NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

[Dendart]

Well I was thinking Pakistan, Russia or Yemen.

Personally I think the Congo might be the best to model it upon. I mean, it is a Democratic Republic!

or north korea its a democratic peoples republic

[Britanno]

or north korea its a democratic peoples republic

*Can't tell if you're really dumb or just not funny*

[Dejanic]

Personally I think the Congo might be the best to model it upon. I mean, it is a Democratic Republic!

or north korea its a democratic peoples republic

I prefer Somalia. It's such a democratic and friendly nation they don't even need a government.

[Lykens]

Dendart, I've only skimmed the bill, and I'll go back and read it in detail when I can get back to it.

I'm really hoping the purpose of it is to elevate Senators above the common people, and give them certain privileges not afforded to the regular folk. But seeing as you're a monarchist, I'm afraid that might be the case.

[Dendart]

or north korea its a democratic peoples republic

*Can't tell if you're really dumb or just not funny*

well thats a silly question

[Dendart]

Dendart, I've only skimmed the bill, and I'll go back and read it in detail when I can get back to it.

I'm really hoping the purpose of it is to elevate Senators above the common people, and give them certain privileges not afforded to the regular folk. But seeing as you're a monarchist, I'm afraid that might be the case.

legislators need certain "privileges" in order to fully represent there constituents.

[Lykens]

Dendart, I've only skimmed the bill, and I'll go back and read it in detail when I can get back to it.

I'm really hoping the purpose of it is to elevate Senators above the common people, and give them certain privileges not afforded to the regular folk. But seeing as you're a monarchist, I'm afraid that might be the case.

legislators need certain "privileges" in order to fully represent there constituents.

Why.

[Dendart]

legislators need certain "privileges" in order to fully represent there constituents.

Why.

ok say a senator opposes the government, said government then arrests said senator, preventing said senator from voting.
OCC: i have argued for parliamentary privileges in both previous renditions, and if i remember correctly it existed in baltonia

[Lykens]

Why.

ok say a senator opposes the government, said government then arrests said senator, preventing said senator from voting.
OCC: i have argued for parliamentary privileges in both previous renditions, and if i remember correctly it existed in baltonia

I have no issue with parliamentary privilege, allowing a Senator to speak a bit more loosely, than under circumstances, but what other privileges are needed?

[The Nihilistic view]

ok say a senator opposes the government, said government then arrests said senator, preventing said senator from voting.
OCC: i have argued for parliamentary privileges in both previous renditions, and if i remember correctly it existed in baltonia

I have no issue with parliamentary privilege, allowing a Senator to speak a bit more loosely, than under circumstances, but what other privileges are needed?

None.

[Dendart]

ok say a senator opposes the government, said government then arrests said senator, preventing said senator from voting.
OCC: i have argued for parliamentary privileges in both previous renditions, and if i remember correctly it existed in baltonia

I have no issue with parliamentary privilege, allowing a Senator to speak a bit more loosely, than under circumstances, but what other privileges are needed?

all my bill does is prevent the arrest of senators and have them tried in a high court. which i think would definitely allow for the free speech of senators

[Lykens]

I have no issue with parliamentary privilege, allowing a Senator to speak a bit more loosely, than under circumstances, but what other privileges are needed?

all my bill does is prevent the arrest of senators and have them tried in a high court. which i think would definitely allow for the free speech of senators

It also doesn't allow them to be arrested after they've been elected.

I have an issue with that. They should be able to be arrested with a warrant at any time.

[Dendart]

all my bill does is prevent the arrest of senators and have them tried in a high court. which i think would definitely allow for the free speech of senators

It also doesn't allow them to be arrested after they've been elected.

I have an issue with that. They should be able to be arrested with a warrant at any time.

why? when there are avenues for abuse

[Lykens]

It also doesn't allow them to be arrested after they've been elected.

I have an issue with that. They should be able to be arrested with a warrant at any time.

why? when there are avenues for abuse

So politicians are only capable of abusing power, and commit no other crimes?

Or are you saying those other crimes don't matter?

[Dendart]

why? when there are avenues for abuse

So politicians are only capable of abusing power, and commit no other crimes?

Or are you saying those other crimes don't matter?

if they commit a crime they will be tried in court. just not arrested

[Lykens]

So politicians are only capable of abusing power, and commit no other crimes?

Or are you saying those other crimes don't matter?

if they commit a crime they will be tried in court. just not arrested

Why not!?

Everyone else who commits a crime is arrested, why aren't their elected officials?

[Dendart]

if they commit a crime they will be tried in court. just not arrested

Why not!?

Everyone else who commits a crime is arrested, why aren't their elected officials?

to prevent a politically motivated arrest. the bill provides that if they are caught in the act they are to be arrested

[Lykens]

Why not!?

