• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Convention rules[W:18, 58]

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
29A said:

AGENT J said:

Amandi said:

APACHERAT said:

azgreg said:

Bigfoot 88 said:

BrewerBob said:

chromium said:

Citizen.Seven said:

d0gbreath said:

DaveFagan said:

ernst barkmann said:

FreedomFromAll said:

Gaius46 said:

gdgyva said:

Geoist said:

Grand Mal said:

Hatuey said:

hallam said:

haymarket said:

Jango said:

Kal'Stang said:

Korimyr the Rat said:

Lovebug said:

Luftwaffe said:

Navy Pride said:

Nilly said:

NIMBY said:

Northern Light said:

OrphanSlug said:

Paleocon said:

PirateMk1 said:

PirateMk1 said:

Poiuy said:

radioman said:

rjay said:

sangha said:

TeleKat said:

The Mark said:

TheDemSocialist said:

tres borrachos said:

TurtleDude said:

US Conservative said:

vasuderatorrent said:

Your Star said:

Here is a draft of the rules for the convention:

I would say we should start with scratch regarding the document.

First, we should have solutions proposed for the outline of the document, once this is established, then people should begin proposing ideas for sections of the document. Once all of the sections have been worked out, then someone can call a vote on the whole document. If this passes, the matter is concluded.

Prior to the adoption of an outline, proposals on individual sections or the whole document should not be allowed. Moreover, prior to the adoption of each section, a final vote will not be allowed. It will be allowed to go back and revise (by vote) the outline and/or the sections. However, any sections proposed must be compatible with the outline existing at the time of their proposals, and a final vote can be proposed only for the document which is the combination of all existing sections in accordance with the existing outline.

After the adoption of these rules, votes will require that over half of the total number of participants cast a vote of yes or present, and that more yes votes than no votes be cast, in order for the motion to pass. If 48 hours elapse from the time of the vote's proposal without this being met it will be held as rejected. Voting will also be considered to end when the motion is accepted, or when the number of no votes equals equals the sum of all yes votes and all votes which could yet be cast (by those who have not voted on the motion), or when every participant has voted present. Changing a vote already cast should not be allowed. When a motion is being considered on a subject (outline, an specific section, or the whole document), another motion on the same section (or on the outline or whole document if that is what is under consideration) is not allowed. However a motion on a different matter is allowed.

The outline does not consist of ideological goals or the like, but a label of each section and the order of the sections.

It is possible to introduce a motion to repeal or amend a section which has previously been approved, however, while the motion is pending, the section so challenged shall be considered as entirely valid unless and until it's motion to repeal or amend has passed, and if prior to the passage of a motion to repeal or amend, a motion on the whole document is introduced, such motion shall be concluded, and if the whole document is approved in such a circumstance the amendment or repeal of a section shall be negated.

It is possible to introduce a motion to amend the outline. It is not possible however to introduce a motion to repeal the outline, such that there will not be one. The norm in the above paragraph regarding the passage of the whole document being in conflict with a vote to repeal or amend a section, shall be valid for a vote to amend the outline.

A motion to amend the outline which only rearranges the order of the sections shall have no effect on motions regarding sections. A motion to remove a section prohibits future motions on the section. However any motions currently being voted on with respect to a section may have their votes concluded. Any sections discarded in this manner shall be automatically valid for reuse if the section is reintroduced to the outline. The addition of a new section to the outline prohibits the introduction of a vote on the whole document until the text if said section is approved. Changing the title of a section is equivalent to removing that section and introducing a new one.

If a motion requires several posts to make, the 48 hours shall begin when the first post is made, but voting may not begin until the last post is made. When several such posts must be made each must follow the preceding by no more than twenty minutes, and a note must have been made in the previous post that another would follow.

Editing a post casting a vote or making a motion in any way is not allowed.

By making a motion, one automatically votes yes to it.

A vote on the whole document shall require two thirds of the total number of participants to vote yes. It fails when either the time limit elapses without the required number, or when over one third of the participants cast a vote of no or present. The same is required to amend the discussion rules.

