[Discussion] Procedure for Discussion thread.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The following is a proposed rule addition governing procedural matters in discussion threads:

a. For a discussion thread to result in a vote, a specific term or terms of that vote must be proposed. Someone must declare their support to the proposal (other than the person who proposed it) and someone must second that person in turn.
b. Once a proposal has been seconded, 12 hours at absolute minimum of time must pass for objections or amendments. If one person objects and their objection is seconded, the debate period is extended for another 12 hours repeatedly until no further objections can be seconded.
c. When amending a proposed measure to be voted on (changing an option or adding another one), the amendment must be proposed and seconded just like a new measure, and 12 hours of debate must be allowed without a sustained objection.
d. When the minimum period of debate has passed, someone may move to close debate, either on an amendment or on the final version itself. When someone has moved to close debate, the motion must be seconded. Debate automatically ends 12 hours later if no objection is sustained, and any Senator can now put up the final amended form for voting at his/her leisure, though the text of the voting proposal must match precisely the final amended form from the debate.


Can we enact these four procedural rules to establish some order in our debates or does it seem to make things to complex?

[Coyote]

12 hours is a mighty narrow window for a lot of people, considering that time zone differences by themselves can span 24 hours for some folks, and of course there's the fact that most of us log on here when we have free time and frequently for entertainment after busy RL schedules must be seen to.

What it seems you're looking for is a "sunset provision" for ideas, debates, and motions. Maybe if a certain threshhold of activity is not reached/sustained after, say, 48 hours, then somehing can just be declared dead?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

12 hours is a mighty narrow window for a lot of people, considering that time zone differences by themselves can span 24 hours for some folks, and of course there's the fact that most of us log on here when we have free time and frequently for entertainment after busy RL schedules must be seen to.

What it seems you're looking for is a "sunset provision" for ideas, debates, and motions. Maybe if a certain threshhold of activity is not reached/sustained after, say, 48 hours, then somehing can just be declared dead?

Actually what I'm looking for is a period of time that debate has to be sustained for, as a minimum, so that after that period of time you can commence a vote if there's enough support, and that for a vote to take place, the terms and conditions of that vote have to be fixed during the debating before the poll can be posted.

[Hotfoot]

I'd rather have a general guideline than an absolute rule, but frankly, here's my take on it. 12 hours is not enough time to get even the people who frequent the forum somewhat regularly. 24 hours would be the lowest sensible minimum I would consider. Again, if it's a big emergency, like someone posting child porn or advocating murder/pedophilia, it bypasses senate protocol and gets kicked up to supermods/admins who can deal with the situation immediately. Lesser problems, however, have no such urgency. Being brought before the senate does not mean an automatic ban, though that is a trend that the senate has become known for. A few days of discussion to let the situation simmer is hardly a bad thing. We don't need to rush this stuff through. I mean, if the subject of a discussion is going to go off the deep end just because we start talking about them, well that just saves us the trouble of needed to even vote for a banning.

As far as I'm concerned, being in a senate thread should be warning enough, with or without punishment. If they recognize their mistake and make a proper apology, then honestly try to avoid the mistake in the future, there need not be any other action. If they go back to doing the same shit, then we should move to the next stage. That may not be the current way of doing things, but it would, I think, be a good way of going about correcting inappropriate behavior on the forum.

Additionally, I think it would be warranted for a member of the senate, perhaps the whip, to notify individuals of their status in a senate thread as a warning that they will more likely pick up on.

Bottom line, 24 hours is the lowest minimum time I could reasonably support, I'd prefer 48-72 hours for a good discussion, or until at least a quorum has been reached. If only three or five people have kicked around in the discussion, it's not worth making a vote thread just yet.

[Connor MacLeod]

I didn't want to bother getting involved in this or that other stuff just yet, because this whole current batch of Senate debate is starting to seem like a giant clusterfuck to me, but I'm going to ask this.

WHY the fuck do we need more rules or guideslines or even minimum timeframes? Are some people THAT impatient that they can't wait and let their fellow seneators have a word before moving on? I'd have thought that would be at least courtesy/common sense.

Otherwise (as Mad put it to me), we start having a "minority" debating and deciding these things before other people get their own word in. These things should not be rushed, nor should any timeframes be imposed on them, because people's lives (and times) are not nearly so neatly regimented. And more often than not, the idiot is nto going anywhere (and if he does, he's doing us a favor.)

If some people ARE so bothered by the isuse they need some sort of "timeframe" to be considered, why not simply make it an option to request frfom the Whip (or a Mod/Admin) to impose some sort of order or make a request?

[Spyder]

Let's make it simple shall we.

Govenors/Whip/Chancellor start Vote threads when they're satisfied with the discussion thread.

That's technically not even a rule change.

[Sea Skimmer]

Absolutely no, this is something we do not need more of. If I want anything, it’s a rule that makes it harder to start discussing new rules. Anyone not notice how things worked pretty well before?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, do we want a rule on the minimum amount of time that a discussion thread must remain active before it can lead to a vote? That sounds like it would have popular support, and would solve the matter equally well. I'd suggest a 96 (four day) minimum, actually, as being ideal.

