View Topic

Perhaps he should do so in a different thread.

I have replied here.

This isn't the place to discuss as we have done so already, and have moved to a vote.

That being said, Chanku, we're not talking about changing an entire section, to something entirely different, we're talking about making the wording more precise, which was missed in the original discussion thread.  Do you really want yet another bill to pass with horrible wording to where someone is going to waste time writing up yet another bill with clearer wording...when it could just be avoided right now by fixing it?

Is it really THAT big of a deal to fix a grammatical error?

Section 6 IS NOT changing a grammatical error. It has been stated that it is GRANTING the administrator the power to essentially do anything he wants.

Section 6 IS NOT changing a grammatical error. It has been stated that it is GRANTING the administrator the power to essentially do anything he wants.

Stop being dense, Chanku.  The edit in question is changing this:

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 the plaintiff or defendant to serve as judges in a judicial panel. The Peer shall serve as Chief Judge, and the Skrifa shall serve as Associate Judges.  The Monarch is ineligible to serve on judicial panels.

To this:

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 to serve as judges in a judicial panel, provided the person selected is not the plaintiff/defendant. The Peer shall serve as Chief Judge, and the Skrifa shall serve as Associate Judges.  The Monarch is ineligible to serve on judicial panels.

So please get off your fucking soapbox about Section 6 and read the fucking thread before you start getting pissy.

My introduction of my other act shows that I am NOT against that. I am against section 6, and I WILL NEVER vote for this act unless section 6 has been removed Speaker. That is my final stand. While I disagree with the inclusion of some parts, and I am willing to allow those in the law, I will not vote for it as long as section 6 is in it. This is my final decision. I can not, and will not, betray the citizens.

My introduction of my other act shows that I am NOT against that. I am against section 6, and I WILL NEVER vote for this act unless section 6 has been removed Speaker. That is my final stand. While I disagree with the inclusion of some parts, and I am willing to allow those in the law, I will not vote for it as long as section 6 is in it. This is my final decision. I can not, and will not, betray the citizens.

That's good, be against it all you wish.  Just don't fly off the handle about a simple fucking edit because you chose to gloss over it because of your intense hatred for a section.

Anyways, that grammatical bit has been changed, and this IS a voting topic, not a "discuss further even after voting topic" so I'll end this with my vote, close the thread so people can discuss their indifferences somewhere more appropriate like they SHOULD, and pass this to @Wuufu.

I'll vote AYE on this.  With 4 votes AYE and one vote NAY, this bill passes and moves to the Overhusen.