Zombie Preparedness Act

falapatorius:
McM:
Yep! Don't worry Roman, you weren't the only one who fell for it.
Click to expand...
Lol.. noobs. :P
Click to expand...
roman2_zps984a1de2.png
 
flemingovia:
Are we still debating the act or what?

The speaker really ought to be keeping this on track.
Click to expand...
Formal debate just ended, Flem. Patience is a virtue, even for deities.

This bill, as it is on the OP right now with McM's edits added in as COE has accepted, is scheduled for a vote in two days time. As there was a motion to object to formal debate (which is invalid), I would take it that there is still some potential objection to the bill as it is, so I would remind this assembly that there is the option to object to the scheduling of a vote.
 
Lord Nwahs:
flemingovia:
Are we still debating the act or what?

The speaker really ought to be keeping this on track.
Click to expand...
Formal debate just ended, Flem. Patience is a virtue, even for deities.

This bill, as it is on the OP right now with McM's edits added in as COE has accepted, is scheduled for a vote in two days time. As there was a motion to object to formal debate (which is invalid), I would take it that there is still some potential objection to the bill as it is, so I would remind this assembly that there is the option to object to the scheduling of a vote.
Click to expand...
Is the difference significant between objecting to formal debate and objecting to scheduling a vote? Given that moving for formal debate schedules the vote >_>
 
mcmasterdonia:
Lord Nwahs:
flemingovia:
Are we still debating the act or what?

The speaker really ought to be keeping this on track.
Click to expand...
Formal debate just ended, Flem. Patience is a virtue, even for deities.

This bill, as it is on the OP right now with McM's edits added in as COE has accepted, is scheduled for a vote in two days time. As there was a motion to object to formal debate (which is invalid), I would take it that there is still some potential objection to the bill as it is, so I would remind this assembly that there is the option to object to the scheduling of a vote.
Click to expand...
Is the difference significant between objecting to formal debate and objecting to scheduling a vote? Given that moving for formal debate schedules the vote >_>
Click to expand...
Any difference is technical, but I follow the current standing procedures religiously.
 
I object to the vote.

My objection is on two grounds:

First, this matter has been rushed through debate. It is an important extension of the executive powers, and deserved more time on the floor of the RA.

Second, for most of the formal debate it has been unclear precisely what the wording of the motion is.

The proposer promised to update the OP, but failed to do so. the fact that he was accepting McM and SS amendments was buried in the body of the thread. Unless you ploughed through five pages of posts you would not be aware of precisely what was being debated.

Even then, the way CoE worded his comments was very vague and misleading:

I move for a vote.

So far, the only change I'm considering is the rephrasing of the first clause in the new section to narrow the scope of events that are covered by the section.
Click to expand...

and

I accept Mcm's alterations and SillyString's tweaks. I'll update the OP when I get time.

I'm thinking of deleting the second clause though - it seems redundant with the third. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

The latter quote could easily have given the impression that the OP, some days later, contained the final text, or that the wording of the proposal was still being drafted.

Either way, this is all a bit of a botch-up. in all my years in the RA I have never reached the end of formal debate without clarity of the exact words we are going to vote on.

This is, as I have said, an important bill which gives the delegate right to ban without legal redress in a whole new area of gameplay. If we are going to have laws on this it needs to be carefully drafted and considered. This bill is neither.

Again, I object to vote.
 
I second the objection.
I'm not sure that we can legislatively anticipate how the Zombie infection would work in a week's time, much less in future years, and I think we need to seriously question whether in practical terms, this legislation is even appropriate.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Flap:
In light of this:

if a region contains many nations with high numbers of zombies, all resident nations will become infected quicker.
Click to expand...
I think a good initial strategy would be to cure all the nations with the largest populations. The active large nations will then be free to cure at will. The inactive ones won't be able to increase the infection rate. Then we could use the same method as last year.. systematically cleansing the region. :2c:
Click to expand...

I agree. We have a page on this forum that lists nations in order of highest infected -> lowest infected. We can use that to coordinate.


