President Darcness Sends Controversial Amendment to Public Referendum




President Darcness Sends Controversial Amendment to Public Referendum
By Deepest House








(Europeia – May 22, 2017) – President Darcness today declined to sign or veto the Honored Citizen Restriction Amendment, which the Senate passed on May 21. By declining to sign or veto, the population of Europeia will decide the fate of the amendment at the ballot box. The Senate passed the amendment by a vote of four to two.

The amendment eliminates the right of the region’s honored citizens to speak without invitation in the Senate. President Darcness considered the law overnight before deciding to put the decision to public referendum. “This is an issue that I believe is best decided by the People themselves,” the president said in declining to sign or veto. “I hereby request that the issue of the People's Assent be discovered via referendum.”

Speaker of the Senate McEntire immediately slammed President Darcness for his refusal to sign or veto the legislation, which he presented to Goldenblock yesterday. “I would have preferred an outright veto,” he said.

“I was hoping, especially early into the President's tenure, that he would choose decisiveness, to either sign or veto the bill,” McEntire continued. “Instead, against the recommendation of the Attorney General, he has chosen neither path.” McEntire also took issue with the president’s intervention in what he saw as a Senate matter. “Let me be clear, this is a Senate issue. This is a question about who should speak on the Senate floor,” he emphatically stated upon hearing the news. “The Senate decided this issue.”

The Speaker of the Senate continued his indictment of the president’s decision, insinuating that Darcness’ decision undermines the value of the region’s senior legislative body and its ability to manage itself. “What disturbs me, though, is the lack of leadership here,” he said. “If we are going to have a referendum every time we don't have a unanimous vote in the Senate, why have a Senate?”

The amendment is the first legislative activity of the new Senate. Senator Leo introduced the amendment to the Senate on May 15 after the Citizens’ Assembly discussed the topic but ultimately failed to pass. The debate in the Senate, which included many honored citizens providing input, lasted nearly a week before the speaker called a vote. McEntire, Punchwood, Leo, and Mr. Verteger voted in favor, while Drexlore Greyjoy and Cerian Quilor voted against.

Public reaction to the referendum was mixed, with arguments for both sides quickly springing forth. PhDre supported the legislation. “It encourages [honored citizens] to actually run for Senate to directly impact Senate discussion for one,” he said. “It will also allow [honored citizens] to be honored without the reasonable concern of diluting Senate speaking rights.” Kuramia was unsure why the matter was even brought to referendum.

Erica vigorously supported the amendment, believing it grants too much political influence to unelected citizens. “It's your own responsibility to give your opinion exposure, not the Senate's,” she said, in regard to speaking rights allowing a prominent place for honored citizens to voice their concerns. “It should never have to be used as a platform to 'get a point across.’ All that does is grant political leverage to people who haven't been elected.”

Notolecta, infamous for his abrasive and unpolished behavior, quickly took the opportunity to question the merits of the legislation. “I don't know why we think a voice in the Senate ought to be restricted to 6 senators, it's just asking for ill-informed bad legislation,” he speculated. “If the Senators personally think they are less off because of [honored citizen] speaking privileges I don't give a [expletive],” Notolecta gruffly declared without regard to using crude language in the Palace of the People.

Senator Cerian Quilor, who voted against the amendment, pushed back against McEntire’s notion that President Darcness lacked decisiveness in the decision. “I think Darcness showed decisiveness, not a lack of it, here.” Cerian Quilor also questioned if an actual problem exists. "Someone still needs to explain (and defend) their claim as to what problem is being corrected with this removal," he asked.

Rach, the founder of the Freedom and Equality Party, which lists the revocation of honored citizen speaking rights as one of its core platform issues, issued a statement to the EBC regarding the president’s decision. “This referendum has been a slight speedbump, but it has made me so proud to see how so many people have responded positively to this concept,” she said. “The acrimonious opposition by a minority of people has been unfortunate and surprising.”

President Darcness defended his decision in an exclusive interview with the EBC. “This is a decision that affects our core democratic principles. The Senate was deeply split on this case, and so are the people,” he said. “It’s impossible to say signature or veto easily portrays the will of the people, so I want them to speak for themselves.”

Supreme Chancellor Mousebumples opened debate on the referendum today, which will continue for at least 72 hours. The referendum must receive a simple majority to pass.
 
JayDee said:
Constie said:
JayDee said:
You can influence the Senate from within even without speaking rights. I could DM one of the Senators and request they do something and they may very well do it. If an HC posts in the Senate, they're intent is likely a lot less malicious.
Then why do they have speaking rights?
I have a feeling you think you have me backed in a corner. I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. I have absolutely no clue what your point is.
Actually, that is a good question. The answer to that is generally 'so that they can advise the Senate', however that isn't what the legislature says. The legislature doesn't give a reason. I have a feeling that if a little more thought had gone in to the Act when it was first written then this entire debate wouldn't ever have happened.
 
JayDee said:
Constie said:
JayDee said:
You can influence the Senate from within even without speaking rights. I could DM one of the Senators and request they do something and they may very well do it. If an HC posts in the Senate, they're intent is likely a lot less malicious.
Then why do they have speaking rights?
I have a feeling you think you have me backed in a corner. I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. I have absolutely no clue what your point is.
I'm asking you a question.

You just admitted that an HC can influence the Senate from beyond the Senate floor.

So why do they need a higher pedestal to speak on? Surely their reputation is enough.


And I haven't backed you into a corner, you backed yourself into a corner.
 
Constie said:
JayDee said:
Constie said:
JayDee said:
You can influence the Senate from within even without speaking rights. I could DM one of the Senators and request they do something and they may very well do it. If an HC posts in the Senate, they're intent is likely a lot less malicious.
Then why do they have speaking rights?
I have a feeling you think you have me backed in a corner. I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. I have absolutely no clue what your point is.
I'm asking you a question.

You just admitted that an HC can influence the Senate from beyond the Senate floor.

So why do they need a higher pedestal to speak on? Surely their reputation is enough.


And I haven't backed you into a corner, you backed yourself into a corner.
This was brought up in the debate topic, and yes, this is a good example of how cyclic the against argument becomes:

If HCs are given speaking rights in order to advise the Senate, but are just as able to advise the Senate from outside as they are inside, then we come to the realisation that HCs only have speaking rights just for the sake of it :p

Which is exactly the reason behind it in the first place, by the way. It's just an arbitrary re*ward, and if this level of thought had gone into it back then then it certainly would not be law.
 
Ive been saying from the beginning that there is no reason for HCs to have it and no reason for them not to have it. Which seems to be where all this has finally arrived at as well. With no reason to remove it or include it the status quo wins, if only because its the path that requires me to do the least amount of work.
 
The For side has been repeating itself quite a bit but please, it's only bad if the opposition is doing it.

How can HCs advise the Senate from the outside? We've established that Senators have clearly ignored CA discussion in the past and while DMing a Senator is effective, it's also a lot more devious. I prefer that everyone's opinion remain public rather than trying to pull strings fro the background. We had some of the smartest people in NS active back then, I'm pretty sure they put a lot of thought into it.
 
Drecq said:
Ive been saying from the beginning that there is no reason for HCs to have it and no reason for them not to have it. Which seems to be where all this has finally arrived at as well. With no reason to remove it or include it the status quo wins, if only because its the path that requires me to do the least amount of work.
While the 'against' argument eventually comes full circle, the 'for' argument doesn't. There remains reasons for its removal that persist and swell, which is why the amendment has received so much support.
 
You may think they persist, to me thy fall flat on their face. We're only going full circle because that's exactly what the For side has done. It has received support because people think it's a good idea. I think it's a terrible idea, but I doubt either of our arguments have helped.
 
