[Metrobeans]

A80 - Motion Amendment, MacCuishy – Seconded by: Morgsie, Birchington, toronto353, bun

1. The following text shall be removed from the Guidance Document in the section entitled "Motions":

1) Motions are used to debate a statement, as opposed to bills which are detailed and change law.

2. It shall be replaced with:

1) Motions are to be used to spark debate or discussion about a certain issue either in real life or the HoC with an intent of a bill possibly being created from it. The motion must provide grounds for debate and not resemble a statement from a party/individual.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by Metrobeans)

A80 - Motion Amendment, MacCuishy – Seconded by: Morgsie, Birchington, toronto353, bun

1. The following text shall be removed from the Guidance Document in the section entitled "Motions":

1) Motions are used to debate a statement, as opposed to bills which are detailed and change law.

2. It shall be replaced with:

[i]1)Motions are to be used to spark debate or discussion about a certain issue either in real life or the HoC with an intent of a bill possibly being created from it. The motion must provide grounds for debate and not resemble a statement from a party/individual.

Italics on the replacement section

[Metrobeans]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
Italics on the replacement section

I've fixed that up for you.

[Mr Dangermouse]

Abstain.

[Rakas21]

Aye.

[Birchington]

Yes indeedy.

[toronto353]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
Italics on the replacement section

I'll help you reword that because there's an easier way of doing it.

[xXedixXx]

Nay, they shouldn't have to be in preparation for or relevant to a bill.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
Nay, they shouldn't have to be in preparation for or relevant to a bill.

It doesn't say that though - if it said "with the sole intent of creating a bill" then yes your statement would be valid.

However, it says "with an intent to create a bill"

[Metrobeans]

Motions are to be used to spark debate or discussion about a certain issue either in real life or the HoC with an intent of a bill possibly being created from it. The motion must provide grounds for debate and not resemble a statement from a party/individual.

Couple of questions:

What do you mean by "or the HoC". What issues do you expect to be debated which relate to the HoC?

Secondly, as you've written it, if the motion cannot possibly be turned into a bill, it's not going up. Is that your intention?

[Keckers]

Hmm, It would be nice to stop parties/individuals from submitting asinine 'motions' all the time but I don't see how this could be the right way to do it.

I think it would simply be better if more people showed an ounce of common sense when it came to writing motions.

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
It doesn't say that though - if it said "with the sole intent of creating a bill" then yes your statement would be valid.

However, it says "with an intent to create a bill"

Whatever, I'm still against it.

[Moleman1996]

Aye, hopefully this will quickly stop the "Congratulate (insert newly elected politician)" motions

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by Metrobeans)
Motions are to be used to spark debate or discussion about a certain issue either in real life or the HoC with an intent of a bill possibly being created from it. The motion must provide grounds for debate and not resemble a statement from a party/individual.

Couple of questions:

What do you mean by "or the HoC". What issues do you expect to be debated which relate to the HoC?

Secondly, as you've written it, if the motion cannot possibly be turned into a bill, it's not going up. Is that your intention?

1. For example, party names not relating to real life counterparts, I think that a motion could possibly spark up debate etc and then maybe an amendment to the constitution or something like that.

2. No. As I pointed out to edi, "with an intent" of possibly being turned into a bill. I mean, It wont set down that it must be turned into a bill.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
Whatever, I'm still against it.

?!?1@#*&%?!?!?

That makes no sense, so you want the house clogged up with rubbish motions that gain nothing and just get annoying and unneccesary.

[JPKC]

I'm not sure an amendment like this is needed. If we don't like a certain type of motion then we should all agree to just vote them down or not comment on them, resricting what can be admitted beyond the rules we currently have will just discourage motions and create more nitpicking about what constitutes what.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by Keckers)
Hmm, It would be nice to stop parties/individuals from submitting asinine 'motions' all the time but I don't see how this could be the right way to do it.

I think it would simply be better if more people showed an ounce of common sense when it came to writing motions.

I agree, this isnt the best way of going about this, but unfortunately often dont have an ounce of common sense, so I need to show poeple what they should and should not do.

[Morgsie]

I use Motions for specific issues.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by Morgsie)
I use Motions for specific issues.

Have a gold star.

Anyway, I don't think this is the right way to go about it - rather we should, as a House just vote down anything we don't consider worthy, rather than impose constitutional limits. We can self-moderate here without getting into formal rules.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

Seems a bit unnecessary - are we not capable of showing a bit of self-restraint and not just submitting motions for the sake of it?