View Topic

I would definitely prefer it just be a standard... Having more suable bureaucracy is no bueno.

And while we're on this topic I was thinking to myself this morning... Having some thoughts like I do. Thinking in particular about the last term.. Now... We introduced this tabling amendment. Which I like, I like being able to table things... And it occurred to me... It takes two fucking people to table... Only two... Which means that in an underhusen of five if the two just motion to table faster than the motion to vote they can win against a majority. Well I said to myself that this was rather a problem... Thought it was rather unfortunate. So I thought to myself! How does one fix this problem without just resorting to flat out voting.
The only thing I could come up was requiring a majority of the undersen to second it, except in the case of fl amendments...
But you folks are clever, what do you think?

Aye, if the majority of the incumbent Underhusen decides to table a bill, it most probably isn't going to pass anyway.

Unless they think differently when voting then they do tabling it shouldn't, yeah... But was looking about for other ideas... Or if there were any or improvements on that one...

I do agree that it should just remain a standard, actually.  I don't have a problem posting topics for debate in here...but at the same time it shouldn't be my responsibility alone to do it every single time.  I think if any Underhusen member wants to post the topic for debate, they should be allowed to.

Unless the UH decides to have a secretary (as was mentioned before), it should just be a standard that we set without it being a required law.

So this came up in the discussion of one of our current proposals, so I wanted to address it here for some feedback:

The concern is that it only takes 2 Skrifa the moment (one to motion, one to second the motion) to table any proposal at any time, whether it be during debate, after, or before.

If anything though, this is something that can be changed if it's a big concern.  Honestly, I think unless it's expedited for importance/already been debated to oblivion before it was brought here, any proposal brought to the UH should be required to be discussed before tabling it is allowed.  Likewise though, if it was discussed to oblivion before it was brought to the UH and enough feel that there's nothing more to discuss and it's agreed that it's something that needs work, then tabling it can be considered.

At the same time though, It can be changed to be treated as a vote, IE:

First person: I motion this to be tabled.
Second person: I second this motion
Speaker: All in favor?
All skrifa: Aye
Speaker: Motion passes, and this resolution is tabled.

or
First person: I motion this to be tabled
Second person: I second this motion
Speaker: All in favor?
First & second person: Aye
Speaker: All opposed?
Other skrifa: Nay.
Speaker: And in this instance, I will also say aye/nay, so this motion passes/is denied.

Though the tie breaking if it was done that way may be tricky.

Any ideas/feedback?

Regarding tabling, that's not a bad idea, Pengu.  I like it.  I'll add it to this. 

As far as not requiring the posting to the Plat, I understand that we're all outstanding Skrifa and we can make this a habit for this term, but what about future terms?  We can't guarantee the next Underhusen will be so motivated to engage the citizens.  Having it as a requirement ensures citizen engagement doesn't suffer because the UH gets lazy (again).

Formatting is getting pretty rough on the OP . . . sorry.  I'll fix it before introducing it formally.

Regarding tabling, that's not a bad idea, Pengu.  I like it.  I'll add it to this. 

As far as not requiring the posting to the Plat, I understand that we're all outstanding Skrifa and we can make this a habit for this term, but what about future terms?  We can't guarantee the next Underhusen will be so motivated to engage the citizens.  Having it as a requirement ensures citizen engagement doesn't suffer because the UH gets lazy (again).

Formatting is getting pretty rough on the OP . . . sorry.  I'll fix it before introducing it formally.

I think that's the point when we can start splitting roles a bit.  After all, one Skrifa is the Speaker, one is appointed as the Speaker PT, so why not appoint one of the other remaining Skrifa as a Secretary?  The Secretary Skrifa can be responsible for posting topics in the Platform, as well as giving the rest of the UH the collected input when they're about to take it to a vote.

It's delegating responsibilities away from the Speaker a bit, but it's also setting up so that the UH will always be in the know about feedback from the citizens, especially if we end up getting terms of lazy UH people that don't even bother to check the platform often.

Honestly, I think shifting the roles of the Skrifa to sorts of Sub-Jarls in the sense to where they do more than sit, occasionally write legislature (which usually only one or two do), and make votes/motions might be a good idea.  Get them to be a bit more active and doing things.

Any other feedback?

I must say I would prefer legislation to be set up requiring the UH to post proposals first in the citizen's platform. I'm not too sure about a secretary though, as that places too much responsibility on the secretary, when the skrifa who are planning to post proposals and laws could just do so themselves, instead of asking the secretary to do so. 

I do like Pengu's idea to prevent two people from tabling too soon.

I must say I would prefer legislation to be set up requiring the UH to post proposals first in the citizen's platform. I'm not too sure about a secretary though, as that places too much responsibility on the secretary, when the skrifa who are planning to post proposals and laws could just do so themselves, instead of asking the secretary to do so. 

I do like Pengu's idea to prevent two people from tabling too soon.

That's why I was suggesting melding together one of the Skrifa as the Secretary, and even possibly giving the other two sub-titles as well.  That way it's a fair delegation of responsibilities so that the Skrifa are more active...and at the same time it takes a little of the burden off of the Speaker since they're responsible for quite a bit at the moment.

If there are no other comments, I'll go ahead and formally introduce this tomorrow.

2.  Section 3 of the Underhusen Procedural Rules shall read:
        Any proposal introduced into the Underhusen must be considered by the Underhusen for a minimum of two days before a motion to vote or table can be made.  If no motion has been made or seconded after five days, Skrifa must enter a motion to vote, table, or extend discussion. 

