Filibuster Bill

Funkadelia:
However now that this bill has had some sort of notoriety, if it passes I'm sure someone is going to filibuster every single bill to prove a point and it's all going to be repealed.
Click to expand...

If this bill passes, it'll be almost impossible to repeal it :P

All jokes and jest aside, guys, this bill is entirely unnecessary and will only complicate legislation.
 
there is a lot in this bill that appeals to me. However, after thinking back and forth i have decided that having spoken out against the recent contemptuous use of the delegates veto to overturn the clear will of the electorate it would by hypocritical of me to support another method of subverting the will of the Regional Assembly entering our statute books.
 
flemingovia:
there is a lot in this bill that appeals to me. However, after thinking back and forth i have decided that having spoken out against the recent contemptuous use of the delegates veto to overturn the clear will of the electorate it would by hypocritical of me to support another method of subverting the will of the Regional Assembly entering our statute books.
Click to expand...
Congratulations, COE, your bill has now passed. :P
 
flemingovia:
I think the only way admins would be able to detect script use would be to look at patterns of posting and making an educated guess. and then we would be getting into "oh yes you did" "Oh no I didn't" "Oh yeah? Prove it!" territory.
Click to expand...
Not surprising. So this really defeats the point of the bill: once one person wrote up a script to filibuster that would be the end of legislation in TNP.
 
Mall:
flemingovia:
I think the only way admins would be able to detect script use would be to look at patterns of posting and making an educated guess. and then we would be getting into "oh yes you did" "Oh no I didn't" "Oh yeah? Prove it!" territory.
Click to expand...
Not surprising. So this really defeats the point of the bill: once one person wrote up a script to filibuster that would be the end of legislation in TNP.
Click to expand...
We could always try to figure out a way to add a captcha or recaptcha to every post.... :evil:
 
OK, I agree that the possibility of a scripted filibuster has to be eliminated before this proposal is fit to go to vote. Is there a way we can restrict the content of the posts without making those restrictions subject to the speaker's discretion? Like, I would love to require posts to be germane to the topic, but I am uncomfortable with letting the speaker be the judge of what is germane, cause that essentially lets them unilaterally end a filibuster.

Are there any ways that could guarantee continuous activity on the part of the busters that maybe doesn't involve constant posting and cannot be easily scripted?
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
OK, I agree that the possibility of a scripted filibuster has to be eliminated before this proposal is fit to go to vote. Is there a way we can restrict the content of the posts without making those restrictions subject to the speaker's discretion? Like, I would love to require posts to be germane to the topic, but I am uncomfortable with letting the speaker be the judge of what is germane, cause that essentially lets them unilaterally end a filibuster.

Are there any ways that could guarantee continuous activity on the part of the busters that maybe doesn't involve constant posting and cannot be easily scripted?
Click to expand...
You want continuous activity, but you don't want scriptable spam, meaning there needs to be some semblance of substance to the posts. That inevitably requires a discretionary judgment. "Did they post" is easy, "Did they post the right stuff" will always be a subjective call.
 
real world filibusters always contain lots of non-germane stuff anyway, not really possible to stay on topic perpetually without becoming repetetive. Non-germane stuff should be alowed I think and that can allow some creativity in hat gets posted.

A way to stop scripting is certainly required if this is to go forward. Perhaps admin can advise in the technical possibilities of the board.
 
I don't like this bill full stop. It encourages spammy nonsense. Filibusters are awful in real life and I don't think we should emulate them.

And technically, as an admin, we do not have sufficient tools to determine if a post is scripted or not. We can't eliminate scripted posts.
 
Barbarossistan:
real world filibusters always contain lots of non-germane stuff anyway, not really possible to stay on topic perpetually without becoming repetetive. Non-germane stuff should be alowed I think and that can allow some creativity in hat gets posted.

A way to stop scripting is certainly required if this is to go forward. Perhaps admin can advise in the technical possibilities of the board.
Click to expand...
If I may, I must admit that I see no reason to permit non-germane discussion, to do so would not enhance the level of discourse in the Assembly and would generate pages of nonsensical posts for members to wade through in order to find and respond to actual discussion of a proposal (presuming that a filibuster lasted only for a day, it would generate six pages of posts). That would, I suggest, make participating in this Assembly less engaging, not more. In relation to the possibility of stopping scripting, two Administrators have already advised that it would probably not be possible to do so without guesswork.

(Also, on the point of real world filibustering, it is not wholly correct that they must always be non-germane. While it may well be true of filibusters in the United States, in the United Kingdom members of the Commons may be (and are) called to order and directed to discontinue their speech if they persist in irrelevant or tediously repetitive points)

EDIT: to alter language as to Administrators to be plural, as Abbey posted while I was writing this.
 
Ironically, nothing in the bill prevents posts made to keep a filibuster alive contain relevant information in said posts.

Now, how long will it take before someone creates a filibuster script that auto-posts meaningless posts of more than 100 words on a regular schedule to keep a filibuster going literally forever. :lol:

We could look for endless serial postings of garbage like this in a filibuster, all script generated and posted automatically as part of a filibuster:

If one examines postcultural theory, one is faced with a choice: either
accept pretextual structural theory or conclude that truth is used to exploit
the Other. Therefore, the premise of social realism states that the
establishment is used in the service of the status quo.

In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the concept of neotextual
narrativity. In Death: The Time of Your Life, Gaiman deconstructs
pretextual structural theory; in The Books of Magic, however, he
examines deconstructive construction. Thus, Lacan suggests the use of
pretextual structural theory to modify and read sexual identity.

