Senate Meeting on Saturday, 1/11/2003

E_T · January 10, 2003, 02:19

We will have a senate meeting on Saturday, 1/11 at 12 Noon Eastern Standard Time. That will be at 9AM Pacific Standard TIme or 17:00 GMT (I think that's right). The meeting will last for 4 hours.

We will have it on the Civ3dem Room on Apolyton Server. If for some reason that Apolyton goes down, we will move to the Undernet, McClain VA server.

We want as many of the Cabinet to try to attend, hopefully 3 members of the court (at least 1 for the whole time) and as many senators that can attend. We would like to have a Senate quorum attend.

Purpose of the meeting:
To get the issue of the GL out of the way, so that the game can continue.

With the Fact that the game CANNOT contunue until the Senate has decided what the Great Leaded Seti will do for our Nation AND the time limit of the most recent Senate Bills, the game might not be played again until the next term takes office. This is inexcusable and we (all members of this game) need to come together and quickly decide this issue.

Proceedures for the Meeting:
The debate will mostly take place in the forums. There will be some last minute debate for Seti's use during the chat. We hope to have at least 1 member of the court present, to take your vote (via private channel, to preserve the santity of your private vote). If for some reason, a mamber of the court cannot attend, one of the Cabinet members (by Con Order of president) will take the private votes.

If for some reason that you are unable to attend the chat, we will post the appointed person of the court (or Cabinet) for which you can send a PM with your vote. The timestamp of the vote MUST be during the time of the Senate meeting, to be valid for this purpose.

We hope that we can have enough of our Senators attend and that we can put this issue behind us and have a regular turnchat on the Sunday, the 12th.

Please try to attend.

E_T

Aro · January 10, 2003, 07:59

I'll be there, E_T.

Panzer32 · January 10, 2003, 09:04

so will I (as much as I can

)

Donegeal · January 10, 2003, 09:44

Poop. Can't make it.

Shiber · January 10, 2003, 10:18

Excellent! I'll be there, though I fear that I won't be able to be present for the entire four hours.

jdjdjd · January 10, 2003, 12:08

I can't commit to being there for four hours, and may not make it for any part of the meeting. Many variables come into play for me this Saturday....sorry.

roadcage · January 10, 2003, 12:10

As described, this meeting is so disenfranchising of the vast majority of our citizens, that if it is not illegal on it's face, then it clearly should be.

First of all, the call to meeting needs to be displayed for atleast as long as the senate bill validity period, which is 72 hours.

And additionally, the call to meeting needs to be posted in a more obvious way such as a topped thread, or better yet a forum announcement.

The above 2 modifications would eliminate disenfranchisement other than citizen neglect and RL conflict, which is rampant and unavoidable.

Furthurmore, I suggest that ongoing bills in the Forum be considered proxy votes for and/or against the options or actions that may come up in the meeting. The reason here is to simplify the unwieldly voting proceedure suggested in the opening post, and to minimize RL conflict as a reason for disenfranchisement.

Reserving the right to object, I am prepared to waive, but have not yet so waived, my claim of Unconstitutional disenfranchisement, provided that proxy status is granted to all votes cast in joncnunn's unofficial 'pick all the actions you could support poll', as well as aggie's 'any palace' poll and aggies 'army' poll.

It is with great sorrow that I post this today, but I do so for the good of the game.

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

joncnunn · January 10, 2003, 12:32

I can't make that meeting, and in fact I won't be online at all Saturday.

I 100% support Roadcage's position with regard to proxiesfor all votes cast in the above mentioned polls.

Aggie · January 10, 2003, 13:00

Roadcage its very likely that the polls will have a clear decision by saturday. If that is the case(and I'm sure it will be), we will use those polls as a starting point. If palace is obviously going to win the point of the meeting will be to finalize a location. If army is going to win the meeting will be used strictly to rubberstamp the decision. I suspect palace will be well ahead though and the only point of the meeting will end up being to decide WHERE we will place the palace. This decision requires we make another decision, WHO DO WE WANT TO ATTACK, if anyone. If we desire leonardoes and the roman wonders, palace location must be in the south, if we desire greece macross is the A+++++ place. If we desire no war i am uncertain but think it should be centrally located and macross isn't. I do not see this disenfrancising people, on the contrary it gives them more of a voice than just a yes or no option in a poll. The reason I pushed this idea is that I believe that there is little real difference between those who voted for the seti bill earlier and those who voted against. If we can only have a chat where the sides can talk and negotiate then a concensus can be reached and we can move on.
Aggie

