|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Nov 25, 2018 15:52:44 GMT -6
Since I've been pressured to list the rules, here are the basics:
1. Amendments that have been in the Hopper at least 13 days may be submitted for a roll call vote. I will open up a separate thread to submit these at least 5 days prior to the opening of the next Clark. (For those unaware, the next Clark will begin in January.) Either myself or the Seneschal may consider requests to bypass this time period.
2. Amendments are voted on by MCs, Senators, and the King pursuant to a one-person, one-vote rule. There will be a voting thread established for each Clark period, and I will sticky the link. As the presiding officer, I do not plan to vote on any amendments unless a tie breaking vote is necessary. Only those who are listed on the MC or Senate list at the time the Clark opens will be permitted to vote in the pseudo-Clark. To that end, I encourage parties not to dilute their lists to add more voting individuals for the purposes of this convention, though that isn't an enforceable rule. There will be no penalties for anyone who fails to vote in a pseudo-Clark.
3. Those amendments receiving more Përs than Cons at the conclusion of the Clark period will be marked by myself as approved and submitted to the Seneschal for inclusion in an ongoing draft. In the event two or more conflicting amendments get passed (i.e. numbering or sectional issues), the sponsors of the amendments along with myself and the Seneschal shall discuss and attempt to include both amendments without substantially altering the language of either within three days. If this cannot be done, the Seneschal reserves in his sole discretion to reject a conflicting amendment, and the sponsor of the rejected amendment has the right to have their amendment come up for an immediate vote in the next Clark.
4. As this is an extension of the Hopper, anyone may make any thread on any topic they wish and fashion amendment proposals for discussion. Only members of the Ziu, including the King, as well as those legislatively authorized to submit bills to the Clark, may sponsor and submit any proposed amendments to these pseudo-Clarks.
5. Following the last pseudo-Clark, the Seneschal shall make available the final draft and submit it to the Ziu for consideration.
----
Outside of these rules, I would recommend that sponsors of amendments that replace or change large portions of the draft submit their amendments for consideration in the first Clark, and those of smaller amendments consider holding off. This way, we can attempt to avoid many potential conflict scenarios.
I would also encourage everyone to have a Happy Holiday season during this month of recess.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 26, 2018 6:48:51 GMT -6
Please fill these in ASAP, or give some sort of quick guidelines, since we're on a very short timeline and there's about thirty different things to discuss. Like, am I allowed to start threads on specific issues?
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Nov 26, 2018 12:33:36 GMT -6
What about this for a quick rulesheet - We have no time, peeps: diphi.web.unc.edu/files/2012/02/MSG-ROBERTS_RULES_CHEAT_SHEET.pdfI *strongly* suggest we adopt something within the next 24 hours. By 15 December, a lot of us will be consumed with Christmas/Holiday activities, and the time between Xmas and New Year's is always dead.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Nov 26, 2018 13:29:59 GMT -6
I will fill this in as soon as possible. This is the first day following Thanksgiving weekend, and while I recognize the time constraints, the majority of the questions regarding rules can be answered with the bill itself authorizing the convention. As you can see, several amendments have already been posted.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 26, 2018 13:40:41 GMT -6
So am I allowed to start discussions? I want to obey any rules or procedures, but as GV points out, we're talking about either two or three months in a time that's going to include the holiday season.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 26, 2018 13:44:10 GMT -6
This rule in the bill seems to say that I can, so I'm going to do so:
"5. Amendments to the Current Draft shall be "Hoppered" in the same way as bills for the Ziu."
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Nov 26, 2018 13:51:39 GMT -6
So am I allowed to start discussions? I want to obey any rules or procedures, but as GV points out, we're talking about either two or three months in a time that's going to include the holiday season. Yes, you may start topical discussions. The rules and procedures I plan to post are secondary to the bill authorizing this convention, and it will mostly pertain to how the proposed amendments should be “pseudo Clarked” and how voting will occur. Other than that, this board functions as an extension of the Hopper.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 26, 2018 13:53:45 GMT -6
Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 9, 2018 12:05:42 GMT -6
Since the government says that it does want to follow the procedure it previously endorsed, even if it's not enforced by law, I think we do need these rules and procedures. May I propose some?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Dec 9, 2018 15:22:09 GMT -6
The Royal veto, though it made me even more Republican than I was before, has had the benefit to giving more flexibility to the Chair of this chamber in setting rules and procedure. I am very glad that the Túischac'h - not a member of the Government - is in control of this process because he can take steps to ensure that all shades of political opinion have their voices heard in this regard.
I would like to state for the record that the Distáin's absence is a real problem in debates on this Draft. The main reason is that, as a trained and qualified legal professional, he is capable of producing counter-arguments to the inflammatory bafflegab which is being brought to this convention by certain persons posing as Talossan legal experts, which I - for example - have neither the stomach nor the grasp of Anglo-American legal precedent to do so.
To cut to the chase - I devoutly want this Convention to have wrapped up its work in time for a New OrgLaw to be put to the final Clark of this Cosa. But if the Distáin is simply not available to cogently defend the text, that will be impossible, and I will be happy to lead it to the Túischac'h's judgement as to whether to order an extension.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 9, 2018 16:46:20 GMT -6
Am I to understand that you believe that only the Distain understands this well enough to defend it and amend it?