Flap:
Roman:
OK, I got played but good!
Click to expand...
:rofl: Was that McM's nation flag?
Click to expand...
Yep! Don't worry Roman, you weren't the only one who fell for it.
Click to expand...
That was fargin' brilliant, McM! Fargin' brilliant! :clap: :rofl:


I forgot all about embedding a null script for buttons in flag images. You can actually do it so that if someone clicks on a button in the flag image, it puts up another image in its place.
 
I can't support suspending the Constibillicode for anything but the most dire of circumstances. Z-Day doesn't qualify. I third the objection.
 
Does that mean the nations who voted to research a cure can't?

We've already gathered a couple people to join the TNP For A Cure initiative.

-Premier John Sirus, People's Republic of Syrixia
 
TheEmpireOfSyrixia:
Does that mean the nations who voted to research a cure can't?

We've already gathered a couple people to join the TNP For A Cure initiative.

-Premier John Sirus, People's Republic of Syrixia
Click to expand...
Silly you, there's nothing in the lawbooks that say you can't do anything.

Besides, the official government position was to research for a cure.

(OCC: sometimes people taking RP-ing too seriously can cause a lot of brain damage. To others.)
 
Syrixia:
Does that mean the nations who voted to research a cure can't?
Click to expand...
Not at all. I'll go out on a limb here and say curing will be the TNP way again this year. At least that's what I'm doing anyway.
 
This bill does not suspend either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. :eyeroll: The Constitution explicitly allows the delegate to ban nations as permitted by law; this bill would make specific changes to the law to allow specific bans. That is exactly the way things are supposed to work.

Punk, the idea you suggested would be a potential tactic. However, this bill (or one like it) would be necessary in order to implement that approach, as any nation who chose to heal up in another region in order to return and fight the cure would be stripped of their citizenship without the specific protection this bill contains.

Grosse, just because you don't know how the Zombie event will work doesn't mean that it's in any way mysterious. The underlying mechanics are well known and we can absolutely state how the overall infection will work.
 
My apologies for my absence for the last few days of formal debate. The OP has been updated with the alternate version McM suggested, and some changes of my own. I noticed that the second and third clauses were somewhat redundant, so I combined them into one clause and updated the wording a bit. Here is the new version of this bill, which is also found in the OP:
Zombie Preparedness Act:
1. A new section shall be appended to Chapter 6 of the Legal Code entitled Section 6.8: Disease Control
2. The new section shall have seven clauses, reading as follows:
  • A NationStates event involving an outbreak of an infectious disease shall be considered an actual emergency under clause 11 of the Bill of Rights for all nations of The North Pacific.
  • In advance of an outbreak, or promptly after an outbreak begins, the government shall present a poll to the public regarding how the government should respond. The poll must contain at least three substantially different options. The government will respond according to the will of the public expressed through that poll.
  • During an outbreak, the delegate is authorized to act in any reasonable manner to pursue the adopted plan. This includes, but is not limited to, ejecting or banning nations from the region who have entered the region during the crisis and imposing restrictions on national movement into the region.
  • Nations ejected or banned because of the outbreak must be promptly unbanned and invited to return once the emergency is over.
  • During an outbreak, no nation may have their status as a citizen or Regional Assembly member removed solely for leaving the region, so long as they return within three days of the end of the emergency.
  • Following an outbreak, the Speaker must promptly contact any citizen or Regional Assembly member who remains outside the region, and inform them that they are at risk of losing their status if they do not return within three days.
Click to expand...

I move that a vote should be held on this bill as soon as permitted by law, pursuant to Section 1 Clause 4 of the RA Rules. I believe I will need 7 members to join me in that motion for the bill to proceed. At this point, the event is five days away, so I request that members join my motion in haste.
 
Since the bill has been totally revised, and as such, was only posted today, I think it is highly irregular and inappropriate to rush it to a vote.
Clause 11 of the Bill of Rights, coupled with the Delegate's other powers, provides more than enough legal authority and far more flexibility to respond that any piece of legislation can offer. Not everything requires a bill in the Regional Assembly, and this is one of those instances.
I object to any accelerated time frame for a vote on this revised bill.
 
