View Topic

Right, my apologies. I motion to extend debate.

That means @HannahB gets to decide the fate of this bill!

Right, my apologies. I motion to extend debate.

That means @HannahB gets to decide the fate of this bill!

...Alright, looks like we have a motion for all 3 options: Extend Debate, Table, or Vote.

@HannahB, as I have to abstain from any motions being the Speaker, that means you get to choose unless another Skrifa abandons their motion to second one of the other ones.

I second the motion to extend debate

Ugh, wow, so much pressure

Well there is obviously some disagreements here, otherwise there wouldn't be 3 separate motions, while it might be the least popular choice I second motion to extend the discussion...

Also why does most of this stuff happens at 3 in the morning!

Edit: Screw it I typed this out, I am posting it anyway

And @Chanku with the buzzer beater.

...alright.  Debate is extended until Saturday.

Now this time, actually do what you're motioning and debate.  It's annoying when a motion to extend debate is called and passed, and the time isn't used wisely.

If this is something that happens again, I'm going to write up an amendment so that it won't.

So I guess let's start this off by a simple question: why do you want this tabled, Point Breeze, and why do you want this to pass, Chanku?

Simple, I want it to pass because it makes little sense for the speaker to be unable to propose an expedition, especially since it was originally designed as a speaker power. Expedition should be given to either the Speaker or all Skrifa. While there perhaps should be limits to the expedition, this is mainly about restoring the power to the speaker, as it was broken a lot last session and Laurentus stated that it was a stupid idea to do. (paraphrasing)

Perhaps link us to specific incidents?

I'm sorry, lol. With so many posts, I can't rightly recall when that happened, though I recall that it did happen.

I wrote the comprehensive amendment to the procedural rules in my last term partly to resolve a lot of issues we had been struggling with and partly to curtail the power of the Speaker. This amendment would put all of that back into place and give the Speaker the power I took away. Prior to that amendment, the Speaker was an immensely powerful position, not just because of section 13.  The current procedural rules greatly limit the Speaker's power to "run" the Underhusen.

Point Breeze that was the point of the Speaker, the Speaker was designed to run the UH because it was meant to be that way. Further if you look at the text of the law it only changes expedition now. Also the incident I referenced previously

Then a certain Speaker thoroughly shat on my expectation that the power of the position wouldn't be abused.

@Chanku

And what would you do to avoid things that happened when it was, depending on who you speak to, abused the term before it was removed?

We've already seen the repercussions of what can happen when it's abused, and what can be thrown at the Speaker if it's even felt like they abused it.

If that section was still around, there wouldn't even be a case right now because it would have been "up to my discretion" to dictate how the rules are interpreted.

Would anyone have been happy with that?  No.  I'm pretty sure things would be similar as to where they are now, except I'd be able to flaunt my power as a Speaker by saying that since it's vague, I can interpret it however the hell I want.

Whereas in this case, I did exploit the loophole, but I can't be like "Well, lol, I has power to do that." and you were the very first person to call me out on it and even start a case against that decision.

The difference with having it and not having it is that it keeps Speakers with personal vendettas away from the chair.  Unlike what you did in your term when--as I said,depending on who you speak to--you used your personal bias/agenda to push/dismiss legislation...the removal of that bill completely disallows that and instead allows you to call me out on doing essentially the exact same thing: exploiting a loophole.

Only difference now is that it's actually technically not within my power to do so.

Honestly it has always has the potential of being abused, every position in Wintreath does. Further I did what I could to bring attention to one of the most important issues that there is, there is no Constitutional Mechanism for the amount of votes in statutory law.

So yes, the speaker was designed that way, on purpose. Further being a reactionary and needlessly restricting the power of the Speaker beyond just removing his power to make decisions is needlessly restricting the Speaker.

Also again I removed the section giving the power to make decisions to the Speaker.

I'm sorry  , I can understand that the position of speaker was designed that way but I am failing to understand why that is completly necessary?