Post Archive
Region: The Thaecian Senate
Aye
Aye
Nay
Aye
[B]Results - L.R. 012 Thaecia Government Petition System Repeal Bill
[B]L.R. 012 Thaecia Government Petition System Repeal Bill
Author: Islonia
Sponsor: Islonia
Ayes (5) - Andusre, Brototh, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief
Nays (1) - Dendrobium
Abstentions (1) - World Trade
This bill has now passed the Senate and will move to the House for further action.
[spoiler=House Speaker]
[/spoiler]
Pap Sculgief
Opening Debate - RMB Moderation Standards Act
Authors: Dizgovzy, Xernon, United Cascadian Peoples, Korsinia
Sponsors: Dizgovzy, Indian Genius, Pap Sculgief, Prussian Sail Nation
We have now begun debating this bill, which has previously passed the House. All of the authors have permission to participate in this debate.
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Korsinia, Indian Genius
I don't really see why we need it, but it doesn't exactly do any harm. Will just say UCP doesn't have the permission to participate in this debate, but whatever
These rules have been in place for ages now anyway, this just formalises them
The problem I have though is the phrase 'Ib) If a post is suppressed for any non-moderatorial purpose then the post is to be unsuppressed immediately.'
The rest of the bill only details 'site rules' as being a possible reason for suppression
What if the post violates the law of the region, or is just generally in bad taste? What if we go into another moratorium? Seems very restrictive to me to be honest
World Trade, Senate Chair Marvinville
[spoiler=Amendment A]Any content posted on the RMB that breaks site rules or regional laws is to be immediately suppressed[/spoiler] I believe the act is far too restrictive, and could be interpreted that posts may only be suppressed if they violate site rules. With this amendment, the regional officers retain the power to suppress posts that violate regional laws--thus also being able to suppress posts that could be interpreted as harassment, taking down the possible 'bad taste' posts issue.
Of course, the full power still remains with the High Court as Article II Section Ia states.
I would like to mention that we already have some sort of law on RMB rules that does kinda relate to this bill. It is L.R. 017
Sadly after reading this law I am now going to vote nay. This bill accomplishes nothing. LR 017 already lays out that site rules are valid for suppression, as well as regional laws. This bill has literally no effect on the region, don't know why it was proposed if another bill has already done the exact same thing. Hopefully an author can change my mind or show me why this bill does something different, but from looking at LR 017 I realise that the bills are practically identical
Marvinville
I agree with you. I will vote Nay on this bill and I hope the rest of the Senate follows
Brototh
Well, this bill is all about formalisation. It is good to make clear who has final say in the event of a disagreement (President/Court) and also lines out that quotes of a suppressed post need to be censored. I will need to check LR 017 but I still think it is good to have a formal declaration provided it is not contradictory.
World Trade, Brototh, Dendrobium
I would much rather support a bill that would replace LR 017, or amend it. I don't agree with the President having the power to choose what ban stays or not in the first place. The Court also obviously has the power to overturn a suppression, a simple court case will suffice by saying the party that suppressed the plaintiff violated the rules set out in LR 017 and the Constitution. While yes, this bill does formalise the process of going to the High Court, it also gives the President non-existent emergency powers (Because the Court can overturn it anyway, so pointless to be honest) over a matter that is already settled in older laws.
The way I see it is that this Act is indeed a formalization but also an upgrade from L.R. 017. The already existing bill leaves a lot of subjects mentioned here open or untouched and while, yes, the Court can overturn a decission made by the President, and technically with that also the rest of the RMB management team, I see this only as the right thing, because in the end it is the Court that (should) decide over the breaking of rules and or laws in Thaecia when decissions by the mods/officers are questioned.
This Act will not only protect Thaecia and the Thaecian RMB from toxicity and doxxing, but it will also protect people unrightfully accused of such. I will be voting Aye and urge my fellow Senators to do the same for an RMB that is welcoming to all and fairly moderated.
