(Moved to Vote) Guiding Principles Bill

[Lusted]

Proposer: Lusted
Supporters: imb39, the Black Prince, Tacticalwithdrawal

The following will be added near the top of the Syntagma under a new heading:

The Guiding Principle

If the Curia propose an idea that is fiscally viable, technically viable, and able to win over a majority (2/3) of the Curia, it is implemented. Ideas that do not meet the requirements of technical and fiscal viability are not voted on or can be vetoed.

-------

This bill is based on the most important point i think made in the Estates thread. This bill give the Curia something it has been missing for a while i think:

Purpose.

The Curia will have a pupose, to suggest ideas to improve the site or to rework parts of site and so make TWc a better place.

[imb39]

Clearly, as a guiding principle, it should be engraved on the doors of the Curia. I fully support.

[the Black Prince]

those doors are panelled oak i'll have you know, how dare you deface them! i had them installed personally, when i redecorated the west lobby and the corridor leading to the Curators office
carve it in the marble arch instead...


i support

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I like, but being picky -

If the Curia propose an idea that is fiscally viable, technically viable, and able to win over a majority (2/3) of the Curia, it is implemented.

sounds good to me, but....

Ideas that do not meet the requirements are not voted on or vetoed.

how does this bit work? how can we decide that something doesn't meet the 'able to win over a majority (2/3) of the Curia' criteria without a vote, and if we have a vote then the secon para are not voted on can;t apply.

I know its pedantic but it doesn't make sense

[Lusted]

how does this bit work? how can we decide that something doesn't meet the 'able to win over a majority (2/3) of the Curia' criteria without a vote, and if we have a vote then the secon para are not voted on can;t apply.

That refers to ideas that are not financially or technically viable.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

ah, hows about:

If the Curia propose an idea that is fiscally and technically viable it is implemented subject to winning over a majority (2/3) of the Curia. Ideas that are not fiscally and technically viable are not voted on or are vetoed.

[Lusted]

Well thats alredy said in my version as

Ideas that do not meet the requirements are not voted on or vetoed.

means exactly the same as

Ideas that are not fiscally and technically viable are not voted on or are vetoed.

given that the requirements are

If the Curia propose an idea that is fiscally viable, technically viable, and able to win over a majority (2/3) of the Curia, it is implemented.

EDIT: After some serious nit pciknig and pendantry with Tac on msn, first post updated.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I support

EDIT: After some serious nit pciknig and pendantry with Tac on msn, first post updated.

sorry

[Fabolous]

Well thats alredy said in my version as means exactly the same as given that the requirements are

EDIT: After some serious nit pciknig and pendantry with Tac on msn, first post updated.

Nit picking and pendantry are what keeps the world in order.


Nice bill Lusted, I like the image it presents. The Curia as the source of ideas and as a body which will be listened to. (As opposed to should be listened to)

[Kscott]

You need to specify who can veto.

And I will definably support, this gives things like the University a second chance.

[Fabolous]

You need to specify who can veto.

As there is only one group who can veto things, isn't that a bit obvious? Then again, your probably right.

And I will definably support, this gives things like the University a second chance.

Though it should be noted that the University didn't achieve 2/3rds Curial support...

[Kscott]

As there is only one group who can veto things, isn't that a bit obvious? Then again, your probably right.

Vetoed by the CDEC, Content Manager, Hex Majority, Hex Plurality, Owner, etc. You could make what constitutes as a veto virtually anything you like. Several of which are actually plausible.

Though it should be noted that the University didn't achieve 2/3rds Curial support...

I think it has a greater chance of getting 2/3rds than merely being shut down by the whim of one hex member.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

You need to specify who can veto.

it probably needs to be generic, sort of 'vetoed as per the Syntagma' or something. Though I suppose we could just say Hex to start with and then chnage that if any of imb/WBK/Prof/SGs' ideas are implemented.

[Simetrical]

I'm a bit skeptical of this. In particular, sometimes there's good evidence that should be presented in votes. Say, if I were to put up a poll asking visitors what they think of Latin names, it would be silly to allow the Curia to decide that without it being visible in the vote.

A feeble objection, I suppose. But I'm still worried about gut reactions over investigation.

[Tom Paine]

I'm not sure how its relevant. I mean, you can put up the poll while the proposal is still in debate stages, no? So that's hardly a problem, so long as we trust the Curia to be sensible, which personally I do, fully.

[Lusted]

it probably needs to be generic, sort of 'vetoed as per the Syntagma' or something. Though I suppose we could just say Hex to start with and then chnage that if any of imb/WBK/Prof/SGs' ideas are implemented.

That's why i avoided it given the people who veto might change if Profs/WBKs/imbs/Sgs ideas are implemented.

[Kscott]

That's why i avoided it given the people who veto might change if Profs/WBKs/imbs/Sgs ideas are implemented.

Then it can be amended when Profs/WBKs/Imbs/Sgs

[Tom Paine]

Why? Why not just leave it as a generic veto? What benefit does specifics in that regard bring, since it is specified elsewhere?

[Spartan]

I would also add the term "legally permissible" just cover all the bases.

Additionally this reads more of a mantra to me then a guiding principle. When I think of such notions I'm reminded of things such as the preamble to the US Constitution for example.

[Mímirswell]

I would also add the term "legally permissible" just cover all the bases.

Additionally this reads more of a mantra to me then a guiding principle. When I think of such notions I'm reminded of things such as the preamble to the US Constitution for example.

I would consider legally permissible implicit but I would not object to an explicit statement of that fact.

I support this, naturally...