View Topic

Hello, candidates (@Laurentus, @Weissreich, @Chanku, @Govindia, @Pengu, @Point Breeze, @Drexyl Nox)! So since debate on the Storting Reformation Amendment Act has be extended for one week, I'd like to hear your specific thoughts on the Act. There has been a lot of talk on Storting reformation, but not as many specific solutions. Who better to hear from on the subject than those who may come to vote on it? Thank you to tatte for the idea of just bringing the discussion to the candidates.

1. What, if anything, do you specifically think can be done to the Storting Reformation Amendment Act to improve upon it as it exists in the Underhusen thread right now? The Act will be voted on in a week, so if there are any improvements or changes to be made, it'd be better to make them now.

2. Some people think there should be a requirement to join the new Open Assembly for the security of Wintreath as well as to ensure only those committed to the region impact it. There have been a variety of different solutions given, ranging from a month waiting period, a trial/probation period, and a required number of Storting member endorsements. Others think a requirement would discourage new people from joining Wintreath and would be pointless against those who would try to harm the region. To make a compromise between the two, Weissreich has recently proposed a one week waiting period for new members to join the OA, followed by a three week trial period.

So what are your thoughts? Should there be some requirement to join the new Open Assembly? If so, what do you think it should be? If not, why not?

3. Weissreich has also proposed a Code of Conduct for the Storting be added to the Act:

the first point being follow the forum rules/code of conduct, a second being respect other people's opinions and a third being remember the purpose of the Storting is to debate things, and that by nature debate requires dissent.

If someone steps outside those boundaries, and I don't imagine it'd happen often, there's a guideline for what stands and what doesn't and how to go about suspending their voting power until they learn to keep a level head during discussions.

Should a Code of Conduct be added to the Act? If so, what would it entail, and what would be the consequences of breaking it?


Please remember that this is a debate, so comment on others' answers if you have anything to say about them. My fellow Skrifa (@Barnes, @North, @BraveSirRobin), feel free to comment on the answers as well. Also, remember that the voting for this election starts tomorrow, so it'd be best to make your thoughts heard soon.

Thank you!

*snip*

1. What, if anything, do you specifically think can be done to the Storting Reformation Amendment Act to improve upon it as it exists in the Underhusen thread right now?

Honestly I don't really have a stance on this, as I don't really like the aim of the bill.

2. Some people think there should be a requirement to join the new Open Assembly for the security of Wintreath as well as to ensure only those committed to the region impact it. There have been a variety of different solutions given, ranging from a month waiting period, a trial/probation period, and a required number of Storting member endorsements. Others think a requirement would discourage new people from joining Wintreath and would be pointless against those who would try to harm the region. To make a compromise between the two, Weissreich has recently proposed a one week waiting period for new members to join the OA, followed by a three week trial period.

Honestly if we do go this way, I think a waiting period would be good. If we are going to get rid of elections then we need to have some other form of security.

So what are your thoughts? Should there be some requirement to join the new Open Assembly? If so, what do you think it should be? If not, why not?

Elections
But seriously, I don't really know.

3. Weissreich has also proposed a Code of Conduct for the Storting be added to the Act.
Should a Code of Conduct be added to the Act? If so, what would it entail, and what would be the consequences of breaking it?

I have a bit of a bad history with Code of Conducts, especially in Open Source Projects. So I am a bit apprehensive as they can be used to shut-down discussion or to shut-out someone just because they do something that would violate the Code of Conduct, but don't do it near the group that has it. Further I think it should be a Statutory Law, not a part of the amendment as it would just be easier to fix issues with it after the fact.

1. What, if anything, do you specifically think can be done to the Storting Reformation Amendment Act to improve upon it as it exists in the Underhusen thread right now? The Act will be voted on in a week, so if there are any improvements or changes to be made, it'd be better to make them now.

I'm in favour of bringing the majority of our citizenry into the legislature, as I think it serves not only as a boon and encouragement for general activity and participation but allows for more proper and direct representation of the wishes of the people who are, willingly, involving themselves in our community. That said, some sort of code of conduct, not particularly binding nor strongly worded though it may be, would be a great benefit to prevent any misdoings.

