View Topic

Technically an override may or may not be able occur...also the only one I actually calculated any differently was the measure I passes, not the one I killed (and keep in mind that Pengu has stated to support my view on if this should pass or not even though he helped lead the charge to neuter the Speaker after that.) Further I am not the only one that views it as having should failed, and those people do support or are neutral to this bill.

In the end only Wuufu can pass the act. I think that it should pass. My fellow UH members think it should pass. The fact that Wuufu even listened to Chanku's, quite frankly, asinine argument astounds me.

Do what you will.

It should pass. It would be a terrible PRECEDENT for something like this to fail because some members in the OH could not bring themselves to vote aye.

Hahaha, my first dislike. I figured it would happen eventually. I just never figured it would be you, Chanku.

And I find your agrugmemt asinine (along with an OA being asinine) doesn't make my arguememt amy more false.

If other people have some sort of issue, I'm sure they can speak for themselves. However, I know you and your history well enough to know just what kind of game you're trying to play here. You have a double-standard for things that you support and things that you are against, as shown by your actions when you were Speaker. You also have a history of attempting to rules-lawyer and exploiting things for you to get the outcome that you want. So sorry, no sale.

It's the same issue as with your temp-ban appeal. To allow this to stand would be to allow a perversion of the way things are done as accepted over the past two years, and as North said, would set a terrible precedent.

If you know me like you claim to do, then you would know that I would have gone through the courts instead.

And should this pass, I'm sure you'll probably attempt to. This thing isn't over yet.

It is a fundamentally agreed definition of a supermajority that it is only of those voting. In fact, our new bill includes multiple supermajority votes "[two-thirds or three-fourths] of those voting" as well.

At this point, I worry you are being an obstructionist and are only doing this because you personally don't want the bill to pass. When it comes to ratifying it, just have your nay vote and move on.

Barnes is calling you out, and he's hit the nail on the head. It seems most everyone agrees with letting the act pass except for you. Throwing around words like "asinine" is the entire reason you'll never get elected for anything again.

Wuufu, as Chairman of the OH has an inherent right to interpret what a vague law means, and by his word alone, this has passed. So let's cut the pointless arguments. Just vote against the act when it's presented for the citizenry and stop annoying us. Thank you.

Looks like I'm a little late to the party but where there's rules-lawyering there inevitably is me.

Everyone has pretty much laid out the arguments here: I understand that the lack of a supermajority passing, but as has been explained 2 votes out of, well, 2 votes = a supermajority. An abstain vote isn't a vote for or against, and doesn't count towards OR against a supermajority total.

I'm looking forward to seeing this Act finally get off the ground. As much as I respect those who absented themselves from the vote in the OH, bringing personal politics in as a reason not to vote on such an important piece of legislation is somewhat... eh. It doesn't sit right with me. Your own politics should be seen as a lens through which you interpret the laws and bills put in front of you, not the be-all and end-all of what you approve and don't approve.

Beyond that rant, I have little else to say :p

Following from Weissreich's point, those in the OH who don't wish to support the act, and indeed, actively want to go against it, are more than welcome to vote NAY. Abstaining and then trying to indirectly let it fail just wastes everyone's time. Be upfront or go home.

The two abstaining voters have not said they are actively against it; they said, in fact, that they wish not to stop the region's citizens from going where they want.

If they wanted the bill to fail, they would've already voted nay rather than abstaining.  And they are well within their ability to vote that way; otherwise we wouldn't have abstentions in the first place.

If it was just me I would have filed a court case however PB has agreed with me, @Pengu has agreed with me in IRC and axis/Joshua has agreed with me.

These people either support or are neutral to the amendment or support it.

I'm referring to this. Of course, this is hearsay, since Chanku is once more uttering people's names without those people commenting on it.

The Overhusen is not in place to represent the Citizenry, so I don't believe that @Joshua Bluteisen or myself need suffer flak for our decisions.  We are here to represent the Monarchy, not everybody else.

I believe that this amendment is not beneficial to the Monarchy or even the region as a whole, but when the Monarch himself is in favor of it, who am I to vote against? I could have voted Nay, you're right, but instead opted to allow my personal views to NOT interfere with the amendment. Don't put false reasons behind my voting. I was not elected, and am under no obligation to support any legislation that I disapprove of. Be instead glad that I chose to overlook my own views in order to simply abstain.

Given the state of this thread, I fear that Joshua and I would have taken even more pointed comments had we directly failed the amendment, so I don't see how that would be an improvement.

Read my post right before this one.

I don't see what that changes. If he cared that much about it failing, a single Nay vote would have done it, and there's not much anyone but the Monarch could have done about it.