M258 - A New Permanent Thread in the MHoC Forum Watch

This discussion is closed.
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
M258 - A New Permanent Thread in the MHoC Forum, The Rt. Hon. RayApparently MP
A New Permanent Thread in the MHoC Forum

This House recognises that many of the articles necessary for clarity and the smooth running of the MHoC are hopelessly outdated.


The House recognises that discussion on this topic (which encapsulates Constitutional matters and matters of the Guidance Document) is very important as new members should be able to rely on this information.

The House supports the following simple measure to fix any errors in the documents and ensure they remain up-to-date in the future:

The creation of a 'Sticky' thread in the main MHoC forum devoted to discussing and pointing out omissions or errors in the various articles/wiki pages pertaining to the mHoC. This would ensure any editing of said articles was open to debate and not subjected to the whim of a single party leader or indeed the Speaker.

0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#2
Personally I think this is redundant. These sorts of issues are precisely what we have ATS for, we don't have a specific thread for each issue because that would be unmanagable clutter. If this motion passes, I'll probably allow the creation of the thread but I'd like to just remark that this will in all likelihood not be a permanent thing and will in eventually be merged into ATS.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
This is not a policy motion or even an early day motion.

I don't see why the government needs to officially endorse this rather than simply create a thread.

As a result, i won't be voting on this regardless of the fact that i'm supportive.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by Jarred)
Personally I think this is redundant. These sorts of issues are precisely what we have ATS for, we don't have a specific thread for each issue because that would be unmanagable clutter. If this motion passes, I'll probably allow the creation of the thread but I'd like to just remark that this will in all likelihood not be a permanent thing and will in eventually be merged into ATS.
Come to think of it, why did you release this as a motion? It's not even an amendment. It's the type of thing that you just create a thread for.
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by Jarred)
Personally I think this is redundant. These sorts of issues are precisely what we have ATS for, we don't have a specific thread for each issue because that would be unmanagable clutter. If this motion passes, I'll probably allow the creation of the thread but I'd like to just remark that this will in all likelihood not be a permanent thing and will in eventually be merged into ATS.

(Original post by Rakas21)
This is not a policy motion or even an early day motion.

I don't see why the government needs to officially endorse this rather than simply create a thread.

As a result, i won't be voting on this regardless of the fact that i'm supportive.
Jarred, could you please clarify who submitted this to you as a "Government" motion? I'm led to believe it should have been a PMB from RayApparently.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by Saoirse:3)
Jarred, could you please clarify who submitted this to you as a "Government" motion? I'm led to believe it should have been a PMB from RayApparently.
It's not even a PMB. It's not something that's a bill or motion at all and does not even require a vote on it.
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by Rakas21)
It's not even a PMB. It's not something that's a bill or motion at all and does not even require a vote on it.
Well, it's technically a motion anyway. But reading through the thread in our forum it seems as though Ray submitted this probably with TSR Government and the top and we weren't consulted, as not even all the leaders have pledged support and some members have opposed this. So for the time being while we figure out what's happened please take it with a large pinch of salt
0
Cheese_Monster
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by Jarred)
Personally I think this is redundant. These sorts of issues are precisely what we have ATS for, we don't have a specific thread for each issue because that would be unmanagable clutter. If this motion passes, I'll probably allow the creation of the thread but I'd like to just remark that this will in all likelihood not be a permanent thing and will in eventually be merged into ATS.
I agree. I actually find increasing the amount of sticky threads is the cause of their stagnation, the chat thread and ATS are the most important.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
I think that we have asked the Speaker what he thinks should be included in Ask the Speaker, and so his answer to this motion is sufficient for us to be able to Ask the Speaker instead of getting sticky again.
0
Lipvig
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
I do find this rather unnecessary, as others have already said.
0
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Cheese_Monster)
I agree. I actually find increasing the amount of sticky threads is the cause of their stagnation, the chat thread and ATS are the most important.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Especially when several of the ones we have are incredibly outdated and in need of service.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by Saoirse:3)
Well, it's technically a motion anyway. But reading through the thread in our forum it seems as though Ray submitted this probably with TSR Government and the top and we weren't consulted, as not even all the leaders have pledged support and some members have opposed this. So for the time being while we figure out what's happened please take it with a large pinch of salt
I did submit this and I didn't say it was a government motion :/ I'm as confused as you.

