View Topic

While normally I would agree if we have a possibility of having the very way cases are handled altered then we should either hold off on the alteration completely or go ahead and start the case so we can get feedback quicker.

Ahem...I think it's time for a motion,

Well, I believe it'd have to be either @Point Breeze, @Laurentus, or @HannahB that would have to make the motion...being as the Speaker can't, and it wouldn't be a good idea for the Plaintiff to do it. 

I don't really know what the motions would be for a case.

So what would I put forward as a motion... a motion to vote, yeah? Or would it be some other kind of motion... well since it's technically a law I guess it would be to vote and pass the law, so to test:

I guess I'll motion to vote...

Well, I could motion to table, and then Point Breeze could motion to extend debate, and then the plaintiff (who happens to be a Skrifa) and defendant (who happens to be the Speaker) wouldn't be able to come in and choose either to support one motion or the other to resolve the situation. Just pointing out how terrible this situation could be.

But I second the motion to vote.

Just going to put this down here while it's on my mind: I think after this, we should probably to do something to address this in future... perhaps a member of the Overhusen could potentially step in during a case or something... either way I think we will need to draft something to protect against a case being completely seized up in future...

Well, I could motion to table, and then Point Breeze could motion to extend debate, and then the plaintiff (who happens to be a Skrifa) and defendant (who happens to be the Speaker) wouldn't be able to come in and choose either to support one motion or the other to resolve the situation. Just pointing out how terrible this situation could be.

But I second the motion to vote.

Actually, that could be entered into a law that states that if there are already two motions on the board and two of the Skrifa (or in this case a Skrifa and the Speaker) are unable/not allowed to participate, the remaining Skrifa must choose between one of the existing motions instead of being able to make a third one.

That way we could never be in this situation where we'd be deadlocked between 3 different motions with two people unable to second either of them.

I will also note that I'm also a tad confused on the process.  Are you voting on accepting the case?  Just wondering because there should be a point to where I'd be able to speak my piece as well. 

As neither myself, Point Breeze or HannahB are judges yet, technically I don't think court is in session.

However, I am not opposed to you speaking your mind in the voting thread, or perhaps right here might be more appropriate.

We can put something into law later to give the UH some sort of power to follow better procedure. Or remove it from UH hands entirely, although I'm not sure how the hell that would work.

For the record, I still think appointing one Jarl of Justice, along with possibly two Thanes who are changed semi-regularly would be a far better method than anything here.