“Class is part of the failure of sexuality,” says Marx; however, according
to Hubbard[1] , it is not so much class that is part of the
failure of sexuality, but rather the futility, and therefore the economy, of
class. Dahmus[2] implies that the works of Gaiman are not
postmodern. However, Marx promotes the use of postcultural theory to
deconstruct capitalism.

The main theme of McElwaine’s[3] analysis of pretextual
structural theory is not discourse as such, but prediscourse. If capitalist
subcultural theory holds, we have to choose between social realism and
conceptualist narrative. In a sense, the example of Sartreist absurdity
intrinsic to Gaiman’s Death: The High Cost of Living is also evident in
Stardust, although in a more mythopoetical sense.

Parry[4] suggests that we have to choose between
pretextual structural theory and neocapitalist textual theory. But if
postconceptualist libertarianism holds, the works of Gaiman are reminiscent of
Koons.

Sontag suggests the use of postcultural theory to modify truth. It could be
said that the subject is contextualised into a social realism that includes
consciousness as a reality.

Any number of destructuralisms concerning the stasis of textual class exist.
Thus, the characteristic theme of the works of Gaiman is the role of the
participant as reader.

Debord’s model of pretextual structural theory holds that reality comes from
communication. In a sense, the closing/opening distinction depicted in Gaiman’s
Sandman emerges again in Death: The High Cost of Living.

The premise of postcultural theory states that the task of the writer is
significant form, given that pretextual structural theory is invalid. However,
Porter[5] implies that we have to choose between
postcultural theory and dialectic narrative.
Click to expand...

:rofl:
 
I tend to be of the opinion that a filibuster option is good in theory but when put into practice it tends to err on the side of obstructionist politics more than anything else.

There are also the technicalities of keeping a filibuster going on a medium like a forum for an extended period.

Therefore, I propose an alternative: A simple pass or fail vote, if the legislation is not passed with ~60% yae vote (or some such quota), then open the legislation to the floor for editing. If an alternative is presented, that achieves the same goal, within a fair period AND achieves a higher yae vote, then the legislation is sent back here to rewrite.
 
I don't see how current rules don't already permit something similar to your suggestion. Legislation can always be overwritten by subsequent legislation. I see no reason to delay the will of the Regional Assembly in hopes that a subsequent bill is more popular.

I think TNP has enough bureaucracy. I don't think we need to exacerbate it. :P
 
On the flipside of that coin though, we don't want legislation dismissed simply because of, for example, semantics. Granted, that should all be solved by the voting stage, but nonetheless, good legislation could be dismissed due to wording and set back a substantial amount of time... whereas in my suggestion it could be immediately proposed back.
 
Xyre:
On the flipside of that coin though, we don't want legislation dismissed simply because of, for example, semantics. Granted, that should all be solved by the voting stage, but nonetheless, good legislation could be dismissed due to wording and set back a substantial amount of time... whereas in my suggestion it could be immediately proposed back.
Click to expand...
If legislation is dismissed due to that we can revise it and pass it again. It's happened before in the RA. As well, I don't see how your proposal affects that, it's a case in which a majority was achieved. In current law, the same thing happens.
 
In that case, the same could be applied to any potential filibuster, Praetor?

If legislation is dismissed, it can go back here to be revised before being submitted again. You cant have one set of rules for one sort of legislation and another set of rules for other legislation? One being dismissed due to semantics gets removed from the floor permanently whilst one being dismissed due to political reasons gets a filibuster?

I don't want to live in a region that finds that double standard acceptable. It has to be an all or nothing system.
 
I wasn't aware the filibuster option was even being considered at this point - there's simply no real way to implement it without severe downsides, like the scripting mentioned above.
 
So. Just suggesting for some reason we supported this bill, and for some reason I felt so strongly about a bill that had overwhelming support that I was prepared to be a dick to everyone just to show my disagreement with it (btw, using 'I' to mean a generic person, I, that is to say Vashnis would not do this), what is to stop me from setting up a forum script to spam the thread with meaningless spammy 100 word posts ndefinitely? This could so easily be exploited by scripters with ill will towards the region it's almost begging for it. Against.
 
Xyre:
In that case, the same could be applied to any potential filibuster, Praetor?

If legislation is dismissed, it can go back here to be revised before being submitted again. You cant have one set of rules for one sort of legislation and another set of rules for other legislation? One being dismissed due to semantics gets removed from the floor permanently whilst one being dismissed due to political reasons gets a filibuster?

I don't want to live in a region that finds that double standard acceptable. It has to be an all or nothing system.
Click to expand...
A bill that has been dismissed for either semantics or politics can always be brought back up, either by the original proposer or another citizen.

What you're proposing is essentially codifying what already exists. Take for example this bill. It is currently on it's third author and has already failed to be passed twice IIRC. What you suggest is pretty much how the RA already works.
Darcania:
I wasn't aware the filibuster option was even being considered at this point - there's simply no real way to implement it without severe downsides, like the scripting mentioned above.
Click to expand...
It wasn't, Xyre is suggesting an alternative where bills that don't have a certain amount of support return to the Regional Assembly for further consideration.
vashnis:
So. Just suggesting for some reason we supported this bill, and for some reason I felt so strongly about a bill that had overwhelming support that I was prepared to be a dick to everyone just to show my disagreement with it (btw, using 'I' to mean a generic person, I, that is to say Vashnis would not do this), what is to stop me from setting up a forum script to spam the thread with meaningless spammy 100 word posts ndefinitely? This could so easily be exploited by scripters with ill will towards the region it's almost begging for it. Against.
Click to expand...
That's essentially one of the reasons we've since moved on from proposing this legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top