(Moved to Vote)Legislative Procedure Amendment

[Fabolous]

Proposer: Fabolous
Supporters: Mimirswell, Simetrical, Spiff

Article 3 - Legislative Procedure

When a bill is moved to vote, the debate thread is left open, and the Curator shall post the newest draft of the bill, the name of the proposer, the name of the bills three named supporters, and a link to the debate, as a new poll in the Curia Votes forum. All bills shall be voted on for one week. Subsequent posts in this thread, are limited to notification of having voted. Messages lobbying to vote for or against, including via Signatures and Avatars, are prohibited except in the original debate thread. All bills shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes in favour. If any bill fails a vote, no re-vote on a substantially similar bill will be permitted within twenty-eight days.

[the Black Prince]

the reason why just 3 supporters are mandated is in response to past curators who chose to list absolutely every person who had posted support, rather than just the minimum three required, which really did prejudice the voting

as to the first part of your post...
errm
*goes to check previous drafts*
bugger
its in my original draft, not in the previous syntagma which read up to one month, not after one month.

this is where that amendment about grammatical changes would come in useful

[Fabolous]

the reason why just 3 supporters are mandated is in response to past curators who chose to list absolutely every person who had posted support, rather than just the minimum three required, which really did prejudice the voting

Well, I certainly agree with the mammoth lists to be biasing. But you don't find the names, even if there are only four, to be biasing?

as to the first part of your post...
errm
*goes to check previous drafts*
bugger
its in my original draft, not in the previous syntagma which read up to one month, not after one month.

this is where that amendment about grammatical changes would come in useful

Too right you are. Hmm, time to go bump that.

[Mímirswell]

I strongly support the removal of names.

[Tom Paine]

I wonder... is our current version and Fab's version the requirements as a minimum or mandatory of all that may be posted, limiting the Curator to such? If the latter, I support; if not, then it needs to become such.

[Fabolous]

I wonder... is our current version and Fab's version the requirements as a minimum or mandatory of all that may be posted?

A minimum, I'd say. Almost has to be. I'd not say it is everything, else when Spiff says things like "It is proposed that the following text be enacted as a decision of the Curia" it would be in violation of the constitution.

[the Black Prince]

well, your first point can be dealt with by this amendment
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...t=87596&page=2
so long as we get it passed


as to your second
no, and yes. i think its fair to say that a bill sponsored by 4 council officers will suffer some prestige bias compared to a bill sponsored by 4 patricians, but i think in the circumstances, hmmm... not sure actually
i shall think and reflect and consider other opinions! lol
you make a good point.


Ozy, my wording of it, the current one, is such that the closed list rule applies. the list is clearly meant to be a closed list of items that are to be included that anything else falling outside of the list is not to be included.

once amended, the list no longer appears definitive enough for the rule to apply, so i would recommend adding in the word "just" so that it becomes the Cutrator shall post just the newest draft of the bill and a link to the debate

[Tom Paine]

True. But if we want to actively prohibit the names being included, we need to do such, rather than just passively not require them to be.

[Fabolous]

True. But if we want to actively prohibit the names being included, we need to do such, rather than just passively not require them to be.

Hmm, true. Or we could just expect the Curator to take this as a recommendation not to. It was never banned before, me and Mim just made it policy not to include names since what was in the vote thread was not mentioned by the Syntagma.

Hrmm.

[Mímirswell]

Hmm, true. Or we could just expect the Curator to take this as a recommendation not to. It was never banned before, me and Mim just made it policy not to include names since what was in the vote thread was not mentioned by the Syntagma.

Hrmm.

I agree with Fab, I'm fine with either method but I think you can trust the Curator not to do it; especially given the intent of this bill is for it not to happen (and should it pass, it would be the intent of the Curia for it not to happen).

[the Black Prince]

and yet, as mentioned, we had a curator who published the name of every supporter who posted their support.... intent is somewhat meaningless if the person implementing the bill some months down the line is not aware of its intent

[Spiff]

I support no names being listed in the Curia votes, and the wording change regarding curator holding off on a vote for up to one month as the old section used to say.

Alternatively yeah lets just move the bit regarding small changes to vote soon.

[Simetrical]

Remove any mention of what to do about the proposer and so on, let the Curator decide. Support.

[Tom Paine]

Remove any mention of what to do about the proposer and so on, let the Curator decide. Support.

Curatorial discretion on this issue leads, pretty directly, to potential curatorial bias on the issue.

[Simetrical]

Curatorial discretion on this issue leads, pretty directly, to potential curatorial bias on the issue.

You elect the Curator, kick him out if you think he's biased.

[scottishranger]

Proposal Shall be Moved to a Vote in one day

[Tom Paine]

1st proposed Match 17th, now we are on March 20th, three days have elapsed... why not now, since debate has obviously ended?

[the Black Prince]

i'm restarting debate!!!!


a number of points were made... and seem to have been agreed upon, but were not added into the version posted. note in particular the first point in post 6

[the Black Prince]

following points made, i think this is a better version of the bill

Amendment

A paragraph of Section 2 Article 3 of the Constitution shall be amended to read

When a bill is moved to vote, the debate thread is left open, and the Curator shall post just the newest draft of the bill, the name of the proposer, the name of the bills three named supporters, and a link to the debate, as a new poll, in the Curia Votes forum. All bills shall be voted on for one week. Subsequent posts in this thread, are limited to notification of having voted. Messages lobbying to vote for or against, including via Signatures and Avatars, are prohibited except in the original debate thread. All bills shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes in favour. If any bill fails a vote, no re-vote on a substantially similar bill will be permitted within twenty-eight days.

[Tom Paine]

That prevents them saying anything twiddly, the way the Curators have tended to do, tBP; seems pointless.