Post Archive
Region: The Thaecian Senate
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
My specific plan is to take the ministry and make it as effective as possible
I change my vote to Nay.
The nominee still passes 5-1-0
We are doing this again now
The second proposal is great. However as I stated before, I dont see a real cause to change it.
For the first bill, we have amends by the PM. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1718102
I haven't looked at the second yet, though I've made an amendment to the first with some spelling corrections, rewriting of confusing sentences and some other stuff (read the amendment to find out ʕ ᴥʔ), and the addition of embassy closures as grieifing
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1719468
EDIT: Delegate bumping was removed from the griefing list after a discord debate
Delegate bumping is not griefing.
Any law that introduces delegate bumping as griefing will be vetoed.
This is a ridiculous restriction on our military that can be broadly applied to any region.
Another attempt to restrict our ability to raid. This is an independent military. Delegate bumps are routine operations. By no extent of the imagination are they griefing.
I do agree that there's no point in restricting our military even more so I am opposed to this. Also please link the amendment again
Removed after a discord debate
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to pass the following bill:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1719512
It is an Executive priority and I believe that this is an important issue.
Islonia, Brototh, Toerana V
I acknowledge the motion
Brototh, Toerana V
I acknowledge the motion
Brototh, Toerana V
I acknowledge the motion, given the current regional crisis following the uncalled-for aggression against our fine republic by militant groups funded by the shadowy marsupial cabal.
Brototh, Toerana V, Sevae
I acknowledge the motion
Brototh, Toerana V
I cannot in good consciousness acknowledge the motion.
That is an obscene amount of power to grant even in the event of "regional emergency" I feel like this level power with no oversight could easily be abused.
I object.
Creckelenney
the motion has failed
I object to the current motion on the floor. As such, I believe in Democracy and maintaining the Sovereignty of the region without doubts of giving one main individual power to disrupt the entire region. I will object.
I motion for unanimous consent https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1719534
I acknowledge the motion
I acknowledge the motion
I acknowledge the motion
I acknowledge the motion
I object to the motion because:
1. It is probably unconstitutional by violating the protection against ex post facto laws
2. It is based off an interpretation of CR 21 that doesn't make sense to me (by saying that the only possible punishment is a warning). Link to ruling: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1691188
3. And even if it were constitutional, it violates the spirit of protection against ex post facto laws and sets a poor precedent
The UC motion has passed because nobody objected to it within 24 hours
D:
Point of Order: Chairman Seva, as per L.R. 051, the Congress Regulation act, the chamber leader is obligated to put a bill on the Senate floor. Specifically for this chamber. We have yet to receive business and it has been 25 hours. Is there an explanation to why? We should note this is not the first time.
a. However, the leader of a chamber must put a bill to debate and consequently voting after the ongoing business is over if
We are debating something already, and it's the Military Commission Act Amendments and the Minimum Debate Time Act
alright, let's vote on the amendment by PM Brototh: Grandfathering and the amendment by Senator Porflox in 3 hours
Amendment A
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1718102
Amendment B
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1719468
Id like to ask the honorable Senator Porflox, the purposes of the amendment proposed by him.
Per request, I have split my amendment to add embassy closures as grieifing into a separate amendment.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1719468
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1720865
Vedenmark my first amendment without changes to the definition of griefing mainly contains changes to make the bill easier to understand, and to remove some redundant or contradictory stuff (eg. allowing the army to force the chair of the senate to contact senators- there's no reason someone in the military can't contact senators themselves, and adding the extra step in the process reduces the time frame when the senate can take action if they feel the need to do so).
My second amendment is solely on adding the destruction of embassies to the list of actions that are considered griefing. This is because the destruction of embassies serves no tactical purpose when raiding (destroying embassies does not make it any easier to hold an occupied region), nor does it provide training or anything to members of the army. Plus, if we intend to grief a region (eg. a facist region), the military could just ask the senate to vote on it. Because raiding tends to have more relaxed timetables, I think it'd work fine (particularly because ooc problematic regions often aren't able to defend themselves because no one wants to work with them)- though I haven't really raided and haven't done R/D in a bit so someone more familiar might be able to say more on this than I can.
