View Topic

Other discussion has been interesting, I don't think I need to summarize it, other than saying that I see no prior opposition to this, merely a lack of a motion to vote.

Of course, if we're still adding things to this, we shouldn't motion to vote.

Noting taulover's post about Section 16, which is straightforward enough that I can guess what changes may be needed, I would also ask if we should add in these formatting changes:

You change some correct grammar to incorrect, and make some questionable style choices, though some of the changes are quite good.

Aethelia's attempted grammar and consistency fix
16. The Speaker of the Underhusen, or Speaker Pro Tempore if he/she is in use, may deem members of the Underhusen "inactive" if they are not present for a prolonged period of time; this status may be ignored if supplanted by either the "inactive" member stating they are no longer inactive in the Underhusen, or by majority vote of all current Skrifa. This status must be noted and maintained in a public listing in the Underhusen.

I like the consistency of "or Speaker Pro Tempore if he/she is in use," though now that I think about it "in use" is also ambiguous and we should probably change that too.

Not sure why you want to change "can" to "may," both work equally fine IMO.

Odd and unnecessary comma in the either/or statement.

(a) The "inactive" label may only be placed on a Skrifa that has not taken part in any discussion or votes in the Underhusen for the last 14 days (336 hours).

Nope, "vote," singular, is correct because it follows "any." (This is also why the "discussion" is singular.)

(b) If the majority (equal to or more than 50%) of the Underhusen is deemed "inactive" then requirements on the speaker to not initiate motions may be waived for the interim. Namely, in Sections 3(b) and 3(c). Thus, the Speaker would be able to initiate motions to vote or table discussions.

Again unsure why you're changing "can" to "may."

I like that added comma after "Namely," even if it may or may not be unnecessary.

Good catch on the capitalization of "section."

(c) If all Skrifa bar the Speaker, or Speaker Pro Tempore if he/she is in use, are deemed "inactive", then the term will be immediately suspended until either the Skrifa return, or the term ends. During this suspension, no proposals may be introduced, motioned on, or voted on in the Underhusen.

Again, the comma isn't really necessary, and if it were there, if we're going by American grammar conventions at least, the quotation mark should be going outside the comma (though IIRC British grammar might be different so it's not an issue). The comma does help improve flow though, if you're adding the "or Speaker Pro Tempore" part. And if you're trying to improve consistency, notice that the if clause above it also has no comma.

If we're going to remove the numbering (which I don't think is strictly necessary) I'd suggest removing that comma as well.

I think I'm done with color tags for awhile, but it's hard to show the differences without doing that... anyway, what does the 25th Underhusen think of these changes?

If further edits are recommended, I will keep this post updated.

I'd also suggest @Mathyland to look over these grammatical suggestions to make sure we didn't miss anything important.

I now regret having the 14th reply, would be easier to look at this if I could have put that at the top of the second page instead of the bottom of the first... anyway, not important.

Maybe I should let someone else other than myself take a better shot at that, just nobody tried yet so I thought someone should before that was forgotten since you weren't wrong about that Section, and the Speaker needs to make some attempt to get something moving I would guess, don't want to disappoint by being inactive, will definitely wait for Mathyland if he's interested in trying...

I just noticed "may" appeared more often than "can" in other parts, so it seemed more consistent. But that's not terribly important to me since it's not really incorrect, it was only because it was used instead of "can" in more of the rest of the rules. I could just revert the Indigo changes... they weren't important.

I thought certain sentences sounded too awkward when read out loud without pauses. Though, I didn't consider that whoever wrote it might be on the other side of the ocean where the rules for commas really are different. I should have thought of that... considering that, I'll very likely remove those purple edits I thought made it sound better. Except possibly "Namely,".

"In use" doesn't sound great to me either... but yeah I just got that from several other parts of the rules for consistency, we'd have to change that in several places if that phrase is not ideal.

Removing blue highlighted part. I think I misread that the first time through. Pretend "votes" was never there. I have a bad feeling most of what I thought were good edits will be reverted by the end of this... maybe I'll just take the role of maintaining the list of edits for others who are better at this, I'm not a very good Speaker so far am I.

Okay... not used to using tags... @Mathyland ? Want to do some grammar stuff? Edit: Oh good that worked. The other forum software I was on either didn't have these things, or nobody knew about that function. Edit: Nvm, taulover already tagged.

I thought certain sentences sounded too awkward when read out loud without pauses. Though, I didn't consider that whoever wrote it might be on the other side of the ocean where the rules for commas really are different. I should have thought of that... considering that, I'll very likely remove those purple edits I thought made it sound better. Except possibly "Namely,".

With regards to British English, I was just talking about the location/placement of the quotation mark around another punctuation mark (in American English at least, the quotation mark should come after the comma, nor before as you have done it).

But again, my main concern is that the two if/then statements should have consistent comma usage.

I thought certain sentences sounded too awkward when read out loud without pauses. Though, I didn't consider that whoever wrote it might be on the other side of the ocean where the rules for commas really are different. I should have thought of that... considering that, I'll very likely remove those purple edits I thought made it sound better. Except possibly "Namely,".

With regards to British English, I was just talking about the location/placement of the quotation mark around another punctuation mark (in American English at least, the quotation mark should come after the comma, nor before as you have done it).

But again, my main concern is that the two if/then statements should have consistent comma usage.

Sorry it took me so long to reply to this.

When the changes you mentioned are put in, I think it's good. Throughout the laws, there is punctuation after quotation marks, fitting the British style. As for the if..then sentences, I believe a comma is necessary before "then," and a quick Google search confirmed that belief.

Great, now we just have to draft this into law form!

Just to be sure... by "we", do I need to do something first? Not sure if anything is waiting on me.

One of us needs to adapt this into law form; see other recent amendments for standard format.

One of us needs to adapt this into law form; see other recent amendments for standard format.

If I have time, I can do it tomorrow

And here it is. I wasn’t sure how to change the numbering in the way that Aethelia recommended, so I hope this works; I added section 16 and shifted other sections around and got rid of section 16(d). If anyone has a better idea, please mention it. And the headers could be better instead of just “Amendments”

Title
1. This bill shall be cited as the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendment Act XVI.

Amendments

2. Section 2(a) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be amended to read:

(a) At the beginning of the term, the Speaker may choose to designate one Skrifa other than him/herself or the Speaker pro tempore as Secretary of the Underhusen.  The Secretary shall be responsible for posting newly introduced proposals to the Citizens' Platform and to notify Citizens of new proposals through various means of communication.

3. Section 8(b) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be amended to read:

(b) The nomination and/or voting period may be shortened at the discretion of the Monarch if the relevant Underhusen session is shortened.

4. Section 14 of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be rendered null and void.

5. Section 16 of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be added before section 16(a) and shall read:

16. The Speaker of the Underhusen, or Speaker Pro Tempore if he/she is in use, may deem members of the Underhusen "inactive" if they are not present for a prolonged period of time; this status may be ignored if supplanted by either the "inactive" member stating they are no longer inactive in the Underhusen or by majority vote of all current Skrifa. This status must be noted and maintained in a public listing in the Underhusen.

6. Section 16(a) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be amended to read:

(a) The "inactive" label may only be placed on a Skrifa that has not taken part in any discussion or vote in the Underhusen for the last 14 days (336 hours).

7. Section 16(b) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be amended to read:

(b) If the majority (equal to or more than 50%) of the Underhusen is deemed "inactive", then requirements on the speaker to not initiate motions may be waived for the interim. Namely, in Sections 3(b) and 3(c). Thus, the Speaker would be able to initiate motions to vote or table discussions.

8. Section 16(c) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be amended to read:

(c) If all Skrifa bar the Speaker, or Speaker Pro Tempore if he/she is in use, are deemed "inactive", then the term will be immediately suspended until either the Skrifa return, or the term ends. During this suspension, no proposals may be introduced, motioned on, or voted on in the Underhusen.

9. Section 16(d) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen shall be rendered null and void.

Oh, and secretary @tatte could you put this in the citizen’s platform?

Oh, and secretary @tatte could you put this in the citizen’s platform?

I guess we're rolling with that, albeit I feel like there should have been a process of "do you want the post?" When the Underhusen is in ruins and the waning smoke from burnt carcasses still urge you to puke, don't blame me for whatever transpired due to this misplaced title. (I'll do my best.)

Oh, and secretary @tatte could you put this in the citizen’s platform?

I guess we're rolling with that, albeit I feel like there should have been a process of "do you want the post?" When the Underhusen is in ruins and the waning smoke from burnt carcasses still urge you to puke, don't blame me for whatever transpired due to this misplaced title. (I'll do my best.)

I just saw that Aethelia’s office of the Speaker said you are the Secretary... you’ll probably be fine, but if you really don’t want the position you could talk to Aethelia.

And here it is. I wasn’t sure how to change the numbering in the way that Aethelia recommended, so I hope this works

The standard in amendments in Wintreath is to say "and all subsequent sections renumbered accordingly."

And here it is. I wasn’t sure how to change the numbering in the way that Aethelia recommended, so I hope this works

The standard in amendments in Wintreath is to say "and all subsequent sections renumbered accordingly."

Yeah, but since we’re changing each section in some way (except for 16a), it would be just as long that way. And it would be more confusing to write, I think.

It's been long enough that we can motion now. This might not be worded the best, but its functional. I'd rather wait for someone else to motion so we can hear the opinions of others.