Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    How would you feel about an amendment which incorporated all previous and future speaker decisions (not just statements) into the GD itself automatically, and which kept the GD updated with convention?
    Less hostile. As long as the GD remained a GD and not a Constitution.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Less hostile. As long as the GD remained a GD and not a Constitution.
    What about an amendment which moved the parts of the GD which are binding into the Constitution, and redefined what ought to be proposed as an amendment to the GD?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    What about an amendment which moved the parts of the GD which are binding into the Constitution, and redefined what ought to be proposed as an amendment to the GD?
    That is what this amendment should have been. And is similar to what I planned to do myself in the summer when I had more time.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Give an example of an amendment that I've passed that I intended for future Speaker's to follow to the letter as if it were law. Seeing as this is both a matter of my innate intentions as well as what I myself must follow I imagine it will be an interesting answer.

    Just because people may do that it doesn't mean everything should therefore be in the Constitution. That's why I said I don't need to rebut it. It's not, on its own, a justification.

    That's just poor wording.

    Just because there's stuff in the GD that we always follow don't say to me that the GD is de facto binding. It, in its entirety, demonstrably is not. You are saying that because some sections are 'de fact binding' that all of it therefore should be. Ridiculous.
    Your amendment to introduce SOI's to the house.

    Give me an example of one thing in the GD which the author didn't intend for it to be binding?

    No it isn't. I don't even see how you can even think that it is poor wording!! It is very specific.

    The point is why would anyone amendment the GD if they didn't intend on it being followed? Mr speaker, if people added things to the GD and then had them not followed they would explode. People amend the GD because it is easier then amending the constitution, again not a point you have debated.

    All you seem to be doing here is arguing for either a mythical GD which doesn't exist and would be untenable like the current one is or so that you can try and keep some of the sense of fake power you have.

    There is a clear reason for this amendment and that is that people amend the GD without doing the same to the constitution because it is easier.

    The reason some things are mentioned in the constitution which specifically refers to the GD is because the author of these documents belives that some things were important to be able to change more easily. If the author of these documents saw what they have become today I'm sure they would be mortified.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    That is what this amendment should have been. And is similar to what I planned to do myself in the summer when I had more time.
    I suspect that once the process is done there won't be much GD left.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    Your amendment to introduce SOI's to the house.

    Give me an example of one thing in the GD which the author didn't intend for it to be binding?

    No it isn't. I don't even see how you can even think that it is poor wording!! It is very specific.

    The point is why would anyone amendment the GD if they didn't intend on it being followed? Mr speaker, if people added things to the GD and then had them not followed they would explode. People amend the GD because it is easier then amending the constitution, again not a point you have debated.

    All you seem to be doing here is arguing for either a mythical GD which doesn't exist and would be untenable like the current one is or so that you can try and keep some of the sense of fake power you have.

    There is a clear reason for this amendment and that is that people amend the GD without doing the same to the constitution because it is easier.

    The reason some things are mentioned in the constitution which specifically refers to the GD is because the author of these documents belives that some things were important to be able to change more easily. If the author of these documents saw what they have become today I'm sure they would be mortified.
    Not only do I not intend for the SOI guidelines to be binding but I don't follow them to the letter and neither did Birch. Besides it passed with easily enough votes to amend the constitution but I believe in flexibility.

    How am I supposed to know the intention of authors other than myself? I've already given plenty of examples of things in the GD which are not treated as binding.

    You see those lines up there and in my previous posts? That's me debating this point. Of course people amend the GD and want their amendments followed. They are adding to the guidance which is supposed to direct what goes on in this House. That doesn't meant it needs to be followed to the letter in every situation with no room to manoeuvre.

    Your logic is some of the GD is always followed so let's make it so you have to follow all of it, all the time. One does not follow from the other. For that to be even the slightest bit credible you should have put forward an amendment that only moved the parts of the GD you consider to be 'de facto binding' to the Constitution. Or better yet, amended the GD to make it easier to ignore - thus encouraging members to attempt to amend the constitution if they wanted their changes enforced.

    I don't appreciate the ad hominem btw. It seems you can't discuss anything with me without mentioning 'power'.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I suspect that once the process is done there won't be much GD left.
    So?

    I didn't say I'd support it btw.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    So?

    I didn't say I'd support it btw.
    You said that was what you were planning to do yourself in summer, how is that not the same as supporting it?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    You said that was what you were planning to do yourself in summer, how is that not the same as supporting it?
    I said similar. I was going to amend the things we ignore to match convention. But I'd keep them as guidance. And possibly reword things in the GD to make it clear that it is guidance.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Not only do I not intend for the SOI guidelines to be binding but I don't follow them to the letter and neither did Birch. Besides it passed with easily enough votes to amend the constitution but I believe in flexibility.

    How am I supposed to know the intention of authors other than myself? I've already given plenty of examples of things in the GD which are not treated as binding.
    how can I know that though? Again I'm not in your mind and for all I know you are saying that to make it appear different to how it is.

    And again much of the GD is almost certainly intended to be binding. The idea of a GD is to provide Guidence on how one interprets the constitution or to 'guide' not to add completely new things to how things are run.

    You see those lines up there and in my previous posts? That's me debating this point. Of course people amend the GD and want their amendments followed. They are adding to the guidance which is supposed to direct what goes on in this House. That doesn't meant it needs to be followed to the letter in every situation with no room to manoeuvre.

