Wintreath Regional Community
A Link to the Past - Archives => The Registry of Things Past - Historic Archive => Frosthold Castle - Wintreath Government => Topic started by: Gerrick on February 13, 2016, 02:46:39 AM
-
Hi, everybody. Barnes has appointed me to be the secretary of the Underhusen for this term. Here I will give updates of the Underhusen's goings on, though you can also just read everything at the Underhusen subforum if you'd like.
If you have anything you want to talk about to the Underhusen and you don't know where to say it, here would be a good place. You're also free to create your own thread -- this is just if you have anything general to talk about, including the updates.
Danke :)
-
Good on you for taking initiative with the role Gerrick. If you need ideas of how the secretary has handled topics in the past, Laurentus and Hannah both have "Citizen Discussion/Commentary" threads for the topics that were discussed and voted upon in the Underhusen. :)
-
Ah, great, thanks. That's very helpful. :)
-
Congratulations on the appointment, Gerrick. I'm sure you'll be a fine secretary for the Underhusen. :)
-
Mr Speaker, may I enquire about your decision to give Prince Chanku a standing invitation? According to the Monarch-Underhusen Rights Removal Amendment Act (http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=2880.0), it is only the Monarch who has a permanent standing invitation. The previous discussion (http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=2858.0) has also pointed out that Chanku can always post in The Citizens' Platform.
-
Mr Speaker, may I enquire about your decision to give Prince Chanku a standing invitation? According to the Monarch-Underhusen Rights Removal Amendment Act (http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=2880.0), it is only the Monarch who has a permanent standing invitation. The previous discussion (http://wintreath.com/forums/index.php?topic=2858.0) has also pointed out that Chanku can always post in The Citizens' Platform.
I'm going to second this question, and not through any ill feelings towards Chanku. I've seen his tendency in the past to wander into discussions that he doesn't have the authority to partake in, often without bringing much to the table that couldn't be put on said table through other more suitable means.
Also, Saph is entirely right in saying that Chanku doesn't by law get an Open Invitation to the UH. I wasn't aware the Speaker could extend one either.
-
12. The Speaker of the Assembly shall have the power to invite any citizen to speak before the Underhusen for any duration that he or she deems necessary during the term.
The Speaker does have that authority from the Procedural Rules. However, it could have been a mistake since 12a has not been updated in either the sticky topic or the law page to reflect the Monarch-Underhusen Rights Removal Amendment Act.
-
12. The Speaker of the Assembly shall have the power to invite any citizen to speak before the Underhusen for any duration that he or she deems necessary during the term.
The Speaker does have that authority from the Procedural Rules. However, it could have been a mistake since 12a has not been updated in either the sticky topic or the law page to reflect the Monarch-Underhusen Rights Removal Amendment Act.
Something else for this term's Skifra's to take care of, then :)
-
His standing invitation might be because of the precedent that he's always had one before, and the current UH members might not be completely up to date with the change in laws that removed his standing invitation because of title, giving it only to Wintermoot.
-
@Barnes?
-
Technically, my invitation was a mistake because Chanku's standing is not automatically anymore. However, I'm unsure whether to honour that mistake or to revoke the floor from him.
-
With regards to the INWU treaty: there is a spelling mistake. The treaty currently uses the words: "... each others..."
This should be either *each other's* or *each others'*. The former if we consider Wintreath and INWU to be their own legal persons, and the latter if we don't, or are referring to the members of each community.
-
Thank you. I was worried about something like this. While the spelling mistake is minor, the exact placement of the apostrophe changes a large portion of the technical background of the treaty.
There may be the possibility of allowing the diplomats behind the agreement to determine which was their interpretation of the spelling, which would then take precedent automatically without having to re-vote. However, I doubt it; since the treaty is already ratified in the eyes of the INWU, I believe we must either ratify it as-is or have the other region re-ratify.
-
Yeah, this is a technicality that can be exploited. So it has to be fixed.
-
Wait, what? I'm pretty sure they mean the same thing, they're just written differently.
-
Perhaps the lack of punctuation implies that both are to occur, because they couldn't decide on a single option.
-
We don't want to be bound to the members, but to the institution. Or perhaps we do want to be bound to the members, as the legitimate government of the institution.
But anyway, "other's" is singular, while "others'" is plural. So they refer to different things.
EDIT: Never mind, I've just remembered something I've long forgotten about English. There is no such thing as "each others'". There is only "each other's," since the word "each" can only be followed by the singular. You can't say "each boys'" for instance. So just correct the mistake in our treaty by adding the apostrophe and ask them to do the same.
-
We don't want to be bound to the members, but to the institution. Or perhaps we do want to be bound to the members, as the legitimate government of the institution.
But anyway, "other's" is singular, while "others'" is plural. So they refer to different things.
