NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate] - Version 3

[The Nihilistic view]

Who else? I can only find one in the thread.

The bill had 5 sponsors, HumanSanity dropped his sponsorship, making 4.

the author also counts as a sponsor so the bill still has 5.

[HumanSanity]

Could we get an opinion from the President pro Tempore who himself seconded the motion on how it was legal please?

[Belmaria]

The bill had 5 sponsors, HumanSanity dropped his sponsorship, making 4.

the author also counts as a sponsor so the bill still has 5.

The author does not also count as a sponsor as far as I know.

[The Nihilistic view]

the author also counts as a sponsor so the bill still has 5.

The author does not also count as a sponsor as far as I know.

Yes he does.

You only have four sponsors, isn't 5 the required minimum?

Yanalia is correct, it's four. The reason being because as author, you already subconsciously sponsor your bill.

[Belmaria]

The author does not also count as a sponsor as far as I know.

Yes he does.

Yanalia is correct, it's four. The reason being because as author, you already subconsciously sponsor your bill.

Then we need to get this straightened out. Is it one way or the other?

[Yanalia]

Yes he does.

Then we need to get this straightened out. Is it one way or the other?

Authors do in fact count. Sponsors come from the old procedure of motioning to add a bill to queue, which needed to be fifthed. Fifthing the motion, started by the author, thus took four supporters. Which is the number of sponsors one needs.

[The Nihilistic view]

Yes he does.

Then we need to get this straightened out. Is it one way or the other?

What are you talking about? SPPT has made it clear 10 days or so ago.

It is obvious If only one sponsor has removed their sponsorship of the bill it still has five sponsors.

[Belmaria]

Then we need to get this straightened out. Is it one way or the other?

Authors do in fact count. Sponsors come from the old procedure of motioning to add a bill to queue, which needed to be fifthed. Fifthing the motion, started by the author, thus took four supporters. Which is the number of sponsors one needs.

Now the PpT needs to hear of this.

Then we need to get this straightened out. Is it one way or the other?

What are you talking about? SPPT has made it clear 10 days or so ago.

It is obvious If only one sponsor has removed their sponsorship of the bill it still has five sponsors.

He just withdrew a bill from queue even though it had all the necessary sponsors.

[Venaleria]

Ok, to clear all of this up:

The bill has been removed from the queue no matter the circumstance, as it now only has 4 sponsors due to the withdrawal of Senator Callaghan's sponsorship. The number of sponsors, which you should all know by now, is 5. This number includes the author of the bill, as they have already subconsciously supported their own bill.

I would like to apologize on my own behalf for supporting and seconding the motion which has been deemed illegal. I assumed it was legal because of the motion having no previous hesitation or discussion. Having scanned through documents in the archives, I see no laws stating a way in which we may remove bills from queue. The motion is rendered pointless. However, I think this raises an interesting topic and maybe a bill should be written on it. No matter what, the bill now has only 4 sponsors (including the author), and needs to be given another in order to be added to the queue.

This is the final ruling in the chamber. Any more discussion shall be taken to the lobby as this is a voting period. Any more posts regarding this topic (unless rendered viable) in the chamber shall be acted upon with warning or penalty. Thank you.

EDIT: I just realized it still has five sponsors. Shame on you all for tricking me with your posts! The bill will be re-added to the queue. The rest still applies, though.

[The Nihilistic view]

Ok, to clear all of this up:

The bill has been removed from the queue no matter the circumstance, as it now only has 4 sponsors due to the withdrawal of Senator Callaghan's sponsorship. The number of sponsors, which you should all know by now, is 5. This number includes the author of the bill, as they have already subconsciously supported their own bill.

I would like to apologize on my own behalf for supporting and seconding the motion which has been deemed illegal. I assumed it was legal because of the motion having no previous hesitation or discussion. Having scanned through documents in the archives, I see no laws stating a way in which we may remove bills from queue. The motion is rendered pointless. However, I think this raises an interesting topic and maybe a bill should be written on it. No matter what, the bill now has only 4 sponsors (including the author), and needs to be given another in order to be added to the queue.

This is the final ruling in the chamber. Any more discussion shall be taken to the lobby as this is a voting period. Any more posts regarding this topic (unless rendered viable) in the chamber shall be acted upon with warning or penalty. Thank you.

