[Congress] Debating section
Day 4,182, 14:15
•
Published in Netherlands 
•
by
•
by UNL Congress
Greetings, citizens of Netherlands,
Congress member Notie112 and citizen Janty F requested the following debate be started.
Topic: Debating section.
Requester: Notie112, Janty F
Text:
Greetings,
NoTie and me have a proposal regarding Article 6 of our Congress Law. This proposal is one of the few we have in mind, which are aimed to fix issues caused by the current Chairman during the last few days. Changed paragraphs are noted in bold (in this message) for convenience.
In case it has not been clear, we also request this proposal to be voted in the form presented after the debate by the ORIGINAL AUTHORS. We will happily take any feedback and try to work with it to potentially improve the proposal!
Proposal:
Change Chapter II, Article 6:
from the current version:
Article 6 – Debating Procedure
1. Debates will be opened in the debating section of Congress.
2. The first post will detail the reason for the debate.
3. After a minimum of 24 hours of debating, Congress Members can open a vote in the voting section of Congress, as laid down in Article 7.
4. If no vote on the topic has been started after 168 hours, and 48 hours have passed since the last comment, the (Deputy) Chairman of Congress may choose to close the debate.
5. The classified information in the private section of Congress can be disclosed by the (Deputy) Chairman of Congress or by a majority vote in Congress.
into this:
Article 6 – Debating procedure
1. Debates will be opened in the debating section of Congress.
2. The public debating section of Congress consists of "UNL Binnenhof" newspaper articles.
3. The private debating section of Congress consists of in-game messages including Dutch citizens with rights defined in Article 1.2.
4. The "UNL Binnenhof" article or first in-game message, as defined in Articles 6.2. and 6.3, will detail the proposal requested to be debated.
5. After a minimum of 24 hours of debating, any Dutch citizen with rights defined in Article 1.3. can start a vote on the debated proposal in the voting section of Congress, as laid down in Article 7. Alternatively, Chairman of Congress can be requested to start the vote after the end of debating period.
6. If no vote on the topic has been started after 168 hours, and 48 hours have passed since the last comment, the (Deputy) Chairman of Congress may choose to close the debate.
7. The classified information in the private section of Congress can be disclosed by the (Deputy) Chairman of Congress or by a majority vote in Congress.
vote: (see proposal above)
yes/ja: 2
no/nee: 19
neutral/neutraal: 1
vote #2:
yes/ja: 9
no/nee: 12
neutral/neutraal: 1
1. Debates will be opened in the debating section of Congress.
2. The public debating section of Congress consists of "UNL Binnenhof" newspaper articles.
3. The private debating section of Congress consists of in-game messages including Dutch citizens with rights defined in Chapter II Article 1 Paragraph 2.
4. The "UNL Binnenhof" article or first in-game message, as defined in Articles 6.2. and 6.3, will detail the proposal requested to be debated.
5. After a minimum of 24 hours of debating, Congress can start a vote on the debated proposal in the voting section of Congress, as laid down in Article 7.
6. If no vote on the topic has been started after 168 hours, the (Deputy) Chairman of Congress may choose to close the debate.
7. The classified information in the private section of Congress can be disclosed by the (Deputy) Chairman of Congress or by a majority vote in Congress.
odan and Kordak
CoC Team
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
several things:
"first of all, wanting a vote be held on the proposal as is. and only accept a start of the vote by the starters of the debate."
that is not how democracy works.
excluding gov members from private debates...
not sure what point 4 adds. it's the same as the old point 2 only with more words.
giving the CoC the obligation to start a vote from anybody. looking forward to a vote being started by a foreigner... also what if the CoC is not a cm? he would be breaking part of the law by starting votes.
Democracy is not either having a proposal hijacked by someone else who quickly posts a completely different vote on something else so that the original one can't be posted either.. If that didn't occur (and I would argue to be common sense from CoC) this point wouldn't even be considered! But let's skip past that scandal. Also - NOT part of the proposal but a personal request, NOR is it stated the proposal will not be adjusted based on the feedback!
- Members of Gov are not excluded from private debates. They have the appropriate rights in ''Article 1.2'' which are CP, Government, Congress, (d)CoC and Keykeeper.
- It (Point 4) finalizes the move to In-game Congress so no one can argue about that any more, nor that it is an option any more to have this process occur on the Forum. Seeing the way things have been going recently, that is only a confirmation of actual practice.
- Only Dutch citizens can participate in debates or request votes.. How could you argue something about foreigners? But okay, we can add ''By Dutch citizens to that'' but seems abundant.
- On not being CM: That is indeed a contradiction but not necessarily a ''breaking of the law'', because this gives him the power to do it. We should definitely look into that. Or we could finally vote on my proposal to have CoC only be CM: https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-congress-changes-on-the-deputy-chairman-2693712/1/20 😃
every cm has a right to start a vote on an open debate. and it's not like the vote was requested the second the 24 hour deadline had passed.
must have misread that. had a whole lot of text walls in front me the last couple of hours.
just don't include the CoC having to start votes from randoms. let the elected congress members do their jobs.
