View Topic

We'll have to decide whether to table the bill or vote, seeing as how the extended debate is long overdue.

I motion to table and do a more comprehensive Definition act.

Seconded.

Alright, I'll table the conversation. I'll keep this up for now instead of moving it just so we have a reference for the Definition Act, of which I'll post an initial draft within the hour.

Ahem. Tabling this now is against the rules.

I'm not following you, unless you're joking.

We altered the procedural rules awhile ago to prevent two rogue Skrifa from tabling bills they didn't like by motioning and seconding in quick succession.

RTFM.

EDIT: Just checked to confirm that was still the case. This happened way back in my first ever term on the UH.

We altered the procedural rules awhile ago to prevent two rogue Skrifa from tabling bills they didn't like by motioning and seconding in quick succession.

RTFM.

EDIT: Just checked to confirm that was still the case. This happened way back in my first ever term on the UH.

I third the motion to table

Look, I'm currently cross-referencing all the Laws and transitioning them to the proper page, so these will not be in debate any longer. At least a majority has been reached, so I'm locking the thread and keeping it here as described.

I propose changing the part of the procedural rules regarding tabling to be less awkward. We could simply say that once a majority supports the motion, it passes. If a majority isn't reached in x number of hours, it fails. We could deliberate what that x should be.

Technically this would be amendment XIV, as there were other amendments beforehand that also passed. I'm working on adding them to the laws page and get the numbering consistent. At least @Pengu updated the Procedural Rules properly on the Underhusen thread.

Yeah, I left the numbering with an (X) deliberately, since I'm not sure what number we're on right now.

Anyway, I need thoughts on the content. Currently we don't even have a bill.

I'll write the bill up as soon as we can agree on what should be in it.

What precisely do you wish to change?

I wish to remove subsection d, and generally make the process to table bills more coherent and less awkward.

I like that idea.
How about this?

Title
1. This act shall be cited as the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment XIV.

Amendments
2. Section 3(c) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be amended as follows:

For a motion to table to pass, the motion must be seconded by not less than one half of current Skrifa. The Speaker may only second a motion to table in the event of a tie.

3. Section 3(d) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be amended as follows:

Tabled bills may be revived if a motion to revive or vote has been proposed and seconded. If either motion passes, the Underhusen resumes normal procedure for discussion or voting, respectively.

I also found wordiness problems with sections 12(d) and 12(e), and they both fail to include the Secretary in succession rules. I'd like to fix that as soon as possible.

(Side note: I may eventually merge this topic with the previous "Procedural Rules Amendment XIV" thread.)