|
Hello new members of the Partido Islamico. As of right now, the current plan to support seems to be to conquer Sicily, and then have one of them tutor our heir, but I'm more than open to suggestions.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
 LEGISLATIVE SESSION 2 IS NOW OPEN, ALL PARTY REGISTRY I CLOSED UNTIL THE END OF THIS SESSION!Legislative Law posted:As this August Body seems to be imperiled, the Partito Ombreggiato advances the following legislative amendment, for maximum chaos: Party Lists -In Order of Size So Far Partito Ombreggiato Members: (5) TravelLog (Leader), Ghetto Prince, Danaru, Hostergaard, Nth Doctor Mercantilist Faction Members: (4) The McD (Leader), Veloxyll, sheep-dodger, Aeromancia, Partito Islamico Members: (4) TheFlyingLlama (Leader), William Anderson, Guest, BeerDeer The Imperialist Faction Members: (2) AJ_Impy (Leader), Lord Cyrahzak Partito Cattolico Members: (2) The Saurus (Leader), Tevery Beat Modernized Populist Party Members: (1) Back to 99 (Leader), Partito Afrika Members: (1) Blackunknown (Leader), Nova Roma Party Members: (1) unwantedplatypus (Leader),  It looks like Partito Ombreggiato will be the majority party for this session, congrats. However, we appear to have a problem, who will our Minority Party be? We have three parties of one person each, and this might cause problems down the line. So in my GLITTERHOOF RULES! posted:*7 Parties will be further divided into two groups, FULL parties and SPECIAL INTERESTS. Full parties will be subject to all the rules and privileges outlined above, and will require a membership of at a bare minimum THREE PEOPLE to be a full party. Special interests are "parties" that only have ONE OR TWO people, and will instead be grouped into the "party" COMMITTEE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The COR cannot be either the sole majority party or the sole minority party. So with these extra rules in place, the minority party will be the Mercantilism Faction. Also under this rule, the COR has seven members, which technically means it outnumbers all the other parties, so hypothetically if one party were to make an alliance with them, they could ururp Ombreggiato's hold for this session. After all the rules only limit people joining parties one the session starts, not which parties can join which coalition and when. So with that in mind. . .GO NUTS YOU CRAZY KIDS!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Partito Afrika I propose the Tripoli Foothold Act The purpose of this act is to conquer directly south of our holding, therefore obtain a foothold in Africa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
So just to clarify, there are technically only 3 "parties" for this session and the remaining senators are all part of the COR? Also, how does coalition leadership work for purposes of the rights of majority/intermediate parties to revise and veto, as well as the 75% support threshold on slating motions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Hm, heading towards Africa is probably the right idea, but you seem to be jumping forward a bit too quickly. I would like to propose something along those lines - Operation: Down Under: - The main focus of this act will be the expansion into Sicily. ---- We are to direct all plans for expansion southwards. ---- Expansion would be the focal point of our republic for this next legislative session. - Another point would be the technological advancement of the republic. ---- We are to send our spymaster out to a technologically advanced nation to learn from them. ---- In particular, we are to improve our trading methods. - Extraneous funds shall be used to further construct improvements in the Goonikos family palace. ---- This will secure a strong base if we ever lose the Dogeship.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
While I like the idea of conquering Africa, I believe that the Operation: Down Underis the best move at this time, and second it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Imperialists I propose the Nova Amalfi Act. This act requires the conquest of the entire Duchy of Naples, and moving our capital to Naples, which is an altogether more appropriate seat of a future empire. I would like to add that Naples is Greek and Orthodox, like the Goonikoi, and we probably want more loyal territory. Lord Cyrahzax fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:32
|
|
Lord Cyrahzax posted:Imperialists The capital moving part might be a bit tricky, as Merchant Republics have a few restrictions placed on capital changing. Although I think since we're not a kingdom-level republic, we could feasibly take over the Duchy of Naples, make that our primary title, and then move our capital, so carry on, I guess.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
It might be better off as a purely Goonikos territory, too, but we can't let our capital stay an embarrassing backwater. It has to be worthy of empire!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
TravelLog posted:So just to clarify, there are technically only 3 "parties" for this session and the remaining senators are all part of the COR? Correct, there are three "full" parties and then COR. A coalition is for the purposes of votes and such, considered one party. As to who leads the coalition, that is determined by the parties who come together to form such a coalition, so why the bigger partner may retain leadership, it could in theory parcel it off to a junior partner for the sake of acquiring their votes. So basically if you go into a coalition, your are basically temporarily merging two or more parties together for that session, so there is only "one" party in majority. So coalition for a smaller party is a chancy thing, you have to hope your partner will live up to their end of the bargain in exchange for your party basically surrendering its intermediate party privileges. For the 75% threshold, this will require the consent of the party leaders, in this case, party leaders will be defined as leaders of a "full" party. FOR THIS THRESHOLD, COR IS NOT CONSIDERED A PARTY.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