Why do we want a law that only one person can understand?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Dec 9, 2018 17:27:32 GMT -6
Am I to understand that you believe that only the Distain understands this well enough to defend it and amend it? Why do we want a law that only one person can understand? Oh, I understand. The problem is that the gap between my understanding and yours is insurmountable by my own forensic skills. Most of the arguments you're raising so far seem to be based on assertions that the Current Draft contains massive and unwarranted departures from the Talossan status quo which are based on extremely tendentious "close readings". My gut feeling is that what you're saying is nonsense, baffleglab, attempting to blind us with miéida dàl toro, because that's your track record - and your stated goal is to derail this entire Convention if you possibly can. However, I don't have the grasp of Anglo-American legal tradition to show you precisely where you're wrong. Therefore, there's no point in me responding to you, is there? I firmly believe that your entire line of attack here is to just yell and scream and use accusations of some kind of secret coup to remake Talossa in a pejorative direction, simply because you can make such an argument with a particularly jaundiced reading of the text, and that - because you've made it happen in the past - you just want everyone spooked and terrified into giving up this project for constitutional reform. I'm not letting you do that, and I don't have the vocabulary or the patience to take on your assertions as if they were made in good faith. That's best left to a trained legal professional... who is unfortunately unavailable right now. I don't mind some delay in the process to enable him to get back in action.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 9, 2018 17:43:38 GMT -6
See, this doesn't make any sense. My arguments are not based on any sort of hypereducated abstruse reading of the text. I have never been to law school, and I am sure that the distain (for example) has forgotten more law than I've ever known.
Indeed, I try to make my arguments as clear and simple to understand as possible, since I want as many people as possible to understand them. That is the only way to make an effective argument. I am sure that I often fail at this goal, since I am a middling writer, but it is my goal.
If this thing is so bad that it requires that only the author defend it, that is a serious problem.
Look, here is an example that I just noticed. Every time I look at this thing I see more problems, of course.
Take a look at the legislative process. Notice how it requires a first reading and second reading of a bill? look in that section. Do you see anywhere where the first reading and second reading are explicitly defined? No, it's only implied by the majority vote section of those provisions.It is a problem to have the required steps of passing a law not be explicitly. Do you see?
I'm not using any fancy words there, I'm not referencing anything you can't look at in this very forum, and I'm speaking as simply and clearly as possible. I have tried to make all my criticisms in the same vein. If you can indicate me which things you didn't understand in other posts, I would be happy to further explain my concerns.
Failing that, I can only conclude that this is just a tactic. You refuse to engage on the merits because you haven't closely read the whole bill and/or because you are embarrassed by the huge number of problems. Personal attacks on me are just the best way to escape.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Dec 9, 2018 17:49:39 GMT -6
See, this doesn't make any sense. My arguments are not based on any sort of hypereducated abstruse reading of the text. I have never been to law school, And yet you've set yourself up for years as a Talossan legal scholar. And yet, on your basis as the main "legal beagle" of the pro-King faction, you actually tried to smear me and Justice Nordselva as improperly colluding in the Proclamation Crisis lawsuit - an accusation that caused me so much stress I had to quit Talossa for six months. It's certainly a step forward for you to admit that you don't know what you're talking about and you just set yourself up as an authority by sounding authoritative. This is the problem. You have no idea what is proper or improper in legal drafting, and yet you think you can see "problems" in the language which, to me, seem fictitious. My first reaction would be to ask "why do first/second readings NEED to be defined, this can be worked out in practice" - but that would just encourage you to go blathering on, in a way that I can't respond to in any way you would listen to. I know that this metaphor has unfortunate racial connotations in US discourse, but I loved Br'er Rabbit stories as a child, so I will use it anyway: arguing with you on matters of jurisprudence is like punching the Tar Baby.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 9, 2018 17:56:44 GMT -6
I don't think the law is usually that hard. I think that there is a lot of learned helplessness on the part of lay people. certainly there are some tricky concepts and I am only a fraction as good at the law as a trained and competent lawyer, but you shouldn't sell yourself short.
yes, we could probably work this out in practice, and it isn't a big deal. Certainly not as big a deal as accidentally revoking the sovereignty of the province's. But the whole point of this thing is that it's supposed to be a well-written and smooth new document.
I can't off the top of my head come up with a way to crash a government with just this, but someone who wanted to define a first reading one way might be able to bring a lawsuit against a legitimate bill if it had been passed with a first reading that was conducted a different way. If the practice consists of just publishing the bill in the Clark, and someone were to challenge a bill passed by that means by pointing out that this is not what happens in the state governments that this provision is referencing with its nomenclature, they would have a pretty good case. States like Massachusetts that have this reading system have a person to actually read the bills aloud. It would at least screw things up.
I just don't see a lot of merits to a document that purports to be streamlined and not require so much editing, if it starts off with omissions, holes, and ambiguities.
I certainly don't see a lot of merits to a document that only one person can understand.
|
|