NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate] - Version 4

[The Nihilistic view]

FASEA: Aye
TLJSIA: Aye
FAPEPA: Aye
APPA: Aye. The passage of this bill could put the Rhino Party in a Catch-22 if they act irrationally. They can choose to ask for political party status, but that would require its members to renounce either their Rhino membership or their membership to their original party, the latter of which I find unlikely. On the other hand, the Rhinos could choose to not ask for recognition as a political party, in which case they would remain exactly the same as they have been operating since their founding. Their members would not be required to switch parties or leave one, because the Rhinoceros Party would not be an official political party. It would be a shame to have the Rhinoceros Party apply for official membership, especially because the administration will not be accepting their application no matter what. Beyond the issue of the Rhino Party, however, the other clauses of this bill are well executed, as the second clause would prevent situations from happening that literally do not happen anywhere else as far as I know (OOC: It's basic RP realism. Basic.). While the third clause may seem harsh to some, I believe it is a necessary measure (OOC: to enforce realism).
SRA: Aye
MRA: Aye
Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS: Aye


The link for the MRA is wrong, by the way, as the On Counter Motions section has been taken out. The correct link: viewtopic.php?p=17859371#p17859371

What happened to

New Bierstaat drafted a bill that would address the issue, so we'll see how it plays out ICly.

?

If this bill fails, what possible IC reason would there be to deny us membership?

That's what I just asked, there is not a reason. We have no limits on what a party may stand for.

You could say it's a satirical parody like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_M ... oony_Party

Their manifesto. http://www.loonyparty.com/history-4/loo ... manifesto/

to answer MV saying it's not realistic, it has been realistic in the UK since 1983. If that's not realistic then what is?

[Maklohi Vai]

What happened to ?

If this bill fails, what possible IC reason would there be to deny us membership?

That's what I just asked, there is not a reason. We have no limits on what a party may stand for.

You could say it's a satirical parody like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_M ... oony_Party

Their manifesto. http://www.loonyparty.com/history-4/loo ... manifesto/

to answer MV saying it's not realistic, it has been realistic in the UK since 1983. If that's not realistic then what is?

The issue then arises with the realism of one person holding membership in both satirical and real political parties. To answer Ainin's question more directly, there would be no IC justification at the point where the bill fails. My earlier comment was taking the stance that addressing a matter ICly is better than doing so OOCly, but it has to clear both channels regardless. This would not clear the realism issue, which I put in the OOC channel. Ergo, until I see an example of an individual holding simultaneous membership in a joke party and a real party, I cannot accept the Rhinoceros Party.

[The Nihilistic view]

That's what I just asked, there is not a reason. We have no limits on what a party may stand for.

You could say it's a satirical parody like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_M ... oony_Party

Their manifesto. http://www.loonyparty.com/history-4/loo ... manifesto/

to answer MV saying it's not realistic, it has been realistic in the UK since 1983. If that's not realistic then what is?

The issue then arises with the realism of one person holding membership in both satirical and real political parties. To answer Ainin's question more directly, there would be no IC justification at the point where the bill fails. My earlier comment was taking the stance that addressing a matter ICly is better than doing so OOCly, but it has to clear both channels regardless. This would not clear the realism issue, which I put in the OOC channel. Ergo, until I see an example of an individual holding simultaneous membership in a joke party and a real party, I cannot accept the Rhinoceros Party.

You have to if 10 members choose to only be in the rhino party. Regardless of any other arguments or this bill passing.

[Ainin]

That's what I just asked, there is not a reason. We have no limits on what a party may stand for.

You could say it's a satirical parody like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_M ... oony_Party

Their manifesto. http://www.loonyparty.com/history-4/loo ... manifesto/

to answer MV saying it's not realistic, it has been realistic in the UK since 1983. If that's not realistic then what is?

The issue then arises with the realism of one person holding membership in both satirical and real political parties. To answer Ainin's question more directly, there would be no IC justification at the point where the bill fails. My earlier comment was taking the stance that addressing a matter ICly is better than doing so OOCly, but it has to clear both channels regardless. This would not clear the realism issue, which I put in the OOC channel. Ergo, until I see an example of an individual holding simultaneous membership in a joke party and a real party, I cannot accept the Rhinoceros Party.