Lastly, if someone finds that this Act would "accomplish nothing L.R. 017 doesn't" or "is identical to L.R. 017" then I kindly ask you to re-read both and compare the two. Both bills are similar but it is clear which one does the job better in dealing with the procedures and practical execution of the RMB management, without any offense to authors of older bills intended.
Dizgovzy
Alright, I have two amendments to propose to the Senate.
[spoiler=Amendment B]Amend Article II Section a) to be read as follows:
In the case that a dispute between the officers emerges over whether a post should be suppressed or unsuppressed, the High Court Justicesare to have final say over the officers regarding the verdict of the post. The Court may override the President's verdict if deemed not compliant with this act.[/spoiler]
I don't really have to explain this. The President's role is mostly useless in this section as the court can overrule them, so better take it to the point directly.
[spoiler=Amendment C]
Amend Article I's Preamble to be read as follows:
Any content posted on the RMB that breaks site rules is to be immediately suppressed. Content that involves advertising for other regions or griefing may be suppressed at the discretion of the officers.
Add Article III to be read as follows: Posts eligible for suppression are:
IIIa)
- The ones breaking NS Rules
- The ones breaking Regional Law
- Voluntary Spam
- Involuntary Spam (connection bugs where your post is sent several times and not once)
- Advertisement for other regions
- PEG18 Content
- Disrespect of a fellow RMB user
IIIb) Inadequate posts that are seen by the moderators as bad for the regional climate. As we cannot predict every justification for such suppression, this law delegates the task of listing those offenses in an off-law body that will be made of several entities:
1) The Official Thaecia Discord Staff. The Official Thaecia Discord will only be legally used for the sole purpose of this law, to prevent an overstep on any future law regarding this subject.
2) The High Court Justices
3) Any new Lower Court Justices created in the future
We will call this body the "Moderation Council". In order to add or remove an offense to the said list, an absolute majority vote must be achieved. The High Court Justices have the power to veto the addition or removal of an offense if all of them agree to do so.
Add Article IV to be read as follows:
This bill constitutes the repeal of L.R. 017 RMB Code of Conduct of Thaecia Act[/spoiler]
Here comes the big boy. This gigantic amendment, to which I will happily make modifications if the Senate agrees on one, essentially merges LR017 and this bill into something more accurate to today's standards. The biggest and most controversial part, however, is certainly Article III - Section b).
World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Antenion, Brototh, Emazia
Post self-deleted by Islonia.
I heavily oppose Amendment C, because it overlooks many things stated in LR 017, creates some bizarre moderation council that then tries to force the private discord staff into doing something for the site government, creates voluntary spam as an offence that is punished when typically someone double posting or more isnt even for malicious intent, and is either a new player or even an older more experienced government official (such as myself, and especially Titanne).
You also said OOC suppressions earlier in the Bill, but never later stated what an OOC suppression was. Posts suppressed according to your rules would be for moderation, correct? So whats the for OOC offences doing?
This moderation council also appears to give permission to veto changes to this law or add new rules themselves. This is frankly absurd, the Culture Ministry tried this for the Regional Holidays et all bill, which the House quickly decided was most likely unconstitutional as a non-Congressperson cannot change a pre-existing law (yes; that means the Judges too. They follow the Constitution as well.), and certainly someone who is not the Prime Minister cannot veto a change to this law, especially considering the PM can only veto bills that did not receive 2/3 support.
Personally though, I love that the Hon. Senator Islonia is trying to fix this bill, but I personally dont believe it can be salvaged in this state. I invite the Hon. Senator to join me and the House Speaker in our first draft of rectifying the bill.
Brototh my bad for the OOC suppressions, it came from a first draft of the amendment and I forgot to remove it later on.
As for the spam, I wanted to differentiate when you spam to annoy someone and when you spam because of a bog, because I didn't feel like it was the same thing at all. (Involuntary spam still having to be suppressed while not being an offense in itself). This can obviously be removed as I said in after the amendment.
