View Topic

Chartered Groups Act

Title
1. This act is to be referred to as the Chartered Groups Act.

Charters
2. Charters are foundational documents for any group within Wintreath seeking to obtain recognition from the Realm, in order to aid the development of the it. Such charters are to be granted by the Government of the Realm.
3. All Chartered Groups are granted the right to use the Judicial System of Wintreath to enforce the Charter internally and amongst its members, in addition to being able to be sued.
4. Chartered Groups are split into two different categories: Chartered Organizations and Chartered Clubs.
5. Chartered Groups are must be approved by the Storting, with Chartered Organizations requiring the approval of the Monarchy to operate in areas under the power of the Monarchy as well as the approval of the Storting. Such approval from the Storting is granted by the Charter being introduced into the Underhusen as normal, and it being passed by both houses of the Storting in accordance with regular legislative procedure. Any passed Charter is not considered Statutory Law, nor is it to be categorized or classified as such.
6. Chartered Groups may have their Charter revoked at any time, by any authority that approved the Charter or by the Court, should the Chartered Group fail to meet its duties, fail to act in the public good, and/or for any other reason.
7. Chartered Groups may be nationalized, with the approval of the Storting, with the Monarch's approval for Chartered Clubs and any Chartered Organization that requires the assent of the Monarchy. Upon being nationalized, the group is to be under the purview of the Monarch.
8. The Monarch can, at any time, refer a Chartered Group to the Storting for review of their Charter for revocation or for nationalization.
8. Charters must be laid out, in accordance with any relevant law that exists, prior to consideration by any authority.
9. All Chartered Groups must make their Charter public, in the form that the Chartered Group is operating under.
10. Any Chartered Group may willingly dissolve, in accordance with procedures laid out within the Charter of that group, provided that the dissolution is publicly disclosed, and the Storting is informed. If a Chartered Group dissolves, the Charter is considered Revoked.

Clubs
8. Chartered Clubs exist to promote the culture of Wintreath, and as such are required to contribute to the culture of Wintreath, in addition to aiding with events organized by the Monarch.
9. Chartered Clubs are overseen by the Monarch, who may impose additional requirements on clubs seeking a Charter.

Organizations
10. Chartered Organizations exist to promote other areas of Wintreath not readily served by Charted Clubs.
11. Chartered Organizations must have their Chartered renewed every six (6) months by the authorities that approved the Charter, in accordance with this act.
12. Chartered Organizations may be granted certain privileges, authorities, powers, and/or monopolies in certain areas, by the Storting. The Monarch's approval is required for anything granted under this section that is under the authority of the Monarch.
13. A Chartered Organization that has their Charter revoked or fails to renew their Charter lose anything granted under Section 12 of this act, unless it is granted again under Section 12.

Here is the Chartered Groups Act, which combines the ideas I had, with Clubs. I do firmly believe that there are certain things under which are better served by things like my Organizations, which should maintain actual recognition. I, additionally, worked to ensure both are different enough to make it reasonable two have two different types.

EDIT: Removed  Immunities from Section 12.

Title
1. This act is to be referred to as the Chartered Groups Act.

Charters
2. Charters are foundational documents for any group within the Wintreath seeking to obtain recognition from the Realm, in order to aid the development [of the it]. Such charters are to be granted by the Government of the Realm.
3. All Chartered Groups are granted the right to use the Judicial System of Wintreath to enforce the Charter internally and amongst its members, in addition to being able to be sued.
4. Chartered Groups are split into two different categories: Chartered Organizations and Chartered Clubs.
5. Chartered Groups [are must be] approved by the Storting, with Chartered Organizations requiring the approval of the Monarchy to operate in areas under the power of the Monarchy as well as the approval of the Storting. Such approval from the Storting is granted by the Charter being introduced into the Underhusen as normal, and it being passed by both houses of the Storting in accordance with regular legislative procedure. Any passed Charter is not considered Statutory Law, nor is it to be categorized or classified as such.
6. Chartered Groups may have their Charter revoked at any time, by any authority that approved the Charter or by the Court, should the Chartered Group fail to meet its duties, fail to act in the public good, and/or for any other reason.
[>Since this exists, there's little point in listing reasons. After all, this one implies that "literally" any other reason. Maybe think on this point a little more].
7. Chartered Groups may be nationalized, with the approval of the Storting, with the Monarch's approval for Chartered Clubs and any Chartered Organization that requires the assent of the Monarchy. Upon being nationalized, the group is to be under the purview of the Monarch.
8. The Monarch can, at any time, refer a Chartered Group to the Storting for review of their Charter for revocation or for nationalization.
8. Charters must be laid out, in accordance with any relevant law that exists, prior to consideration by any authority.
9. All Chartered Groups must make their Charter public, in the form that the Chartered Group is operating under.
10. Any Chartered Group may willingly dissolve, in accordance with procedures laid out within the Charter of that group, provided that the dissolution is publicly disclosed, and the Storting is informed. If a Chartered Group dissolves, the Charter is considered Revoked.

Clubs
8. Chartered Clubs exist to promote the culture of Wintreath, and as such are required to contribute to the culture of Wintreath, in addition to aiding with [aiding/providing aid to] events organized by the Monarch.
9. Chartered Clubs are overseen by the Monarch, who may impose additional requirements on clubs seeking a Charter.

