[discussion] Bill creation made easier

Romanoffia

Romanoffia

Garde à l'eau!
I've been thinking about the woes of how bills are constructed in the RA and ways to make those bills more of a cooperative rather than a competitive process. Without pointing out specific gripes I have with the process, I hopefully will point out a more logical way to construct bills.

1. We need to engage in the legislative process with an attitude and spirit of compromise.

My suggestion here is that proposed Bills should be constructed by several people in an almost committee fashion. Having more than one set of eyes on a particular piece of legislation is better than simply writing up a bill and presenting it without any element of cooperation or compromise. The process would be simple, would not involve any changes to RA Rules, but would require the participants to cooperate in a constructive manner.

The idea here is that if someone presents a proposal for legislation, we change our attitude towards the whole process. Instead of bashing a bill which may be totally logical, objective and rational or bashing the person proposing the legislation, we stick to the concept of cooperation and compromise.

When a bill is proposed, perhaps it could be worked on by several people who would presumably, by compromise, create a workable bill instead of trying to ram-rod it through in ambush fashion. Perhaps if someone proposes legislation, the individual proposing the bill asks for help from other RA members to help construct the bill - and do this in the private area (or we could create a 'committee room' or use that tag before a thread for that bill proposal). When it is believed that a workable bill is ready, it can then be brought up for informal discussion where the actual process begins.

I'd like to see this process experimented with if anyone is willing to try this approach.

Any thoughts on this?
 
Roman:
The idea here is that if someone presents a proposal for legislation, we change our attitude towards the whole process. Instead of bashing a bill which may be totally logical, objective and rational or bashing the person proposing the legislation, we stick to the concept of cooperation and compromise.

Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
We need a smiley that communicates.. :hellfreezesover:
 
Perhaps if this committee idea could somehow force polar opposites (like Roman and CoE or something) to work together...

Even if it doesn't work out I'm sure the comedic effects will be worth following.
 
Yes. I would like the RA to be more collaborative than competive. I was recently told that people are open to new legislation but generally instead of stepping up and help craft it would rather someone else do all the work and then they support it. (Paraphrase) it would be awesome if similar to the WALL..we had that for the RA where we all submit ideas and work together on crafting a bill...vs. one person does the writing...and then their draft maybe isnt an intuitive and thus has to listen to the peanut gallery..and make many revisions...if we all wrote a bill together it would be better then relying on one person to submit a bill and then be the only pair of eyes amending the language with or without considering input from other members.
 
I don't think I've ever proposed a bill to the RA without having at least two or three people look over it and give input first. Similarly, I've been consulted by others on numerous pieces of legislation before they've been proposed.

I am always willing to collaborate on legislation I support. I am willing to compromise on legislation I don't support, if I think that a majority of the RA would prefer a compromise to the status quo (e.g. no legislation on the issue at all.)

Maybe the issue here is that a lot of folks don't really know how to seek help in crafting legislation, and build a coalition before proposing a bill. However, I don't think that every piece of legislation is worthy of cooperation or compromise. Some ideas are dead in the water, and the best thing to do is abandon it and move on.
 
I think a guide sounds like a great turtle project. Let me look it over once you're done, though, so I can make it comprehensible. :P [6~ (<}<}<}) << <3

I echo COE on this. Practically all the legislation I've proposed has been reviewed by at least two other RA members first, and some of it by even more than that. I've got something at the moment that I've been working on for a couple months that's had I think six other members look it over at various times.

And it's not at all uncommon for there to be strong disagreements and even sometimes heated arguments about the direction of a particular element of a bill - things just look like a united front when they're actually proposed because those disagreements have been talked over and worked out.

Am I selective about who I ask to draft with me? Absolutely. I'm only going to approach people whom I think are interested in legislating on the topic at hand and who have legislative skills I'm looking for - for example, when Douria was in the RA, I regularly asked him to be my proofreader for loopholes/abuse, because I know from past experience that he's great at picking out those kinds of potential issues in a text. Is he the only one who's good at that? Definitely not - I've just seen him in action enough to know that he has that skill.
 
falapatorius:
Roman:
The idea here is that if someone presents a proposal for legislation, we change our attitude towards the whole process. Instead of bashing a bill which may be totally logical, objective and rational or bashing the person proposing the legislation, we stick to the concept of cooperation and compromise.

Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
We need a smiley that communicates.. :hellfreezesover:
Click to expand...

Probably. :P


plembobria:
Are you familiar with the expression a camel is a horse designed by committee?
Click to expand...

Yes. But camels have their uses.


Lord Nwahs:
Perhaps if this committee idea could somehow force polar opposites (like Roman and CoE or something) to work together...

Even if it doesn't work out I'm sure the comedic effects will be worth following.
Click to expand...

That would probably be a given. One of the problems is that some people simply reject even any discussion of legislation proposed by individuals they don't like or have a personal gripe with. That crap has got to stop because assures that diametrically opposed factions will emerge and then nothing but endless asshattery will result.


Crushing Our Enemies:
I don't think I've ever proposed a bill to the RA without having at least two or three people look over it and give input first. Similarly, I've been consulted by others on numerous pieces of legislation before they've been proposed.

I am always willing to collaborate on legislation I support. I am willing to compromise on legislation I don't support, if I think that a majority of the RA would prefer a compromise to the status quo (e.g. no legislation on the issue at all.)