As for the Moderation Council, I got TMS to help me write this and we found out it was the best idea out here. We first thought about the members of the OT, but then thought the President could nominate OT people for his advantage. Since the discord staff is the one already moderating the discord, we thought it would be logical for them to help RMB Moderation.
Also, I don't get where you find all that stuff in your 3rd paragraph. The list on which the law will be relying is not in the law itself. It will be the name as NS Site Rules, which also are off-bill.
Brototh
Starting from the top of your quote, as it's shorter, "We will call this body the "Moderation Council". In order to add or remove an offense to the said list, an absolute majority vote must be achieved." Clearly the moderation council has the permission to add or remove an offence from the bill, or certainly veto Congress from doing so. You say "relying on NS Site Rules", yet you provide a list of offences such as spam, advertisement, etc.
I heavily oppose roping the discord staff into the regional message board, first of all because they are two different things--the discord staff are trusted friends of the other staff and Andusre. The RMB moderators are members of the Cabinet. Members of the Discord staff are less active on the NS RMB, such as Lemonadia and most notably Bahnhof. It would make very little sense for these two to be involved in your moderation group.
Re-reading your amendment C, I heavily, heavily oppose "As we cannot predict every justification for such suppression, this law delegates the task of listing those offenses in an off-law body that will be made of several entities". The moderation council can now not only suppress whatever they want, with the poor excuse "Bad for the regional climate"-- sounds a lot like corruption waiting to happen to me--but they also have the ability to list these 'offences' in an OFF-LAW body? You will give these people the off-law right to suppress whatever they want, and there's nothing this bill can do about it? Please help me to understand, Honourable Senator, because as it stands it appears as if the Moderation Council can pick and choose what they like and add it to their own fantasy off-law body.
Just because the discord staff do a good job moderating the multiple category discord, does not mean they would do a good job moderating the singular RMB. They operate on very different rules and guidelines, for example we say things that are much more mature on the discord with a healthy hint of a lot of swearing, compared to the NS climate this is practically the opposite.
I see you write 'involuntary spam still having to be suppressed while not being an offense in itself'. I don't understand what that means all too well, however you do define it as separate offences:
- Voluntary Spam
- Involuntary Spam
It is very hard to define what voluntary spam is, if it's just people genuinely posting random nonsense, or if it's double posting. The only interpretation I can make is that it is double posting, because you write in 'Involuntary Spam' that said offence is when a bug happens/poor connection and you end up posting more than once, so 'Involuntary', the opposite of that would be Voluntary, meaning when some purposefully posts more than once?
The original LR 017 states that double posting should not be done, however, because of its very non 'legal-speak' nature, it only recommends that one does not do so. Which is much better, because sometimes it's not even for malicious intent and people usually do not care that much.
Islonia
Aight. Consider amendment C scrapped. I just realised we had a way easier thing to do to fix all of this.
[spoiler=Amendment C(²)]Amend Article I to be read as follows:
Article I- Any content posted on the RMB that breaks site rules is to be immediately suppressed. Content that involves advertising for other regions or griefing may be suppressed at the discretion of the officers.
Ia) Quotes of a suppressed post are to be immediately suppressed unless the quote is censored.
Ib) If a post is suppressed for any non-moderatorial purpose then the post is to be unsuppressed immediately.
Ib) Posts compromising someone else's private personal information (doxxing) are to be immediately suppressed and reported to the site moderators.
Add Article III to be read as follows: Posts eligible for suppression are:
- The ones breaking NS Rules
- The ones breaking Regional Law
- Voluntary Spam
- Involuntary Spam (connection bugs where your post is sent several times and not once)
- Advertisement for other regions
- PEG18 Content
- Disrespect of a fellow RMB user
Add Article IV to be read as follows:
This bill constitutes the repeal of L.R. 017 RMB Code of Conduct of Thaecia Act[/spoiler]
I still do not support this, it is wildly better, however, I do not support the fact that this both overlooks what the original LR 017 had in it. I think LR 017 already does the entire job that this bill would do, with or without this amendment it's still pretty useless considering the amendment just copies LR 017, removes bits, and without the repeal it does literally nothing
I again invite you to join me and Diz in rewriting his bill
Dizgovzy, Marvinville
Instead of rewriting a bill that doesn't need to, you could just help me amend this one.. Like you said it overlooks what LR017 had in it, so we can just add what it lacks from the LR017 copy/paste.
