View Topic

The Overhusen is not in place to represent the Citizenry, so I don't believe that @Joshua Bluteisen or myself need suffer flak for our decisions.  We are here to represent the Monarchy, not everybody else.

I believe that this amendment is not beneficial to the Monarchy or even the region as a whole, but when the Monarch himself is in favor of it, who am I to vote against? I could have voted Nay, you're right, but instead opted to allow my personal views to NOT interfere with the amendment. Don't put false reasons behind my voting. I was not elected, and am under no obligation to support any legislation that I disapprove of. Be instead glad that I chose to overlook my own views in order to simply abstain.

Given the state of this thread, I fear that Joshua and I would have taken even more pointed comments had we directly failed the amendment, so I don't see how that would be an improvement.

You're not getting flak from your decisions :p This is lively debate, not personal attacks (well, mostly - I've never understood some of our citizen's love of flaming threads), and my comment was only pointed to the degree that you abstained based on personal logic rather than representing the Monarch's opinion. Then again, I don't know what sort of debates were had behind closed doors, so that was all I said.

I've no issue calling out what I think to be ill practice, but I'll never make personal attacks in the process. I'm glad you've defended your position, but I still feel more reasoning than "I personally dislike Open Assemblies" would've been nice. What about Open Assemblies causes this dislike? What can we do to improve our system, in the eyes of someone who would be more critical of it than those who support it? Then again, I've called out the OH for monosyllabic Aye/Nay votes in the past, so...

Eh, not sure where I'm going with this. Back to work.

No, I mean it in the sense of supporting the failure of this Act (though again, we only have Chanku's word that he does support the reasoning here) by agreeing with the assessment that the abstentions prevent this from passing. I'm not giving you or Joshua flak, unless you happen to agree with Chanku's reasoning here, which I doubt you do, since Chanku can manipulate things in a way not intended by the people who have said certain things originally.

@Laurentus - I don't believe that his interpretation of whether or not abstentions affect a "supermajority" implicitly reflects his support of the amendment's failure. And thank you for recognizing Chanku's recurring habit for misrepresentation of individuals' statements.

@Weissreich - You want my reasoning? Certainly. The foundation of my logic is the belief that people should not have the power of legislation until they have proven themselves competent and trustworthy enough to wield it. There's a reason I chose Aura Hyperia over Wintreath when I first joined NS, and the five tenets of Hyperionism are a large part of that. (Number 3 is the relevant one; they may be found here.)

Coincidentally, you yourself brought up one of the reasons why I feel that an open assembly is not the right choice for Wintreath in particular: the innate ability of a vocal few to bring personal attacks and misleading statements into what should remain a civil debate.

@Weissreich - You want my reasoning? Certainly. The foundation of my logic is the belief that people should not have the power of legislation until they have proven themselves competent and trustworthy enough to wield it. There's a reason I chose Aura Hyperia over Wintreath when I first joined NS, and the five tenets of Hyperionism are a large part of that. (Number 3 is the relevant one; they may be found here.)

This was a problem I had with the act, and I suggested a trial period in order to have some kind of vetting period for newer members. That was shot down by popular opinion, but we still have a code of conduct that'll be drafted up once the OA Act passes that should deal with these kinds of issues.

Your point about certain individuals flaming definitely holds water, but I'm hopeful that swift enactment of mutes and vote/thread bans on those involved in any personal attacks or deliberate misinformation campaigns will demonstrate that it's both not suitable behaviour and not acceptable behaviour soon enough.

Do you think having some sort of Body Republic made up of something similar to the Patrician caste of New Hyperion would be better? I certainly do, but I don't see Wintermoot exercising that much control over the laws, as Zander is willing to do in New Hyperion.

Also, on the point of supporting Chanku's reasoning, it does in effect show a willingness to let the act fail. How is it different from voting nay when it has the exact same effect? Add to that, the reasoning is just so bad. Again though, I'd like to hear from Josh himself, instead of just taking Chanku's word for it.

I just want to say, that while the function of the Overhusen is to represent the Monarchy, it has voted down legislation I supported or even authored at times in the past, and I'm fine with that. It's not supposed to be a panel of automatons, there can and will be differences of opinion in how the Monarchy is best represented.

I have no particular love or hate of this Amendment. My goal in writing this wasn't to produce something that I supported, but to come to a consensus that could conclude the Convention. I voted aye because I don't think the Amendment will effect the Monarchy...it doesn't alter the powers or authorities of the Monarchy, and in reality the Storting has very limited authority in any shape that it takes, especially in matters that foreign agents would care to influence the region in (gameplay or foreign policy, for example). I'm not sure whether the Amendment has the support to pass a referendum, but I encourage everyone to vote their conscience when it comes to that point.

However, what I have a major problem with is when someone attempts to pervert or break the process in order to get their way. If you support or oppose something, fine, take part in the process, discuss why you're for or against it, and if it's something like this Amendment, vote for or against. Don't try to break the process just to try to get your way. It's incredibly petty, and if allowed to stand damages the systems and processes that the region trusts to make decisions.

the innate ability of a vocal few to bring personal attacks and misleading statements into what should remain a civil debate.

The vocal few making personal attacks aren't the ones wielding power. We don't let them wield power because of it. I realize that won't be helped by an open assembly, but we at least won't elect those individuals. And we will immediately begin work on a code of conduct upon the assembly's formation to combat such personal attacks.

I made my comment before I realized the difference between qualified and unqualified supermajority. Has anyone bothered to check and see how previous amendments were passed and voted on?

I just came here to ask to please not pull me into this, Chanku.  <_<

-pulls @Pengu into this -

I made my comment before I realized the difference between qualified and unqualified supermajority. Has anyone bothered to check and see how previous amendments were passed and voted on?

I did, and I saw none, but another look and I actually missed the Judicial Reform Amendment Act, which had the same style of passage and no complaints. Precedent!

Regardless, I'm going to go with my original course and view supermajority as that of those voting, rather than the whole chamber, which makes both logical and legal sense in all avenues.

Thank you to all those who commented!

Thank you.

[itshappening.jpg]

Starts a case against the passage of the JAA and this act.

That's a move that surprised absolutely no one. You just love fighting petty and unwinnable battles, don't you?

Two judges will be Skrifa. How exactly do you imagine this going?


EDIT: Hell, I'm pretty sure it won't even make it to trial.