The Circumscribe the Scribe Act

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Past bills get repealed sometimes when a new political theory or idealogy comes into play

See, I have no problem with that!

I fully understand that... I was responding specifically to the idea of repealing a bill just to centralize it.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

I posted my bill to: talossa.proboards.com/thread/8763/keep-sense-act?page=1&scrollTo=104051

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Can you guys read the comment I made about your bill?

Here it is for easy access:

I still hope that the Circumvent the Scribe authors will either back down, or react to my bill.

Here is how I see it:

Circumvent the Scribe was written to remove a right (and a responsibility) from the hands of the SoS and the Scribe, for the sake of respecting the decisions of the Ziu, in short, to preserve laws.

My alternative reaches the objectives of the authors of the bill, without removing the objectives of the original bills.

I am willing to make further amendments to my bill if it is not enough.

But, I remember that back in 2002-2004, I must have made over 50 corrections to bills that were imported into the database, such as typing errors, paragraph formatting issues, moving the Proposed By to a different place to respect the new standards, etc...

None of these changes affected the TEXT of the laws. For example, a WHEERAS was changed to a WHEREAS, or w Whereas to a WHEREAS or a missing AND at the end of the WHEREAS line was added.

Manual Dashes were sometimes replaced by a better looking bullet list.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

I would like to present sincere apologies for my antic earlier this week.

I was justifiably scolded in private by my party, but it's only this morning that I realized why I went that way.

You see, I am a nice logical person. I avoid conflict and try to find compromise in general. I am not a conflict avoider: if you attack me, I will defend myself, but I am not the type to raise a ruckus to defend my point of view.

But, I been building over the last 20 years or so my own sci-fi universe, with over 2000 pages of background material built over the years. It has very interesting features, and following Grubi's hints, I kept it as "hard" as possible, with only 2 major scientific differences. In fact, the most massive rewrite was making it a much harder sci-fi universe.

I made several attempts to write fiction using my universe, including 2 novels (one in 1996 and the other in 2005). I tried to write a scenario in 2001 in it.

Nothing worked. The stories didn't click.

My best friend is a screenwriter. He has one movie out in DVD now (in French) and was nominated in our equivalent of the Oscars for its screenplay.

He has several movie deals around and after years of training with some of the best screenwriter in Canada and the US, more and more people turn to HIM for training.

He suggested 4 years ago that I try again writing screenplays in my universe, and I ended up successfully writing 3 in a trilogy. The first one is brand new. The second one is a complete rewrite of my 2001 scenario. The third one is a rewrite of my 1996 attempt at a novel (if you are keeping score, the 2005 attempt at a novel is still pending a rewrite)

My friend walked me in making the first one better, and it is now after its 6th rewrite.

The biggest thing he taught me was to write more intensely. To increase the tension in my writing. It's not "I'll suspend you for this". It's not "I'll fire you for this". Rather it's "I'll end your career, I'll spend every making moment turning your life into hell. You'll never get a job again that doesn't involve flipping burgers".

I've made written exercises to make my writing more poignant. Did I succeed in doing it in my 3 screenplays? I don't really know for sure, since my friend is too busy finishing his projects (he has 5 movie options, 2 of which are in pre-production).

But without thinking about it, I certainly succeeded earlier this week. I took the simple idea of lobbying against a bill and pushed as far as I thought as if I was doing a writing exercise, without really thinking about it.

And I shouldn't have. For that, I am sorry. I will try to avoid doing this in the future.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Any mistake that is driven by your passion for policy and your dedication to creativity is a mistake we will happily endure

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

If I am not permitted in here to comment, I apologise in advance.

One of the things that strictness entails should be (in my personal - but not legal - opinion) that Acts should be recorded exactly as they are passed by the Ziu - warts and all. The Scribe may rant and rave (indeed, should rant and rave!) about badly-spelled, badly-numbered, appallingly laid-out Acts but must, none the less, record them exactly as they are passed and signed. Therefore the Scribe should be permitted to proofread, and (if necessary) retype the Bills prior to their being voted on and approved, so that the number of avoidable errors may be reduced.

As for changing the past so as to correct it - well, you can't. That's part of the function of the Corts (it's done by the courts in many countries): to determine the meaning of ambiguous, ill-written, possibly inconsistent legal clauses, and from what is written strive to determine the intention of the Ziu in passing its Acts. After an Act has passed, however, it is not the function of the Scribe to modify it in any way whatsoever. To quote another source: "What I have written, I have written."

But, as I say, this is just my personal opinion.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Jul 27, 2013 16:03:47 GMT -6 Ián Tamorán S.H. said:

If I am not permitted in here to comment, I apologise in advance.

The Hopper is an informal meeting area - all are welcome to comment on Bills, or just about anything concerning the Ziu.







Except for the Bourbon selection in the Senate. That is not debatable.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jul 27, 2013 16:03:47 GMT -6 Ián Tamorán S.H. said:

If I am not permitted in here to comment, I apologise in advance.

One of the things that strictness entails should be (in my personal - but not legal - opinion) that Acts should be recorded exactly as they are passed by the Ziu - warts and all. The Scribe may rant and rave (indeed, should rant and rave!) about badly-spelled, badly-numbered, appallingly laid-out Acts but must, none the less, record them exactly as they are passed and signed. Therefore the Scribe should be permitted to proofread, and (if necessary) retype the Bills prior to their being voted on and approved, so that the number of avoidable errors may be reduced.

As for changing the past so as to correct it - well, you can't. That's part of the function of the Corts (it's done by the courts in many countries): to determine the meaning of ambiguous, ill-written, possibly inconsistent legal clauses, and from what is written strive to determine the intention of the Ziu in passing its Acts. After an Act has passed, however, it is not the function of the Scribe to modify it in any way whatsoever. To quote another source: "What I have written, I have written."

But, as I say, this is just my personal opinion.

I understand your point of view and I share it.

Like I said, the idea to improve the look of bills is not for the legal side of Talossa but for the benefit of the readers of the laws.

Adding bullet points, fixing typing errors, etc... can be the difference between easy to read laws and a giant mess.

My compromise (currently on the hopper) thus keeps 2 copies of each laws: the original legal one, and the cleaned one for the benefit of the public, with the ability to see both versions.

Everyone talks about the Hopper as the solution, and I agree that it solves a lot of problems for FUTURE laws. But we have a lot of the old laws still on file, and many of them from the earlier cosa were typed with a typewriter which do not support advanced marking to improve their look.

This set of laws (the 3 being repealed and my new compromise) would enable to made them easier on the eyes, and to follow the new guidelines on where to place the "Proposed by"

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

It's my opinion that a Law should not be on the Clark if it contains spelling errors, grammatical errors, or punctuation errors.

I do believe that the current and last 2 Secretaries of State have been very diligent in fulfilling the above criteria. I would rather see a bill that only pertains to past Acts, and specifically in spelling errors and grammar errors.

I do NOT believe they should be changed to add "Power Point" corrections. Leave the format of the Act as it is.

So, I can see voting for an Act that rectifies the above, but does not create multiple copies of the same Act.