[Debate] MoNC Procedure Change
Day 4,340, 07:07
•
Published in Netherlands 
•
by
•
by UNL Congress
Greetings, citizens of Netherlands,
a new debate has been started at the request of Congress member Arcanic Mindje.
I would like to propose an amendment to Chapter II - Congress Rules under Article 8 - Special Voting Procedures, subsection 2
The reasons why I have issued such notice for a change would be in the fact of an abuse of congress powers by congressmen in launching MoNC against Government or Chairman of Congress itself. Although congress has every right to launch such procedures the way congressmen have been using such power have sparked disruptive issues.
The main changes of this amendment would be adding time restrictions that will prevent constant no confidence procedures against the same person and position every day. At this time, no confidence can be proposed at anytime especially no rule of law exist that would prevent the same no confidence minutes after one has been voted down. This goes the same as a new Government has been formed to be hit instantly with a no confidence procedure. Furthermore to add onto the changes for Government, there has been no confidence procedures that targeted new governments based on the past and not the present. Techninally, there must be time for Government to settle and not to be hit after 2-3 days.
Therefore I would like to propose these changes:
Current:
2. The Congress of the eNetherlands can at any time propose a Motion of No Confidence. In this procedure, a debate and vote can be opened at the same time.
New Change:
2. The Congress of the eNetherlands can after 7 days of a new Government or Chairman of Congress term, at any time propose a Motion of No Confidence against the Government or Chairman of Congress. In this procedure, a debate and vote can be opened at the same time. However, upon failure of a Motion of No Confidence, a new proposal can take place after 7 days of the failed proposal.
This is requested under the capacity as a member of Congress and not Government.
The proposal (updated according to comments of NoTie112) has been rejected by Congress.
Yes: 1
Neutral: 1
No: 27
Janty F and Shawtyl0w
CoC Team
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
I would have some suggestion for wording:
I would add "(Deputy)" in front of every "Chairman"; and I would add "Member" behind the second word "Government"
Otherwise, this seems to fit with in-game rule for impeachment, so I see little reason to oppose it, as it brings our laws closer to the game.
I disagree. A MoNC should be possible at any time.
It can be justified to be the same as the game, in which one can only impeach CP every 7 days too. I don't see why we need a ''cool-down'' period for 7 days after a new term, though; sometimes most damage is done when someone got elected by chance and immediately abuses it.
But in general we all prefer responsible CMs that do not throw the entire country into delay by posting consecutive MoNCs.. Which didn't even occur in anyone's mind before the last few days.
If the community votes for a party that launches MoNC after MoNC, who are we to deny that in procedures? I will vote against a proposal like this.
Fair enough, although in the current circumstances I doubt if there is a community voting for that, instead of a clan of like 10 semi - RL friends.
I never imagined I would see ElGorro opposing bringing our laws closer to their in-game counterparts - times are changing 😮 !
A MoNC is not the same as an Impeachment. The last one will remove the complete government and has way more impact, than removing support to one specific person in the government or other public job. Mostly for jobs that are made up next to the real game. Therfor its legit to have a difference in rules.
Okay then, if that is the reasoning you believe... 😉
Just keep it simple, thats all I want.
belachelijk voorstel.
een verdere poging van sommige mensen binnen nederland om langzaam maar zeker congres monddood te maken.
met dit voorstel zou congres zomaar 7 dagen lang zonder bijvoorbeeld een fatsoenlijke (d)CoC kunnen zitten als de mensen die gekozen worden inactief worden of weigeren instructies te volgen van congres.
en zo zijn er nog veel meer scenario's die absoluut niet toelaatbaar zijn, maar wel voor kunnen komen als deze wijziging ingevoerd zou worden.
Nou, trek de stoute schoenen aan en denk mee: we zijn het al over één ding eens 😉
debat sluiten en geen wijzigingen doen.
Juistem. Altijd wel weer een reden om ergens tegen te zijn of op normale wijze mee te doen, ook al ben je het niet eens 🙂 Daaag weer odan.
ik zie geen reden om deze wet te wijzigen. dat jij lacherig kan doen over het monddood maken van congres is jouw probleem.
I don't think we should think too easy about this one. But it only comes after a certain member of Congress insisted on launching (in advance well-known) consecutive unsuccessful Motions of No Confidence that filibusters Congress talking about other matters, i.e. hurting the democratic processes. It shows how easily it can be abused as it allows literally permanent meta- Motion of No Confidences against all 'official' positions.
I don't think newly-elected positions should be automatically protected for 7 days (which is not the case in-game either) for reasons mentioned above. The most important position in the game, Country President, is shielded from removal for 7 days after a failed attempt.. In that light it can be somewhat justified. But that means that reckless motions take away an actual democratic right for the rest. Oh, if we all just had common sense, then this wouldn't actually be relevant 😃.
At present, the motion is being abused enormously in my eyes by certain parties. I therefore think it is a good idea to apply a regulation to this where there is indeed a time limit that no motion can be sent. However, an exception clousule must indeed be added so that there is no possibility of power abuse. For example, inactivity or harmful actions.
Good to see yas are having so much fun in Congress! I myself see the word "subsection" and fall asleep. 😃
I have reviewed comments made and I would like to request an amendment to the CoC on the proposal by dropping the line of text for which was legitimate concerns raided by NoTie.
"after 7 days of a new Government or Chairman of Congress term"
This would then bring the proposal change in line with game mechanics of a failed proposal.
Maybe I would support a MoNC against the CoC team for not using the complete header. Only the right part of the seats.