+- Forums (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum)
+-- Forum: Second Floor (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=112)
+--- Forum: Board Meeting Room (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+---- Forum: Past Proposals & Discussions (https://nslazarus.com/old_forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=50)
+---- Thread: Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020) (/showthread.php?tid=1242)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020) - McChimp - 02-21-2020
I am in favour of resolving the conflict between the Mandate and the Assembly Procedures Act by aligning 2:3 with the constitution post Democratic Reform Amendment.
I am not in favour of allowing anybody to motion a proposal to vote after seven days have elapsed. Each proposal belongs to its author, whose name shall be printed on it forever. It just doesn't make sense to allow another citizen to seize it from their control, sending it to vote before it's been made robust enough to pass. I will have to vote against any proposal which introduces this procedure.
RE: Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020) - Debussy - 02-21-2020
I took out the change to motions.
RE: Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020) - temmi - 02-21-2020
McChimp;8413 Wrote:I am in favour of resolving the conflict between the Mandate and the Assembly Procedures Act by aligning 2:3 with the constitution post Democratic Reform Amendment.
I am not in favour of allowing anybody to motion a proposal to vote after seven days have elapsed. Each proposal belongs to its author, whose name shall be printed on it forever. It just doesn't make sense to allow another citizen to seize it from their control, sending it to vote before it's been made robust enough to pass. I will have to vote against any proposal which introduces this procedure.
But if the original author goes inactive or loses citizenship because of RL and the rest of the region really likes the proposal, someone else would have to copy it and have to propose it again which seems convoluted.
RE: Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020) - Capercom - 02-21-2020
McChimp;8413 Wrote:I am in favour of resolving the conflict between the Mandate and the Assembly Procedures Act by aligning 2:3 with the constitution post Democratic Reform Amendment.
I am not in favour of allowing anybody to motion a proposal to vote after seven days have elapsed. Each proposal belongs to its author, whose name shall be printed on it forever. It just doesn't make sense to allow another citizen to seize it from their control, sending it to vote before it's been made robust enough to pass. I will have to vote against any proposal which introduces this procedure.
I agree with the sentiment, but when a politician dies or gets hospitalized while a bill is in the middle of committee being discussed to mark up and move to vote...the proposed bill still moves forward. The gears of government continue and stop for no man.
RE: Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020) - temmi - 02-23-2020
Reading this further...isn't this contradicting itself already?
"Section 2. Legislative Procedures
(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..."
In the first sentence it tells us that any citizen eligible to vote can make the motion to vote, but then immediately says no, only the initial author can? i can be eligible to vote, making me able to motion it to vote, without being the author! It seems a little confusing to begin with O.O! like the reason i said before, i think it would make sense to allow any eligible citizen to motion to vote, especially in circumstances where the author for whatever reason stops posting in the thread making it a stand-still...
RE: Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020) - Debussy - 02-23-2020
I agree. There could be better wording to outline the process - even if it is the same process.
RE: Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020) - McChimp - 02-25-2020
temmi;8482 Wrote:Reading this further...isn't this contradicting itself already?
"Section 2. Legislative Procedures
(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..."
In the first sentence it tells us that any citizen eligible to vote can make the motion to vote, but then immediately says no, only the initial author can? i can be eligible to vote, making me able to motion it to vote, without being the author! It seems a little confusing to begin with O.O! like the reason i said before, i think it would make sense to allow any eligible citizen to motion to vote, especially in circumstances where the author for whatever reason stops posting in the thread making it a stand-still...
It's not as clear as it could be, but it's not a contradiction either. As it stands, it sets out three conditions a person must meet in order to bring the proposal to vote:
1. they must be a citizen,
2. they must be eligible to vote on the proposal (which a citizen might not be if they've been convicted of a crime or barred from voting by the security apparatus),
3. they must have authored the proposal.
None of which contradict each other.
RE: Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020) - Debussy - 03-06-2020
I motion to vote.
RE: Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020) - McChimp - 03-08-2020
I second the motion.
RE: Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020) - Roavin - 03-20-2020
Shareholders of Lazarus,
With 11 Aye, 0 No, and 2 Abstain, "Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020)" has passed with 100% for and 0% against.
-- Roavin, Chairperson of the Shareholders