Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 1, 2019 17:22:27 GMT -6
WHEREAS in most nations, responsibility for keeping order and civil debate in the Legislature is a function of the President/Chair/Speaker of that Chamber;
AND WHEREAS in Talossa, most debate on occurs not in the formal chambers of the Ziu, but in the Hopper;
AND WHEREAS the Hopper has degenerated into a kind of "Wild West" atmosphere, with MCs baiting, trolling and abusing each other;
AND WHEREAS this is unseemly;
AND WHEREAS the Mençéi has established good rules for debate among Senators, but nothing similar exists for the Cosa as yet;
BE IT ESTABLISHED by the King, Cosa and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that El Lexhátx H.20 shall be amended as follows:
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 2, 2019 11:19:59 GMT -6
How would this work in practice? I am exceedingly exceedingly interested in this and would love to help you work out the specifics.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Feb 2, 2019 13:51:29 GMT -6
Looks good and I welcome steps being taken in favour of having more constructive and less destructive debate. I'd be more than willing to cosponsor this.
The only suggestion I would offer is that the Mençei should not be required to preside over Living Cosas, as he's not an MC. Perhaps a provision to let the Cosa choose a presiding officer on the spot would be better suited for that (admittedly exceedingly rare) occurrence.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 2, 2019 14:38:03 GMT -6
How it would work in practice is - as I see it - the Túischac'h would have moderation rights over the Hopper, and when MCs/Senators were degenerating into slanging matches, trolling, defamatory accusations, personal abuse and cusswords, the Túischac'h would have the right to, in order:
a) give warnings; b) delete posts or sections of posts which were contrary to the dignity and good order of the Ziu; c) demand apologies from MZs; d) temporarily (maybe 48 hours max) ban MZs from the Hopper.
I say MZs but I just realised that other citizens are entitled to participate in the Hopper; same rules, though.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Feb 2, 2019 16:03:22 GMT -6
b) should probably be moved alongside d), I wouldn't go full censorship unless strictly necessary. What does Viteu Marcianüs think about this, btw? I'm not singling him out for being the worst offender or something, btw, but he did briefly sue the SoS for attempting to police political debate/conversation not too long ago.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Feb 2, 2019 16:38:11 GMT -6
We need to amend the Organic Law for this. I'd love for Alex's defamation of me to be taken down, but he is protected under the same rules that I cited in my suit against the SoS.
But, then again, having one Ziu control a future Ziu, or a moderator deleting posts, could result in the suppression of ideas. Surely the idea that we would allow a moderator to determine what is acceptable debate is even more likely to lead to power consolidation than reconfirming judges every five years.
|
|
Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN
Puisne Justice; Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar; Cunstaval to Florencia
Dame & Former Seneschal
Posts: 1,157
Talossan Since: 4-5-2010
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on Feb 2, 2019 17:12:43 GMT -6
A problem I see arising from this bill is that “The Hopper”, isn’t part of the Ziu. It’s “a public venue for the inspection of legislative proposals before they become bills” administered by the SoS as per the OrgLaw.
Therefore, whilst only MZs & the SoS can propose bills, it has long been a Talossan tradition that non-MZs can comment/post on bills published by MZs in the Hopper, without restrictions.
Thus, there is an acceptance that the Hopper is not only just for MZs but for all Talossans to participate in the legislative process and this is a tradition which I hope will continue long into the future.
So, given the Hopper is not part of the Ziu by established convention, I would be against giving extra “policing” powers to either Chairperson outside of their respective chambers. Secondly, since the Hopper is administered by the SoS - I believe s/he already has the powers to administer/police the Hopper without legislation - perhaps s/he may draw up guidelines to expected behaviour of all participants and actions should they be in breach of same.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 2, 2019 17:27:01 GMT -6
But here we see precisely the same argument which has caused a deadlock previously - Litz says that the Hopper is not part of the Ziu and thus adequately policed, whereas V says the Hopper IS effectively part of the Ziu and therefore all speech in it is absolutely privileged.
The Hopper has effectively become part of the Ziu, IMHO, because that's where almost all legislative debate happens; but it's not regulated. Hence the "Wild West" metaphor.
|
|
Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN
Puisne Justice; Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar; Cunstaval to Florencia
Dame & Former Seneschal
Posts: 1,157
Talossan Since: 4-5-2010
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on Feb 2, 2019 18:14:19 GMT -6
But here we see precisely the same argument which has caused a deadlock previously - Litz says that the Hopper is not part of the Ziu and thus adequately policed, whereas V says the Hopper IS effectively part of the Ziu and therefore all speech in it is absolutely privileged. The Hopper has effectively become part of the Ziu, IMHO, because that's where almost all legislative debate happens; but it's not regulated. Hence the "Wild West" metaphor. I think is boils down into how one interprets Article IX, Section 1 of the OrgLaw. The article states the Hopper is to be administered by the SoS - therefore, I would be more in favour of a bill that outlines how the SoS is to administer the Hopper (for the sake of clarity if it is really required), than involving the chairperson of either chamber. Again for me personally (not to exclude V’s point of view, to which I can see it’s mertis) and how it’s been traditionally: Hopper Debates = Public (open for all the comment) Clark Debates = MZs
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Feb 2, 2019 18:26:07 GMT -6
I agree with Litz that this is open to interpretation. But to my point that the Hopper is part of the Ziu, we have no other venue to debate proposed legislation and make amendments pre-Clark. Parliamentary immunity stems from the need to protect a Legislator's ability to introduce and debate proposed legislation. That includes offering feedback for changes to gain their support. It means that the Legislature needs freedom to debate without fear of prosecution or suit. If we do away with this, the Corts will become the place to settle political differences. Suddenly, Alex's defamation per se of me becomes actionable.
If we want to protect this privilege, then the alternative is to start having MZ-only, pre-Clark debate in the Ziu forum. The debate in the Hopper is only for public commentary.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Feb 2, 2019 19:00:35 GMT -6
If we want to protect this privilege, then the alternative is to start having MZ-only, pre-Clark debate in the Ziu forum. The debate in the Hopper is only for public commentary. Please no.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 2, 2019 21:23:03 GMT -6
I agree with Litz that this is open to interpretation. But to my point that the Hopper is part of the Ziu, we have no other venue to debate proposed legislation and make amendments pre-Clark. Parliamentary immunity stems from the need to protect a Legislator's ability to introduce and debate proposed legislation. That includes offering feedback for changes to gain their support. It means that the Legislature needs freedom to debate without fear of prosecution or suit. If we do away with this, the Corts will become the place to settle political differences. Suddenly, Alex's defamation per se of me becomes actionable. If we want to protect this privilege, then the alternative is to start having MZ-only, pre-Clark debate in the Ziu forum. The debate in the Hopper is only for public commentary. Okay, two points: a) what about a law change to explicitly make the Hopper part of the Ziu (although also explicitly allowing non-MZs to comment), under the Tuischach's authority? I am not in favour of Litz's suggestion that the SoS keep order, becacuse the SoS has far too much on his plate already. b) I agree that debate in the Ziu should be "absolutely privileged" in law, but it must also be under the authority of a Chair with the power to reprimand and temporarily exclude members, because of the current "Wild West" atmosphere. I'm happy to remove the provision to have posts deleted/amended, but in civilised countries if Legislators breach decorum, the Chair/Speaker can demand they withdraw and apologise, and temporary exclude them if they refuse to do so. That's what I want.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 2, 2019 21:29:35 GMT -6
Just to be clear, in your vision of how this would work: if an MZ began using profanities of any sort towards another, or making personal and direct insults, they would be forced to apologize, or else ejected from the chamber for two days or so?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 2, 2019 21:50:50 GMT -6
Just to be clear, in your vision of how this would work: if an MZ began using profanities of any sort towards another, or making personal and direct insults, they would be forced to apologize, or else ejected from the chamber for two days or so? Certainly we would have to decide what would precisely be "language unbefitting the Hopper/Ziu". My personal preference to class up the joint is only allow profanities in Talossan But - for example - in Commonwealth countries it is considered unparliamentary language to outright accuse another member of lying. Personally, I am in favor of giving the Tuischac'h/SoS broad discretion over exactly what kind of language is unseemly or derailing debate. In some cases, if two MZs are sniping at one another and just won't leave it alone, they might both be given 24 hours cooling off time.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 2, 2019 22:06:05 GMT -6
I think if this is going to happen, or anything like it, we'd need to very carefully define what was improper. For example, I would not consider a series of rapid and sharp exchanges to be unfit for the Ziu. I would also want to include profanity of any type, but at a minimum profanity in our national language (Talossan) and our functional language (English).
Side note: your hidden motive to be the Most Profane MZ by excluding V's spasms but permitting your own Talossan profanity has been uncovered! Too bad for you. I am having a sash made and sending it to him, and you will just have to wait for Dien to bring the hammer down on him before you get it.
|
|