|
Vessel Classification Bill
|
|
| Bernard_Oriel | Date: Wednesday, 05 Oct 2011, 10:06 AM | Message # 91 |
 Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 803
Status: Offline
| This coming from the being who attempted to introduce into this important legislative agenda:
Quote (LordZarcaine) Minor Section b: It will be appropriate for the Vjun delegation to be addressed in the terms of leg wear.
No, I don't think anyone will be convinced by Senator Zarcaines words which quite frankly amount to misleading the Senate. Nor will the Outer Rim back your agenda, do Turkeys vote for Life Day?
Bernard Oriel
Senator for the Planet of Vjun
1st Earl Malreaux (Second Creation)
Vjun Delegation to the Imperial Senate
|
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Wednesday, 05 Oct 2011, 11:12 AM | Message # 92 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| Senator Zarcaine, your argument is in danger of becoming tiresome. To address it simply, "I don't intend to shoot you" isn't comforting to the person you're pointing a blaster at. It would be of more comfort and assurance to click the safety on and put the blaster away. In this case, the "safety" are reasonable regulations on the number and variety of capital ships that planets are allowed to own and operate. The "blaster" is this bill, which would do away with all of these regulations. To the extent that we should expect some regulatory fairness to worlds both large and small, the Senators who have said so are correct that this would put smaller worlds at an immense disadvantage. Regardless of what the bill intends to do, this is what it does. The intent is irrelevant—the issue is whether we want to hand this blaster to someone as capricious as Senator Zarcaine.
But Senators, let's not be hasty. There are plenty of other things in this bill also worthy of scorn and derision. For example, Section 2A permits the Bureau of Shipyards and Construction "the right to deny production of any design" without establishing any reason why. Section 5B repeals all of the Capital Vessels Acts including the sections about the supremacy of Imperial forces and placement of Imperial liaison officers, etc. Section 7A imposes limits on the length of corporate ships, but honestly, how long is a field secured container vessel? Section 7a, also, is far too ambitious for the Empire and onerous for Imperial businesses—liaison officers simply can't be everywhere.
Shall we go on? Yes. Section 8A "encourages" planets to decommission their warships with a 10% "tax cut," but does not specify at all what tax is being cut. Section 9 is an arbitrary limitation of mines that has little or nothing to do with the rest of the measure and would deprive planets, especially smaller planets, of a cost-effective self-defense tool. Section 12 exempts refugee vessels from the bill, but what sort of "refugee vessel" needs 600 or more meters of turbolasers and missile tubes? Section 14 bans the placement of space stations "in orbit" above a planet without explaining what that "orbit" is; a space station can orbit a planet at a distance of over 200 AU's, well outside of the planet's jurisdiction. Section 15 permits these stations to be placed in "unclaimed" space, which is defined as space that hasn't been claimed without explaining how space is legitimately "claimed" in the first place.
Finally, many of the definitions of capital ship classes are simply inadequate. For example, Section 18 defines "battleship" as "a name widely used for types of capital ship," and Section 19 defines "cruiser" as "a designation of starship class, which include a wide variety of uses." These are not helpful.
Senators, I could go on. But I think the point has been made that this bill has so many holes in it that, were it a capital ship, it wouldn't be spaceworthy. And it'd probably be illegal simply because of its size (or rather, the production of the bill would be illegal). I vote against.
Message edited by Senator_Cambrist - Wednesday, 05 Oct 2011, 11:19 AM |
| |
| |
| LordZarcaine | Date: Wednesday, 05 Oct 2011, 8:56 PM | Message # 93 |
 Colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 192
Status: Offline
| I will be withdrawing this Bill, due in part to Senator Cambrist own Bill that he's decided to introduce. A Bill that my own aides have pointed out that sections of which have been stolen from this Bill, and was decided by Cambrist that it was best for him to introduce the Bill with sections in it that could have easily been suggested be added to this Bill, rather than Cambrist steal portions of this Bill to suite his own.
Lord Zarcaine Kuriyoshi
Lord of Chandaar
|
| |
| |
| Bernard_Oriel | Date: Wednesday, 05 Oct 2011, 9:00 PM | Message # 94 |
|
Colonel general
Group: Users
Messages: 803
Status: Offline
| You're accusing Senator Cambrist of theft in open Senate?
Bernard Oriel
Senator for the Planet of Vjun
1st Earl Malreaux (Second Creation)
Vjun Delegation to the Imperial Senate
|
| |
| |
| Sate_Pestage | Date: Wednesday, 05 Oct 2011, 9:01 PM | Message # 95 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 639
Status: Offline
| Order, Senator Kuriyoshi. Plagiarism is a serious accusation and unless you are prepared to stand by it I suggest you temper your words. It would be understandable if Senator Cambrist wishes to respond in another venue, perhaps the debate on his bill, but as Senator Kuriyoshi has withdrawn his measure this discussion is now closed.
Sate Pestage
Grand Vizier of the Empire
Assistant to Emperor Palpatine
Chair of the Imperial Senate
|
| |
| |