JayDee said:
You may think they persist, to me thy fall flat on their face. We're only going full circle because that's exactly what the For side has done. It has received support because people think it's a good idea. I think it's a terrible idea, but I doubt either of our arguments have helped.
It helped me! Actually, the more I talk about this the more my opinions on the matter are validated :emb:

JayDee said:
The For side has been repeating itself quite a bit but please, it's only bad if the opposition is doing it.

How can HCs advise the Senate from the outside? We've established that Senators have clearly ignored CA discussion in the past and while DMing a Senator is effective, it's also a lot more devious. I prefer that everyone's opinion remain public rather than trying to pull strings fro the background. We had some of the smartest people in NS active back then, I'm pretty sure they put a lot of thought into it.
Whether you're aware of it or not, you are restricting the options here. How many different methods actually are there of communicating with Senators? Also, HCs can DM Senators anyway and likely have done in the past; devious or not, nothing has changed there.
 
I do think that we should move the conversation from the Citizens Assembly to the Grand Hall on Senate matters. I think that would alleviate a lot of the current concerns about Senators ignoring conversations.
 
They really dont.
Your argument against are (as listed by you in the post):
HCs dont necessarily have legislative experience. They do have experience and knowledge in all the areas the Senate legislates though.
HCs could influence Senate to do something bad. Thich is actually harder on the Senate floor than in a PM since its in full view and also presupposes that we have stupid or bad HCs and very weak minded Senators. As a reason to remove the right its incredibly weak.
HCs are unelected and as such shouldnt have a more prominent position than other unelected Citizens. Essentially its "unfair". True, but life is unfair and HCs did earn their status. How do I know that? Because the Senate has to confirm the Ovation or Triumph that gave the HC status.
HCs could generate bad will against the Senate and would be harder to silence on the floor. All posts have to be formal and civil in the Senate. Not doing so can lead to losing Senate privileges for a while or even a criminal trial ending in a ban. Speaker can also actually remove speaking rights for any HC for the current term for any reason. So really really easy to silence on the Senate floor.

Anything you mentioned in your post that I forgot to address? Because none of those are good reasons to remove.

Ill just reiterate: There are no real reasons to keep the speaking rights, but also no real reason to remove them.
 
Rach said:
I do think that we should move the conversation from the Citizens Assembly to the Grand Hall on Senate matters. I think that would alleviate a lot of the current concerns about Senators ignoring conversations.
Or just hold Senators accountable if they don't keep up with debates? They're elected in part as representatives, in order to represent us they need to at least know what we're talking about.

There's nothing wrong with calling out Senators who don't appear as if they're doing what they're supposed to. I hate the notion that we as Citizens are just supposed to sit around and wait for a Senator to acknowledge us, accountability at least offers an incentive to do your job :p
 
Drecq said:
HCs are unelected and as such shouldnt have a more prominent position than other unelected Citizens. Essentially its "unfair". True, but life is unfair and HCs did earn their status. How do I know that? Because the Senate has to confirm the Ovation or Triumph that gave the HC status.
I'm planning on writing an article on it, but the idea that HCs did earn their status is mostly true at best. Most HCs did earn their status but not all citizens who have earned HC status have gotten it. There are a ton of omissions. Even recently, players like Hy and NES whose best work was a long time ago were only honoured recently. These guys should have been honoured a long time ago. It's a flawed system to begin with.

Drecq said:
HCs dont necessarily have legislative experience. They do have experience and knowledge in all the areas the Senate legislates though.
This goes back to the first point though, our HC body is not an accurate depiction of our most experienced and knowledgeable players.

Erica said:
Or just hold Senators accountable if they don't keep up with debates? They're elected in part as representatives, in order to represent us they need to at least know what we're talking about.

There's nothing wrong with calling out Senators who don't appear as if they're doing what they're supposed to. I hate the notion that we as Citizens are just supposed to sit around and wait for a Senator to acknowledge us, accountability at least offers an incentive to do your job :p
Oh I totally agree, it's just that many Senators don't feel comfortable speaking in the CA as they would in the GH.
 
Yes, not all the best players are HCs. The nomination process isnt necessarily fair, which doesnt really matter to the subject at hand though.

