View Topic

The thing is though, is that in the past no proposal has been edited in that manner after going to vote. Even when that existed, it would still be failed and then return to a vote with the modifications added.

But that was just following precedent.  It's never been made into codified protocol.

True, however it does give merit to the act itself being improper form.

I agree with Chanku.

I agree with Chanku.

Truly a momentous occasion.

I've terminated the vote, to be re-initiated later if possible.

However I do so semi-grudgingly, how is one supposed to know that votes can not be edited even for spelling after going to vote, also what is the procedure for this? I don't know, how many days need to be waited, can I motion to re-expedite the "new" discussion, do I even need to?... this is quite annoying to say the least. :/ If I had known yesterday that changing the spelling even while highlighting the edit would still count as a new act I would have done this last night and saved about 12 hours. >.<

I'm adding a note of this to my campaign and I sincerely hope whoever is in the Underhusen in the next term moves to fix this hole.

When Chanku's right, he's right, even when he opts to be a little shit about it.

@HannahB it acts like an entirely new proposal.

@HannahB it acts like an entirely new proposal.

If I had known yesterday that changing the spelling even while highlighting the edit would still count as a new act I would have done this last night and saved about 12 hours.

@HannahB it acts like an entirely new proposal.

If I had known yesterday that changing the spelling even while highlighting the edit would still count as a new act I would have done this last night and saved about 12 hours.

I was talking about your question of Procedure. The changed act would be treated as if it was a brand new proposal, thus it must be re-expedited, but may be done so immediately.

@HannahB it acts like an entirely new proposal.

If I had known yesterday that changing the spelling even while highlighting the edit would still count as a new act I would have done this last night and saved about 12 hours.

I was talking about your question of Procedure. The changed act would be treated as if it was a brand new proposal, thus it must be re-expedited, but may be done so immediately.

Why is that the case though?

Because it already went to a vote. Generally speaking the common procedure here is that the non-amended version is failed and thus the amended version is introduced as a 'new' procedure.

Because it already went to a vote. Generally speaking the common procedure here is that the non-amended version is failed and thus the amended version is introduced as a 'new' procedure.

But since section 6 of the Procedural Rules simply says:

6. Once brought to a vote, a proposal shall remain at vote for seven days or until the requisite number of Underhusen representatives have voted in favor of or against the proposal.

While it is reasonable and logical to take something down at vote, I see no Legal president for it.

I especially see no reason why it need be treated as an entirely new proposal; if a proposal under discussion is edited the edit is noted and the discussion continued, I would say it counts as the same act but with further discussion time, thus there would be no need to expedite.

For example if someone accidentally posted a voting topic prematurely then took it down, there doesn't have to be another motion to vote.

To clarify: I am saying in this case there should be another motion to vote, but I see no reason for the need to expedite again.

If editing is allowed after a proposal has gone to vote, then it opens up some dangerous possibilities.  In this case, you were only correcting grammar and spelling, but the only reason you needed to correct "waved" to "waived" was because it changed the entire meaning of that section.

Say a proposal goes to vote that has a few points the Speaker doesn't really support.  Under the current lack of rules, the Speaker could wait until half the Underhusen has said "Aye", then tweak those sections however they wanted, and it would be legal.  As unlikely and impractical as that situation is, we shouldn't even allow it to be a possibility.

We discussed this last year, and I was initially on the side of efficiency, saying simple edits should be allowed, but @Point Breeze said something very similar to what Colby just did, and that ended up convincing me it was a bad idea.