PLEASE SAY IT AIN'T SO.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

If votes in the ConCon don't count, then you are right.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

If votes in the ConCon don't count, then you are right.

1. Where a Senator fails or neglects to post on any matter of Senate business for a period of not less than 21 days, the seat held by that Senator shall be deemed 'vacant'.

2. Clause 1 of this section shall not apply for periods of declared absence by Senators.

His only escape is clause 2.

Another cursory glance suggests that he didn't make any such declaration.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

If votes in the ConCon don't count, then you are right.

1. Where a Senator fails or neglects to post on any matter of Senate business for a period of not less than 21 days, the seat held by that Senator shall be deemed 'vacant'.

2. Clause 1 of this section shall not apply for periods of declared absence by Senators.

His only escape is clause 2.

Another cursory glance suggests that he didn't make any such declaration.

My examinations of both boards back to August yields similar negative results.

Is that it, then? I'm guessing this whole deal will be huge pain in the backside for everyone involved.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

This vote, on October 10, was Senate business, not Con-Con business:

Aye

Yes, it relates to the Con-Con, but it was a vote taken by the Senate.

So Bacon King has until end of day TODAY to some Senate business.

His time is up. It has officialy been 21 days, as of 8 minutes ago.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

This vote, on October 10, was Senate business, not Con-Con business:

Aye

Yes, it relates to the Con-Con, but it was a vote taken by the Senate.

So Bacon King has until end of day TODAY to some Senate business.

I missed it because it had Con-Con in the title.

Same.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

Bacon King just posted some Senate business at 6:31 CST. I don't know what slack you'll give him, but he's technically out. I'm pretty sure some leniency is called for, but, from a judicial point of view, it's a sticky situation.

The post at 6:31

Aye!

His previous Senate post:

Aye

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

The OSPR says 21 days. We are now at 21 days 18 minutes.

I don't see any room for leniency as much as wish there was.

Let's say no one cuts him any slack...do the votes he made in the last 20 minutes get annulled?
Regardless of the answer, someone needs to answer the question of whether BK is still a Senator and fast.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

In my opinion, the courts should oficially examine the matter. I understand that Bacon King is a well-respected member of the community, but it isn't fair to exempt him from due process. There should be some deliberation. If he is found to have acted in a manner prompt enough to avoid the seat oficially becoming vacant, then so be it. However, I feel that, based on the comments, he is being "let off the hook" due to his stature.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

In my opinion, the courts should oficially examine the matter. I understand that Bacon King is a well-respected member of the community, but it isn't fair to exempt him from due process. There should be some deliberation. If he is found to have acted in a manner prompt enough to avoid the seat oficially becoming vacant, then so be it. However, I feel that, based on the comments, he is being "let of the hook" due to his stature.

I find your strict interpretation of the rules fascinating! Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about banned members returning with new accounts?

I'm saying it should go to the courts. If you want to question my eligibility, go to the courts. Adhere to the due process of law. Don't patronize me. You should concentrate on your position rather than harassing citizens.

In my opinion, the courts should oficially examine the matter. I understand that Bacon King is a well-respected member of the community, but it isn't fair to exempt him from due process. There should be some deliberation. If he is found to have acted in a manner prompt enough to avoid the seat oficially becoming vacant, then so be it. However, I feel that, based on the comments, he is being "let of the hook" due to his stature.

I find your strict interpretation of the rules fascinating! Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about banned members returning with new accounts?

I could see letting rules slide in the debate or allowing an amendment be brought to a vote that wasn't offered or something like that. But this calls into question the legitimacy of BK's Senate votes. And technically any Atlasian could challenge him court because he represents the entire nation as an At-Large Senator.

Exactly. Bgwah, this is not just MY position. I am talking about something that affects all of Atlasia.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

I don't see why the courts would even need to examine this, as it seems clear cut to me. Bacon King went for 3 straight weeks without posting, and by law, he is no longer a Senator, regardless of what the PPT does.

As much as I think Bacon King should stay in the Senate, we'd be setting a bad precedent by breaking the law in order to keep him in there. If he wants to stay in, he can always run in the special election.

That would I think be a fair compromise. Let the vacancy stand and then have BK run in the special. Its not like he would have a problem winning the special as a JCPer.

Sounds reasonable.

It's not reasonable at all and I would caution against falling for that trap. Coming off the heels of three weeks of inactivity wouldn't make him an attractive choice for people to vote for. The right would put up a moderate and/or likable figure and then demolish him with this as an issue.

That's funny, Marokai.  I was under the impression that you were a really big fan of democracy.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't understand. What did he say that was undemocratic? I thought he was just earnestly questioning the viability of a candidate who had just neglected his position for an extended period of time.