Maybe the issue here is that a lot of folks don't really know how to seek help in crafting legislation, and build a coalition before proposing a bill. However, I don't think that every piece of legislation is worthy of cooperation or compromise. Some ideas are dead in the water, and the best thing to do is abandon it and move on.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you 99% on that assessment. The 'dead in the water' issue is like beauty in the sense of it being in the eye of the beholder. Then again, there is symbolic legislation that is automatically dead in the water and then again there has been symbolic legislation that floated like a bloated corpse in the water and still passed. ;)



Eluvatar:
Maybe we could write up a Guide: How To Draft A Proposal (With Your Assembly Colleagues) or similar.
Click to expand...

It should be a guide to civility and respect for fellow RA members. That alone would go a long way. Civility breeds civility. Disrespect and gain-saying breeds asshattery on all sides.
 
FOr the smilie, how about

1hellno.gif
 
Romanoffia:
One of the problems is that some people simply reject even any discussion of legislation proposed by individuals they don't like or have a personal gripe with. That crap has got to stop because assures that diametrically opposed factions will emerge and then nothing but endless asshattery will result.
Click to expand...
I always consider legislation with an eye to its merits, and not who is proposing it. I can't speak for the rest of the assembly though.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Romanoffia:
One of the problems is that some people simply reject even any discussion of legislation proposed by individuals they don't like or have a personal gripe with. That crap has got to stop because assures that diametrically opposed factions will emerge and then nothing but endless asshattery will result.
Click to expand...
I always consider legislation with an eye to its merits, and not who is proposing it. I can't speak for the rest of the assembly though.
Click to expand...
I know you do. Which makes you all the more evil. :lol: :P
 
Now, I won't say there isn't a correlation between people I don't like and legislation I don't like. But think about it: which is more likely? A) I have a personal problem with someone, so I reject ideas that would be good for the region because I don't want them to get credit for it, or B) I think people have bad ideas and are bad for the region, so I develop a personal problem with them.
 
I'm all for cooperation and compromise, but I am unsure how this will actually facilitate that. The RA is a good enough forum for this and it has proven that plenty of times. Most of the contentious legislation only passes because of the cooperation that has gone into it and the compromises that have been proposed and accepted by the author. You know a good days work has been done, when you can bring a whole group of different people to the table and get them to support the contentious piece of legislation.

At the other end of the scale though, some proposals are just crap. No amount of compromising or cooperation is going to bring them to something more reasonable. We're also at a point in time where our legal code and constitution is reasonably clear and many of us are hesitant to unnecessarily add extra sections to that just for the sake of it. We do not want a 20 page document :P
 
we already have a process such as is suggested in the OP of this thread, and Ironically this thread is a good example of it.

Rather than plunking down a proposal and moving as quickly as possible to a vote, we can float an idea using the [discussion] tag, and gain help and collaboration turning the idea into a law. Or not, as the case may be.
 
flemingovia:
we already have a process such as is suggested in the OP of this thread, and Ironically this thread is a good example of it.

Rather than plunking down a proposal and moving as quickly as possible to a vote, we can float an idea using the [discussion] tag, and gain help and collaboration turning the idea into a law. Or not, as the case may be.
Click to expand...


Exactly. I actually stole some the idea from your recent threat using the [discussion] tag.
 
I have an idea. Instead of posting the first draft of a bill to the RA, and bracing ourselves for the ensuing bludgeoning, perhaps the admins could create a sub-forum where people post ideas rather than bills. The users who are interested then work together to write the bill. Then -- and only then -- is the bill presented for debate.
 
That's what this forum is for, though. Anybody can already post an idea and seek suggestions, concerns, etc. Debate is part of drafting; I think it would be detrimental to restrict it to only a "finalized" version.
 
SillyString:
That's what this forum is for, though. Anybody can already post an idea and seek suggestions, concerns, etc. Debate is part of drafting; I think it would be detrimental to restrict it to only a "finalized" version.
Click to expand...
Obviously one can still edit the bill during debate. I'm just suggesting that we have a separate sub-forum for it.
 
This forum is intended to be a setting to craft and discuss legislation. Creating another forum for the same purpose would be redundant.
 
All things considered, I would have to agree on this point.

A simple [discussion] tag would suffice. That way, it gives a proposal (should someone choose to use the [discussion] tag) a dignified way of packing in if there is insufficient interest in a given proposal. I, for one, will use the [discussion] tag on legislation I propose just to check its viability before wasting the RA's time on something that may not fly at all.
 
I consider it all a discussion even in the absense of [discussion] tag. Until such a time a proposer withdraws or motions it into formal debate.

When I have a legislative idea. I propose it and use the informal debate/ discussion phase as an opportunity to gage receptiveness of RA members and to edit language and find compromises that work. If it seems there is some receptiveness to it...(even if there is also opposition - there is always going to be opposition)..but if I feel it is important enough then ill motion if futher...if there is no intrest then ill withdraw and/or quietly drop the matter.

But I feel the time between when a thread/bill is introduced/created and a time a bill is either withdrawn or motioned into formal debate as the [discussion] period.
 
I think the discussion tag is misleading if a draft of a bill is already proposed. The discussion tag is usually used on threads that are discussing an idea for legislation, rather than an actual draft.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I think the discussion tag is misleading if a draft of a bill is already proposed. The discussion tag is usually used on threads that are discussing an idea for legislation, rather than an actual draft.
Click to expand...
That is also true.

I would only use a [discussion] tag when mulling over whether or not an idea is viable or necessary before constructing an actual proposal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top