View Topic

Well I hope the not-link works for everyone...

Anyway, I'm not going to spend a lot of time here, but I'll summarize my views on some hot-button topics. 

Judicial Reform:  I know this hasn't been as big lately, but we may still see it again, depending on who wins this election.  I'm of the opinion that our judicial system is far from adequate.  I have faith that the current system is fixable, but I would also like to see some out-of-the-box ideas for judicial reform.  This is not a typical region in any means, so a typical judicial apparatus would serve us poorly, in my opinion.  We can be much more flexible with the Executive than many other regions are able. 

Default Seats of the Underhusen:  I'll be realistic - there may come a scenario where the Underhusen fails to pass a seating bill for the next term.  Should that have happened before this act was passed, we would likely have had to come up with a solution on the fly, which is unprofessional and not as credible as relying on precedent or established law.  I do believe that concerns over malicious Skrifa or Speakers are unfounded - we've demonstrated that the recall proceedings work exceptionally well in those scenarios. Further, assuming an Underhusen of 4 or more, one errant Skrifa cannot cause significant disarray, even if they were the Speaker.  That said, I don't see this act as a symbol of laziness by the UH, but more of readiness. 

"Citizen Initiative":  A fancy term that I invented to describe the discussion in Sapph's campaign thread about seeking deeper involvement of the citizenry in the legislative process.  I will note that I find 48 hours an unbearably short amount of time to discuss bills, and in my previous terms as Skrifa, I've posted acts and statements I drafted in the Citizen's Platform before taking them to a vote.  I'm also active on the Regional Message Board, which is something few other candidates can claim.  We have a number of citizens (and residents/potential citizens) who are waiting to be brought into the process on NationStates that have yet to make the jump to the off-site forum.  As Jarl of Integration, this is an important issue for me, and I'll be seeking ways to connect the Underhusen with the NationStates users. 

Pedigree:  Former Delegate of Dux Milan (never got above 30 citizens ;_;), Thane of WA Affairs, served two terms as Skrifa, Jarl of Integration, and most recently, Peer of the Overhusen. 

Of course, I'm happy to answer any questions or engage in fisticuffs (dyel, bro?), but don't expect to catch me slinging mud or other brown substances. 

Regarding the Default Seats of the Underhusen, what is your opinion on my suggested alternative?

I am suggesting a referendum as an alternative to the Default Seats of the Underhusen Act since it involves citizen engagement, reduces the possibility of a completely inactive Underhusen while still being able to "prevent an accidential, or purposeful, lock-up in which no resolution CAN occur at all. Essentially preventing any elections from taking place", which is also the main purpose of passing the Default Seats of the Underhusen Act in the first place. My suggestion does not remove the power of the current Underhusen to decide for the number of legislators in its successor. As long as the current Underhusen manages to pass an Underhusen Seating Act in time before the elections, this clause will not come into effect.

Welcome to the campaign again.

At this point it seems obvious that there will be at least a push to amend parts of the Fundamental Laws. What one portion do you feel should be amended and how so?

I will be hard pressed not to vote for a fellow Tool fan on principle, but right now I'll put on a mask of unbiasedness.

I'm glad you bring precedent up, because that is a rather big problem. Your campaign is exceptionally written, and you bring up a valid point about people's involvement on the RMB, but I'm not certain those who have thus far made their homes only on the RMB (where very silly discussions most often take place), instead of the forum would even truly be interested in politics, laws, and so forth.

Do you believe you would be a better candidate than Pengu, for example?

Regarding the Default Seats of the Underhusen, what is your opinion on my suggested alternative?

I am suggesting a referendum as an alternative to the Default Seats of the Underhusen Act since it involves citizen engagement, reduces the possibility of a completely inactive Underhusen while still being able to "prevent an accidential, or purposeful, lock-up in which no resolution CAN occur at all. Essentially preventing any elections from taking place", which is also the main purpose of passing the Default Seats of the Underhusen Act in the first place. My suggestion does not remove the power of the current Underhusen to decide for the number of legislators in its successor. As long as the current Underhusen manages to pass an Underhusen Seating Act in time before the elections, this clause will not come into effect.

Well, really, the only advantage I see over the Default Seats Act is "citizen engagement," and that only applies if the UH does, in fact, neglect to pass a seating bill.  I understand that citizen engagement is an important issue to be explored this term, but I think we can do a lot better than, "We didn't do our jobs, let's have you do it for us and call it democracy!"

Welcome to the campaign again.

At this point it seems obvious that there will be at least a push to amend parts of the Fundamental Laws. What one portion do you feel should be amended and how so?

A grammatical clean-up would certainly be a good step, but there seem to be much more qualified people than myself who are ready to take on that task.  As I said above (and in previous campaign threads), I feel that the judicial system is broken.  I feel that the current system provides little to no due process for defendants, and I also feel that the adversarial format does not suit Wintreath.  Until we can come together and see how exactly Wintreath's judiciary evolves, reform of any one part will be difficult. 

I will be hard pressed not to vote for a fellow Tool fan on principle, but right now I'll put on a mask of unbiasedness.