    Your logic is some of the GD is always followed so let's make it so you have to follow all of it, all the time. One does not follow from the other. For that to be even the slightest bit credible you should have put forward an amendment that only moved the parts of the GD you consider to be 'de facto binding' to the Constitution. Or better yet, amended the GD to make it easier to ignore - thus encouraging members to attempt to amend the constitution if they wanted their changes enforced.
    My logic is that people who amend the GD but not the constitution do so because it is easier.
    No one amends the GD and then expects their amendment to be ignored.
    When you have written rules which are ment to be only Guidence the fact that they are written down makes people take them as the law.
    There are sections in the GD which give the speaker express permission to do something which they shouldn't if they are intended as Guidence.

    Off of this suggests tgat the GD isn't doing what it's meant to do and that people are treating it as constitution. Indeed the speaker has been called out for not following the GD which shouldn't happen if it was just Guidence,

    All of this leads me to conclude that the GD should be constitutional. If something in it becomes untenable then remove it.

    I don't appreciate the ad hominem btw. It seems you can't discuss anything with me without mentioning 'power'.
    you opened the door by insisting that the speaker should have the power to ignore the constitution. I was simply asking if you object to this as you belive it is a curbing of your power?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    how can I know that though? Again I'm not in your mind and for all I know you are saying that to make it appear different to how it is.

    And again much of the GD is almost certainly intended to be binding. The idea of a GD is to provide Guidence on how one interprets the constitution or to 'guide' not to add completely new things to how things are run.


    My logic is that people who amend the GD but not the constitution do so because it is easier.
    No one amends the GD and then expects their amendment to be ignored.
    When you have written rules which are ment to be only Guidence the fact that they are written down makes people take them as the law.
    There are sections in the GD which give the speaker express permission to do something which they shouldn't if they are intended as Guidence.

    Off of this suggests tgat the GD isn't doing what it's meant to do and that people are treating it as constitution. Indeed the speaker has been called out for not following the GD which shouldn't happen if it was just Guidence,

    All of this leads me to conclude that the GD should be constitutional. If something in it becomes untenable then remove it.

    you opened the door by insisting that the speaker should have the power to ignore the constitution. I was simply asking if you object to this as you belive it is a curbing of your power?
    Regardless the objective fact is that the SOI guidelines have never been followed to the letter (even by me). That doesn't mean they're not useful or that they should become binding. The fact that you can't know author intentions means you should remove it from your argument - never mind accusing people of 'cheating'.

    Just because parts of the GD are meant to be binding doesn't mean all of it should be - or any of it for that matter. If those parts couldn't win supermajorities then they shouldn't all be included in the Constitution in one giant swoop.

    GD amendments aren't ignored. They are guidance. Just because parts of it are treated like a constitution doesn't mean it should all be jumbled into the constitution. Don't tell me to fix problems that this will create. Leaving things as they are creates no problems after all.

    I 'opened the door'? I'd accept that if I'd used an ad hominem myself. That I did not do. I am objecting for the logical concerns I have presented - concerns which I am not alone in having.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Regardless the objective fact is that the SOI guidelines have never been followed to the letter (even by me). That doesn't mean they're not useful or that they should become binding. The fact that you can't know author intentions means you should remove it from your argument - never mind accusing people of 'cheating'.

    Just because parts of the GD are meant to be binding doesn't mean all of it should be - or any of it for that matter. If those parts couldn't win supermajorities then they shouldn't all be included in the Constitution in one giant swoop.

    GD amendments aren't ignored. They are guidance. Just because parts of it are treated like a constitution doesn't mean it should all be jumbled into the constitution. Don't tell me to fix problems that this will create. Leaving things as they are creates no problems after all.

    I 'opened the door'? I'd accept that if I'd used an ad hominem myself. That I did not do. I am objecting for the logical concerns I have presented - concerns which I am not alone in having.
    Then the SOI guidelines should be amended to how they are done so that new people actually know how things work round here instead of just being told 'tradition or convention' all the time.

    Also it seems that this debate is pointless because we are too juxtaposed to come to a rational conclusion.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    Then the SOI guidelines should be amended to how they are done so that new people actually know how things work round here instead of just being told 'tradition or convention' all the time.

    Also it seems that this debate is pointless because we are too juxtaposed to come to a rational conclusion.
    Perhaps they should be amended. But this makes them binding. Two very different things.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Perhaps they should be amended. But this makes them binding. Two very different things.
    But it's exactly what TDA said... The rules aren't written down. If the rules are binding it forces them to be amended when they need to be. Unlike suggestions
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    But it's exactly what TDA said... The rules aren't written down. If the rules are binding it forces them to be amended when they need to be. Unlike suggestions
    No, it forces the rules to be amended in reaction to the wrong decision being forced, I.e. a couple of weeks after they need amending. Further we will just get Toronto saying they're only being amended because somebody is salty.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, it forces the rules to be amended in reaction to the wrong decision being forced, I.e. a couple of weeks after they need amending. Further we will just get Toronto saying they're only being amended because somebody is salty.
    You know me so well
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, it forces the rules to be amended in reaction to the wrong decision being forced, I.e. a couple of weeks after they need amending. Further we will just get Toronto saying they're only being amended because somebody is salty.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It is essential that people know the consequences of their actions, especially in a game. It is substantially less essential that some kind of game-master be able to wave a magic wand and do what he thinks is best.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    It is essential that people know the consequences of their actions, especially in a game. It is substantially less essential that some kind of game-master be able to wave a magic wand and do what he thinks is best.
    Definitely a no then because you do not do this, where are the list of penalties for all infractions?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Definitely a no then because you do not do this, where are the list of penalties for all infractions?
    This should be created. The fact that this amendment does not, in fact, do this is not reason in itself for voting against when, with a number of changes, it could still be better than the status quo.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    This has gone to a second reading
 
 
 
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 29, 2016
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.

  • 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

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