An amendment to the discussion rules must note itself as such. A motion contrary to these rules which does not specify itself as an amendment to them is invalid unless it receives a yes vote from every single participant.

A single person who introduces on a motion on a matter, may not introduce another motion on the same matter within 168 hours of the previous introduction, he or she may however introduce a motion on another matter.

If a motion is introduced which is invalid by reason of simultaneous ness with another motion on the same matter, it shall be without effect.

The President and the Secretary both have the joint duty to notify the participants of any motions and the resolutions to them, either by PM or by an in-thread quite such as will give the person a notification. Moreover participants making motions and casting votes have the duty to inform one of them by said means. The President and Secretary may make arrangements between themselves on the distribution between them of these duties. A violation of this paragraph shall not be invalidating or disqualifying.

Once debate on the outline begins, no new participants may be accepted. At the beginning of said thread, a list of participants shall be posted by the President or Secretary.

In order to ensure openness of the debate and the avoidance of collusion, private communication between participants regarding the debate shall be considered to have consent given for disclosure on the debate thread. This also applies if participants communicate indirectly.

Delegation shall not be allowed.

I propose these discussion rules be adopted.

Please propose any amendments you think should be made to these rules. I will start a poll thread on any proposed amendments. So please propose them formally (e.g. Add "something", remove "something", replace "something" with "something else").

I'd prefer that this thread be solely for proposing such amendments, and that arguments for or against be made in the poll thread for the specific amendment.
 
Re: Convention rules

First, my thanks for drafting the rules.

A couple of points for clarification.

Numbering the rules is probably useful as it makes downstream referencing to specific rules less cumbersome.

In this rules

A vote on the whole document shall require two thirds of the total number of participants to vote yes. It fails when either the time limit elapses without the required number, or when over one third of the participants cast a vote of no or present. The same is required to amend the discussion rules.

Does participants refer to the total number of convention delegates or the the total number of delegates who have cast votes?
 
Re: Convention rules

Only change that I can see is that we need more than 48 hours in order to accommodate those that cannot make it in that time frame. I propose that we switch out the 48 hours with 1 week as that will give everyone ample time to vote. Some people may not be able to be on but once a week.
 
Re: Convention rules

What happened to the original poll, >" This poll will close on 12-04-14 at 09:01 PM "< ?
 
Re: Convention rules

Only change that I can see is that we need more than 48 hours in order to accommodate those that cannot make it in that time frame. I propose that we switch out the 48 hours with 1 week as that will give everyone ample time to vote. Some people may not be able to be on but once a week.

My only issue with 1 week is that it will take much longer and may lose momentum. 72 hours sounds better to me, or else the rest of us are twiddling our thumbs for 7 days.
 
Re: Convention rules

First, my thanks for drafting the rules.

A couple of points for clarification.

Numbering the rules is probably useful as it makes downstream referencing to specific rules less cumbersome.

In this rules

A vote on the whole document shall require two thirds of the total number of participants to vote yes. It fails when either the time limit elapses without the required number, or when over one third of the participants cast a vote of no or present. The same is required to amend the discussion rules.

Does participants refer to the total number of convention delegates or the the total number of delegates who have cast votes?

Good idea regarding numbering. I will most likely number the rules when I place them as a whole to a vote.

Participants refers to all those who have voted yes on the original thread who are members of DP (45 at present).

Only change that I can see is that we need more than 48 hours in order to accommodate those that cannot make it in that time frame. I propose that we switch out the 48 hours with 1 week as that will give everyone ample time to vote. Some people may not be able to be on but once a week.

I will post a poll to vote on this alteration.

What happened to the original poll, >" This poll will close on 12-04-14 at 09:01 PM "< ?

It's still there.
 
Re: Convention rules

My only issue with 1 week is that it will take much longer and may lose momentum. 72 hours sounds better to me, or else the rest of us are twiddling our thumbs for 7 days.

