| Poll: Should there be a mechanism to reduce mandatory debate time? You do not have permission to vote in this poll. |
|||
| Yes | 4 | 57.14% | |
| No | 3 | 42.86% | |
| Abstain | 0 | 0% | |
| Total | 7 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
| [POLL] Waiving Debate Time as CoA discretionary power |
|
@Tsunamy - We introduced the mandatory debate periods as we were seeing a lot of legislation being instantly motioned to vote without any debate, often on partisan/factional lines - and often votes being opened not long after.
Considering that NS is a game and that even the most active people often don't log in for a couple of days, it seemed reasonable to prevent situations where an entire "debate" has happened and a vote opened without anyone except a handful of people having any input. It also allows for people to present competing legislation and so forth; it's essentially to stop people trying to rush stuff through the assembly without proper discussion and debate, or for their opponents to show up. I don't really see the need of a waiver, as the Executive Order power exists for anything that needs to happen now (IE; an EO removing DM as Delegate due to him couping and making Tsu Acting Delegate) - the rest of the time I think three/five days of debate is the least we should have. Even if everyone who has already commented is fine with a proposal, someone else may not have had a chance to respond to it yet or may be busy at work and not logged on for a few days. 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)
Aye, that's pretty much the argument I made earlier.
I see the waiver as a "convenience" function for things that are really obvious. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
I've added a 3-day poll to this thread to gauge whether we want to add something like this in principle or not, and if it's worth pursuing.
'k, 4-3 in the informal poll.
@sandaoguo since you had the idea, do you want to take a stab at putting that into legalese?
Amendment to Article 2 of the Legislative Procedure Act Wrote:2. Powers and Responsibilities of the Chair
Is everybody ok with that wording??
Personally, I'd prefer something more like this. I think the sense is the same, but the wording is, hopefully, a little more straightforward.
Amendment to Article 2 of the Legislative Procedures Act Wrote:2. Powers and Responsibilities of the Chair 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
The rest of the sections in that article start with “The Chair...” So if we want your proposed wording, then I think it’d be better to put that in Article 1 instead, just to keep the wording consistent.
Or we could swap the first and second clauses as I've written them, I suppose. I think it would remain as clear, but start 'The chair...'
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk 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
So then we have Seraph's version flipped:
Amendment to Article 2 of the Legislative Procedures Act Wrote:2. Powers and Responsibilities of the Chair
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |