View Topic

Title
1) This Act shall be cited as the Judicial Issue Resolution Act

Provisions
2) Article I Section 17 shall be amended as follows:

17. The Storting shall have the authority to create and revise the rules of judicial proceedings for judicial panels.

3) Article III Section 1 shall be amended as follows:

1. Upon the filing of cases within the Storting, the Monarch shall select at random a Peer of the Overhusen and two Skrifa of the Underhusen who are not parties to the case and is not the Monarch to serve as judges in a judicial panel. The Peer shall serve as Chief Judge, and the Skrifa shall serve as Associate Judges.

Also I wish to bring everyone's attention to the Fundamental Laws, Section 15...currently it is the Storting that has the authority to determine the punishments for violating the laws, not the Monarch.....

If you're going to lift sections out of my own proposal, you should at least give me credit.

Also not sure what you mean in your last line. I don't think anyone is disputing that the Storting can and should be responsible for maintaining the Code of Laws for the region, which includes punishments.

If you're referencing Section 6 in the other proposal, the Winter Nomad is not (hypothetically) punishing individuals for violations of law, but for violations of ToS or disruption of the community and order.  So the Storting is still the only body responsible for enforcement of the Code of Criminal Law.

I brought that up for a different reason. Basically the JOA has some incorrect items that should be looked at.

Sorry I am unsure what's going on here... is this act not just the top half of the Judicial Reform Amendment? So is this intended to exist instead of that? I guess so...

In that case, when you have the time Chanku, could you explain here or on the JRA's topic your problems with sections 4 through 6 in that Amendment? If that's alright? Just so we are clear on the contention...

Sections 4 and 5 should be Statutory Laws in my opinion, however I would NOT be against including them. Section 6 however is due to issues that I feel Chairman Wuufu has expressed better than I can. Mainly I HIGHLY dislike the open nature of Section 6 and with the loosely defined statements of "or otherwise brings harm to the region or community." Which makes ANY speech that could even in a minor way bring harm it would give the administrator the ability to take action against them. If someone were to speak their mind about something in another region or website and somehow bring some minor form of harm then action could be taken. Further action could be taken upon someone taking a political stance opposite that of the administrator. Action could be taken for taking an opposing position to the Monarch or Administrator. Action could be taken for considering the removal of that power.

Wintermoot has been asked to provide a list of offenses or at least clarify the terms. However he has failed to do so, stating that he can not think of something which I frankly have to call bullshit. IF he found it necessary to give himself more power then I want there to be an example of when it will be necessary.

tl;dr I will not be against Sections 4 and 5, but I feel they are better suited for Statutory Laws. Section 6 I am highly opposed to.

This is melodramatic. Wintermoot already has the power to destroy the forums and ban just about anyone, whether that power is legally given or not. Through his responsible practices of the last two years, he's never abused his inherent power, because doing so would drive everyone away. Why would he start when said power is legally recognised? The results would be the same.

I mean, it's not really that different from the Storting's ability to ban anyone, for any reason under the sun.

I echo Laurentus on this.

Whether you want to bring the trivial matter of legality into it, the point is that Wintermoot has the power to ban, add/destroy forums/sections, completely turn off the messageboard entirely, remove people from the region (I believe as Founder he has that power, I'm not sure), and many other little tidbits whether we fluff things up by adding rules or not.  Even if you argue for hours that it's not legal for him to do so and it breaks rules, it doesn't matter.  If Wintermoot wanted to turn into an almighty dictator and run things according to how he wanted and take ALL the power...it's within his rights to do so because he's the damn root admin.

However, since he's ran Wintreath, he's done it responsibly because he knows taking such action like that would do the opposite of what he wants, and it'd drive people away from here.  Everyone knows he has that power to do whatever the fuck he wants, but he choose to use it responsibly.  So section 6 really isn't that big of a deal in that sense since he already HAS that power, again, whether you want to bring the trivial matter of legality into it or not.

In fact, it's because Wintermoot is so fucking lenient and laid back on many things that make opposition to this highly unnecessary.  It's not like he's going to jump up and take advantage of such a thing.

I'll say I agree with Laurentus and Maxwell Smart here; while legislation like that would be abhorrent in many real life and online communities, due to the way Wintreath works and functions I believe that it will be useful here and shouldn't cause any undue harm. I could elaborate further but I think my fellow Skrifa have already made most of the points I would make.

So while I can see where you are coming from Chanku, for this is the same sort of "power" that has blighted several large communities recently, I think that it is safe here and could even prove useful.

I am still against it. I have stated my position and I disagree that it is necessary. He has failed to provide any actual reason the power would be necessary, aside from him not liking any warning system that would be government run even though it would be the most accountable.

It seems we must agree to disagree then.

Anyways, is there more discussion people wish to have, or would anyone like to make a motion?

I motion to table...

A motion to table has been made.  Do we have a second?

I motion to vote.

Alrighty, a motion to vote has been made, and we currently have a motion to table as well.

Would anyone like to second either motion?