Excuse me for asking but did you actually properly lay L.R. 017 and this Amendement/Act next to eachother to compare them? You say "it overlooks what the original LR 017 had in it" but to be clear, it doesn't. In fact it took what L.R. 017 had in it and rifined it in a clear, orderly way while specifying certain bits and excluding unnecessary details or examples. This way it also does not "just copies LR 017 and without the repeal it does literally nothing", but in fact, in Amendement C2, it repeals L.R. 017 so it won't be "useless". Your points on the team that would manage the RMB and the connection with the discord mostly make sense.
Islonia listened to your comments and removed not just those those parts, but also added it so that the aged L.R. 017 will be repealed. I honestly don't see why you are still so heavilly opposing the Amendement unless if you want absolutely no regulation on the RMB or a moderation based on sloppy old bills that could be refined (as this Act/Amendement does). By repeatedly attacking every defending word no-one will get anything done. So I kindly ask you to take a step away from your viewpoint on the Act and Amendement, just for a moment, to look at how you basically got what you asked for, yet are still opposing everything.
I kindly ask you to cease being passive aggressive. I oppose this bill, because frankly it does nothing that hasn't already been done, and the amendment removes some other moderations within LR 017 and adds newer, worse ones, such as double posting being a literal crime. You should read what I said in the debate, before you start "I kindly ask you to take a step away from your viewpoint on this Act and Amendment, just for a moment, to look at how you basically got what you asked for". I do not have what I ask for, what I ask for is Islonia to convene with me to rewrite this entire bill, of which his amendment to solves practically nothing and in my opinion creates more problems.
I guess its time to introduce my opinions to the chamber, I know, its that guy again.
After reading the debate and the bill and LR.017, I feel that LR.017 is a better bill, with or without Islos amendments. The amendments I have no problem with, however they still dont make the bill better.
While I did sponsor the bill for its debate, I did it with a different view on it, so please dont bring that up. But the reason I wont vote aye on this bill is because it is kind of too explicit and provides too much for the government to do.
LR.017 while still a little bit vague, has, like the Honourable Senator Brototh said, done its job and provided rules and regulations and guidelines for moderation. This bill mentions too much, brings too much into thought and makes moderation harder. Personally I think we are fine with what we have at the moment, or maybe we could just fine-tune what we have at the moment, and so thats why I plan to vote nay.
World Trade, Islonia, Marvinville
And instead of asking me to fix that, you want to rewrite a bill? Also, the only problems this amendment added is double posting being a crime, which is easy to fix.
It's like you're just saying "yeah it's bad, look 1 example why" and not giving every one of your thoughts on this just because you want to entirely rewrite a bill that will look the same as if we amended it here.
[spoiler=Updated Amendment C²]Amend Article I to be read as follows:
Article I- Any content posted on the RMB that breaks site rules is to be immediately suppressed. Content that involves advertising for other regions or griefing may be suppressed at the discretion of the officers.
Ia) Quotes of a suppressed post are to be immediately suppressed unless the quote is censored.
Ib) If a post is suppressed for any non-moderatorial purpose then the post is to be unsuppressed immediately.
Ib) Posts compromising someone else's private personal information (doxxing) are to be immediately suppressed and reported to the site moderators.
