Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

[Discussion] Voting Expansion Act (September 2018)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vulturret

Vulturret

Banned
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
168
Feather
ƒ1,361
While I still think this is rather unneeded, it won't hurt anything, so I've drafted an amendment to allow for the additional language, as Cormac had suggested. Here it is:
Voting Expansion Act (September 2018)​
Proposed By: Vulturret​
PreambleSection 1. Amendment

(1) Section 2(5) of the Assembly Procedure Act (August 2018) shall be amended to the following:
Click to expand...
 
I also agree this is far from necessary, for what it's worth. I'm just indifferent to it, beyond not wanting it to be subjective.

Vult's proposal looks fine to me, if we're doing this. If we're not doing this, that is also fine with me. :P
 
Cormac;3802 said:
I also agree this is far from necessary, for what it's worth. I'm just indifferent to it, beyond not wanting it to be subjective.

Vult's proposal looks fine to me, if we're doing this. If we're not doing this, that is also fine with me. :P
Click to expand...

Indeed, my thoughts exactly. This amendment isn't needed in any way, shape, or form, but it we are going to do this, my proposal offers a sensible way of doing things rather than giving the Speaker too much discretion that is not needed.
 
Amerion;3807 said:
What is the difference between this amendment and the one Arlo is working on? Do they both not favour a minimal expansion of eligible words?
Click to expand...
It was not necessarily designed to be a competing proposal; it was an idea posted on the other thread, which I drafted into a legal format. The splitting of the post into a different thread (and your subsequent assumption that it is a different proposal) was done by the Speaker.
 
I uh... I'm not sure this really required splitting into a new thread but ok. It's not a different proposal because the other thread didn't actually have a solid proposal, it was a discussion...
 
Arlo;3829 said:
I uh... I'm not sure this really required splitting into a new thread but ok. It's not a different proposal because the other thread didn't actually have a solid proposal, it was a discussion...
Click to expand...
Again, this was an action taken by the Speaker, not myself. While I won't discuss the specific merits of said action, it goes without saying that it doesn't really matter; here there is a proposal, thus we should discuss it.
 
Amerion;3832 said:
Hmm. I'm indifferent to it
Click to expand...
As am I. The entire idea was to have a legislature that is... more indifferent to how (at least insofar as styling goes) we vote?
 
OK, I suppose I ought to clarify given what you've said: this proposal will be treated as a competitor if both come to vote. If you choose to collaborate, that is obviously equally valid and whatever eventually comes to vote will be treated as any act usually would.
 
Amerion;3834 said:
Vulturret;3833 said:
Amerion;3832 said:
Hmm. I'm indifferent to it
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Ahhh. I'm confused by the last part of that sentence.
Click to expand...
Basically the point of the proposal is to make the Speaker not care how you chose to vote as much as currently.

McChimp;3838 said:
OK, I suppose I ought to clarify given what you've said: this proposal will be treated as a competitor if both come to vote. If you choose to collaborate, that is obviously equally valid and whatever eventually comes to vote will be treated as any act usually would.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your transparency and clarification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top