Amendment to the Assembly Procedure Act (Sep 2020)

[Frankender]

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. 

I am open to modifying the proposed amendment to do this instead, I think that would be a good idea as well.
Process would be first a discussion, then a motion to debate a near-final bill (and a second), then a motion to vote. Would that be superior to the current proposal? 

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.

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.

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.

Like Demonos said, I think it would be more logical to create a law, rather than relying on the Speaker. I am not saying I don't have faith in the Speaker, but like Demonos said, that allows room for corruption.

Side note: What is the purpose for the public discussion forum if not to discuss legislation there? Sorry, I am a new shareholder!