Lord Q
Citizen since 5-21-1998; Baron since 2-23-2006
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by Lord Q on Jun 10, 2004 13:31:48 GMT -6
Azul!
I know Ron posted something similar on the "other" Witt, but I'm not going to take the time to look for it. Feel free to post further suggestions and comments. Reform suggestions:
1. election procedures - something set in stone, perhaps?
2. seat distribution - parties provide a list of registered members to the SoS; members who resign from their party resign their seats which are given back to the party. This will not affect non-members of parties who hold seats for a party.
3. flame wars - flame wars are bullshit. Wittenberg is our "town square" and in real life, when people argue in public like what goes on sometimes on Witt, they are asked by police to leave the area for a time, or they are thrown in jail. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying that this should be happy fun time and that we can't disagree, but there need to be rules and penalties for public (Witt) conduct/disturbance.
I can't remember some of the other suggestions, so if you do, please put them down here.
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Jun 10, 2004 16:45:27 GMT -6
Agree, but something that could also be amended when required as time and technology change. Also any such changes should be able to be made by the Ziu without an OrgLaw amendment.
The current law is actually conflicting regarding this: Art. VII:Sec. 9. and Art. VIII:Sec. 4., although they don't completely oppose each other, tend to be confusing to the extreme. I am not quite sure I agree we your statement, that will require much discussions.
Although I will always agree that whomever owns the board as the right to moderate it and decides of any abuse, I will oppose any attempt to pass laws that violate the right to free exercise of expression.
Marc Moisan, C.D.
|
|
Lord Q
Citizen since 5-21-1998; Baron since 2-23-2006
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by Lord Q on Jun 10, 2004 17:09:04 GMT -6
About your third point: we have a choice to make. The 1st and 2nd Covenants are what cover the exercise of free speech.
The 1st Cov. provides for limits on such "as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
The 2nd Cov. does the same for the good of "public order."
As we've recently seen, there are some who can't ignore what is going on around them. If suspending two or more citizens for their idiocy on Witt keeps everyone else happy, then I'm for it.
|
|
Lord Q
Citizen since 5-21-1998; Baron since 2-23-2006
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by Lord Q on Jun 10, 2004 17:14:53 GMT -6
Another reform consideration: renunciations.
I think the SoS should be taken out of the equation. We're adults, and we are (or should be) aware of our own actions. I would propose that a citizen would have 72 hours to recant their renunciation. This could be as a post on Witt, or an email to the SoS. Regardless, the record-keeping step needs to be moved out of the actual law. The SoS doesn't need to be directly involved during the process.
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Jun 10, 2004 17:18:01 GMT -6
The owner of this board (i.e. Pete) can remove anyone from it as he wishes, I have no quarrel with that. But proposing legislation that would violate the freedom of speech, that I have a major problem with. I would oppose any legislation that would force the Board owner to revoke their access to anyone just because they start saying something others believe offensive. There is no problem with the current way where the board owner can just use his own judgement.
Marc Moisan, C.D.
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Jun 10, 2004 17:19:24 GMT -6
Don't worry about that one, I already have a Bill written for that. I think it should pass easily too.
Marc Moisan, C.D.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Jun 10, 2004 17:36:24 GMT -6
I believe my top five were:
1. A Privacy Act 2. A redefinition of Treason 3. A National Secrets act - addressing e-mail and classifying a select few government positions (e.g. Minister of Intelligence) 4. Provincial autonomy clarification 5. Multiple Office Cap - If you're in the Cosa, you shouldn't have a Senat seat. Maybe this should be two bills. The first, to prohibit multiple office holdings of an individual. The second, to define and deliniate our four branches of government - Judicial, Legislative, Executive and Royal.
Additionally:
Accountability of Public Officers - this would encompass the Monarchy and all those who hold governmental positions. It would make ALL equal in the eyes of the law.
I was hoping that we all could author the Privacy Act and the Accountability Act. Then, we could all co-sponsor the final product as a way to make a strong statement.
|
|
Lord Q
Citizen since 5-21-1998; Baron since 2-23-2006
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by Lord Q on Jun 10, 2004 17:40:48 GMT -6
Don't worry about that one, I already have a Bill written for that. I think it should pass easily too. Marc Moisan, C.D. Would you mind sharing the text of this bill? I'd be interested in seeing it.
|
|
Lord Q
Citizen since 5-21-1998; Baron since 2-23-2006
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by Lord Q on Jun 10, 2004 17:51:15 GMT -6
The owner of this board (i.e. Pete) can remove anyone from it as he wishes, I have no quarrel with that. But proposing legislation that would violate the freedom of speech, that I have a major problem with. I would oppose any legislation that would force the Board owner to revoke their access to anyone just because they start saying something others believe offensive. There is no problem with the current way where the board owner can just use his own judgement. Marc Moisan, C.D. It's not a matter of offensive language, it's a matter of something being made everyone's business when it should not be. I'm not saying that people can't say what they want, because they can. What I'm saying is that if people are going to get into a protractedly heated argument, then the collective right to peace is more important. Of course, if Pete or any other admin/mod wishes to do this of their own accord, that would be great. But this is something that needs to be considered heavily.
