View Topic

The problem is that they are going to happen eventually, and we need to have a solution for if they do.  Having nothing allows us to do exactly that, and a majority of us here decided that giving the Speaker ultimate power and praying they wouldn't be corruptable was an equally bad idea.  As I said, this is a reasonable medium...a balance of both without either side overpowering.

I support votes either way, but I just want it understood why I support this bill in its entirety.

If it will make everyone more comfortable, perhaps a provision has to be put in place wherein the Speaker has to describe exactly what they'll do with said extra power before a vote begins to empower him. And then he has to report to the citizenry exactly why it was needed afterwards, and they can review the decision through a poll, by voting whether they agreed with the course of action or not.

Thus, we still tie it in with enough red-tape that any Speaker would think very carefully before using it.

If it will make everyone more comfortable, perhaps a provision has to be put in place wherein the Speaker has to describe exactly what they'll do with said extra power before a vote begins to empower him. And then he has to report to the citizenry exactly why it was needed afterwards, and they can review the decision through a poll, by voting whether they agreed with the course of action or not.

Thus, we still tie it in with enough red-tape that any Speaker would think very carefully before using it.

The Skrifa presenting the motion must define the Speaker's expanded powers.

I thought this part would cover that concern.  The Speaker wouldn't be able to say "Well you gave me extra power which means this and this" because the Skrifa who presented the motion can say "No, I defined the power you were given as this."

That way the Speaker can't go wild with it, because that power and use thereof will be clearly laid out to them.

Laurentus is in charge of the red tape from now on. That's regulation at its finest.

Lol, I hope that wasn't sarcasm.

So what was the result of this vote?

Because if it failed (I think that it did) I'd like to revisit my approach here in light of the verdict.

As far as I can tell I think it was 2 Aye, and 2 Nay, from what I know Pengu hasn't voted... though I may be mistaken.

Although I have been thinking about possibly changing my vote...

I was waiting to hear from the others before I cast my vote, and end up getting caught up in other things happening on here. 

Technically voting ended, so the result would have been a tie, and would be considered a fail since it didn't reach a majority on here.

If someone wants to try this again in the future with some tweaks, you're welcome to bring it up in discussion, or another proposal.