Poll: Should this Amendment be passed into the Guidance Document?
As many as are of the opinion, aye. (19)
48.72%
Of the Contrary, no. (16)
41.03%
Abstain. (4)
10.26%
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
A243 – Item Procedure Amendment
Proposer: LPK MP (Labour Party)
Seconded by: Saracen's Fez (Liberal Democrat), Theloniouss (Citizen's Party), 04MR17 (Citizen's Party), Iñigo de Loyola (Conservative Party)

That the guidance document be amended as follows:

In the 'Item Procedure' section, insert the following amendment:

11) If the proposer of an item has been temporarily or permanently banned from the community and/or MHoC, or they have deleted their account, any of their pending items which have not been designated as a 'joke item' will automatically be sent to division by the speaker.
a) The speaker must send the latest reading of that item to division within its cessation period.
b) If the item has a seconder, that individual will assume responsibility for either withdrawing the item, or sending it to division without further amendment.
b.1) The seconder will be the individual or party listed immediately after the primary author of the item.
b.2) If the seconder is a party, the party leader will assume the responsibility of the seconder.

NotesThis amendment would authorise either the Speaker or a seconder to send a pending item to division when the primary author of that item is no longer able to provide that instruction. The drafting of this amendment was inspired by B1612 (School Uniform Governance Bill 2020) which received support across parties at second reading but had to be withdrawn. By passing this amendment, we would provide a mechanism for any pending items to achieve a resolution by member's of this House, and avoid items being lost because of factors which occur beyond the game itself. The amendment contains strict parameters on what the Speaker or seconder may do with items, thus ensuring that it cannot be altered beyond the intent of the primary author at the time of their participation in the game. Whilst it is hoped that this amendment would be rarely used, it is nevertheless an important option to have if and when such scenarios do arise, however infrequently they may be.

0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
Nay.

I would encourage anybody that is undecided to strongly consider whether they really feel that the House should provide an incentive to associate with the types who get themselves banned. It does not usually happen for no reason and the status-quo is arguably a punishment.
Last edited by Rakas21; 4 weeks ago
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by Rakas21)
Nay.

I would encourage anybody that is undecided to strongly consider whether they really feel the need to support what may be one of the most needless examples of codification put to this great House in several years. Let the speakership (both present and future) use their own judgement rather than crush them under the weight of oppressive regulation.

Trust our speakership, oppose this amendment.
Is this needless codification? I thought this was previously not allowed.
0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by Rakas21)
No. The notes of this very amendment state that it codifying what already happens. As far back as when i was PM i submitted bills through my 'Office of the Prime Minister' thread and when i was speaker i received them by PM and by quote. What this tries to do is take extreme instances of speakers like me refusing to accept Google Docs because it broke the bill (something Jammy as Deputy later acknowledged despite being a complainant beforehand) or TSR breaking the formatting (if you format your bills correctly it only inserts 4 fields to remove, more than that and it is your fault for inserting fonts, colours and other rubbish) and declaring that it should be law.

While i prefer to quote rather than PM, it is simply not an example of codification which is required or should be desired. If Andrew does not want to accept something by PM he can simply declare so but it should be his (and future speakers) choice.
I think you're thinking of the wrong amendment
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Rakas21)
No. The notes of this very amendment state that it codifying what already happens. As far back as when i was PM i submitted bills through my 'Office of the Prime Minister' thread and when i was speaker i received them by PM and by quote. What this tries to do is take extreme instances of speakers like me refusing to accept Google Docs because it broke the bill (something Jammy as Deputy later acknowledged despite being a complainant beforehand) or TSR breaking the formatting (if you format your bills correctly it only inserts 4 fields to remove, more than that and it is your fault for inserting fonts, colours and other rubbish) and declaring that it should be law.