Grosse, the new version is substantively equivalent to the version posted by Mcm on the 19th, which I indicated my agreement with on the 20th.

Clause 11 is not sufficient to cover emergency powers on zombie day without the expressed consent of the representatives of the nations - that is, the RA. Read clause 11 again - I'm sure it's been a while since you wrote it.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Since the bill has been totally revised, and as such, was only posted today, I think it is highly irregular and inappropriate to rush it to a vote.
Clause 11 of the Bill of Rights, coupled with the Delegate's other powers, provides more than enough legal authority and far more flexibility to respond that any piece of legislation can offer. Not everything requires a bill in the Regional Assembly, and this is one of those instances.
I object to any accelerated time frame for a vote on this revised bill.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree.

In such an act, surely the ra can see that it is wring to finalise a wording then call for an immediate vote?

I understand foe's urgency, but we have known this was coming for twelve months. It is not the ra'so fault that legislation was introduced at the eleventh. Hour.
 
Grosse:
Since the bill has been totally revised, and as such, was only posted today, I think it is highly irregular and inappropriate to rush it to a vote.
Click to expand...
I agree as well. I would humbly ask the Speaker to clarify procedure in this instance. The bill was revised after a vote was scheduled to occur (and subsequently objected to). The proposer may have meant to revise the proposal, but didn't. This revised bill should be re-proposed and debated imo.
 
falapatorius:
Grosse:
Since the bill has been totally revised, and as such, was only posted today, I think it is highly irregular and inappropriate to rush it to a vote.
Click to expand...
I agree as well. I would humbly ask the Speaker to clarify procedure in this instance. The bill was revised after a vote was scheduled to occur (and subsequently objected to). The proposer may have meant to revise the proposal, but didn't. This revised bill should be re-proposed and debated imo.
Click to expand...
After the scheduling of a vote for a motion has been rejected to, the bill can be amended again, and it can either be (at the proposer's discretion) be motion for vote immediately (as pursuant to Section 1 Clause 4 of the RA Rules), or undergo the usual motion to vote/formal debate process (refer to Standing Procedures). Nothing in the RA rules or the Standing Procedures actually specify any different rules if a scheduling of a vote is rejected.
 
You know, this whole concept violates the civil liberties of Zombies.

Instead, I think we should pass a Zombie Equal Rights Act and give Zombies full citizenship and allow them to join the Regional Assembly and hold office...oh, wait...never mind. :lol:
 
Lord Nwahs:
After the scheduling of a vote for a motion has been rejected to, the bill can be amended again, and it can either be (at the proposer's discretion) be motion for vote immediately (as pursuant to Section 1 Clause 4 of the RA Rules), or undergo the usual motion to vote/formal debate process (refer to Standing Procedures). Nothing in the RA rules or the Standing Procedures actually specify any different rules if a scheduling of a vote is rejected.
Click to expand...
Ok.. that's the procedural guidelines. I'm still unsure. Does this mean:

1. If the required 8 votes to override the original objection to vote is attained, do we vote on the bill pre-revision (the rejected one),

and/or

2. Do we have to (or can we) again object to the revised bill going to vote?
 
The revised version is what is being moved to vote, so there are no circumstances under which we would vote on the old version.

If the 10% rule is invoked, the Speaker does not schedule a vote or allow time for objections. It goes straight to vote. The 10% rule is there to override the 3 objection rule.
 
I would prefer to hear the current Speaker's opinion on my latest request for clarification. But since you held the post previously, I'll assume you know of what you speak.

That said, I do see how the 10% rule is worded. However, I'd like an explanation of how the following applies:

Standing Procedures:
4. During the five days after a vote a called for, the member who introduced the proposal may continue to amend it. This period, hereafter referred to as Formal Debate, may be shortened at the member who introduced the proposal's request. Once Formal Debate has ended, the proposal may no longer be amended, and the Speaker will schedule a vote to begin no fewer than two days hence.
Click to expand...
This vote was objected to after formal debate. It was then amended. So this is a new bill that you are attempting to rush through with the 10% rule? While I wait for a response from the Speaker, I'll object to this bill going to vote (if I can).
 
