View Topic

I think this has become quite an issue this term, and it needs to be addressed.

Title
1. This shall be titled the Procedural Rules Amendment XIII

Amendments
2. Section 3(b) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen currently reads as followed:

(b)  A motion to Extend Debate may include a time period shorter or longer than 48 hours, but is not shorter than 4 hours and is not longer than 1 weeks, should no time period be given or should the time period be shorter or longer than what is allowed, the extension shall be 48 hours.

Section 3(b) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen will be amended to include the following:

If little to no active discussion has happened by the deadline of the first extension, the ability to extend debate/discussion shall be relinquished and a Skrifa other than the Speaker must motion to vote or table the bill.  Active discussion shall be defined as any debate or discussion on a bill or its merits with significant or productive contributions from a majority (50% or more) of Skrifa.

I think this is highly necessary because we've seen extensions galore happening especially in the second half of this term.  Unless there's actually discussions happening, we need something to tone it down so that it's a tool being used wisely rather than something to push back the vote/tabling day.  If we're that indecisive to where we can't figure out what we want to do and can't discuss it highly in that first discussion period and first debate extension...then it's either time to table or vote, since pushing back even further is going to accomplish little to nothing.

This is also necessary because the more we push back topics, the more we have to dig through when more proposals come up that are going to need the same amount of attention.  It's highly frustrating having to dig through a list of bills still active, one that has been active since August 13th...An entire month, because we can't figure out what we want to do with it.  If we're still debating a bill that is a month old while new ones are still popping out, that's a problem that pushing back 5 extra days isn't going to solve.

Extensions should ONLY be happening if there's so much discussion going on that we can't possibly take it to a vote so quickly, not to push people to actually be interested in something they're clearly lacking interest in.

Obviously, the wording is a bit rough.  I'm open to suggestions to refine it a bit more, I just wanted to get this out of the way.

And I edited it a bit to make it a bit less rough and a bit more straightforward.

I'd also like to propose a maximum debate time limit including extensions.  Right now, we have the maximum amount of time that someone could motion to extend debate for (a week)...but they could continuously extend it for weeks upon weeks once each deadline hits, as shown by Procedural Rules Amendment XII (formally XI) in which the topic was started almost exactly a month ago and is still in discussion mode.

This is quite silly, as no debate should be going on for that length of time unless it's something highly Region/Government changing or a Revocation (which isn't going to take a whole month to discuss), and that's not something that's going to happen very often.  It also has proven to be a lazy tool to push back voting or tabling, as we've had debates extended with no discussion, and that seems to be the very quick reactive choice when presented with the three.

For good measure, I'll tag each of you as I think this is something that needs attention...given how much it's been happening.

@Chanku
@Laurentus
@Point Breeze
@HannahB

I think a condition should be added. One motion to extend debate may be made, and after that, it has to proceed to vote or get tabled, unless it really is an incredibly active discussion.

I think a condition should be added. One motion to extend debate may be made, and after that, it has to proceed to vote or get tabled, unless it really is an incredibly active discussion.

Doesn't that essentially echo what I proposed? 

If little to no discussion has happened by the deadline of the first extension, the ability to extend debate/discussion shall be relinquished and a Skrifa other than the Speaker must motion to vote or table the bill.

Oh, you're correct. My mistake.

No worries, carry on. 

If we did a maximum debate time (including extensions), what would be a good stopping point?  I don't mind extensions totaling a week if the bill is really that important...but I was thinking that it should be no more than two weeks should be given to debate a topic...or if we really wanted to keep it efficient, that one week be the maximum (but that might be a tad short to get the best input).

But I do think things need to be considered in terms of extensions:

1) Are we extending it because we have a lot to say?  Or if we have nothing to say once the deadline hits?  Or because we couldn't make it on time to discuss?  If it's the middle option, then a motion to table might be the best since extending it won't always help us find something to say.

2) These bills are still time sensitive.  Our Underhusen terms are not infinite, and these are something that have to be out of the way before the next term hits.  We also want to get as many bills as possible out of the way.  The most progress comes from bills that aren't in limbo.

3) Not all bills are exclusive to the Underhusen.  Once we're done voting, some of them still have to go to the Overhusen for them to discuss/vote.  The more they're pushed back against the term deadline, the more time they have to wait until the new term even happens before they can properly vote on a bill that should have been given to them in the last term.

Nah, I don't think that's necessary. Defining an active topic would be more useful, in my opinion.

I do agree with that, I just think it might be necessary for the reasons I added above. 

I agree, I think this law is defiantly necessary, particularly after the amount of extensions that led no where this term... and I understand that lack of activity on my part was a big part of the problem there, and I apologise for that...

Never the less, it isn't very functional of the Underhusen to constantly push back a deadline, simply because we don't want to make a decision, if the act still isn't ready it should be tabled and returned to at a later date and if it is ready then it should be passed on to a vote.

