Join the new world

This is the only conversation worth having.

Be careful about disagreeing with DMV3, you don't want to be branded a PTO too 😃

Btw not to be an arse, but I think you meant to write 'completely moot' instead of 'completely mute' -( mute means lack of sound) lol

You are right my friend. 😁

Time to remove DMV as Speaker IMO

The power to interpret laws is restricted to the existing body of law.

This is my point exactly. We face huge ethical issues when one person starts determining what is just and what is not just without the congress voting on laws. We can't retroactively punish people like this.

TFD would know how to handle this

He'd put me on it, and I'd loophole the shit out of it.

This has nothing to do with Funky24, this has everything to do with holding people responsible for their actions. IC was created to regulate immigration. The IC closed immigration because of an imminent PTO threat. Several Congressmen violated the moratorium on cs passes and all of them were punished by the same standard.

The CRoO allows the Speaker to ban any Congressperson for up to a week for inappropriate behavior. As Speaker I have decided violating the will of the IC is inappropriate behavior during an obvious PTO.

You're either part of the solution or you're the problem. Wreckless immigration is unacceptable during a PTO. If you don't agree put forward a motion to overrule my decision, otherwise you're just stirring up sh** to stir up sh**.

The IC was create to help Congress members with information. It does not regulate, it reviews. In this same vein, it unable to "close immigration" as you say. The IC simply recommended that CS passes should be withheld.

The will of the IC, therefore, can not be enforced by the Speaker.

Your ad hoc accusation about me and awful cliches are unnecessary. We have no laws backing your point of view, and perhaps we should change this for the future. Your points are making some assumptions that are very dangerous. Such as, approving persons during a PTO crisis automatically means that you are problem. This is a ridiculous claim but it is nothing compared to your insinuation that Funky 24 acted recklessly when he approved his friend. So I will let the public weigh the validity of these claims. And finally their is currently no-such thing as violating the IC, as they have no power to place restrictions on anything.

Then as I said please put forward a motion to overturn my decision. Not sure why you're grandstanding when you have the ability to change it.

The mandate of the council is to confirm applicants for Canadian citizenship. They may employ any means they deem necessary to accomplish this task

This to me means their mandate is to approve people for citizenship. Sorry but you're both wrong.

Well Dmv. The reason why I am waiting to propose a vote is because under Article III of the Congressional Rules of Order "There must be a minimum 24hrs debate before the speaker may move the proposal to a vote." We are currently having the debate here, http://ecan.forumotion.com/t337-illegal-cs-approvals

@Dmv You took that quote out of context and it certainly doesn't confer authority. It merely reinforces the point that the IC is autonomous and can conduct their own actions within the IC however they want. That doesn't mean they can make up their own binding laws or play their own metagame. Besides that, they never even claimed to have this power.

Yes, but no proposal has been issued. You must introduce a motion to overturn my decision. Then there is a 24 hour discussion on that motion before a vote.

2. The Speaker of Congress shall be the ultimate interpreter of the Rules of Order limited only by a motion to overturn a ruling of the Speaker. Any ruling of interpretation of the Speaker may be overturned by a motion requiring a simple majority.

I agree.

Voted because I can o7

The Speaker has the authority to do whatever they want in the roleplay side of the game where the Forums are concerned.

They have more Power than the CP when it comes to the meta game, and it doesn't surprise me that DMV is the first person since, well, me, to wield the position like the weapon it was designed to be.

Great, show me the laws that grant the Speaker absolute power to act with complete caprice and indifference. It isn't enough for you to just make these wild claims. Where are the laws, where is the evidence that states he is allowed to do this. There isn't anything, anywhere. He must act according to the laws conferred to him by the republic.

If you want the Speaker to have the power to be an autocratic, totalitarian dictator then we need to vote on that.

Sent this as a PM to you already, but figured I'd include it here as well for others that might be interested.

1. The Speaker of Congress is a Member of Congress, as defined in the Consitution of eCanada, whose role it is to enforce these Rules of Order to govern congressional behaviour. The Speaker may not become a Cabinet Minister or Party President or Country President without resigning the position of Speaker. The Speaker may:
b) impose a ban of up to one week upon any Member who takes an action is considered inappropriate;

Article V: Amending, Suspending, and Interpreting the Rules
2. The Speaker of Congress shall be the ultimate interpreter of the Rules of Order limited only by a motion to overturn a ruling of the Speaker. Any ruling of interpretation of the Speaker may be overturned by a motion requiring a simple majority.


This means that the Speaker can ban anyone for up to one week FOR ANYTHING they deem inappropriate. If DMV wakes up tomorrow and decides that he finds the word "Because" offensive he can ban anyone for up to a week that uses it.

They're also the final interpreter of the rules, so you say, "That's not what the rules mean" and he can say, "That's what I read it as" and he wins.

