Issues with the Constitution and Guidance Document Watch

PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 month ago
#41
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
A2xx - Joke Submission AmendmentProposed by: Jammy Duel MP (Libertarian)
Seconded by:

Amend the Guidance Document as follows:

To Section 4.1 "Bill Procedure" add:
"8) Joke items shall not be sent to division."

Notes: During this first review period this term we have seen an absolutely unprecedented number of joke items inluding an unprecedented 7 being sent to division with some arguing 8 which represents a majority of items sent to division as of 23/1/19. This is absolutely ridiculous and given certain members seem unable to control themselves, and some even going so far as to use joke divisions for partisan purposes, the time wasting practice of division of joke items should be prohibited.

If somebody could proof read and check references are correct that would be great

Saracen's Fez could you please confirm whether the referencing of "Bill procedure" should be Section 4.1 as it appears on the Wikia, or whether it should be 4.2 which is how I assume it would be on site. Could you please also confirm for me that the amendment, if passed, would prohibit division on all joke submissions (other than perhaps petitions, but bills and motions are the important ones) and while "Bill procedure" specifically states bills in the title the section appears to be general and IIRC motions refer to it for their procedure.

As people who have expressed interest in dealing with the issue or I would assume would like to deal with it: ns_2 PetrosAC TheRadishPrince Saunders16 Stiff Little Fingers
Happy to second also
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 month ago
#42
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
I'll second it, I take it in this what constitutes a joke item will be at the speakers discretion?
As it would be in the guidance document it’s entirely discretionary anyway.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 month ago
#43
(Original post by Connor27)
As it would be in the guidance document it’s entirely discretionary anyway.
Actually that part is binding
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 month ago
#44
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
I'll second it, I take it in this what constitutes a joke item will be at the speakers discretion?
Yes, although the majority of the time it's obvious and the speaker can always be corrected, especially if they state when posting that they consider it a joke item so there is definitely time to change the decision if necessary, or alternatively they can seek clarification before posting if it's unclear
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 month ago
#45
Saracen's Fez CatusStarbright

Pending the confirmations requested please could the amendment in post 36 be put to the house.
0
reply
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 month ago
#46
(Original post by Connor27)
I like the idea of a bucketload of votes at once, it adds to the drama of the game.

Also because of the mechanism of how petitions work your 2 item limit could easily be broken by people just putting up loads of petitions in the same day.
If by "adds to the drama" you mean "enables people to try forcing seats from parties", and "salvaging the seats of members serving a temporary ban" then you're probably correct. Otherwise it just saps people's patience.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 month ago
#47
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
A2xx - Joke Submission Amendment
Proposed by: Jammy Duel MP (Libertarian)
Seconded by: PetrosAC MP (Liberal), Saunders16 (Labour), ns_2 (Conservative), Connor27 (Libertarian)

Amend the Guidance Document as follows:

To Section 4.1 "Bill Procedure" add:
"8) Joke items shall not be sent to division."

Notes: During this first review period this term we have seen an absolutely unprecedented number of joke items including an unprecedented 7 being sent to division with some arguing 8 which represents a majority of items sent to division as of 23/1/19. This is absolutely ridiculous and given certain members seem unable to control themselves, and some even going so far as to use joke divisions for partisan purposes, the time wasting practice of division of joke items should be prohibited.


If somebody could proof read and check references are correct that would be great

Saracen's Fez could you please confirm whether the referencing of "Bill procedure" should be Section 4.1 as it appears on the Wikia, or whether it should be 4.2 which is how I assume it would be on site. Could you please also confirm for me that the amendment, if passed, would prohibit division on all joke submissions (other than perhaps petitions, but bills and motions are the important ones) and while "Bill procedure" specifically states bills in the title the section appears to be general and IIRC motions refer to it for their procedure.

