Northeast Assembly Thread

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If I may butt in here...

I did end up here initially through a weird confluence of events.

But personally however we get there, it's how you treat that privilege. I never put myself in as a joke, I was fully prepared to serve. However, my surprise was based on the idea that I would have gotten enough votes to actually secure a place, not because I didn't take the idea seriously... k

I for the record support reducing the size of the Assembly. 

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Dallas has made a great point. I haven't been here nearly as long as he has, so I'd like to propose an amendment.

From:
"vii) The Northeast Assembly shall be composed of five members, each of whom shall be registered voters residing in the Northeast Region."

To:
"vii) The Northeast Assembly shall be composed of five members, each of whom shall be registered voters residing in the Northeast Region. However, if the population grows beyond or below a specific threshold, the Northeast Assembly shall possess the ability to amend this amendment to either increase or decrease the amount of Representatives in the Northeast Assembly."

[tmthforu94]

Jumps into the debate...

The best part of this game are the elections. That being said, the elections for the Northeast Assembly are extremely predictable.

Jake, I know you think 5 is a small number, but in the last election, there were only  5 or so candidates. When's the last time the Northeast has had more candidates actually running than there were seats for? I don't think there ever has been.

At this point, the only arguement I could see for having such a large Assembly is so that as many people as possible can be involved. If that's what the majority of you want, then why don't you just give everyone in the Northeast the power to vote in the Assembly and do away with the elections?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Jumps into the debate...

The best part of this game are the elections. That being said, the elections for the Northeast Assembly are extremely predictable.

Jake, I know you think 5 is a small number, but in the last election, there were only  5 or so candidates. When's the last time the Northeast has had more candidates actually running than there were seats for? I don't think there ever has been.

At this point, the only arguement I could see for having such a large Assembly is so that as many people as possible can be involved. If that's what the majority of you want, then why don't you just give everyone in the Northeast the power to vote in the Assembly and do away with the elections?

Alright, 5 seems fair enough. I amended my amendment

[Rowan]

I support reducing the size of the Assembly, FWIW.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Mr. Speaker, should we begin voting on my amendment or will we not be doing so?

[tpfkaw]

Mr. Speaker, should we begin voting on my amendment or will we not be doing so?

We need to wait for The Economist to say whether he will accept it as friendly or not.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

If I may butt in here...

I did end up here initially through a weird confluence of events.

But personally however we get there, it's how you treat that privilege. I never put myself in as a joke, I was fully prepared to serve. However, my surprise was based on the idea that I would have gotten enough votes to actually secure a place, not because I didn't take the idea seriously... k

Well, I more had Gramps and Earl in mind when I said that than you.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Mr. Speaker, should we begin voting on my amendment or will we not be doing so?

We need to wait for The Economist to say whether he will accept it as friendly or not.

He hasn't been online to even participate in the debate.

[tpfkaw]

Mr. Speaker, should we begin voting on my amendment or will we not be doing so?

We need to wait for The Economist to say whether he will accept it as friendly or not.

He hasn't been online to even participate in the debate.

Unfortunately, that is the case...

Nevertheless, procedure can't just be dumped by the wayside.

[tpfkaw]

With no objections, I'm ruling that the GTO Remembrance Act has passed.

[The Economist]

I won't accept the amendment as friendly, just because what was added on is completely useless.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I won't accept the amendment as friendly, just because what was added on is completely useless.

Yeah, now that I look back on it, the amendment is redundant. I withdraw my amendment.

[tpfkaw]

We shall now vote on the Making Competitive Elections Amendment.  Voting shall continue until March 7, 2011, 4:29 PM EST.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tpfkaw]

Nay.

I believe that our large assembly is an asset to the region.  New members can get a start and a feel for politics as soon as the next assembly election.  A small assembly protects the same incumbents over and over again, and prevents new members from having a say.  While some might say that it is a system similar to the Pacific or Midwest, this is not in fact the case, as the small obstacle of actually having to run a campaign for the seat at least ensures that everyone voting is genuinely interested in performing the duties of Assemblyman, as opposed to merely being a zombie told to vote one way or another by party bosses.  I think it would be a grave error for our region to change its constitution in this manner.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Abstain.

[Free Palestine]

Nay

[The Economist]

Aye

[tpfkaw]

This amendment fails, 2 nays, 1 aye, 1 abstaining, 2 not voting.

[tpfkaw]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Rep. Jake Matthews

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until March 10, 2011, 3:19 PM EST, unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Jake Matthews, has the floor.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Friends,

For far too long we have seen businesses, large and small, take advantage and victimize consumers by falsely advertising their products. I have seen advertisements for hand towels that can supposedly hold twice their weight in liquid, yet when I bought the product, it failed to do so. I found out later that you need to apply a specific amount of pressure for it to work. That is one of the many examples of a corporation falsely advertising their product. This bill simply lays out rules that need to be followed in the advertisement industry and lay out repercussions if any of the rules are broken. I ask for your "aye" vote in an attempt to improve the consumer-business relationship and bring honesty back into advertising.

Thank you.

[tpfkaw]

I respectfully disagree with the sponsor of this bill.  If a person feels they have been falsely advertised to in a particularly egregious manner, they may already sue the advertiser for recompense, or file a complaint with a private organization like the Better Business Bureau.  Furthermore, nearly all retailers have return or money-back policies for unsatisfied customers.  Making "false advertisement" a criminal offense is wholly absurd, and this bill is sure to create a huge number of spurious complaints that would waste millions of dollars worth of regional court time and litigation fees ("I bought this treadmill, but I didn't lose any weight!"  "It wasn't the best movie of the year!").  The example that the sponsor gives is telling; the possibilities of a product do not always match the typical outcomes (not everyone gets fit on the treadmill or likes the movie), but that doesn't mean that it ought to be a criminal offense to advertise possibilities.  In the end, the best option simply is to allow each company to build a reputation.  If a company skirts the line with their advertising, and builds a poor reputation with consumers, then not as many people will patronize them in the future.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Well, I may not have made it explicitally clear that "false advertisement" shall apply to when a product does not work, like making a claim that "I didn't lose any weight on this treadmill!" Is not going to be heard in a court, but if the person bought the treadmill and it short circuited and electrocuted them, that will be heard. Even if a company offers a money back guarantee, that applies to if one is disatisfied with the product, but if one is disatisfied and also feels that the product caused them legitimate harm (injury of sorts) or if does not fulfill it's proper usage as advertised, they may file a complaint with the Government. Yes, there will be court costs, but it makes for a safer product and more truth in advertisement.

[Napoleon]

Is this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

really suitable for "legislation"?

On another note, the penalties established are very minimal and I'd assume that they'd be meaningless to any kind of large company wealthy enough to advertise it's products on airwaves or such.

Wormyguy also makes a compelling argument, I support the notion of consumer protection but laws like this only complicate things, lead to more class action lawsuits, and make it really difficult for people to advertise. What would happen to Super Bowl commercials?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Is this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

really suitable for "legislation"?

On another note, the penalties established are very minimal and I'd assume that they'd be meaningless to any kind of large company wealthy enough to advertise it's products on airwaves or such.

Wormyguy also makes a compelling argument, I support the notion of consumer protection but laws like this only complicate things, lead to more class action lawsuits, and make it really difficult for people to advertise. What would happen to Super Bowl commercials?

To your first point, possibly. I was attempting to emphasize my point. Also, I do understand that the penalties are minimal, but I intend to add an amendment, I just need to figure out what they should be. Do you have any ideas? As for your point about superbowl commercials, I understand that the intent is to be enternaining and an advertisement can be such until the product is lied about or overexaggerated.