View Topic

Earlier in the last election, a procedural amendment was suggested to clear up rules governing members of the UH and their conduct. Instead, I suggest this: a Code Of Conduct detailing how members of the UH shall conduct themselves and, perhaps, some guidelines on disciplining members who willfully do not follow this code of conduct, though I personally fell like such measures should be avoided.

These would be my suggestions:
1.) All members of the UH must be mentioned at the beginning of debates and votes by the topic starter.
2.) All members of the UH are suggested to provide clear reasoning for the reason of their vote.
3.) All members of the UH shall be courteous and polite in their dealings with the Citizenry.
4.) All members of the UH are suggested to be courteous and polite in their dealings with other members of the UH or of the OH.
5.) All members of the UH must be courteous and polite in their dealings with the ruling Monarch.
6.) All members of the UH must attempt to engage the citizenry at least once in their terms.

These are what I think would be good. Your thoughts?

@Pengu
@Mathyland
@Laurentus
@taulover

Wait, why is this necessary? Was there some sort of drama I'm not aware of?

No, nothing like that, something along this line was discussed in the last UH between Pengu and myself. Instead of a Procedural Amendment, my idea would be for a more informal Code of Conduct.

I feel like this might be better added to our procedural rules as a new section rather than a completely new set.

My question would be, however, how would members who break the rules of conduct be disciplined?

Thats the real kicker. Personally, I feel like this should be an informal guideline but without some teeth its useless, which was one of my criticisms.

Perhaps there should be 4 tiers.

1.)Friendly reminder
2.)Official warning
3.)Barred for re-election for one term
4.)Removed from office

I think it might indeed make sense to make it a separate document, so that the punishments for breaking the code would be separate from the punishments already outlined in the procedural rules.

Though currently, the result is only "the Skrifa's action will be reversed and the Underhusen will be prohibited from using a similar interpretation of the relevant portion(s) of law for the remainder of the term," so maybe it would make sense to include stricter punishments for breaking the procedural rules.

I guess my only concern, like others have had in the past with these kinds of topics (including ones I've pushed) is some of the unintentional vagueness.

>Two of the rules are merely "suggestions" as opposed to actual rules, so are those even breakable?
>What would constitute as crossing the line to be disciplined in some of the rules?  What would constitute as "impolite" enough in the courteous/polite department to warrant action?
>Is breaking rule #1 extreme enough to warrant complete removal from office or barring from re-election if it's forgotten to mention members 4 times?  This question also applies to rule #2
>What will constitute as "clear" reasoning for votes (this was the biggest issue I remember raised when I brought up this topic)?
>What would constitute as the minimum for "engaging" with citizens?  If I posted one post in the platform throughout my entire time in office, would that count?

There's always more questions, but I feel like these would be some of the basic concerns.

I guess my only concern, like others have had in the past with these kinds of topics (including ones I've pushed) is some of the unintentional vagueness.

>Two of the rules are merely "suggestions" as opposed to actual rules, so are those even breakable?
>What would constitute as crossing the line to be disciplined in some of the rules?  What would constitute as "impolite" enough in the courteous/polite department to warrant action?
>Is breaking rule #1 extreme enough to warrant complete removal from office or barring from re-election if it's forgotten to mention members 4 times?  This question also applies to rule #2
>What will constitute as "clear" reasoning for votes (this was the biggest issue I remember raised when I brought up this topic)?
>What would constitute as the minimum for "engaging" with citizens?  If I posted one post in the platform throughout my entire time in office, would that count?

There's always more questions, but I feel like these would be some of the basic concerns.

1.) The language could always be changed and more specific wording used. I just wanted to gauge the opinions of everyone first before getting into specifics.
2.) Simple, if you get a complaint or the Speaker feels like there is a breach, refer to COC. If there is a breach, go down list of punishments. Again, more specific language can be discussed.
3.) We could put guidelines into this to lay out how and when you can use what discipline action, maybe forgetting to mention can get a friendly reminder the first two times, a warning the next two times and being barred from re-election after that. If you still refuse to follow the COC then it is up to the Monarch's discretion on weather or not to remove you from just the Speakers chair or from the Underhusen entirely.
4.) Any reason (since reasons are subjective and its hard to know the full truth.) By 'clear' I meant "do not put the reason is font size 1, in paragraph 32, section 12 (b) (ii) of the essay describing your vote, in Latin or Swahili, in a thread separate from the vote topic, to yourself out loud in person, so on etc, etc".
5.) Maybe not just a post, maybe a thread or asking a voter for their opinion. My opinion is that interpreting the COC should be up to the Speaker.

