Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

Election Length Specialisation Act (2023) (Amendments to Article VIII) has passed 6-0-0-1

Of Altonianic Islands

We are now debating Election Errors Resolution Act (2023)

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1944646

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

Excellent debate as per usual folks

We are now voting on the Election Errors Resolution Act (2023)

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1944646

You have at minimum 24 hours, after which the vote may be closed at any time

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

Election Errors Resolution Act (2023) has passed 4-0-0-3

Of Altonianic Islands

We are now debating the Ministerial Confirmation Abolition Act

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1946641

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

I am naturally in full support of this, as the bill's author. I am firmly against Ministerial confirmations as nothing but obstructionism on the part of the legislature, as they do practically nothing to act as a check.

I have, however, left the ability for the Senate to recall a Minister intact to act as a retroactive check if the Senate actively dislikes a Ministerial pick, however rejections almost never happen, all this does is waste Executive time and Senate time.

Happy to answer any questions.

The Ambis

Yeah, I fully agree with the points you've made and the bill.

Toerana V, The Ambis

Agree with both Bow and Obal

Toerana V

I do not support the bill and will be voting against.

Despite the fact that legislative recalls would remain intact, I don't believe this would be a good or useful change. Legislative recalls have rarely, if ever, been used (I genuinely cant remember a single time, but my memory is bad so bleh). Meanwhile, the vetting process has been used to block candidates which the senate disapproves of (including me, a while ago).

And while, yes, it would be in my best interest to vote for the bill, I don't want to be complacent in/supportive of a change that is ineffective at best, and actively harmful at worst.

(yes I'm not good at arguing things, how could you tell?)

Snowflame

Creckelenney wrote:Legislative recalls have rarely, if ever, been used (I genuinely cant remember a single time, but my memory is bad so bleh).

They were used against me and Santa iirc.

Creckelenney wrote:I do not support the bill and will be voting against.

Despite the fact that legislative recalls would remain intact, I don't believe this would be a good or useful change. Legislative recalls have rarely, if ever, been used (I genuinely cant remember a single time, but my memory is bad so bleh). Meanwhile, the vetting process has been used to block candidates which the senate disapproves of (including me, a while ago).

And while, yes, it would be in my best interest to vote for the bill, I don't want to be complacent in/supportive of a change that is ineffective at best, and actively harmful at worst.

(yes I'm not good at arguing things, how could you tell?)

Thaecia has changed a lot, Confirmations haven't. With the introduction of citizenry recalls, the new petition system, and maintaining legislative recalls, there are more ways than ever to hold Ministers to account.

Whether a Minister is likely to be good at their job or not is impossible to prove during a confirmation hearing, and given the Senate has confirmed people with a lengthy track records of inactivity in Executive Office (such as, for the sake of Example, Snow or Angypt) several times is proof enough. Pair that with the fact that individuals who have gone on to be successful Ministers have been rejected (such as, for the sake of example, Ambis) and you should really begin to question whether it actually acts as a check, or a method by which the legislature gets to exert political control over the executive, and attempts to make the executive do as it wishes despite the Prime Minister having been elected on a mandate to carry out their platform with whom they see fit.

As Ambis has mentioned, the process has been initiated against two Ministers in the past, but they were removed from office by the PM, so yes, they acted as a check in that regard. I would note that both of these Ministers were confirmed by the Senate in the first place and thus act as even further proof that confirmations do not stop Ministers from failing.

The Senate has no reasonable ground to reject 95% of candidates, and fails to reject the 5% it has reasonable grounds on which they could reject. There are methods in place already, that this bill does not touch, to allow the legislature and the citizenry force a failing Prime Minister to replace candidates.

The Ambis

The Ambis wrote:They were used against me and Santa iirc.

I'm very stupid, sorry.

Toerana V wrote:(-snip-)

The fact that something has failed in the past doesn't mean that it should be completely removed. Reworked, maybe, but only removed if a rework is impossible.

