[draft]Procedure of the Deshret Amendment III

Vaculatestar · Post by **Vaculatestar** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:31 am

Procedure of the Deshret Amendment III Section 1: Amendment

(1) Section 2 subsection 4 of the Deshret Procedures shall be amended to read as follows:

4. Councilors of the Deshret may cast a vote for or against a proposal. Councilors of the Deshret may cast a vote of present indicating that one has participated in the vote for the purpose of retaining membership in the Deshret but is not in favor or against the proposal.

Pretty much my reasoning for this is simple. New guy becomes a Councilor, isn't aware of the rules in their entirety, and votes using the word "yea" or "nope". Vote doesn't get counted under the current rules. Now to me that just isn't fair, and that goes the same for some of us older people in here, sometimes we just get careless and don't necessarily use the formal "aye" or "nay". Anyways that's what I got, discuss away.

Vaculatestar · Post by **Vaculatestar** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:09 am

Also feel free to discuss relaxing our activity requirement a bit as well. If we come up with something we can add it into the draft.

James · Post by **James** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:03 pm

Seems solid. But you missed a connective

--

Deshret Procedures Amendment III Section 1: Amendment

(1) Section 2 subsection 4 of the Deshret Procedures shall be amended to read as follows:

4. Councilors of the Deshret may cast a vote for or against a proposal as long as the Keeper or other Presiding Officer in their judgement, determine that it means aye or nay. Councilors of the Deshret may cast a vote of present indicating that one has participated in the vote for the purpose of retaining membership in the Deshret but is not in favor or against the proposal.

Vaculatestar · Post by **Vaculatestar** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:25 pm

Now is there anything significantly wrong?

James · Post by **James** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:31 pm

Apart from the fact that it irks me that the Queen's English is always used for legislation? No, nothing, no.

Vaculatestar · Post by **Vaculatestar** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 1:05 pm

Nope.

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:58 am

Thats an ok amendment. But I think it should say, somewhere, that the answer should be plain and simple like your suggestions. Just so we can avoid any possible confusion.

Vaculatestar · Post by **Vaculatestar** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:30 am

I'm purposefully leaving a ton of discression to the Keeper here and not codifying what words we can and cannot use to vote.

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:34 am

Vaculatestar wrote:purposefully

OOO alot more power and/or free-way for you then

Vaculatestar · Post by **Vaculatestar** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:35 am

You miss my purpose, my purpose is to NOT codify specific words that we can use to vote because in my mind that's just ridiculous.