View Topic

(Replace Underwood with North. Yeah)

Hello, my pawns valued region mates! Since this is an election year, I've decided to attack my opponents! Cause that will end well!

tatte is a dedicated and hardworking member of this region, the caring and funny human! Does Wintreath really need someone as clever, inventive, determined and active as tatte in the UH?

Weissreich is a paragon, for christs sake! Do we really want someone with such lauded service to the region in the legislature? Who knows, he might go and fix everything! Say no to this resourceful and hardworking paragon!

Is there anyone more experienced in the legal side of Wintreath than Chanku? We dont need someone as knowledgeable and smart as him!

Oh look, Laurentus. What an involved, thoughtful, direct and honest venerable statesman. We dont need their type 'round here!

Barnes. His term brought efficiency and dedication to the UH. Less dedication and efficiency!

Oh great, Pengu joined the race. Because what Wintreath really needs is the genius of Pengu in the UH, right?

Point Breeze. What would an experienced Jarl know about legislature? Reject this invasion of competence in the UH!

In all seriousness, the ratification has shown that there is support for an OA reform but that the population also clearly either does not want to or does not have the time to invest themselves in a political discussion. So I will be very cautious about reform moving forward. I also would like to point to my record in the UH as a plus point. Finally, I think that we need a new position in Wintreath, someone who can arbitrate and moderate the UH discussions, someone not part of the UH that has an objective view and who can say "woah, you stepped out of line" to those that do. A moderator, if you will.

Thank you and I hope to see you on election say!   

 

[this is my attempt at the end of a speech, you know, the candidate and his supporters and the bodyguards....]

I've thought of exactly the same thing for legal discussions, but I can't think of a way to make that work in our current system. Could you elaborate on how such a moderator would do that is different from what the Speaker does?

This Arbiter would not have voting rights and would watch all conversations in the UH and Citizens Platform, whenever something gets out of hand they will step in and try to calm things down. Its a first step sort of thing, where if the arbiter can not get things under control then more drastic measures will be taken.

Such as?

And how would this arbiter get chosen?

I found that Underhusen procedural rule already incorporates this Arbiter position therein:

15. If a Skrifa feels another Skrifa (including the Speaker) has made some violation of law or procedural rules, the Skrifa can appeal the action(s) by making an objection.  The objection must state the alleged violation of the law or Underhusen Procedural Rules.  The accused Skrifa is entitled to present their interpretation of the law before Section (a) comes into effect.
(a)  If the objection receives a second, each Skrifa shall declare themselves in support of or opposed to the accused Skrifa's action in question.  The accused Skrifa does not get a vote.  If the number of Skrifa declaring opposed exceeds the number declaring in favor, the Skrifa's action will be reversed and the Underhusen will be prohibited from using a similar interpretation of the relevant portion(s) of law for the remainder of the term.  If the vote is tied or fails, the action stands.

The portion of law you quoted only applies to alleged violations of statutory law or the procedural rules, not informal standards of behavior, so keep that in mind.

I'm aware, but those are the only instances for which I can see someone intervening due to "stepping out of line". Otherwise, I feel the post is too open to interpretation and that the Arbiter may decide an action is unruly when the Skrifa and even the Peers decide it is not.

Other than that, Laurentus's questions equal mine.

I think North means this would apply mostly to any legal discussion outside the Storting. I'm not sure though.

Such as?

And how would this arbiter get chosen?

Elections! More elections!

They would get elected.

I'm aware, but those are the only instances for which I can see someone intervening due to "stepping out of line". Otherwise, I feel the post is too open to interpretation and that the Arbiter may decide an action is unruly when the Skrifa and even the Peers decide it is not.

Other than that, Laurentus's questions equal mine.

What I mean is someone who is totally neutral and has authority. The UH and OH members cannot claim to be totally neutral. Citizens may not be privy to these discussions and those that do may be ignored. What I am proposing is a moderator who will calm things down informally and if they feel that things may be getting out of control then they may seek advise from Wintermoot, the Speaker and so on. Also, they are totally neutral so I would make it mandatory for them to vote privately.

Sounds like appointing such babysitter would practically rob the community of one of its active members. At least since I have hard time imagining someone is such position both taking part in the discussions and at the same time "staying neutral".

We need people driving causes forward, clashes of opposing views, we need... we need more Passion!

If "passion" is the same as the sly agendas and personal attacks displayed by certain members, then I want none of it.

I'm noticing a disconnect here. We want to encourage more discussion and support people even when they have dissenting or minority views, but we're also going to have an independent Arbiter who controls the narrative conversation and who operates outside of statutory law?

Now hold on, this position I'm proposing is more of a mediator. They do not control the narrative, just keep it clean.

If "passion" is the same as the sly agendas and personal attacks displayed by certain members, then I want none of it.

That's definitely not it, Passion is only good things, like the fruit!

Yeah, the position of Arbitrator is in theory a good one but in practice I've gotta say I agree with Tatte in that it'll end up robbing an active member of the community of their right to participate in debates in favour of enforcing a babysitter role on them. I know for sure I wouldn't want that.

That said, there is certainly merit in the idea, but I think on the whole we do a pretty good job of mediating as and when we need to without an official position for the duty.