Amendment to the Assembly Procedure Act (Sep 2020)

[New Rogernomics]

It was not a proposal but a discussion, and labeled as such. It would have to be a proposal to go to vote. If you look through proposals, rather than discussions, most if all proposals are in their final form before votes and annotated. 

Rules for proposals need to be quite different than that for a discussion, as one is asking for input, the other actually putting something forward that can be put for vote.

[Domais]

I mean I just think this proposal is pointless. We've had a bunch of Speakers and I've never heard of them allowing anyone to modify a law after it's been brought to vote. Even when our entire Criminal Code was at stake of been amended out Roavin refused to allow any changes. It's common sense that you cannont modify a law after it's been brought to vote.

[New Rogernomics]

To lead on, someone could declare a discussion and convert it later to a proposal, or turn a proposal back to a discussion. Ideally, the final proposal will go through a discussion period, so I'd perhaps target your attention there, as a proposal requires a discussion period before it can be motioned to vote.

Though, if there is a minor edit before vote, people could just edit it as long as they mention they have done so. Minor edits would include edits to language that don't alter the effects of the legislation, edits for typos, or to fix the unconstitutionally of legislation. So it would have to draw a line between what is just a minor edit, and what could be considered a major change that would require a longer discussion period for vote.

For example, let's hypothetically assume there is a Chocolate Fountain Act proposal, if someone were to edit the Act to include free Cotton Candy, then that would be a major edit. Folks would need time to reassess the proposal, but some typos not so much.

[Domais]

Also can we fix the formatting of this proposal to be more in line with https://www.nslazarus.com/thread-1477.html

[Domais]

Section 1. Amendment of the Assembly Procedure Act (August)
(1) The relevant section of the Assembly Procedure Act, as currently written, reads:
[table][cell](1) A minimum discussion period of three days is required before any proposal may be brought to vote. The Speaker is not required to open a vote if they determine that the proposal has not had sufficient discussion, but they may not delay opening a vote for more than seven days from when the motion to vote on the proposal was seconded.

(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 unless the initial author is no longer a citizen or has not posted on the off-site regional forum for more than seven days without posting a leave of absence. Only the citizen who made the motion may withdraw it, unless that citizen is no longer a citizen, then the Speaker may withdraw the relevant motion. Once a motion is withdrawn, voting shall cease immediately.

(3) Only the Prime Minister may introduce a proposal to enact, amend, or repeal a treaty or declaration of war, and only the Prime Minister may make a motion to vote on such a proposal.

(4) In the event that there are multiple competing proposals regarding the same matter in the judgment of the Assembly Speaker, the Assembly Speaker will bring them to vote one at a time, in the order they were motioned to vote. If such a proposal is enacted, the subsequent competing proposals will not be brought to vote.

(5) All votes will take place for five days. Citizens eligible to vote may vote "Aye" or "For," "Nay" or "Against," or "Abstain" or "Present." 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.

(6) The Assembly Speaker will determine which discussions will take place publicly and which will take place privately, and may accordingly move discussions to and from the Assembly's private forum, except that the Delegate may determine whether proposals to enact, amend, or repeal treaties will be public or private. All votes will be conducted in public.[/cell][/table]
(2) The amended Section of the Assembly Procedure Act shall read:
[table][cell](1) A minimum discussion period of three days is required before any proposal may be brought to vote. The Speaker is not required to open a vote if they determine that the proposal has not had sufficient discussion, but they may not delay opening a vote for more than seven days from when the motion to vote on the proposal was seconded.

(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 unless the initial author is no longer a citizen or has not posted on the off-site regional forum for more than seven days without posting a leave of absence. Once a motion is made the Speaker shall accept no further changes to the proposal; unless the motion is later withdrawn. Only the citizen who made the motion may withdraw it unless that citizen is no longer a citizen, then the Speaker may withdraw the relevant motion. Once a motion is withdrawn, voting shall cease immediately.

(3) Only the Prime Minister may introduce a proposal to enact, amend, or repeal a treaty or declaration of war, and only the Prime Minister may make a motion to vote on such a proposal.

(4) In the event that there are multiple competing proposals regarding the same matter in the judgment of the Assembly Speaker, the Assembly Speaker will bring them to vote one at a time, in the order they were motioned to vote. If such a proposal is enacted, the subsequent competing proposals will not be brought to vote.

(5) All votes will take place for five days. Citizens eligible to vote may vote "Aye" or "For," "Nay" or "Against," or "Abstain" or "Present." 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.