I'm glad you bring precedent up, because that is a rather big problem. Your campaign is exceptionally written, and you bring up a valid point about people's involvement on the RMB, but I'm not certain those who have thus far made their homes only on the RMB (where very silly discussions most often take place), instead of the forum would even truly be interested in politics, laws, and so forth.

Do you believe you would be a better candidate than Pengu, for example?

How specific.  I believe Pengu to be exceptionally qualified as a Skrifa.  In fact, we have a lot of similarities.  We've both served in the Overhusen, we are both Jarls, we both entered the region and immediately became somewhat influential (I say this in the humblest way possible), and we both have grown personally connected to Wintreath.  If there will be any discussion about the future of Wintreath, I expect Pengu to be involved in some level. 

Concerning the residents who participate in RMB chatter - Yes, it is a very silly place, and yes, it is hard to get people excited about politics.  However, this is not a politically-inclined region, so searching for "serious" people would be a waste of time.  I'm not looking for law students, I just simply recognize that every NS resident that we can bring to the off-site forum is a new collaborator, recruiter, mentor, roleplayer, potential Thane, Jarl, Skrifa, Peer, Prince, etc. - no matter how silly they are.

Well, really, the only advantage I see over the Default Seats Act is "citizen engagement," and that only applies if the UH does, in fact, neglect to pass a seating bill.  I understand that citizen engagement is an important issue to be explored this term, but I think we can do a lot better than, "We didn't do our jobs, let's have you do it for us and call it democracy!"

I believe you are aware that has never been my intention. My viewpoint is this, a negligent Underhusen who has displayed its inability to manage its own affairs doesn't deserve to retain its power and as Citizens, we don't get to recall them because we have the "right to petition for the recall of any member of the Underhusen unless there are fewer than twenty-one days left until the next regular election."

Wouldn't the more reasonable course of action be to change the recall proceedings to allow the petition for a recall of a Skrifa at any time?

We can do that, however, all it takes to draft an Underhusen Seating Act is one Skrifa and for the rest to vote on it. If such a simple task cannot be accomplished before the elections, I say let all the Citizens be aware of their negligence. I am more interested in an accountable Underhusen. Furthermore, I am fairly sure an Underhusen who represents the Citizens would never mind having their power temporarily transferred to the Citizenry.

If the citizens wish to observe the activity of the Underhusen, they are free to do so already. And, again, I get the point of using a referendum to have the citizen's impact truly felt in the Underhusen, but it still seems to me like an overly complex and bureaucratic solution to a relatively simple problem - a problem that has never arisen before and will never arise, should the Default Seats act stay.

And the relatively simple solution, which you have used to refer to the "Default Seats of the Underhusen Act", is one that allows the Underhusen to be negligent with near to zero consequences. Let us agree to disagree then, since our opinions already differ from the fundamentals, with me believing that this Act is one of laziness and you believing that it is one of readiness.

Just to point out, the recall restriction is born mostly of practicality. A signature petition can legally take up to two days, then there must be a two-day nomination period, followed by a 3-day election, meaning the entire process takes between five and seven days. Nominations open a week prior to elections beginning, so you'd basically be voting someone new in time for them to campaign for the next election.

And thereby making the recall option not a feasible alternative to the Default Seats of the Underhusen. I rest my case.

What areas do you want to see improved?

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

What did you feel was lacking in my initial judicial proposal?  What do you think can be improved on it?

Primarily, fixing the position of speaker and solidifying the legislative process. Secondly, engaging members of Wintreath's community on NationStates. Finally, judicial reform. I'm not at Reon's level of disgust (I can imagine he dry-heaves every time he's forced to read the laws) but there's definitely a lot of room for improvement.

The judicial system is broken. That's is a fundamental issue. Potentially any citizen could become a party in it at some point, and as it currently stands, it would not work. We would be defrauding the people involved in it - particularly the defendant. If we want to at least pretend we value fairness and impartiality, then we need to fix the justice system.

If I remember correctly, the issue was you wanted a separate branch of government to handle criminal cases, but the Monarch and a few others were against the concept of a standing judiciary and wanted to use members of the legislature and executive to fill the gaps. Neither solution, in my opinion, is ideal for this community. I can't give you any solid details, but I imagine my plan for Wintrean justice will involve the Monarch at some level and will rely on ordinary citizens.

I'm not at Reon's level of disgust (I can imagine he dry-heaves every time he's forced to read the laws)

When it's really bad or I'm particularly emotional scars form on my body and I cry blood. Usually it's just dry heaving though. Every time there's a thing that doesn't have an official process in the laws though I start to convulse. Unfortunately this is true for everything.

Little known fact: right now the only way a case can happen is if the speaker chooses to accept it. There's literally no other way to get a case accepted. This also goes for not accepting a case. If the speaker accepts it it's a case.
In my grand list of things that could totally break all Wintreath law, accepting thirty arbitrary cases at once is pretty high up there. Nearby repealing the procedural rules of the underhusen or at least section 11.