The Alunya Memorial proposal of 2014

D

Democratic Donkeys

TNPer
For the purposes of establishing one (1) Minister of Defence by correcting some minor errors:

The Minister of Defence Bill:
Chapter 8, Clause 1, sub-clause (e) of the Codified Law of The North Pacific shall have the word defense struck and the word defence substituted in its place.
Revised:
  • e. To implement regional defence and diplomatic policies as adopted under the laws of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
Chapter 8, Clause 2 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific shall have the word defense and the phrase Minister of Defense struck and the word defence and phrase Minister of Defence substituted in their places respectively.
Revised:
2. The NPA is always permitted, consistent with adopted regional defence and diplomatic policies, to deploy under the following circumstances:
  • a. To counter or preemptively stop:
    • A direct threat to the North Pacific;
    • A direct threat to a North Pacifican ally;
  • b. To assist a region or organization as permitted by the delegate, an existing treaty, or the Minister for Defence;
  • c. Upon the orders of the appointed Minister of Defence or a person thus delegated to act in their name; and
  • d. The Regional Assembly may mandate that the NPA follow through on a declaration of war or a policy approved by the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
Chapter 8, Clause 4, sub-clause (a) of the Codified Law of The North Pacific shall have the word for struck and the word of substituted in its place.
revised:
  • a. The Delegate can issue a blanket approval for the NPA to work with a given organisation. The Minister of Defence or the Delegate must still authorize individual missions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Damn your "esses" you American pigdogs!
 
I don't think this is ready to go to vote. I personally think that because of the spelling issues, we ought to avoid a straight up/down vote on this, and go for a less conventional voting model. I think we ought to create several versions of this bill, and vote between them. The voting options could be
  • Minister of Defense
  • Minister of Defence
  • Minister for Defense
  • Minister for Defence
  • Nay
  • Abstain
. Naturally, if one did not get a majority, we could do a runoff between the most popular options. What do you think of that idea, DD? Can I get an opinion from the Speaker about whether that would be permissible under the rules?

EDIT: When formal debate ends, I intend to object to the decision of the speaker to schedule a vote. I expect that at least two others will join me, so we may as well proceed as if this is not in formal debate.
 
If that's the way you want to do it COE then I suggest you make your own proposal. Only the proper English for this proposal!

And don't try to procedurally bully my proposal. I hope that everyone behaves as if this is in formal debate despite the threats of our fellow members. :P
 
I really don't care what we call it. But I think if you just pick one spelling and try to ram it through, it will fail, and we'll be stuck with inconsistency. My method would allow the RA to choose how to spell it, instead of just approving/disapproving of any given spelling decided by the bill's author.
 
Not that I suppose it needs it, but I second a motion to vote or whatever it is that happens.
 
That doesn't happen. :P

DD, as before, I would like to express my preference that the adopted standard be "Minister of Defense". Any chance you'd make that change? :P
 
Why not use the same approach as in Section 6.3 of the Legal Code (Mandatory Ministries):

Instead of hard-coding a name for the Ministry, we amend the law so as to require that an Executive Officer responsible for the NPA exists, without explicitly specifying their title. Then we can refer to this Executive Officer in the rest of the NPA Doctine Chapter.

Then each Delegate can name the Ministry whatever they prefer, which is consistent with the practice for other Ministries.

I am strongly in favor of this approach myself. If Alunya or DD agree with it, they are welcome to edit their respective proposals and I will support them. Otherwise, I will propose such an amendment myself.
 
DD: you have about as much chance of getting a bill passed in TNP as Grosse does. Your face does not fit.

Give it up, already.
 
flemingovia:
DD: you have about as much chance of getting a bill passed in TNP as Grosse does. Your face does not fit.

Give it up, already.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the case. I think DD has more chance than Grosse. If you look at the archives lots of people less established than DD have succeeded in passing a bill.

