View Topic

I personally feel that it is necessary to mention all members of the UH during a vote to ensure their attendance. Otherwise votes may be unnecessarily delayed. To ensure this, maybe some sort of legislation should be discussed?

@Chanku
@Gattoartico
@Mathyland
@Crushita

I like this idea; I'll try to write a draft now in case we want to go through with this. What should we call this law?

Edit: and this would be best as an amendment to the Underhusen Procedure

Yes, I think an amendment would be best. At that point, no name beyond 'Amendment Blah Blah Blah' is needed.

I firmly believe the members of the Underhusen should take their job seriously enough that they at least check the section to see what is going on.

Here's my draft:

Title
1. This bill shall be titled The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment XV.

Amendments
2. Section 4(a) shall be added to The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Act and shall read:

Upon creation of a voting thread for any legislation in the Underhusen, all current Skrifa other than the Skrifa that opened the vote must be mentioned in the same post that opened the vote.

The wording could probably be changed to be better and sound more official.

I firmly believe the members of the Underhusen should take their job seriously enough that they at least check the section to see what is going on.

But the thing is that the members of the Underhusen know that they don't need to check because they know they'll be mentioned. They should check fairly often, but they know they don't need to check as often as if there was no mentioning system

Here's my draft:

Title
1. This bill shall be titled The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment XV.

Amendments
2. Section 4(a) shall be added to The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Act and shall read:

Upon creation of a voting thread for any legislation in the Underhusen, all current Skrifa other than the Skrifa that opened the vote must be mentioned in the same post that opened the vote.

The wording could probably be changed to be better and sound more official.

I firmly believe the members of the Underhusen should take their job seriously enough that they at least check the section to see what is going on.

But the thing is that the members of the Underhusen know that they don't need to check because they know they'll be mentioned. They should check fairly often, but they know they don't need to check as often as if there was no mentioning system

Then let's stop mentioning people.

Here's my draft:

Title
1. This bill shall be titled The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment XV.

Amendments
2. Section 4(a) shall be added to The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Act and shall read:

Upon creation of a voting thread for any legislation in the Underhusen, all current Skrifa other than the Skrifa that opened the vote must be mentioned in the same post that opened the vote.

The wording could probably be changed to be better and sound more official.

I firmly believe the members of the Underhusen should take their job seriously enough that they at least check the section to see what is going on.

But the thing is that the members of the Underhusen know that they don't need to check because they know they'll be mentioned. They should check fairly often, but they know they don't need to check as often as if there was no mentioning system

Then let's stop mentioning people.

That would create unnecessary delays to voting on laws that I would imagine was a reason why the mentioning system was added in the first place.

Here's my draft:

Title
1. This bill shall be titled The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment XV.

Amendments
2. Section 4(a) shall be added to The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Act and shall read:

Upon creation of a voting thread for any legislation in the Underhusen, all current Skrifa other than the Skrifa that opened the vote must be mentioned in the same post that opened the vote.

The wording could probably be changed to be better and sound more official.

I firmly believe the members of the Underhusen should take their job seriously enough that they at least check the section to see what is going on.

But the thing is that the members of the Underhusen know that they don't need to check because they know they'll be mentioned. They should check fairly often, but they know they don't need to check as often as if there was no mentioning system

Then let's stop mentioning people.

That would create unnecessary delays to voting on laws that I would imagine was a reason why the mentioning system was added in the first place.

Actually, AFAIK the Mentioning system wasn't added in for the Underhusen at all.

I appreciate the mentioning system because I don't often have the time to go browsing for new threads on the forum. Mentioning sends me a notification about threads that I need to look at, allowing me to just click and pull it up quickly so I can review it. I take this job seriously but I often have other commitments during the day. Mentions are important to my ability to keep up with everything.

I fully support this.

I have numerous issues with this act first off it's text.

The text is badly written as it seems that the writer didn't check to see who can open votes, which is only the Speaker as such the wording should reference the Speaker itself. Secondly as I have made known I detest this act and will be opposed to it in it's entirety.

However I have another question, what if the mention feature is removed or stops working? Then this law becomes useless and all Speakers will be in violation of it. I am somewhat against features that use forum features that aren't central to the forum's functioning.

I have numerous issues with this act first off it's text.

The text is badly written as it seems that the writer didn't check to see who can open votes, which is only the Speaker as such the wording should reference the Speaker itself. Secondly as I have made known I detest this act and will be opposed to it in it's entirety.

However I have another question, what if the mention feature is removed or stops working? Then this law becomes useless and all Speakers will be in violation of it. I am somewhat against features that use forum features that aren't central to the forum's functioning.

That was part of why I was asking for input on the wording.

I did know who can open votes, but I didn't write Speaker because I wasn't sure how I should phrase it to include if the speaker pro tempore introduces it. I could have replaced it with "the Speaker (or Speaker Pro Tempore if applicable)," but that would be longer than "the Skrifa that opened the vote." I was also rushed while writing the draft.

And I think Taulover made an excellent point about this in the citizen's platform about how although you're right that the Skrifa should be active, not using the mentioning system results in unnecessary delays to getting legislation voted on.

If the mentioning system stops working, we'll just ignore this law while it's not working. We're an Internet community; we're not going to bring to court that a Speaker didn't mention Skrifa while the mentioning system doesn't work.

Edit: based on the wording used in the rest of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen, simply changing it to say "Speaker" works. (Although it really should include something about the Speaker Pro Tempore)

That was part of why I was asking for input on the wording.

I did know who can open votes, but I didn't write Speaker because I wasn't sure how I should phrase it to include if the speaker pro tempore introduces it. I could have replaced it with "the Speaker (or Speaker Pro Tempore if applicable)," but that would be longer than "the Skrifa that opened the vote." I was also rushed while writing the draft.

And I think Taulover made an excellent point about this in the citizen's platform about how although you're right that the Skrifa should be active, not using the mentioning system results in unnecessary delays to getting legislation voted on.

If the mentioning system stops working, we'll just ignore this law while it's not working. We're an Internet community; we're not going to bring to court that a Speaker didn't mention Skrifa while the mentioning system doesn't work.

You clearly don't know the seriousness some of us have when it comes to the forums. Also I dislike codifying shit like this because of what it is. Let's just make it an unofficial procedure and move on with our lives, in this instance we shouldn't codify it.
by us, I mean at least me.

We could put a clause in that states that if the mentioning system is removed or otherwise changed than this becomes null and void. That would put to rest your worry about changes to the system. Also, I take my job very seriously which is why I like this mentioning system. It makes sure I learn of a vote as quickly as possible with next to no extra work for the speaker beyond spelling peoples names and putting an @ in front of it. There really is no real reason I see for not having it, especially since every speaker I have served with before has utilized this system with the sole exception of you. So I would be very supportive of codifying it.

Here is my version of this legislation.

Title
1. This bill shall be titled The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment XV.

Amendments
2. Section 4(a) shall be added to The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Act and shall read:
4 (a) Upon creation of a voting thread for any legislation in the Underhusen, all current Skrifa other than the Speaker must be mentioned in the same post that opened the vote.

Title
1. This bill shall be titled The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment XV.

Amendments
2. Section 4(a) shall be added to The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Act and shall read:
4 (a) Upon creation of a voting thread for any legislation in the Underhusen, all current Skrifa other than the Speaker or Speaker pro tempore or the temporary Speaker pro tempore who posted the thread must be mentioned in the same post that opened the vote.

How is this?

Can we add either an opt-in or an opt-out for people who don't want to be mentioned for UH stuff (as I hate being mentioned in general, most of the time it is an annoyance and is irrelevant to me)?