As to CA and GH, its not just Senators. I dont like talking in the CA either. Everything is sticky there. :p
 
Drecq said:
They really dont.
Your argument against are (as listed by you in the post):
HCs dont necessarily have legislative experience. They do have experience and knowledge in all the areas the Senate legislates though.
HCs could influence Senate to do something bad. Thich is actually harder on the Senate floor than in a PM since its in full view and also presupposes that we have stupid or bad HCs and very weak minded Senators. As a reason to remove the right its incredibly weak.
HCs are unelected and as such shouldnt have a more prominent position than other unelected Citizens. Essentially its "unfair". True, but life is unfair and HCs did earn their status. How do I know that? Because the Senate has to confirm the Ovation or Triumph that gave the HC status.
HCs could generate bad will against the Senate and would be harder to silence on the floor. All posts have to be formal and civil in the Senate. Not doing so can lead to losing Senate privileges for a while or even a criminal trial ending in a ban. Speaker can also actually remove speaking rights for any HC for the current term for any reason. So really really easy to silence on the Senate floor.

Anything you mentioned in your post that I forgot to address? Because none of those are good reasons to remove.

Ill just reiterate: There are no real reasons to keep the speaking rights, but also no real reason to remove them.
On the contrary, there is a counter to every point you have made.
  • Firstly, you have taken that post slightly out of context. Our current HCs have experience and knowledge in all the areas the Senate legislates -- that's collectively. These people are obviously not the problem.
  • Next, actually, the Senate is quite often called weak. This Senate, the 'new' Senate, is no exception -- some people refused to use all of their votes. And the HCs, in an exclusive but public setting, with their reputation, next to Senators that don't have the full confidence of the People, are more influential than you are giving them credit for; not just towards Senators but towards anyone with viewing access.
  • This isn't a case of 'life is unfair, get on with it', especially not when such a simple change could alleviate any 'unfairness' that exists. There is a very real opportunity here to make life more fair :p and if the Senate wants them to talk in the Senate, they can treat them as they could anyone and invite them to do so, even give out open invitations; it becomes a very different situation if the only people that can speak in the Senate are picked on an individual basis.
  • The bad will I insinuated would probably be generated after, and because of being silenced. I'm no expert, but why would they compromise their platform, which they would supposedly be using to publicly push their agenda, by acting uncivil? It would be no effort at all to take advantage of a weak Senate.
And I expect that you have a counter to every point I have made, too. And I expect that I would have a counter for that. This is what I mean by 'persistent', and the 'swelling' is what you will notice happens to these issues over time.
 
Yes, we are talking about these HCs. What makes us think that future HCs will be different?
And if HCs really were as influential as you paint us this would never have passed the Senate to begin with. There were more speaking against it than for it after all.
There doesnt exist any unfairness, so you cant make it more fair.

All in all, I think you are assuming far too much influence for HCs and far too simple minded a Senate. Even weak Senates have a backbone. You cant get elected in Euro if you are a pushover. If you are stupid, uninformed, and stubborn, yes, but not if you are a pushover.
 
It's kind of annoying to be debating four points at a time :lol:

EDIT: Also, a smart Senate does realise the implications, and has since voted 4-2 for this amendment :gentleman:
 
Multitasking. Just one more thing additional voices in the Senate could help with. :p
 
Why do Senators never read the EBC comments? How are we supposed to trust that they're keeping up with the discussion?! :angry:
 
They cant spell EBC. Its the simple mindedness. I only hope we never make a Jedi HC.

 
Hahah! I think what I'm getting at is in a 'my word against yours' situation, a Senator in a weak Senate (no offence to the hypothetical Senators) will probably lose out to an HC, because the HC is seen as valuable and the Senator expendable. That's why the situation is dangerous, because there's not much the Senator can do. I don't like this train of thought though because it is like conspiracy-theory levels of unlikely -- I think I prefer the idea of HCs brainwashing the Senate, I wish I had used that one in the debate thread.
 
Back
Top