Let's Stop Worrying About Numbers Bill [c]Crushing Our Enemies
[c] A Bill to amend Section 7.2 of the Legal Code [c]PaulWallLibertarian42
[c] A motion relating to porridge [c]Flemingovia
[c] How a Bill Becomes a Law Amendment [c]Crushing Our Enemies
[c] A Bill to amend Section 6.1 of the Legal Code [c]PaulWallLibertarian42
[c] Civil Jurisdiction Repeal Bill [c]r3naissanc3r
[c] Flag Day Bill [c]Lord Ravenclaw
[c] Reopen Nominations Fix Bill [c]Crushing Our Enemies
[c] Attorney General Amendment Bill [c]r3naissanc3r
[c] Election Provisions Amendment Bill [c]r3naissanc3r
[c] A Bill to amend Section 4.3 of the Legal Code [c]Flemingovia
[c] A bill to amend Section 1.2 of the Legal Code [c]SillyString
[c] ALL YOUR ELECTION LAW ARE BELONG TO US BILL [c]Flemingovia
[c] Security Council (Amendment) Bill [c]McMasterdonia
[c] Oaths Amendment Bill [c]r3naissanc3r
[c] Officials Amendment Bill [c]r3naissanc3r
[c] Comma Insertion Bill [c]Flemingovia
[c] Attorney General Omnibus Bill [c]Sanctaria
[c] Membership Administration Amendment Bill [c]McMasterdonia
[c] WA Verification Repeal Bill [c]r3naissanc3r
[c] Mandatory Ministries Bill [c]Sanctaria
[c] Omnibus Recall Fix [c]SillyString
[c] Amendment to Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Legal Code [c]SillyString
[c] Amendments to Chapter 1 of the Legal Code [c]SillyString
[c] Regional Assembly Rules Amendment Bill [c]r3nnaisanc3r
[c] Speaker Delegation Amendment Bill [c]r3nnaisanc3r
[c] Security Council Reform Bill [c]Eluvatar/Chasmanthe
 
It's not a question of length of tenure, or past office. It is face fitting. Grosse's doesn't; democratic donkey's doesn't.
 
I think it's a matter of flexibility and listening to what the RA wants to do. Grosse doesn't do it. DD doesn't do it. Extremists don't pass bills. Unless the RA as a whole wants exactly what you want, compromise is the only way.
 
It's not a matter of 'faces fitting', it's a matter of proposing stuff people are in favour of.

Since Unibot left, I highly doubt there is anyone in TNP who - if they proposed something - people would oppose them because it was them who proposed.

Don't propose stupid shit, basically, and you stand a good chance of actually passing something.
 
Nierr:
Don't propose stupid shit, basically, and you stand a good chance of actually passing something.
Click to expand...
It seems to come so naturally to some people, though... :fish:

This is in no way a comment on the author of this bill, either current or original.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I think it's a matter of flexibility and listening to what the RA wants to do. Grosse doesn't do it. DD doesn't do it. Extremists don't pass bills. Unless the RA as a whole wants exactly what you want, compromise is the only way.
Click to expand...
I'm rigid. :evil:
 
Funny how some people's definition of "flexibility" and "listening" always comes down to meaning "shifting your viewpoint so that you agree with me."
 
Indeed, that was my point. :P

EDIT: I said some stuff in #tnp in response to flem's above post that I'd like to share here:
<COE> Flem, a note about your recent post <snipped quote from above post>
<COE> It may seem that I (and possibly others) are that way, but I would disagree. It appears that way because I only propose bills that I know the RA as a whole will pass
<COE> I have plenty of ideas for bills that I would love to see law, but I do not propose them because I know they will fail
<COE> So in that way, a lot of the flexibility is behind-the-scenes
<COE> Curating what legislation I will propose
<COE> So when I propose a bill that I know will pass, and someone comes along and says "I would like it better if you made X change" I answer "No, the bill is fine as it is"
<COE> That's different from a bill that will not pass as-is. At that point, the only options are 1)abandon the bill, 2)make amendments to appeal to the majority, or 3)let it go to vote and fail
<Erastide> that seems a bit stupid
<COE> I should clarify - if someone wants to make X change and I think the law would be worse off for it
<Erastide> ah
<COE> There are plenty of times that people have suggested changes that I thought improved the bill and I went with them
<Erastide> well that makes sense ;P
<COE> That's not compromise or flexibility
<COE> That's just productive debate :P
Click to expand...
 
r3naissanc3r:
Why not use the same approach as in Section 6.3 of the Legal Code (Mandatory Ministries):

Instead of hard-coding a name for the Ministry, we amend the law so as to require that an Executive Officer responsible for the NPA exists, without explicitly specifying their title. Then we can refer to this Executive Officer in the rest of the NPA Doctine Chapter.

Then each Delegate can name the Ministry whatever they prefer, which is consistent with the practice for other Ministries.

I am strongly in favor of this approach myself. If Alunya or DD agree with it, they are welcome to edit their respective proposals and I will support them. Otherwise, I will propose such an amendment myself.
Click to expand...
To get the discussion back on topic, DD, would you be willing to change your bill to the above?
 
I don't really care about naming conventions and consistency - I'm anal about many things, but this isn't one of them. I will likely support any measure that doesn't bog us down in further bureaucracy than we already have.
 
If that were the case then I would put forward a proposal that would strikethrough the entire legal code and constitution. And replace it with a youtube link to Gangnam Style, because who doesn't like that one? Don't tempt me. :P
 
Okay, seems like people are done debating. I would like to shorten this to four days, which would mean debate ends in about 3 hours, by my reckoning. :)

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top