Welcome!

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

SignUp Now!

Amendment to the Assembly Procedure Act (Sep 2020)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frankender
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None
Status
Not open for further replies.
Frankender

Frankender

Recalcitrant
Verified
Joined
Aug 14, 2020
Messages
423
Feather
ƒ1,906
Pikachu
Demonos;10306 said:
Wait, this is different from the original proposal. We do not support.
Click to expand...

@"Demonos" luckily saw that an edit was made before making a decision on whether or not he supported the legislation, but there is a possibility that edits could slip through the cracks and shareholders may vote for legislation they disagree with. In addition to this, legislation could be edited just before it is taken to vote, and shareholders will not be able to discuss such changes before the vote.

Yes, I do believe it is the responsibility of the shareholder to fully vet any legislation they support; however, I believe by requiring a nation to post a new copy of the bill in the same thread if any revisions are made will guarantee shareholders are aware of the current state of the proposed legislation.

With that in mind, I propose the following Amendment to the Assembly Procedure Act of May 2020.


[size=large]Amendment to the Assembly Procedure Act (September 2020)@"Frankender"[/size]​

PreambleSection 1. Amendment to the Assembly Procedure Act (May 2020)
Section 2. Legislative Procedures

(1) A minimum discussion period of three days is required before any proposal may be brought to vote. The Speaker is not required to open a vote if they determine that the proposal has not had sufficient discussion, but they may not delay opening a vote for more than seven days from when the motion to vote on the proposal was seconded.

(2) In order for a proposal to be brought to vote, a citizen eligible to vote on that proposal must make a motion to vote, and another such citizen must second the motion. A motion to vote may only be made by the initial author of a proposal unless the initial author is no longer a citizen or has not posted on the off-site regional forum for more than seven days without posting a leave of absence. Only the citizen who made the motion may withdraw it, unless that citizen is no longer a citizen, then the Speaker may withdraw the relevant motion. Once a motion is withdrawn, voting shall cease immediately.

(3) Only the Prime Minister may introduce a proposal to enact, amend, or repeal a treaty or declaration of war, and only the Prime Minister may make a motion to vote on such a proposal.

(4) In the event that there are multiple competing proposals regarding the same matter in the judgment of the Assembly Speaker, the Assembly Speaker will bring them to vote one at a time, in the order they were motioned to vote. If such a proposal is enacted, the subsequent competing proposals will not be brought to vote.

(5) All votes will take place for five days. Citizens eligible to vote may vote "Aye" or "For," "Nay" or "Against," or "Abstain" or "Present." Voters may not post any other content in a voting thread or embellish the format of their vote in any way, and votes that include additional content or embellishment will be discarded and split from the voting thread. Voters may cast their votes by posting in each voting thread.

(6) The Assembly Speaker will determine which discussions will take place publicly and which will take place privately, and may accordingly move discussions to and from the Assembly's private forum, except that the Delegate may determine whether proposals to enact, amend, or repeal treaties will be public or private. All votes will be conducted in public.
Click to expand...


(2) Section 2 of the Assembly Procedure Act will be amended as follows:​

Section 2. Legislative Procedures

(1) A minimum discussion period of three days is required before any proposal may be brought to vote. The Speaker is not required to open a vote if they determine that the proposal has not had sufficient discussion, but they may not delay opening a vote for more than seven days from when the motion to vote on the proposal was seconded.

(2) In order for a proposal to be brought to vote, a citizen eligible to vote on that proposal must make a motion to vote, and another such citizen must second the motion. A motion to vote may only be made by the initial author of a proposal unless the initial author is no longer a citizen or has not posted on the off-site regional forum for more than seven days without posting a leave of absence. Only the citizen who made the motion may withdraw it, unless that citizen is no longer a citizen, then the Speaker may withdraw the relevant motion. Once a motion is withdrawn, voting shall cease immediately.

(3) Only the Prime Minister may introduce a proposal to enact, amend, or repeal a treaty or declaration of war, and only the Prime Minister may make a motion to vote on such a proposal.

