+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives (/thread-6976.html)
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Jebediah - 03-27-2019
(03-25-2019, 02:22 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: Rarely do we propose multiple amendments to the same law in the same month, but we could add a .1 after the date if it happens.
...and? The only reason it's in the law is that, even if there are no amendments for the rest of the month, if someone else makes an amendment for the same law, then the person with the original amendment will have to go back and put a ".1" in their title. It's much easier if you just put a ".1" at the end even if it turns out to be useless.
Other than that you've basically done the same as me. About the status of the amendment, this is just to stay in line with our current system and makes everything easier to see (If you are looking for an amendment title and it just says "A.LPA.0319.1" then you don't know if it has passed or failed, and if you already know if it passed or failed then it would make finding the amendment much easier. Also, when searching for current in discussion amendments, then clicking a topic and finding its already failed doesn't help when you had a really good idea to add.
(03-26-2019, 10:31 AM)North Prarie Wrote: So if a legislator would search AA6.9, but wanted it to only be from 2020, they could go to the 2020 subforum and search there for AA6.9.
That's a good idea, but you'd still have to put the month and year of when you posted the amendment in the code, so you can see when the amendment was actually proposed. Each thread doesn't actually say when it was made, just when the last person posted a message, so you'd have to go in each thread every time and look at the original message to see when the thread was posted.
(03-26-2019, 10:31 AM)North Prarie Wrote: The Llama Act (bill)-AB4.1
Too complicated. No, I'm serious. This literally just extends the current problem. You could put anything you want in the first bit, and that's the first letters the search algorithm searches for. The whole point of the code is that it is the first thing the algorithm searches for.
If you want to, you can do:
A.TLA.B.0419.Discussion The Llama Act.
A means assembly, TLA means the llama act, 0419 is the month and year, B means bill, and the stuff after that is free space. The most important things are "A" meaning assembly, "TLA" meaning "The Llama Act" and "B" meaning bill. There is nothing more important than that, so the format must be the same all the way through. The rest is less important and more to do with distinguishing search results once you find them. With this format, you can search for whatever assembly thing you want, whatever thing to do with the llama act, the bill for the llama act or an amendment to the llama act on this month.
Frankly, there isn't much confusion here, as long as you know the rules, which is quite simple for legislators:
A - Don't change this
TLA - Refer to this simple code guide on the law index page (which is where each law should get a code)
B - Replace this with A if you want to make a change to a law or B if you are suggesting a new law.
0419 - Replace the first two numbers with the month numbers and the second two with the year numbers
... - Replace the rest with whatever you want that might help people to see/understand your thread.
Seriously. Not much to it. The other codes are a little more advanced, but only older members who understand the code need to use it.
(03-26-2019, 12:00 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: I got rid of the "A" for Assembly, since the posts will all be in the Assembly archives...
By the way, I chose to put "Assembly" in front of everything just to clarify easily that this is an assembly thread and not anything else, in case you were looking through a large number of subforums.
(Slightly silly proposal: Naming the code system "Amerion-Jebedian Coding"
)
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Rebeltopia - 03-27-2019
(03-27-2019, 12:58 PM)Jebediah Wrote:(03-25-2019, 02:22 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: Rarely do we propose multiple amendments to the same law in the same month, but we could add a .1 after the date if it happens.
...and? The only reason it's in the law is that, even if there are no amendments for the rest of the month, if someone else makes an amendment for the same law, then the person with the original amendment will have to go back and put a ".1" in their title. It's much easier if you just put a ".1" at the end even if it turns out to be useless.
Other than that you've basically done the same as me. About the status of the amendment, this is just to stay in line with our current system and makes everything easier to see (If you are looking for an amendment title and it just says "A.LPA.0319.1" then you don't know if it has passed or failed, and if you already know if it passed or failed then it would make finding the amendment much easier. Also, when searching for current in discussion amendments, then clicking a topic and finding its already failed doesn't help when you had a really good idea to add.
(03-26-2019, 12:00 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: I got rid of the "A" for Assembly, since the posts will all be in the Assembly archives...
By the way, I chose to put "Assembly" in front of everything just to clarify easily that this is an assembly thread and not anything else, in case you were looking through a large number of subforums.
1. Not really. If theres a "A.LPA.0319", then a "A.LPA.0319.1", the first is assumed to be .0, then the 2nd .1, and so on.
2. Kinda. I got rid of your comma in the date, as its mostly useless. I removed the "A" for Assembly, cause its existence is, again, useless. Simple is better. The less we have to remember, the better.
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - North Prarie - 03-27-2019
(03-27-2019, 12:58 PM)Jebediah Wrote:(03-25-2019, 02:22 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: Rarely do we propose multiple amendments to the same law in the same month, but we could add a .1 after the date if it happens.
...and? The only reason it's in the law is that, even if there are no amendments for the rest of the month, if someone else makes an amendment for the same law, then the person with the original amendment will have to go back and put a ".1" in their title. It's much easier if you just put a ".1" at the end even if it turns out to be useless.
Other than that you've basically done the same as me. About the status of the amendment, this is just to stay in line with our current system and makes everything easier to see (If you are looking for an amendment title and it just says "A.LPA.0319.1" then you don't know if it has passed or failed, and if you already know if it passed or failed then it would make finding the amendment much easier. Also, when searching for current in discussion amendments, then clicking a topic and finding its already failed doesn't help when you had a really good idea to add.