(6) The Assembly Speaker will determine which discussions will take place publicly and which will take place privately, and may accordingly move discussions to and from the Assembly's private forum, except that the Delegate may determine whether proposals to enact, amend, or repeal treaties will be public or private. All votes will be conducted in public.[/cell][/table]

[Frankender]

It was not a proposal but a discussion, and labeled as such. It would have to be a proposal to go to vote. If you look through proposals, rather than discussions, most if all proposals are in their final form before votes and annotated. 

Rules for proposals need to be quite different than that for a discussion, as one is asking for input, the other actually putting something forward that can be put for vote.

The post was not a proposal, which I see now; however, it was not labeled as a discussion either. Can we get a tag for discussions as well? Currently the only option is proposal.

I definitely agree with you that rules for proposals should be different than that for a discussion.


Perhaps as Demonos stated, this proposal has brought up a much larger issue: the current Assembly Procedure Act needs to be heavily modified to include several things we have discussed in this thread such as proposals vs discussions, the allowance for corruption within the legislature, etc. I think for now, a much larger amendment, or even a rewrite, of the Assembly Procedure Act is warranted to address these problems, and this proposal itself is only a band-aid that does not solve the main problems. Does anyone else agree?

[spoiler]Section 1. Amendment of the Assembly Procedure Act (August)
(1) The relevant section of the Assembly Procedure Act, as currently written, reads:
[table][cell](1) A minimum discussion period of three days is required before any proposal may be brought to vote. The Speaker is not required to open a vote if they determine that the proposal has not had sufficient discussion, but they may not delay opening a vote for more than seven days from when the motion to vote on the proposal was seconded.

(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 unless the initial author is no longer a citizen or has not posted on the off-site regional forum for more than seven days without posting a leave of absence. Only the citizen who made the motion may withdraw it, unless that citizen is no longer a citizen, then the Speaker may withdraw the relevant motion. Once a motion is withdrawn, voting shall cease immediately.

(3) Only the Prime Minister may introduce a proposal to enact, amend, or repeal a treaty or declaration of war, and only the Prime Minister may make a motion to vote on such a proposal.

(4) In the event that there are multiple competing proposals regarding the same matter in the judgment of the Assembly Speaker, the Assembly Speaker will bring them to vote one at a time, in the order they were motioned to vote. If such a proposal is enacted, the subsequent competing proposals will not be brought to vote.

(5) All votes will take place for five days. Citizens eligible to vote may vote "Aye" or "For," "Nay" or "Against," or "Abstain" or "Present." 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.

(6) The Assembly Speaker will determine which discussions will take place publicly and which will take place privately, and may accordingly move discussions to and from the Assembly's private forum, except that the Delegate may determine whether proposals to enact, amend, or repeal treaties will be public or private. All votes will be conducted in public.[/cell][/table]
(2) The amended Section of the Assembly Procedure Act shall read:
[table][cell](1) A minimum discussion period of three days is required before any proposal may be brought to vote. The Speaker is not required to open a vote if they determine that the proposal has not had sufficient discussion, but they may not delay opening a vote for more than seven days from when the motion to vote on the proposal was seconded.

(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 unless the initial author is no longer a citizen or has not posted on the off-site regional forum for more than seven days without posting a leave of absence. Once a motion is made the Speaker shall accept no further changes to the proposal; unless the motion is later withdrawn. Only the citizen who made the motion may withdraw it unless that citizen is no longer a citizen, then the Speaker may withdraw the relevant motion. Once a motion is withdrawn, voting shall cease immediately.

(3) Only the Prime Minister may introduce a proposal to enact, amend, or repeal a treaty or declaration of war, and only the Prime Minister may make a motion to vote on such a proposal.

(4) In the event that there are multiple competing proposals regarding the same matter in the judgment of the Assembly Speaker, the Assembly Speaker will bring them to vote one at a time, in the order they were motioned to vote. If such a proposal is enacted, the subsequent competing proposals will not be brought to vote.

(5) All votes will take place for five days. Citizens eligible to vote may vote "Aye" or "For," "Nay" or "Against," or "Abstain" or "Present." 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.

(6) The Assembly Speaker will determine which discussions will take place publicly and which will take place privately, and may accordingly move discussions to and from the Assembly's private forum, except that the Delegate may determine whether proposals to enact, amend, or repeal treaties will be public or private. All votes will be conducted in public.[/cell][/table][/spoiler]

I disagree entirely. The only change you added was "Once a motion is made the Speaker shall accept no further changes to the proposal; unless the motion is later withdrawn."
I do agree with adding that line, (hence maybe we need an entire rewrite of the Assembly Procedure Act, or at least a much larger amendment), however it does NOT address the problems that this proposal aims to fix, which I have continuously brought up:

a. Very small changes that could have a big effect, and the voter has already decided they support the legislation without the revisions. The revisions could be small and they might not notice them upon a quick glance if they already think they support the legislation.
b. Voters will not be able to discuss changes made before the vote if it is revised just moments before it is motioned to a vote.

With that in mind, as per NR's suggestion of proposals vs discussions, I am in favor of turning this from a proposal into a discussion for overhauling the problems we have discovered with the Assembly Procedure Act.

Anyone else in favor? If that is the case, I'll edit the main post, and when time comes, make a new thread for an actual proposal.

[Domais]

I think that if changes are made before a motion, the author has that right and does not have to publicly announce it. However, once a motion is made, that is attempting to bring it to a vote, then the proposer doesn't have the right to make any changes. It is the duty of the seconder and voters to then read the finalized text and then vote. You are placing too much of a burden on the proposer when the citizens could just read it for themselves before they second a vote and/or vote.

[Frankender]

I think that if changes are made before a motion, the author has that right and does not have to publicly announce it. However, once a motion is made, that is attempting to bring it to a vote, then the proposer doesn't have the right to make any changes. It is the duty of the seconder and voters to then read the finalized text and then vote. You are placing too much of a burden on the proposer when the citizens could just read it for themselves before they second a vote and/or vote.

"The author has that right and does not have to publicly announce it. However, once a motion is made, that is attempting to bring it to a vote, then the proposer doesn't have the right to make any changes."
Yes, currently that is the case, which is what I am attempting to change.

"You are placing too much of a burden on the proposer when the citizens could just read it for themselves before they second a vote and/or vote."
How is it too difficult to simply click the reply button to make a new post whenever you make a change? You did it yourself when you suggested amending this proposal.

"when the citizens could just read it for themselves before they second a vote and/or vote."
Again, we are talking in circles. That does not address the entire purpose of this proposal:

a. Very small changes that could have a big effect, and the voter has already decided they support the legislation without the revisions. The revisions could be small and they might not notice them upon a quick glance if they already think they support the legislation.
b. Voters will not be able to discuss changes made before the vote if it is revised just moments before it is motioned to a vote.

Primarily, point b.


However, I have already suggested turning this into more of a "discussion" as per what NR said, so arguing this is pointless if others agree that there are fundamental issues with the Assembly Procedure Act.

[Domais]

I think that if changes are made before a motion, the author has that right and does not have to publicly announce it. However, once a motion is made, that is attempting to bring it to a vote, then the proposer doesn't have the right to make any changes. It is the duty of the seconder and voters to then read the finalized text and then vote. You are placing too much of a burden on the proposer when the citizens could just read it for themselves before they second a vote and/or vote.

"The author has that right and does not have to publicly announce it. However, once a motion is made, that is attempting to bring it to a vote, then the proposer doesn't have the right to make any changes."
Yes, currently that is the case, which is what I am attempting to change.

"You are placing too much of a burden on the proposer when the citizens could just read it for themselves before they second a vote and/or vote."
How is it too difficult to simply click the reply button to make a new post whenever you make a change? You did it yourself when you suggested amending this proposal.

"when the citizens could just read it for themselves before they second a vote and/or vote."
Again, we are talking in circles. That does not address the entire purpose of this proposal:

a. Very small changes that could have a big effect, and the voter has already decided they support the legislation without the revisions. The revisions could be small and they might not notice them upon a quick glance if they already think they support the legislation.
b. Voters will not be able to discuss changes made before the vote if it is revised just moments before it is motioned to a vote.

Primarily, point b.


However, I have already suggested turning this into more of a "discussion" as per what NR said, so arguing this is pointless if others agree that there are fundamental issues with the Assembly Procedure Act.

If I had to publicly accounce every change I made to a proposal, I would have 100 more posts. From the grammar checks, to compromises and rewordings. Your proposal will just end in an endless hell of spam of minor changes and edits, I know you have said, well just for major things. Well, I say codeify that into a proposal? What is major and minor is subjective. As to point b. well then they can just vote nay, furthermore, if there be further discussion the proposer could just withdraw their motion, which would stop the vote and then allow for discussion and then re-motion. Moreover, I've seen votes take place and then people who've been asleep for the last 3 days then all of the sudden start posting. This happens.

[Frankender]

The proposer would be the one who would be attempting corruption, so why would he withdraw his post if it doesn't have enough time to discuss the secret changes he is making?