The Purple Protection Act

Due to serial abuse of defenseless purple, I feel I must propose this bill to the RA.

12. The colour purple (including this and all other shades of the colour considered "purple") shall be a protected colour, and shall not be used in excessive amounts for any purpose.
 
I propose an edit to the legislation. The color "Purple" should be defined as any color between #E6E0F8 and #220A29 on the HTML Color Code.
 
Eluvatar:
I motion to immediately table this bill, removing it from consideration.
Speaking as Speaker here, we've already settled that motions to table do not exist and when I tried to make them legal, no one liked the idea. Sorry.
 
Scandigrad:
I propose an edit to the legislation. The color "Purple" should be defined as any color between #E6E0F8 and #220A29 on the HTML Color Code.
The lower end of that spectrum is violet, rather than purple - which would pose a problem to Flemingovian Religious proceedings.
 
Kingborough:
Scandigrad:
I propose an edit to the legislation. The color "Purple" should be defined as any color between #E6E0F8 and #220A29 on the HTML Color Code.
The lower end of that spectrum is violet, rather than purple - which would pose a problem to Flemingovian Religious proceedings.
Order and Stability must come above Religion, it is a sacrifice worth making.
 
Why is this a thing? This is a prime example of unnecessary legislation, something that's just nitpicking because you have a personal problem with someone's conduct. This has no place here.
 
Hmm, we will have to consult with the FlemGod on if this is his brand of violet.

@Funk - would you prefer legislation entirely banning post in colours? I do think it is just as annoying no matter who does it.
 
Funkadelia:
Why is this a thing? This is a prime example of unnecessary legislation, something that's just nitpicking because you have a personal problem with someone's conduct. This has no place here.
It's a thing because of the use of Purple in official conduct is distracting and generally annoying.
 
And that is self was not accepted by everyone as valid.

In any case after discussing this on IRC I seem to have to let you motion to table, so I will be asking my Deputy to handle this matter should you receive a seconder for your motion.
 
Eluvatar:
Kingborough:
Eluvatar:
I motion to immediately table this bill, removing it from consideration.
Speaking as Speaker here, we've already settled that motions to table do not exist and when I tried to make them legal, no one liked the idea. Sorry.

Really?
Maybe if you hadn't closed the thread we could still be discussing it.

I think you might be getting confused that Cormac pointed out you cannot table a recall motion. You can table other motions. I can't find where it says you can, but Cormac's point was specifically about tabling recall motions.

I was not opposed to making tables legal.
 
Kingborough:
@Funk - would you prefer legislation entirely banning post in colours? I do think it is just as annoying no matter who does it.
Uh, no, I prefer no legislation on the matter at all. It's quite obvious that this legislation proposal is simply nitpicking and there is no place for it in the legal code.
 
2060593-851ac22e_d61912a9_cant-tell-if-serious.jpeg
 
As requested I will be acting as speaker in relation to this proposal.

Accordingly I will allow discussion on this for another 24 hours before bringing it to a vote to table. For those who haven't picked up on it, essentially said vote will be on whether or not we will be discarding the issue. At least, as I understand it.


Note: I will be using red/bold so you know I am talking as deputy speaker.
 
Considering that my member group is purple, I might as well also use it.

To be quite frank I think this is getting stupid. Both the Speaker and the Root Admin are acting like petulant children. I think we'd all like both of you to just grow the hell up.
 
Back
Top