|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 1, 2019 11:56:20 GMT -6
Well, as I understand it, the Cosa and Senats will be making rules, right? So can we start on those? You posted something from the standing orders of the NZ Parliament, for obvious reasons I'd be happy to start from them Great!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 3, 2019 20:39:21 GMT -6
Should I do it, then?
|
|
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 Mar 3, 2019 21:19:20 GMT -6
If it would make you happy
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 4, 2019 8:19:15 GMT -6
No, I don't want to. I just want it to happen.
|
|
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 Mar 4, 2019 18:33:36 GMT -6
Look, honestly, you're the one who thinks you need a huge list of rules and regulations; I would be happy to leave it to the Túischac'h's discretion. So do it or I'll just produce a "Túischac'h's discretion" bill.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 4, 2019 18:56:30 GMT -6
You must see the problem with the idea that the person chosen by the majority is the arbiter of acceptable behavior and speech in the legislature, right? It's apparent how incredibly ripe for abuse that is, right?
|
|
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 Mar 4, 2019 19:34:19 GMT -6
Look, why are you even still arguing? You won't convince me in principle. Draft up your own set of Standing Orders for the Hopper and I'll support them if they're good.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 4, 2019 19:54:38 GMT -6
It honestly just boggles my mind. Like... still surprised. But okay. I'll write my own thing.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 4, 2019 20:15:55 GMT -6
I'll start on the Ziu code of conduct presently, but meanwhile I wrote a thing that takes the basic idea you proposed and extends it to the whole of Witt, giving color of law to all Witt moderation and also making the moderators accountable. Pretty proud of it, actually, since I think it's a Gordian solution to knotty issue.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Mar 4, 2019 21:12:12 GMT -6
I'm open to see what you come up with. My feelings on the legality of this are well-known. But my legal opinion doesn't mean I'm politically against it. I'm going to do the thing I accuse you of not doing--keep an open mind. If I like the end result, I may offer to help draft a short bipartisan Organic Amendment with you to resolve any potential legal issues.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 4, 2019 21:15:30 GMT -6
That would be great
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Mar 4, 2019 21:46:29 GMT -6
I'll start on the Ziu code of conduct presently, but meanwhile I wrote a thing that takes the basic idea you proposed and extends it to the whole of Witt, giving color of law to all Witt moderation and also making the moderators accountable. Pretty proud of it, actually, since I think it's a Gordian solution to knotty issue. This is where you and I won't find much common ground. I have never questioned the ability to police Witt. My focus has been preserving parliamentary immunity. Random brainstorming - oe3rhaps we should close the Ziu and the Hopper off from public searches. But in any event- I think an apolitical appointee, say one that serves multiple cosas, is charged with enforcing rules and standards agreed upon by the Ziu. To protect against abuse, each party that receives 25 seats in the Ziu will appoint a member to the Appeals Board. That person is kept secret and doesnt know who else is on the Board. If the moderator oversteps their authority, a member can petition for review, which would require 40% support for review. The Board can then review the moderator's action under the circumstance and determine if the action were justified. The Ziu simply takes a vote to affirm the moderator or, in the event of an adverse determination, the Board. This may not be a good idea, I concede, but the thought is that an anonymous Board who doesnt know each other can likely engage in discussuon without politicial attachments. The 40% threshold is to protect majority abuse, but also prevents a minority from abusing the procedure. Ultimately, the Ziu as a whole has a chance to determine what is and what isnt appropriate. Again, in every circumstance I think an OrgLaw amednment is needed. And my idea above can be totally ignored if impractical. (This post does not negate my earlier one- I'm keeping an open mind to your final product. )
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Mar 4, 2019 21:51:15 GMT -6
Your proposal would fit neatly within my own. The whole point is to basically keep the situation the way it is but and some accountability and appeals process. We need some moderation and it should be pretty close to what we have now, with a very light hand for the very rare circumstances where it's necessary. If the Ziu decides that they want to manage the hopper and their own board through the process you suggest, then that is how it can be done. Meanwhile provincial boards could be run by the people they want, and so on. the problem I am trying to solve in my bill is how to reconcile the private property and public interest aspects of this, as well as providing some legitimate process and principles in the supervision of what is essentially part of our national infrastructure.
|
|
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 Mar 5, 2019 15:25:36 GMT -6
I heartily agree that we need two discussions: Keeping Order in the Hopper, and Keeping Order in Witt in total.
May I suggest that, given that order in the legislature should be by constitutional norm entirely a matter of the legislature, regulating the Hopper should be by joint resolutions of the two Houses of the Ziu alone, rather than a law in which the King has a say.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Mar 5, 2019 15:32:22 GMT -6
With whatever proposal we decide, there should be an option to seek an intermediate level of appeal prior to Cort for periods of suspension longer than, say, 12 hours. For instance, suspending someone from posting in the Ziu or Hopper could be appealable to a vote of the full Ziu, or suspending someone from posting in the Immigration Thread could be appealable to the government (the Seneschal). It wouldn't prohibit someone from going to the Cort system, but could allow faster resolution.
|
|