Welcome to Wittenberg!

Main Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Sir Lüc

Azul to all! The Third Time's The Charm Act, having passed both the Assembly and the Senate, directs me as Maestro to conduct a provincial referendum on amending our Provincial Constitution, renaming our province from Benito to Belacostă.
Following precedent, this thread shall serve as polling station. I shall additionally get in touch with all citizens of Benito for which the Chancery has given me contact informations to direct them to this thread.

Do you support the proposed change of the province's name from Benito to Belacostă?

Please cast your votes underneath - "yes/üc" in favour of the amendment (adopting the new name), "no/non" against the amendment (retaining the current name).

The referendum vote is now open. The deadline for voting is the same as the General Election for the 60th Cosă, that is, July 1st at 7:30 PM TDT (Central). All citizens of Benito as of the deadline for voting are eligible to cast their vote.
Wittenberg / Re: Future of the Chancery
June 06, 2024, 11:08:57 AM
Oh boy do I have opinions, not all of them positive I'm afraid. (One being that this thread should really be titled "Future of the Database" of course :p)

I hope to have more time to type those out in short order.
Yup. I agree with Mic'haglh that the fact the provinces serve as Senatorial constituencies hampers efforts at reducing the numbers of provinces so that activity does not get diluted; but I disagree that abolishing the Senate is at all necessary, and despite my past "tepid consideration" ("support" is a bit much) of it, I feel that MMP is too needlessly complicated. EM200 still feels somewhat wrong, but I can live with it.

What I'd much rather do is move Senate seats from 8 province-based single seat constituencies to a single nationwide constituency, so that in each GE we all vote for four of eight Senators, with 4 votes per voter and the top 4 vote getters being elected. This would solve provincial malapportionment, unbind provinces from the Senate so they get to be more than mere senatorial voting clubs, and thus remove the incentive to keep eight provinces because nobody wants to give up a Senate seat.
Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on June 05, 2024, 04:44:11 AMSystematically voting for the fall of a Government when in opposition must not be a principle.

A small quasi-philosophical note on this; even if the government of the day was performing well, an opposition party that wished to lead a future government should by definition vote against Confidence, as otherwise they would essentially publicly admit they don't believe they could do a better job.
If the proliferation of new parties isn't a call for me to get back to doing Talomat, I don't know what is.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on May 02, 2024, 09:42:11 AM
Quote from: Sir Lüc on May 02, 2024, 08:39:50 AM
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 05, 2024, 01:26:40 PMWhomever is the provincial executive of Benito can gain access to ALL citizen emails of Benito for the sole purpose of election balloting for provincial-based elections.

Following up on this, as our Legislature has now completed the required steps to hold a provincial referendum. May I get approved for access to email addresses on the Database? Thanks!

Absolutely. I'll work on this as soon as possible (have to get the help of MPF on this one).

Thank you very much!
Mick and welcome back!
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 05, 2024, 01:26:40 PMWhomever is the provincial executive of Benito can gain access to ALL citizen emails of Benito for the sole purpose of election balloting for provincial-based elections.

Following up on this, as our Legislature has now completed the required steps to hold a provincial referendum. May I get approved for access to email addresses on the Database? Thanks!
Azul, that is correct and we would like the Chancery to keep conducting our Senatorial elections, as is tradition.
Again, the crux of the matter is that we're operating on vibes in two substantial ways: the definition of a bill (and in particular how we handle bills compared to big boy legislatures) and the operation of the CRL (or more accurately the fact that a standing committee is the wrong tool for the job, if it is not expected to operate as such).

