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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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"  )

Reply

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.

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.

"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011

One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels 
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

TSP Forum & Discord Mod (4/19-Present)
Niagara Founder (2018-Present)

TSP MoRA (6/19-10/19)
TSP Asso. Justice (4/19-3/20)
TSP Deputy CoA (8/18 - 4/19)
TSP CSS (2/14-10/14)
TSP High Court Justice (4/14 - 5/14)
TSP CoA (12/13 - 3/14)
TSP Vice Delegate (8/13 - 12/13)
TSP MoS (9/12 - 12/12)
TSP MoFA (5/12 - 9/12)
TSP Forum Admin (2014)
TSP Craziest (12/12 - 3/13 -- 8/13 - 10/14 -- 2/15 - 6/17 -- 2/18 - 6/19)
Former Founder of Richmond
Former something in Europia
Former something in Balder

Quotes

5:19PM, 3/25/12
Hileville - LR and Rebel-topia are going to break the forum. 103 posts between the two of them so far today
LadyRebels - Yes we are implementing our evil plan to take over, just wanted ya'll to know that

---

[1:22 PM] Rebeltopia: *beats up the Polandar Bear*
[1:22 PM] Polandar Bear: :dizzy_face:
[1:23 PM] Polandar Bear: I'm endangered!
[1:23 PM] Rebeltopia: Endangered of being beated up!
[1:23 PM] Polander Bear: "Beated up" - Rebeltopia, 2018

---

[6:09 PM] Seraph: Who knew ORCS could be so informative?
[6:10 PM] Nakari: ORCS is truly ORChestral to our understanding of law.
[6:11 PM] Seraph: It's the ORCSue of all our legal knowledge.
[6:11 PM] Nakari: its magical. must have been created with sORCSery.

---

Nakarisaurus: islands are you just jealous of the boots
Roavin: islands is jealous of the entire package
Satan: ^ this
Islands of Unakarity: Im jealous of the wife, and that mora election a while back
Roavin: punnuendo both intended and not intended

Reply

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

Reply

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.

 

BZERNELEG 

 

South Pacifican. Public Servant. Creator. In that order.

  

Positions

Legislator (July 07, 2017 - December 14, 2017; January 05, 2018 - March 03, 2018; March 29, 2018 - October 8, 2019; January 9, 2020 - present)

Former Offices

Ambassador of The South Pacific to Hell (November 18, 2018 - October 8, 2019)

Ambassador of The South Pacific to The West Pacific (May 8, 2018 - November 16, 2018)

Deputy Chair of the Assembly (January 11, 2019 - March 7, 2019)

SPSF Trainee (April 01, 2018 - May 11, 2019)

Chair of the Assembly (March 7, 2019 - July 12, 2019)

Fellow of the Ministry of Regional Affairs (August 25, 2018 - July 17, 2019)

 

---

Official Thread • Lampshade Broadcasting Company • The Tsunamy Institution of the Law and Public Policy

 

 

Reply

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

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

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?

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

Reply

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.
 

TSSS would have a fit if they saw this thread

Quick! Delete the thread!
(Also you are the guy who suggested this XD)
 

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?
 

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

Reply

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))

Reply

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.

Reply

That’s roughly what the Chief Justice does, so it’s not entirely u workable.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply