View Topic

I quoted Wintermoot's conclusion as settling the matter, out of relief, even if I disagreed with a lot of other things.

Also:

Paragons are not Citizens, but a separate group that has been granted equivalent status as a sort of Honorary Citizen. In fact, they were Honorary Citizens before I played Dragon Age and thought Paragon sounded way cooler. That being said, by intention the Storting has a lot of flexibility in how to handle different cases. ...

Then it would still be wise to explicitly state that they are a completely separate group.

If you view them to be two completely separate groups, Chanku, then why do you insist on having the part about Non-Paragons included? Is it because it is unclear?

As it is not explicitly stated that they are a completely separate group, then the Storting will be able to interpret it anyway they please, just because the act doesn't clarify that. Attaching a label does not solve the problem. A new condition has to be set up.

I refer you to Ex Parte Boedel Steenkamp to illustrate why it is a problem not to state explicitly what you mean in law.
 I was told when I originally ran for the UH, that this isn't a political region and my being a law student might hinder me here instead of help, so I relaxed on getting so technical. It seems that was a mistake.

Your original wording CAN be used to unfairly revoke someone's citizenship, Chanku, as it implies that someone who is a Paragon and a traditional citizen both, does not hold the right that any other citizen would enjoy (that the Underhusen may not expedite their citizenship revocation). I'm sure I don't need to point out why expedition is a problem.

To further complicate matters, there is nothing preventing the Storting from revoking a Paragon's normal citizenship, as it is not clear whether someone loses their normal citizenship when they become a Paragon, even though they still meet all the requirements to be considered normal citizens. If they do lose their normal citizen status when they become Paragons, does that mean that they are immediately Former Citizens if for whatever reason their Paragon status gets removed even if they still meet all requirements for being a normal citizen? Does it automatically follow with a Persona non Grata status too?

Wintermoot states that these things are likely to follow, but he doesn't say they are automatic. Since they are not automatic, then something still has to be done with one who was a normal citizen, became a Paragon, and had his Paragon status repealed though he still met the requirements for normal Citizenship, and the Storting didn't decide to go as far as stripping him/her of citizenship and adding a Persona Non Grata declaration to it.

And further, since you are not a part of the Storting, Chanku, how I or any other Underhusen members choose to introduce something does not have to be approved by you, so whether you are willing to compromise or not doesn't matter to me.

We've been arguing in circles for awhile now, and both of us have gotten completely off topic with something that should have been completely straight forward. If this continues, I'm going to introduce it without any further input from you, so stop it.

I quoted Wintermoot's conclusion as settling the matter, out of relief, even if I disagreed with a lot of other things.

Also:

Paragons are not Citizens, but a separate group that has been granted equivalent status as a sort of Honorary Citizen. In fact, they were Honorary Citizens before I played Dragon Age and thought Paragon sounded way cooler. That being said, by intention the Storting has a lot of flexibility in how to handle different cases. ...

Then it would still be wise to explicitly state that they are a completely separate group.

If you view them to be two completely separate groups, Chanku, then why do you insist on having the part about Non-Paragons included? Is it because it is unclear?

As it is not explicitly stated that they are a completely separate group, then the Storting will be able to interpret it anyway they please, just because the act doesn't clarify that. Attaching a label does not solve the problem. A new condition has to be set up.

I refer you to Ex Parte Boedel Steenkamp to illustrate why it is a problem not to state explicitly what you mean in law.
 I was told when I originally ran for the UH, that this isn't a political region and my being a law student might hinder me here instead of help, so I relaxed on getting so technical. It seems that was a mistake.

Alright.

Your original wording CAN be used to unfairly revoke someone's citizenship, Chanku, as it implies that someone who is a Paragon and a traditional citizen both, does not hold the right that any other citizen would enjoy (that the Underhusen may not expedite their citizenship revocation). I'm sure I don't need to point out why expedition is a problem.

My reading of the law comes from Section 2. Some important sections are Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5.