With that in mind then, the Partito Ombreggiato proposes The Poised Dagger Initiative
If any party members have suggestions or concerns, please do voice them! E: updated based on the below exchange TravelLog fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:44
|
|
TravelLog posted:With that in mind then, the Partito Ombreggiato proposes The Poised Dagger Initiative Man, I thought you guys were all about taking over Sicily, which is why I made my proposal about that, and now you guys are going after Sardinia. Don't I feel stupid now.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Sicily is indeed a primary target. I support going after it, but given Jimmy's notes on a potentially united Sardinia (which would therefore be harder to absorb later), it seemed wise to nip a potential problem in the bud before it became too prominent. If our August Doge can lay the groundwork for both at once, then all the better! E: I might even go so far as saying that just stabbing Giudice is enough to slow that issue. Then we could simply continue our focus on Sicily for the moment, simply keeping Sardinia weak for eventual conquest. TravelLog fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
South, to join our Brothers of the Faith!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
TravelLog posted:Sicily is indeed a primary target. I support going after it, but given Jimmy's notes on a potentially united Sardinia (which would therefore be harder to absorb later), it seemed wise to nip a potential problem in the bud before it became too prominent. If our August Doge can lay the groundwork for both at once, then all the better! To be fair to Sardinia, right now the two sides are fairly evenly matched, they have heirs lined up to inherit and have solid finances, so the situation could go a number of way. As for trade posts, I feel I should point to everyone that right now our current limit on the number of trade posts we can build is one, since we're at an earlier tech level, we get an -80% penalty to the number we can own (though having more adult male children can help boost the number).
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
I claim Co-leadership of the Committee of Representatives alongside Saurus, on the grounds that we lead the largest constituents of this bureaucratic fudge. Our parties together command a majority of the Committee, thus it makes sense for us to be at the forefront. Any decree I make on the Committee is subject to Saurus' veto and vice versa. Given that we have an unrecognised majority, who has an interest in forming a coalition?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 00:57
|
|
AJ_Impy posted:I claim Co-leadership of the Committee of Representatives alongside Saurus, on the grounds that we lead the largest constituents of this bureaucratic fudge. Our parties together command a majority of the Committee, thus it makes sense for us to be at the forefront. Any decree I make on the Committee is subject to Saurus' veto and vice versa. Given that we have an unrecognised majority, who has an interest in forming a coalition? I'd be up for it. My Operation: Down Under has both conquering and not attacking Catholics in their plans, so that seems up your alley.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:I'd be up for it. My Operation: Down Under has both conquering and not attacking Catholics in their plans, so that seems up your alley. I liked the look of Operation: Down Under and would be happy to support it, upholding as it does the principles of my Sicilian Opening from the last legislature. If Saurus is willing, I will agree to a coalition with the Mercantilist Faction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
I would like to suggest a stipulation on Operation: Down Under about what we will do with any Muslims we don't kick out of Sicily. I have no doubt the traitors in the Partito Islamico would use a Sicilian Muslim to tutor a Goonikos. I suggest a coalition with the Partito Cattolico and any other interested parties to block any pro-muhammadan legislation. Aside from that I offer the Nova Roma party's full support for this plan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
AJ_Impy posted:I claim Co-leadership of the Committee of Representatives alongside Saurus, on the grounds that we lead the largest constituents of this bureaucratic fudge. Our parties together command a majority of the Committee, thus it makes sense for us to be at the forefront. Any decree I make on the Committee is subject to Saurus' veto and vice versa. Given that we have an unrecognised majority, who has an interest in forming a coalition? That works for COR a kind of dual consulship for the disparate small groups. You still will need Saurus's approval, or and I'll put this in, a majority agreement from other COR members/leaders to go over the other consul (in case a consul goes AWOL or people in COR really want to see a coalition or something proposed). Oh god legislative processes inside of legislative processes, what have I done 
Jimmy4400nav fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 15:32
