Subject: Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #105
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Research Digest)
To: acka-research-digest

Ackanomic Research Digest    Saturday, July 5 1997    Volume 02 : Number 105

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 12:11:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Frederic Mc Coy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka:  Proposal 2206

On Fri, 4 Jul 1997, Acrobot wrote:

> Proposal 2206
> Let's Make it all Simple
> Niccolo Flychuck
> 
> 
> 
> I. Abolish the Senate
> II. Ammend R411 "Senate" to read in full :
> "Whenever the rules call for a decision to be made by the Senate, the
> decision shall be made be in a Hearing instead. If valid responses are
> defined by the rules, then the valid responses will be For and Against.
> If there are more votes For then votes Against, the the affirmative
> decision is taken, otherwise, the opposite decision is taken.
> "

Ah, still yet another attempt by Nicolo to eliminate the Senate.  I'm
still pretty new here compared to Niccolo, so I'm starting to wonder just
how far back these attempts go.  I'm also wondering, well, to put it
blunty, what is with Niccolo and the Senate?  Why do you hate it so much?
hardly two weeks have gone by since I started ehre where you didn't either
try to have it repealed or at least try and remove some of it's powers or
purposes...

So far as this proposal goes, it goes more or less without saying that as
a Senator, I oppose it.  Even as a non-Senator, I must say that it does
anything but simplify things for Acka.  The wording on this just doesn't
seem to work, from my perspective.  "Abolish the Senate" is poetic, but
not entirely clear.  Even if it does eliminate the actual Senate, I don't
think it will do anything to the Senators, much as Malenkai is still (and
probably forever will be) the Godfather.  I'm not sure, but I think there
are some rules that specifialy mention senators, as opposed to the Senate
(The W-File pair rule?).

The ammendment to the Senate rule is also full of holes.  First of all,
there appears to be a rather serious typo, where Niccolo proposes that if
there are responses defined by the rules, then they will be ignored and
the responses will be For and Against.  This is certainl not what he
intended, and if it was, it would be a terrible idea.  There are many
other problems here, but frankly, since Niccolo seems bent on proposing
this over and over again until he gets something people will vote for, I
think I'd best not give him any more pointers.

                                - Senator Vynd

[email-masked]

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Research Digest V2 #105
****************************************