View Topic

I understand. I'm in favor of this. A hard line debate time though...

I understand. I'm in favor of this. A hard line debate time though...

Well that one is definitely open for discussion (well, all of it is of course, but you know what I mean).  If the original proposal were to pass, then a maximum time limit might prove to be completely unnecessary (since only actual discussions happening would get extensions beyond the first if needed)...however it's nice to have something just in case such a situation were to arise to where it goes on for way too long.

If you don't think about all of the possible scenarios when writing a bill, you get problems that then have to be corrected by the future legislators because that possible outcome happened to them.

To address @Laurentus' other point, I think defining an active topic would be a good idea as well.  I think like most things, it should be the majority of the UH discussing in depth ("I agree" and other one liners not counting as "active" as much as it's not contributing much ), in our case it'd be at least 3 members contributing more than just a single post...or in a simple sense at least 3 Skrifa posting frequently.  However since we're not always a staff of 5 members (sometimes more, sometimes less), defining "majority" for this sense would be a good idea.   It'd be nice to get everyone's input as every bill concerns each member, however getting at least the majority to actively discuss is something I'd be alright with since at least a majority of the UH is showing they're making an effort.

And actually, defining that would make having a "maximum debate time including extensions" even less necessary. 

I don't know how to word that perfectly though, so if someone else wants to give that one a shot...

As it is nearing that time, is there anything else anyone would wish to discuss, or would anyone like to make a motion?

I'll propose a definition for an active topic.

"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.

50% or more is pretty understandable.  That means at LEAST 3 people have to be on top of it for a default Underhusen.

Also, "significant contributions" would be one left up to interpretation, but in this case, I think we would know it if we see it, so I guess I'm okay with that.

Alrighty, I edited the original post to add in PB's definition.  Does it look alright?

Well I like it.  Simply a masterpiece.  Exquisite. 

Then perhaps you'd care to make a motion?

Perhaps I care to motion to vote.

Second.

Perhaps I'll consider this motion to vote passed and bring it to a vote.