Minor clarifications and changes to Clark procedure

[Sir Lüc]

Azul, with a fresh term of the Ziu fast approaching I would like to set out some (mostly minor) changes in procedure. I realise I am a little early but I am likely to forget otherwise. I may also add other minor clarifications before the First Clark begins.


1. Separate voting threads in separate boards; Royal Assent

Quite simply, the Cosă will receive a Cosă-only voting thread in the Cosă board, and the Senate will continue having a Senate-only voting thread in the Senate board. I will open both threads personally - no need for Senators to do so themselves anymore.

The Lobby will still receive a central stickied and locked thread for posting the Clark and redirecting to the two voting threads; this central thread will be unlocked after voting ends so that the King may signify his Royal Assent or Royal Veto to each bill that passed. To comply with Lexh.H.2.6, it is also my intention to provide the King with an enrolled/engrossed(?) PDF of each passed bill that he can print and physically sign, if he so wishes.


2. Electronic voting on the new database

Obviously electronic voting on the Clark will be encouraged and made available. I will personally contact each MZ as soon as they are appointed to ensure everyone has a database account they can use to vote,  and eventually to propose bills directly (and of course to use any other database function as they become available). In general, you should expect the new database to be able to do everything the old one did, and more - feature ideas/requests are always appreciated.


3. Bill handling in the Hopper

The Hopper is only for bills; "ideas" or threads for general discussion will be moved to the Lobby, for the sake of order and of precisely determining Clarking/committee eligibility. You are then of course welcome to post any and all bills who spring up from that idea or discussion to the Hopper.

I will comply with H.2.1.9 and H.2.1.9.1, as I already started doing, by moving any bills that are explicitly withdrawn to the Archive and tagging them "Withdrawn", and similarly with any bills that lay dormant for approximately two months (ie. two Clarking chances declined, so to speak) and tagging them "Abandoned". Please note that withdrawn and abandoned bills carry no prejudice and can simply be re-posted and Clarked again, as those same articles themselves state, except that of course you may not Clark the same bill twice in the same term, generally speaking.

Bills that pass committee* but do not get immediately Clarked will return to the Hopper and be tagged accordingly, so the CRL board always contains only those bills that are actively being examined - as per the above, you effectively have two months to Clark a bill that has passed committee before I consider it withdrawn. You also, of course, may not substantially alter a bill that has passed committee and then directly Clark it.

*: As per H.2.1.6, passing committee means either getting a CRL recommendation, or 30 days in the CRL without recommendation.


4. Minor details about Clarked bills

Government, opposition and private member's bills will continue to be treated the same, but will be numbered in that same order on the Clark (ie. Government bills will receive the lowest numbers, and so on).

The new Database will bring back support for Resolutions of the Senate and Resolutions of the Cosă to be added to the Clark. Previously, RS had been voted on separately and in a few rare occasions, so those are useful and this should hopefully be helpful if only once in five years; of course, RC are not really a thing anymore, but in principle, if you want to Clark an RC, you can. (Actually, I'm now thinking that the VoC would kind of be an RC...)

[Sir Lüc]

5. Custom party labels

MCs who want a custom party label to be shown next to their name on official listings and bill signatures should let me know at any time, subject to the following styling guidelines.

If you are an independent elected in a party list, you are eligible to be shown as MC-Ind./<partylist>, and if you are a member of an unregistered party elected in a party list, you may opt to be shown as MC-<party>/<partylist>. In both cases, you will still be grouped with the party list you were elected in.

Unlikely scenarios that happened in the past: If you hold seats from multiple party lists, you will be shown as MC-<party1>/<party2> (eg. FreeDem/PNP precedent). If you split from your existing party while retaining Cosă seats, you will receive a new label matching your new party (eg. Liberal Congress precedent).

This is more of a clarification than a new rule as most of this already happened before; I am simply giving people the opportunity to receive more accurate labels in seat listings.