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:I would like to suggest a stipulation on Operation: Down Under about what we will do with any Muslims we don't kick out of Sicily. I have no doubt the traitors in the Partito Islamico would use a Sicilian Muslim to tutor a Goonikos. Sounds good. With that in mind, here's Operation: Down Under, Corollary I: - The main focus of this act will be the expansion into Sicily. ---- Muslims conquered in Sicily are to either be converted or replaced with loyal Orthodox courtiers. ---- We are to direct all plans for expansion southwards. ---- Expansion would be the focal point of our republic for this next legislative session. - Another point would be the technological advancement of the republic. ---- We are to send our spymaster out to a technologically advanced nation to learn from them. ---- In particular, we are to improve our trading methods. - Extraneous funds shall be used to further construct improvements in the Goonikos family palace. ---- This will secure a strong base if we ever lose the Dogeship.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:Sounds good. With that in mind, here's Operation: Down Under, Corollary I: Any amendment that requires the conversion of true god fearing men to a heathen faith is strongly decried by the Partito Islamico, and I in particular. I retract any support for this bill. Furthermore, as the only leader of an intermediate party, I call upon my fellow members to recall the last sentence of the third Law "The leaders of the Intermediate Parties, should a majority of them agree, may likewise revise one clause of a currently slated motion submitted by either the Majority or Minority Parties." I would rather work with the other parties of this senate, rather than simply block legislation, but to not push me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 19:01
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:Any amendment that requires the conversion of true god fearing men to a heathen faith is strongly decried by the Partito Islamico, and I in particular. I retract any support for this bill. Furthermore, as the only leader of an intermediate party, I call upon my fellow members to recall the last sentence of the third Law Hrmph. Second session, and we're already at the point where parties are actively trying to sabotage laws. We're off to a good start. Well, assuming the Mercantilist Faction gets the full support of the COR, that would mean we will definitely manage to push through our legislation as a total majority. With that being said, if this majority comes to pass, could I request the support of the Partito Ombreggiato as far as that they could use their status as Majority Party to counter-revise the revision that would be made by the Partito Islamico? I think ensuring that we do not end up Muslim by the end of this is in our common interest.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:Hrmph. Second session, and we're already at the point where parties are actively trying to sabotage laws. We're off to a good start. I have no problems with most of the current plan, I simply cannot abide by anything that requires total conversion. The Partito Islamico is even willing to include a clause in the law that no child of our current leader be tutored by any Muslim who is not significantly better than a christian tutor. Would that be acceptable? OOC: The law would basically mean, that for a Muslim to tutor any of the children of the current ruler, that Muslim would need to be at least 2 education trait levels higher than any christian, which is nearly impossible. Work with me here. TheFlyingLlama fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 19:19
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:I have no problems with most of the current plan, I simply cannot abide by anything that requires total conversion. The Partito Islamico is even willing to include a clause in the law that no child of our current leader be tutored by any Muslim who is not significantly better than a christian tutor. Would that be acceptable? OOC: The problem with that is that legislature only lasts for the decade, then is thrown out the window, to be replaced with the next legislature, so once we conquered Sicily with the caveat that the Muslims can't educate our family without that big reason, you can then turn around in the next session and start working towards using the Muslims we then have to turn our family Muslim. That's why unwantedplatypus was so adamant about dealing with them. It's a very tricky situation.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Hah. So the christians so fear Islam that they are willing to go to such extremes? I cannot allow my brothers of the faith to be converted at the sword, but I can give you a personal promise. So long as I am leader of the Partito Islamico, as following the earlier rules for education, I will not attempt to subvert these rules, expiration of the law or not. Is that good enough for you, or do christians no longer understand the honor of one's word?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 19:39
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:Hah. So the christians so fear Islam that they are willing to go to such extremes? I cannot allow my brothers of the faith to be converted at the sword, but I can give you a personal promise. So long as I am leader of the Partito Islamico, as following the earlier rules for education, I will not attempt to subvert these rules, expiration of the law or not. Is that good enough for you, or do christians no longer understand the honor of one's word? Hrm. We'll see. I'll wait for word back from Saurus first to see if the coalition with the COR goes through. If not, we need to overhaul this thing anyway.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:Hah. So the christians so fear Islam that they are willing to go to such extremes? I cannot allow my brothers of the faith to be converted at the sword, but I can give you a personal promise. So long as I am leader of the Partito Islamico, as following the earlier rules for education, I will not attempt to subvert these rules, expiration of the law or not. Is that good enough for you, or do christians no longer understand the honor of one's word? I would rather tie those rules to a party and not a person. One muslim is much like another, and I would expect a change in leadership to subvert the law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:I would rather tie those rules to a party and not a person. One muslim is much like another, and I would expect a change in leadership to subvert the law. I cannot speak for the party, only for myself. However, I lead this party, and do not intend on giving up that leadership any time soon