As people who have expressed interest in dealing with the issue or I would assume would like to deal with it: ns_2 PetrosAC TheRadishPrince Saunders16 Stiff Little Fingers
I'll second, I didn't see this when I made my other post in the amendment proposal thread.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 month ago
#48
(Original post by 04MR17)
If by "adds to the drama" you mean "enables people to try forcing seats from parties", and "salvaging the seats of members serving a temporary ban" then you're probably correct. Otherwise it just saps people's patience.
Real life Parliament can have overwhelming numbers of votes all at once too, for example the EU Withdrawal Bill had dozens of amendments all at once that needed to be voted upon.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 month ago
#49
(Original post by Connor27)
Real life Parliament can have overwhelming numbers of votes all at once too, for example the EU Withdrawal Bill had dozens of amendments all at once that needed to be voted upon.
Yes, lots of amendments voted on back to back to back to back with people physically in one space for a few hours. Not some random dickface motions that nobody gives a **** about which, should for some reason it even happen irl most simply would not vote on because they don't need to

If you want to use RL as an excuse we can just ban joke items completely
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 1 month ago
1
reply
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#50
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Saracen's Fez could you please confirm whether the referencing of "Bill procedure" should be Section 4.1 as it appears on the Wikia, or whether it should be 4.2 which is how I assume it would be on site. Could you please also confirm for me that the amendment, if passed, would prohibit division on all joke submissions (other than perhaps petitions, but bills and motions are the important ones) and while "Bill procedure" specifically states bills in the title the section appears to be general and IIRC motions refer to it for their procedure.
As far as I'm aware the GD doesn't use section numbers at all – if Wikia puts them in then that's a matter for Wikia really.
0
reply
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#51
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#51
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Saracen's Fez CatusStarbright

Pending the confirmations requested please could the amendment in post 36 be put to the house.
Yes, this'll go up tomorrow.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#52
Report 1 month ago
#52
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
As far as I'm aware the GD doesn't use section numbers at all – if Wikia puts them in then that's a matter for Wikia really.
I'll leave it as is then, the "Bill Procedure" makes clear what it is. And just to check the amendment would have the itended effect and apply to motions as well as bills, if not I'll add the extra line to the motions section too
0
reply
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#53
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#53
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I'll leave it as is then, the "Bill Procedure" makes clear what it is. And just to check the amendment would have the itended effect and apply to motions as well as bills, if not I'll add the extra line to the motions section too
I believe it would apply to motions – it's possibly a subsection that ought to be moved elsewhere to not be under bills, but right now it is where it is.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 month ago
#54
(Original post by Saunders16)
Hear, hear. It makes things a lot more interesting.
Opposition coalitions in the mhoc have already been done and abandoned via a gentleman’s agreement. They we’re generally perceived to be bad because they turned parties on the left into one blob with little policy difference as seat sharing and dual membership blurred the lines.

They might work if you have ten parties but in our mhoc they are nothing more than a way to get a title and dilute what parties are. Indeed with offsite coms there is even less of an impediment to working together than ever before. The reason we don’t have a x-y opposition coalition is not because of a constitutional block but rather because outside of the leadership most bibertarians and liberals and labourites don’t give a crap about working together.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#55
Report 1 month ago
#55
(Original post by Rakas21)
Opposition coalitions in the mhoc have already been done and abandoned via a gentleman’s agreement. They we’re generally perceived to be bad because they turned parties on the left into one blob with little policy difference as seat sharing and dual membership blurred the lines.

They might work if you have ten parties but in our mhoc they are nothing more than a way to get a title and dilute what parties are. Indeed with offsite coms there is even less of an impediment to working together than ever before. The reason we don’t have a x-y opposition coalition is not because of a constitutional block but rather because outside of the leadership most bibertarians and liberals and labourites don’t give a crap about working together.
Good point. I would like to see it if we had more parties, though.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
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

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (149)
18.6%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (79)
9.86%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (136)
16.98%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (114)
14.23%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (78)
9.74%
How can I be the best version of myself? (245)
30.59%

Watched Threads

View All