In regards to a maximum debate time, I also think this would be useful, it would provide a cap on certain discussions and prevent them from decaying, it may also provide more motivation for activity and discussions... however I am unsure on what to set as this max time, off the top of my head I would propose 20 days? Maybe, that could be too long?

I agree, I think this law is defiantly necessary, particularly after the amount of extensions that led no where this term... and I understand that lack of activity on my part was a big part of the problem there, and I apologise for that...

Never the less, it isn't very functional of the Underhusen to constantly push back a deadline, simply because we don't want to make a decision, if the act still isn't ready it should be tabled and returned to at a later date and if it is ready then it should be passed on to a vote.

In regards to a maximum debate time, I also think this would be useful, it would provide a cap on certain discussions and prevent them from decaying, it may also provide more motivation for activity and discussions... however I am unsure on what to set as this max time, off the top of my head I would propose 20 days? Maybe, that could be too long?

This is in no means a way to call anyone out on anything regardless of the reasoning behind making this.  Lack of discussion leading to extensions is an error on all of our parts, since it's part of our job to discuss, or make a motion to expedite/table if we think it's not worth discussion.

In more ways, this is something to prevent a truly lazy UH from happening.  Right now we have laws in place to where certain practices have been stamped out...but there's absolutely nothing stopping two people from extending debates all the way to the end of a term, and getting absolutely nothing done.

At glance, this discrepancy with extending debates is harmless, but from a distance it's something that could become a potential problem if we continue to allow infinite uses of it even when there's no discussion even happening.  This amendment would completely stamp that out and say that if you can't make up your mind or contribute, then tough...either throw this bill away or vote.

And that's exactly what I'm trying to fix, is indecisiveness.  As representatives of the people, it's our job to be decisive about everything, and if not we push it away and give it back to the citizens to discuss.  If we have to push back every single bill because we can't discuss it enough, then it's a problem that reflects on all of us and shows that we can't be competent enough to do our jobs properly.

20 days might be a bit long.  Two weeks alone may be pushing it since, as i said, most bills shouldn't even take longer than a couple of days at best unless they're a bit more complex because of either the bill, or because opinions between UH members are highly different.  I think the cap should be a little shorter, especially if we're pushing for this amendment to cut off any unneeded extensions if the first wasn't utilized to its at least near-fullest extent.

I certainly understand the sentiment here, but what about when more discussion is actually necessary?  A number of the twice-extended debates have actually proved useful.

I certainly understand the sentiment here, but what about when more discussion is actually necessary?  A number of the twice-extended debates have actually proved useful.

I believe the idea is that instead of twice extending a debate, the law can be tabled and returned to after a time, when everyone has had more time to think about it and will be fresher to the ideas...

While I can see it is useful to extend debates over long times, could the same effect not be achieved by tabling?

20 days might be a bit long.  Two weeks alone may be pushing it since, as i said, most bills shouldn't even take longer than a couple of days at best unless they're a bit more complex because of either the bill, or because opinions between UH members are highly different.  I think the cap should be a little shorter, especially if we're pushing for this amendment to cut off any unneeded extensions if the first wasn't utilized to its at least near-fullest extent.

OK, hmm, I see more what you are aiming for, how does 12 days sound, it's more than a couple of days so allows for thought and a break, while also being less than 2 weeks, preventing it from slipping people's minds completely?Plus it is a nice number. I imagine you may want it shorter but I'll say I would be uncomfortable setting a cap at a week or below.

Also. I notice it sounds as though I am negotiating here, but I more trying to get a feel for where everyone stands on what would be a good length of time.

For me personally it is between 1 and 2 weeks, in my head that margin seems to work best for what the plan seems to be here, although I am sure everyone else will have their views.

I certainly understand the sentiment here, but what about when more discussion is actually necessary?  A number of the twice-extended debates have actually proved useful.

This stamps out when there's virtually little to absolutely no discussions.  If there's plenty of discussing happening to where it's felt more time is needed to reach a consensus, then the ability to extend debate longer would still exist.  This would prevent pushing back bills that aren't getting any input.

If, for example, after the deadline of the original deadline hit, say you motioned to extend debate for a couple of days.

The motion passes, and the couple of days pass.

You either get maybe two replies, or absolutely none, and now the deadline for the extension has passed.

This would make it so that it would absolutely have to be taken to a vote or be tabled...and absolutely not be given another extension.  The first wasn't utilized at all, so why waste time with another?  Clearly at that point, it should be either voted on or tabled and be discussed in depth in the Platform while we focus on the other bills needing our attention.

Twice extended extensions may have proved useful, but why couldn't they have been discussed and over with within the original discussion or the first extension?  If we continue to allow continuous extensions for little-to-zero discussion sessions, people are going to take advantage of it.