This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
A244 - Bill Submission Amendment
Proposer: 04MR17 MP (CP)
Seconded by: Theloniouss MP (CP), Aph MP (CP), ibotu020 (Lab), Napp (Con)

Insert into the Guidance Document, under the Bills section, under subsection 2:
a) items should be sent via a post in a party or government sub forum where possible.
b) the Speaker has the right to accept items submitted through other means, provided that all methods use TSR entirely and that no person is unable to submit a particular item beyond those already prevented from doing so by the GD and Constitution

Notes:
Spoiler:
Show

It has been common in the past for Speakers to refuse to accept items submitted using google docs or other means: for the sake of TSR field formatting. For this reason, and for the accountability of members and speaker alike the house should be encouraged to submit items via TSR posts and threads wherever possible. This amendment codifies what is already the case with the Speaker's freedom to restrict means through which items could be submitted. Further, this Amendment more easily offers grounds for the Speaker to limit the ability for members to submit items via PM, provided that users who are not part of a party usergroup may submit to the Speaker via PM.

0
Iñigo de Loyola
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
I have no problems with this amendment - Aye.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
Naturally, I support this.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
This is codification for the sake of codification and should therefore be opposed.
1
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
Seems a bit pointless really. Nah.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
Interesting that PM is now considered a less favourable way to submit items (I mean, I have no idea what the current incumbent thinks about the two methods), when traditionally it was the favoured method, with tagging the speaker being a more recent innovation. Personally I think the speaker should be allowed to make their own choice and set their own conditions without being dictated to by the GD. Certainly as speaker I considered limiting submissions to PMs only because it would have been easier to manage.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Interesting that PM is now considered a less favourable way to submit items (I mean, I have no idea what the current incumbent thinks about the two methods), when traditionally it was the favoured method, with tagging the speaker being a more recent innovation. Personally I think the speaker should be allowed to make their own choice and set their own conditions without being dictated to by the GD. Certainly as speaker I considered limiting submissions to PMs only because it would have been easier to manage.
Formatting on PMs and thread pages are now quite different due to TSR site developments. So what fits in terms of code via PM might not on a thread page. Under the old thread pages a PM may well have been more efficient since more things are left in code form when you're replying to a PM, that leaves it open to be coded wrongly.

This amendment also allows the speaker to make their own choice very freely.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by 04MR17)
Formatting on PMs and thread pages are now quite different due to TSR site developments. So what fits in terms of code via PM might not on a thread page. Under the old thread pages a PM may well have been more efficient since more things are left in code form when you're replying to a PM, that leaves it open to be coded wrongly.

This amendment also allows the speaker to make their own choice very freely.
I would like to point out as this stage a Speaker has the power to go back to the old thread pages in MHoC if they like.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by Andrew97)
I would like to point out as this stage a Speaker has the power to go back to the old thread pages in MHoC if they like.
And I shall point out that such power was due to be switched off around 12 months ago
And also doesn't change the fact that the code has to be formatted correctly for people to see it on the new thread pages, not correctly on 1 and incorrectly on the other
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by 04MR17)
Formatting on PMs and thread pages are now quite different due to TSR site developments. So what fits in terms of code via PM might not on a thread page. Under the old thread pages a PM may well have been more efficient since more things are left in code form when you're replying to a PM, that leaves it open to be coded wrongly.

This amendment also allows the speaker to make their own choice very freely.
The interfaces may be different but the underlying BBCode is the same, and an experienced TSR user like an MHoC speaker will usually be able to work between the two appearances near-seamlessly.

If the speaker should be allowed to make their own choice, as I believe they should, why is this amendment needed at all? The only thing it seems to do is provide people with another thing to complain to the speaker about if they decide to use that freedom of choice,
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
The interfaces may be different but the underlying BBCode is the same, and an experienced TSR user like an MHoC speaker will usually be able to work between the two appearances near-seamlessly.

