Communist Party HQ [NSG Senate][New]

[Forster Keys]

Well SAPSA didn't pass thankfully. But then again neither did the NRPA. A gain and a loss.

[Forster Keys]

My strategy for next time? I suggest that we propose an amendment to SAPSA whereupon the senator's wage is lowered to a reasonable level. Also we should vote form a universal healthcare bill as soon as possible to render the final clause obsolete. Some of our more lax members need to be poked severely. With their participation the passage of the NRPA will be assured.

[Greater Pokarnia]

Yeah. We could always redraft it with a higher retirement age, since the age was the main objection to the bill and it lost narrowly. It's better than nothing.

Anyways, since we got a majority in the presidential vote, it follows that we should get a majority in the PM vote and ministerial election, so it seems the whole Progress Coalition roster is going to be appointed.

As for universal healthcare, that's in the queue somewhere. I've heard talk of the PM arranging the queue but I'm not sure if the Republican Executive Act gives them the power to do that. If so, bills like Healthcare, Education, etc. should be our top priority.

[Silent Majority]

I've heard talk of the PM arranging the queue but I'm not sure if the Republican Executive Act gives them the power to do that.

I don't think the REA really says, but my understanding is that's how parliamentary systems work IRL

[Dejanic]

My strategy for next time? I suggest that we propose an amendment to SAPSA whereupon the senator's wage is lowered to a reasonable level. Also we should vote form a universal healthcare bill as soon as possible to render the final clause obsolete. Some of our more lax members need to be poked severely. With their participation the passage of the NRPA will be assured.

That's fair. Thought I did vote (critically) in favour of the SAPSA, I can definitely see how it was an unfair piece of legislation, I'd much prefer one which proposes that senators receive a workers wage, considering the amount of millionaires that are within the senate. I merely supported it as I (and I'm guessing the rest of you) believe in free healthcare/travel for all citizens, so giving it to senators seemed like a start. Hope no one here would judge me for that.

[Osea 767]

So we have a new thread? Splendid.

I have, of course, voted in support of FreeSoc's appointment. As for the SAPSA, I will be ready to help my fellow comrades in the task of working on an amended SAPSA bill.

[Chestaan]

Yeah. We could always redraft it with a higher retirement age, since the age was the main objection to the bill and it lost narrowly. It's better than nothing.

Anyways, since we got a majority in the presidential vote, it follows that we should get a majority in the PM vote and ministerial election, so it seems the whole Progress Coalition roster is going to be appointed.

As for universal healthcare, that's in the queue somewhere. I've heard talk of the PM arranging the queue but I'm not sure if the Republican Executive Act gives them the power to do that. If so, bills like Healthcare, Education, etc. should be our top priority.

Has anyone written up an education bill yet?

[Forster Keys]

My strategy for next time? I suggest that we propose an amendment to SAPSA whereupon the senator's wage is lowered to a reasonable level. Also we should vote form a universal healthcare bill as soon as possible to render the final clause obsolete. Some of our more lax members need to be poked severely. With their participation the passage of the NRPA will be assured.

That's fair. Thought I did vote (critically) in favour of the SAPSA, I can definitely see how it was an unfair piece of legislation, I'd much prefer one which proposes that senators receive a workers wage, considering the amount of millionaires that are within the senate. I merely supported it as I (and I'm guessing the rest of you) believe in free healthcare/travel for all citizens, so giving it to senators seemed like a start. Hope no one here would judge me for that.

Not at all. I was contemplating supporting it for the sake of expediency and getting a proper framework up. Though you probably aren't aware of the three line whip on the issue.

[Othelos]

My strategy for next time? I suggest that we propose an amendment to SAPSA whereupon the senator's wage is lowered to a reasonable level. Also we should vote form a universal healthcare bill as soon as possible to render the final clause obsolete. Some of our more lax members need to be poked severely. With their participation the passage of the NRPA will be assured.

The only thing I (and a lot of other people) didn't like about the NRPA was the low retirement age.

