View Topic

Earlier in the last election, a procedural amendment was suggested to clear up rules governing members of the UH and their conduct. Instead, I suggest this: a Code Of Conduct detailing how members of the UH shall conduct themselves and, perhaps, some guidelines on disciplining members who willfully do not follow this code of conduct, though I personally fell like such measures should be avoided.

These would be my suggestions:
1.) All members of the UH must be mentioned at the beginning of debates and votes by the topic starter.
2.) All members of the UH are suggested to provide clear reasoning for the reason of their vote.
3.) All members of the UH shall be courteous and polite in their dealings with the Citizenry.
4.) All members of the UH are suggested to be courteous and polite in their dealings with other members of the UH or of the OH.
5.) All members of the UH must be courteous and polite in their dealings with the ruling Monarch.
6.) All members of the UH must attempt to engage the citizenry at least once in their terms.

This, so far, are my suggestions. Does anyone else have any ideas they want to pitch in? I'd love to hear it :]

Did something happen to prompt this discussion?

Not necessarily.  It was on our agenda last term in thing such as clarifying reasons behind votes, since we've had important bills pushed through with zero discussion.

North's suggestion is a bit above and beyond what we were initially discussing.

Well, I always suggested an amendment. After some thought, this is what I came up with. And if we are going to put in requirements like explaining votes and mentioning, why not also add a few other things? 3, 4 and 5 are just plain politeness and decency, a bit redundant but nice to codify. 1 and 2 were both the suggestion of Pengu and myself. 6 I put in there in response to something else Pengu was suggesting, attempting to engage the citizenry more. His suggestions of IRC chats and PM'ing the Speaker were great, even if I had a few reservations, this is my little touch.

It's all a bit vague now, yes, but this is just the bare bones and I wanted to gauge the reactions of the rest of the UH before getting into specifics. So, what does everyone think?

So, to clarify, my idea is this. Again, this is just my thoughts.

The six Codes of Conduct, namely:
1.) All members of the UH must be mentioned at the beginning of debates and votes by the topic starter if such a feature exists at the time.
2.) All members of the UH are suggested to provide clear reasoning for the reason of their vote, defined as any reason to vote in the way they choose in a manner that is clear (posting the reasoning in the same thread as their vote, posting in a manner not meant to obscure the reasoning, like posting in Swahili or Wingdings.) If a member does not provide a reason when they vote, they must provide a reason before the conclusion of the vote or they will have violated this Code of Conduct.
3.) All members of the UH shall be courteous and polite in their dealings with the Citizenry in an official capacity, meaning they shall avoid purposefully demeaning, hurtful, vulgar, untrue or obscene statements if they are carrying out duties related to their role in the Underhusen. All conduct outside their role as a member of the Underhusen (posting in an RP or inside the Dumping Grounds as an example) is exempt unless the member specifically mentions their role in the Underhusen.
4.) All members of the UH shall be courteous and polite in their dealings with other members of the UH or of the OH in any official capacity. Definition of 'courteous and polite' and 'official capacity' are the same as No.3.
5.) All members of the UH shall be courteous and polite in their dealings with the ruling Monarch in any official capacity. Definition of 'courteous and polite' are the same as No.3.
6.) All members of the UH must attempt to engage the citizenry at least once in their terms. Examples of attempted engagement is posting a thread in the Citizens Corner or engaging a citizen in an official capacity. Announcements of intention to seek re-election or not or campaigning for re-election do not count as engaging the citizenry.

Punishments for breaching the COC shall be thus:
1.)Friendly reminder
2.)Official warning
3.)Barred for re-election for one term
4.)Removed from office

Guidelines for using punishments:
1.) It will be illegal to skip a punishment for an offence, such as going straight to Barred for re-election, unless the previous punishments have already been issued for the same breach. For example, it will not be allowed to punish someone for a first time breach for a specific COC, such as No.2, with Punishment No.4 under any circumstance, even if the same member has been issued with punishments 1, 2 and 3 for different breaches.
2.) The one exception to this rule is a breach of No.6, as such an breach would only be evident at the end of a members term.
3.)It will not be allowed to issue punishment 3 and 4 for a breach of COC No.1.
4.)It will not be allowed to issue punishment 4 for a breach of COC No.2.
5.)The punishment for someone in violation of COC No.6 will automatically be punishment 3.
6.)Any member may accept punishment or appeal to the Monarch. The Monarch may rescind the punishment, nullifying the punishment and striking it from record, or put a punishment he deems fit to any member for any offense, but only if the offense is appealed.

Now, the big problem. Who shall enforce the rules? My idea is this: create a new position, the Arbiter of the Underhusen.

The Arbiter shall be responsible for enforcing the COC in the Underhusen. They will not, however, be a member of the Underhusen per say, instead being an outside force that does not report to the UH and will not be allowed to debate, propose or vote on legislation. The only time the Arbiter shall be allowed to post in the UH is if a breach of the COC has occurred.

This really is just the bare bones of my idea. There are a bunch of specifics I'm still mulling over, such as weather of not the Arbiter of the Underhusen is actually a good idea, if the punishments section is fair or draconian, or even if the whole idea is worth pursuing. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts, so please, tell me what you think :]

3.) All members of the UH shall be courteous and polite in their dealings with the Citizenry in an official capacity, (...).
4.) All members of the UH shall be courteous and polite in their dealings with other members of the UH or of the OH in any official capacity. Definition of 'courteous and polite' and 'official capacity' are the same as No.3.
5.) All members of the UH shall be courteous and polite in their dealings with the ruling Monarch in any capacity at all. Definition of 'courteous and polite' are the same as No.3.

Point five bothers me. Why is it phrased as "any capacity at all" instead of "in any official capacity?" Will it apply, say, when members of the UH are playing Werewolf in the same game as the Monarch?

Fair point, I was intending it to all be 'in any official capacity, I guess I just missed it in the wall of text.

I'd drop the "at all" from "any official capacity at all." The additional qualifier on point five currently implies that there are instances where 3 and 4 don't apply, in an "the exception that proves the rule" method.

I suppose points where 3 and 4 might not apply when acting in an official capacity are say, when leveling punishment, but that seems pretty sketchy to me.

Agreed.  If you're saying "in any official capacity" then the "at all" at the end is unneeded.

Ok, changed. Anything else?

Wasn't there a great big harrumph about having a legal system a while back? Seeing as that's been established at least on a nominal basis why make up a new title when it can just be the judiciary's job to enforce it?
Also in the event of rule 5 being broken, I'd suggest Wintermoot be the enforcer with the judiciary as court of appeal, since that would better prevent any conflicts of interest that might arise from the injured party being the one who any appeal is being brought to.

Wasn't there a great big harrumph about having a legal system a while back? Seeing as that's been established at least on a nominal basis why make up a new title when it can just be the judiciary's job to enforce it?
Also in the event of rule 5 being broken, I'd suggest Wintermoot be the enforcer with the judiciary as court of appeal, since that would better prevent any conflicts of interest that might arise from the injured party being the one who any appeal is being brought to.

The issue is that the judiciary arguably and/or probably shouldn't be involved, because this is the Underhusen self-regulating via procedural rules, not imposing laws to be enforced by the government as a whole.

What he said.

And as for making the Monarch be the enforcer for No.5, if being the appeal for the Breach is a conflict of interest being the one able to level charges most certainly is.

The difference is that he is the one best able to say someone hasn't been courteous or polite to him in his official capacity.
I suppose to me it's like having someone decide whether or not to press charges - who better to know than the victim?

Is the monarch not also a citizen? Just have all citizens be able to lodge a complaint.