If the speaker should be allowed to make their own choice, as I believe they should, why is this amendment needed at all? The only thing it seems to do is provide people with another thing to complain to the speaker about if they decide to use that freedom of choice,
The amendment is needed actually to reinforce the speaker's choice. If the Speaker would prefer to not receive items via PM, he could impose such a restriction now. But it wouldn't go down well would it? This amendment gives the Speaker further legitimacy in the freedom to restrict how items are submitted - giving preference to making threads in sub forums because that's really the whole point of MHoC - to have a forum(s) where posts are made. The more we use those forums the better. If a part member is drafting legislation in a TSR post rather than a google doc, there's more opportunity for other party members to give feedback. It also avoids scenarios where parties are under-using their sub forums: something this amendment also hopes to help address.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Interesting that PM is now considered a less favourable way to submit items (I mean, I have no idea what the current incumbent thinks about the two methods), when traditionally it was the favoured method, with tagging the speaker being a more recent innovation. Personally I think the speaker should be allowed to make their own choice and set their own conditions without being dictated to by the GD. Certainly as speaker I considered limiting submissions to PMs only because it would have been easier to manage.
Even with this amendment the speaker would be able to dictate only PM, or also allowing external sources given 1.1.1 allows the Speaker to do whatever the hell they like. The effect of this amendment is merely to make the GD longer with no benefit to that extension.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by 04MR17)
The amendment is needed actually to reinforce the speaker's choice. If the Speaker would prefer to not receive items via PM, he could impose such a restriction now. But it wouldn't go down well would it? This amendment gives the Speaker further legitimacy in the freedom to restrict how items are submitted - giving preference to making threads in sub forums because that's really the whole point of MHoC - to have a forum(s) where posts are made. The more we use those forums the better. If a part member is drafting legislation in a TSR post rather than a google doc, there's more opportunity for other party members to give feedback. It also avoids scenarios where parties are under-using their sub forums: something this amendment also hopes to help address.
I think it would go down a whole lot better if a speaker decided to introduce a restriction now than tried to introduce one that contradicted the submission preference explicitly laid down in the GD. Also, moving to predominantly post-based as opposed to PM-based submission certainly hasn't seen an increase in subforum activity.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
I think it would go down a whole lot better if a speaker decided to introduce a restriction now than tried to introduce one that contradicted the submission preference explicitly laid down in the GD. Also, moving to predominantly post-based as opposed to PM-based submission certainly hasn't seen an increase in subforum activity.
That depends on whether or not we have moved to a predominantly post-based system or not. Only the speaker can really tell us.

I also didn't say it would result in increased sub forum activity. I said it would help address the problem.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by 04MR17)
That depends on whether or not we have moved to a predominantly post-based system or not. Only the speaker can really tell us.

I also didn't say it would result in increased sub forum activity. I said it would help address the problem.
So what other way is there to address the problem, if the sub forums are being underutilised the only solution is greater utilisation which means more activity...

But also Google Docs (or equivalents) do not necessarily reduce subforum activity or those opportunities, whenever I draft things in such docs before transferring due to them being much easier to use as a working document one of two things are true:
1) It's posted in the party sub
2) It was never going to be posted in the party sub anyway

While I cannot speak for others that has been my experience of off site drafting tools.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by 04MR17)
That depends on whether or not we have moved to a predominantly post-based system or not. Only the speaker can really tell us.

I also didn't say it would result in increased sub forum activity. I said it would help address the problem.
If a lack of subforum activity isn't the problem, what is the problem, because at the moment this seems a lot like a non-solution to a non-problem?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
If a lack of subforum activity isn't the problem, what is the problem, because at the moment this seems a lot like a non-solution to a non-problem?
The problem is a disparity between what the GD allows the speaker to do and what the speaker is allowed to do without being lambasted by members of the House. This is reinforcing one particular thing that the speaker is allowed to do, which should hopefully make it easier to quell/tame those who are fully prepared to do the lambasting.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by 04MR17)
The problem is a disparity between what the GD allows the speaker to do and what the speaker is allowed to do without being lambasted by members of the House. This is reinforcing one particular thing that the speaker is allowed to do, which should hopefully make it easier to quell/tame those who are fully prepared to do the lambasting.
Except it isn't, the aim of this amendment is restrict what the speaker is doing, it changes it from "it is at the discretion of the speaker in the absence of codification" to "You're accepting Google Docs?! Heresy! GD says you can't do that!"
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
This amendment will be counterproductive and decrease the amount of items submitted. If a Speaker restricts bill submission to threads only, fewer PMBs will be made. I know I wouldn't bother going through the party process that takes several days where the end result is going to be the same (bill/motion being debate by all MPs). I'd stop bothering to write stuff. This amendment becomes pointless if a Speaker is still allowed to accept content in PMs.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
This amendment will be counterproductive and decrease the amount of items submitted. If a Speaker restricts bill submission to threads only, fewer PMBs will be made. I know I wouldn't bother going through the party process that takes several days where the end result is going to be the same (bill/motion being debate by all MPs). I'd stop bothering to write stuff. This amendment becomes pointless if a Speaker is still allowed to accept content in PMs.
Your party restricts who is able to make a thread in your subforum? It never occurred to me that any party would have such rules.
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

Are you travelling in the Uni student travel window (3-9 Dec) to go home for Christmas?

Yes (93)
28.27%
No - I have already returned home (44)
13.37%
No - I plan on travelling outside these dates (62)
18.84%
No - I'm staying at my term time address over Christmas (32)
9.73%
No - I live at home during term anyway (98)
29.79%

Watched Threads

View All