No country in the world holds presidential elections every two months.
No Western European country has American Libertarians in the mainstream.
No country in the world has bills with a word count of 70.
No country in the Northern Hemisphere has legalised cocaine.
No country in the world changes cabinets every 31 days.
No country in the world nationalises and then denationalises an industry within the span of 4 months.
No country in the world names its lower house the Senate.

The RP can't be absolutely realistic, as that would take out any creativity from it. Having dual party membership literally negatively affects no one in any way whatsoever, so why can't it be allowed if there are no regulations in place banning it? Neither the applications thread nor the Senate Constitution bans parties such as the Rhinos.

[Skeckoa]

No country in the world holds presidential elections every two months.
No Western European country has American Libertarians in the mainstream.
No country in the world has bills with a word count of 70.
No country in the Northern Hemisphere has legalised cocaine.
No country in the world changes cabinets every 31 days.
No country in the world nationalises and then denationalises an industry within the span of 4 months.
No country in the world names its lower house the Senate.
The RP can't be absolutely realistic, as that would take out any creativity from it. Having dual party membership literally negatively affects no one in any way whatsoever, so why can't it be allowed if there are no regulations in place banning it? Neither the applications thread nor the Senate Constitution bans parties such as the Rhinos.

I understand the point you were trying to make, but I like to be an ass... Cocaine in small amounts is legal in Columbia and Mexico.

[Ainin]

No country in the world holds presidential elections every two months.
No Western European country has American Libertarians in the mainstream.
No country in the world has bills with a word count of 70.
No country in the Northern Hemisphere has legalised cocaine.
No country in the world changes cabinets every 31 days.
No country in the world nationalises and then denationalises an industry within the span of 4 months.
No country in the world names its lower house the Senate.
The RP can't be absolutely realistic, as that would take out any creativity from it. Having dual party membership literally negatively affects no one in any way whatsoever, so why can't it be allowed if there are no regulations in place banning it? Neither the applications thread nor the Senate Constitution bans parties such as the Rhinos.

I understand the point you were trying to make, but I like to be an ass... Cocaine in small amounts is legal in Columbia and Mexico.

Sorry, that was supposed to say cannabis.

(North Korea doesn't count, because cannabis was never banned there in the first place)

[The Nihilistic view]

The issue then arises with the realism of one person holding membership in both satirical and real political parties. To answer Ainin's question more directly, there would be no IC justification at the point where the bill fails. My earlier comment was taking the stance that addressing a matter ICly is better than doing so OOCly, but it has to clear both channels regardless. This would not clear the realism issue, which I put in the OOC channel. Ergo, until I see an example of an individual holding simultaneous membership in a joke party and a real party, I cannot accept the Rhinoceros Party.

No country in the world holds presidential elections every two months.
No Western European country has American Libertarians in the mainstream.
No country in the world has bills with a word count of 70.
No country in the Northern Hemisphere has legalised cocaine.
No country in the world changes cabinets every 31 days.
No country in the world nationalises and then denationalises an industry within the span of 4 months.
No country in the world names its lower house the Senate.

The RP can't be absolutely realistic, as that would take out any creativity from it. Having dual party membership literally negatively affects no one in any way whatsoever, so why can't it be allowed if there are no regulations in place banning it? Neither the applications thread nor the Senate Constitution bans parties such as the Rhinos.

I would say being in two parties is one of the lesser not realistic things that happens around here.

[Haelunor]

First Amendment to the Senate Ethics Act (2013) - Aye
Termination of Loopholes and Judicial System Improvement Act - Aye
First Amendment to the Presidential Election Procedures Act - Nay
Aurentine Partisan Politics Act - Nay
Senator Residency Act - Aye
Motion Reform Act - Aye
Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS - Aye

[Libertechie]

AYE to all bills on vote.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

Aye to all, except the Aurentine Partisan Politics Act on which I vote Nay.

[Maklohi Vai]

OOC: I've realized that I'm just going to be making more enemies than friends, or is more likely the case, antagonizing rather than building existing friendships, if I continue my line on this bill and this issue. I don't want to make people mad over something as trivial as this. I had a post ready in response to Ainin and Nihil, but giving it a second run through made me cringe. I'm going to be a bad RP'er and back off ICly because of OOC reasons, but moreover I'm backing off OOCly as an administrator because I was letting my personal OOC feelings interfere with my duties as an impartial administrator both IC and OOC. My apologies for that.