My opinion is that interpreting the COC should be up to the Speaker.

In the past, there have been concerns about implementing rules to be enforced by the Speaker, since it could easily lead to selective enforcement, especially if there are disagreements within the Underhusen. Leaving interpretation up the the Speaker here also has similar issues.

Well, then I see 3 possible solutions

1) All members enforce the COC (same problem as selective enforcement, especially if members are fighting each other, and hard to implement since any claims by members can be ignored or overridden by majority rule)
2) A new position is created, a sort of sheriff or arbiter of the Underhusen (logistics of which would be problematic, if its another member of the UH then abuse could be rampant, if not then we need to create an entirely new position)
3) The Monarch does it (Which can be problematic since this adds work to the Monarch already daunting amount of work and means the COC is useless if the Monarch is on a leave of absence or something)

Personally, 2 seems like the best solution to all problems. Getting around the logistical aspect of 2 would be the kicker though.

So, to clarify, my idea is this. Again, this is just my thoughts.

The six Codes of Conduct, namely:
1.) All members of the UH must be mentioned at the beginning of debates and votes by the topic starter if such a feature exists at the time.
2.) All members of the UH are suggested to provide clear reasoning for the reason of their vote, defined as any reason to vote in the way they choose in a manner that is clear (posting the reasoning in the same thread as their vote, posting in a manner not meant to obscure the reasoning, like posting in Swahili or Wingdings.) If a member does not provide a reason when they vote, they must provide a reason before the conclusion of the vote or they will have violated this Code of Conduct.
3.) All members of the UH shall be courteous and polite in their dealings with the Citizenry in an official capacity, meaning they shall avoid purposefully demeaning, hurtful, vulgar, untrue or obscene statements if they are carrying out duties related to their role in the Underhusen. All conduct outside their role as a member of the Underhusen (posting in an RP or inside the Dumping Grounds as an example) is exempt unless the member specifically mentions their role in the Underhusen.
4.) All members of the UH shall be courteous and polite in their dealings with other members of the UH or of the OH in any official capacity. Definition of 'courteous and polite' and 'official capacity' are the same as No.3.
5.) All members of the UH shall be courteous and polite in their dealings with the ruling Monarch in any capacity at all. Definition of 'courteous and polite' are the same as No.3.
6.) All members of the UH must attempt to engage the citizenry at least once in their terms. Examples of attempted engagement is posting a thread in the Citizens Corner or engaging a citizen in an official capacity. Announcements of intention to seek re-election or not or campaigning for re-election do not count as engaging the citizenry.

Punishments for breaching the COC shall be thus:
1.)Friendly reminder
2.)Official warning
3.)Barred for re-election for one term
4.)Removed from office

Guidelines for using punishments:
1.) It will be illegal to skip a punishment for an offence, such as going straight to Barred for re-election, unless the previous punishments have already been issued for the same breach. For example, it will not be allowed to punish someone for a first time breach for a specific COC, such as No.2, with Punishment No.4 under any circumstance, even if the same member has been issued with punishments 1, 2 and 3 for different breaches.
2.) The one exception to this rule is a breach of No.6, as such an breach would only be evident at the end of a members term.
3.)It will not be allowed to issue punishment 3 and 4 for a breach of COC No.1.
4.)It will not be allowed to issue punishment 4 for a breach of COC No.2.
5.)The punishment for someone in violation of COC No.6 will automatically be punishment 3.
6.)Any member may accept punishment or appeal to the Monarch. The Monarch may rescind the punishment, nullifying the punishment and striking it from record, or put a punishment he deems fit to any member for any offense, but only if the offense is appealed.

Now, the big problem. Who shall enforce the rules? My idea is this: create a new position, the Arbiter of the Underhusen.

The Arbiter shall be responsible for enforcing the COC in the Underhusen. They will not, however, be a member of the Underhusen per say, instead being an outside force that does not report to the UH and will not be allowed to debate, propose or vote on legislation. The only time the Arbiter shall be allowed to post in the UH is if a breach of the COC has occurred.

This really is just the bare bones of my idea. There are a bunch of specifics I'm still mulling over, such as weather of not the Arbiter of the Underhusen is actually a good idea, if the punishments section is fair or draconian, or even if the whole idea is worth pursuing. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts, so please, tell me what you think :]

Alright, since commendations are about to be going up for a vote, I wanted to post more thoughts on this one.

Firstly, I agree with most of the updated changes you've provided, and I appreciate that you've made what the differences between each CoC versus the punishments are.

