View Topic

I was still going to say that that's loose and doesn't mean anything until I realized that by the definition of the word any act where someone would go through the trouble of trying to mark it as controversial would make it controversial... Which is a nice little bit of recurring logic there, which I find soothing...

Let no man ever say I'm not particular with my words.

But in all seriousness, since these things get debated in the citizen's platform, we can have a good idea of what is controversial. The Citizenship in the NLO/NPO, for example, would qualify as such.

My worry is not that it won't be used but that it will be exploited... Loose phrasing opens us up to attack from less savory versions of myself...

I'm not certain that there is anything that can be done about that, other than to hope that whoever gets elected into the UH actually deserves to be there...

I mean, your wording can as clear as possible, but if someone wants to make things difficult, they will succeed.

I do think, however, that controversial bills don't actually have to be classified as such. Since we're about to make it a requirement that bills need unanimous support for expedition, we're already ensuring that controversial bills aren't expedited.

And with it absolutely being forbidden to expedite revocation of citizenships, there really is no need to have anything beyond that line. Just say that it is forbidden in the case of a revocation of citizenship, and that an expedition requires unanimous support. Problem solved. I think. I hope.