Call it what you will. You had no problem using procedure to bypass further debate (on an amended bill, which you admitted was technically new) and, by extension, overrule the objection to moving to a vote. At least this procedure is quite clear.. I didn't have to play fast and loose with it.COE:
Puppet revolt.DD:
flemingovia:
:n2d 
Democratic Donkeys:As an opponent of the idea of this legislation it seems to me a legitimate use of procedure to attempt to stall this bill until it is totally, as opposed to mostly, irrelevant.
That's the general dynamic of legislating. Ayes are for, Nays against. I may not want this piece of legislation to be enacted, but that's not to say I would be against further attempts at drafting legislation around Z-Day.COE:
Amending a bill after Formal Debate and getting 10% of the RA to rush it through isn't exactly the moral high ground here either.COE:
This is essentially a filibuster (at least to me anyway). So that's undemocratic? Democracy's a great thing until it rears it's magnificent head against you.. hmm? Regardless of people's various motivations, this is a legitimate procedure. The Law (and democracy for that matter) supports it. Spin it as petty, undemocratic, etc. all you want. I won't lose any sleep over it.COE:
And I recall that having happened several times before and causing people to get irate over the fact that multiple variations of a bill were brought up for debate. But as I said before, some people want to be able to do that but frown upon others doing exactly the same thing.Crushing Our Enemies:
How exactly is formal debate in any way relevant here?falapatorius:
Accusing me of being petty and undemocratic because I used procedure for exactly what it was written to do is ______? (fill in the blank)Silly String:
Add me in as well as to supporting the motion.Democratic Donkeys:
That's your interpretation of it. Nowhere in the language of the procedure (or anywhere else) is that mentioned. The voting duration was shortened to accommodate a deadline, in order to stem a fictitious threat. I could see that if it was a matter of regional security. Your bill may call Z-Day an 'actual emergency', but it isn't. It seems like god-modding to me. Oh .. let's eliminate the zombie threat by giving the Delegate power to ban anyone who dares to choose the nom nom option (or whatever goes against gov't policy and a regional poll), and then proceeds to invade/infect TNP (all within the rules of Z-Day). Never mind that there is no legal redress for such bans. Ah.. democracy at work.COE:
You posted this on the right thread?Ainin:
You didn't read my post thoroughly.Silly String:
Subvert it's goals?me:
What's next? Senate hearings to root out Communists? I will decide what option to take, regardless of any poll, or the government position. That is my right as a Z-Day participant (if I choose to do so).Once again.. read. This was discussed earlier in the thread.Silly String:
Actually the only people who have expressed an opinion about the length of the vote are, I think, yourself and the speaker in favour of a rushed vote and five ra members thus far in favour of giving it the usual voting period.Crushing Our Enemies:
Everyone knows this bill, and what it's about. It's the same bill that was gonna be voted on in the first go around, except I didn't edit it in time.
tl;drMcM:
That's all well and good. I agree with Roman.. this is a silly bill. But this has degenerated into more than a debate about the bill itself. It's the use of RA procedure to rush/stall it's passage. Moreover, it's about hypocrisy too (from my standpoint anyway). I recall a silly bill being proposed awhile back, and it was objected to by one of the parties rushing this through, and thereby stalled. I didn't think it was undemocratic or petty.. just a legitimate use of procedure (off-putting as it may be). If I want to use that procedure, I have the right to (regardless of how many knickers get knotted by it).The Stick in the Mud Act - an amendment to eliminate fun in TNP.Roman:
I have, but I don't see how it's relevant. Without context, the only reasonable interpretation of godmodding on a NS-related forum would be the NS one. If I say that someone is a raider without context, then expecting people to realise that I mean raiders as in the historical tribes that practiced pillaging isn't very reasonable in my opinion.falapatorius:
Someone tried that on me. I forget their name.... Something like gluteus maximus?Gracius Maximus:
Indeed. It took less than 5 min to give you 20billion zombies and a couple of hours to correct it.flemingovia:
Looking at your national happenings it can be easily seen that the infection rate was much quicker than the cure rate. Also, the infection stemmed from one source, whereas the cure occupied the time and attention of many nations, which is the entire point here.flemingovia:
I like the way you put that.GM:
Meh.. one could just resign from the RA.GM:
OK, that was brilliant.flemingovia:
Look, just cause most of our laws confused you when you were justice doesn't mean so many others are in the same boat.Romanoffia:
Now, now, just because a Justice is subjected to a political crucifixion and abuse for trying to maintain order in the Court and refusing to cave to political demands and popular sentiment is of no concern to you. In fact, I suspect the whole concept is entirely alien to you.Crushing Our Enemies:
