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 (October 2020)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Domais
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None
Domais

Domais

The Domster!
Strategos (LazGuard Commander)
Citizen
Lazarene
Verified
Became a Citizen Citizen 6 Months Citizen 12 Months
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
835
Feather
ƒ2,903
Amendment to the Assembly Procedure Act (October 2020)

Proposed by: @Domais​


Section 1. An amendment to the Assembly Procedure Act

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

Click to expand...
 
What happened to 3?
 
(6) If a relevant proposal is edited after a motion to vote is made then that motion shall be invalid, however, voting shall not cease if the relevant proposal was edited after voting has commenced. However, no changes to any proposal shall be accepted after a relevant vote has commenced unless that motion has been withdrawn.

Confusing. Not sure why this mentions that the relevant proposal being edited doesn't affect the proposal, yet the next sentence states that a proposal cannot be edited.

It is also just hard to read. This bullet needs to be rewritten entirely.
 
Frankender;11036 said:
(6) If a relevant proposal is edited after a motion to vote is made then that motion shall be invalid, however, voting shall not cease if the relevant proposal was edited after voting has commenced. However, no changes to any proposal shall be accepted after a relevant vote has commenced unless that motion has been withdrawn.

Confusing. Not sure why this mentions that the relevant proposal being edited doesn't affect the proposal, yet the next sentence states that a proposal cannot be edited.

It is also just hard to read. This bullet needs to be rewritten entirely.
Click to expand...

It meant to stop people from changing their proposal after they motioned it. But if voting already started then voting will not stop if the proposal is edited. However, that change will not affect the vote.
 
Domais;11051 said:
It meant to stop people from changing their proposal after they motioned it. But if voting already started then voting will not stop if the proposal is edited. However, that change will not affect the vote.
Click to expand...

Yeah no, don't get me wrong, I am in support of this legislation, I just think that bullet is hard to read and kinda confusing
 
Seeing that I've made the relevant changes, I motion to vote.
 
Wait, one question before I'm on board completely -- I have a question about this line:

"A motion may only be withdrawn before the end of the last day of voting and once a motion is withdrawn, voting shall cease immediately."

What is the purpose behind allowing the motioner to withdraw their motion mid vote?
 
Frankender;11142 said:
Wait, one question before I'm on board completely -- I have a question about this line:

"A motion may only be withdrawn before the end of the last day of voting and once a motion is withdrawn, voting shall cease immediately."

What is the purpose behind allowing the motioner to withdraw their motion mid vote?
Click to expand...

To allow for changes to be made. What happened was is I made an amendment that said something like the so and so will be amended to read: <section>. That would have deleted most of the law and we had to scramble on the last day of voting when we noticed to vote it down. https://www.nslazarus.com/thread-1398.html found the vote.
 
Is it valid for me to be commenting on discussions that have not warranted it?

Perhaps no, but I am not breaking any rules nor policies.

Any legislator who votes against this legislation who does not wish to voice their concerns should have their vote nullified. Persons such as @"Leonism" are too afraid to voice their opinions! Rather -- let us vote against the discussion instead of having intellectual discourse, for we will not ever win the aforementioned!
 
Frankender;11174 said:
Is it valid for me to be commenting on discussions that have not warranted it?

Perhaps no, but I am not breaking any rules nor policies.

Any legislator who votes against this legislation who does not wish to voice their concerns should have their vote nullified. Persons such as @"Leonism" are too afraid to voice their opinions! Rather -- let us vote against the discussion instead of having intellectual discourse, for we will not ever win the aforementioned!
Click to expand...
A. That would be unconstitutional B. It is their prerogative whether or not they wish to post in these threads. Leo doesn't seem to ever contribute to the discussion and there is no reason why he should have to if he doesn't want to.
 
Domais;11176 said:
A. That would be unconstitutional B. It is their prerogative whether or not they wish to post in these threads. Leo doesn't seem to ever contribute to the discussion and there is no reason why he should have to if he doesn't want to.
Click to expand...
(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.

The constitution does not dictate any procedural rules.

Perhaps you are referring to the Assembly Procedure Act?
(5) All votes will take place for five days. Citizens eligible to vote may vote "Aye," "Nay," or "Abstain." 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.

My deliberate protest of this rule within the Assembly Procedure Act was not an unconstitutional one.
 
(1) The Assembly will be comprised of all citizens of Lazarus. Leo is a citizen of Lazarus who has not had his voting rights stripped by the courts, therefore, Leo is eligible to vote.
 
For the record, I would never disqualify someone's vote for not taking part in the discussion of whatever bill is at vote. Furthermore, Dom is right. It is unconstitutional.
 
Are you both simply ignoring my point or blind to it?

sat·ire
noun
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top