Admin note: Things should be fixed now regarding access. I -- personally -- never had a problem accessing the forums, for whatever reason, which led to a delay in fixing, but we should be good now. Sorry for any issues.

No worries. Thanks, Delegadmin.

Currently, there's Gustave Berr's latest proposal being considered and SB's first proposal. Can we discuss the text, please? Which do we prefer?

I would prefer some kind of mandatory minimum, but I'm interested to hear more about a staying motion.

Gustave Berr's proposal seems to be pretty much the same as Southern Bellz's. If so, perhaps Southern Bellz's would be the simpler, cleaner reform?

What do you think, Gustave?

Quote:Section 1 - Assembly and Powers of the Assembly
1. The Assembly is comprised of all Citizens of The Coalition.
2. The Assembly shall constitute the sole legislative body in The Coalition.
3. The Assembly is responsible for the drafting and discussion of General Laws, and Amendments to the Charter and Code of Laws.
4. The Assembly may pass and amend a Law with a vote resulting in 50% + 1 in favor.
5. The Assembly may amend the Charter with a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor.
6. The Assembly has the sole power to declare a state of war exists with another region or organization.
7. The Assembly has the sole power to pass a treaty with another region or organization.
8. The Assembly may override the denial or Cabinet removal of citizenship upon the affected nation appealing and a vote resulting in a 75% majority in favor.
9. Declarations of War and Treaties require a 60% majority in favor to be enacted or repealed.
10. Proposed legislation shall be moved to a vote by the Chair of the Assembly 24 hours after a Motion and a Second to vote is lodged.
11. Within this 24 hours a Motion to stay the vote may be lodged, and if seconded voting will be stayed until such time as a new Motion and Second to vote is lodged.
12. Subsequent to the first Motion to stay the vote on a proposed matter, further such motions are to be considered and accepted at the discretion of the Chair, taking the necessity and likely productivity of further debate into consideration. If the author of the proposed legislation expresses no intention to consider alteration, then it shall be moved to vote with no further Motions to stay considered.
13. The voting period will last three days for all General Laws and five days for Amendments to the Charter.

Simplest solution is best solution.

Bahaha, the most complicated solution suggested thus far - plus you completely undermine the ability of the Chair to slow down the vote at all. The saddest part is that not only does your suggestion have nothing to do with minimum discussion times, but this law wouldn't even be relevant in the case of HEM (because he DID express some intention to respond to questions in kind and consider alteration - despite your protests) who you've been complaining about loudly.

Please stay on topic - minimum discussion times. There are two proposals on the table at the moment. I'm currently wondering whether GB's latest proposal might just be too close to SB's to justify the extra complexity.

Oh, do shut up Unibot. It's entirely relevant considering the topic and the way things have progressed.

Instead of setting in stone arbitrary discussion times for every single type of different vote it provides an easy way to extend discussion if someone motions to vote too early on whilst at the same time reducing the ability of the Chair to abuse the office.

I don't think Bel's proposal is off topic, and it seems reasonable to me. However, after the first motion to vote and a staying motion, should there be a minimum amount of time for further debate? Otherwise, there could just be another motion to vote and second immediately after the staying motion.

What happens when the Chair isn't online for a 24 hour period?