(also I hate to break character like this and just not respond to anything you said (sorry), but A. you are not going to be able to convince me to vote for it, B. I am NOT in the right headspace to try and convince you (that was genuinely the best I'm gonna be able to do), and C. it's been up for debate for 2 and a half days, I feel like we should go ahead and move to vote.)

If I could rework confirmations I could, but they can't be reworked to make them less obstructive. It's either remove the obstruction or let it stay.

That being said, I recognise your request to move to a vote and will do so shortly

We are now voting on the Ministerial Confirmation Abolition Act

After 24 hours the vote may be closed at any time.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1946641

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

Nay

Ashlawn, Snowflame

Nay

Ashlawn, Snowflame

The Ministerial Confirmation Abolition Act has failed 3-4-0-0

We are now debating the Assembly of Roleplay Repeal Act (2023) (Repeal of L.R.066)

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1945817

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

I’m for this. It hasn’t been used recently, it probably won’t ever be used again.

Snowflame, Brototh

I am against this bill.

I get it, the AoRP is dead and there's no signs of interest, and I agree that the EC having to elect a new Assembly Leader unprompted is a hassle and unnecessary, that does not believe we should remove the institution entirely. It is entirely possible a future government or group of people may take interest in the AoRP, which is why I'd prefer to see the bill amended to implement a challenge like system for elections in place of regular elections to allow people to pick up the position and trigger an election when interested.

Removing the regular elections removes the only bit of bureaucratic weight the AoRP creates and would, in effect, have the same effect on the EC as repealing the bill entirely without forcing the passage of a new bill if the idea of a Roleplay legislative body ever picks up steam again.

I support the bill. Myself and many, if not all, of my fellow senators have been around since the initial creation of the Assembly of Roleplay, and here we are now. It has been inactive for over two months, and there is little to no enthusiasm to even continue with its operations. At this point in time, the Assembly is not needed.

I'm opposed to this bill.

I want to put some notions to rest. The assembly isn't, and never was, intended to be as active as congress. It's been inactive for a while, yes, but this should not come as a surprise for the proponents of the assembly. It was always supposed to go through periods of inactivity just by the very nature of it. We got insanely lucky that the first couple of Assembly Leaders kept it as active as it was, but that level of activity was never the goal. I knew from the beginning that there would be periods of "deadness." It's crazy that the activity mainly died due to neglect by the EC to run elections for a new speaker, needing the EC to run elections in the Assembly was a design flaw, I think we can all agree with that. That doesn't mean that we should get rid of something that has created, and can still create, enjoyment and participation in the region.

Toerana V

We will now begin voting on the Assembly of Roleplay Repeal Act (2023) (Repeal of L.R.066)

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1945817

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

I will be voting aye.

Sorry, I never explained my reasoning.

I think I'm voting consistently. Just because minister confirmations aren't super used anymore doesn't mean they're completely useless. Just because the AORP is less active than congress, doesn't mean it's completely useless.

The solution to making this region active isn't to repeal all of our institutions. I don't know what is the solution, but we shouldn't be tearing everything down if we don't know what to replace it with

Toerana V wrote:I get it, the AoRP is dead and there's no signs of interest, and I agree that the EC having to elect a new Assembly Leader unprompted is a hassle and unnecessary

This is exactly the point. Look guys, it doesn't take much for us to admit that we were wrong. We put in the AoRP for a reason and it has not been interacted with, at all. It has not had any involvement, at all. At all is a small embellishment, but I'm not unreasonable in the premise that the AoRP is dead. Someone complained once that the AoRP is dead because the EC isn't doing anything- is anybody even complaining? When the region CTE'd it was refounded with intention to revive it. Did that happen? No because the AoRP is pointless now.

The AoRP was an experiment in more than just training new legislators, it was also an experiment in direct democracy. It was an experiment in giving people the ability to make new laws on issues that mattered to them- you see so many new nations come in and talk about their nation's policies, and you see loads of telegrams saying they won't join Thaecia because the sending nation has too high/low civil rights. It is not like people are not interested in roleplay laws - Bow's campaign for Prime Minister directly references the holidays act. Beyond just 069 (Yogurt Viscosity), people have discussed 'roleplay' laws for a very long time - climate emergency being one of them that was a hot topic some time ago. It's not that I disagree with the concept of an Assembly of Roleplay, it's that the Assembly of Roleplay itself is dead. It needs to be swept aside, and maybe replaced in the future. But the old organisation is dead. The Second Convention of Lausanne is never called "the Consortium" because the First Convention which tried to establish a Consortium was a dismal failure. It's something new and of its own now, not connected to the past. The old AoRP was a failure. It needs to go.

And Congress has shown that it has time for roleplay bills now, too. I don't think anyone would really mind debates being open to all citizens for roleplay bills- I know I wouldn't. If we want to amend the law, I'd be happy with that. To be honest, it could be moved to an entirely citizen thing in Congress. Since they wouldn't be IC laws you could open the floor and let citizens vote on those bills too. It keeps the essence of roleplay alive. Congress isn't overflown anymore; let's not kid ourselves, the Chairman doesn't support this bill and didn't really want it to go up, he would rather do things he supports. But Bow put it up because we have time for it, with three month terms minimum now. We don't have pressing matters to deal with. If we want people to learn how Congress works and get involved in Congress, then get them involved in Congress itself. It's time to stop messing about with these silly second lawmaking chambers that just don't work.

This is an idea that's dead in the water and needs to be swept aside in favour of inviting thought, debate, and discussion, on new ideas. The AoRP is not a bad idea by nature; its implementation was the problem. It's time that we get rid of it and replace it with something else. The core ideas of the AoRP must persist; the AoRP itself needs not.

Toerana V wrote:It is entirely possible a future government or group of people may take interest in the AoRP

A future government can do a lot of things. It is unreasonable for us to have law based upon what may be occurring in the future. This is not the same as the contracts law which sits obsolete and not bothering anyone. The AoRP is directly present on our region page, is one of our embassies, is right next to the other chambers. It's a black spot on the region's history. You might not think of it as that much, but it is really frustrating to see a failed legislative project sit there in full view. There's no reason that Thaecians in the future can't roleplay their own legislative assembly on the RMB, there's no reason a future government can't make a new region- and there'd be no way they could close the embassy of a successful sister region.

And for that, there's absolutely no reason why this should be constrained to law, at all. If this comes back in the future, so be it- but having it sit around is embarrassing. It can come back, but it shouldn't be in law. The law should be for things that matter, not things that are totally and utterly irrelevant. It can come back peacefully- something that contracts couldn't do as those are inherently tied to laws and crimes. The AoRP can return with or without a law- taking it out is the ultimate liberalization and freedom of it.

The Ambis

Assembly of Roleplay Repeal Act (2023) (Repeal of L.R.066) has failed 3-3-1-0.

New bills will be put up when they reach me.

We are now debating the Assembly of Roleplay Liberalisation Act

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1952638

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

Hi, I wrote this in the last half an hour and am open to the possibility that this bill is written a bit roughly, and is a bit clunky. More than happy to amend off the back of feedback on how to make the process a bit smoother and easier to understand.

The point of the bill is to remove regularly scheduled ASL elections in place of a challenge system. This has two benefits, 1. It allows the office to sit vacant if there's no interest without acting as a burden to the EC, 2. It only triggers an election when participants in the Assembly think one needs to occur. It is less democratic in that regard, as regularly scheduled elections do act as a good check and a good point for an incumbent to step down, but I think given the body's recent inactivity it's a fair tradeoff.

The Ambis

Hello, I wanted to create a few amendments for the bill.

[Spoiler= Amendment A]A challenge may be initiated by any citizen by submitting a petition sponsored by at minimum 5 citizens to the Electoral Commissioner. If the position of ASL is vacant, only one citizen needs to sponsor the petition.[/spoiler]

I believe that we should keep the original number of citizens present in the current law. Since the ASL is a chamber that encompasses the entire region, the number should reflect as such.

[Spoiler=Amendment B]The Assembly of Roleplay shall function as a body that may write, draft, amend, and vote on legislation.[/spoiler]

This is just a a small detail I wanted to add.

I'm not overjoyed at the first amendment, but given the amendment leaves the number required in case of a vacancy alone I don't deeply care about it. 3 and 5 both work fine for me

I'm fine with Amendment B as well

Sorry for the delay folks

We are now voting on Amendments A and B. Since no interest in further amendments has been raised, upon the conclusion of this vote we will head immediately to the final vote.

On another note, this is very likely to be my last vote as Chairperson, and while it has been short, it has also been sweet and I appreciate the opportunity you all gave me.

[Spoiler= Amendment A]A challenge may be initiated by any citizen by submitting a petition sponsored by at minimum 5 citizens to the Electoral Commissioner. If the position of ASL is vacant, only one citizen needs to sponsor the petition.[/spoiler]

[Spoiler=Amendment B]The Assembly of Roleplay shall function as a body that may write, draft, amend, and vote on legislation.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

Post self-deleted by Toerana V.

Amendment A has passed 4-2-0-1

Amendment B has passed 6-0-0-1

We are now voting on the Assembly of Roleplay Liberalisation Act as Amended

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1954312

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

Nay tl;Dr for the AoRPL act as amended: changes how often AoRP votes for a leader by changing it from a 4 month vote to a challenge based system which brews toxicity and hatred and discourages people from participating

The Assembly of Roleplay Liberalisation Act as Amended has passed 5-1-1-0.

The Ambis

We are now debating the Congressional Sponsorships Reform Act.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1954833

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

Hi i wrote another bill

What this bill does is permit all citizens to debate on bills on the floor of a congressional chamber, but they must be sponsored for unique things like confirmations or hearings.

I made the decision to keep sponsorships for the latter two because they're unique methods of congressional oversight and a check on the executive, and the citizenry already has parallel methods to act as their own check on the executive and judiciary via the medium of recalls.

The bill also allows a chamber leader to bar a citizen from debating on a bill if they are not actually discussing something relevant to the bill to keep it tidy. Likewise, I believe the way I've written it means that the right to debate is only during actual debate periods, not during votes and whatnot, but if someone disagrees with that interpretation and has a recommended for a rewrite (as that was the intention) please let me know.

It's an interesting concept, but I would like to know your thoughts behind it Bow.

Toerana V

The Ambis wrote:It's an interesting concept, but I would like to know your thoughts behind it Bow.

As I briefly touched upon in the preamble, they're pretty much automatically granted anyway (and that's ignoring my entire "i'll sponsor whoever whenever" thing). Similar to bill sponsors, it's pretty much just bureaucracy these days so might as well scrap it.

I half maintained the sponsorship requirements for congress' lesser used roles because i expect this to be met with resistance from people who don't like change and thus wanted to make a smaller change, but also because they're both methods of unique congressional oversight and being a bit more gatekeepy with them kinda makes sense.

I will be voting against this bill and I encourage my fellow senators to do the same.

This bill reminds me of the first few times the Internship Bill was placed on the floor of Congress and amended to add automatic sponsorships, and all of said times it was rejected. Giving citizenships automatic sponsorships to speak is fundamentally a bad idea; its practically giving citizens the debating power of a citizen's chamber without the ability to vote. The entire purpose of elected officials is to debate on behalf of the voters and vote on behalf of the voters; and, these elected officials are held accountable through the voters not reelecting them.

Brototh

I sponsor Porfloxia to speak on the RMB

Snowflame wrote:I will be voting against this bill and I encourage my fellow senators to do the same.

