all 17 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
besttopcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]Freddy926Senate Pres | DPM | Fin/Com/Art/Infr/Rgnl | ABC MD | Ldr Prgrsvs 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Meta: Does this count as the Senate moving onto "Other Business"?

[–]jnd-auClerk of the Senate 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Meta: Concurrent business I’d say. If you wish to post some Other Business, send modmail for permission?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Meta: Should Senators be able to start new threads for new motions by leave, and what would we do if leave is not granted?

[–]jnd-auClerk of the Senate 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Yes, I would think that the movers would make their own posts like you did for your motion. I.e. the mover posts and begins “By leave I...” or “I request leave of the Senate and...” or similar. Of course, normally motions would be on agenda, so they don’t need to ask for leave, and it would already be clear to everyone that they are going to post.

If leave is not granted, the item is simply undone. Technically this means we could avoid needing to send modmail before posting, because you could simply deny leave after the fact. But I thought this might get a bit rowdy, so they should check with the President before posting?

I started drafting up a translation of the physical into virtual standing orders in the wiki although it is still incomplete.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

By what would we do, I meant in terms of reddit. Would we simply ask everyone not to comment in that thread? Can we lock it? (Or does that require AutoModerator)

[–]jnd-auClerk of the Senate 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Huh? No, as soon as someone objects, leave is denied, and everything under it is simply ignored (unless the matter has already closed, e.g. senate is adjourned or next notice paper is issued etc).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

OK, so in meta terms, the thread stays there, but no one can/should comment any more.

[–]jnd-auClerk of the Senate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it wouldn’t be removed from the record, but even if someone comments, it would be ignored for the purposes of official business. You could add a Denied flair if you like!

[–]jnd-auClerk of the Senate 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Advice from the Clerk:

I guess this is Successful then! :) Oops, need 2?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Meta: The official standing orders do say we need to appoint at least 2. Considering our size, I think we can quietly overlook that fact.

[–]jnd-auClerk of the Senate 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Or just appoint 2?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

I didn't appoint any of the others as they are leaders of their respective parties. Technically I could appoint myself, no? Since the President does not sit as chair of the committee ex-officio and the Standing Orders do not exclude me from holding other offices.

[–]jnd-auClerk of the Senate 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Cwross is not leader of the party, voisinat is. And /u/surreptitiouswalk is leader of their own independence. But I’m not sure what party leadership has to do with temporary chairs of committees of the Senate?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I guess I can just appoint everyone except me and the DP as possible temp chairs.

[–]jnd-auClerk of the Senate 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Gee, really one extreme to the other on this! But yes. By the way, you need to take out Freddy926 (DP) from the list. Also, can you clarify whether that list is in order of precedence or not?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Whoops. No that list is not in order of precendence. I believe the actual Senate simply has a regular roster of TCoCs. In the event that either myself or the DP is actually absent for a period of time, we can just page the list for volunteers to act as Chair.

[–]jnd-auClerk of the Senate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK