View Topic

Yes, another campaign thread. 

I'm honored to be nominated again, and especially in such good company.  Before I forget, best of luck to everyone running alongside me.  And a warm welcome back to Weiss, who is passively pushing us all to give more to the region.

You might consider me something of a single-issue candidate this election.  I'm going to be fully committed to making this Underhusen session the last one.  I think we have an excellent open assembly proposal - but I understand it isn't 100% ready to be introduced yet.  So in the meantime, I suppose I can busy myself with the justice system (oh GOD) and closing various other loopholes in our laws as they're discovered so that the new assembly has the easiest transition possible. 

Qualifications?  What qualifications?  Oh, right.  I am your Jarl of Integration and your Thane of WA Affairs (I haven't forgotten), and I remain committed to those roles as well.  I was chosen as Citizen of the Month a while back...how far we've fallen... /s

I've served in 2...3? Several other Underhusens and was a member of the Overhusen once as well.  I have participated in Storting sessions productive and...otherwise, and I've worked with most of the other candidates in one capacity or another since I've been here.  I'm hoping we have one of those productive sessions coming up.  Best of luck to everyone again, and I'm off to tatte's debate thread!

As the mastermind of our justice system, perhaps @Weissreich would like to comment on this?

What is it about the justice system which has people so tied up in knots? The thing is almost childishly easy to use, and with the introduction of the Open Chamber Storting impending there's plenty of room for fine-tuning.

I think the fact that there's been several attempted amendments that no-one could properly agree on and thus never passed says a lot for the fact that our judicial system does work, but everyone sees problems with it that don't actually exist. I'm actually working on an Amendment draft for it now, pending the passage of the Open Chamber resolution.

PB, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have regarding the JOA

We discovered quite a few problems with it when we did a trial, for instance there was no provision that forbade a person being sued from serving as a judge on his own trial.

We passed an amendment that got ratified a few months ago, fixing a few of those issues.

Such is often the case with systems we design: we overlook flaws that in hindsight seemed obvious. No one is above this.

We discovered quite a few problems with it when we did a trial, for instance there was no provision that forbade a person being sued from serving as a judge on his own trial.

We passed an amendment that got ratified a few months ago, fixing a few of those issues.

Such is often the case with systems we design: we overlook flaws that in hindsight seemed obvious. No one is above this.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "sued from serving as a judge on his own trial"?

We discovered quite a few problems with it when we did a trial, for instance there was no provision that forbade a person being sued from serving as a judge on his own trial.

We passed an amendment that got ratified a few months ago, fixing a few of those issues.

Such is often the case with systems we design: we overlook flaws that in hindsight seemed obvious. No one is above this.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "sued from serving as a judge on his own trial"?

I think he meant that the defendant was allowed to serve a judge in his own trial.

What tau said.

... You guys... mean to say... that you would actually let that happen?

I mean, sure, maybe that should've been coded into the law itself, but seriously? Obviously that shouldn't happen, it's pure common sense for it to be avoided. I don't have to legislate "Wipe your arse after shitting" in a sanitation bill, surely, because it's common sense.

But I suppose fair enough. I'm still shocked that would come up as an issue/anyone would think of trying to exploit that/allow that to happen.

If it's not actually in the law, then it definitely can happen. The law itself should be designed in such a way that someone can't abuse it.

Laurentus is one of those people that insists on following the letter of the law/rule.

But if I recall correctly, the law previously just provided for judges to be picked randomly. If the person that was picked was part of the case, there was no provision to skip them, or even for them to be able to step down.

Only because the spirit of the law can't be proven.

Laurentus is one of those people that insists on following the letter of the law/rule.

But if I recall correctly, the law previously just provided for judges to be picked randomly. If the person that was picked was part of the case, there was no provision to skip them, or even for them to be able to step down.

Ah, rules lawyering. Excellent. That aside, the letter of the law is "upon acceptance of a case by the Storting, the Monarch will select a Peer from the Overhusen and two Skifra from the Underhusen." If Wintermoot picked the accused as a Judge in their own case, we have bigger concerns. Nothing about 'randomly' selected in the legislation whatsoever.

Hey, we each have our niche. Mine happens to be rules-lawyering. We need all kinds to make the world go round.

But as for the rest, I have a feeling we're about to see an interesting discussion here between you and Moot.

Eh, I don't believe we will do considering that literally is the letter of the law, no randomness or anything along those lines and I trust Mootles to make the right decision when it comes to selecting a Judge. What I meant by saying "we have bigger problems" is that if Mootles selects the accused to preside over their own case, he's obviously biased or not Mootles :p

He's not gonna flip over that haha

Anyway, more on topic: PB, you mention you'll be fully in favour of the Open Assembly proposition yet note that you think there are areas that could be improved before going on to not mention them again. Out of interest, what do you think could be done to tighten up the proposition before it's made constitution?

I wouldn't necessarily say biased.

Yes, he could have removed myself and Chanku from the mix, but as he stated, there's no rules in place about skipping, and you know how some of us can be about following the rules to a T. 

But if you have 5 members of the UH, sometimes it makes sense to randomly select when you don't know which members to pick.

Now, imagine if he had picked myself AND Chanku.

That would have been an interesting trial.