[draft]Procedure of the Deshret Amendment III

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:42 am

And i completely agree with you

Vaculatestar · Post by **Vaculatestar** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:46 am

Then what's the problem?

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:49 am

Was there a problem? I had no problem?

Apologies if it seemed there was

Vaculatestar · Post by **Vaculatestar** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:55 am

Probably wasn't, I'm just tired so I probably just misconstrued something. Time to wait unless one of the other Councilors (of which there are many even if it doesn't look like it

) has an issue.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:03 am

This is probably more nitpicky than necessary, but the law is actually called the Procedure of the Deshret rather than Deshret Procedures. It may be a good idea to use the actual title in your (1) clause to avoid any confusion.

Vaculatestar · Post by **Vaculatestar** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:29 am

Fixed.

Charles Cerebella · Post by **Charles Cerebella** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:21 am

Why not just:

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.

I think its pretty obvious when something is in favour or against and there is no need to codify the Keeper being able to choose what it means.

Applebania · Post by **Applebania** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:09 am

^I like that idea.

Vaculatestar · Post by **Vaculatestar** » Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:24 pm

I like the idea to and have edited the OP to reflect that. Thanks Charles.

If nobody has any issues here I'm going to motion to vote.

Common-Sense Politics · Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:28 pm

Seconded.

Honors