        Section 3(a) of the Underhusen Procedural Rules shall read:
           Any Skrifa other than the Speaker may motion to expedite at any time after a proposal has been introduced.  If the motion receives a second, the bill will immediately proceed to a vote. 

How soon is 'immediately'? There are time-frames for just about everything the Speaker does apart from bringing to vote expedited motions. Is it taken to mean as soon as possible?

3.  Section 4 of the Underhusen Procedural Rules shall read:
   Any Skrifa other than the Speaker may motion to vote on any proposal once the two-day debate period has expired.  The Speaker shall open the vote no later than five days after the motion to vote has passed. 
   (a)  The Speaker shall notify the Citizens of Wintreath whenever a proposal comes to a vote.

In the interests of expediency, perhaps reduce the time allowing for the Speaker to open the vote from five to three? It seems strange it can take less than three days for a proposal to go to vote, but upto five further days for the vote to actually take place. With regards to section (a), I think it makes sense for this to be the responsibility of the Secretary - they can just post in the Citizens' thread.

7.  Section 11 of the Underhusen Procedural Rules shall read:
   The Speaker will close votes after seven days of voting, or if enough votes have been cast to decide the outcome of the proposal. 
   (a)  In order for a proposal to pass (excluding amendments to the Fundamental Laws), the number of "Aye" votes cast during the voting period must exceed the number of "Nay" votes.
   (b)  After closing a vote, the Speaker shall decide the outcome of the vote according to the above criteria and notify the Citizens of Wintreath with the result. 
   (c)  The Speaker may close a vote, but leave the record open to allow other Skrifa to record their votes.  Votes cast after the vote has been closed will not affect the result of the vote.

Again to speed things up, could voting time be reduced from seven to five? And again with section (b), the Secretary thing.

Regarding the Secretary, should there be any restrictions on who it can be? For instance, can the Speaker himself choose to fulfil that role? Can it be the same as the Speaker pro tempore?

2.  Section 3 of the Underhusen Procedural Rules shall read:
        Any proposal introduced into the Underhusen must be considered by the Underhusen for a minimum of two days before a motion to vote or table can be made.  If no motion has been made or seconded after five days, Skrifa must enter a motion to vote, table, or extend discussion. 

        Section 3(a) of the Underhusen Procedural Rules shall read:
           Any Skrifa other than the Speaker may motion to expedite at any time after a proposal has been introduced.  If the motion receives a second, the bill will immediately proceed to a vote. 

How soon is 'immediately'? There are time-frames for just about everything the Speaker does apart from bringing to vote expedited motions. Is it taken to mean as soon as possible?

3.  Section 4 of the Underhusen Procedural Rules shall read:
   Any Skrifa other than the Speaker may motion to vote on any proposal once the two-day debate period has expired.  The Speaker shall open the vote no later than five days after the motion to vote has passed. 
   (a)  The Speaker shall notify the Citizens of Wintreath whenever a proposal comes to a vote.

In the interests of expediency, perhaps reduce the time allowing for the Speaker to open the vote from five to three? It seems strange it can take less than three days for a proposal to go to vote, but upto five further days for the vote to actually take place. With regards to section (a), I think it makes sense for this to be the responsibility of the Secretary - they can just post in the Citizens' thread.

7.  Section 11 of the Underhusen Procedural Rules shall read:
   The Speaker will close votes after seven days of voting, or if enough votes have been cast to decide the outcome of the proposal. 
   (a)  In order for a proposal to pass (excluding amendments to the Fundamental Laws), the number of "Aye" votes cast during the voting period must exceed the number of "Nay" votes.
   (b)  After closing a vote, the Speaker shall decide the outcome of the vote according to the above criteria and notify the Citizens of Wintreath with the result. 
   (c)  The Speaker may close a vote, but leave the record open to allow other Skrifa to record their votes.  Votes cast after the vote has been closed will not affect the result of the vote.

Again to speed things up, could voting time be reduced from seven to five? And again with section (b), the Secretary thing.

Regarding the Secretary, should there be any restrictions on who it can be? For instance, can the Speaker himself choose to fulfil that role? Can it be the same as the Speaker pro tempore?

Question 1:  It does normally depend on the Speaker themselves, but if a motion is passed to expedite, it's expected that the expedited bill will be up for vote within same day, and generally no later.

Question 2: Normally votes open within 3 days already.  5 is just a safeguard at the moment for the more controversial/important regional bills which will require a bit more discussion.  That's just the way of saying that we can't drag on talking about this forever, so 5 days is the absolute maximum, and after that you can either choose to vote on it or table it.  But the 5 day thing only hits if motions are passed to continue debate.  If a motion to debate doesn't pass, it's immediately either motioned to be tabled or brought to a vote.

Question 3: A week is generally the most generous we can give, since many work 5 days a week and some long hours to where they won't have time to come on and vote in certain days.  Seven days insures that everyone will be able to come in and vote with no pressure on their end to drop everything in their schedules to do so.  But again, we've normally ended votes on the same or next day after the voting has opened...it's just, again, a safety net.

Question 4: Actually, what I'm personally hoping for is that the Secretary can only be someone who isn't the Speaker or Speaker PT.  Giving the role to the Speaker would be pointless since they're essentially the secretary already until they appoint someone.  Likewise, giving it to the PT would be a bad idea because if the Speaker disappeared, they'd have a lot more work put on them.  Right now in the proposal, it can be appointed to anyone, but again I think it should be someone that isn't already appointed in a position outside of being a Skrifa.

I still feel that the term "immediately" should be changed.

I still feel that the term "immediately" should be changed.

What would you suggest to change it to?