This bill reminds me of the first few times the Internship Bill was placed on the floor of Congress and amended to add automatic sponsorships, and all of said times it was rejected. Giving citizenships automatic sponsorships to speak is fundamentally a bad idea; its practically giving citizens the debating power of a citizen's chamber without the ability to vote. The entire purpose of elected officials is to debate on behalf of the voters and vote on behalf of the voters; and, these elected officials are held accountable through the voters not reelecting them.

I used to be against this sort of stuff and voted down some similar bills when I was in the legislature. But now as a citizen who needs sponsorship to make this post, I've come to realize that it's a dumb way of doing stuff :P

Elected officials are great and I've always supported representative democracy. But with something like debate, there are literally 0 downsides from good faith citizens. On the other hand, the positives are pretty good: we can increase political participation by removing the roadblock, real or perceived, of requiring a scary sponsorship and scaring citizens away. This in turn will provide new perspectives to our legislation.

There's also a false equivalence here between voting and debate. A lot can go wrong with voting, even from people acting in faith (for example: blindly following party line because they didn't read the debate). Literally, nothing can go wrong with debate.

We shouldn't be rejecting changes just because "well that's the way we've done it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

Elected officials act on behalf of voters in debates, but there is no reason that voters can't also act on behalf of themselves.

Toerana V, The Ambis

A wider range of opinions will help create a better bill, and better law, for a better region.

Legislators don't have all the answers, and to think they do is silly. We've long tried to claim the legislature is the centre of our region, and yet we gatekeep its access so hard. Why not remove that gate and help to encourage newcomers to enter our regional politics from day one, not have them wait several months, get bored and leave.

A wider range of opinions will help create a better bill, and better law, for a better burger.

That's right. Legislators don't have all the burger recipes, and to think they do is silly. We've long tried to claim the legislature is the kitchen of our region, and yet we gatekeep the beef patties so hard. Why not remove the pickles and help to encourage newcomers to enter our culinary industry from day one, not have them wait several months, be stuck with the Travis Scott burger and leave. Supporting this bill will ensure newcomers can come and discuss the benefits of burger politics in Congress.

i don't know whether i should sponsor this or suppress it

Okay folks time to do a voting

We are now voting on the Congressional Sponsorships Reform Act.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1954833

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

Following Toerana V's automatic resignation as Chairperson to serve as Prime Minister, this chamber is in need of new leadership. As such, I hereby open the Standing Period for the Chairperson Election. Per the law, this shall last 24 hours, or until each legislator in their chamber has declared their intent or non-intent to stand, whichever comes first. Any sitting legislator may declare their intent to stand.

I shall not arand

I shall stand from my unseated position (now standing, but unseated mere moments ago)

I will stand for Chair.

I do not intend to stand

Apparently I actually have to resign????

Well I resign as Senator and Senate Chair obviously and I expect ya'll to fix that part of the law after confirmations

Because of legal issues involving this Chair election and it needing to be restarted, I would like to do the following in order to not delay Executive business more than needed:

I motion for unanimous consent to confirm The Ambis as Legal Affairs Minister, Obalostan as Culture Affairs Minister, and The Islamic Country Of Honour as Foreign Affairs Minister.

[spoiler=Senators]The Ambis

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Snowflame

Sevae

Obalostan[/spoiler]

Toerana V, The Ambis

I acknowledge the motion.

Toerana V, The Ambis

I acknowledge the motion.

Toerana V, The Ambis

I apologize for the confusion - I was told resignation was automatic and didn’t check the law; thank you to Brototh for correcting that. My earlier message is invalid. Now that Toerana V has officially/actually resigned, the Chair Election may begin.

I hereby open the Standing Period for the Chairperson Election but for real this time. Per the law, this shall last 24 hours, or until each legislator in their chamber has declared their intent or non-intent to stand, whichever comes first. Any sitting legislator may declare their intent to stand.

Brototh, Toerana V, The Ambis

I am standing for chair.

I no stand. I sit, in fact

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.