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Jun 11, 2004 14:50:23 GMT -6
5. Multiple Office Cap - If you're in the Cosa, you shouldn't have a Senat seat. Maybe this should be two bills. The first, to prohibit multiple office holdings of an individual. The second, to define and deliniate our four branches of government - Judicial, Legislative, Executive and Royal. The OrgLaw already provides that no member of the Cosâ can sit in the Senäts and vice versa except where there is no other person available. As for the Justices, they are forbidden from being PM, a simple OrgLaw amendment could could prohibits them from holding any other offices, but I am not quite certain that this is needed under the current situation. I think that under the current situation, it will be needed for some people to hold many offices and as such it could be hurtful to prohibit it prematurely. I would wait a few months to see what happen before going through this route. Marc Moisan, C.D.
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Jun 11, 2004 14:53:59 GMT -6
Would you mind sharing the text of this bill? I'd be interested in seeing it. I am still working on the preamble, but this is an OrgLaw amendment that would rewrite Art. XVIII:Sec. 9 to read: Talossans may voluntarily renounce their own citizenship. This may be done by publicly issuing a written Declaration of Renunciation. It shall take effect twenty-four hours following the said declaration. However, should they wish to reconsider, the King may provide amnesty and/or clemency up to thirty days following their declaration.Marc Moisan, C.D.
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Jun 11, 2004 14:57:34 GMT -6
It's not a matter of offensive language, it's a matter of something being made everyone's business when it should not be. I'm not saying that people can't say what they want, because they can. What I'm saying is that if people are going to get into a protractedly heated argument, then the collective right to peace is more important. Of course, if Pete or any other admin/mod wishes to do this of their own accord, that would be great. But this is something that needs to be considered heavily. Perhaps I am not grasping what you are saying, but based on your explanation, you'll get a lot of opposition from me on that one. Marc Moisan, C.D.
|
|
Lord Q
Citizen since 5-21-1998; Baron since 2-23-2006
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by Lord Q on Jun 11, 2004 17:13:07 GMT -6
I am still working on the preamble, but this is an OrgLaw amendment that would rewrite Art. XVIII:Sec. 9 to read: Talossans may voluntarily renounce their own citizenship. This may be done by publicly issuing a written Declaration of Renunciation. It shall take effect twenty-four hours following the said declaration. However, should they wish to reconsider, the King may provide amnesty and/or clemency up to thirty days following their declaration.Marc Moisan, C.D. Is your intent for those people to go through the "normal" channels of reacquiring citizenship? If not, I think that giving the person more time to think about it may be better. If so, then more time wouldn't be necessary. It may be a good idea to put something in there about how one can retract their renunciation before the 24 hours is up.
|
|
Lord Q
Citizen since 5-21-1998; Baron since 2-23-2006
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by Lord Q on Jun 11, 2004 17:19:49 GMT -6
5. Multiple Office Cap - If you're in the Cosa, you shouldn't have a Senat seat. Maybe this should be two bills. The first, to prohibit multiple office holdings of an individual. You'll have to explain this in a lot more detail. I understand if you mean that a person shouldn't have a vote in both houses of the Ziu, but if you're including the Ziu, Cort, and Cabinet, that would cause major problems. We didn't necessarily have the numbers for it before, and we certainly don't now.
|
|
Lord Q
Citizen since 5-21-1998; Baron since 2-23-2006
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by Lord Q on Jun 11, 2004 17:27:20 GMT -6
Perhaps I am not grasping what you are saying, but based on your explanation, you'll get a lot of opposition from me on that one. Marc Moisan, C.D. What?! A debate? About POLITICS?! ;D Let's see...I'm trying to draw a parallel between verbally fighting in public, and verbally fighting on a message board. It's not an issue of censoring, it's about the greater need (in life as well as on this board) for public order. In real life there are penalities for that sort of disturbance, and I'm saying it should be so here as well. It's an accountability issue for having the right to speak freely.
|
|