A couple counterpoints in case someone makes these arguments:
1. The destruction of embassies, particularly the mass destruction of a significant amount of embassies (like the raid on The Embassy and SECFanatics- there is even a video that was made regarding the destruction of the latter region's embassies, though it has since been taken down. The link still exists on the region page though). While the mass creation of embassies is a largely automated process, so are many other parts of region building (it is very similar to recruitment, for example). However, the destruction of the result of recruitment (the banning of natives) is regarded as griefing, so I see no reason not to include embassy closures as well.
2. This is sort of adding onto my first point here, but embassies are not easily regained. Like recruitment, it takes a very long time to get all that work back- despite significant advances in automation.
The destruction of embassies is easily reversible. Any region that has any worthwhile allies or friends would simply rebuild them straight after. It is also common practice. The second amendment would also probably isolate us from most if not all raider groups considering how commonly performed it is. This shifts us too far to defenderism despite our status as a proud independent region. I cannot support the second amendment in any capacity. The first set of amendments are fine but the second amendment is just harmful to our raiding game.
I don't think I said this explicitly enough, but the idea behind banning embassy closures was mainly in regards to the destruction of embassy collector regions (eg. the Embassy or SECfanatics), rather than embassies that are normally built up. These embassy collector regions put in huge amounts of time and effort to get where they are, and the destruction of that is no better than other forms of griefing.
In regards to working with raider regions, the destruction of embassies does basically nothing, so I don't see how other regions wouldn't just agree not to close embassies when working with us.
The destruction of embassy collector regions will never happen because it is an excellent way to get thrown out of office. The Europeians as far as I'm aware had their own bundles of political crisis after that. There is no reason to restrict us in this manner for such a rare and unlikely event.
And the reason is because it just makes us a pain to work with and because lots of raiders do it instinctively when tagging anyway, I can see this going very south very fast.
I agree on the second point, though I don't think Thaecia as a region has no people who view the closing of significant amounts of embassies as non-destructive. I think I talked with Peeps about The Embassy or something similar on discord a while back in which they argued that mass embassy closures in an embassy collector region were non-destructive. The best way I can think of to separate the two would probably be to change it to "with the intention to close a significant number of embassies" or something of that sort, though that might be too vague. Maybe we could set a number (at like 30 embassies or something)?
Also Vedenmark why should the minister of defense get an exemption from the multi-minister position rule?
The embassies military act amendment has been author amended to allow the closure of under 200 embassies per region. This seems like it should be able to separate embassy collector regions from normal tag raids, though I'm pretty sure I can author amend it later if my number turns out to be inaccurate.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1720865
Added :)
I don't see it. It still reads "closing of over 200 embassies in an occupied region"
I think I forgot to save it or something. It should be good now though
Brototh
I have no more qualms with this amendment. It could honestly be reduced to closing of over 100 but I don't mind either way
Do you think it should be changed to 100, or should I keep it at 200?
I don't mind, doesn't matter to me, just a point that the difference between 100 and 200 is minimal. Eventually when you get so high big numbers stop having great meaning
Toerana V, Porfloxia
alright, finally
We are now voting on Porflox's and Brototh's amendments
Amendment A:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1718102
Amendment B:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1719468
Amendment C:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1720865
A - aye
B - aye
C - aye
Aye to all
A- nay because I dont see why the minister of defense should get an exemption
B- aye
C- aye
Aye to the first nay to the rest
Aye to all
Aye to the first, nay to the rest
Alright, Ill change my vote on the first amendment to aye.
Brototh
Aye to all
Alright, Amendment A has passed 7-0-0; Amendments B and C 5-2-0
We are now voting on the final bill https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1714457
And the Amendment Minimum Time Reform Act which nobody seems to care about
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1716045
I vote Aye to both
Aye
Aye
Aye to both
Aye to both
Aye to both
Aye to both
Voting is closed
As a Senator it is obligatory for me to go in the direction that is best for the region. This is one of those directions.