Citizens are required to keep the nation which they gained membership with within the region unless they inform the person (or government agency) empowered to accept or reject citizenship applications by section 2.4 of this act. Citizens also are forbidden from holding citizenship in the New Lazarene Order and/or the New Pacific Order. A monthly sweep shall be conducted to ensure citizens are in compliance. 

Note the wording, "Citizens are required..." and "... to ensure citizens are in compliance." both of these EXPLICITLY state that Citizens are required to be held by that standard.

The Monarch, or any subordinate official appointed by the Monarch, shall have the authority to grant or deny citizenship to any person who applies.

Now, lets look at this. The Storting officially gives the right to grant Citizenship to the Monarch or appointed designee. Paragons are not held to this, according to Section 3.1 of the Citizenship and Demonym act only the Storting has the ability to make someone a Paragon.

The Monarch shall have the authority to revoke Citizenship from any person, so long as the Monarch makes a public announcement explaining the reasons for doing so. Persons whose Citizenship has been revoked by the Monarch may appeal the decision to the Storting, which can restore Citizenship by a majority vote of both chambers.

Again, note the wording. The Monarch is given the right to "...revoke Citizenship from any person..." however, Section 3.3 DIRECTLY Conflicts with this Section, reading:

The Storting shall have the authority to revoke recognition of Paragon status.

NOTE that no where in Section 3, does it mention the Monarch or give the Monarch the authority to even revoke the Paragon Status. Further if we were to look at the intentions behind the initial amendment allowing Honorary Citizens, it was not designed to make someone a Citizen without having to follow the requirements...it ended up being more of a by-product.

To further complicate matters, there is nothing preventing the Storting from revoking a Paragon's normal citizenship, as it is not clear whether someone loses their normal citizenship when they become a Paragon, even though they still meet all the requirements to be considered normal citizens. If they do lose their normal citizen status when they become Paragons, does that mean that they are immediately Former Citizens if for whatever reason their Paragon status gets removed even if they still meet all requirements for being a normal citizen? Does it automatically follow with a Persona non Grata status too?

As I showed above, Paragon is separate from standard citizenship. Further Section 3.1 ACTUALLY clarifies it by saying:

The Storing shall have the authority to recognize any previous or current Citizen as a Paragon of Wintreath if it feels the individual was an essential of member of the regional community, or performed invaluable service to the region, and/or otherwise embodied the principles, values, culture, or honour of the region.

Again notice how it uses the term Citizen, clearly setting Citizen separately from Paragon. It is also clear that they retain Standard Citizenship upon being a paragon, since they are two separate categories.  A Persona Non Grata Declaration must be done explicitly, and that is up for the Storting to decide. If, for example, Amalya were to still meet the requirements of Standard Citizenship, but loose her Paragon Status she would still be a Citizen...such not a Paragon.

Wintermoot states that these things are likely to follow, but he doesn't say they are automatic. Since they are not automatic, then something still has to be done with one who was a normal citizen, became a Paragon, and had his Paragon status repealed though he still met the requirements for normal Citizenship, and the Storting didn't decide to go as far as stripping him/her of citizenship and adding a Persona Non Grata declaration to it.

Again, the person would still be a Standard Citizen.

And further, since you are not a part of the Storting, Chanku, how I or any other Underhusen members choose to introduce something does not have to be approved by you, so whether you are willing to compromise or not doesn't matter to me.

I got a little carried away...it happens.

We've been arguing in circles for awhile now, and both of us have gotten completely off topic with something that should have been completely straight forward. If this continues, I'm going to introduce it without any further input from you, so stop it.

I don't view this as off-topic at all, this is actually somewhat relevant to topic.

I'm going to break this off from this discussion and move it to a new one explicitly designed for it.

My only comment at this time is that I'm confused as to what you mean by referring to the monarch constantly, since I don't remember even talking about his ability to repeal someone's Paragon status in my previous comment.

Additionally, the use of the word Citizen is part of the problem. More on that tomorrow. It is already 02:44 here.

My other thoughts can be shared in the new topic.

The use, or lack, of the term Monarch means that the Monarch has no power over Paragons, a defining MARK of Citizenship