(Moved to Vote)Amendment: "Prothalamos", "Tabularium" & Section 2 Article 2: "Votes of No Confidence"

[Spiff]

Amendment: "Prothalamos", "Tabularium" & Section 2 Article 2: "Votes of No Confidence"

Proposer: [user]Spiff[/user]
Supporters: [user]Ozymandias[/user], [user]halie satanus[/user], [user]Perikles[/user]

• All instances of the word "Prothalamus" shall be amended to read "Prothalamos" as is i believe the correct word (reflected in the current forum name).
  
• All instances of the word "Tabularum" shall be replaced with the word "Tabularium", again as is reflected in the current forum name and is what i believe the correct word historically.
  
• The following amendment shall be enacted on Section 2 Article 2: "Votes of No Confidence":

Votes of No Confidence

At any time, any Citizen of this site may initiate a vote of "No Confidence" in any in any Officer of the Council or Member of the Consilium de Civitate for inactivity or abuse of duty by posting their case within the Curia. Frivolous use of this procedure may result in disciplinary proceedings. In all cases, a vote of "No Confidence" is exempt from veto, however the vote is non binding except on the Speaker of the House. AThe debate and vote on a motion of "No Confidence" shall follow the same procedure as that of a bill as per Article 3 below, but shall be conducted in the Curia Main, and not the Prothalamuos.

[Ragabash]

I doubt there is a need to do Curial amendment for correcting grammar and spelling errors as long as it does not change the concept.

[Spiff]

The current wording implies the forums should be renamed.

Rather than doing this straight away, I'm correcting what may or may not be a misspelling - i think an observer would presume against misspelling since no one noticed until now. As for the votes of no confidence, there's a duplicate word removed and an extra couple of words added just for clarity.

This is the correct procedure.

[Tom Paine]

well, if it needs doing, I support. Eh.

[Halie Satanus]

I support.

[Perikles]

I pointed out the prothalamus thing to tBP last night, Glad someone else spotted it. I support.

[Shaun]

Meh, looks good enough.

[the Black Prince]

the prothal and tab is definitely spelling errors
i DID ask people to spellcheck it for me lol

rather than this amendment, i would suggest that we insert a line somewhere that allows the Curator to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of correcting any spelling and grammatical issues

[Fabolous]

rather than this amendment, i would suggest that we insert a line somewhere that allows the Curator to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of correcting any spelling and grammatical issues

I'd support that. Perhaps require the Curator to note the changes somewhere.

[Ragabash]

Yes, if we had some sort consitutional right for Curator to make necessary grammar and spelling corrections it would be easiest and best solution, as long as it would not change the concept that is.

Curia would of course have right to veto these changes if it saw it necessary.

[Belisarius]

Support.

[the Black Prince]

The Following Article Shall be inserted into Section 2 of the Constitution

Article 6 - Formative Changes

The Curator shall have the power to amend the text of the Constitution and any Curial Decision for the sole purpose of correcting any spelling and grammatical errors that are found within the documents. Should any such change be challenged by any Patrician, they may request that the Speaker of the House review the change and uphold or discard it. Further challenge may be put to a Curial Vote to veto the change via the procedure in Article 3.

[Halie Satanus]

The Following Article Shall be inserted into Section 2 of the Constitution

Article 6 - Formative Changes

The Curator shall have the power to amend the text of the Constitution and any Curial Decision for the sole purpose of correcting any spelling and grammatical errors that are found within the documents. Should any such change be challenged by any Patrician, they may request that the Speaker of the House review the change and uphold or discard it. Further challenge may be put to a Curial Vote to veto the change via the procedure in Article 3.

Shouldn't you open a seperate thread for this?

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

I'd suggest a minor addition, simply to record changes (otherwise it could be difficult for changes to be spotted):

Article 6 - Formative Changes

The Curator shall have the power to amend the text of the Constitution and any Curial Decision for the sole purpose of correcting any spelling and grammatical errors that are found within the documents. The details of any such changes must be recorded in a post added to the main constitution thread.

Should any such change be challenged by any Patrician, they may request that the Speaker of the House review the change and uphold or discard it. Further challenge may be put to a Curial Vote to veto the change via the procedure in Article 3.

[Ragabash]

I would prefer much simpler and direct measure where a single Patrician can request the veto instead of need to address it to the Speaker of the House.

After all, Speaker of the House is not an office that should decide these matters, but to represent Curia inside the Hex and supervise the Curator.

Article 6 - Formative Changes

The Curator shall have the power to amend the text of the Constitution and any Curial Decision for the sole purpose of correcting any spelling and grammatical errors that are found within the documents. The details of any such changes must be recorded in a post added to the main constitution thread.

Should any such change be challenged by any Patrician, he can requestthey may request that the Speaker of the House review the change and uphold or discard it. Further challenge may be put to a Curial Vote to veto the change via the procedure in Article 3.

If the Curial veto has been requested by a Patrician, all the chages made by the Curator are immediatly declared null and void until the Curia Vote is over.

[imb39]

No, it is another way of dealing with the problems outlined by Spiff. It is upto Spiff about how he intends to go.

[the Black Prince]

this latter method allows Spiff to sort out the 3 issues he has already identified, along with any others that become apparent over the course of time

[the Black Prince]

added to the amendments thread in the Tab, rather than the updated thread in the curia main

[Tom Paine]

But the Speaker of the House does have a procedural role; and a role of oversight of the Curator; and as such I think it a better idea to leave all oversight in their hands. It also means formative changes aren't just overturned because of annoyance at having a mistake pointed out.

[the Black Prince]

the reason i went to the speaker first was this is simple procedure... a curial vote on the inclusion of a comma or a misplaced fullstop is... well... if between the curator, the speaker, and the complainer, this sort of thing cannot be sorted out i think something somewhere is going wrong