The only reason massive abuses of power don't happen is because if you act like a clown you get impeached, but as long as he doesn't do anything that pisses off more than half of Congress he can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants.

This means it is inappropriate that Funky 24 approved a CS request. We are all culpable then for the same offense, if he wanted to enforce it. It just makes no sense. The argument you present is unfalsifiable and therefore lacks legitimacy. You can't claim every action is inappropriate.

He absolutely can. He can keep doing it until Congress finally has enough and either overturns one of his demaskings or removes him from the position of Speaker via impeachment.

Rolo was banned from the forums for his in game actions for a few years

a week aint nuthin

Yeah but that ban came by the Supreme Court, not the Speaker. That's a completely different meta-phorical barrel of fish.

Who hasn't done at least a 3 month stretch at some point, am I right?

Given that this incident involves two CPF members, and I am also a CPF member:

I find this whole "punishment" to be ultra-hypocritical. Personally, I like Funky as a person, and I also like DMV as a person. I have worked with him on cabinets in the past, and I have nothing but good things to say about him.
However, I find that this choice to ban Funky for giving out a CS pass without council approval to be ridiculous and it comes across more as showboating power versus actual constructive action.



Why ban Funky? Who else has been banned previously for this infraction? Everyone who has approved someone outside of the IC? Certainly not.
Take for instance - me.

I approved Treian on August 17, and Lysander Spooner on August 20th.

Treian never made it to IC "approval", and Lysander was in some sort of discussion but never really "approved" before I accepted both of their requests.

Did anyone say anything to me? Nope.
Did anyone condone me for breaking the rules set forth by the IC? Nope.
Did I get banned for approving either one of them? Nope.

If we are going to punish someone for breaking the rules, then you have to punish EVERYONE who breaks the rules. Otherwise it is not a rule at all and you are just arbitrarily punishing those you choose.

Turning Funky into a scapegoat for a broken system is unfair, unjust, and undemocratic.

Recent actions and reactions have proven that the IC has a long way to go before it can even be considered functional, and my support for it continues to be lacking.

-Bryan Alexander

I punished everyone who broke the rule this term, not just Funky24. I can not in good conscience ban people for what was done outside of this term. Believe me had I been Speaker, IC would have had teeth from the beginning. We're in the middle of a PTO anyone approving cs outside of IC approval should be considered a threat to our internal security.

Was Funky part of that pto? No he was not.

The fact that we have different speakers who interpret the rules based on their own opinions and morals strikes me as absurd.
Perhaps we need to sort our own shit out before we start doling out the repercussions?

I can not speak as to why it hasn't been enforce prior to now, but I have put everyone on notice it will be enforced now. Our nation is in peril because we have failed to react until now. We couldnhave killed the PTO months ago if only we had the national will to do something about it. Now there is the will, and as a result things are being done. I'm positive everyone who elected me Speaker did so knowing full well how I would run Congress. If anyone is surprised it's because they do not realize the situation we're actually facing.

Precedent is now set and I hope that each subsequent Speaker does the same thing in regards to immigration.

The decision to block immigration was never formally voted upon, but I believe most informed members of congress would have, at the time, voted it into law. It was generally accepted as binding because there was a clear and present threat. If you have a look at the IC proposal, you'll see it was largely met with approval by all but two commenters: Prince Sheogorath (who has since deleted his forum account, and against whom a ban is purely symbolic at this point) and Funky 24. Both openly defied the judgement of the council and said "I'll do whatever the hell I like."

http://ecan.forumotion.com/t318-notification-from-the-immigration-council-important

In this case, the ban imposed by the speaker, on ALL PARTIES who went against that same informal ruling by an advisory council which was voted into existence to do the very thing it had just done, is perfectly justified. The articles and amendments Muglack posted here give the Speaker flexibility to deal with problematic situations like this, specifically by being deliberately vague on what constitutes a bannable offense.

It doesn't matter that the rest of the offenders were UF and Funky is CPF. Funky willfully went against the ruling, and as a result he can suck it up and take his punishment like a man.

If Funky hadn't been punished, it would have been a clear case of partisan favoritism - he did the same thing the UF turkeys did, he must face the same punishment. If the ruling is not right for Funky24, it is also not right for the UF congressmen who committed the exact same offense.

True, congress is not forced to obey the edicts of the Immigration Council, because the IC is an advisory committee. But the advisory committee was put in place for this exact reason. Every other member of congress abided by the decision, because there was a clear threat to national security.

Shame on you for making me defend McVicker AND the immigration council in the same post.

No laws were broken. We don't punish people for not breaking laws.

Keep ringing that bell.

Funky decided to do whatever the hell he wanted. He abused immigration in the EXACT SAME WAY that the UF people had been abusing it. Giving out CS passes isn't illegal, either, but you've sure been doing some angry shouting about the UF doing it lately. So make up your mind - is UF wrong for doing what they were doing, allowing foreign agents into the country against the better wishes of the rest of eCanada?

