[Proposal] Assembly Procedure Act

[Roavin]

(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.

I alluded to this above, but I think the author of the bill should be required to actually motion to vote. It is not unheard of for a bill to still be under discussion and being worked on, and for someone else to motion whatever the latest draft is to vote against the author's wishes because they don't like whatever changes have been suggested after it was posted. I suggest:

(2) In order for a proposal to be brought to vote, the author of the proposal must make a motion to vote, and another citizen eligible to vote on the proposal must second the motion. The author of a proposal is defined as the citizen who created the proposal's thread, regardless of what contributions other citizens made to a final draft of the proposal.

The issue here is that the OP may not even be around (loss of citizenship, CTE, whatnot), so you'd be forced to make a new thread. Or alternatively, people just take it to a new thread because they made a version OP didn't like. That would lead to Assembly clutter, and tbh, it's not something I've ever seen to be an actual problem, at least after nearly 2.5 years of TSP madness — A responsible Speaker would, when reasonable, just delay the vote for a while, and maybe allow OP and somebody else to motion their version as a competing bill. I think it's fine as-is.
 

(5) In the event that there are multiple competing proposals regarding the same matter, the Assembly Speaker will simultaneously bring such proposals to vote, and the proposal receiving the most votes in favor will become law provided it has achieved the threshold needed to pass.

This is tricky. What exactly defines a competing proposal might get murky, unless you explicitly define it as "attempting to amend at least one of the same clauses as one another"... but that could get overly broad. If my bill corrects a misplaced comma in a line, and yours adds a "not" elsewhere in that line, they're not reallllly competing.

I'm inclined, instead, to discourage this sort of situation and simply say that the Speaker will put the one that was first motioned to vote up for a vote, and delay opening a vote on any competing proposal until the first one has closed - and so on down the line, if there are more than 2. Maybe something like this:

(5) In the event that there are multiple competing proposals regarding the same matter, the Speaker will bring them to vote one at a time, in the order that they were motioned to vote. "Competing proposals" are defined as those which contain an amendment to at least one of the same clauses. The Speaker may designate other proposals as "competing" if they are deemed to address substantially similar topics.

I added the last bit because if we just defined competing as sharing an amended clause, two people could propose two similar new laws out of whole cloth and they wouldn't be competing because they weren't amending anything. I'm OK giving the Speaker pretty free pass to designate competing laws, because the most you can abuse it to do is delay a little bit. 

TSP has the same simultaneous vote system that Cormac proposed and it works a charm. I do agree that it should be Speaker's discretion to reasonably determine what is competing and what isn't, and really that should be the primary focus. The issue I see with your proposed language is that it would encourage looking for changes to the same clause first, but I can easily see instances (and cite from TSP) where either two amendments to the same clause aren't competing, or two amendments that don't overlap anywhere that address the same general topic. It probably suffices to just keep it at the Speaker's discretion, imho.