Yes it will take longer. But nothing worth doing right is ever easy. ;)

As for momentum...that's up to the people in charge of this to make sure doesn't happen. ;)
 
Re: Convention rules

Yes it will take longer. But nothing worth doing right is ever easy. ;)

As for momentum...that's up to the people in charge of this to make sure doesn't happen. ;)

The original constitutional convention took 4 months. And that was with face to face debates and what not. Online in this format it could take much longer...
 
Re: Convention rules

What happened to the original poll, >" This poll will close on 12-04-14 at 09:01 PM "< ?

It's still there.

Ok Debate Politics Gals and Guys I got a wild hair up.... :thinking some..... were ...( Don't ask.).... (Really.)..... (You don't want to know.):eek:
Anywho...... I got this idea for maybe doing a Debate Politics constitutional convention and see what, or if, we can put a Constitution of our great United States together and then vote on it. So before I waste mine and others peoples time on something that goes nowhere I decided I should take a poll to see if this is something even worth pursuing. If the poll is affirmative on the subject I will then put together another Thread to discuss and vote on how best to organize said convention. I look forward to see how this pans out. So without further ado have at it and let the games begin. :popcorn2:

Good point.

Can you rephrase the point in the form of a declarative statement? I didn't see the point that was being made.
 
Re: Convention rules

So is this at the top of the poll. >" This poll will close on 12-04-14 at 09:01 PM "<

Why are we moving ahead while the poll is still active ?

We can always wait. Nothing has became official as far as I am concerned. Once we elect a President we will have a lot more order. I think people are moving ahead because they don't want this to be left behind.

It is human nature to discuss things until kingdom come and do absolutely nothing. Some people are just making sure that doesn't happen.
 
Re: Convention rules

I've already nominated you for the Congressional Convention Sergeant of Latrines.

Do I hear a second nomination for Luftwaffles as Sergeant of Latrines ?

Luftwaffles for prez of latrines :cool:
 
Re: Convention rules

Seconded.

Do we need a third nomination or can we put it up to vote, Luftwaffels as the Sgt, of the Latrines.


We need a Secretary of the Constitutional Convention ASP. This will be one of the most important positions.

I nominate tres borrachos for the Constitutional Convention Secretary.

We also need a Sergeant at Arms and the obvious choice has to be Your Star.

I nominate Your Star as our Sergeant at Arms.

I also would like to suspend the DP rules/TOS on the soon to be Congressional Convention Forum.

Anyone want to second the amendment to suspend the DP rules ?
 
Re: Convention rules

Moderator's Warning:
As a Moderator myself I can tell you straight out that such a rule, no matter how it is voted on will have no force what so ever. Debate Politics rules will remain in FULL force. This is not something that can be changed or negotiated. This applies to any thread that is upstairs.
I also would like to suspend the DP rules/TOS on the soon to be Congressional Convention Forum.

Anyone want to second the amendment to suspend the DP rules ?
 
Re: Convention rules

Do we need a third nomination or can we put it up to vote, Luftwaffels as the Sgt, of the Latrines.

We need a Secretary of the Constitutional Convention ASP. This will be one of the most important positions.

I nominate tres borrachos for the Constitutional Convention Secretary.

We also need a Sergeant at Arms and the obvious choice has to be Your Star.

I nominate Your Star as our Sergeant at Arms.

I would propose that we detail needed 'admin' roles and responsibilities that we will need for this, then people can come forward to take them on rather than being nominated. I would also propose that this is the absolute next thing we do. I absolutely appreciate Paleocons effort to get the ball rolling here but we need some people to officially come forward and run this thing. We can start a 'nominate yourself for a position' thread and have it last until we stop taking on new people (i.e. when the poll closes). Then we will be able to disperse presidential/secretarial/whateverial duties as soon as we have a full roster.

I see a presidential and secretarial role as necessary, along with a backup for each. I would also propose that only those nominated people can begin threads related to this undertaking, as otherwise this is going to get way too confusing. I'm already getting lost as to what's where.

