View Topic

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.

I totally understand that, that's why I took it down and am going to try to get it remotioned for vote. It was silly of me to try that in the first place

I was frustrated at the lack of procedure, but I don't see why it has to be done in the specific way Chanku has said, with a new motion to expedite and treating it as a whole new proposal...

Why can't we just go back to the discussion and remotion to vote

Considering it to be a new proposal encourages Skrifa to carefully read the revised bill, ensuring that no unmentioned edits slip by, or even other unnoticed errors that warrant correction. 

Also, the hassle of further procedure should motivate the Underhusen to catch these sorts of things before they go to a vote. 

While I can understand the intention, I don't see why it is something that must be done just now... I see no reason why I would have to adhere to that right now in this instance... And as I would prefer to do this sooner rather than later with the new UH coming in soon, why can't I bypass that, and just move straight to another motion to vote (if my fellows will agree)?

While I can understand the intention, I don't see why it is something that must be done just now... I see no reason why I would have to adhere to that right now in this instance... And as I would prefer to do this sooner rather than later with the new UH coming in soon, why can't I bypass that, and just move straight to another motion to vote (if my fellows will agree)?

Because of two reasons:
1) There is a lack of authority
2) Because upon a proposal failing or passing a vote within the UH that proposal's matter is considered finished within the UH unless it is re-introduced.

I simply see no reason to grant any exceptions to the established precedent. I sympathise that it's annoying, but annoyance is the lesser evil here.

How can something be an exception if there is no rule

Why does terminating a vote, have to mean the proposal fails? Why does a proposal failing have to mean it gets completly reset? And I dont mean why in terms of the big picture, I get that :/ but I don't see why it is an unshakable absolute that can't be defied, when there isn't actually anything to defy... Except the "way it's normally done"... That just seems so pointless and silly :/

To analogise how this feels right now: if this had passed, with the mistakes and before proceeding any further someone was saying that "nope, this law can't go any further because it has spelling/grammar errors" and while that makes perfect sense, while it's common to remove them, there isn't actually anything prohibiting grammar errors... So why not carry it on?

Here, it still requires approval, still requires a vote, I am just trying to avoid beurocracy that isn't even mandated, we can all see the act, read it, comment on it and if the other Skrifa want they can table it and prevent it from passing... I can't defy non-exsistent procedure? So why follow along like this?

Bah.

If we are just going to go off the way things are normally done why even have a procedure >.>

When there's a lack of codified procedure, all we have is precedent...

Honestly this entire conversation is quite ridiculous to me. While yes, HannahB did break precedent here, there was a rather simple solution to this entire situation. We all know that all she fixed was grammatical errors, so as far as I'm concerned we should have just let it slide, and then fixed this hole in the rules in the next session of the Underhusen. Then the bill wouldn't have had to be terminated giving more work for the next session of the Underhusen and the problem would have been fixed. Either way this does show that this loop hole needs to be fixed for the next session and I'm sure somebody will write a bill to rectify this...

Honestly this entire conversation is quite ridiculous to me. While yes, HannahB did break precedent here, there was a rather simple solution to this entire situation. We all know that all she fixed was grammatical errors, so as far as I'm concerned we should have just let it slide, and then fixed this hole in the rules in the next session of the Underhusen. Then the bill wouldn't have had to be terminated giving more work for the next session of the Underhusen and the problem would have been fixed. Either way this does show that this loop hole needs to be fixed for the next session and I'm sure somebody will write a bill to rectify this...

Technically it didn't require termination (and indeed can not be terminate) all that must be done is that the bill be reverted to it's original text. Further having let it slide could have lead to dangerous precedent that I'm sure no one here wants to set.

Honestly this entire conversation is quite ridiculous to me. While yes, HannahB did break precedent here, there was a rather simple solution to this entire situation. We all know that all she fixed was grammatical errors, so as far as I'm concerned we should have just let it slide, and then fixed this hole in the rules in the next session of the Underhusen. Then the bill wouldn't have had to be terminated giving more work for the next session of the Underhusen and the problem would have been fixed. Either way this does show that this loop hole needs to be fixed for the next session and I'm sure somebody will write a bill to rectify this...

Technically it didn't require termination (and indeed can not be terminate) all that must be done is that the bill be reverted to it's original text. Further having let it slide could have lead to dangerous precedent that I'm sure no one here wants to set.

Thats why I said we simply pass a bill in the next session of the Underhusen to either end the ability to do this, or institutionalize it somehow so that these small errors can be fixed without having to go through this entire process over again. It feels unnecessary. We can all see the errors made need to be fixed, I'm sure we can all trust HannahB not to abuse this power until the issue is fixed, so why is this a problem?

Honestly this entire conversation is quite ridiculous to me. While yes, HannahB did break precedent here, there was a rather simple solution to this entire situation. We all know that all she fixed was grammatical errors, so as far as I'm concerned we should have just let it slide, and then fixed this hole in the rules in the next session of the Underhusen. Then the bill wouldn't have had to be terminated giving more work for the next session of the Underhusen and the problem would have been fixed. Either way this does show that this loop hole needs to be fixed for the next session and I'm sure somebody will write a bill to rectify this...

Technically it didn't require termination (and indeed can not be terminate) all that must be done is that the bill be reverted to it's original text. Further having let it slide could have lead to dangerous precedent that I'm sure no one here wants to set.

Thats why I said we simply pass a bill in the next session of the Underhusen to either end the ability to do this, or institutionalize it somehow so that these small errors can be fixed without having to go through this entire process over again. It feels unnecessary. We can all see the errors made need to be fixed, I'm sure we can all trust HannahB not to abuse this power until the issue is fixed, so why is this a problem?

