NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate] - Version 3

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

NPSEA: Yay
COPA: Yay
LTPA: Yay
APF: Yay
APA: Abstain
NPWWA: Yay
NFSA: Yay

[HumanSanity]

I would like to bring a Point of Order to the floor regarding telegrams I have received from Senator Bridger (Prussia-Steinbach) recently. The Senator sent a telegram harshly confronting me on how I had voted in this category session, specifically on my "Nay" vote towards his own bill (the NPWWA). He said something to the effect of, "Really, really? You're voting yay on your own bill but note nay on a bill which actually establishes national parks?". These are not his exact words, but very close to them. I replied back with an argument, asking why he had solely confronted me. He then continued to tell me he had telegrammed 3 other Senators on their votes (I do not know who they are) as well as asked for me to copy and paste where in my bill it stated national parks being established. My reply was this:

(Image)

The conversation continued on with more messages including these:

(Image)

I find it completely unfounded to personally telegram a Senator based on their votes in the chamber when these comments may be made in the lobby or previously in debate. It is unethical, offending, and shameful to do so. I ask the administrators to look this matter over carefully and make the best decision accordingly.

Nothing to do with the admins, Points of order are only for what is said in official senate threads. What sent by TG has nothing to do with the admins so either stop moaning or take it up with the forum mods.

As I see it Points of Order as a matter of Senate Proceedure are supplied for in the Proper Proceedure and Unacceptable Behaviour Act. This makes it clear that this would apply to all Senate-related activity, not just official Senate threads.

[Venaleria]

I would like to bring a Point of Order to the floor regarding telegrams I have received from Senator Bridger (Prussia-Steinbach) recently. The Senator sent a telegram harshly confronting me on how I had voted in this category session, specifically on my "Nay" vote towards his own bill (the NPWWA). He said something to the effect of, "Really, really? You're voting yay on your own bill but note nay on a bill which actually establishes national parks?". These are not his exact words, but very close to them. I replied back with an argument, asking why he had solely confronted me. He then continued to tell me he had telegrammed 3 other Senators on their votes (I do not know who they are) as well as asked for me to copy and paste where in my bill it stated national parks being established. My reply was this:

(Image)

The conversation continued on with more messages including these:

(Image)

I find it completely unfounded to personally telegram a Senator based on their votes in the chamber when these comments may be made in the lobby or previously in debate. It is unethical, offending, and shameful to do so. I ask the administrators to look this matter over carefully and make the best decision accordingly.

Nothing to do with the admins, Points of order are only for what is said in official senate threads. What sent by TG has nothing to do with the admins so either stop moaning or take it up with the forum mods.

PPUBA says: "(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."

also says,

"(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."

I find a customary procedure has been breached, so I have the right to uphold a point of order.

[Venaleria]

Nothing to do with the admins, Points of order are only for what is said in official senate threads. What sent by TG has nothing to do with the admins so either stop moaning or take it up with the forum mods.

As I see it Points of Order as a matter of Senate Proceedure are supplied for in the Proper Proceedure and Unacceptable Behaviour Act. This makes it clear that this would apply to all Senate-related activity, not just official Senate threads.

Agreed. Thank you.

[The Nihilistic view]

Nothing to do with the admins, Points of order are only for what is said in official senate threads. What sent by TG has nothing to do with the admins so either stop moaning or take it up with the forum mods.

As I see it Points of Order as a matter of Senate Proceedure are supplied for in the Proper Proceedure and Unacceptable Behaviour Act. This makes it clear that this would apply to all Senate-related activity, not just official Senate threads.

Nope, just threads created by the senate admins as when people are posting in those threads they are inside the senate building. that act only applies inside the senate and so any threads not created by the admins or TG's do not have to abide by that act. As said by the following sections of the act.

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.

[The Nihilistic view]

As I see it Points of Order as a matter of Senate Proceedure are supplied for in the Proper Proceedure and Unacceptable Behaviour Act. This makes it clear that this would apply to all Senate-related activity, not just official Senate threads.

Agreed. Thank you.

See above, and I advise you to read the whole of an act before you decide on a course of action in future.

[Venaleria]

Agreed. Thank you.

See above, and I advise you to read the whole of an act before you decide on a course of action.

I will wait for the admins to see if this is a viable Point of Order. Not by fellow Senators. I believe it is because it involves the Chamber thread and is not just my problem, but is a problem to 3 others, apparently. Thank you.

[The Nihilistic view]

See above, and I advise you to read the whole of an act before you decide on a course of action.

I will wait for the admins to see if this is a viable Point of Order. Not by fellow Senators. I believe it is because it involves the Chamber thread and is not just my problem, but is a problem to 3 others, apparently. Thank you.

It does not matter what the topic of conversation is about, if it is not in an official senate thread it is not against the act as I have shown above.

[Senate President pro Tempore]

Loggerhead Turtle Protection Act: Aye
Animal Protection Force: Nay
Animal Protection Act: Aye
National Preservation of Wilderness and Wildlife Act: Nay
Littering Prevention Act: Aye
National Forestry Services Act: Aye

What is your vote on the NPSEA??

