Page 1 of 1

Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:59 pm
by Malliki Tosha
I propose the following amendment to the Landsraad Procedures. This is to incorporate the rules issued by the Praetor into the Procedures:
B. Votes
1. Each Duke is allocated 10 votes that they may cast, or assign to subordinate nobles.
2. A Duke must always have the largest single vote amongst himself and his lesser nobles.
3. A Lesser noble may never have more then 5 votes.
4. Votes possessed and cast by a noble must always be integers.
5. A Duke may assign votes as he sees fit among his subordinate nobles, provided the above criteria.
6. Vote allocations may not be changed except by the Duke of a Duchy, or other duly appointed individual. It is the responsibility of a new Duke to update their vote allocations.
7. Should a Duke other than the one who made the original post in the Big Fat Vote Thread wish to change the vote allocations, zie should make a new post and then request the Praetor to archive the old one.


D. Voting
1. After a bill has been presented to the Landsraad, there is a period of exactly four days (96 hours) during which the members of the Landsraad can then vote on it.
2. Each member, or their emissary, may cast zir complete vote in any unambiguous way to represent a vote of aye or nay.
3. A vote only applies to a bill exactly as it has been presented.
4. At the end of the period, the Praetor counts the votes, announces the result, and if the ayes outnumber the nays, updates the LawBook with the changes.
5. The Landsraad voting shall be public.
6. Once a bill has been officially opened by the Praetor, the votes that are allocated for that particular bill will be those specified at the time of opening in the Big Fat Vote Thread.
7. Changes made to the Big Fat Vote Thread will not be counted towards already active bills.

Re: Landsraad Procedures Resolution

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:16 pm
by AryezturMejorkhor
This is overregulation. Therefore,

Goldshire Khorze (4) - NAY

Re: Landsraad Procedures Resolution

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:32 pm
by Malliki Tosha
This is to formalize current procedure. If you vote Nay, they will still be there, only not in writing.

Re: Landsraad Procedures Resolution

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:02 pm
by Harvey Steffke
Writing matters though.

Now that I see the whole thing, I notice that 1. and 2. of section F. Speech contract fairly badly. 1. says that nobles can express opinions in the Landsraad but 2. says that they can't. That's bad.

Re: Landsraad Procedures Resolution

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:06 pm
by AryezturMejorkhor
I'm not happy with the new procedure either. Things were fine the way they were.

Re: Landsraad Procedures Resolution

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:10 pm
by Allot
Harvey Steffke wrote:Now that I see the whole thing, I notice that 1. and 2. of section F. Speech contract fairly badly. 1. says that nobles can express opinions in the Landsraad but 2. says that they can't. That's bad.
I apologize for this, Mr. Steffke. I clearly didn't realize this conflict with the Procedures. Although it does seem a bit counter-intuitive what with the Front Gate.

Re: Landsraad Procedures Resolution

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:12 pm
by Harvey Steffke
Look, I'm with you on the whole "what's the point of the front gate?" thing, but I still think we should be involving the whole nation on something like this since it's kind of a large change to the legislation. If nothing else we should hear what people without Landsraad access have to say, if anything.

Re: Landsraad Procedures Resolution

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:31 am
by Ryan
I reiterate that I don't see the point of F.2. A motion in the Landsraad is intended to be debated, discussed, and ultimately argued over. That is the whole point of legislating.

I don't disagree with the rest of the changes.

Re: Landsraad Procedures Resolution

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:53 am
by Malliki Tosha
I withdraw the last amendment.

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:04 am
by Allot
I've move this to the Front Gate so that we can continue having this discussion.

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:09 am
by Malliki Tosha
Move it back. This is an active bill.

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:43 pm
by Allot
I thought you withdrew it?

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:58 pm
by Erik Mortis
He amended it.

Also, Emissaries cannot change vote allocations. That is a power of the Duke alone, or over a body/individual designated by the Duke. If a Duchy wants Emissaries to be able to edit allocations, that should be handled by local means. Till that is fixed I won't support this.

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 4:01 am
by Malliki Tosha
Better?

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:59 pm
by Erik Mortis
Seems to be.

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:58 am
by Ryan
Alright, the edits look good. I lodge my support.

Yardistan, Aye (10)

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:28 pm
by AryezturMejorkhor
I'll change my vote

Goldshire (4)- Aye

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:30 pm
by Malliki Tosha
G. Lakhesis 2 - Aye

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:39 pm
by Erik Mortis
Dolor, AYE (2).

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:04 pm
by Harvey Steffke
All the meat has been rather effectively scrapped off the bones, but what's left is worthwhile enough to warrant passing.

AYE Khor... umm... Parvatvana, apparently (3)

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:26 am
by Daniel Farewell
Brookshire - Aye (6)

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:46 pm
by Scott of Hyperborea
Straylight (10) Aye.

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:53 pm
by W.Payne
Kildare (10) Aye.

Re: Landsraad Procedures Expansion Bill

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:00 pm
by Allot
This passes 47 - 0. :smashy