Everyone else who commits a crime is arrested, why aren't their elected officials?

to prevent a politically motivated arrest. the bill provides that if they are caught in the act they are to be arrested

And if credible witnesses come forward, we just tell them to screw off?

[Dendart]

to prevent a politically motivated arrest. the bill provides that if they are caught in the act they are to be arrested

And if credible witnesses come forward, we just tell them to screw off?

no the senator would be tried in court

[Lykens]

And if credible witnesses come forward, we just tell them to screw off?

no the senator would be tried in court

And if he's accused of being a serial rapist, he doesn't get arrested because he's a Senator?

[Great Nepal]

And if credible witnesses come forward, we just tell them to screw off?

no the senator would be tried in court

And what if they abscond? No offence but this is way too broad - broader than even executive immunity should be. We already have certain immunities for members of parliament which are needed to do their job - speech within chambers are protected except when it creates imminent danger, no arrest inside chambers except by parliamentary police force upon approval by presiding officer or arrest warrant, no weapons inside chambers except by parliamentary police when there is pressing emergency and notification of presiding officer when a member is arrested - provisions in your bill are unnecessary and some (no arrest unless police officer witnesses the crime for example) are frankly discriminatory.

[Dendart]

no the senator would be tried in court

And what if they abscond? No offence but this is way too broad - broader than even executive immunity should be. We already have certain immunities for members of parliament which are needed to do their job - speech within chambers are protected except when it creates imminent danger, no arrest inside chambers except by parliamentary police force upon approval by presiding officer or arrest warrant, no weapons inside chambers except by parliamentary police when there is pressing emergency and notification of presiding officer when a member is arrested - provisions in your bill are unnecessary and some (no arrest unless police officer witnesses the crime for example) are frankly discriminatory.

i am fully open to revision on the bill. what would you suggest

[Lykens]

And what if they abscond? No offence but this is way too broad - broader than even executive immunity should be. We already have certain immunities for members of parliament which are needed to do their job - speech within chambers are protected except when it creates imminent danger, no arrest inside chambers except by parliamentary police force upon approval by presiding officer or arrest warrant, no weapons inside chambers except by parliamentary police when there is pressing emergency and notification of presiding officer when a member is arrested - provisions in your bill are unnecessary and some (no arrest unless police officer witnesses the crime for example) are frankly discriminatory.

i am fully open to revision on the bill. what would you suggest

I'd personally like a whole lot more common sense going into the drafting of this bill.

Great Nepal has already outlined several important ones, and those have already been written into existing bills, so I see no need for this one.

[Dendart]

i am fully open to revision on the bill. what would you suggest

I'd personally like a whole lot more common sense going into the drafting of this bill.

Great Nepal has already outlined several important ones, and those have already been written into existing bills, so I see no need for this one.

which bill?

[Maklohi Vai]

Bringing these back around. I need one more sponsor on each.

OOC: PPUBA and Ethics Act round 3. We made some edits on this for the Baltonia version, but those threads got cut before the mods saved them, so I've got the Aurentine version. Some edits necessary on wording, but probably not too many.

IC:

Proper Procedure and Unacceptable Behavior Act of 2015
Drafted by Polvia | Resubmitted by Maklohi Vai
Sponsors: Nicolas Thoraval, LDP; Aaldrik Reijnders, FCP; Salvador O'Hara, LDP; Cristobal Araullo, LDP

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

Senate Ethics Act of 2015
Drafted by Bolaly | Edited for Resubmission by Maklohi Vai
Sponsors: Nicolas Thoraval, LDP; Aaldrik Reijnders, FCP; Salvador O'Hara, LDP; Cristobal Araullo, LDP

RECOGNIZING the amount of bickering that has been taking place in the NSG Senate over political parties,
TO ENSURE that all Senators are treated with respect within the Senate Chambers and other official NSG Senate threads,

The NSG Senate hereby enacts the following,
(1) Senators are prohibited from slandering each other. Any instance of slander will result in the perpetrating Senator receiving a warning.
(a) Defines Slander as defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing or pictures.
(b) Once a Senator has been warned for slander twice, he/she may face suspension of senatorial service for a period of time which is
determined by the appropriate Senate administrators.
(2) All political party advertising must be done through telegram and is prohibited in any NSG Senate threads.
(a) Each political party will have their name and description of the party stated in the OP.
(3) Political Parties are prohibited from pressuring Senators to join a party.
(a) Any Senator who feels they have been pressured into joining a party should report this to the appropriate administrative staff.
(b) Any Party leader/member that pressures a Senator into joining a party will be given a punishment at the administrator’s discretion.