View Topic

the re-written B merely allows for a vote to occur. The Speaker, Chairperson, and/or Monarch can still keep things classified.

Very well.

I think altering the passage a bit to where instead of waiting until the end of the term, you'd wait until a topic was discussed to the end (IE, the parties both decided to take it to their respective forums for further discussion/vote) until it was made public.  The end-of-term bit should only be for if topics went on for that long and was decided to close the discussion due to the end of the term coming up, and thus putting them in public view.

Revocations are a tricky one.  I think subjects of a revocation should be granted an automatic invitation to appeal to the UH/OH directly and discreetly in the subject of a possible upcoming revocation.

That being said, however...it's still tricky.  While at the same time I think it really is a sensitive topic to talk about, I also think once it's being discussed publicly or being voted on, people deserve to know the full extent as to why the votes are going the way they are.  And unless any of the officials are saying things that can be taken personally (which if they allow the subject to appeal, I'd hope they'd keep all opinions strictly professional), then I don't see too much reason to contain it longer than other topics.

But I think really, it depends on the feelings of the person that the revocation is about.  If the subject is wanting privacy on said matters throughout the process, then I think wishes should be respected and it remain out of public view until either the end of the revocation, or of the term.  Likewise if they ask for it to be made public, I also think that those wishes should be respected and the discussion of their revocation be made public in respect of transparency.

At the same time, if the UH/OH decides to not allow a standing invitation to subjects of a revocation to appeal directly to the UH/OH in the private forums, I actually do think that once the UH/OH go their separate ways to discuss/vote in their forums, the topic should be made public so that the subject can have a proper appeal (it's not really fair to ask them to appeal if you've discussed beforehand and aren't allowing them to see what has been said so they can properly defend themselves).

So like I said, it's a bit tricky...but I'm more inclined to think that revocations should be made public unless specifically requested by the subject to not be.

To be honest the appeal to the Storting comes in the public topic, because IIRC the Procedural Rules requires a debate period to occur. Meaning that the person has a time period to appeal, not only to Storting members, but also to the public. Further the Speaker (again IIRC) Should have the power to invite people into the Underhusen halls to speak, which can occur for those with the subject matter for revocations. Further I personally think that allowing them into the secret area, for one matter, would defeat the purpose anyway as a person could leak or comment on anything really. There are no technical laws dealing with the leaking from those forums either. If we could restrict what they could see to the relevant post then I wouldn't mind it, however AFAIK we can't.

My thoughts:

I. Title

A. This act shall be titled the Storting Sunshine Act

II. Definitions
A. Sunshine Policy shall be defined as a policy where discussions or documents that were initially kept confidential, be open to the public.
B. The Storting shall be defined as the Legislature of Wintreath, a bicameral legislature consisting of the Overhusen, and the Underhusen, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
C. The Speaker shall be defined as the administrative head of the Underhusen, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
D. The Chairman shall be defined as the administrative head of the Overhusen, , as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
E. The Monarch shall be defined as the King and royal executive leader of the Frozen Realm of Wintreath, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
F. "The Citizens' Platform" shall be defined as the subforum in The Storting of Wintreath where citizens of Wintreath discuss ideas and proposals regarding legislation, and for citizens to address issues of concern to them.

III. Provisions
A. Members of the Storting shall adhere to a Sunshine Policy upon passage of this Act, which shall be implemented as follows:
    1. All topics which are debated in "The Citizens' Platform" that are debated in the Underhusen or the Overhusen, shall be made public on conclusion of discussion and vote of said topic in either house.
        A) The house that first discusses and votes on an issue first shall have their discussion and vote threads released to the public first.
    2. Once the discussions have been made public, a link shall be placed in the accompanying thread in The Citizens' Platform where the discussion initially took place.
    3. Discussions regarding a sensitive nature, such as treaty negotiations, shall be considered confidential unless voted on by a simply majority in both houses of the Storting. 
        A) Discussions which concern the possible Revocation of Citizenship must be released the moment they are finished, so as to remain transparent and for members of the Storting specifically to remain accountable.

B. This law shall come into immediate effect upon passage by the Storting, and Royal Assent given by the Monarch.

IV. Violations
A. Violators who release discussions open to the public without the matter being concluded in the Storting will be held in contempt of the Storting and subject to administrative action under the respective head of the Storting where the leak was involved.
     1. Punishments for violation can range from a censure, to a temporal suspension of posting privileges, to impeachment of the representative from the Storting.

My law writing experience in NS comes with a different outline format I've used

To be honest the appeal to the Storting comes in the public topic, because IIRC the Procedural Rules requires a debate period to occur. Meaning that the person has a time period to appeal, not only to Storting members, but also to the public. Further the Speaker (again IIRC) Should have the power to invite people into the Underhusen halls to speak, which can occur for those with the subject matter for revocations. Further I personally think that allowing them into the secret area, for one matter, would defeat the purpose anyway as a person could leak or comment on anything really. There are no technical laws dealing with the leaking from those forums either. If we could restrict what they could see to the relevant post then I wouldn't mind it, however AFAIK we can't.

So why not just release the topic to the public in the case of a revocation? Essentially, it achieves the same goal as bringing the person before the Storting, without the mess of allowing someone in the private forum.

Or create a new private forum specifically for this purpose and move the revocation topic there, so it may be discussed privately with the party involved without security breaches.

My thoughts:

I. Title

A. This act shall be titled the Storting Sunshine Act

II. Definitions
A. Sunshine Policy shall be defined as a policy where discussions or documents that were initially kept confidential, be open to the public.
B. The Storting shall be defined as the Legislature of Wintreath, a bicameral legislature consisting of the Overhusen, and the Underhusen, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
C. The Speaker shall be defined as the administrative head of the Underhusen, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
D. The Chairman shall be defined as the administrative head of the Overhusen, , as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
E. The Monarch shall be defined as the King and royal executive leader of the Frozen Realm of Wintreath, as defined per the Fundamental Laws of Wintreath.
F. "The Citizens' Platform" shall be defined as the subforum in The Storting of Wintreath where citizens of Wintreath discuss ideas and proposals regarding legislation, and for citizens to address issues of concern to them.

III. Provisions
A. Members of the Storting shall adhere to a Sunshine Policy upon passage of this Act, which shall be implemented as follows:
    1. All topics which are debated in "The Citizens' Platform" that are debated in the Underhusen or the Overhusen, shall be made public on conclusion of discussion and vote of said topic in either house.
        A) The house that first discusses and votes on an issue first shall have their discussion and vote threads released to the public first.
    2. Once the discussions have been made public, a link shall be placed in the accompanying thread in The Citizens' Platform where the discussion initially took place.
    3. Discussions regarding a sensitive nature, such as treaty negotiations, shall be considered confidential unless voted on by a simply majority in both houses of the Storting. 
        A) Discussions which concern the possible Revocation of Citizenship must be released the moment they are finished, so as to remain transparent and for members of the Storting specifically to remain accountable.

B. This law shall come into immediate effect upon passage by the Storting, and Royal Assent given by the Monarch.

IV. Violations
A. Violators who release discussions open to the public without the matter being concluded in the Storting will be held in contempt of the Storting and subject to administrative action under the respective head of the Storting where the leak was involved.
     1. Punishments for violation can range from a censure, to a temporal suspension of posting privileges, to impeachment of the representative from the Storting.

My law writing experience in NS comes with a different outline format I've used

I'm a bit confused, here.

The Citizen's Platform is not the private forum's name. I refer of course to the following: "1. All topics which are debated in "The Citizens' Platform" that are debated in the Underhusen or the Overhusen, shall be made public on conclusion of discussion and vote of said topic in either house."

I also don't think it's necessary to define so many aspects either, since the other laws already do this.

The Underhusen also doesn't discuss things separately from the Overhusen in the private forum, we discuss everything at the same time, thus making it impossible for the UH to release things first upon voting.

Clarification @Laurentus:

1. I'm referring to topics that are in the private area that are discussed in the Citizens' Area here first. 

2. I think having definitions in place would help provide clarity.  Many laws and ordinances IRL are defined similarly as well.

3. I was under the impression that the UH and OH would have separate private forums ?

Is there a chance we can work with my modifications sir?

Well, no, in real life (or at least in South Africa) there is a lot of cross-referencing of laws, but not stating the legal definition of things over and over again, unless reference is made to, for example, the Common Law definition of a child born alive vs the Criminal Law definition of the same etc.

We don't have to make it that complex in Wintreath Law.

Further than that, I think my current bill essentially covers everything you might be worried about?

To be honest the appeal to the Storting comes in the public topic, because IIRC the Procedural Rules requires a debate period to occur. Meaning that the person has a time period to appeal, not only to Storting members, but also to the public. Further the Speaker (again IIRC) Should have the power to invite people into the Underhusen halls to speak, which can occur for those with the subject matter for revocations. Further I personally think that allowing them into the secret area, for one matter, would defeat the purpose anyway as a person could leak or comment on anything really. There are no technical laws dealing with the leaking from those forums either. If we could restrict what they could see to the relevant post then I wouldn't mind it, however AFAIK we can't.

My concern is since the UH/OH forum is private and therefore they'll be discussing topics prior to establishing them in the public's eye (the potential for revocations for example), then it requires an aspect of fairness to it.  If revocations are going to be discussed in what will essentially be secrecy before public discussions are to be had (which you know will be the case), then the subject of it has a right to know in some form or another before it does go public.

It's a completely underhanded thing to have a private discussion of revoking someone's citizenship, and then when it comes time for the UH and OH to discuss it publicly, they've already discussed it.  What then?  As it stands, debate periods are required, but a motion to expedite can still happen regardless of the topic.  The amendment to expediting was never passed, so what happens if the UH decides they've had enough discussion and motions to expedite and move it to a vote?  What if the OH goes with it because they've already all discussed it?

