View Topic

I at first was worried that the second idea would result in the Speaker pro tem having a falling out with the Speaker at times, but I realized that we have an instant runoff voting system, so the pro tem will be slightly more agreeable to the public based on that regard, rather than just two rival factions both backing a single Speaker and one of them being upset in the end because they have slightly fewer votes according to first-past-the-post.

That brings me to the question: what if there is only one candidate for Speaker, or rather, fewer candidates for offices than there are offices? How is the Speaker pro tem decided then?

Hmm. Perhaps that's best decided by the open assembly.

I would also agree with the second option. The first option would definitely be interesting. It'd make things more political, which some may find intriguing, but I think it'd cause more problems than it's worth.

Also, I don't see a situation when only one person would run for office. And if there are fewer officers running than offices, then an office would just be unfilled for the term, or if it were deemed to be unnecessary, then the office could just be removed altogether through an amendment to the Procedural Rules.

One thing we could actually add is for the possibility to exist to remove someone's posting rights, but not voting rights. Of course, this would require separate areas of the forum for voting and debating, so that's one thing to consider. Thoughts?

This is useful since we may not want to remove someone's right to vote in all instances, but just their right to post in debates.

And @ Gerrick, now we're moving back into the realm of big changes that could end up failing this bill. Although you and I brought this up, I've come to believe it might be best to leave it in the hands of the eventual OA.

I'm all for the idea, but it seems to me that that kind of situation would fall into a potential code of conduct, i.e. written and decided by the new Storting.

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting it be added to this bill but rather the procedural rules.

And I don't know if we want to prevent people from posting as that would just suppress their views, and it's important to see difference sides of a debate especially if that person will be voting. If the point is to prevent people from flaming, you can always block people. Besides, they could just post what they want to say in another topic, which I would assume would cause problems.

Yeah, it's based on the same idea as the suspension of voting rights, and would also require a super-majority of 3/4. The idea is that if the same person continually causes a thread to be closed by the Speaker, then the citizenry may decide to take action by blocking that person from posting in the debate, but they may also view it as a bit harsh not to allow said person to vote. The point is that the person can then be blocked from that particular thread in which they're creating trouble.

In the voting thread, of course, no debate may be held, just votes, and the moment someone does try to debate in it, their vote is invalid.

Hmm, I supposed if there's one specific thread in which those who can't post in the debate thread can still say something, then I could get behind that. This would prevent them from derailing debates yet also have their voice able to be heard, though I'd take a guess that that thread would end up just being a pit for flaming, but as long as it is kept separate from debate threads, then it does its job.

Exactly. The Storting may choose to take further action if a person causes trouble in some other thread.

Given the OH's propensity to vote down popular bills over.....interesting principals and their current extreme reluctance to pass any reform I suggest we leave it for the Open Assembly to decide, once the OH ceases to exist and cannot block reforms.

For the record, I asked them to veto this bill so we could go over it again. As for the Paragon Act, in hindsight we should've overridden the veto, but we already passed a Commendation Act to replace it.

For the record, I asked them to veto this bill so we could go over it again. As for the Paragon Act, in hindsight we should've overridden the veto, but we already passed a Commendation Act to replace it.

I know, I just never liked the idea of the OH. Anyway, what shall we do about the act?

Since we've already agreed not to change the recall procedure, and that everything else should be left to the procedural rules of the Storting, we should review the bill one last time to examine the wording only, not the fundamental changes.

Like, we could pull a trick from the old first constitutional convention playbook and leave all the specifics to the open assembly...

Does anyone have any other concerns about the act?