(03-26-2019, 10:31 AM)North Prarie Wrote: So if a legislator would search AA6.9, but wanted it to only be from 2020, they could go to the 2020 subforum and search there for AA6.9.
That's a good idea, but you'd still have to put the month and year of when you posted the amendment in the code, so you can see when the amendment was actually proposed. Each thread doesn't actually say when it was made, just when the last person posted a message, so you'd have to go in each thread every time and look at the original message to see when the thread was posted.
(03-26-2019, 10:31 AM)North Prarie Wrote: The Llama Act (bill)-AB4.1
Too complicated. No, I'm serious. This literally just extends the current problem. You could put anything you want in the first bit, and that's the first letters the search algorithm searches for. The whole point of the code is that it is the first thing the algorithm searches for.
If you want to, you can do:
A.TLA.B.0419.Discussion The Llama Act.
A means assembly, TLA means the llama act, 0419 is the month and year, B means bill, and the stuff after that is free space. The most important things are "A" meaning assembly, "TLA" meaning "The Llama Act" and "B" meaning bill. There is nothing more important than that, so the format must be the same all the way through. The rest is less important and more to do with distinguishing search results once you find them. With this format, you can search for whatever assembly thing you want, whatever thing to do with the llama act, the bill for the llama act or an amendment to the llama act on this month.
Frankly, there isn't much confusion here, as long as you know the rules, which is quite simple for legislators:
A - Don't change this
TLA - Refer to this simple code guide on the law index page (which is where each law should get a code)
B - Replace this with A if you want to make a change to a law or B if you are suggesting a new law.
0419 - Replace the first two numbers with the month numbers and the second two with the year numbers
... - Replace the rest with whatever you want that might help people to see/understand your thread.
Seriously. Not much to it. The other codes are a little more advanced, but only older members who understand the code need to use it.
(03-26-2019, 12:00 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: I got rid of the "A" for Assembly, since the posts will all be in the Assembly archives...
By the way, I chose to put "Assembly" in front of everything just to clarify easily that this is an assembly thread and not anything else, in case you were looking through a large number of subforums.
(Slightly silly proposal: Naming the code system "Amerion-Jebedian Coding"
Wait, so more letters are less complicated than less letters? I don't follow.
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Bzerneleg - 03-28-2019
You know what? The current bill numbering system that we use works perfectly fine. It is universal and can apply to any type of bill: amendment, resolution, treaties, etc. We may as well codify it too.
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Seraph - 03-28-2019
I just want to say, this entire thread gives me a headache and at no point did any of it seem like it would make the assembly more accessible, but rather quite the opposite.
That being said, I did enjoy watching people debate in what appeared to be code for four pages. XD
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Amerion - 03-28-2019
(03-28-2019, 01:12 AM)Bzerneleg Wrote: You know what? The current bill numbering system that we use works perfectly fine. It is universal and can apply to any type of bill: amendment, resolution, treaties, etc. We may as well codify it too.
I agree to an extent. I believe it can be improved upon though.
What direction are you currently leaning towards?
(03-28-2019, 02:29 PM)Seraph Wrote: I just want to say, this entire thread gives me a headache and at no point did any of it seem like it would make the assembly more accessible, but rather quite the opposite.
That being said, I did enjoy watching people debate in what appeared to be code for four pages. XD
TSSS would have a fit if they saw this thread
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Jebediah - 03-29-2019
(03-27-2019, 01:23 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: 1. Not really. If theres a "A.LPA.0319", then a "A.LPA.0319.1", the first is assumed to be .0, then the 2nd .1, and so on.
(Note: the next paragraph is not meant to be taken completely seriously)
What?
Just... what?
Is your job computer coding? Because computers would think that...
But a non-computer guy would assume "...0319.1" is the first and "0319 (nothing else)" is someone who isn't following the code.
(03-28-2019, 09:38 PM)Amerion Wrote: TSSS would have a fit if they saw this thread
Quick! Delete the thread!
(Also you are the guy who suggested this XD)
(03-28-2019, 01:12 AM)Bzerneleg Wrote: You know what? The current bill numbering system that we use works perfectly fine. It is universal and can apply to any type of bill: amendment, resolution, treaties, etc. We may as well codify it too.
We have a current bill numbering system? Wat? Because I don't see any trace of it?
(03-28-2019, 02:29 PM)Seraph Wrote: I just want to say, this entire thread gives me a headache and at no point did any of it seem like it would make the assembly more accessible, but rather quite the opposite.
That being said, I did enjoy watching people debate in what appeared to be code for four pages. XD
...really? Because if you think about it, something along the lines of:
LawName.Date.Number of bill. whatever you want Should make sense after a while
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Jebediah - 03-29-2019
(03-18-2019, 08:29 AM)The Sakhalinsk Empire Wrote: I don't think so. This new system would allow older Assembly debates and stuff to be more easily searched and referenced, making the Assembly more accessible.
^ This
(Also the proposed system would be after a bill has passed or failed (at least I'm assuming))
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Nakari - 03-29-2019
Suggestion: this coding system should be up to the Chair to manage and make sure threads are following it
I can see new legislators being intimidated that to create a new bill they have to create some strange arcane codename for it, and having one central authority manage it will probably make mistakes in numbering less likely.We could test it out as something the Chair manages for a bit to work out any flaws or changes before putting it into law, since putting it in law is not strictly necessary.
[DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Kris Kringle - 03-29-2019
That’s roughly what the Chief Justice does, so it’s not entirely u workable.
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk