As promised in this thread, here the discussion on it.

Sam initially wrote:

I'd like to see the chair be able to waive the minimum debate time once debate has been exhausted, rather than leave uncontroversial or important amendments sitting there unnecessarily for days.

A very recent example is this.

I replied:

I like that in principle - see the Seashell Accords for an example where that would have been nice. On the other hand, sometimes somebody can't be around for 2 days and then brings up a point that nobody else thought of but then leads to additional substantive discussion. The Chair, even if infinitely wise, cannot predict that, and I can't think of a way to do this without undermining that.

(Yes, you can argue that the same could happen if somebody isn't around for 5 days and it's already at vote, but as it is, there is a guaranteed time and therefore an upper limit that each legislator knows to how seldom they can afford to check in if they're RL a bit busier)

Discuss.

EDIT: 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.

(This post was last modified: 10-13-2017, 09:06 AM by Roavin.)

Reply

The big question obviously is how you prevent abuse. Is it only something that can be triggered when people haven’t posted in a while? Or something where the Chair makes a subjective decision that debate is exhausted, even if the tread is active? For example, the numerous times threads are full of arguing, but nobody is really debating the proposal anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

First off, thank you for bringing these concerns to the assembly.  I think it's great to see leadership support other legislators ideas.

Is the goal of this to speed up pace of the assembly?  If so, I am a little hesitant to do this.  I think by nature, a democratic assembly can't always be quick.  And if something really needs urgent attention and often, maybe that power should be in the hands of our cabinet.

I like the minimum debate law personally.  I believe it gives us a reasonable amount of time to consider something and encourages debate.  The function of these halls is to pass good laws, and that requires regional input, time to consider things, and maybe even heated (but hopefully not too hot!) debate.

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

Reply

I, personally, this the minimum debate law is silly. While I agree with SB that legislative processes can't always be quick, there are times when things need to be shoved through at a breakneck pace.

(I think, specifically, to a time when I was CoA and there was a significant question in the legality the Charter, in which I was able to immediately bring a vote on the entire Charter to the floor — something that wouldn't be possible with minimum debate times.)

The obvious question is abuse, but isn't that the point of elections? If the CoA is a glorified secretary what are we electing people on? If we're allowing the Chair to use their judgement, then we have something to care about/run on?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I mean, isn’t the original point of mandatory minimum debate that bills aren’t rammed through on a partisan basis? I have a feeling that you guys would be very upset if APC/TIL wrote a law, immediately motioned it to vote upon posting it, and then it was guaranteed passage by virtue of our parties making a majority of the legislature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

I mean, isn’t the original point of mandatory minimum debate that bills aren’t rammed through on a partisan basis? I have a feeling that you guys would be very upset if APC/TIL wrote a law, immediately motioned it to vote upon posting it, and then it was guaranteed passage by virtue of our parties making a majority of the legislature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I ... dk? I'm not sure what the impetus of this was (but I doubt I was supportive of it at the time). Personally, I find the problem with the above example to be the collusion and ethically compromised CoA, not the speed. Although, I suppose I'd be even madder to know I was arguing into a void for five days before the vote went on to a pre-determined conclusion.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

The COA doesn’t have to be ethically compromised, if there aren’t any mandatory minimum debate laws. They would be *required* to put the vote up when there’s a motion and a second. That law is the only thing, aside from collegial decency, that prevents steamrolling.

Say what you will about political parties drafting laws, the mandatory minimum debate period at least allows every legislator to comment and possibly get changes made to drafts. Informal coalitions have been a thing in TSP for many years, so it’s not a scenario we’re unfamiliar with.

If we introduce waivers, they should be limited to when debate is truly exhausted— Somebody can ask for a waiver, and if nobody objects within 24 hours, then we go ahead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

I should note - I'm not made up on this either way, so consider me to be just neutrally engaging in the discussion until I say otherwise

I, personally, this the minimum debate law is silly. While I agree with SB that legislative processes can't always be quick, there are times when things need to be shoved through at a breakneck pace.

(I think, specifically, to a time when I was CoA and there was a significant question in the legality the Charter, in which I was able to immediately bring a vote on the entire Charter to the floor — something that wouldn't be possible with minimum debate times.)

If something needs to go through now, then the correct tool for that is actually use an executive order. The Cabinet can issue those and they go to effect immediately, while the Assembly then has another 2 weeks to debate/draft/amend through regular order.

If we introduce waivers, they should be limited to when debate is truly exhausted— Somebody can ask for a waiver, and if nobody objects within 24 hours, then we go ahead.

This idea is appealing to me. CoA discretion is present implicitly, but also anybody else can object to a motion to waive debate time. So only if everybody logging into the forum within that 24 hour time agrees that no further debate is required does the time actually get waived.

I'm trying to think of loopholes in that system.

Reply

 

If we introduce waivers, they should be limited to when debate is truly exhausted— Somebody can ask for a waiver, and if nobody objects within 24 hours, then we go ahead.

This idea is appealing to me. CoA discretion is present implicitly, but also anybody else can object to a motion to waive debate time. So only if everybody logging into the forum within that 24 hour time agrees that no further debate is required does the time actually get waived.

I'm trying to think of loopholes in that system.

I can't really think of any loopholes, unless there's a wacky 24 hour time period where very few people can get on. This allows anyone to prevent the debate from ending too early, and consequently eliminates abuse while being quite efficient. I like it.

Marius Rahl

Fortitudine Vincimus!

Reply

And even so, the Chair would have to not be affected by that 24 hour time period, and be in on the scheme. The more I think about this, the more I like it.

Reply