I'm going to go ahead and vote NAY.
I am voting against for a few simple reasons, the fact that this is unnecessary and is, in my eyes, legislating and binding Skrifa for no other purpose than doing so, that this would prevent me from introducing bills onto this floor that are decently organized in a different format due to the nature of the bill, creates formatting that didn't otherwise exist, and because I hate that this isn't being put in the Procedural Rules, but instead is being created alongside it, which makes learning about the procedures and rules of the Underhusen more complicated.
For the first matter, there is no reason for this, we has a long history of following the formatting that makes the most sense for the bill. While this has followed a similar formatting for most of our existence, such a law binds us to the formatting of one specific period, imagine if this law existed back during our first or second year or existence, we would still be writing laws in the old-style, and not in the new-style. This formatting requirement prevents people from being able to introduce new styles of legislation that would be more appropriate for a given act, which would lead to laws that are better written in one format being forced into the format required here, for no good reason beyond the author thought this was a good idea, which I heavily contest.
Next, I am writing a law that would be structured differently to any law passed, but would be similar to the Code of Laws I introduced in sessions prior, the law that I am writing is best written in the style of a code, which is divided into Articles with a purpose, and then Sections, but this law would require that I rewrite the entire law in this style, which would make it unwieldy and make the law much harder to read and amend, the only way to somewhat remedy this would be to use an old-style law with some mixtures of the new style, which would be even more unwieldy to read and manage. Some laws are just better written in other styles, which this act makes no provision for.
There is also the fact that the author decided to use this to force a style change within the Underhusen, that is a change in how we write amendments. The author apparently thinks it is a decent idea to, instead of writing their own laws and introducing this style and letting the chamber decide if it is a good idea or not, that it would be better to slip it into a bill to 'codify our current formatting process', and force the people who do write the laws to change their style, to better suit their own wishes. I abhor this, as this goes against the history of formatting in this chamber, which is that the best style wins in the end.
Finally, I dislike how this is a Procedural Rule, but not actually being placed within the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen. It makes it harder to track down the law for beginners, and also makes it more prone to being forgotten later on. While this act being forgotten later on may sound far-fetched, I do wish to note that the Commendation of Weissreich was forgotten for a few years before it was found in the Archives and then brought to light. As such it is not entirely far-fetched to believe that this act may very well go forgotten as well, and then it would open up another can of worms in the future. Alternatively, there is also the fact that this is, in my mind, only debatably a Procedural Rule, and I would argue this is more-so Statutory Law, as it effects the law that can be passed into law, and therefore needs to be passed and agreed to by the Overhusen.
So, in conclusion, I vote against this act because it is unnecessary and binding for no good reason, because it conflicts with the ability to draft laws in a manner that makes sense for those laws, because it attempts to impose a new formatting by fiat, and because it isn't actually being placed in the Procedural Rules.
I implore my fellow Skrifa to also vote nay against this bill.