(4) In the event that there are multiple competing proposals regarding the same matter in the judgment of the Assembly Speaker, the Assembly Speaker will bring them to vote one at a time, in the order they were motioned to vote. If such a proposal is enacted, the subsequent competing proposals will not be brought to vote.

(5) All votes will take place for five days. Citizens eligible to vote may vote "Aye" or "For," "Nay" or "Against," or "Abstain" or "Present." Voters may not post any other content in a voting thread or embellish the format of their vote in any way, and votes that include additional content or embellishment will be discarded and split from the voting thread. Voters may cast their votes by posting in each voting thread.

(6) The Assembly Speaker will determine which discussions will take place publicly and which will take place privately, and may accordingly move discussions to and from the Assembly's private forum, except that the Delegate may determine whether proposals to enact, amend, or repeal treaties will be public or private. All votes will be conducted in public.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The proposal as-is always features at the top of the voting thread.
 
McChimp;10519 said:
The proposal as-is always features at the top of the voting thread.
Click to expand...

I do know that, but that doesn't solve the issue this amendment is attempting to fix:
a. Very small changes that could have a big effect, and the voter has already decided they support the legislation without the revisions. The revisions could be small and they might not notice them upon a quick glance if they already think they support the legislation.
b. Voters will not be able to discuss changes made before the vote if it is revised just moments before it is motioned to a vote.
 
No, sometimes you're making a ton of edits and stuff. It's up to the voter to read the piece of legislation after it's been motioned. I would support amending our fraud section to included horrible cases of this.

Also can someone move this out of here please? It should go elsewhere
 
Domais;10521 said:
Also can someone move this out of here please? It should go elsewhere
Click to expand...

Where should it go?


Debussy;10522 said:
Nothing can be edited once it is at vote.
Click to expand...

Yes I do know that, but the problem it is attempting to fix is:

Frankender;10520 said:
a. Very small changes that could have a big effect, and the voter has already decided they support the legislation without the revisions. The revisions could be small and they might not notice them upon a quick glance if they already think they support the legislation.
b. Voters will not be able to discuss changes made before the vote if it is revised just moments before it is motioned to a vote.
Click to expand...


I'm not exactly sure there have been proper discussions as to why we shouldn't have a law such as this. If there are a ton of edits, that is fine. All you are required to do is make sure the revised copy has been posted.

In typical legislatures, a bill cannot simply be edited quietly, the entire bill and all changes are ALWAYS given to all legislators before it goes to a vote.
 
Domais;10521 said:
No, sometimes you're making a ton of edits and stuff. It's up to the voter to read the piece of legislation after it's been motioned. I would support amending our fraud section to included horrible cases of this.

Also can someone move this out of here please? It should go elsewhere
Click to expand...


Then the proposal should be labeled as a "discussion" before the final draft of a proposal should be debated then carried to a vote. A discussion would allow for such major and minor edits whereas a debate would assume carrying the proposal to a vote on its face.

Where do you suggest this belongs?

Debussy;10522 said:
Nothing can be edited once it is at vote.
Click to expand...

Truly. It shouldn't be assumed that that kind of foul play can not happen. Anticipation of such an action is foresight. As the old saw goes: fail to plan is planning to fail.

We like the idea Frankender is suggesting. Not the idea that they assumed our gender (we're female) but that misrepresentation may occur at this level. We think that it keeps the assembly strait: preventing corruption from future players. We would like to see such foulplay added to our criminal codex as well.
 
It's been moved. If the proposal is edited after the motion, one would have to withdraw their motion to vote and re-motion. This is just common sense, besides even if their isn't a rule stating, Debussy is the speaker and he can make up this rules.

I miss read his thing, I thought he meant that you had to post a reply every time you edited your post.
 
Domais;10525 said:
It's been moved. If the proposal is edited after the motion, one would have to withdraw their motion to vote and re-motion. This is just common sense, besides even if their isn't a rule stating, Debussy is the speaker and he can make up this rules.