Until that amendment is either passed, or polished and passed, we have a problem.  And thus this is an alternative until that problem is fixed.

Not to mention, if there's private discussion about revoking citizenship, why shouldn't the subject be allowed to appeal to the UH/OH directly and quietly?  Does every appeal have to be a public spectacle for everyone to jump on board and have a say?  Wouldn't it make more sense to solve things swiftly and quietly if we're able to do so?  Doesn't the person facing those charges deserve the chance to appeal privately without everyone else having a say?

@Pengu, thoughts on my proposal?

God, I'm noticing a distinct absence of my fellow Skrifa. @The Church of Satan, @Aragonn, @HannahB, @tatte, you do realise you're needed at these discussions, I hope?

The same with all other discussions in the Citizen's Platform, really.

Clarification @Laurentus:

1. I'm referring to topics that are in the private area that are discussed in the Citizens' Area here first. 

2. I think having definitions in place would help provide clarity.  Many laws and ordinances IRL are defined similarly as well.

3. I was under the impression that the UH and OH would have separate private forums ?

Is there a chance we can work with my modifications sir?

I was under the impression that the private forums would be discussing topics before they were brought into the Platform and respective UH/OH forums for debate.  IE: Discussing proposals in the Platform and the legitimacy of them, fixing any potential errors, discussing systems to possibly implement, the potential of an upcoming trial or possible revocation, and whatnot.  In other words, both coming together to discuss potential issues that would arise, whether they want to take some form of action, what the best course of action would be, debating amongst each other, etc...  Essentially taking the fact that the UH/OH might come into disagreements with each other and seeing if that can be resolved before things actually hit the floor for separate debate/voting, and seeing if they UH/OH can get into mutual agreement on matters.

I will agree having definitions in place so that there's little room for error does help...but I also do echo Laurentus in not wanting to make it too wordy and complex at the same time.  Even the most well-defined law can have some kind of exploitable loophole if someone looks carefully enough.

As for your impressions, the idea was to have it be a UH/OH collaboration forum, as mentioned in my beginning paragraph of this response.  As that is what the PMs have been, so this was decided as a better alternative to that.

I agree with Pengu here, the discussions should be made public after discussion has ended, but before voting. You would want to know the reason for someone voting a certain way. I also echo his opinion on revocations, the person whose citizenship is being revocated should be able to choose whether to make the process public or not. Same goes for any other bill that is specifically about one person, for example making someone a paragon.

@Laurentus I'm fairly certain (not 100% though) that even Skrifas are allowed to sleep at night.

I feel like we're once again approaching the revocations from a completely wrong direction. We need a system where we can contact our citizens long before things get that far. Once we have better means to deal with troublesome citizens and those methods have been exhausted, I see no reason why the revocation process should be anything but completely public.

Discussing normal proposals behind closed doors have two fundamental problems cause redundancy or hurt transparency: either the private discussion would have to be made public once the proposal goes public, or never made public to avoid confusing redundancy. Just ask yourselves: in how many places do you want to state the same things? Discussion is a process that helps refine and redefine opinions, but if you need to repeat yourself you'll probably get fed up and lose focus.

Proposals shouldn't only be made if they get support in advance from the Storting. Instead we need to focus in developing the public process.

Once we have better disciplinary action procedures in place (if that ever happens), discussions about proper action for each instance would clearly belong in the Private Storting forum.

Right now the only instance where I can support Storting acting in secrecy is matters regarding other regions. I can overlook private discussions of matters in advance, but such discussions would have to be made public as early as possible, and no later than when nominations for the next term begins.

Matters that have not been concluded during a term should also be made public once nominations begin unless the subject strongly requires continued secrecy (Underhusen/Overhusen could vote?), since such matters can be vital for re-elections.

//edit: I'm still tired and hungry too.

IV. Violations
A. Violators who release discussions open to the public without the matter being concluded in the Storting will be held in contempt of the Storting and subject to administrative action under the respective head of the Storting where the leak was involved.
     1. Punishments for violation can range from a censure, to a temporal suspension of posting privileges, to impeachment of the representative from the Storting.

I do believe you mean "temporary suspension"?

These punishments are looking a bit harsh. A legislator with no voice? Ouch.

God, I'm noticing a distinct absence of my fellow Skrifa. @The Church of Satan, @Aragonn, @HannahB, @tatte, you do realise you're needed at these discussions, I hope?

The same with all other discussions in the Citizen's Platform, really.

@Laurentus I'm fairly certain (not 100% though) that even Skrifas are allowed to sleep at night.

My thoughts exactly, tatte.

And I must agree with tatte on there being a process for dealing with citizens before it becomes time to revoke citizenship. It may be lengthy and full of red tape, but it should be worth it. Kinda like your idea to have warning levels for misconduct, Laurentus. Perhaps the two can go hand in hand?