However, this one bothers me:

5.)The punishment for someone in violation of COC No.6 will automatically be punishment 3.

Which is:

6.) All members of the UH must attempt to engage the citizenry at least once in their terms. Examples of attempted engagement is posting a thread in the Citizens Corner or engaging a citizen in an official capacity. Announcements of intention to seek re-election or not or campaigning for re-election do not count as engaging the citizenry.


Punishments for breaching the COC shall be thus:
3.)Barred for re-election for one term

I just can't get down with that.

Yes, I would like an interactive UH without it having to be pushed, and yes 1 post is incredibly simple.

However, I don't like the idea of barring someone from re-election (one term or not) unless they're a nuisance.

If that person really isn't making the effort, then people aren't going to vote for them anyways.  That's why in a bigger election, certain members get voted more often than others regardless of if they're newer or not; because people see those members as active, and thus more likely to get things done.

I don't like the idea of forcing their choice, or restricting someone's rights to run for office just because they weren't active (in this case, just active with the citizens) in their previous term.

Many sessions of the UH have been guilty of this at one time, whether it be because they never engaged in the C.P, or like some sessions because they were just quiet in general.  And in the latter's case, that's at least 5 people right there that would have been restricted from running the next term should a rule like this have existed in that time.

In any case, unless the person in question has been a detriment to the Storting and/or region (which re-election would be the least of their problems), then we can talk about barring from elections/re-elections.

Until then, as I said...that should be something the voters decide when it comes time for re-election.

Also...what happens if we have the bare minimum for seats in the Storting (which would have to follow what we decide in our Seating Procedure), but one of the candidates is barred from that election? Do we allow it anyways? Do we extend elections to find someone to replace them?  If we do that, though, what if we never find someone to replace them? Do we allow a storting with less than the minimum members allowed? Or do we allow them to take a seat despite it going against our own CoC?

True. But if we include 6, the regular punishments absolutely would not work. So should we include 6 or no?

I think it should be included, but more as a recommendation/suggestion.

The six Codes of Conduct, namely:
1.) All members of the UH must be mentioned at the beginning of debates and votes by the topic starter if such a feature exists at the time.
2.) All members of the UH are suggested to provide clear reasoning for the reason of their vote, defined as any reason to vote in the way they choose in a manner that is clear (posting the reasoning in the same thread as their vote, posting in a manner not meant to obscure the reasoning, like posting in Swahili or Wingdings.) If a member does not provide a reason when they vote, they must provide a reason before the conclusion of the vote or they will have violated this Code of Conduct.
3.) All members of the UH shall be courteous and polite in their dealings with the Citizenry in an official capacity, meaning they shall avoid purposefully demeaning, hurtful, vulgar, untrue or obscene statements if they are carrying out duties related to their role in the Underhusen. All conduct outside their role as a member of the Underhusen (posting in an RP or inside the Dumping Grounds as an example) is exempt unless the member specifically mentions their role in the Underhusen.
4.) All members of the UH shall be courteous and polite in their dealings with other members of the UH or of the OH in any official capacity. Definition of 'courteous and polite' and 'official capacity' are the same as No.3.
5.) All members of the UH shall be courteous and polite in their dealings with the ruling Monarch in any capacity at all. Definition of 'courteous and polite' are the same as No.3.
6.) All members of the UH are professionally requested to engage the citizenry at least once in their terms. Examples of attempted engagement is posting a thread in the Citizens Corner or engaging a citizen in an official capacity. Announcements of intention to seek re-election or not or campaigning for re-election do not count as engaging the citizenry.

Punishments for breaching the COC shall be thus:
1.)Friendly reminder
2.)Official warning
3.)Barred for re-election for one term
4.)Removed from office

Guidelines for using punishments:
1.) It will be illegal to skip a punishment for an offence, such as going straight to Barred for re-election, unless the previous punishments have already been issued for the same breach. For example, it will not be allowed to punish someone for a first time breach for a specific COC, such as No.2, with Punishment No.4 under any circumstance, even if the same member has been issued with punishments 1, 2 and 3 for different breaches.
2.)It will not be allowed to issue punishment 3 and 4 for a breach of COC No.1.
3.)It will not be allowed to issue punishment 4 for a breach of COC No.2.
4.)The punishment for someone in violation of COC No.6 will automatically be punishment 3.
5.)Any member may accept punishment or appeal to the Monarch. The Monarch may rescind the punishment, nullifying the punishment and striking it from record, or put a punishment he deems fit to any member for any offense, but only if the offense is appealed.

So is this more agreeable?