I miss read his thing, I thought he meant that you had to post a reply every time you edited your post.
Click to expand...


Sounds like ad hoc law to me.
 
(12) In the absence of procedural rules to settle a procedural matter in the Assembly, the Assembly Speaker may establish such rules. Procedural rules established by the Assembly Speaker will always be subordinate to the laws of Lazarus and procedural rules established by the Assembly.
 
Demonos;10524 said:
We like the idea Frankender is suggesting. Not the idea that they assumed our gender (we're female) but that misrepresentation may occur at this level. We think that it keeps the assembly strait: preventing corruption from future players. We would like to see such foulplay added to our criminal codex as well.
Click to expand...

My apologies! I should have assumed from your picture!

Should this proposal include such modifications to the criminal code as well, or would you rather see separate legislation for that? I can see both.



Domais;10525 said:
It's been moved. If the proposal is edited after the motion, one would have to withdraw their motion to vote and re-motion. This is just common sense, besides even if their isn't a rule stating, Debussy is the speaker and he can make up this rules.

I miss read his thing, I thought he meant that you had to post a reply every time you edited your post.
Click to expand...
 
I don't support this because people can read a proposal word for word, like they should, before they vote.
 
@Frankender

We believe that you have exposed a much bigger set of problems i.e. being the enumeration of the Speaker's powers and the process of proposals being non-standardized. If it is the intention of the Assembly and executives to utilize a mechanism such as ad hoc law as @Domais illustrated by quoting sec. 12   then we can expect to be told as shareholders that a proposal doesn't belong here nor there and that any proposal not brought forth by appointed or elected officals are to be kicked around until rendered moot. Afterall, outsiders like us could upset the status quo. We are sure the executives wouldn't care for that.

Yes, fellow Lazarene, we would like to see your proposal grow into something bigger that streamlines the proposal process and makes access to proposals easier for all shareholders: new and old. Also, there should be deterrents in place to avoid misconduct from any nations abusing the Assembly's system in forms of actual punitive measures. We fear that your proposal as it stands may fall short of that goal.

We would like to discuss the absence of court rules and procedures as well but that is a can of worms to be opened for another time.
 
It was not a proposal but a discussion, and labeled as such. It would have to be a proposal to go to vote. If you look through proposals, rather than discussions, most if all proposals are in their final form before votes and annotated. 

Rules for proposals need to be quite different than that for a discussion, as one is asking for input, the other actually putting something forward that can be put for vote.
 

Agreed, NR. Rules and processes need to be established to avoid misconduct and abuses. However, the way to go about it now seems customary which may cause misinterpretation, improper categorization, and, all the while, limits access to shareholders interested in participation.
 
I mean I just think this proposal is pointless. We've had a bunch of Speakers and I've never heard of them allowing anyone to modify a law after it's been brought to vote. Even when our entire Criminal Code was at stake of been amended out Roavin refused to allow any changes. It's common sense that you cannont modify a law after it's been brought to vote.
 
To lead on, someone could declare a discussion and convert it later to a proposal, or turn a proposal back to a discussion. Ideally, the final proposal will go through a discussion period, so I'd perhaps target your attention there, as a proposal requires a discussion period before it can be motioned to vote.

Though, if there is a minor edit before vote, people could just edit it as long as they mention they have done so. Minor edits would include edits to language that don't alter the effects of the legislation, edits for typos, or to fix the unconstitutionally of legislation. So it would have to draw a line between what is just a minor edit, and what could be considered a major change that would require a longer discussion period for vote.

For example, let's hypothetically assume there is a Chocolate Fountain Act proposal, if someone were to edit the Act to include free Cotton Candy, then that would be a major edit. Folks would need time to reassess the proposal, but some typos not so much.
 
Section 1. Amendment of the Assembly Procedure Act (August)
(1) The relevant section of the Assembly Procedure Act, as currently written, reads:
(2) The amended Section of the Assembly Procedure Act shall read:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top