roadcage · January 10, 2003, 13:19

Reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman from Texas for the prompt response. While I find the gentleman's words somewhat comforting, they do not rise to the level of commitment indefense of members rights, that both I, and the gentleman from Missouri think are necesary under the circumstances. We applaud the apparent movement towards the center, but feel that the next step of the journey towards consensus needs to be taken by the administration.

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

Togas · January 10, 2003, 13:47

Personally (and not as a Judge) I support this novel approach to the delays inherant in the Senate system. Hopefully something can be worked out so that it remains in the spirit and intent of the law and that it allows all persons who cannot attend to still cast a vote.

Of course, I cannot say how this will work out if it goes to Court, but if something is worked out that satisfies the public, then perhaps it may not have to.

--Togas

roadcage · January 10, 2003, 14:20

I rise in support of, and thank the Right Honorable Gentleman from California for lighting the way to consensus.

Arnelos · January 10, 2003, 14:55

roadcage,

The problem goes further than needing to post the meeting ahead of time for the senate bill period, it needs to be authorized via a Senate bill.

I really really really wouldn't mind if a Senator would propose a Senate bill authorizing the formation of such "senate chats" on short notice where decisions about GL's could be made... PLEASE!

joncnunn · January 10, 2003, 15:02

Next thing you know, some senator will be calling for emergency powers for the President.

Thud · January 10, 2003, 15:15

Done, Arnelos. My dellow felegates... aw, never mind.

Arnelos · January 10, 2003, 15:18

Quote:

Originally posted by joncnunn
Next thing you know, some senator will be calling for emergency powers for the President.

shhh!

roadcage · January 10, 2003, 16:05

Reserving the right to object, please tell me that the recent postings in this thread are not the callous disregard for the rights of members of our august Senatorial body that it appears to be. Once again, I remind the administration, that this member is willing to settle with a simple pledge in support of Proxy voting.

Panag · January 10, 2003, 16:57

Quote:

Originally posted by joncnunn
Next thing you know, some senator will be calling for emergency powers for the President.

hi ,

, intresting , .....

cant we have the chat one hour later , .....

have a nice day

E_T · January 10, 2003, 17:06

O.k., this is how we will handle the Absentee votes.

The person who is unable to attend the meeting, will post here that they can not attend. THey will then PM one of the members of the court with their vote (and the President, if one of the court members is unable to do this). Your vote will be kept secret.

You may put in your absentee ballot, you reasons and maybe conditions for your vote. That way, if for instance, you support having the GL used for the Palace, but only at one location and would rather have him be used for an Army if it isn't for that location.

Granted, this is a grey area in the New Con, but should be considered for the possibility, to help keep the game in motion. This is want we are trying to accomplish, nothing more.

E_T

roadcage · January 10, 2003, 18:33

Reserving the right to object, the latest claimed step forward by the administration is infact a step backwards from the position of my colleague from Texas. It makes far more sense, and is far easier to administrate to simply have the court member be in possession of the three polls in question and to vote them by proxy.

joncnunn · January 10, 2003, 18:46

I agree with Roadcage.

Meshelic · January 10, 2003, 19:05

I will be unable to attend at least the first half of the chat, depending on certain things. Most of Saturday I'll be busy doing paperwork w/ my recruiter. USAF occasionally demands quite a bit of time.

I may even miss the whole chat...

joncnunn · January 10, 2003, 19:21

What's the plan if BOTH bills fail?

(While both Minor Wonders have more support than the Army option in the unoffical poll; they are still short of a majority.)

Aggie · January 10, 2003, 19:36

Good question, hopefully with the bills and the chat we can get a resolution. The bills were the backup and here was the plan I envisioned for them. If the army wins simply do that, if the palace wins we would have had another vote on where. I can't speak for anybody else but if they both fail I will probably purpose a bill to hold the leader and resume the game. I personally don't see any other thing to do if we can't all agree. I hoped in the chat we could all debate and talk and finally come to agreement.
Aggie