[Lemanrussland]

Loggerhead Turtle Protection Act: Aye
Animal Protection Force: Nay
Animal Protection Act: Aye
National Preservation of Wilderness and Wildlife Act: Nay
Littering Prevention Act: Aye
National Forestry Services Act: Aye

What is your vote on the NPSEA??

Oh shoot, forgot.

Nay, it's redundant.

[Senate President pro Tempore]

I will wait for the admins to see if this is a viable Point of Order. Not by fellow Senators. I believe it is because it involves the Chamber thread and is not just my problem, but is a problem to 3 others, apparently. Thank you.

It does not matter what the topic of conversation is about, if it is not in an official senate thread it is not against the act as I have shown above.

Again, I will wait for the admins to tell me whether it is viable or not. That is the final comment on that argument in the chamber. I never asked for your opinion, and it should not be given during voting time, especially. Please go to the lobby if you feel the need to continue your argument.

-Venaleria

[Senate President pro Tempore]

What is your vote on the NPSEA??

Oh shoot, forgot.

Nay, it's redundant.

Thank you.

[The Nihilistic view]

It does not matter what the topic of conversation is about, if it is not in an official senate thread it is not against the act as I have shown above.

Again, I will wait for the admins to tell me whether it is viable or not. That is the final comment on that argument in the chamber. I never asked for your opinion, and it should not be given during voting time, especially. Please go to the lobby if you feel the need to continue your argument.

-Venaleria

Ok, although In that case your attempt at a point of order should have been put in the coffee shop as well if you want to satisfy the rules during a vote.

[Senate President pro Tempore]

Again, I will wait for the admins to tell me whether it is viable or not. That is the final comment on that argument in the chamber. I never asked for your opinion, and it should not be given during voting time, especially. Please go to the lobby if you feel the need to continue your argument.

-Venaleria

Ok, although In that case your attempt at a point of order should have been put in the coffee shop as well if you want to satisfy the rules during a vote.

OH MY GOD. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS.

Last comment. No more. I was right to put it here, as that is the standard place to put it. Please leave this alone.

[Senate President pro Tempore]

Current Vote Count on the Environment & Energy Category

---

Began: 1:47 PM Sat Aug 10, 2013; EDT (UTC -4 | New York City)
Ends: 1:47 PM Mon Aug 12, 2013; EDT (UTC -4 | New York City)
World Clock

---

NPSEA
30 for
13 against
5 abstain

COPA
33 for
9 against
6 abstain

LTPA
32 for
12 against
4 abstain

APF
33 for
13 against
2 abstain

APA
23 for
19 against
5 abstain

NPWWA
26 for
12 against
10 abstain

NFSA
32 for
9 against
7 abstain

[Lamaredia]

I would like to bring a Point of Order to the floor regarding telegrams I have received from Senator Bridger (Prussia-Steinbach) recently. The Senator sent a telegram harshly confronting me on how I had voted in this category session, specifically on my "Nay" vote towards his own bill (the NPWWA). He said something to the effect of, "Really, really? You're voting yay on your own bill but note nay on a bill which actually establishes national parks?". These are not his exact words, but very close to them. I replied back with an argument, asking why he had solely confronted me. He then continued to tell me he had telegrammed 3 other Senators on their votes (I do not know who they are) as well as asked for me to copy and paste where in my bill it stated national parks being established. My reply was this:

(Image)

The conversation continued on with more messages including these:

(Image)

I find it completely unfounded to personally telegram a Senator based on their votes in the chamber when these comments may be made in the lobby or previously in debate. It is unethical, offending, and shameful to do so. I ask the administrators to look this matter over carefully and make the best decision accordingly.

I'm one of them, although he didn't word it harshly.

[Maklohi Vai]

Admin ruling

Under Article 3, Section 2 of the PPUBA, it says, "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." This, to me, is pretty clear cut that we cannot rule on the matter. If Venaleria wishes to pursue the matter further, he is free to submit a GHR with the NS Moderation team.

-MV

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Thank you, administrator.

Also, isn't there a rule for NS in general that you can't post telegrams without the sender's consent? I'm not going to report you or anything, but I'm relatively sure that isn't proper etiquette.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

And thank you, Venaleria, for posting your telegram as well, so that everyone can see your telegram was much more harsh than mine, that were (while condescending) not laced with unnecessary exclamation marks or aggressive sarcasm.

[Britanno]

Please take this elsewhere.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Please take this elsewhere.

I was replying to a conversation directly concerning me that covered two pages. Venaleria was the one in the wrong from the very tart, posting in a thread he didn't need to for something unactionable about something trivial. I posted twice to thank the administrators and deliver one last comment to Ven. I'm done know, but since no one has posted on it in a while, I don't think there's any need for reprimanding anyone.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

And it appears the vote has ended, with all bills passing. Now we have two national parks, yay. And the NPSEA is repealed automatically.

[New Zepuha]

And it appears the vote has ended, with all bills passing. Now we have two national parks, yay. And the NPSEA is repealed automatically.

Sounds about right.

[Arcerion]

And it appears the vote has ended, with all bills passing. Now we have two national parks, yay. And the NPSEA is repealed automatically.

Sounds about right.

Seems it did happen.

[New Zepuha]

So what is next up for debate?