Apologies to Jarred if he misunderstood me.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Rakas21)
It's not even a PMB. It's not something that's a bill or motion at all and does not even require a vote on it.
We had a discussion as to whether there needed to be a vote. My personal view was that it was unnecessary and that such a simple administrative matter could be dealt with by government (which doesn't have many official duties other than producing the budget). However, it seemed better this way.
0
Will95206
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
Nay, as Rakas said and also we need less stikies not more.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
It is probably worth noting that since I sent this the wiki pages are actually slightly more updated.

Why this Specifically?
However the documents constitute a huge part of the MHoC and they deserve to be examined in their own thread - especially considering that some stickied threads aren't even there for discussion and could well be incorporated into the documents themselves.

Why not ATS?
Separating this out from all the other discussion (relating to elections, distribution of authority, general chat) in the ATS thread will improve clarity and encourage MHoCers to take a closer look at their Constitution and their History.

As I've explained in the Motion itself, there should be discussion when changes are made to any of the documents that we use to keep the forum running. This discussion should be open and it should be clear who requested/made any change. The ATS covers a breadth of topics that make this much more difficult.

Who will it help?
It is incredibly annoying to be a new member and look at the 'History' and be misinformed, especially seeing as you wouldn't know what was out of date/wrong. Surely I'm not the only one who reads these things? We should be able to rely on the most exacting accuracy of the documents.


I hope that answers your questions.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Rakas21)
This is not a policy motion or even an early day motion.

I don't see why the government needs to officially endorse this rather than simply create a thread.

As a result, i won't be voting on this regardless of the fact that i'm supportive.
This was some kind of error. I was advised to submit this myself seeing as there was some support in government but my intention was for this to be a PMB.

We decided that there should be a vote simply because it'd be a permanent part of the mHoC and might result in a change to the way we amend the guidance document for example.

If you do support the measure then I hope you consider voting for it.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Jarred)
Personally I think this is redundant. These sorts of issues are precisely what we have ATS for, we don't have a specific thread for each issue because that would be unmanagable clutter. If this motion passes, I'll probably allow the creation of the thread but I'd like to just remark that this will in all likelihood not be a permanent thing and will in eventually be merged into ATS.
I think that this is a slight overstep Mr Speaker.


Perhaps even an abuse of your authority.
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
We are going down the path of gathering support from various party leaders. We have said that we wanted to have debate on the issue, which wouldn't really happen to the same as in an Ask The Speaker.

Thus, we are planning to submit this in Ask The Speaker.

We want to see if there is support for the issue, so don't vote No because you disagree with it being a motion. Vote No if you genuinely think it would be a bad idea.
1
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by RayApparently)
We had a discussion as to whether there needed to be a vote. My personal view was that it was unnecessary and that such a simple administrative matter could be dealt with by government (which doesn't have many official duties other than producing the budget). However, it seemed better this way.
(Original post by RayApparently)
This was some kind of error. I was advised to submit this myself seeing as there was some support in government but my intention was for this to be a PMB.

We decided that there should be a vote simply because it'd be a permanent part of the mHoC and might result in a change to the way we amend the guidance document for example.

If you do support the measure then I hope you consider voting for it.
Government in the Mhoc deals with political policy. This is an entirely administrative idea and more something that the speaker should deal with or if needs be simply open a thread as with the STV idea.

To put it another way, it's the equivalent of releasing a motion in parliament saying the seat colour should be changed in the Commons.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
RayApparently is the kind of guy who appears in a new environment, sees a couple of processes that could use some polish, and wants to reform everything, using pseudo-reasoning like “they deserve to be examined in their own thread”. It is a bit insulting that you come and lecture us about what is right and wrong for this establishment which has been running since 2005 rather smoothly, if I may point out.

There is a lot of stickies with little activity so I would actually like to reduce their number, and for me, ATS thread is quite relevant and sufficient for this kind of queries.

Of course, submitting this as a motion is unsuitable to say the least.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (117)
63.59%
No (67)
36.41%

Watched Threads

View All