| At Vote: Amendment to Articles IV and XII of the Charter |
|
Okay, as usual, I only notice these things when they go to vote, but in article IV section 5 the following sentence reads very clumsily and is, consequently, rather confusing.
Quote:Debate must last for a minimum period of time equivalent to that proposed legislation will be at vote for. It's probably too late to amend now, but I would suggest: Quote:Debate must last for a minimum period of time equivalent to that for which the proposed legislation will be at vote. 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
(08-13-2016, 04:21 AM)Seraph Wrote: Okay, as usual, I only notice these things when they go to vote, but in article IV section 5 the following sentence reads very clumsily and is, consequently, rather confusing.I don't see the difference :o Sent from my MI NOTE LTE using Tapatalk
The second one is better grammatically.
I found that it took me a long time to understand the first one because of the way it was worded. At first I just thought it was nonsense, until I tried reading it a few different ways and one finally made a bit of sense. I believe my wording removes that problem, but I assume I'm the only one who had it.
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
This motion is now at vote. Please head over to the Voting Chamber to cast your vote!
I strongly oppose the way this bill handles competing legislation. If I may use some colorful language:
Handling competing bills by making it a dick measuring contest for who can get the most seconds, then prohibiting the smaller dicked bill from even coming to vote if the bigger dicked one passes by even a slim majority. Like it's entirely possible for the "losing" bill to have more support, but have less seconds anyways. A *much* better way to handle competing legislation is to put both up at the same time, and whichever one gets the most support is the law the Assembly adopts. Prohibiting a competing bill from going to vote *at all* because somebody got more people to *second* it is incredibly anti-democratic. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (08-13-2016, 01:31 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I strongly oppose the way this bill handles competing legislation. If I may use some colorful language: I'd be happy to use that system instead; feel free to draft a suitable amendment, and it will have my support. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
In the meantime, I suggest we have a moratorium on competing bills, then.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Assuming the Chair has no objections, I would be happy with that.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
translate
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 5 Guest(s) |