Add Article III to be read as follows: Posts eligible for suppression are:
- The ones breaking NS Rules
- The ones breaking Regional Law
- Spam (Double Posting shall be exempt from this)
- Advertisement for other regions
- PEG18 Content
- Disrespect of a fellow RMB user
Add Article IV to be read as follows:
This bill constitutes the repeal of L.R. 017 RMB Code of Conduct of Thaecia Act[/spoiler]
There were no intentions to come over as passive agressive or agressive at all. If you interpreted my response that way, then I apologize.
Now as a response to what else you said concerning the actual debate;
The double posting part could and has easily be changed, if that is a main concern then that has already been taken care of. Secondly, I have to agree to how you said that "it does nothing that hasn't already been done" yet I disagree with the statement it would be a newer, worse version of L.R. 017. While it does indeed take a lot of parts from said original bill, it also changes them, as you said. However instead of lines like "Please keep things appropriate. Please refrain from posting anything obscene, sexual, or gory in content." [...] "Sanctions for breach of these rules are enforced by the institutions listed in paragraph 2 and may be: - suppressing messages that violate the rules;" it shortens and clarifies this into "Posts eligible for suppression are: [...] PEG18 Content". I fail to see how this is a downgrade, just to give an example.
Lastly if this Amendement would indeed "solve practically nothing and create more problems" then the only thing we can do is proceed the debate, and not simply vote "Nay" and get it over with. If there is a moment to work on rewriting and ammending this bill, it is now. We can all agree L.R. 017 is not perfect and the goal of the current Act is similar to that of L.R. 017. The difference is that the Act and Amendements we are debating on now tries to do it in a more clean and accessable way. So to put it as Hon. Pap Sculgief said, right now is the moment to "fine-tune what we have at the moment". For me the bill is good as it is, but if it isn't I propose Amendements are made other than those that have already been brought up, be it Amendements based of or concerning other Amendements.
Islonia
Islonia, I still oppose this amendment. I believe that, first of all, not enough offences are listed, second of all not in great enough detail. Please explain to me what 'disrespect of a fellow RMB user' is. There's a reason we define things like blackmail or harassment, because left open to interpretation it can be incredibly dangerous. I have already begun rewriting the bill with Dizgovzy. I invite all Senators to help rewrite this bill.
Double posting was part of my concern. It's certainly not my full concern though. My full concern is the fact that this bill seems to remove parts of the old LR 017, and certainly if they were added, it is far too vague with the newer revised definitions. I fail to see how this can be supported, because the new amendments are open to corruption, as we have seen with the moderation council (Which was removed, but it gives the example of why this bill is very hard to write without several Congresspeople), it needs more than just one lone ranger to completely fix.
This bill is wildly better without this Amendment C. I wouldn't really care if the bill passed unamended, it's a nuisance that we already have that bill basically in LR 017 form, however, when you change the entire context of the bill into something different-- something that can very clearly be argued to be a significant downgrade from the previous bill (considering, again, it removes some rules and is vague)-- then it is a significant downgrade that creates more problems. It's clear we won't agree on the amendment, but I think we can agree that a completely different bill that changes LR 017, instead of Islonia trying to piece together an already severely flawed bill, that we can write from scratch, introducing elements of the Amendment C, LR 017, and this bill, passes Congress, it would be miles better than what this is.
Honestly, the only thing this bill does is saying "ok so if officers disagree on if a post has to be suppressed or not, the Prez & Court are here to mediate". That's why I don't want to rewrite it. This bill in itself does nothing. Hence I wanted to merge LR017 into this with an amendment.
Also I added "disrespect of a fellow RMB user" because it's something that is in LR017. It's not under the same form, but it's exactly the same thing.
And yeah, you said this bill requires several congresspersons to be fixed - yet, you refuse to help us amend it now and instead prefer to reject it and rewrite an even more useless bill(since you refuse to see LR017 repealed).
Yes-- this bill in itself does nothing. I realise you added the 'disrespect of a fellow RMB user' line, however, I feel that if we are to amend the bill, then we should all come together to debate it, and write it, instead of just one or two of us. While it may be the same thing, that doesn't make it better. It needs a better definition other than just 'disrespect' imo.
I do not refuse to see LR 017 repealed, that's just a blatant lie. I have said SEVERAL times that I am rewriting this bill with Diz, I even showed you the google doc that we have begun working on (A very early draft, mind you. I do not intend to present it yet). All Senators can see proof of that here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BW3GKGbQf0aQR9cvzRTRKDcul0TOWmGuJ5yPbT1OHwY/edit?usp=sharing . Please note that this is a very early document. This bill is better to be rewritten than it is to be amended-- this bill, in my opinion, is past salvaging because the amendments proposed, putting past the fact I disagree with them, are completely different than the original context of the bill while still trying to work with the old bill. This bill (with your amendments) is a significant downgrade from LR 017, the only upgrade being that it is in more 'legal speak'. I prefer to reject this bill, and rewrite an older bill, LR 017, with contents of this bill and your amendments mixed in, to create a much better bill that we can all agree on without this dancing around. I, yet again, invite you to stop proposing more and more amendments by your lonesome, and sit down with me, Diz, Pap, and any other Senators that wish to get involved, so we can all work on the bill as one.
I mean that's the point of a debate in the Senate, to have all Senators, and not one or two like you claim, give their ideas on the bill.
But yeah whatever I suppose. Andy & Marv are AFK and Pap doesn't look like he'll join the discussion again, so there's no point in continuing this if half the Senate isn't here to help.
I'm withdrawing my amendments.
Brototh
i declare this a victory for the west pole empire! thaecia's senate has been defeated!
Voting - RMB Moderation Standards Act
Authors: Dizgovzy, Xernon, United Cascadian Peoples, Korsinia
Sponsors: Dizgovzy, Indian Genius, Pap Sculgief, Prussian Sail Nation
Seeing that Islonia has withdrew their amendments, we have now begun voting on the RMB Moderation Standards Act, as passed by the House.
My vote is Nay
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Brototh
nay
Marvinville
Nay
It's more like Army Group Andy and Army Group Marv surrendered, so we had to retreat to base camp...
Brototh
Abstain
Nay
Brototh
Nay
Brototh
Nay
Results - RMB Moderation Standards Act
Authors: Dizgovzy, Xernon, United Cascadian Peoples, Korsinia
Sponsors: Dizgovzy, Indian Genius, Pap Sculgief, Prussian Sail Nation
Ayes (0)
Nays (6) - Andusre, Brototh, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief, World Trade
Abstentions (1) - Dendrobium
This bill has failed to pass the Senate.
Indian Genius
Opening Debate - Regional Message Board Moderation Standards Act
Regional Message Board Moderation Standards Act
Authors: Dizgovzy, Brototh, Islonia
Sponsors: Dizgovzy, Brototh, Islonia
We have now begun debating this bill. Dizgovzy has permission to participate in this debate.
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Brototh
seems legit
Good day to my companions in the Upper Chamber of the Thaecian Legislature.
I find it absolutely imperative that this factbook be designated as prime and be included in the registry of law. It is my personal opinion of the matter that the Regional Message Boards, commonly referred to as the RMB,is the basis of Thaecian culture and the most paramount foundation of our region. Thus I find it critical to enact this piece of legislation. This legislation is of the utmost quality and is quite frankly, laudatory. As well, it seems to be a major enrichment and enhancement of the previous bill.
I would urge my Senator companions to cast a vote in favour of this bill.
Brototh
This bill is a vast improvement on what was previously put forward, not only does it provide a good set of fair rules, it sets a precedent for moderation which is incredibly important. The definitions provided are very to-the-point so I see no problem with clarity.
Overall, I support this bill, as it is a more well-written and effective bill than LR.017.
Brototh
we got 10 hours to burn before we start voting, so how are y'all doing today?