[Dejanic]

That's fair. Thought I did vote (critically) in favour of the SAPSA, I can definitely see how it was an unfair piece of legislation, I'd much prefer one which proposes that senators receive a workers wage, considering the amount of millionaires that are within the senate. I merely supported it as I (and I'm guessing the rest of you) believe in free healthcare/travel for all citizens, so giving it to senators seemed like a start. Hope no one here would judge me for that.

Not at all. I was contemplating supporting it for the sake of expediency and getting a proper framework up. Though you probably aren't aware of the three line whip on the issue.

I wasn't, wouldn't have supported it if I knew.

[Forster Keys]

Not at all. I was contemplating supporting it for the sake of expediency and getting a proper framework up. Though you probably aren't aware of the three line whip on the issue.

I wasn't, wouldn't have supported it if I knew.

It's at the start of the thread under news and information. I only just saw it myself.

[Forster Keys]

My strategy for next time? I suggest that we propose an amendment to SAPSA whereupon the senator's wage is lowered to a reasonable level. Also we should vote form a universal healthcare bill as soon as possible to render the final clause obsolete. Some of our more lax members need to be poked severely. With their participation the passage of the NRPA will be assured.

The only thing I (and a lot of other people) didn't like about the NRPA was the low retirement age.

I would have been alright with 65.

[Greater Pokarnia]

Yeah. We could always redraft it with a higher retirement age, since the age was the main objection to the bill and it lost narrowly. It's better than nothing.

Anyways, since we got a majority in the presidential vote, it follows that we should get a majority in the PM vote and ministerial election, so it seems the whole Progress Coalition roster is going to be appointed.

As for universal healthcare, that's in the queue somewhere. I've heard talk of the PM arranging the queue but I'm not sure if the Republican Executive Act gives them the power to do that. If so, bills like Healthcare, Education, etc. should be our top priority.

Has anyone written up an education bill yet?

I have, and got several co-sponsors and submitted it to queue. Check the queue, it's in there.

[Polvia]

My apologies for the intrusion, Honourable Senators of the Communist Party, but this is a bill I have entered into the Coffee House:

Proper Procedure and Unacceptable Behavior Act (2013)
Drafted by Polvia (RG)
Sponsors: Maklohi Vai (LD), Yanalia (RG)

Article I – Unacceptable Behavior

(1) Remarks directed specifically at another Member which question that Member’s integrity, honesty or character are not in order.
(2) A Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member.
(3) It is unacceptable to question the integrity of impartiality of a Presiding Officer, or the Administrators of the Senate, and if such comments are made, the Administrators shall call for the withdrawal of the statements by the Member. Only with a call to question the impartiality of a specific Presiding Officer, confirmed and approved by five other Senate members via motion, may the impartiality of Presiding Officers, or the Administrators, be called into question.
(4) The use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in any Senate thread is strictly forbidden.
(5) Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order.
(6) A direct charge against a Member may be made only by way of a motion for which is confirmed by five other Senate Members.
(7) If language used in debate appears questionable to the Administrators, they will intervene. Nonetheless, any Member who feels aggrieved by a remark or allegation may also bring the matter to the immediate attention of the Administrators on a Point of Order.

Article II – Points of Order

(1) A Point of Order is an intervention by a Member who believes that the rules or customary procedures have been incorrectly applied or overlooked during proceedings. Members may rise on Points of Order to bring to attention of the Administrator any breach of any rule or unacceptable remarks.
(2) Points of order respecting procedure must be raised promptly and before the remark has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place. The time period on which a Point of Order may be raised shall be up to forty-eight hours after the statement in question has been made.
(3) As a Point of Order concerns the interpretation of the rules of procedure, it is the responsibility of the Administrators to determine its merits and to resolve the issue.
(4) One Point of Order must be disposed of before another one is raised.
(5) Any Member can bring to the Administrators’ attention a procedural irregularity the moment it occurs. When recognized on a Point of Order, a Member should only state which Standing Order or practice he or she considers to have been breached; if this is not done, the Administrators may request that the Member do so.
(6) A brief debate on the Point of Order is possible at the Administrators' discretion.
(7) A Member may not direct remarks to separate issues or engage in debate by raising a matter under the guise of a Point of Order.