This would necessarily be a long, nerdy ramble that I don't have time to write right now. For now, I hope that my Scribery proposal above can at least address the CRL part and why there could be more agile and flexible ways of proofreading legislation.
Anyway, while I doubt anyone is interested in seeing my point regarding my interpretation that originated this all, I really want to reiterate the assumptions I was operating under.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 27, 2024, 10:06:44 AMThe CRL shouldn't be able to say "hey this bill changed a lot, start over." That isn't really its function.
The law stipulates that the CRL is implicitly called to make a judgement about whether a bill, having spent 10 days in the Hopper, is eligible to be moved to committee or not. To me, it seemed trivial that even though it shared the same Hopper thread, "The Vacant Throne (We Really Mean Business Now) Amendment" was not the same bill (in title, effects and content) as "The Succession Amendment" first posted by Miestră on the 17th, then amended by AD on the 20th. So as Sir Txec says, it shouldn't, but it does.

Honestly, it pains me to be a stickler for procedure in this particular instance, given the lively and productive Hopper debate that originated; but if this is allowed, then there's no reason why someone couldn't Hopper an uncontroversial bill (say, adjusting the party registration fee), replace it wholesale on day 10 with a different, "malignant" bill on the same topic (say, stipulating that the fee may only be paid in person), get a CRL review and get it Clarked with no opportunity for a debate on merit. I was simply trying to avoid setting bad precedent.
My current idea is putting Lex.C.1.3.2-5 into practice and having the Scribery manage a pool of "proofreaders" (call them whatever you want) that can suggest amendments about form at any point between Hoppering and Clarking.

  • Proofreaders would work as a team, rather than independently like CRL members - and only one proofreader is required for each bill, possibly divvying up work more efficiently;
  • Proofreaders don't hold their office by virtue of another office (IMO a flaw of the CRL);
  • Proofreaders need not be members of the Ziu or Government, but I heavily suggest that major parties do recommend to the Scribe a proofreader each, to build lawmaking expertise;
  • Proofreaders are expected to largely advise according to "good practice guidelines" on style and form for bills;
  • Input may come from any proofreader as soon as a bill is Hoppered without the need to ask; but if no input is provided by a set date before the next Call for Bills opens, the bill proponent could be required to ask for input before Clarking (but an answer must come before the Call for Bills opens, or the proponent is allowed to assume silence means assent);
  • No provision for proofreaders to block or reject a bill - they may only okay it or suggest amendments;
  • As a further help to lawmakers that may not be familiar with procedure, it may be stipulated that suggested amendments are automatically applied by the Secretary of State upon Clarking, as long as they're judged to be in order (ie. they only concern the form of the bill);
  • Proofreaders's analysis on form takes place freely within the Hopper debate on merit, rather than halting debate by moving the bill to committee;
  • Proofreaders are allowed to advise about anything that comes before the Clark, instead of the Lex.H.2.1.2. exceptions to the CRL's authority;
  • No need for proofreaders to concern themselves about "what a bill is" and whether a bill has or has not spent 10 days in the Hopper in order to be eligible for the CRL.
Yes, I agree there's a lot of ambiguity not just in the definition of a bill, but also in the role of the CRL (and relatedly in what "passing", "moving to committee", and so on actually mean).

I do think I have tended to interpret things from a "big boy Parliament" standpoint, thus thinking about a bill as a more-or-less well-formed piece of legislation and not as an overarching idea, and the CRL as a fixed link in the Hopper-to-Clark process, irrevocably placed immediately before floor passage as a proofreading step; and to be fair, several passages in existing legislation do support this stricter interpretation, which is why I never assumed I was pulling stuff out of my ciul!

Perhaps there's a disconnect between form and practice, since AFAIK, in "big boy Parliaments", it's not committees that normally do the CRL's proofreading job, but rather non-MP entities such as clerks and the Table Office - and to be fair, this would be the case in Talossa too, since the Scribery is technically tasked with basically the same job as the CRL by Lex.C.1.3.2-5.

All this said, it may be counterintuitive but I do agree with Miestră: much as in other areas (exibit 1 and exibit 2), I am in favour of more flexibility as long as it's clearly spelled out in law. (I would honestly be even more radical and get rid of the CRL entirely, but I'll reserve my actual recommendations for another time.)
Sure, go forth and Clark.