule this body for overstepping its guidelines or any other illegal action. Thank you. Would these people have to be citizens who currently do not hold office? And why does the Senate feel it needs to give away its authority to pass these "guidelines" regarding zombies? I would say allowing the Senate to delegate these rules to a body that is focused solely on this one task will de-politicize the procedure as much as possible. In addition, the Senate will have to pass the guidelines determined by the body with a two-thirds vote, so it isn't completely divested from the process. Your first question is a good one and I am not sure of the answer. Who would be able to answer it? I guess you would have to appoint someone who currently holds office, have them refuse to resign their previous position and then take it to the Supreme Court to find out. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Sam Spade on December 13, 2009, 12:42:19 PM Well done, Senators. It feels weird to have your support in this now :P It's worth a try ;) (sigh) Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Franzl on December 13, 2009, 04:22:27 PM This bill passes.
I hereby present it to the President for his signature or veto. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Lief 🗽 on December 14, 2009, 01:31:56 PM X Lief
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 14, 2009, 01:49:22 PM Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 17, 2009, 01:58:34 PM So, when will the elections for HAEV start ?
Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Barnes on December 17, 2009, 04:23:06 PM So, when will the elections for HAEV start ? They aren't elected, but nominated by the President. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: bgwah on December 18, 2009, 06:09:07 PM Would these people have to be citizens who currently do not hold office? Since the Atlasian law prohibits to hold more than one office, yes, they should. Really? Seems more along the lines of a constitutional delegate to me. Title: Re: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 18, 2009, 06:12:28 PM Would these people have to be citizens who currently do not hold office? Since the Atlasian law prohibits to hold more than one office, yes, they should. Really? Seems more along the lines of a constitutional delegate to me. It was established as an office. |