LGC 1.1 - Standard Order of Procedure (SOAP)

[S019]

I disagree with the free for all slot system and think you guys should consider either a government/opposition division with the Speaker being partisan or having each Courtite having one slot.


Another thing that I have qualms about was this: The presentation of a call for a vote shall not impact the ability to introduce or dispose of amendments, in such cases the Court shall take votes on amendments followed by the final vote if such call for a vote is successful.

General precedent has been that if a final vote motion is called, amendments cannot be considered unless the final vote motion fails. Otherwise, what I could see happen here is a motion for a final vote is called, someone who hates the bill introduces 30 amendments, motion for final vote is successful, Court wastes time voting on 30 amendments, bill is delayed until next session. Do we see why this is a problem? There is a chance that a partisan active legislator, like the second coming of the Second Council version of me could abuse this to create a de-facto filibuster type thing.

Other than that, this seems good.

[S019]

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.

As I've told you several times, there was no opposition (thus members of different parties shared slots) for much of the 9th and 10th councils and clogging did not result. There may be a justification for GLRP style federally, but it seems not here. Regarding the seven slot system, the old 5 member Council would have filled that up at times, so definitely too small for a seven member body, particularly when restricted as you propose.

I don't see anything wrong with being cautious and the slot division method has worked just fine, I'd keep it, I don't see the need for this free-for-all type system.

[S019]

I don't see anything wrong with being cautious and the slot division method has worked just fine, I'd keep it, I don't see the need for this free-for-all type system.

In general legislatures should be as open as possible unless a reason to close them arises. What happened Federally is irrelevant to Lincoln and in any case Federal GLRP has been repealed. Also, the "opposition" for this session would be *checks notes* Leinad and SN2903...which just seems silly.

I'm not even saying you have to change it from the free-for-all, I'm just saying there should be some debate on it/maybe you should consider several different proposals and vote on them all at once.