View Topic

Hi, everybody. Barnes has appointed me to be the secretary of the Underhusen for this term. Here I will give updates of the Underhusen's goings on, though you can also just read everything at the Underhusen subforum if you'd like.

If you have anything you want to talk about to the Underhusen and you don't know where to say it, here would be a good place. You're also free to create your own thread -- this is just if you have anything general to talk about, including the updates.

Danke

Good on you for taking initiative with the role Gerrick.  If you need ideas of how the secretary has handled topics in the past, Laurentus and Hannah both have "Citizen Discussion/Commentary" threads for the topics that were discussed and voted upon in the Underhusen. 

Ah, great, thanks. That's very helpful.

Congratulations on the appointment, Gerrick. I'm sure you'll be a fine secretary for the Underhusen.

Mr Speaker, may I enquire about your decision to give Prince Chanku a standing invitation? According to the Monarch-Underhusen Rights Removal Amendment Act, it is only the Monarch who has a permanent standing invitation. The previous discussion has also pointed out that Chanku can always post in The Citizens' Platform.

Mr Speaker, may I enquire about your decision to give Prince Chanku a standing invitation? According to the Monarch-Underhusen Rights Removal Amendment Act, it is only the Monarch who has a permanent standing invitation. The previous discussion has also pointed out that Chanku can always post in The Citizens' Platform.

I'm going to second this question, and not through any ill feelings towards Chanku. I've seen his tendency in the past to wander into discussions that he doesn't have the authority to partake in, often without bringing much to the table that couldn't be put on said table through other more suitable means.

Also, Saph is entirely right in saying that Chanku doesn't by law get an Open Invitation to the UH. I wasn't aware the Speaker could extend one either.

12. The Speaker of the Assembly shall have the power to invite any citizen to speak before the Underhusen for any duration that he or she deems necessary during the term.

The Speaker does have that authority from the Procedural Rules. However, it could have been a mistake since 12a has not been updated in either the sticky topic or the law page to reflect the Monarch-Underhusen Rights Removal Amendment Act.

12. The Speaker of the Assembly shall have the power to invite any citizen to speak before the Underhusen for any duration that he or she deems necessary during the term.

The Speaker does have that authority from the Procedural Rules. However, it could have been a mistake since 12a has not been updated in either the sticky topic or the law page to reflect the Monarch-Underhusen Rights Removal Amendment Act.

Something else for this term's Skifra's to take care of, then

His standing invitation might be because of the precedent that he's always had one before, and the current UH members might not be completely up to date with the change in laws that removed his standing invitation because of title, giving it only to Wintermoot.

@Barnes?

Technically, my invitation was a mistake because Chanku's standing is not automatically anymore. However, I'm unsure whether to honour that mistake or to revoke the floor from him.

With regards to the INWU treaty: there is a spelling mistake. The treaty currently uses the words: "... each others..."

This should be either *each other's* or *each others'*. The former if we consider Wintreath and INWU to be their own legal persons, and the latter if we don't, or are referring to the members of each community.

Thank you. I was worried about something like this. While the spelling mistake is minor, the exact placement of the apostrophe changes a large portion of the technical background of the treaty.

There may be the possibility of allowing the diplomats behind the agreement to determine which was their interpretation of the spelling, which would then take precedent automatically without having to re-vote. However, I doubt it; since the treaty is already ratified in the eyes of the INWU, I believe we must either ratify it as-is or have the other region re-ratify.

Yeah, this is a technicality that can be exploited. So it has to be fixed.

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure they mean the same thing, they're just written differently.