im not implying that he is not smart.
i concur that the bill has issues.
i concur that the vague parts should be specified in the legislation.
but creating problems that dont exist? its a waste of energy. congress is fixing the issue- an issue that doesnt exist, mind you.
I was directing my comment to Jef but ok.
i didnt see. sorry
I would like to thank our wonderful legislators for their quick response time!
I thank them for their service and I am glad that these concerns were addressed now instead of after the law goes into effect.
thank you congress for your quick response. I don’t care if you talk with my bosses before the bill, you didn’t talk to the rest of us
Danny and I dislike each other personally, but we respect the work that each other has done.
Note that this was posted after the message you quoted.
I’m going to address a few concerns regarding this legislation that might leave it unconstitutional. Those being the fact that it aims to impede on the Governors constitutional right to fire executive branch members per the constitution. On top of that, it was decided by game administration that the courts nor the congress can mandate personal Dm’s and private conversations be distributed to others within the state. This does both of those.
ok, so they fucked up. no need to get all “Whoever wrote this law, most likely Jerafra, is beyond crazy, and should be submitted into a psychiatric hospital.”
i mean like look at the current US congress, the senate is a literal joke
be nice kids
@puggish the problem isn’t that they messed up. They say it’s a perfectly fine law.
@Jefrafra We do give our employees the chance to defend themselves, they get suspended and if they can provide a good argument against the allegations then their suspension will be nullified. Plus we are establishing the court martial system again, showing that we’re changing things in order to be more fair.
I did not specifically say this particular bill we are talking about is full of loopholes, I am on about generally some of the shit congress come out with has loopholes.
Thank you for changing your mind on the administrative leave. The last message I saw from you when I created my post was and I quote “You cannot put someone on administrative leave until they’ve provided a defense”. Hey maybe if I knew you changed your mind on that sooner I would’ve had no problems apart from the possible rogue scenario.
I’ve always supported you since you got into congress because it’s about time there was more competent people in there.
From the information I have received and been told to abide by, I can’t do shit until they either respond or I wait 24 hours of no response. I was also informed that administrative leave is also off the tables until they provide a defense. Now that I have been told otherwise, that is exactly what is going to happen and I have no problem with that.
im sorry but
ooga booga
Whoever told you that evidently attempted to lie to you by omission, because I was very adamant about it being a split issue, and I notated that we wouldn’t know for sure until it sees a courtroom.
Legislative change was proposed 3 hours prior to this (clearly baseless) post. Thank you, however, for the civil response.
Another message taken out of context by Dan, who evidently intended to lie to you by omission.
This is, in fact, the final answer I provided to Dan.
Just as a general rule since it seems to be an issue, never take what someone else “claims I say” as valid justification on things like this. Come to me directly. People will attempt to mislead you with what sounds good for their point, and frankly, it’s disgusting.
@Innovativemind The Governor is still absolutely permitted to do so as long as he directly advises them of such and the reasoning thereof. I have no idea where you got your second point from, as the legislation does not require that anywhere. I actually spoke with Enveloped in-depth about this legislation yesterday, and that was not an issue brought up.
Dope ty legal man
don’t really see the point of this legislation in the long run and didn’t fix the issue of baseless refusal of applicants for sealed records, etc. It’s also vague about when you sue the department and when you sue the employer, as it uses differing language of ‘entity’ and ‘individual’.
oh also, this is not anything near to being ‘realistic’. I’ve never heard of any state or country which has these strict rules in place, even for governmental positions.