"first of all, wanting a vote be held on the proposal as is. and only accept a start of the vote by the starters of the debate."
... well, it helps to prevent hijacking proposals, which is something the Congress strongly opposes 😉 . Plus, anyone can start his own debate and proposal on the topic, if necessary, so where is the problem? It is better to debate two proposals simultaneously, than to have one proposal being hijacked by Congress Mmembers with bad intent.
"excluding gov members from private debates..."
... what? As CoC, you should know the Law, and therefore you should know, that this claim is a total nonsense.
"not sure what point 4 adds. it's the same as the old point 2 only with more words."
Yes, it has more words, because it needs to refer to previous articles. Old point 2 btw. is literally unusable at this moment anyway, as it contains the vague formulation "first post".
"giving the CoC the obligation to start a vote from anybody. looking forward to a vote being started by a foreigner... also what if the CoC is not a cm? he would be breaking part of the law by starting votes."
Going into pointless extremes, as usual ...And no, it would not be illegal, if this proposal was accepted, and became part of the Law. That's how Law works, it makes things legal 😉
I don't like the accusation in the proposal. If anything, the CoC has only pointed out a flaw in a law he did not write.
Aside from that: what are articles regering to (1.2 , a.3 ...)? Can you add these? Or better: add Words rather than links to other laws for clarity. Only congress member should be able to start debates or votes. That is their whole reason of being. If citizens want debate and/or vote: contact your congressman.
Point 6 should be deleted, even if it is not part of proposed change.
agreed on the contact your congressmembers.
why should point 6 be deleted? it might be better to change it to automatically is considered closed.
Maybe. Either away, its current form is not the best
Can you blame the ''accusation''? The process of the last vote regarding the MoNC rules certainly doesn't deserve a beauty pageant and Congress seems to agree considering the uproar it caused. And a CoC interpreting things ''to make a point'' is IMO not appreciated from a CoC who should be above that.
- The referring to other articles is consistent with the style of the rest of the Law Book. Where possible these were actually removed and translated into words in the recent Law Reform, but reading it as an entire piece of text (instead of lighting out one piece of text as is done now) some are way more easier to be done in this way and is kinda standard in any kind of law system.
- If you allow Chairman of Congress to be a non-CM then it's not logical at all that only CMs can start votes. So I'd argue that the Chairman of Congress should be actually part of Congress in the future! Especially in a time where it's literally 1 vote = 1 CM.
- I agree on point 6. Seems unnecessary in current times (especially the 168h rule).
why is it not logical that only cm's can start votes?
You should add what I right next to that, considering that the Chairman of Congress can be a non-CM member. As long as that situation is still apparent, we have this strange splits in which yes it's logical CMs should start votes but you don't want to make the CoC a lame duck either. I remember you were against the change that made it possible that CoC could be non-citizen, so you must surely agree. With the changing context of our system that can be amended 🙂
Yes I can blame it. It is petty and does nothing constructive.
CoC should always be a member of congress. Not sure why this changed, but if a member of congress were to ask for debate/vote, the CoC would be able to start a vote. I don't see anything illogical in that.
I agree in law text to refer to articles. But in debates on changes, the actual article referred to would help to keep things clear.
lame duck? can you perhaps be a little more precise.
as far as i know there hasn't been a vote to make it possible for non citizens be CoC.
http://enetherlands.nl/viewtopic.php?f=133&t=13874
A Chairman not being able to open votes is less capable than one who is in the current system
Oh well, not that vote, as that didn't reach the quorum, but it was changed around that time 😛
"Aside from that: what are articles regering to (1.2 , a.3 ...)? Can you add these? Or better: add Words rather than links to other laws for clarity."
As former dCoC, you should be aware referring to articles is quite common in the Law. Helps to repeat the same text over and over. And you should be aware of the content of those articles, as they are quite important for such a position.
Why should citizens be able to start votes or be in private debates.... that makes no sense and diminishes the reason for a congress to exist.
You should've run for congress and gotten elected if you want to be a policymaker...
That absolutely has nothing to do with the proposal at hand..
"Dutch citizens with rights defined in Article 1.2." = The Country President and Members of Congress, Members of the Government, The (Deputy) Chairman of Congress and the Keykeeper
"any Dutch citizen with rights defined in Article 1.3." = The Country President and Members of Congress
Learn the law, please.
So, all voiced concerns have been commented upon, and misinterpretations have been answered and explained - anone else wants to voice his opinion 🙂 ?
I am prolonging the time for the debate on this issue in accordance with Chapter II Article 6 Paragraph 4
not needed.
also:
"I'm voting in favor because the proposal protects the right of the proposer to first initiate the vote and protects the original text of the proposal."
perhaps read what is proposed? this is not in the proposal...
Correct. Still, I'm right that Congressmen and the Country President retain the legislative initiative according to this proposal, which is rejected in a chain because of the misconception about this
nobody is complaining about cm or cp having the right to start votes, it's the added people allowed to request votes be started.
so fake news.
debate closed.