flemingovia:
We obviously have different understandings of what this area is for. I think this should be used for actually proposing and drafting legislation, and there should be a progression from informal debate to formal debate to vote.
If you just want to kick ideas around and see what support there is out there for it, it seems to me the Agora is the place for that.
That would be an incorrect assumption, technically and legislatively.
It would also be an inefficient means to debate proposed legislation, mainly because the debate would start all over again in the RA and then someone would complain that it isn't being debated in the Agora or the RA Men's Lavatory (which location might actually be somewhat more productive than the RA at times, well, most of the time, at least).
Also, in free and democratic parliamentary systems, one of the sole purposes of the length of debate is precisely to see if there is enough support for a bill to move forward or for the purpose of mustering support for a bill before it goes to a vote. The same methodology can be used in the RA, presuming the RA is actually an informed, democratic and free parliamentary system where debate is encouraged.
Besides, it is better that an extended informal debate process be conducted in the open on the floor of the RA rather than in smoky back rooms in secret where support can be gathered to simply ram-rod through certain legislation. Frankly, I think PW's idea of letting such bills simmer in informal debate to determine viability of such bills is a fantastic idea. It is a fantastic idea because it actually takes skill, finesse and planning to build support (or not) for a bill before scheduling a vote, a skill level that might be seen as unfair by the skill-less.
And, the legislative rules and procedures do not allow for the killing of informal debate, unless it is the wish of opponents of proposed legislation to force the debate and mustering of support into dark, secret places. That is fine too, because opposition can be secretly wittled away and the opposition gets blind-sided in a most magnificent and impolite fashion.
Open informal debate in extended fashion allows those not interested in the bill to simply ignore the debate (which is usually true) until it goes into actual formal debate (in which instance they will still ignore the debate and vote however the popular members vote on said bill, understanding the bill or actually reading it being optional). Intelligent debate is always preferable to hastened 'bandwagoneering' that either passes bad bills or kills good bills for purely personal political motivations.
And this way, if not enough support for a viable bill can be obtained, then the bill can be withdrawn and worked on behind the scenes until enough support is there to pass it. And in that fashion, we preclude any distasteful fermentations from the TNP Whinery at the same legislation being put up for debate multiple times.
And again, those not interested in legitimate debate can simply ignore this one if they so choose. I, for one, am in favour of allowing the author of this bill enough informal debate, as much as he wishes, to determine if there is enough support for the bill or not, as the case may be.
Let me check something.. nope.. I logged into the right forum.
