View Topic

No, I'm afraid you're veering a bit off-topic. We aren't discussing proper warning systems and other disciplinary actions right now. Even with those in place, it may well come to a point where a private Storting discussion also takes place.

And we can't release things the moment nominations for a new term begin. That cuts our access to the private forum by 2 weeks for each term. It just doesn't work from a practical and efficient stand-point. Do I need to elaborate?

But I do actually think that other matters should be released the moment the Storting has finished discussing them. Revocation is a tricky matter, however. Even the person involved may wish for it to remain private for quite a while, thus my proposal for creating a new private forum titled something like "disciplinary actions."

Anyway, can we get back on topic, people? Proper disciplinary steps and warning systems are for another topic.

Then have regular discussions released upon completion and have revocation discussions released after completion upon request by the subject. Seems logical to me.

@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.

Actually, this is part of the reason why I'm making the suggestion that people that are the topic of a potential trial/revocation/other course of action (meaning it's not at that point yet, but talks are happening) should be given a standing invitation to appeal to the UH/OH directly.

If there's a way to solve the problem privately and discreetly without it becoming a spectacle, then I don't see why it shouldn't be done.  There is such a thing called dignity, and we should respect every individual member's dignity regardless of where things may begin to stand with them.

Unless there has been no resolution by allowing them to speak to the UH/OH, then there'd be no need to go to the extreme of even having a trial/revocation/other severe course of action in the first place.  Since we no longer have a Jarl of Mediations to resolve conflicts before they really start, I think this method is a good alternative

Then have regular discussions released upon completion and have revocation discussions released after completion upon request by the subject. Seems logical to me.

I don't quite follow the context in which you're replying. Is this when we use my idea of a separate private forum where revocations are handled separately?

But also remember that even if we do this, a lot can happen in those 2 weeks in which nominations and voting take place, so this doesn't solve that, either.

I don't know about anyone else but from a lot of the discussion on here it seems to me that it might be prudent to expand the rules to clearly lay out guidelines on what the private forum can and/or should be used for? 

I don't know, should I write up something like that, or would there be no point 

I don't know about anyone else but from a lot of the discussion on here it seems to me that it might be prudent to expand the rules to clearly lay out guidelines on what the private forum can and/or should be used for? 

I don't know, should I write up something like that, or would there be no point 

I'm hoping some more people will reply before I give a far-reaching reply again.

But I will say I don't think this would be entirely productive. I think we should rather lay out the proper procedure. This would allow us to use the forum dynamically and efficiently.

Issues that may result in a revocation attempt should at least see mediation by an uninvolved party, however that is the job any given individual might choose to take up unless an official mediator is designated by government. That being said it is not the job of The Storting to make such decisions unless we feel the need to draft such a law, which is unrelated to procedural rules of the private Storting subforum. Procedural rules regarding it should remain separate from any procedure that deals in mediation. However I would support an official attempt at mediation so long as it were not part of Procedural law for The Storting.

Spoiler

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 at the end of each term of the Skrifa and Peers serving in The Storting.
    A. 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 Monarch.
     1. Punishments for violations shall be determined by The Monarch or anyone The Monarch delegates this responsibility to.

This is my suggestion, Gov's proposal with a few changes. I believe punishment for leaking information from the private Storting forum should constitute a criminal offense and that The Monarch would best determine the punishment. I also feel this should be an amendment to the procedural law of both The Underhusen & The Overhusen.

1. The problem with branding it a criminal offence is that the courts will need to be brought in. I don't know whether the monarch has any legal authority to do the things you want him to do. I think he might have it over the Overhusen, but not over the Underhusen. So this sounds like it would need a constitutional ammendment, though @Chanku may have a better understanding of this matter.

2. If we want this specific bill to reach that far, we should probably stop handling it as a separate bill and add it to the Procedural Rules of both chambers of the Storting to begin with.

3. I really don't know whether it's necessary to define so many things here. I'll concede some of them probably need to be defined, but not everything that's getting defined there.

True. Contempt keeps it ambiguous enough that Tge Monarch can do something as opposed to going through the courts, which in such an instance would only serve as a time waster.

I was lazy in knit picking the definitions. It's late here, or rather, early.

Such loose language will almost certainly make this bill fail. Laws are supposed to be fixed and precise.

I think perhaps you should sleep on it and tackle the subject again when you've had some sleep.

TECHNICALLY speaking the monarch doesn't have reign over Criminal Offenses due to the fact that according to Article II, Section 6 of the Fundamental Laws it says:

6. The Monarch shall have the authority to issue decrees in relation to policies concerning the internal affairs of the Executive, the military, foreign affairs, familial houses, the nobility, and any other Executive authority which has been expressly granted through this document or any relevant laws.

Note the use of expressly. We would either have to grant the monarch executive authority over Criminal Matters, but that would be in violation of the Fundamental Laws Article I sections 15, and in a way 16.

15. The Storting shall have the authority to interpret these Fundamental Laws and statutory laws and consider the constitutionality over laws brought before the Storting, determine rulings and verdicts in regard to violations of these laws, and determine punishments for violations of these laws within the parameters of these Fundamental Laws and any other laws.

16. The Storting shall have the authority to issue advisory opinions on matters of constitutionality and legality to anyone whom the Storting has determined has standing to seek an advisory opinion.

The easiest way to do this is to essentially pass a law stating that the Monarch has the authority to punish any leaks of confidential information, while holding that releasing the information is not, in itself, a violation of any law or is even illegal. Albeit it could still be considered illegal by the Fundamental Laws, Article V - Section 3 due to the fact that punishments are being done by the monarch himself.

3. Citizens shall have the right to a fair trial.

Also legally speaking we don't need a seperate thing for the leaking of information from the private area. This is due to the fact that the Code of Criminal Laws, Section 6.1.2 makes it illegal to release "information... from the Storting without approval by the relevant authorities."

6.1.2 Releasing information from a Ministry, from the Military or from the Storting without approval by the relevant authorities.

Also @Church Of Satan part of that law is illegal under the Fundamental Laws, Article VI. Due to the term 'administrative action', which can only be done by the root administrator or by the people that have had administrative powers granted by the root administrator. You want 'executive action', in order to not violate that section.

And there we have it.

Seems like I've become an Adviser of sorts for Laws and Legalities for this Session of the Storting :3

I'm not one to turn away more informed opinions. Never have been.