[Moved to Vote] Rewrite of the Constitution (split from: A New Constitution)

[Simetrical]

This is what I've drafted so far. Differences from the current version can be viewed here. As you can see, it cuts out a lot of material. I think almost all of what I've removed constitutes procedures or rules that have never actually been called into effect: if you spot anything to the contrary, please tell me. (I know that a few of the things, like the exact procedure the Curator has to follow to move bills to vote, have been called into effect before, but that example at least affects exactly one person and it can be converted into instructions from the Speaker of the House instead of taking up paragraphs in the Constitution.)

I've only gotten through section 3 so far, but it's down from 6,048 words to 3,467. Let's see if I can get it below 2,500 without removing anything important.

Edit: And oh, this will certainly be voted upon as an amendment.

[Garbarsardar]

Good job Sim, please continue...

[Ragabash]

The convoluted mess was at least created by members intent on living up to the rules they created. The problem with HEX is they have in the past, and will in the future, rely on the veto to fall back on.

I want to see new "consititution" (Curial rules) personally but I have to agree that we should come up with the kind of rules where there is no need to mention Hex veto.

[sapi]

That's looking good, Sim

Oh, but I'm sure it would have been better if it'd gone through two months of curial red tape

[Ragabash]

That's looking good, Sim

Oh, but I'm sure it would have been better if it'd gone through two months of curial red tape

I have to admit that red tape in current Syntagma is a big issue, and was one of the indirect causes that drove me away from the Curia (other than in this thread, and few comments regarding "non curial" matters) but let's not be melodramatic; the Curia is more than capable to draft new rules for the section if just given simple guidelines what to follow.

[Muizer]

That's looking good, Sim

Oh, but I'm sure it would have been better if it'd gone through two months of curial red tape

Almost everything that's been removed so far was woolly language dating back to the original draft and not the result of any subsequent amendments. So far it covers mostly paragraphs pertaining to staff structure. Even that text, which may look superfluous now, served the purpose of defining a staff structure that was quite different from what we were used to before. So, blame the Curia for not taking it out so far, but we didn't put it in there either.

[Trax]

This is what I've drafted so far. Differences from the current version can be viewed here. As you can see, it cuts out a lot of material. I think almost all of what I've removed constitutes procedures or rules that have never actually been called into effect: if you spot anything to the contrary, please tell me. (I know that a few of the things, like the exact procedure the Curator has to follow to move bills to vote, have been called into effect before, but that example at least affects exactly one person and it can be converted into instructions from the Speaker of the House instead of taking up paragraphs in the Constitution.)

I've only gotten through section 3 so far, but it's down from 6,048 words to 3,467. Let's see if I can get it below 2,500 without removing anything important.

Edit: And oh, this will certainly be voted upon as an amendment.

It's not that bad

I have to point out a few things.
1. It removes the requirement that moderators have to be citizens I think most of the Curia don't agree.
2. Section 2/Article 1 - Curia must be put back in, voting area and discussion area must be clearly seperated and non voting polls must be banned.
3. This

and the Curator shall post the newest draft of the bill, the name of the Proposer, the Bill's 3 named supporters, and a link to the debate, as a new poll

must be re-added, I don't trust people enough to do it voluntarily, we are way too lazy.

In current form I can't support this, but it has potential, I also recommend voting on it section by section or even article by article.

[Elrond]

I think that some of Trax's points are important.

Moderators must be citizens - there are already enough applicants for moderators as it is and citizens should take precedence over non civs as we have contributed more to the site (as a general rule).

The procedure for legislation should be carefully considered - its not one of the areas which should be changed without careful thought.

[Trax]

One other thing is that in the new version decisions and amendments pass by majority of votes, not by majority of non abstaining votes. Do we really want this?

[Elrond]

One other thing is that in the new version decisions and amendments pass by majority of votes, not by majority of non abstaining votes. Do we really want this?

Perhaps you are right, however If its effectively a brand new constitution a 2/3rds majority is probably too high.

[Trax]

Perhaps you are right, however If its effectively a brand new constitution a 2/3rds majority is probably too high.

It is required to avoid all sorts of silliness passing the vote.

[imb39]

Why does everything have to e laid out as rules? Why not have... conventions? For example, Trax, you think 'and the Curator shall post the newest draft of the bill, the name of the Proposer, the Bill's 3 named supporters, and a link to the debate, as a new poll' I'd argue that it is superfluous to have. Convention might demand it, but that's as far as it should go. Having said that, when I was Curator I tended to ignore those conventions and no one batted an eyelid. This can be seen here, here and here.

Now, some will say that it was a contemptuous stance. I take the view, that it simply doesn't matter. What matters is that discussion took place and people were allowed to vote on it.

[Elrond]

Why does everything have to e laid out as rules? Why not have... conventions? For example, Trax, you think 'and the Curator shall post the newest draft of the bill, the name of the Proposer, the Bill's 3 named supporters, and a link to the debate, as a new poll' I'd argue that it is superfluous to have. Convention might demand it, but that's as far as it should go. Having said that, when I was Curator I tended to ignore those conventions and no one batted an eyelid. This can be seen here, here and here.

Now, some will say that it was a contemptuous stance. I take the view, that it simply doesn't matter. What matters is that discussion took place and people were allowed to vote on it.

No one battered an eye lid because you are

It would be a dam site easier for me if it were convention but I am not sure if people would agree to the change. Future Curators might use the lack of rules to do things as easy as possible.

[Trax]

Actually we could cut the supporters and even the proposer, because the link will lead voters to the first post of the thread in Prothalamos and they are already listed there. The link, IMHO, is absolutely vital though.

[Lord Condormanius]

Actually we could cut the supporters and even the proposer, because the link will lead voters to the first post of the tread in Prothalamos and they are already listed there. The link, IMHO, is absolutely vital though.

Wasn't an amendment to remove the names of a bill's proposer and supporters just recently defeated in the Curia? Don't think about it...the answer is yes.

I also remember being quite a staunch opponent of that bill.

[Trax]

Wasn't an amendment to remove the names of a bill's proposer and supporters just recently defeated in the Curia? Don't think about it...the answer is yes.

I also remember being quite a staunch opponent of that bill.

I don't support this change, I'm just trying to think like they do.

[Professor420]

Why are we removing a Hex structure that has resulted in the most productive and efficient Council the site has ever seen?

No, don't bother, I know the arguments. And I'm sure you can figure out what I'm going to say in response. So, I'll just write down what's going to happen and PM it to myself.

On the same note, and the same request not to bother answering though I voice aloud, why does a Hex which has for all means and purposes ignored the Curia and not be impeded by it, suddenly take an interest in it so much so that they are willing to draft a Constitution?

[Lusted]

Why are we removing a Hex structure that has resulted in the most productive and efficient Council the site has ever seen?

I thought they were just removing Staff Structure from the Constitution, because i've heard nothing about the way Hex works changing.

[sapi]

Why are we removing a Hex structure that has resulted in the most productive and efficient Council the site has ever seen?

Because clearly, if it's not in the constitution, it's not going to be used, is it?

[Professor420]

I thought they were just removing Staff Structure from the Constitution, because i've heard nothing about the way Hex works changing.

Because clearly, if it's not in the constitution, it's not going to be used, is it?

No, don't bother, I know the arguments.

Perhaps next time you will read instead of responding. Give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not mentally handicapped and formulate my questions considering the obvious rebuttal.