Turn on thread page Beta

A134 - Constitutional Amendment - Dupe Check watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    A134 - Constitutional Amendment - Dupe Check
    Proposed by: The Hon. Adam9317 MP (UKIP)
    Seconded by: The Hon. Nigel Farage MEP MP (UKIP) The Hon. Tyroncs MP (UKIP) The Hon. Jammy Duel MP (Cons) The Hon. Mobbsy91 MP (Cons)


    Add a section 14 to the constitution; and the following will be added:

    14.1) Should the speaker, or their deputy in times of absence, be notified of any suspected duplicate accounts within the MHOC, they will immediately notify the Community Team and ask for a dupe check to be run.
    14.2) Should the speaker, or their deputy in times of absence, be notified of any confirmed duplicate accounts within the MHOC, they will be required to carry out the following
    - I) Immediately issue a statement to the house confirming the duplicate accounts, and any punishment; as outlined below. This should also be communicated in the following MHOC update private message.
    - II) Should none of the duplicate accounts be active IE. Not an MP, not in party leadership, and a time span of not less than two weeks between the final post on the inactive account and first post by the new account; and should the speaker feel there was no malicious intent, there will be no ban made within the house; however the party leaders of the relevant parties involved are free to remove the member from the party should they wish, or any party leaders are free to deny future party membership requests from the members in question
    - III) Should both, or any of the accounts in the case of multiple duplicate accounts be classed as active IE. Any one of, An MP, A member of the party leadership, a time span of less than two weeks between the final post on the inactive account and first post by the new account, or the speaker feels there was malicious intent, then the speaker shall
    - - 1) Temporarily ban all the relevant accounts for 28 days from the MHOC
    -- 2) Ban the relevant accounts from being an MP for 6 months


    NOTES

    Aims to clear up the duplicate account issue; as at the minute it is a grey area with the procedure, and if, and to what degree of punishments should be handed out. At the very least, this will ensure that the house knows that the duplicate accounts are in existence, and they can take relevant action themselves at least, to ensure the information and security of their party’s information is sustained!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. Flexibility in this is good.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Reactionary and too restrictive for the Constitution.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Nay for the reasons mentioned above
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    In general I believe in trusting the judgment of the Speaker, in spite of the views I have expressed about his recent decision. The impact of a dupe account and the behaviour of the person who has created the second persona may vary.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    No - it is important that the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and the CT have flexibility in decision making and dealing with duping. Additionally, it would be inappropriate for the Deputy Speaker to issue punishments if duping was discovered while the Deputy Speaker was acting as Speaker and it has been convention for the Deputy Speaker to leave statements and the announcement of decisions that affect the House to the Speaker or the incoming Speaker in the case of elections since the hoo-ha over seat sharing many moons ago.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Normally I think that people who use dupe accounts should simply be expelled from the MHoC. Perhaps there needs to be a clarification of the rules? However, in the case of James Millibanter/Lime Man, I think Ray has handled what has been a difficult case very well and dealt a suitable punishment. Because of this, I too trust his judgement so my answer is nay.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Nay as stated above
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Judging by the above, time to flood the place with independent dupes methinks to back myself up in debate.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly i apologise for the lack of reply to PM, was called into work yesterday and being busy since.

    Regarding the amendment i support the first bit on the basis that the speaker should indeed be obligated to inform the House of any and all dupes, transparency is something that aids in trust and we all agree that the Mhoc is more fun when the parties are not all trying to knife each other.

    I don't however support telling the speaker what he must do. We elect a speaker to use their common sense and we also elect a speaker based on trust, i trust whoever is speaker to set what they think is an appropriate punishment based on a case by case basis so i don't support 2 and 3, it's moneycodling a bit.

    I will add that i think all MP's should be dupe checked within 1 week of being an MP (even proxies) as standard and would support that being part of this amendment (albeit we need the community team to confirm they'd not have a problem with that).
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Judging by the above, time to flood the place with independent dupes methinks to back myself up in debate.
    Would've thought you wouldn't be aching to be banned again so soon.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, simply because I think each case has its very own particulars and should be dealt with individually.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think the speaker was far too lenient with James, considering he even discussed his budget with his dupe account, but that is a failing of the speaker himself, and not of the office of the speaker.

    It is a tad restrictive to set only one punishment for duping, when they can vary significantly in gravity. This amendment excludes the possibility of a stricter ban, which may in some cases be warranted.

    Fully agree that the speaker should keep the house informed though, and we can only hope that in the future he exercises his judgement judiciously and without partiality.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    I think the speaker was far too lenient with James, considering he even discussed his budget with his dupe account, but that is a failing of the speaker himself, and not of the office of the speaker.

    It is a tad restrictive to set only one punishment for duping, when they can vary significantly in gravity. This amendment excludes the possibility of a stricter ban, which may in some cases be warranted.

    Fully agree that the speaker should keep the house informed though, and we can only hope that in the future he exercises his judgement judiciously and without partiality.
    To say that I discussed my budget with my dupe is an overstatement. I interacted with my dupe as to work against suspicions. Individual policies weren't mentioned, and the budget was not defended or attacked with any other members. In fact the only debate that I had with someone was on the 5p carrier bag charge.

    Understandably, I'd see the punishment offered as harsh, but to say that it didn't go far enough is rather silly.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nay. Whilst I'm normally for transparency I feel this verges on being too impeding into what could be complex cases.

    Also as mentioned above it's not definitive enough for constitutional reform.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    To say that I discussed my budget with my dupe is an overstatement. I interacted with my dupe as to work against suspicions. Individual policies weren't mentioned, and the budget was not defended or attacked with any other members. In fact the only debate that I had with someone was on the 5p carrier bag charge.

    Understandably, I'd see the punishment offered as harsh, but to say that it didn't go far enough is rather silly.
    While I applaud you for upholding the values of deceit and self-obsession which we hold so dear in the MHOC, a harsher ban would have set the clear precedent that duping is not tolerated.

    A slap on the wrist will do nothing to deter duping, and evidently the embarrassment of being caught is lost on some people.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Nay, the Speaker should be able to use their judgement in this situation.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Naaaaayyyyyyyyyyy - Far too restrictive.

    As Father Jack says, "FECK OFF!"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I am in agreement with sections of this Amendment, although I would personally argue for alternative punishments. I have mixed opinions on this, but some sections of this need to be implemented regardless.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Naaaaayyyyyyyyyyy - Far too restrictive.

    As Father Jack says, "FECK OFF!"
    I personally don't agree with the punishments that appear to be set in stone; the House relies too heavily on bans at the moment.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 9, 2016
The home of Results and Clearing

1,693

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.