It's not just this session, but that power would persist onto the next session as well, until it is fixed. If it's not fixed it would perpetuate until it was fixed and such a precedent set would allow a speaker to legally modify any section of any law at vote, thus blocking reform efforts...

Honestly this entire conversation is quite ridiculous to me. While yes, HannahB did break precedent here, there was a rather simple solution to this entire situation. We all know that all she fixed was grammatical errors, so as far as I'm concerned we should have just let it slide, and then fixed this hole in the rules in the next session of the Underhusen. Then the bill wouldn't have had to be terminated giving more work for the next session of the Underhusen and the problem would have been fixed. Either way this does show that this loop hole needs to be fixed for the next session and I'm sure somebody will write a bill to rectify this...

Technically it didn't require termination (and indeed can not be terminate) all that must be done is that the bill be reverted to it's original text. Further having let it slide could have lead to dangerous precedent that I'm sure no one here wants to set.

Thats why I said we simply pass a bill in the next session of the Underhusen to either end the ability to do this, or institutionalize it somehow so that these small errors can be fixed without having to go through this entire process over again. It feels unnecessary. We can all see the errors made need to be fixed, I'm sure we can all trust HannahB not to abuse this power until the issue is fixed, so why is this a problem?

It's not just this session, but that power would persist onto the next session as well, until it is fixed. If it's not fixed it would perpetuate until it was fixed and such a precedent set would allow a speaker to legally modify any section of any law at vote, thus blocking reform efforts...

No... It would still be voted on and motioned... All we are achieving here right now is consistency in the status quo and application of precedent... and while I like consistently and this precedent is an important one to keep; I am not going to disingenuously claim that this is about editing bills at vote, that was an error, and I pulled it as soon as I came back and realized.

Honestly this entire conversation is quite ridiculous to me. While yes, HannahB did break precedent here, there was a rather simple solution to this entire situation. We all know that all she fixed was grammatical errors, so as far as I'm concerned we should have just let it slide, and then fixed this hole in the rules in the next session of the Underhusen. Then the bill wouldn't have had to be terminated giving more work for the next session of the Underhusen and the problem would have been fixed. Either way this does show that this loop hole needs to be fixed for the next session and I'm sure somebody will write a bill to rectify this...

Technically it didn't require termination (and indeed can not be terminate) all that must be done is that the bill be reverted to it's original text. Further having let it slide could have lead to dangerous precedent that I'm sure no one here wants to set.

Thats why I said we simply pass a bill in the next session of the Underhusen to either end the ability to do this, or institutionalize it somehow so that these small errors can be fixed without having to go through this entire process over again. It feels unnecessary. We can all see the errors made need to be fixed, I'm sure we can all trust HannahB not to abuse this power until the issue is fixed, so why is this a problem?

It's not just this session, but that power would persist onto the next session as well, until it is fixed. If it's not fixed it would perpetuate until it was fixed and such a precedent set would allow a speaker to legally modify any section of any law at vote, thus blocking reform efforts...

Its not hard to elect a speaker who would fix it. I'm sure nobody who will be elected will block such an effort. If you are truly so concerned about this, then the simplest course of action you can take is getting yourself elected to the Underhusen, getting yourself elected as Speaker and then writing the bill to fix this. Though I'm sure that's not necessary, I can think of nobody who is a candidate who would block such an effort and so your concern seems rather unfounded.

Honestly this entire conversation is quite ridiculous to me. While yes, HannahB did break precedent here, there was a rather simple solution to this entire situation. We all know that all she fixed was grammatical errors, so as far as I'm concerned we should have just let it slide, and then fixed this hole in the rules in the next session of the Underhusen. Then the bill wouldn't have had to be terminated giving more work for the next session of the Underhusen and the problem would have been fixed. Either way this does show that this loop hole needs to be fixed for the next session and I'm sure somebody will write a bill to rectify this...

Technically it didn't require termination (and indeed can not be terminate) all that must be done is that the bill be reverted to it's original text. Further having let it slide could have lead to dangerous precedent that I'm sure no one here wants to set.

Thats why I said we simply pass a bill in the next session of the Underhusen to either end the ability to do this, or institutionalize it somehow so that these small errors can be fixed without having to go through this entire process over again. It feels unnecessary. We can all see the errors made need to be fixed, I'm sure we can all trust HannahB not to abuse this power until the issue is fixed, so why is this a problem?

It's not just this session, but that power would persist onto the next session as well, until it is fixed. If it's not fixed it would perpetuate until it was fixed and such a precedent set would allow a speaker to legally modify any section of any law at vote, thus blocking reform efforts...

Its not hard to elect a speaker who would fix it. I'm sure nobody who will be elected will block such an effort. If you are truly so concerned about this, then the simplest course of action you can take is getting yourself elected to the Underhusen, getting yourself elected as Speaker and then writing the bill to fix this. Though I'm sure that's not necessary, I can think of nobody who is a candidate who would block such an effort and so your concern seems rather unfounded.

Just because one does not come to mind, does not mean someone would not use that. There is a reason the Speaker's power was so greatly limited long ago, because a Speaker did something that most people never thought would.

Further let's say the power wasn't fixed, but was used by speakers up until a point where it was challenged in a court and it ended up being ruled illegal. Then there would be the potential case of any and all laws that were modified during vote to be illegitimate. If it establishes criminal acts and someone is convicted of something or under an act edited then you have the mess of that editing. If an amendment to a law or FL is edited then that could also be invalid as well. Any laws that were edited and the amended (but the amendment not edited in that manner) would potentially invalidate a session's (or multiple sessions') work on a law.

This all could, and should have been avoided by really paying attention to the content of the bill. Of course, we are human and we let things slip. That is why it's only proper to go over everything properly again when we realise such a mistake was made. After all, if something like this was missed, what else could have been missed?