Dizgovzy, Pap Sculgief
I am going to be honest here, I am pleasantly surprised by this (version of(?)) the RMB Moderation Standards Act. I was doubtful of what was promised (partly because I did not find the time previously to read the draft versions but also because the last debate was quite a debate) and for that I apologise. This combines the best of L.R. 017 and the previous Act we debated on as well as refining it.
It has my full support and I will be voting "Aye".
Dizgovzy, Pap Sculgief, Brototh
I would like to propose this single Amendment
[Spoiler=Amendment A]
[I]To remove the following from Article III
Section II - Any amendments to this law must receive a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress.
[/spoiler]
I dont see the need for this section given that this is no different than a lot of other bills in the LR that doesn't have this 2/3rds majority requirement.
I oppose this amendment, because I believe that if it is so easy to amend the laws for what people can and can't say on the RMB, the door for corruption is much more widely open than it could be otherwise. The original LR 017 had the same passage, and I believe that the bill should stay the same way because of the anti-corruption on something that practically defines how free free speech can be is probably the most important line in the bill. This is very different from other LRs because they do not have such jurisdiction as this bill would have.
Factually, to amend L.R. 017, Congress did not need a 2/3rds majority to amend the law so I don't know what you're talking about.
Oh heck
I must've read another bill
Eh
Still support it, the previous bill had the barrier of the HAM (which may have been unconstitutional), this has the 2/3
Both do the job
Still no reason for 2/3rds though seeing it didn't have it in L.R. 017
I admit I was wrong, it was not in the original LR 017. However I believe that something as important as this, as literally defining where free speech should stop, should have a higher barrier. Something like the Parliament Procedures Act has a 2/3 barrier, why doesn't this-- it's arguably much more important.
So if you say that this bill is important enough for the 2/3 barrier, why doesn't our Electoral process bill have that? I would argue that law is much more important than this bill that only sets standards to moderates the RMB, which isn't really a big deal tbh.
Even if we remove the 2/3, the PM could veto the amendment bill if it doesnt reach a two thirds majority. Free speech is already protected in the Constitution so you can not restrict it.
That's a fair point to be honest, but then by that logic all other bills should have no 2/3 majority limit either. And what I mean by free speech is the fact we're regulating what people are allowed to say on the RMB, not necessarily the same as the right to speak your mind.
But regulating what people are allowed to say on the RMB is the restricting your right to speak your mind, even if it is something that shouldn't be said.
by that logic the whole bill is unconstitutional? how did we get from 2/3rd to this smh let's move on
The bill could be unconstitutional tbh but yeah I think the conversation is kinda over. I'll start the amendment vote later
Voting - Amendment
Amendment A
Author: Marvinville
[Spoiler=Amendment A]
[I]To remove the following from Article III
Section II - Any amendments to this law must receive a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress.
[/spoiler]
We have now begun voting on this amendment to the Regional Message Board Moderation Standards Act.
My vote is Aye
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
nay
Nay
Nay
Nay
Results - Amendment
Amendment A
Author: Marvinville
[Spoiler=Amendment A]
[I]To remove the following from Article III
Section II - Any amendments to this law must receive a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress.
[/spoiler]
Ayes (1) - Marvinville
Nays (4) - Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Pap Sculgief
Abstentions (2) - Andusre, World Trade
This amendment has failed.
Aye
Dizgovzy
Aye
Dizgovzy
Aye
Dizgovzy
Aye
Dizgovzy
Aye
Dizgovzy
Voting - Regional Message Board Moderation Standards Act
Regional Message Board Moderation Standards Act
Authors: Dizgovzy, Brototh, Islonia
Sponsors: Dizgovzy, Brototh, Islonia
Ayes (6) - Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Pap Sculgief, World Trade
Nays (0)
Abstentions (1) - Andusre
This bill has passed the Senate and now moves to the House for further action.