@Chanku, I'm aware that you have 'issues' with codes of conduct, but I'm not asking for something that says "You CANNOT do X" or "You MUST do Y", simply something along the lines of "Please remember to be respectful", "Please remember not to insult your fellow Skifra", that sort of thing. If you end up having problems with that sort of CoC, I'd imagine it's because you're breaking the code more than it is the code itself being at fault.

2. Some people think there should be a requirement to join the new Open Assembly for the security of Wintreath as well as to ensure only those committed to the region impact it. There have been a variety of different solutions given, ranging from a month waiting period, a trial/probation period, and a required number of Storting member endorsements. Others think a requirement would discourage new people from joining Wintreath and would be pointless against those who would try to harm the region. To make a compromise between the two, Weissreich has recently proposed a one week waiting period for new members to join the OA, followed by a three week trial period.

So what are your thoughts? Should there be some requirement to join the new Open Assembly? If so, what do you think it should be? If not, why not?

As this is my suggestion, I obviously support it wholeheartedly, but I'm more than willing to have open discussions with anyone and everyone who might think differently to compromise on the actual length of the trial periods. We've an opportunity to change Wintreath for the better here, and we shouldn't sacrifice our security to do so.

3. Weissreich has also proposed a Code of Conduct for the Storting be added to the Act:

the first point being follow the forum rules/code of conduct, a second being respect other people's opinions and a third being remember the purpose of the Storting is to debate things, and that by nature debate requires dissent.

If someone steps outside those boundaries, and I don't imagine it'd happen often, there's a guideline for what stands and what doesn't and how to go about suspending their voting power until they learn to keep a level head during discussions.

Should a Code of Conduct be added to the Act? If so, what would it entail, and what would be the consequences of breaking it?

Upon further consideration, I'm thinking that perhaps it'd work best to modify the Code of Criminal Laws to include a section on general community GUIDELINES on how to behave, and have the Open Assembly's behavioural expectations based loosely on that. Obviously, a debating house needs open and unrestricted debate, so there would need to be exceptions et cetera, but I'd love to hear from other people on how best to implement this.

@Pengu - I'm going to apologise in advance but I haven't and won't be watching any of your videos. YT is dodgy in embedded form on Wintreath forums for some reason, so I'd appreciate it if you could put a shortened transcript underneath.

Also, I read faster than anyone could talk, and I like to be efficient with my time :p

You could always go to the link itself on the main site. 

Basic short version of this though is:

1. Right now a waiting period is being discussed.  But as it stands, the bill says that the storting/assembly would consist of ALL citizens of Wintreath.  So that would have to change if we were to implement a waiting period.  Other than that, I'm content with how the act looks.

2.  I don't think there should be a waiting period if we're talking inactivity, because whether it be a month or a year, we'll get inactive members and even members who have no interest in taking part altogether.  The only requirement should be that they have to be an actual citizen, so no allies/tourists unless they're invited (like we can invite members to speak in front of the UH now).  The exception being places we have strong ties with, like New Hyperion (although some of its members are citizens here as well anyways)

3. In terms of keeping things clean and professional, I think a basic code of conduct is necessary.  Nobody likes a debate where one person dominates it and makes everyone else feel like their opinion doesn't matter, and nobody likes a debate full of flaming and name calling.

@Pengu

2.  I don't think there should be a waiting period if we're talking inactivity, because whether it be a month or a year, we'll get inactive members and even members who have no interest in taking part altogether.  The only requirement should be that they have to be an actual citizen, so no allies/tourists unless they're invited (like we can invite members to speak in front of the UH now).  The exception being places we have strong ties with, like New Hyperion (although some of its members are citizens here as well anyways)

Going to the main site is time-wasting and inefficient

Anyways, just to address this one point: regarding inactivity, I think it's important to remember that if someone's a citizen, passed their trial period et cetera et cetera, and then happens to go inactive, we shouldn't just drop them straight out of the legislature. Perhaps it'd be better to have a Right to Suspend due to inactivity, which requires the suspended member PM the current presiding Officer of the Open Chamber/Wintermoot/both in order to have voting rights reinstated/

Chanku, I'm aware that you have 'issues' with codes of conduct, but I'm not asking for something that says "You CANNOT do X" or "You MUST do Y", simply something along the lines of "Please remember to be respectful", "Please remember not to insult your fellow Skifra", that sort of thing. If you end up having problems with that sort of CoC, I'd imagine it's because you're breaking the code more than it is the code itself being at fault.

