View Topic

It's not the fundamental laws REQUIRES a super majority to pass. Therefore the amount of votes required would be rounded up, so it would become four. I counted them properly and the same. Furthermore I even talked to two impartial third-parties and Hugsim and Wintermoot, about the OJR before failing it. I talked to Hugsim about the JOAA.

And you saw Mooty's reaction when your law passed, so using him as an example might be a pretty bad idea.  Heck, he explicitely said that what you did with your law was illegal.

So you have one person who abstained on it and was the vote you used both times as a switch, and then one person who wasn't even involved who might have agreed with the first time, but was obviously far from agreement the 2nd time.

I used him in order to decide on what would happen to the OJR not to the JOOA. However I was using it to show that I only carried out the law to the letter of it.

I used him in order to decide on what would happen to the OJR not to the JOOA. However I was using it to show that I only carried out the law to the letter of it.

But in the end, wouldn't essentially both acts have required the same thing since they would have both had a direct impact?

Wouldn't your act have been something that would have altered the FL, and thus needed a supermajority to pass?

No my act was an amendment to the Judicial Offices Act, a statutory law. Not to the fundamental Laws.

I see.

In the end though, it just falls to inconstancy, and those two things are exactly why I'm suggesting both clarification as well as a Poll to the People thing.

For the former, laws would be more established rather than being for the speaker to interpret on their own.  It'd give more procedure guidelines so loopholes couldn't be exploited, and things would be a bit more structured and efficient...which is what Wintreath needs.

For the latter, it prevent things like having to PM people and getting their input.  Throughout this entire Judicial and Judicial reform thing, did anyone even ASK anyone outside of the Overhusen or Underhusen or other government role what THEIR thoughts on a Judicial system were?  Do the citizens even really know what was being pushed at that point from both sides, and given an idea of what you guys were even arguing about?

I looked through the Platform and saw one topic from back in December that was discussing something a bit different, and the only replies were from you, Denth, Reon, Gov, and Mooty.

Considering you guys were obviously locked on the whole thing and it was blatantly obvious that the UH wasn't in agreement, wouldn't it have made sense to create another Open Forum topic on it and gathered people's input?

And this is what I'm getting at with the latter option.  Instead of having a once in a blue moon open forum topic or Poll to the People, I'm saying that there should be one right when discussion opens up for a new act.  The second a new Act pops up for discussion in the UH, a new Poll to the People should pop up no later than a few minutes to garner the public's input as well.  That way when voting time comes, you can look at the consensus of the citizens and use that as a guideline in your voting.

Do you like fish?

Yes, very much so.  :3

Hi Pengu! A question for you.

What role do you feel the Underhusen should serve in relation to the other portions of government...the Overhusen, which you currently serve as Chair for, and the Monarchy itself, which you are also a part of as a member of the Riksråd? Do you foresee any potential conflicts of interests by being involved in the other branch of government?

Hi there Mooty, and that's a great question.

I realize that I'll be coming into this both as an acting jarl and ex-Overhusen member/chairman, and and I'm perfectly alright with that.  I can see where it might end up being considered a conflict of interest, especially since I've mentioned in my speech at least twice that I would still be conferring with you on specific issues.

However, it's only a conflict of interest if the viewpoint and the reasoning of the decisions doesn't match the description of the job.  If my decisions are made because they're something that benefits specifically the other Jarls, and is something the other Jarls and I talked about only, then it's a conflict of interest.  Similarly, if everything done in office was soley to benefit you and you alone, then it could be considered the same.

But one can be a Jarl, from a different branch of government, and still want to serve all of the people.  Really, it would just come from what you know about that person already from what you've seen from them, and making a decision there as to if one really thinks that person is going to do what they say they're going to do.  And I have faith that people will know my intentions based on what they've seen even before I became part of the Overhusen or Riksråd, so a conflict of interest when it comes to being in the UH shouldn't even be a question. 

That being said, to answer your original question, I think it can be answered simply:  The Underhusen's purpose is to serve ALL of the citizens of Wintreath.  This includes both the monarchy and rest of government as well.  While decisions aren't going to be made soley with you specifically or the Riksråd in mind...your input on laws/acts discussions, the Riksråds input, and every OH member's input is going to be just as valued as every other citizen's on here.  Because even if the OH and Riksråd are different branches, each member within is still considered a citizen of Wintreath.

Edit: I'd like to add a bit since I misread the last part of your question.  There may come a time for when an issue/law may arise that is something that may benefit the citizens but not certain branches of government such as the Riksråd.  While I'd still confer with you and others on the legality of such laws to make sure we're not doing something illegal,  I'll still follow the will of the people and the mindset of whether or not it will hurt or help our region.  If the majority of citizens want said law to go through and it's perfectly legal for it to do so, then I'll support it.  Likewise if the majority of citizens don't want it to go through, then I won't.

But in that same note, if it's something I could see potentially hurting the region as a whole, then I'll vote against it, and likewise if I see it as something that could benefit all of us, then I'll vote in favor of it.

What areas do you want to see improved?

Why should I, with my stances, vote for YOU?  What can YOU do for ME?

I've mentioned those already, but for clarification, the areas that need the most improvement are the laws, as other candidates have also pointed out.  As Chanku himself even pointed out, the Speaker for example holds even more power than the Monarch, and that's something that's pretty inexcusable in a Monarchy.  i want to bring our government back to being a fair balance, which right now is heavily unbalanced in favor of the Underhusen.

Other than that, I want to continue things at a better level, such as introducing much more legislature that other citizens propose, and getting their input on laws that are currently being discussed.  As I said, the Underhusen is meant to represent the people, so gathering their input on our laws the moment they're brought to the UH for discussion seems like a valid requirement that the UH members should be following.

As for your second question, because to quote another candidate: a vote for me is a vote for you.  I promise I will do my utmost to listen to every citizen and do what I can to best represent them while including them and making them a part of everything, and that includes you as well.  As of now, the UH is meant to represent the people, but they don't actually have to necessarily listen to the people, and that's just not right.  So a vote for me is helping take the first steps in rectifying that grievous mistake.

I've mentioned those already, but for clarification, the areas that need the most improvement are the laws, as other candidates have also pointed out.  As Chanku himself even pointed out, the Speaker for example holds even more power than the Monarch, and that's something that's pretty inexcusable in a Monarchy.  i want to bring our government back to being a fair balance, which right now is heavily unbalanced in favor of the Underhusen.

Other than that, I want to continue things at a better level, such as introducing much more legislature that other citizens propose, and getting their input on laws that are currently being discussed.  As I said, the Underhusen is meant to represent the people, so gathering their input on our laws the moment they're brought to the UH for discussion seems like a valid requirement that the UH members should be following.

As for your second question, because to quote another candidate: a vote for me is a vote for you.  I promise I will do my utmost to listen to every citizen and do what I can to best represent them while including them and making them a part of everything, and that includes you as well.  As of now, the UH is meant to represent the people, but they don't actually have to necessarily listen to the people, and that's just not right.  So a vote for me is helping take the first steps in rectifying that grievous mistake.

You have my support.