Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 28, 2024, 09:32:09 AM(I would honestly be even more radical and get rid of the CRL entirely,)
Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 30, 2024, 09:53:17 AMMy current idea is putting Lex.C.1.3.2-5 into practice and having the Scribery manage a pool of "proofreaders" (call them whatever you want) that can suggest amendments about form at any point between Hoppering and Clarking.
Quote from: Sir Lüc on April 30, 2024, 10:30:28 AM...get a CRL review and get it Clarked with no opportunity for a debate on merit. I was simply trying to avoid setting bad precedent.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 27, 2024, 10:06:44 AMThe CRL shouldn't be able to say "hey this bill changed a lot, start over." That isn't really its function.The law stipulates that the CRL is implicitly called to make a judgement about whether a bill, having spent 10 days in the Hopper, is eligible to be moved to committee or not. To me, it seemed trivial that even though it shared the same Hopper thread, "The Vacant Throne (We Really Mean Business Now) Amendment" was not the same bill (in title, effects and content) as "The Succession Amendment" first posted by Miestră on the 17th, then amended by AD on the 20th. So as Sir Txec says, it shouldn't, but it does.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 29, 2024, 10:42:50 PMI've put it in the Database myself, Mr SoS. Alea jacta est.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 29, 2024, 08:04:02 PMLast minute question, sorry to be a jerk. I would like to Clark this with the words "(or, if female, Queen)" removed from Section 1. Two reasons:
- I'm kind of nostalgic for the ancient Talossan precedent whereby "King" is a gender-neutral term. (I'd honestly kind of like to start a new one whereby the King's consort is called the Queen regardless of gender :D )
- It's a friendly gesture to any Talossans now or in the future who might not identify as either male nor female.