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:Hrmph. Second session, and we're already at the point where parties are actively trying to sabotage laws. We're off to a good start. You can indeed. Though we would appreciate an amendment to the current motion that accounts for betrothing the Doge's children advantageously. E: though note that if you DO make a coalition, Ombreggiato becomes the intermediate party and Islamico is toothless as the minority party and the issue becomes moot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 20:28
|
|
TravelLog posted:You can indeed. Though we would appreciate an amendment to the current motion that accounts for betrothing the Doge's children advantageously. Right, I completely missed the part where coalitions count as one party. That does heave the whole thing into our favor. If that comes to pass, you could then insert the part about advantageous marriages into the bill as the intermediate party, which would save me a revision.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Just remember that this session ends 24 hours after it opened, which is, a little less than five minutes from now. You need either 75% of party leaders to agree to a motion or 25% of the entire legislature. Do you have those votes yet? Can you get them in the next, oh five minutes or so? I'd rather not have to stall this vote, but you lot seem to want to push me towards that. EDIT: And that's time. Looks like no legislation got the needed numbers. What a shame. TheFlyingLlama fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:Just remember that this session ends 24 hours after it opened, which is, a little less than five minutes from now. You need either 75% of party leaders to agree to a motion or 25% of the entire legislature. Do you have those votes yet? Can you get them in the next, oh five minutes or so? I'd rather not have to stall this vote, but you lot seem to want to push me towards that. Really? I count all leaders but you, which since there are 5 of us makes 80% wouldn't it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
TravelLog posted:Really? I count all leaders but you, which since there are 5 of us makes 80% wouldn't it? Only leaders of full parties, the Partito Ombreggiato, Mercantilist Faction, and Partito Islamico count.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
The Saurus has to weigh in before the COR gets a majority. If he does support this plan, then we will have all the votes we need.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:The Saurus has to weigh in before the COR gets a majority. If he does support this plan, then we will have all the votes we need. except that the session's over. It's been 24 hours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:except that the session's over. It's been 24 hours. "After 24 hours, any motions which have gathered the requisite support shall be considered slated. After a further 24 hours of debate, discussion and voting, the winning motion shall be the one that receives the highest percentage of legislative support. Should there be a tie, both motions shall be implemented so long as they do not contradict one another, at the discretion of our August Doge, Jimmy4400nav." We gathered the votes to have it slated, we have another 24 hours to pass it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:"A motion may be proposed by any member of the legislature, and requires support from 25% of the legislature to be slated, or the support of 75% of the Party Leaders. A motion may be amended if 1/3rd of the legislature so wishes, so long as the amendment does not reverse or otherwise countermand the general thrust of the motion itself. Any given motion may be so amended no more than three (3) times per legislative session." Where do you have the votes to have it slated? I see only TheMcD having supported Operation: Down Under, Corollary I. Sure, other have said that they'd vote for it, but never was it actually officially supported. I know that this may seem pedantic, but if we cannot follow the rules of our own legislature, what can we do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 21:13
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:Where do you have the votes to have it slated? I see only TheMcD having supported Operation: Down Under, Corollary I. Sure, other have said that they'd vote for it, but never was it actually officially supported. I know that this may seem pedantic, but if we cannot follow the rules of our own legislature, what can we do? If we're going to be pedantic, it was never stated that legislature had to be slated to be eligible for the voting in the second part of the session. Logic dictates that, but gently caress logic, we're going by the cold hard words here, and they state the motion that passes is the one "with the most support" - being slated was never stated as a requirement, only implied in the same way the support for my motion was implied. So we've still got 24 hours to collect the support needed to slate it and approve it.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:Where do you have the votes to have it slated? I see only TheMcD having supported Operation: Down Under, Corollary I. Sure, other have said that they'd vote for it, but never was it actually officially supported. I know that this may seem pedantic, but if we cannot follow the rules of our own legislature, what can we do? Ignore the Islamist pedantically flailing about in an effort to block legislature?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 21:17
|
|