[spoiler= House speaker]
[/spoiler]
Opening Debate - The Thaecian Anti-Discrimination in Government Act
The Thaecian Anti-Discrimination in Government Act
Author: Andusre
Sponsor: Andusre
We have now begun debating this bill
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
I support. Fights unnecessary discrimination and provides a platform for it to be brought to the Judiciarys attention. I plan to vote aye
World Trade, Andusre
cool and good
While I support the bill and her actions against discrimination, there is one particular word that makes me think.
'Discrimination shall be defined as the refusal to co-operate with, employ or vote for a person on the grounds of their identity'
I don't believe that we should ever put restrictions on someone because of what they vote for. While something like this is inherently bad, I don't think for a moment that we should have any kind of restriction on who people vote for and why. I hope Andusre would choose to just strike this entirely, but I don't see any reason why we should have a bill that places restriction on the right to vote, even if that right is being exercised in a more malicious way.
[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend Article I Section I to read as follows:
Discrimination shall be defined as the refusal to co-operate with,or employ or vote for a person on the grounds of their identity [...][/spoiler] If anyone has a good reason why this should remain I'm happy to hear it. While it might be a democratic right to be able to be voted into power despite your identity, it's also a democratic right to be able to vote for who you please and vote because of what reason you want. Someone should be booted from the region entirely if they vote because of this, but not denied the right to vote freely.
I agree with Brototh
The bill is meant to (wording could perhaps use tweaking to more accurately reflect this) be strictly for government. I.e. it doesn't apply to the votes of citizens in elections, but would apply for MPs and Senators voting for Speakers and Chairmen, for example.
Works better that way, currently writing something else but I'll get back to this.
[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend Article I Section I to read as follows:
Discrimination shall be defined as the refusal to co-operate with, employ or vote for a person on the grounds of their identity, the latter of which is only applicable to government, e.g. for Senators voting for the Chairman, for MPs voting for the Speaker, etc.[/spoiler]
That is actually much better
Brototh
This makes sense and I support it. I encourage all other senators to vote aye on this amendment, and vote aye on the bill in general
Brototh
Voting - Amendment A
[spoiler=Amendment A]
Amend Article I Section I to read as follows:
Discrimination shall be defined as the refusal to co-operate with, employ or vote for a person on the grounds of their identity, the latter of which is only applicable to government, e.g. for Senators voting for the Chairman, for MPs voting for the Speaker, etc.[/spoiler]
We have now begun voting on Amendment A of the bill
My vote is Aye
[spoiler=Senators]
[/spoiler]
Brototh
aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
As Deputy Chairman, I have been given permission to close the vote by the Chair.
This Amendment has passed 7-0.
Senators, we will now begin voting on the final bill.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1421845
My vote is Aye
[spoiler=Senators]Andusre
World Trade[/spoiler]
Aye
Brototh
Aye
Brototh
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The bill passes 7-0. Doing this from my phone, so I can't be bothered with formatting.
[spoiler=Senators, who voted aye]Andusre
World Trade[/spoiler]
Dizgovzy House Speaker
Pap Sculgief
Senators, we have begun debating the Law Registry Act, proposed and sponsored by myself. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1420694
Debate:
The reason I made the bill was really to create a formal law registry, that we can have open to all citizens. We recently saw the registry move to the website, which, sorry Islo, was horrendous. This bill both formalises the law registry on the NS site for ease of access for everyone, and creates a way that I'm sure makes RP legislation slightly more appealing. I would much prefer if RP legislation was separated, because then there's a lot less confusion with people trying to find IC legislation against RP legislation, separating them helps with people looking for two different things.
I spoke with the HAM & the Factbook department, they seem to approve the bill. I think Korsinia does too, not all that sure though.
World Trade, Pap Sculgief
Seems like a good bill that formally establishes and keeps a Law Registry. I only briefly looked through it, so Ill have another look soon, and see if any amendments are necessary, however from what I have seen, its looks good
World Trade, Brototh
After reading through the bill, I think it is a bill that is really needed. Although the Law Registry is currently upheld, there is no legal requirement for that to be so, and I think that this bill will help many people for (hopefully) years to come.
Brototh
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.