Hmm... I'd go with COE on this one, seeing as he does know what he's talking about (he was Speaker before I joined the region, and the rules we currently use date from back to when he was Speaker). I'm not sure if there are any precedents on amendments after a scheduled vote being objected.

Also, you can't object to an immediate motion to vote, since the vote is scheduled immediately.
 
falapatorius:
This vote was objected to after formal debate. It was then amended. So this is a new bill that you are attempting to rush through with the 10% rule?
Click to expand...
Technically, yes, although the text is very similar to the one that Mcm suggested almost a week ago.
 
Lord Nwahs:
Hmm... I'd go with COE on this one, seeing as he does know what he's talking about (he was Speaker before I joined the region, and the rules we currently use date from back to when he was Speaker). I'm not sure if there are any precedents on amendments after a scheduled vote being objected.

Also, you can't object to an immediate motion to vote, since the vote is scheduled immediately.
Click to expand...
With respect, it is an extremely bad idea for a speaker to be seen to defer on procedure to the proposer of a motion, who has a vested interest in this issue and whose opinion may not be objective.

He is not the only former speaker on tHis forum.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
falapatorius:
This vote was objected to after formal debate. It was then amended. So this is a new bill that you are attempting to rush through with the 10% rule?
Click to expand...
Technically, yes, although the text is very similar to the one that Mcm suggested almost a week ago.
Click to expand...
If this is a new bill, then iT ought to be debated.
 
The problem here is that the motion to delay a vote was on the bill that was scheduled for a vote before the bill's sponsor decided to revise it. Rushing the new revised bill under the 10 person rule is inequitable and inherently unfair since it prevents a through discussion of the revised text.

It is grossly unfair to assume that there are no problems with the revision and that it qualifies for an immediate vote, when the original vote was scheduled on a unrevised bill.

I strongly urge the Speaker to rule that a motion for an immediate vote under these circumstances is unfair and abridges the right of R.A. members to debate the revised bill before any vote takes place; it other words it should be treated as a new period of formal debate.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The problem here is that the motion to delay a vote was on the bill that was scheduled for a vote before the bill's sponsor decided to revise it. Rushing the new revised bill under the 10 person rule is inequitable and inherently unfair since it prevents a through discussion of the revised text.

It is grossly unfair to assume that there are no problems with the revision and that it qualifies for an immediate vote, when the original vote was scheduled on a unrevised bill.

I strongly urge the Speaker to rule that a motion for an immediate vote under these circumstances is unfair and abridges the right of R.A. members to debate the revised bill before any vote takes place; it other words it should be treated as a new period of formal debate.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The problem here is that the motion to delay a vote was on the bill that was scheduled for a vote before the bill's sponsor decided to revise it. Rushing the new revised bill under the 10 person rule is inequitable and inherently unfair since it prevents a through discussion of the revised text.

It is grossly unfair to assume that there are no problems with the revision and that it qualifies for an immediate vote, when the original vote was scheduled on a unrevised bill.

I strongly urge the Speaker to rule that a motion for an immediate vote under these circumstances is unfair and abridges the right of R.A. members to debate the revised bill before any vote takes place; it other words it should be treated as a new period of formal debate.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, Grosse (and Flem), fairness is not a given provision in the 10 percent rule. By the letter of the RA rules, I must schedule a vote if at least 10 percent of the assembly motions for a vote.

To be fair, the RA rules are really vague as to the implications of the situation where a scheduled vote is rejected/delayed. If it is the intention of the members of this assembly to make a delayed bill debated upon after it is amended, I'd recommend that someone look into amending the rules of the assembly.
 
As, By the way, a former speaker myself, my interpretation of the rules is different. Even the proposer has admitted that this is now a new bill. Precedent gives that a new bill cannot go to vote before debate.

Look back and you will find that attempts have been made in the past to rush bills to vote before debate (there's your precedent). Speakers before you have always ruled against this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top