Honestly it's just due to the fact that most CoC's that I've had to deal with are insane and basically inject politics somewhere that it doesn't belong (in the case that I've encountered them, coding). I'm not as opposed to them in an OA, since it would be inherently political in the first place, but I am apprehensive about them due to my bad experiences with them.

@Pengu

2.  I don't think there should be a waiting period if we're talking inactivity, because whether it be a month or a year, we'll get inactive members and even members who have no interest in taking part altogether.  The only requirement should be that they have to be an actual citizen, so no allies/tourists unless they're invited (like we can invite members to speak in front of the UH now).  The exception being places we have strong ties with, like New Hyperion (although some of its members are citizens here as well anyways)

Going to the main site is time-wasting and inefficient

Anyways, just to address this one point: regarding inactivity, I think it's important to remember that if someone's a citizen, passed their trial period et cetera et cetera, and then happens to go inactive, we shouldn't just drop them straight out of the legislature. Perhaps it'd be better to have a Right to Suspend due to inactivity, which requires the suspended member PM the current presiding Officer of the Open Chamber/Wintermoot/both in order to have voting rights reinstated/

That's why I'm saying that I don't think there should be a waiting requirement. 

Because inactive members come in all forms of length of time.  Whether they be new or older.

I think the assembly should stay open to all citizens regardless of whether they're newer or not, and if we get people that aren't active, then that's alright.  If they're inactive for quite a long time, then your method works as well.

1. I think a code of conduct is absolutely necessary.  I'm particularly fond of Weiss' hands-off approach, setting general community guidelines and allowing the Speaker to define the rest.  A code of conduct forces an objective standard on all behavior in the Storting. 

2.  No, I don't, other than being a citizen of the region.  Letting your citizenship nation CTE, moving out of the region, etc. should all result in a loss of voting privileges, and it should take some active commitment from the ex-citizen to regain them.

3.  See above.

3.

My responses to the questions:
1. What if the code of conduct were placed as a separate bill à la the procedural rules? That way its necessity could be discussed here, but it needn't be urgent in hopes of placing it in before it comes to vote; it could instead be decided by the Storting itself rather than the Underhusen right away.
2. I personally agree with the CTE and moving nations warranting a nix of citizenship, but how would that apply in terms of Paragons?

My responses to the questions:
1. What if the code of conduct were placed as a separate bill à la the procedural rules? That way its necessity could be discussed here, but it needn't be urgent in hopes of placing it in before it comes to vote; it could instead be decided by the Storting itself rather than the Underhusen right away.
2. I personally agree with the CTE and moving nations warranting a nix of citizenship, but how would that apply in terms of Paragons?

As I recall you're already a member of the Underhusen, and not running for election

The more there is on the table the better, it's supposed to be a debate. Barnes even presents his thoughts in a form that ought to promote just that.

I can't speak for Gerrick, but when I suggested that this should be brought to the candidates, my point was to get the discussion going before the new Skrifa was actually chosen, not to use this just as another election play. That can't happen if Skrifas don't get involved.

My responses to the questions:
1. What if the code of conduct were placed as a separate bill à la the procedural rules? That way its necessity could be discussed here, but it needn't be urgent in hopes of placing it in before it comes to vote; it could instead be decided by the Storting itself rather than the Underhusen right away.
2. I personally agree with the CTE and moving nations warranting a nix of citizenship, but how would that apply in terms of Paragons?

I disagree with your first point.  I would like to see the code of conduct as part of the procedural rules of the new assembly or as its own separate piece, but if we let the new assembly take care of it later, then they'll exist for a period of time without it.  I would rather have as much in place for them as possible before transitioning, just to make everything safer. 

I don't think honorary citizenship should = conventional citizenship in regards to the nitty gritty work of passing laws.  The Paragon in question could have moved on from their time in Wintreath and may now be fully invested in another region - I don't think that person should have a say in our laws, regardless of what they contributed.  I can see the logic behind giving them free standing to address the assembly, but voting rights?  Sorry not sorry.