Amendment to the Assembly Procedure Act (Sep 2020)

[Frankender]

The post was not a proposal, which I see now; however, it was not

Spoiler

Section 1. Amendment of the Assembly Procedure Act (August)

Spoiler

(1) The relevant section of the Assembly Procedure Act, as currently written, reads:

(2) The amended Section of the Assembly Procedure Act shall read:

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]

[/font]

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.

With that in mind, as per NR's suggestion of proposals vs discussions, I am in favor of turning this from a proposal into a discussion for overhauling the problems we have discovered with the Assembly Procedure Act.

Anyone else in favor? If that is the case, I'll edit the main post, and when time comes, make a new thread for an actual proposal.

 

[Domais]

I think that if changes are made before a motion, the author has that right and does not have to publicly announce it. However, once a motion is made, that is attempting to bring it to a vote, then the proposer doesn't have the right to make any changes. It is the duty of the seconder and voters to then read the finalized text and then vote. You are placing too much of a burden on the proposer when the citizens could just read it for themselves before they second a vote and/or vote.

 

[Frankender]

I think that if changes are made before a motion, the author has that right and does not have to publicly announce it. However, once a motion is made, that is attempting to bring it to a vote, then the proposer doesn't have the right to make any changes. It is the duty of the seconder and voters to then read the finalized text and then vote. You are placing too much of a burden on the proposer when the citizens could just read it for themselves before they second a vote and/or vote.

"The author has that right and does not have to publicly announce it. However, once a motion is made, that is attempting to bring it to a vote, then the proposer doesn't have the right to make any changes."
Yes, currently that is the case, which is what I am attempting to change.

"You are placing too much of a burden on the proposer when the citizens could just read it for themselves before they second a vote and/or vote."
How is it too difficult to simply click the reply button to make a new post whenever you make a change? You did it yourself when you suggested amending this proposal.

"when the citizens could just read it for themselves before they second a vote and/or vote."
Again, we are talking in circles. That does not address the entire purpose of this proposal:

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.

Primarily, point b.


However, I have already suggested turning this into more of a "discussion" as per what NR said, so arguing this is pointless if others agree that there are fundamental issues with the Assembly Procedure Act.

 

[Domais]

I think that if changes are made before a motion, the author has that right and does not have to publicly announce it. However, once a motion is made, that is attempting to bring it to a vote, then the proposer doesn't have the right to make any changes. It is the duty of the seconder and voters to then read the finalized text and then vote. You are placing too much of a burden on the proposer when the citizens could just read it for themselves before they second a vote and/or vote.

"The author has that right and does not have to publicly announce it. However, once a motion is made, that is attempting to bring it to a vote, then the proposer doesn't have the right to make any changes."
Yes, currently that is the case, which is what I am attempting to change.

"You are placing too much of a burden on the proposer when the citizens could just read it for themselves before they second a vote and/or vote."
How is it too difficult to simply click the reply button to make a new post whenever you make a change? You did it yourself when you suggested amending this proposal.

"when the citizens could just read it for themselves before they second a vote and/or vote."
Again, we are talking in circles. That does not address the entire purpose of this proposal:

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.

Primarily, point b.


However, I have already suggested turning this into more of a "discussion" as per what NR said, so arguing this is pointless if others agree that there are fundamental issues with the Assembly Procedure Act.

If I had to publicly accounce every change I made to a proposal, I would have 100 more posts. From the grammar checks, to compromises and rewordings. Your proposal will just end in an endless hell of spam of minor changes and edits, I know you have said, well just for major things. Well, I say codeify that into a proposal? What is major and minor is subjective. As to point b. well then they can just vote nay, furthermore, if there be further discussion the proposer could just withdraw their motion, which would stop the vote and then allow for discussion and then re-motion. Moreover, I've seen votes take place and then people who've been asleep for the last 3 days then all of the sudden start posting. This happens.

 

[Frankender]

The proposer would be the one who would be attempting corruption, so why would he withdraw his post if it doesn't have enough time to discuss the secret changes he is making?

 

[Domais]

Then vote his proposal down.

 

[Frankender]

Then vote his proposal down.

You're looking at it from the wrong angle.

Situation:

Perhaps the rule could be that any change made to the legislation requires the same 3 day standing period? How do you feel about that?

 

[New Rogernomics]

The post was not a proposal, which I see now; however, it was not labeled as a discussion either. Can we get a tag for discussions as well? Currently the only option is proposal.

When it was moved to the tabled area, the label was stripped. I'll add the label there too, so it doesn't happen next time.