LGC 1.1 - Standard Order of Procedure (SOAP)

[Leinad]

LGC 1.1: The BLANK Act, where LGC acknowledges the legislation is in the General Court of Lincoln, 1 indicating that the legislation is in the first meeting of the General Court, 1 indicating that the legislation was the first piece of legislation introduced in the Legislation Introduction Thread, and BLANK being replaced with the name of the piece of legislation.

I promise, by the end of the month I will introduce "the BLANK Act."

[Leinad]

D. Questions or Disputes regarding the General Court Rules shall not be within the purview of the Lincoln Court or the Supreme Court, unless the Presiding Officer is refusing to recognize the existence of a point of order, in which case the court shall be limited to the ability to compel the Presiding Officer to proceed with handling the point of order and any related appeal. However, in this case, the authority of the court to hear the case ends the moment the Presiding Officer complies with their duties relevant to the point of order, even if such compliance comes during legal proceedings.

Use of "the court" is too ambiguous considering our body's name, imo.

I propose:

D. Questions or Disputes regarding the General Court Rules shall not be within the purview of the Lincoln Court or the Supreme Court, unless the Presiding Officer is refusing to recognize the existence of a point of order, in which case the court Lincoln Court or the Supreme Court shall be limited to the ability to compel the Presiding Officer to proceed with handling the point of order and any related appeal. However, in this case, the authority of the court Lincoln Court or the Supreme Court to hear the case ends the moment the Presiding Officer complies with their duties relevant to the point of order, even if such compliance comes during legal proceedings.

Alt: "aforementioned judicial body" "judicial branch" "judiciary" or something of that ilk, whatever is clearest and least clunky to you guys

Everyone else bring your fine-toothed combs out. I'll try to read it again tomorrow afternoon if I can find the time after I get back from the store inspiring kids at a school here in Lincoln.

[Leinad]

Also, the "opposition" for this session would be *checks notes* Leinad and SN2903...which just seems silly.

I guarantee the vote wouldn't have gone like that had we set up a partisan speakership beforehand

[Leinad]

Well under the old version of the rules it was unclear at best what happened regarding amendments and final vote motions. For instance, could one introduce a final vote motion if an amendment was still actively pending? And if so what happened to that amendment? The rules said that if the Chancellor did this it treated such amendments as failed unless they were being actively voted on, but left it ambiguous for a standard member. The whole "you can't offer a new amendment when a final vote motion is pending" was more of a Speaker's Announced Policy than an actual rule, I'm not even sure it was 100% consistent lol. And in most cases people just withdrew the final vote motion if there was an amendment to be offered anyways.

Then the way to do it is to say that no amendments proposed after a final vote motion can be considered, while amendments proposed before a final vote motion can still be considered.

Hmmm.....I guess I'm not completely opposed to that model. What do other people think?

It sounds like a good idea, I think? Being able to spam amendments to delay a vote sounds fun if you're the one doing it, but it sounds like it would be annoying for anyone else. (Also, even if it wasn't a problem before, the more we talk about it here the more the seed is planted in mischievous people's heads )

[Leinad]

AYE