EDIT: Didn't even realize there is already a thread to elect a secretary. Told you I was getting lost...
 
Re: Convention rules

I would propose that we detail needed 'admin' roles and responsibilities that we will need for this, then people can come forward to take them on rather than being nominated. I would also propose that this is the absolute next thing we do. I absolutely appreciate Paleocons effort to get the ball rolling here but we need some people to officially come forward and run this thing. We can start a 'nominate yourself for a position' thread and have it last until we stop taking on new people (i.e. when the poll closes). Then we will be able to disperse presidential/secretarial/whateverial duties as soon as we have a full roster.

I see a presidential and secretarial role as necessary, along with a backup for each. I would also propose that only those nominated people can begin threads related to this undertaking, as otherwise this is going to get way too confusing. I'm already getting lost as to what's where.

EDIT: Didn't even realize there is already a thread to elect a secretary. Told you I was getting lost...

You are absolutely correct and that leadership is coming abet a little slowly. I am not very good at utilizing forum tools so I am learning on the job so to speak. We are in the process of becoming organized. It just takes a bit of time over the internet.
 
Re: Convention rules

You are absolutely correct and that leadership is coming abet a little slowly. I am not very good at utilizing forum tools so I am learning on the job so to speak. We are in the process of becoming organized. It just takes a bit of time over the internet.

Its getting there, Im feeling it. I think once we get an agreement about where and what we are going to specifically do it will start to go quickly.
 
Re: Convention rules

Its getting there, Im feeling it. I think once we get an agreement about where and what we are going to specifically do it will start to go quickly.

If organization is a problem, perhaps, since this will essentially become a large debate over a variety of topics, that in the interest of organization, all matters regarding this convention be stored in a sub-forum in the Battle Grounds and Disputations Forum.
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

I did a CTRL F search. There has been no mention of 'language'. I wholeheartedly believe that the writing and tone of our finished product is just as important as the ideas and beliefs that they represent. I'm not saying to have it written in Old English, just that it be crafted in a way that not only represents the time we find ourselves in now, but times from now. Our Founding Documents are magnificent and were revolutionary for not only the time, but across the spectrum of known human civilization. However, the leaps and bounds humanity has collectively made since the Founding Documents were created has left them antiquated. I don't mean the rights themselves, but just the language and lack of specificity. Take the 2nd Amendment. I believe wholeheartedly that an American has the right to own weapons. But, without specificity, if we want our document to have literal authority, we need to be specific and not leave wiggle room for "interpretation."

It may perhaps prove to be impossible to craft it in that manner, but I nevertheless hope that what we create has less wiggle room and antiquated language at 230+ years old.

The bar has been set ;)
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

One other thing --

Can we agree to leave Partisanship at the door?
 
Re: Convention rules[W:18]

I did a CTRL F search. There has been no mention of 'language'. I wholeheartedly believe that the writing and tone of our finished product is just as important as the ideas and beliefs that they represent. I'm not saying to have it written in Old English, just that it be crafted in a way that not only represents the time we find ourselves in now, but times from now. Our Founding Documents are magnificent and were revolutionary for not only the time, but across the spectrum of known human civilization. However, the leaps and bounds humanity has collectively made since the Founding Documents were created has left them antiquated. I don't mean the rights themselves, but just the language and lack of specificity. Take the 2nd Amendment. I believe wholeheartedly that an American has the right to own weapons. But, without specificity, if we want our document to have literal authority, we need to be specific and not leave wiggle room for "interpretation."

It may perhaps prove to be impossible to craft it in that manner, but I nevertheless hope that what we create has less wiggle room and antiquated language at 230+ years old.

The bar has been set ;)

I agree with the sentiment, but hopefully we dont need a sub forum full of lawyers to make things "airtight" for the future, history has shown us that is unlikely to happen despite our intent. I think something clearly written and easily understandable would be a fine goal.
 
Back
Top Bottom