While i prefer to quote rather than PM, it is simply not an example of codification which is required or should be desired. If Andrew does not want to accept something by PM he can simply declare so but it should be his (and future speakers) choice.
This isn’t that amendment Rakas..
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Theloniouss)
I think you're thinking of the wrong amendment
(Original post by Andrew97)
This isn’t that amendment Rakas..
Oh dear, this is what a disruption to my sleep schedule for several days does.

I have amended my initial post but fortunately need not change my vote since i oppose this change too.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by Rakas21)
Oh dear, this is what a disruption to my sleep schedule for several days does.

I have amended my initial post but fortunately need not change my vote since i oppose this change too.
Haha no worries. Almost gave a heart attack making thing I sent the wrong bleeding one to divison. 😂
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Andrew97)
Haha no worries. Almost gave a heart attack making thing I sent the wrong bleeding one to divison. 😂
To be fair the title made me think item>receiving item>guidance document molestation. This is still bad but more misguided.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
Aye, I support this.
0
LPK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Rakas21)
Nay.

I would encourage anybody that is undecided to strongly consider whether they really feel that the House should provide an incentive to associate with the types who get themselves banned. It does not usually happen for no reason and the status-quo is arguably a punishment.
I can understand people objecting to this because they think the debate is more important than the vote, but I really don't understand your position here. It seems to be based on some random premise that by this amendment passing, we're all going to have a think about who the naughty people are and beg to second their items just so we can maybe benefit from this amendment? A seconder or speaker is never going to know when this amendment might kick in, nor do they really benefit in any way when it does. If people find this amendment exciting enough for it to alter their behaviour in any way then they really need to get out more.

I would argue the status-quo is a punishment on the house itself because it renders a debate useless, based solely on factors separate from the game itself. There's a big difference between an item being withdrawn because members of the house talked the proposer out of it, versus an item which simply can't progress anywhere because of a limitation in procedures. All this amendment does is allow for items impacted by the latter scenario to reach a conclusion in its debate. Again, I understand if people think the voting part really isn't all that important and so this is unneeded, but to argue that this somehow incentivises association with certain types doesn't make any sense to me. The next step of that rationale is to risk assess the author of items, and actively shun debating on said items just in case they happen to get into trouble. We ought not give them attention by associating with their items. :naughty: It doesn't work that way, nor would it if this passed.
1
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
If you get banned and your stuff can't progress tough ****.
0
CountBrandenburg
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
Voted
1
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
Nay. I voted for Rakas21.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
I support this.
The whole house should not have to lose out owing to the careless actions of members.

If an author is banned then this amendment essentially removes their ownership of an item. I think that is a better punishment than the item being withdrawn - where we all lose out.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
It's not right that someone can get banned, their bill can get lost, and them nobody is allowed to re-submit it for the remainder of that parliamentary term. This is one solution to that issue – I'm not sure if it's the best solution but it's a solution and I support it.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
It's not right that someone can get banned, their bill can get lost, and them nobody is allowed to re-submit it for the remainder of that parliamentary term. This is one solution to that issue – I'm not sure if it's the best solution but it's a solution and I support it.
There are plenty of solutions:
1) don't get banned
2) submit it as a party item.
3) just suck it up and wait until the next term, the vote is the least important part anyway

This idea that keep being spouted that "we all lose out" is a load of crap given nothing is added by a vote, there is nothing can be lost and therefore nobody can lose out.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
There are plenty of solutions:
1) don't get banned
2) submit it as a party item.
3) just suck it up and wait until the next term, the vote is the least important part anyway

This idea that keep being spouted that "we all lose out" is a load of crap given nothing is added by a vote, there is nothing can be lost and therefore nobody can lose out.
The item not being made law is losing out. The house not having a choice, is losing out in my view.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#18
Order, Order!

The Ayes to the right: 19
The Noes to the left: 16
Abstains: 4

The Ayes have it, The Ayes have it. Unlock!
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

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (648)
33.52%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (820)
42.42%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (378)
19.56%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (87)
4.5%

Watched Threads

View All