The immigration council vote passed after the May congress elections when we had 30 congress members.

9 Voted Yes
4 Voted No

17 did not vote.

And this somehow passed?

http://ecan.forumotion.com/t55-immigration-council

@Xander Funky was not leading a PTO. You can't retroactively prosecute someone like this. He is innocent he had no part in anything.

When abstentions don't count, 9/13 is a majority. Had I been in congress at the time, I would have been one of the No votes. But, by the laws that apparently govern our country (or at least our meta-game forums), the council was voted into being. Just because you or Funky disagrees with their decisions doesn't make the council illegitimate.

It's there doing the job you people built it to do: advise on matters of immigration.

Suck it up. Take the punishment, wait a few days and move on.

Bishop: It doesn't matter. He knowingly acted against the decision of the IC, the same as the UF people. He invited in a person with a dodgy friends list that ought to raise red flags. Same as the UF people. He made a blatantly partisan declaration about it in the forums before he did so, indicating that he abused immigration for partisan reasons. Same as the UF people.

Same standards apply to everyone. He doesn't get a pass on bad behaviour just because he's one of the cool kids from the popular party.

If I did the same thing, allowing a suspicious character with dodgy friends into the country for partisan reasons, in clear defiance of the wishes of the IC you all thought was such a grand idea, I wouldn't pretend to be shocked when there were consequences.

I hate McVicker as much as anyone. But you're wrong in this.

"No laws were broken. We don't punish people for not breaking laws"

You're absolutely right. No laws were broken.

The irony of this statement is that it's only factually accurate because we don't actually have any laws.

We had them once, and we even had a Supreme Court to interpret and enforce them.

But do you know what happened to them? People decided they were too confusing and specific to ever be applied logically to a video game, so they were scrapped in favor of the current system.

I'll bet it won't take you long to guess who one of the loudest and most outspoken champions of the group that wanted to abolish the Courts in favor of the new system was. I'll even give you a hint, he's a current member of the CPF who's recently had his Congress masking removed.

Hey, Muglack, we do have laws. DMV hasn't been able to connect his decision to any of them except the one line that lets him ban people when he wants to press his agenda. They are, however, being interpreted and judged much better now then they were under your failed tenure as a judge.

There actually isn't any laws.

We have a few acts for things like the Comptroller, and the Rules of Order, but as far as hard and fast laws they no longer exist. They last iteration before they were completely removed had them boiled down to "Be good to each other", at which point they were trashed and the "Congressional Rules of Order" and a reliance on the decision making of the Forum admins took over.

After years of fighting, and complaining the "Holier than thou" players, like yourself, who were tired of getting worked over by players who could use the system to their advantage, like me, finally got your way and the entire thing was scrapped.

The fact that now the whole thing has completely backfired on you, and you're up in arms about it again is almost too delicious for words.

You're failing at semantics, Muglack. Call them rules, acts, bills, bylaws or regulations or anything else you feel like. As long as they set out what actions can, should, must, or shouldn't be taken, set out consequences for when this does not take place and are given validity through (at least in a democracy, even a fake one) a group representing those affected then these can (and often are) called laws.

eCanada has had laws in place governing behaviour for a good five years now. They're generally lousy but they exist.

We don't have what used to be called a Constitution, a supreme law expounding on divisions of power but that's not necessary to give our other laws validity.

We do have a Charter. It does create a break down of separation of power.

We have nothing in any of the "laws" currently on the books that describe "what actions can, should, must, or shouldn't be taken" by an individual nor does it include punishments should the "laws" (by this I mean the Comptroller Act, Civil Defense Act, etc...) that do exist be violated.

The whole thing has been reduced to a herpty derp of "Nothing matters but what happens in Congress, and if it happens there the Speaker is Judge, Jury, and Executioner".

There is nothing to lays out proper behaviour. There is nothing the details what is and isn't expected of a member of Congress. All there is is what's been quoted repeatedly in the comments of the articles regarding this topic. The Speaker can decide what's inappropriate, and they're the ultimate interpreter of the rules.

Sure we do. The CRoO says that if you don't act appropriately you can be banned for a week. Acting inappropriately is what cannot be done, the ban is the punishment if this is done. That's a pretty black and white example of a law.

Sure, it's open for interpretation but that's hardly uncommon for a law. You can see this kind of debates come up in church basements, union meetings, city hall (like when you strip a mayor of some of his powers) or the Supreme Court (what does the right to bear arms mean exactly?).

Or are you saying that the CRoO isn't a law? Or that those other laws, which are mostly administrative, don't have punishments tied to them? I did forget to mention administrative laws before. I'm probably forgetting others as well (constitutional springs to mind...).

o7

I blame ED for all this ruckus.

http://prntscr.com/4hxz9x

Also

http://prntscr.com/4hy2ii
http://prntscr.com/4hy2yg

Oh boy this is a juicy story.

Let me get my popcorn folks!