Search results

No, there is no waiting for all members to convene. In practice, that would take too long anyway. If the quorum is met, and of those people, a majority decide to do something, it's done.

That mentions that there's up to 7 days to comment on the bill in its final form. I still don't see any "violation" -- the final form of this includes MO's changes, which people didn't really start agreeing on until July 25-26. Final form to me means all changes in, preparing to go to vote --...

As many of you have noticed, I decided not to run for a 4th term as Speaker, partly because I think I've done all that I can for 3 terms and the job is quite draining. (In regards to sniffles' campaign post, I actually have only held this job for 3 terms, not 5). However, I don't know what I'll...

Forum username: wizardofoz01 TNP member name: Commonwealth of Kaleaf Prime Minister: Flemingovia MoIIA: Cthul Murgos MoEA: HAor Chall MoD: Romanoffia MoJ: AlHoma MoC: North Harmoneia MoEA: OPArsenal MoCE: Fedele SoRA: Mr_Sniffles SC: Hersfold Byardkuria Ator People Democratic Donkeys...

Well, the Speaker is supposed to break any ties in the SC. In fact, the Speaker may only vote in the event of a tie.

I want to be clear here.. Since many people approve of MO's changes, I will put this up for a vote. HOWEVER -- I disagree with the implication that this bill is the longest one ever to be in formal discussion. That's simply not true -- many bills have been discussed in formal discussion for...

Meh.. Here in California (Silicon Valley), it gets hot in the summer (90's sometimes, but usually only in September), but the past four days have been basically upper 90s/low 100's, with Midwest-style humidity (50% or so). That has been excruciating, especially for most of us around here not...

Saying the government does not have the right or authority to fund scientific research is, in my mind, somewhat ludicrous. The "necessary and proper" clause in the Constitution has been stretched to include a lot of things, and some of those things are way less necessary and proper than...

Originally drafted by Flemingovia:

Is there a deadline I'm not aware of? The only deadline I'm aware of is the 21-day deadline to schedule a vote after it has been formally submitted. We are currently on day 7 of the formal discussion. I can post a voting thread since people are generally agreed on this -- I assume that MO's...

Is there a final version of this (or is it the original version)? Hers as requested moving this along seeing as how it affects what's going on right now around us.

Alright. I will create a poll topic and list the "rules" for such a vote.

I agree.. I have seen nothing off-topic in this discussion. I further agree with Roman regarding the specific duration issue. AlHoma makes the obvious point that it only lasts until FEC's term runs out, but it would be just as well to state that clearly, I think -- the actual expiration month...

Originally drafted by Chief Justice Byardkuria -- I would like to bring up the slight formatting issue of whether this is going to be a TNP Law (I think it is -- I don't think its a Constitutional addition). Edit: Added the three words in italics that Unter suggested.

Moved to main RA forum.

I'm going to put up the Justices proposal by Hers up for a re-vote, since one month has passed. I'm using this thread to notify people -- I don't want to proceed directly to a vote in case there are complaints, but shortly (within a few days) if there are no objections, I will open a new voting...

I don't believe we should say specifically what hsould be in the PUBLIC forum -- that should be common sense. We should outline what sort of topics should go in the PRIVATE forum so people are clear on what the private forum should be used for. I think GM's idea has merit and I don't want to...

To speak on behalf of myself as a member of the SC -- It's all fine and dandy to say that a majority of us should respond within 24 hours of an event, but it is ludicrous to suggest that SC members as a whole are just not present.. There is no magic at work here: once someone gets elected to...

I realize that in recent months the whole "formal discussion" thing has possibly become querulous to many people, considering that we discuss and then essentially re-discuss. No, we can't skip to voting because the Constitution doesn't allow for that. Secondly, I would like to point out that...

First proposed by Heft:

See the main forum for a formal discussion. (Yes, we still ahve to follow the rules and can't go immediately to a vote). My computer was on the fritz for most of this week. Apologies for not moving this sooner.

Excellent. Now that the thread has been re-opened, I'd like to propose that any legislative proposal asking for a private RA forum also include general guidelines on what type of topics are appropriate for this forum, just to be clear when we actually write the law. For example, something...

Yes, I realize it may not be popular, but it is such an important issue that you have the right to push for a vote, in my book.

Does Heft or anyone else who feels strongly about this want to push this toward an eventual vote?

FOR

I'm late, but I'll wish myself happy birthday (June 24).

EDITED AFTER VOTE: PROPOSAL PASSED Proposal regarding NPAA abolishment, submitted by Haor Chall was voted on from 10 PM PDT June 17 to 9:59 PM PDT June 24.

EDITED AFTER VOTE: PROPOSAL FAILED QUORUM Proposal regarding Justice term changes, submitted by Hersfold, was voted on from 11:30 PM PDT June 5 to 11:29 PM PDT June 12. This dealt with the Constitution, so a 2/3 majority was required. EDIT: This may be brought up again after a period of one...

Alrightyyy.. brace yourselves for an upcoming vote.

The entire idea of a private RA chamber is an interesting idea, and does have merits.. However, I personally feel that the good aspect of having people see what we're talking about outweighs the potential pitfalls. Since the RA pretty much is the central power in the government -- the RA...