With both meanings we'd be obligated to protect both INWU and its vassals, and the vassals or regions of its members. That's the problem that we have with ambiguity here, correct?
-
Read my edit. I think the rest of the treaty does a good job of removing the ambiguity of what the "other's" refers to.
-
In the case of the treaty the 'parties' are the governments of Wintreath and INWU, so any clauses refer to their rights and obligations. I'm not sure what their process is for correcting spelling and grammar in legislation, but asking a region to re-ratify a treaty is a not a small thing. I would prefer not to do it unless it's absolutely necessary.
-
Lol, read my edit. If they have an easy method of editing their laws, it would be best, but I've just discovered it can only mean one thing anyway, and with the context of the rest of the treaty, the "other's" is pretty clear anyway.
-
Next time an omnibus correction bill goes through, can we please correct section 3.1 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act? The Paragon Recognition Omnibus Amendment Act contained this error, so technically the Storting doesn't have any authority to recognize Paragons. Only the Storing can, whatever that is.
3.1 The Storing shall have the authority to recognize any previous or current Citizen as a Paragon of Wintreath if it feels the individual was an essential of member of the regional community, or performed invaluable service to the region, and/or otherwise embodied the principles, values, culture, or honour of the region.
(On a semi-related note, the image link for the Wintreath Commendation within the Wintreath Commendation Act isn't working for me.)
-
Next time an omnibus correction bill goes through, can we please correct section 3.1 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act? The Paragon Recognition Omnibus Amendment Act contained this error, so technically the Storting doesn't have any authority to recognize Paragons. Only the Storing can, whatever that is.
3.1 The Storing shall have the authority to recognize any previous or current Citizen as a Paragon of Wintreath if it feels the individual was an essential of member of the regional community, or performed invaluable service to the region, and/or otherwise embodied the principles, values, culture, or honour of the region.
(On a semi-related note, the image link for the Wintreath Commendation within the Wintreath Commendation Act isn't working for me.)
I'd also advise removing the underlined part, since there are those including WM himself that feel it should be given only to former citizens.
-
Hmm, could the UH perhaps change the Commendation system so as to allow a commended person to be free from the normal rules that apply to Citizens? And THEN commend Pengu? :P
Basically adapting an already existing law so that it becomes the Active Citizen equivalent of the Paragon Act.
Also, while we're having this discussion, I must say the name Paragon is itself misleading.
paragon - /ˈparəɡ(ə)n/
noun
1. a person or thing regarded as a perfect
example of a particular quality.
At this point, it would make more sense for that law to be amended to change the name back to Honorary Citizens (Perhaps Alumnus Honoris if we want to use some sexy Latin) and remove the part about current citizens, and explicitly state it's only for previous citizens.
Paragon, as used in Dragon Age lore, is perfectly suited for what we actually tried to do with Pengu now. So we could perhaps even leave the Commendation laws as they are, and after changing the honorary citizen laws again to reflect their actual intent, create a completely new reward the Storting may bestow and call THAT the Paragon Act. We could even add in a provision for any Alumnus Honoris to automatically become a Paragon if he/she ever becomes active again.
-
But I understand the reasoning, since Paragon is essentially a God, and gods are beings that are honored even though they're not among those who honor them.
Even in DA, wasn't the only current living Paragon the woman who ran off, became mad with power, and was killed?
If anything, keep the Paragon system the way Moot originally entailed it, and the Wintreath Commedation can be called something equally prestigious that captures the meaning of what the Commendation is supposed to encompass.
-
A paragon is considered a living ancestor, so it can't be awarded posthumously by the dwarves. Sure, when that paragon dies, they are thought of more highly than any regular old ancestor, and the noble families are all the descendants of paragons, but to actually gain the title of paragon, you have to be currently living.
-
Well to keep it in the Norse/Nordic-ish tradition, a possible name could be the Välkänd (Famous/Reknown/Celebrated).
I just have a feeling that Paragon is going to end up keeping the definition it was intended for on here. :P
-
So as I understand it, there are two awards that can be granted to citizens by the Storting: Paragon and Wintreath Commendation, the former being an honorary citizenship and mask given to very important citizens who have fallen inactive and the latter an award recognizing active citizens that can be put in their signature, right?
Since Paragon can now definitely only be given to inactive members, it would make sense to give Pengu the Wintreath Commendation. Should we perhaps revive and update the Wintreath Commendation Act and give it a snappy new name (such as Pengu's suggestions) and signature display (since the old one doesn't appear)?
Anything else we can do to make it seem more prestigious?
-
I don't recall Wintreath having given out the Commendation in quite a while. That in itself is prestigious enough. Therefore I suggest we repurpose our Paragon bill as a Commendation bill. However, we ought to update that signature display.