[Spyder]

Powers and Perks

All we really have to do is actually follow this rule that we already have:

[Vote] = These will only be started by Governors and above in the case of serious votes.

[CmdrWilkens]

As a relatively minor note there is a re-write of the rules thread to take into account some votes that have accumulated here as well as the Whip language.

That being said I think proposing any sort of limit or constraint on debate, or a paticular requirement before movement to vote is excessive. The presumption is that the Senate can be reasonable and deliberate in its actions. Calls for punishment or changes in policy should be thuroughly discussed before being presented as a vote excepting those cases where a paticular governor or executor has become displeased with a denizen and seeks an immediate answer from the Senate. I think the current system, if adhered to more strictly, is fine. Certainly some of the intended rewrites (requiring notice of the Whip and other minor details) are intended to make it more difficult to end debate and bring a matter to vote but that's really all that should be required. I may be a bureacracy loving nerd but I can see where too much is enough in regards to rules and regulations.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Powers and Perks

All we really have to do is actually follow this rule that we already have:

[Vote] = These will only be started by Governors and above in the case of serious votes.

I have been following it, as the universal interpretation the last time that came up is that all titling votes and even permban votes don't count. I didn't think that was accurate--I mean, what else is a serious vote than a permban!?--but since that was the vastly broad-based consensus the last time it was brought up, I've been operating under that assumption.

Personally I don't think that Senators should have the power to start ban votes, i.e., those that require a 60% majority to pass. But I've started some because everyone else thought differently.

[Spyder]

Then let's modify (clairfy) it to include all forms of punishment vote.


Something I would like to see is either a maximum of one punishment per offense, or multiple punishments gaining a higher category.

[fgalkin]

I oppose any more procedural rules that make the functioning of the Senate more complicated in any form beyond that of "guideline" or "suggestion." This is a message board, not the US Senate. We don't need a gazillion small rules that can be exploited for benefit by it's members.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Edi]

Any suggestions for further rule additions is a BAD idea. For one thing, it's going to seriously alienate a lot of the mods, with the end result that some of them at least are far more likely to ignore the Senate in favor of simply handling things behind the scenes as much as possible and only using the Senate as a last resort to avoid all the useless, pompous, longwinded bullshit that has been going on here for some time now.

[Keevan_Colton]

Any suggestions for further rule additions is a BAD idea. For one thing, it's going to seriously alienate a lot of the mods, with the end result that some of them at least are far more likely to ignore the Senate in favor of simply handling things behind the scenes as much as possible and only using the Senate as a last resort to avoid all the useless, pompous, longwinded bullshit that has been going on here for some time now.

Amen.

[Connor MacLeod]

Go with what Spyder said. Take the "voting" option out of the hands of the Senate. I say give it to Wilkens, for two reasons:

1.) He's the Whip, and thus respsonsible for informing us of when votes are being held. Allowing him to acttually "present" the votes syncrhonizes the two functions, and IMHO makes his job easier (no "surprising him at the last minute.") Again, timeframe isn't an issue (nor should it be. Lest we forget Chuck and whyh HE left...)

2.) It should cut down on "false" ban polls. Discussions can be used to weed out the ones we deem worthy of bans or not, and (hopefully) ensure only those people WORTHY of being banned will reach the voting stage. (think of the discussion as a rewivew process.)

With regards to punishments, I believe its a separate issue, but we probably won't need more than a single "vote" in most cases if two separate polls (one for determining guilt and anothr for punishment.) In the vast majority of cases where we have a troll or moron (most rececnt example being chitty) we tend to be able to resolve punishment fairly quickly and unanimously. But in the cases where there is clear dissention (such as dealing with einhander and his buddies) over what the exact punishment may be, we can invoke polls. In this case, the "punishment" poll becomes something of a discretionary thing.

Beyond that, I don't really see the need for added rules, ,especially about minimum timeframes. some people just need to be more patient about how the process goes - other people have lives (IE as Wilkens demonstrated with this last round of "polls/votes") and we don't need to be moving from "discussion to vote" in a day (or less) for anyny reason whatsoever. Moreover, its kind of silly ot establish any sort tof timeframe - discussions never are and probably never will be thiungs we can rigidly conform to a schedule - we handle them all on a case by case basis (as always) - they'll always take as long as is needed. Again, discretion and common sense should suffice here.

[LadyTevar]

Why do we need 'Procedures' for Discussions?!?

This is just getting ridiculous now. We're not the US Senate, nor the Canadian or British Parliments. We've muddled along fine without for quite a while now. It's not like we've got any REAL power, now is it?

[Coyote]

Remember, the Duchess is a big fan of the Ottoman Empire and its (ha!) Byzantine layers of bureaucracy. She's merely being true to self. That's what makes her our little Gozde [pinches Duchess's cheek in gesture of cuteness].








That's face cheek, just so we're clear. I'll live in Israel for 4 years, go to Iraq and spend a year in the Sunni Triangle, but I will not gamble with pinching the Duchess nether cheeks.