Article III – The Administrators

(1) The Administrators shall be charged with the moderation of all threads under Senate jurisdiction.
(2) The Administrators shall have no authority to rule on statements made outside of threads not under the jurisdiction of the Senate by one Member against another.
(3) The Administrators, and all Presiding Officers, are subject to all subject articles of this act, as are all Members who post on the Senate threads.
(4) The Administrators have the duty to preserve order and decorum and to decide any matter of procedure that may arise.
(5) The Administrators are bound to call the attention of a thread, under Senate jurisdiction, to an irregularity in debate or procedure immediately, without waiting for the intervention of a Member.
(6) When a Point of Order is raise, The Administrators attempt to rule on the matter immediately. However, if necessary, the Administrators may take the matter under advisement and come back to the issue later (within twenty-four hours) with a formal ruling.
(7) In doubtful cases, the Administrators may also allow discussion on the Point of Order before coming to a decision but the comments must be strictly relevant to the point raised.
(8) When a decision on a question of order is reached, the Administrators support it with quotations from the Standing Orders or other Senate Policy, or simply by citing the number of the applicable Standing Order(s).
(9) Once the decision is rendered, the matter is no longer open to debate or discussion and the ruling may not be appealed.

Article IV – Punishment

(1) Should the Administrators find the utterances of a particular Member offensive or disorderly, that Member will be requested to post on the thread and to withdraw the unacceptable word or phrase unequivocally. The Member’s apology is accepted in good faith and the matter is then considered closed.
(2) However, if the Member persists in refusing to obey the directive of the Administrators to retract his or her words, the Administrators may then take action in punishment of the Member in question.
(3) The Member who has refused to withdraw their statements shall be warned of the punishment that will be given should they not withdraw their statements in their next immediate post on the Senate thread in question.
(4) Upon the first offense the Member shall be temporarily banned from the Senate, and all Senate threads, for five days, and shall lose all voting and Senate privileges, if they have such privileges, until three days of good behavior after returning to the Senate.
(5) Upon the second offense the Member shall be banned from the Senate, lose all claim of membership and all Senate threads for ten days. The Member must then reapply to the Senate, and shall not have any voting and Senate privileges, if they have such privileges, until seven days of good behavior after returning to the Senate.
(6) Upon the third offense the Member shall be permanently banned from the Senate and Senate threads, and have their name added to a blacklist.

Article V – Definitions

(1) Standing Order – the rules and procedures governing the Senate
(2) Member(s) – any NationStates account
(3) Senate threads – any thread under the jurisdiction of the Senate
(4) Presiding Officer - Any official of the NSG Senate Administration

Would any of you be interested in sponsoring it?

[Forster Keys]

Well correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like the NIFP's talking about building garrisons for their paramilitaries...

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=237943&p=14402718#p14402718

[Bojikami]

Well correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like the NIFP's talking about building garrisons for their paramilitaries...

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=237943&p=14402718#p14402718

Oh lord.

[Forster Keys]

Well correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like the NIFP's talking about building garrisons for their paramilitaries...

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=237943&p=14402718#p14402718

Oh lord.

I'm quite disappointed. Particularly after all the work persuading the USLP to disband.

[Bojikami]

Oh lord.

I'm quite disappointed. Particularly after all the work persuading the USLP to disband.

What is the USLP, may I ask?

[Forster Keys]

I'm quite disappointed. Particularly after all the work persuading the USLP to disband.

What is the USLP, may I ask?

The United Socialist Labour Party. Stalinists.

[Bojikami]

What is the USLP, may I ask?

The United Socialist Labour Party. Stalinists.

Oh Marx. This is not good.

[Timsvill]

We should vote against any laws that bring the power to the people. The govrement knows better and knows what the people want. They don't know what they want! We do!

[Greater Pokarnia]

We should vote against any laws that bring the power to the people. The govrement knows better and knows what the people want. They don't know what they want! We do!

You're joking, yes?

[Timsvill]

We should vote against any laws that bring the power to the people. The govrement knows better and knows what the people want. They don't know what they want! We do!

You're joking, yes?

Yes.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I would like to change my party affiliation to the Communists.

[Greater Pokarnia]

Welcome, Franklin Delano Bluth! We're glad to have you.