[Proposal] Procedural Rules of the Assembly Act - Printable Version +- 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: [Proposal] Procedural Rules of the Assembly Act (/showthread.php?tid=125) |
[Proposal] Procedural Rules of the Assembly Act - Chanku - 07-22-2018 So I figured I should introduce this here now, I was holding off, however given a different draft has been posted, here we go: Quote:Title RE: Procedural Rules of the Assembly Act - Ryccia - 07-22-2018 My criticisms: 1. The hours are varied and specific, making it inconsistent. Whilst I cannot lay blame for this, as I may have done so in my draft, they are very specific, and do not correspond with any regular cycle of the days. However irrelevant this effect may turn out to be, it will be confusing for no reason. 2. The voting period is far too long. A week? Why? This is fine for important proposals, such as amendments to the Mandate or a constitutional law, but for a regular law as well? I cannot see why, my apologies. 3. Why do we have separate processes to remove officials? It seems too complicated for little reason. 4. Why must the Speaker appoint a deputy, and why should the Assembly confirm? The office should be flexible. If the Speaker can handle the job, they don't need deputies. If the Speaker wants to hire and fire, they can do so. It is an administrative position, not the Cabinet. 5. It is very long and blocky for my taste, but my criticisms there perhaps are invalid, as a law is a law, even if it is long like this. I do suggest separating the sections so as to make it easier to read, and changing the format in favour of the Mandate's, as Cormac said in my draft. Other than that, this draft is fine. Sorry if my criticisms are insufficient or outright false. Do take note and tell me if they are so. RE: Procedural Rules of the Assembly Act - Chanku - 07-22-2018 (07-22-2018, 04:55 PM)Ryccia Wrote: 1. The hours are varied and specific, making it inconsistent. Whilst I cannot lay blame for this, as I may have done so in my draft, they are very specific, and do not correspond with any regular cycle of the days. However irrelevant this effect may turn out to be, it will be confusing for no reason.The hours should generally be in increments of 24, each a day, some times were less than that due to math errors, or me just fucking up when writing this. I have addressed some of the issues, and I will be working to fix the other ones. Quote:2. The voting period is far too long. A week? Why? This is fine for important proposals, such as amendments to the Mandate or a constitutional law, but for a regular law as well? I cannot see why, my apologies.Because, of two reasons:
Quote:3. Why do we have separate processes to remove officials? It seems too complicated for little reason.There is a reason for that, some officials are more important than others. The important officials, have a more constrained process, and requires cause to be listed. The important officials (Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Councilors, and Sitting Justices) are all moderately important to the security of our region in some way: The Delegate allows us to actually control the region and have control game-side, the Vice-Delegate is the next in line, the Councilors are the Guardians and have the ability to declare a state of emergency, and the Justices resolve disputes between two parties including things like confirmations or the like. A Delegate, Vice-Delegate, Councilor, or Justice being removed for reasons beyond commission of crimes or of behavior unfitting of someone holding those important positions should be constrained, and the reasons should be publicly defined. Any single one of those positions being removed or manipulated by a group of opportunistic individuals would be harmful to the community as a whole. The positions that are less important to the functioning and protection of the region in some form are easier to remove, namely the Speakers and Ministers. This is because, while they can cause some short-term damage: they are easier to replace and are less-important overall. While a corrupt speaker can try to manipulate procedure, the assembly's members and the courts can prevent that. A Minister might act in a corrupt or unbecoming fashion, just failing in doing their job properly, or someone might be a better fit. These positions could be removed for any reason, and are less vital to our security overall. Quote:4. Why must the Speaker appoint a deputy, and why should the Assembly confirm? The office should be flexible. If the Speaker can handle the job, they don't need deputies. If the Speaker wants to hire and fire, they can do so. It is an administrative position, not the Cabinet.This isn't entirely correct. First off the Senior Deputy is effectively the Speaker Pro Tempore, a person who can act as speaker during periods where the Speaker is unavailable, to prevent instances where RL comes in the way and the assembly grinds to a halt. The Junior Deputies may be used for various other minor things, and act as a final backup to the Speakership. Additionally, the Speaker can't legally appoint or dismiss at will according to the Constitution, to quote Article I, Section 14 of Mandate 12: Quote:(14) The Assembly may provide for the appointment and removal of deputies to the Assembly Speaker by law or through its procedural rules. Note the "by law or through its procedural rules" section, without procedural rules or a law to the contrary, there are no deputies of the Assembly. This provides for the authority to appoint and dismiss them. Additionally, the voting is only if the Speaker refuses to appoint a Senior Deputy, which is an important position to keep the Assembly functioning. The assembly does not confirm any Deputies. Quote:5. It is very long and blocky for my taste, but my criticisms there perhaps are invalid, as a law is a law, even if it is long like this. I do suggest separating the sections so as to make it easier to read, and changing the format in favour of the Mandate's, as Cormac said in my draft.The formatting is actually more similar to the Mandate's than yours was. The formatting is different, but is a simplified version, to allow for easier drafting of laws. RE: Procedural Rules of the Assembly Act - Old Hope - 07-22-2018 Quote:13. A Motion to Table can be made by any member of the Assembly, and must be seconded by five other members of the Assembly. Upon passing the consideration of a proposal ends, and the proposal is blocked from being re-introduced for a period of two weeks.No. You could just table an impeachment procedure with five people conspiring to. Furthermore, the requirement for all is static, which isn't great. 6 tabling in a voter pool of 60 means that you could block any proposal with just 10% of all voters- which would be far from enough in matters for Delegate removal if it would come to vote, even... It means that who comes first, can potentially decide what happens... which is a bad policy for legislative processes. RE: Procedural Rules of the Assembly Act - Chanku - 07-22-2018 (07-22-2018, 08:19 PM)Old Hope Wrote:Quote:13. A Motion to Table can be made by any member of the Assembly, and must be seconded by five other members of the Assembly. Upon passing the consideration of a proposal ends, and the proposal is blocked from being re-introduced for a period of two weeks.No. Ah, writing that into the law was a mistake, the impeachment should not be table-able. Although for tabling in general, I'm willing to review it and potentially add restrictions, or increase the amount required to around 10 or so, but potentially raising it up any higher would just be tantamount to voting on it so it would make tabling unnecessary. RE: Procedural Rules of the Assembly Act - Mysterious Player - 07-23-2018 (07-22-2018, 10:58 PM)Chanku Wrote:(07-22-2018, 08:19 PM)Old Hope Wrote:Quote:13. A Motion to Table can be made by any member of the Assembly, and must be seconded by five other members of the Assembly. Upon passing the consideration of a proposal ends, and the proposal is blocked from being re-introduced for a period of two weeks.No. I don't see the need for allowing tabling. If the Assembly doesn't want a proposal to go to vote, they simply won't motion it to vote. RE: Procedural Rules of the Assembly Act - Chanku - 07-23-2018 (07-23-2018, 12:31 AM)Mysterious Player Wrote:(07-22-2018, 10:58 PM)Chanku Wrote:(07-22-2018, 08:19 PM)Old Hope Wrote:Quote:13. A Motion to Table can be made by any member of the Assembly, and must be seconded by five other members of the Assembly. Upon passing the consideration of a proposal ends, and the proposal is blocked from being re-introduced for a period of two weeks.No. Have you...read this at all? Certain matters automatically move to a vote, and while many of them can't be tabled, some of them tabling is the only way to remove them. Additionally, it allows for the Assembly to remove something quicker than having to wait for the time periods to expire and the Speaker deciding to archive it. RE: Procedural Rules of the Assembly Act - Cormac - 07-24-2018 I have moved this proposal to the main Assembly forum, as I don't believe there is anything sensitive here to warrant secrecy. RE: Procedural Rules of the Assembly Act - Chanku - 07-24-2018 I have removed the motion to table |