Amendment to RA Procedure - Rule 5

Kiwi

Kiwi

TNPer
There's probably a discussion about this elsewhere but I was thinking it might be an idea to pass some legislation relating to the speaker's powers as they have sparked some controversy recently.

Currently where there are no rules the speaker is able to use his or her discretion but as John Locke put it, where the law ends tyranny begins. I would think that some restrictions on that discretion may be prudent.

This is what I propose:
RA Procedure - Rule 5: Voting:
1. Except when stated otherwise by the Legal Code or rules of the Regional Assembly, all votes will last for seven days.
2. The Speaker may not edit or interfere with any vote cast by a member of the Regional Assembly except where in violation of 3.
3. Members of the regional assembly may convey their vote in any font, color or form they see fit, except where that vote:
(a) violates laws of The North Pacific
(b) violates any standing policy or rule agreed upon by forum moderation in regards to acceptable conduct
(c) violates the forum provider's terms of service and acceptable use
(d) is unacceptable behavior by any reasonable standard
4. It is the duty of the Speaker to discount any vote which violates any of the exceptions in 3.
5. Any member of the Regional Assembly may request the Court review any vote discounted by the Speaker.
6. Members of the Regional Assembly may not post justifications accompanying their vote in any Regional Assembly vote but may link to a justification in the appropriate discussion thread.
Click to expand...

I have made assumptions as to how people wish for things to function so please comment freely. I'm open to any changes but I feel that the suggested changes above hopefully address a few concerns.
 
To be honest, I will be frank and say that to me this looks like nothing more than giving a certain person the right to throw a tantrum, disrespect the Speaker's authority and use colours and large text to campaign in voting threads.
 
Kingborough:
To be honest, I will be frank and say that to me this looks like nothing more than giving a certain person the right to throw a tantrum, disrespect the Speaker's authority and use colours and large text to campaign in voting threads.
Click to expand...
To the contrary, I agree he was completely over the top but I don't think his vote should have been discounted because of it. Under this new legislation you could argue that his conduct was unreasonable probably anyway.

There needs to be checks and balances to make sure that you or any other speaker discounts votes where appropriate.

No one else seems to want to comment on this suggested amendment so I don't think you have anything to worry about.
 
The speaker has been getting uppity. This bitchslaps him nicely.

I'm damned if I would ever stand for Speaker if this passed. I will, however, have lots of fun in future elections and votes.

This is a recipe for non-stop litigation. I, for example, feel a pressing need to illustrate my next vote with flowcharts and extensive quotations from "War and Peace", some of them in the original Russian since the English translation does not convey the subtlety of the original. All this will be in giant pink type, naturally, except for the actual vote which will be in orange.

the Speaker may feel that I have overstepped the mark of "unacceptable behavior by any reasonable standard", buy if that is the case my freedom of expression will have been violated, and I will immediately go to the courts.
 
put another way .... when a law contains a phrase as vague and open to interpretation as "unacceptable behavior by any reasonable standard" you are asking for every vote to be decided by the justices rather than the speaker, since there will be many votes referred to the courts if this passes.

This will delay everyvote, while the court picks through every borderline vote.
 
flemingovia:
The speaker has been getting uppity. This bitchslaps him nicely.

I'm damned if I would ever stand for Speaker if this passed. I will, however, have lots of fun in future elections and votes.

This is a recipe for non-stop litigation. I, for example, feel a pressing need to illustrate my next vote with flowcharts and extensive quotations from "War and Peace", some of them in the original Russian since the English translation does not convey the subtlety of the original. All this will be in giant pink type, naturally, except for the actual vote which will be in orange.

the Speaker may feel that I have overstepped the mark of "unacceptable behavior by any reasonable standard", buy if that is the case my freedom of expression will have been violated, and I will immediately go to the courts.
Click to expand...
:agree:

150% opposed to this legislation. The Speaker has not been in any way unreasonable in the use of his legitimate powers and I see no reason to limit those powers or, as Flem rightly argued, to make every attempt by the Speaker to enforce some sense of order subject to litigation.
 
flemingovia:
This is a recipe for non-stop litigation. I, for example, feel a pressing need to illustrate my next vote with flowcharts and extensive quotations from "War and Peace", some of them in the original Russian since the English translation does not convey the subtlety of the original. All this will be in giant pink type, naturally, except for the actual vote which will be in orange.
Click to expand...

Could you please explain to me how any of this can possibly be construed as acceptable behaviour by any reasonable standard? Laws routinely use the so called "reasonable person", I originally used "reasonable person of the regional assembly" but I don't think it makes too much difference. If the courts decide that a big pink Nay at size 30 front is over the top then people aren't going to keep doing it are they?

Also please note 6. - Half of what you said is automatically barred anyway. Anything that isn't a functional equivilant of Aye, Nay or Abstain is arguably unreasonable and/or a "justification".

You've also completely ignored the issue of linking to justifications.

Flemingovia:
the Speaker may feel that I have overstepped the mark of "unacceptable behavior by any reasonable standard", buy if that is the case my freedom of expression will have been violated, and I will immediately go to the courts.
Click to expand...

Correct me at any time but I was under the impression that any decision made by a government official was open to review already. So how this changes things is beyond me. (See the legal code - 3.1.7)

Funkadelia:
How about simply stating "The speajer may discount any vote if it is not Yea, Nay, Abstain, or a functional equivalent."
Click to expand...

Apparently we don't want people using colours. A bit of pink can lead to disorder apparently.

At any rate - people don't seem to be interested in limiting the speakers discretion. So let it stand as is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top