EDIT: I just realized it still has five sponsors. Shame on you all for tricking me with your posts! The bill will be re-added to the queue. The rest still applies, though.

Top officiating.

[Senate President pro Tempore]

Ok, to clear all of this up:

The bill has been removed from the queue no matter the circumstance, as it now only has 4 sponsors due to the withdrawal of Senator Callaghan's sponsorship. The number of sponsors, which you should all know by now, is 5. This number includes the author of the bill, as they have already subconsciously supported their own bill.

I would like to apologize on my own behalf for supporting and seconding the motion which has been deemed illegal. I assumed it was legal because of the motion having no previous hesitation or discussion. Having scanned through documents in the archives, I see no laws stating a way in which we may remove bills from queue. The motion is rendered pointless. However, I think this raises an interesting topic and maybe a bill should be written on it. No matter what, the bill now has only 4 sponsors (including the author), and needs to be given another in order to be added to the queue.

This is the final ruling in the chamber. Any more discussion shall be taken to the lobby as this is a voting period. Any more posts regarding this topic (unless rendered viable) in the chamber shall be acted upon with warning or penalty. Thank you.

EDIT: I just realized it still has five sponsors. Shame on you all for tricking me with your posts! The bill will be re-added to the queue. The rest still applies, though.

Top officiating.

I know, I'm always doing that kind of thing.

Anyways, back to voting.

[Seitonjin]

I abstain from voting.

OOC: I am Seitonjin

I change my vote from abstain to AYE.

[Roxinas]

I wish to vote Aye

[Vedastia]

I vote for Welsh Cowboy as Prime Minister
Edit: Nay (I apologize I forgot to type that in)

As a reminder that North America Inc has changed his vote and the vote count should be adjusted accordingly.

[Venaleria]

I vote for Welsh Cowboy as Prime Minister
Edit: Nay (I apologize I forgot to type that in)

As a reminder that North America Inc has changed his vote and the vote count should be adjusted accordingly.

The edit was already counted several vote counts ago.

[Venaleria]

Current Vote Count on the Prime Ministerial Nomination: Senator Pierce

---

Began: 1:27 PM Sun Aug 18, 2013; EDT (UTC -4 | New York City)
Ends: 1:27 PM Wed Aug 21, 2013; EDT (UTC -4 | New York City)
World Clock

---

For: 35
Against: 30
Abstain: 8

[Vedastia]

The edit was already counted several vote counts ago.

Thank you.

[Phocidaea]

[Assuming the vote is still running] I abstain from voting on Senator Pierce's confirmation, because I have next to no information on the Senator's policies that could convince me one way or the other. Given the party that nominated him, I am inclined to vote against him but since he is officially independent I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Venaleria]

Current Vote Count on the Prime Ministerial Nomination: Senator Pierce

---

Began: 1:27 PM Sun Aug 18, 2013; EDT (UTC -4 | New York City)
Ends: 1:27 PM Wed Aug 21, 2013; EDT (UTC -4 | New York City)
World Clock

---

For: 35
Against: 30
Abstain: 9

---

Voting will be running for the next 7 minutes. You got your vote in just in time!

[FreeOlesia]

A fellow independent as Prime Minister? I vote for Senator Pierce.

[Venaleria]

Final Vote Count on the Prime Ministerial Nomination: Senator Pierce

---

Began: 1:27 PM Sun Aug 18, 2013; EDT (UTC -4 | New York City)
Ended: 1:27 PM Wed Aug 21, 2013; EDT (UTC -4 | New York City)
World Clock

---

For: 36
Against: 30
Abstain: 9

---

Voting has officially ended. Congratulations to Prime Minister Pierce! I ask that all congratulation messages go in the lobby or elsewhere. Debate has now started on the Domestic Development Category.

[HumanSanity]

Congratulations Prime Minister Pierce and all members of the new government of Aurentina

[Belmaria]

Congratulations Prime Minister Pierce and all members of the new government of Aurentina

Time to form an opposition

[Senate President pro Tempore]

Ahem, please make sure you read all of the final vote count message.

[Belmaria]

Ahem, please make sure you read all of the final vote count message.

Sorry...