Hopper protocol

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

There has been a lot of stink raised by various people (usually people who were leaders of the defunct Moderate Radical Party, for some interesting reason) around members of Government parties deciding to Clark various bills that the first group of people have objections to. There seems to be an idea that they are not being "properly Hoppered" and it is somehow inappropriate to Clark them while certain people (some of whom aren't even members of the Ziu?) still have problems with them.

A couple of points:

1) I don't think that people who, in some cases, made a conscious withdrawal from Talossa's legislative politics have a real right to complain when those who have been elected make a note of their objections, and plough on anyway. For me, I welcome concerns and comments, especially polite ones, and I hope you've all seen that I do deal with them rather ignore them. But the questions I ask myself when Clarking a bill  are as follows:

- am I satisfied with it, given the comments of others?
- will it get the necessary majority?

Pleasing everybody with my bills is not a priority. Pleasing people who have strong objections with which I disagree, and who do not have a vote or political influence in the Ziu, is quite frankly "nice but inessential". If you are drawing the conclusion that if the people who have objections with the Government parties' agreed legislative project should make damn sure there is an effective party which represents their views in the next Cosa (and on lobbying Senators in the meantime), then damn right.

2) While we're speaking on influence and politeness the other day, several of my critics don't seem to have gotten the memo that comments which are phrased in aggressive, pugnacious and condescending manners are far less likely to be taken heed of. Or, to put it another way - I'm not REALLY predisposed to listen to your suggestions on legislation if you just called me an "asshat" in the OldWitt Shoutbox.

3) Current law on the Hopper states:

No bill may be published in a Clark unless it has spent at least ten days in the Hopper as a legislative proposal, except according to H.6.1.

Some criticism has taken the form of criticising the proposers of bills for amending them quite soon before Clarking them - even if that amendment has come in response to criticism! Would these people prefer we change the law to read:

No bill may be published in a Clark unless it has spent at least ten days unamended in the Hopper as a legislative proposal, except according to H.6.1.

[luc]

There has been a lot of stink raised by various people (usually people who were leaders of the defunct Moderate Radical Party, for some interesting reason)

Well, the MRPT of old, though not a certain offshoot, believed in sensible, thought-through reform. There's your reason, and one of my main problems with the current government cohort: you seem to be happy to push through everything but the kitchen sink without actually considering the impact and specifics.

It's not like other members of government parties (currently 5/8 senators and 11/15 MCs) are contributing much to constructive scrutiny of bills, so nobody is really interested to catch and fix flaws, presumably in the spirit of goodwill between government MZs.

The non-Gov MCs are Börnatfiglheu, Taiwos, Roibeardet, Carbonel - none except ESB seems really interested in taking part in Hopper discussions, and ESB himself is often busy with his job. The non-Gov Senators, other than me, are Pinatsch and Ardpresteir; I am the Mençei, a position that should be reasonably nonpartisan, and the other two are seldom involved with the Hopper, I assume for different reasons.

Can you really blame non-MZ people for feeling like stepping in, as government scrutiny is being neglected?

[luc]

In reference to my comment before, I found the exact Shoutbox quote (it hadn't disappeared yet) which sums up my action:

"Also note that I'm never opposed to reform (however drastic) in principle, but I will always be opposed to stuff that hasn't been thought through / is there just to score a political point for no measurable gain."

Moving on.

There seems to be an idea that they are not being "properly Hoppered" and it is somehow inappropriate to Clark them while certain people (some of whom aren't even members of the Ziu?) still have problems with them.

Emphasis on the word "problems": that's not what I said. I think it's my duty as a Senator to comment on bills and offer improvements. If discussion on a bill is still ongoing, why would you Clark that bill immediately?

For a recent example, Epic made a good point on the use of the word "eligible" in my SEA draft. Why was that comment not taken heed of? Because you saw my draft, didn't care about specifics, only cared about winning my extra vote, and thought your work on the Hopper was done, here's a Clarkable bill - when actually there was that bad wording that should have been fixed, and also my placeholder section references were (are!) still there.

[luc]

1) I don't think that people who, in some cases, made a conscious withdrawal from Talossa's legislative politics have a real right to complain when those who have been elected make a note of their objections, and plough on anyway. For me, I welcome concerns and comments, especially polite ones, and I hope you've all seen that I do deal with them rather ignore them. But the questions I ask myself when Clarking a bill  are as follows:

- am I satisfied with it, given the comments of others?
- will it get the necessary majority?

Pleasing everybody with my bills is not a priority. Pleasing people who have strong objections with which I disagree, and who do not have a vote or political influence in the Ziu, is quite frankly "nice but inessential". If you are drawing the conclusion that if the people who have objections with the Government parties' agreed legislative project should make damn sure there is an effective party which represents their views in the next Cosa (and on lobbying Senators in the meantime), then damn right.

Can't really argue with this, though again I wonder what your actual Clarking process is, when the SEA is in the conditions it is in.

2) While we're speaking on influence and politeness the other day, several of my critics don't seem to have gotten the memo that comments which are phrased in aggressive, pugnacious and condescending manners are far less likely to be taken heed of. Or, to put it another way - I'm not REALLY predisposed to listen to your suggestions on legislation if you just called me an "asshat" in the OldWitt Shoutbox.