This treaty brought before us is one of which will benefit both the region and LWU. As a Senator learning more about the Foreign Affairs department and its on-goings, I have no complaints against this treaty and its ratification.
I believe the well experienced FAM and the Prime Minister both have thoroughly checked that this treaty is in fact doable. Doable to the point where we as a region can move forward, and just maybe create more useful treaties. Again, no complaints it has my support.
Thank you Mr Chairman for allowing us to use the floor.
While I agree with Senator Vedenmark's assessment regarding the direction of the region, I prefer referring to the treaty as a natural continuation of our relation with LWU.
It has been tradition that when strong bilateral ties develop, a treaty follows to formalise them. The present situation is similar to that of the Treaty of Sarpedos months ago--here LWU and Thaecia being close military partners and showing respect for one another, something that's becoming rarer in GP.
In addition, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has taken the precaution to preemptively notify and hear of any concern our defender partners (and ally) may have with the treaty, and make changes if necessary. As of now, The League, The Order of the Grey Wardens, The South Pacific and 10000 Islands all understand and respect this decision notwisthanding their thoughts on the matter.
Vedenmark, Chair Sevae
What else can we expect from the FAM regarding foreign business among other regions and Thaecia?
It's not something I can't presicely comment on for a simple lack of material on the matter. Cooperation generally happens spontaneously rather than something planned beforehand.
Understandable and noted.
time to vote on the treaty since nobody had objections
Aye
Post self-deleted by Vedenmark.
Aye
Aye
Aye
I will be voting aye.
Quick question because I was really busy during debate Islonia, but does "The signatories will not invade or assist in a third-party invasion of the other signatory's home region or territories. The signatories also agree never to support, encourage or engage in any attempted subversion against the other. It is agreed upon that participating on the opposite sides of a battlefield in a third-party region will not constitute a violation of the treaty" mean that we can not detag the regions they hit and vice versa? I'm not sure what territories means in this context.
I'll vote Aye
Territories are regions under the direct jurisdiction of one signatory's law/government. For example, the Senate region is a territory. So we can retag/detag LWU's hits and vice versa.
Now we have stopped voting on the treaty, and it has passed 6-0-1
Brototh
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1712197 we're debating the Equal Rights Act again. It seems the House amended some stuff back but I'm not sure if I support it. I largely agree with what Porflox said initially that if nobody wants to sponsor a bill, nobody will vote for it
Sevae submitting this amendment:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1721032
Note that the Marv's dispatch of the bills has not been updated with House amendments.
The amendment is the same exact thing as the old one that passed the senate, but that the House removed.
Original debate on this amendment starts here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=47760588
I'd also like to note that I may be unable to contribute in any way to Senate affairs for the rest of the term. If it is possible to do so and Sevae agrees to do so, I'd like the rest of my votes for the term to mirror their's (except on things that I write- I'd like to vote for all of those if unamended). If it is not possible to do so, you can assume that I will be abstaining from all votes for the remainder of the term and voting can end before I place a vote.
Chair Sevae
well, luckily for you an abstention is the same as mirroring others' votes so I'll record all your votes but this one as such
alright let's amend it back, nobody is stopping us from doing so, and I still believe this version is better
I believe the current version is good, the bill itself was neat in my opinion. However, the amends from the house does good for the bills purpose as a whole.
A representative may be allowed to cast their vote for a bill or amendment in advance should they signal that they might not otherwise be available during the regular voting period, provided no amendments pass on the bill
Just ftr if you amend any bills you can't recognise his vote as Abstain and you have to let the time run out
we're voting on the amendment
aye
Nay
Nay
Nay
Back from the dead to vote aye
Nay
Nay
amendment voting is over. We're voting on the Equal Rights Act https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1712197
Nay
Aye
Aye
Nay
Nay
Nay
Aye
Voting is over! The Equal Rights Act has failed 3-4-0, yay
We are again debating the Military act thing whatever it's called as amended by the House https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1714457
Some small amendments passed but they didn't change much so I'm still in favour of the bill as it is
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.