View Topic

There wasn't one, and I wanted to make the comments I made in the Discord available to people who arent on the discord, so I made this.

To begin;
On review, is there an area of legislation that concerns legal definitions? Because if we're going for pure legal whatever, this amendment should be split into subclauses, one for each definition expanded upon; so 'public' would be defined in clause Xa (where X is whatever number the clause outlining definitions is), 'availability' would be Xb, etc. etc.
This, and any other legislation that concerns definitions, should then be folded into a single document so that people don't have to go across multiple pieces of legislation to get an idea of the definitional framework people are operating from.

Also, there's some ambiguity in the document itself about what exactly constitutes public. Where do Wintrean dominions fall under? Would the NH forums constitute a 'public space' for the purpose of this act? Would the NH RMB? If one but not the other, where should the line of accessibility be drawn?

To provide context, for those not on the Discord:

@Mathyland proposed the Definition of Public Amendment Act, to add the Discord to the example of Wintrean spaces considered public (and to stir up some activity in the Underhusen).

@Chanku argued in the #citizens-platform channel of the Discord server that this sets a bad precedent. The Definition of Public Act, he pointed out, was created to be a broad definition of "public." Adding another example may suggest to future pedants that newer public spaces not included in the definition are not actually legally public. Mathy, Wintermoot, and I seem to think that this isn't an issue, especially since the intent has been stated to simply add another example, not change the meaning (apologies if I misread or misrepresented any of your stances). Not to mention that I'm pretty sure other public spaces also existed at the time of the Act being passed, so I'm not sure this alters precedent at all.

In any case, we need to add a period to the end of the sentence, so some amendment needs to be passed regardless.

If we want to make changes, we could change our votes to Nay before @Aethelia closes the vote, then continue revising the bill.

I would also request that Chanku (or someone else) please provide a more detailed overview of the events leading to the passing of the Definition of Public Act, specifically which laws were cited that use "public" and in what way those laws were being referenced.


Now to respond to Doc's suggestion:

As you've pointed out that you haven't read our laws yet, definition acts have, so far, been statutory. I personally see no reason to collate the definitions together, especially since we don't define every term, and the few terms that have been defined are quite minor.

And I'm pretty sure NH doesn't count as a private Wintreath property as per the Fundamental Laws, and thus isn't a public space as per the Definition of Public Act. Not to mention that even if it were, the Covenant of Fellowship's self-government provision would prohibit anything from being handled by the Wintrean administration or government anyway. That said, this is an interesting case that perhaps would merit some deeper analysis and maybe clarification.

In response to @Chanku's critiques from last night, I believe that promoting the Discord can only do good for the community, and modernising the legislature as times change shows that the region is still alive and relevant.

Furthermore, lists of three are a widely used rhetorical method (I'm not sure if that's the proper English expression), so from a technical standpoint adding a third example improves the word of the law.

I'll get back on Doc's comments later, they seem to require more in-depth look and I just wanted to respond to Chanku's concerns.

As the Underhusen's secretary, I apologise for not being up to my tasks and failing to set this thread up.