Right, I apologise for that. I was just upset that:

- you lost a good case, which I agreed with you on;

- nevertheless, you thought it was fine to mock Pinatsch, even though it will only serve to tear Talossa further apart; (Edit: this didn't really come out as I wanted. My point was he's been judged not guilty, why not just let it go instead of souring the mood further?)

- nevertheless, you thought it was fine to mock the Senior Justice, even though V had already posted a well reasoned rebuttal to his interpretation of "justice" vs "law";

- Açafat, a person whom I had literally just called on the Shoutbox a "potential very effective party leader" and that I enjoy working with a lot, went on a spree in the Courtroom;

- you directed him to tamper with said Courtroom spree.

To summarise, on the topic of the court case, "you're right, but you're trying the darndest to make me think you're wrong".

[luc]

Some criticism has taken the form of criticising the proposers of bills for amending them quite soon before Clarking them - even if that amendment has come in response to criticism!

I made that comment on two different bills, with one more that potentially warranted it:

- The SEA had that "eligible" flaw I referenced earlier which should have been fixed because it introduces a loophole, and also still has my D.(x).1 placeholder, because I don't think you even read my draft.

- V's Judiciary bill had large edits made on his sole, private input that were announced only a few days before the Clarking deadline.

- The Non-Hereditary Monarchy bill. It's partially my fault that I failed to comment on Ian's "woah, dude" post (or rather, that I didn't finish my comment and forgot about it), but there was an extensive list of potential points to take heed of that wasn't really commented on. That said, Ian does have a point that the bill was there for a long time and it is right to say that nobody has a divine right to hold a bill.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The SEA had that "eligible" flaw I referenced earlier which should have been fixed because it introduces a loophole

Your conversation with Epic gave no indication of what that "loophole" might actually have been. I asked you exactly what you wanted me to change and got no response. You said things "could" be changed. I took that to mean "could also NOT be changed" and took the path of least resistance. I honestly didn't think Epic's comment was significant, just quibbling.

and also still has my D.(x).1 placeholder, because I don't think you even read my draft.

You're right, that was an oversight on my part. But why do you think I would incorporate your draft into my bill if I hadn't read it, and thought it was at least as good as the IRV idea which was an inheritance from the old ModRad platform? This is another example of an insulting comment which breaks down possibilities of communication.
 

- V's Judiciary bill had large edits made on his sole, private input that were announced only a few days before the Clarking deadline.

V communicated to me that those edits were SUPPOSED to be in the original draft, and asked me what to do re: his impending departure from the Ziu. I encouraged him to make those edits, and also encouraged him not to Clark it this time. As I say, you have to decide whether it should be illegal to make edits to bills close to Clarking deadline, because there's nothing in the law to that effect yet.

Or perhaps you think that Clarking shouldn't be allowed while "discussion is still ongoing". Are you suggest we allow some kind of "filibuster" in the Hopper, that we can stop something being Clarked if someone just wants to discuss it more? As for me, if people are "discussing" something, and I don't think their comments are interesting or important, I'm going to plow ahead. If you don't like that, get the rules changed.

[luc]

Your conversation with Epic gave no indication of what that "loophole" might actually have been. I asked you exactly what you wanted me to change and got no response. You said things "could" be changed. I took that to mean "could also NOT be changed" and took the path of least resistance. I honestly didn't think Epic's comment was significant, just quibbling.

Specifically, the problem is that eligibility should have been spelled out, or it's just as easy to redefine it elsewhere and restrict . Or alternatively, remove eligibility wording and let other preexisting clauses define it. Again, it's my fault that I didn't elaborate; there were a bit too many deadlines fast approaching in the tail end of last week and I simply forgot about some of them.

You're right, that was an oversight on my part. But why do you think I would incorporate your draft into my bill if I hadn't read it, and thought it was at least as good as the IRV idea which was an inheritance from the old ModRad platform? This is another example of an insulting comment which breaks down possibilities of communication.

"Why would I think that" is, as I have said earlier, because I thought you cared more about having the votes than passing good bills. If I was wrong, then I misjudged your intentions, but I certainly didn't mean to insult you (the barrier of translating my arguments into written form effectively is something I admittedly still struggle with, though it's by no means an excuse).

Or perhaps you think that Clarking shouldn't be allowed while "discussion is still ongoing". Are you suggest we allow some kind of "filibuster" in the Hopper, that we can stop something being Clarked if someone just wants to discuss it more? As for me, if people are "discussing" something, and I don't think their comments are interesting or important, I'm going to plow ahead. If you don't like that, get the rules changed.

No, absolutely not, and as I said in the last post, "nobody has a divine right to hold a bill". I would support your idea of 10 unamended days, though. It seems like the best idea - anything more restrictive (no Clarking while someone discusses) is frankly unacceptable.

In an ideal world, we would have the infrastructure to support an amendment process on every bill (do you remember the pseudo-Clarks?), so that each bill gets discussed line-by-line and this kind of problems has no chance of happening, but we have to make do with what we have.