+- 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 - 03-29-2019
(03-29-2019, 02:30 PM)Nakari Wrote: Suggestion: this coding system should be up to the Chair to manage and make sure threads are following itI 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.
tbh that was sort of what i was implying.
After the bill has passed or not, the chair codes it and puts it in archive.
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Poppy - 04-02-2019
(03-29-2019, 02:30 PM)Nakari Wrote: Suggestion: this coding system should be up to the Chair to manage and make sure threads are following it
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.
This seems like the only reasonable way this could be introduced. Seriously, if I have to attach A.TLA.B.0419.Discussion_The_Llama_Act.F or something of the like to my bills when I try to make them then you can count me out of the whole process :p Not that I had any bills planned in the first place >_<
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Rebeltopia - 04-02-2019
(04-02-2019, 02:22 AM)Poppy Wrote: This seems like the only reasonable way this could be introduced. Seriously, if I have to attach A.TLA.B.0419.Discussion_The_Llama_Act.F or something of the like to my bills when I try to make them then you can count me out of the whole process :p Not that I had any bills planned in the first place >_<
Imagine how the Chair's gonna feel...
[DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Kris Kringle - 04-02-2019
If I may ask, do we really need to add a bill’s initials to its code? It’s an incredibly inefficient way to go about this issue.
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Amerion - 04-03-2019
(04-02-2019, 08:29 AM)Rebeltopia Wrote:(04-02-2019, 02:22 AM)Poppy Wrote: This seems like the only reasonable way this could be introduced. Seriously, if I have to attach A.TLA.B.0419.Discussion_The_Llama_Act.F or something of the like to my bills when I try to make them then you can count me out of the whole process :p Not that I had any bills planned in the first place >_<
Imagine how the Chair's gonna feel...
Delighted, I'm sure.
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Poppy - 04-03-2019
(04-02-2019, 08:40 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: If I may ask, do we really need to add a bill’s initials to its code? It’s an incredibly inefficient way to go about this issue.
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
Especially with overlap between bills with the same initials. Wouldn't a number suffice? Or would it make it too unclear what the bill is?
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Bzerneleg - 04-03-2019
Here's what I think we should do:
We should try to maintain a balance between specificity and generalization.
The current bill numbering system allows players to find out the month of which the bill was voted upon, while also includes all types of proposals, such as amendments or nominations.
I suggest that we continue to use the current bill numbering system, though I'd like to make some minor changes:
Knowing that our current bill numbering system is as follows:
AYYMM.OI
(YY - year; MM - month; OI - order of introduction)
(YY - year; MM - month; OI - order of introduction)
Its current prefix, which is 'A' will be changed to:
- AB (for bills, amendment bills and repeals)
- A.Res (for Assembly resolutions, will only include year and order of introduction)
- CN (for cabinet nominations)
- CEO (for Cabinet executive orders, will only include year and order of introduction)
Examples
- The Amendment to Article 1 of the Legislative Procedure Act was introduced yesterday. It was the first bill to be introduced this month. Its code will therefore be AB.1904.01.
- The Assembly Resolution on Lampshade Production was introduced two months ago. It was the third resolution to be introduced this year. Its code will therefore be A.Res.1903.
- The Cabinet nominated Rebeltopia to the High Court on Monday. It was the first nomination this year. Its code will therefore be CN1901.
- The Cabinet submitted an Executive Order to the Assembly yesterday. It was the fourth Executive Order of the year. Its code will therefore be CEO1904.
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Poppy - 04-03-2019
Oh my gosh Bzern, we posted at the almost the exact same time, you gave me a heartattack when I pressed post and your's popped up at the same time >~<
The idea seems pretty sound, doing initials seems impractical and your way seems to provide info without too much clutter, though I am a little confused how the dates work but that's probably just me :p
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Amerion - 04-05-2019
(04-03-2019, 03:59 AM)Bzerneleg Wrote: - snip -
This looks perfectly logical
RE: [DISCUSSION] Reorganization of the Assembly Forums and Archives - Bzerneleg - 04-05-2019
The next question should be: Should we codify the bill numbering system or not?