I change my vote to abstain on the APPA. It was previously an aye.

[The Liberated Territories]

First Amendment to the Senate Ethics Act (2013): NAY
Termination of Loopholes and Judicial System Improvement Act: AYE
First Amendment to the Presidential Election Procedures Act: AYE
Aurentine Partisan Politics Act: NAY
Senator Residency Act: NAY
Motion Reform Act: NAY
Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS: AYE

[Skeckoa]

First Amendment to the Senate Ethics Act: ABSTAIN
Termination of Loopholes and Judicial System Improvement Act: AYE
First Amendment to the Presidential Election Procedures Act: AYE
Aurentine Partisan Politics Act: NAY
Senator Residency Act: NAY
Motion Reform Act: NAY
Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS: AYE

[Divitaen]

First Amendment to the Senate Ethics Act - AYE
Termination of Loopholes and Judicial System Improvement Act - AYE
First Amendment to the Presidential Election Procedures Act - AYE
Aurentine Partisan Politics Act - AYE
Senator Residency Act - NAY
Motion Reform Act - AYE
Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS - AYE

[Finium]

First Amendment to the Senate Ethics Act - AYE
Termination of Loopholes and Judicial System Improvement Act - AYE
First Amendment to the Presidential Election Procedures Act - AYE
Aurentine Partisan Politics Act - NAY (This bill attempts to solve the problem of worrisome members of parties, I rather think that if a party cannot maintain its own continuity, that is its own problem not that of the senate.)
Senator Residency Act - NAY
Motion Reform Act - AYE
Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS - AYE

[East Ormania]

First Amendment to the Senate Ethics Act (2013)-AYE
Termination of Loopholes and Judicial System Improvement Act-AYE
First Amendment to the Presidential Election Procedures Act-AYE
Senator Residency Act-NAY
Motion Reform Act-AYE
Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS-AYE

[Britanno]

First Amendment to the Senate Ethics Act (2013) - Aye
Termination of Loopholes and Judicial System Improvement Act - Aye
First Amendment to the Presidential Election Procedures Act - Aye
Aurentine Partisan Politics Act Nay
Senator Residency Act - Nay
Motion Reform Act - Aye
Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS - Aye

[Gallup]

First Amendment to the Senate Ethics Act (2013)-AYE
Termination of Loopholes and Judicial System Improvement Act-AYE
First Amendment to the Presidential Election Procedures Act-AYE
Senator Residency Act-Aye
Motion Reform Act-AYE
Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS-AYE

[Oneracon]

Yea to all bills at vote

[McKleigh]

First Amendment to the Senate Ethics Act (2013) - Nay
Termination of Loopholes and Judicial System Improvement Act - Nay
First Amendment to the Presidential Election Procedures Act - Aye
Aurentine Partisan Politics Act Nay
Senator Residency Act - Aye
Motion Reform Act - Aye
Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS - Aye

[New Waterford]

FASEA: AYE
TLJSIA: AYE
FAPEPA: AYE
APPA: NAY
SRA: AYE
MRA: AYE
FASIMBEDS: AYE
RRA: ABSTAIN

[New Bierstaat]

YES to APPA. No vote yet on the others.

[Distruzio]

First Amendment to the Senate Ethics Act (2013) - Nay
Termination of Loopholes and Judicial System Improvement Act - Nay
First Amendment to the Presidential Election Procedures Act - Aye
Aurentine Partisan Politics Act Aye
Senator Residency Act - Aye
Motion Reform Act - Aye
Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS - Aye

[New Waterford]

I understand the point you were trying to make, but I like to be an ass... Cocaine in small amounts is legal in Columbia and Mexico.

Sorry, that was supposed to say cannabis.

(North Korea doesn't count, because cannabis was never banned there in the first place)

What about the Netherlands?

[Kamchastkia]

Sorry, that was supposed to say cannabis.

(North Korea doesn't count, because cannabis was never banned there in the first place)

What about the Netherlands?

Its laws on cannabis sale are unenforced only under certain circumstances, it is still illegal.