Organizations
10. Chartered Organizations exist to promote other areas of Wintreath not readily served by Charted Clubs.
11. Chartered Organizations must have their Chartered renewed every six (6) months by the authorities that approved the Charter, in accordance with this act.
12. Chartered Organizations may be granted certain privileges, authorities, powers, and/or monopolies in certain areas, by the Storting. The Monarch's approval is required for anything granted under this section that is under the authority of the Monarch.
13. A Chartered Organization that has their Charter revoked or fails to renew their Charter lose anything granted under Section 12 of this act, unless it is granted again under Section 12.

Now, onto my "no longer as non-biased as possible" thoughts.

This whole thing reads as vague. That may be because no such clubs/organisations exist yet, but that's my take away. Like... what exactly is a Charter? What are the requirements necessary for a founding document to be a Charter? What are the "certain privileges" that can possibly be given? Either way, perhaps reorder these points in order of relevance. Like, say, putting how Charters must exist before they can be considered by authority... before all the points about how the Charters will be considered but authority?

To put it another way... assume whoever is going to read this is looking to make a "chartered group." I'm assuming nobody's planning to make an instruction manual for this. Since this document defines Chartered Groups and their place in Wintreath, making this readable is important, assuming it gets any further along the process.

There's also lots of "to be"s in here, which is just a writing style thing at this point... and "revoked" is capitalized? While I understand it may be capitalized for Importance, it doesn't require it.

Personally, I don't really see this Act as being used if it gets passed. Too much sunk and cost for any gain to be worthwhile, in my view. It reads as if there's supposed to be more information but we aren't privy to it, or something.

Edit: I may do more later, but I'm fully distracted by Discord at the moment.

Personally I think it's too complicated, and the purpose of having a different set of groups called organizations isn't even clear. Why can't there be a non-culture club, so long as it's not assuming a government power? And if for some reason there was a need to devolve power into a group, I think that could best be done by a separate law or decree, depending on the power needed. Also, I never intended charters to be as complicated as this bill seems to imply, just some short statement on the purpose of the group, how they're going to govern themselves, and a current list of members.

Personally I think it's too complicated, and the purpose of having a different set of groups called organizations isn't even clear. Why can't there be a non-culture club, so long as it's not assuming a government power? And if for some reason there was a need to devolve power into a group, I think that could best be done by a separate law or decree, depending on the power needed. Also, I never intended charters to be as complicated as this bill seems to imply, just some short statement on the purpose of the group, how they're going to govern themselves, and a current list of members.

Laws for these kinds of things are rarely simple, additionally the separation is because Clubs would be required to contribute to events, as per your idea. Organizations would not because they are for things that your ideas are ill suited for. How would a law organization contribute to a festival here? They can't really.

Laws for these kinds of things are rarely simple, additionally the separation is because Clubs would be required to contribute to events, as per your idea. Organizations would not because they are for things that your ideas are ill suited for. How would a law organization contribute to a festival here? They can't really.

Why not? I'm sure a creative group of people in a law organization could develop events and games that center around law...mock courts? Mock Storting? Some game to familiarize people with law? And even if they can't think of anything law-related, they could hold something that isn't. It just sounds like an excuse for certain groups to be lazy if you ask me.

Laws for these kinds of things are rarely simple, additionally the separation is because Clubs would be required to contribute to events, as per your idea. Organizations would not because they are for things that your ideas are ill suited for. How would a law organization contribute to a festival here? They can't really.

Why not? I'm sure a creative group of people in a law organization could develop events and games that center around law...mock courts? Mock Storting? Some game to familiarize people with law? And even if they can't think of anything law-related, they could hold something that isn't. It just sounds like an excuse for certain groups to be lazy if you ask me.

I would argue that is an extremely bad-faith characterization of my point. Why should they be forced to do that kind of stuff, if their focus isn't on culture at all, but instead on other areas.

Additionally, I don't see much reason why we can't adopt a "We will see how this works" with Organizations and worst comes to worst, we just remove Organizations entirely. However, I don't particularly see why you seem to have this hyper-focus on culture when other groups or people may not entirely care about having to do the cultural stuff, and just want to have an organization that can do something and has some recognition from the government.

*watches with great interest and prepares on the articles of incorporation for the Wintreath East India Company*

I would argue that is an extremely bad-faith characterization of my point. Why should they be forced to do that kind of stuff, if their focus isn't on culture at all, but instead on other areas.

Additionally, I don't see much reason why we can't adopt a "We will see how this works" with Organizations and worst comes to worst, we just remove Organizations entirely. However, I don't particularly see why you seem to have this hyper-focus on culture when other groups or people may not entirely care about having to do the cultural stuff, and just want to have an organization that can do something and has some recognition from the government.

Sorry for the delay in replying, it's just now that I've had the time and energy to make what I knew would be a lengthy post.

You once told me that politics and legal stuff was part of the regional culture too, so by that definition wouldn't their focus be on an aspect of Wintrean culture? I think I gave some good examples of how a group focused on law could contribute to culture without going out of their wheelhouse, so why can't a group of people do something like that every few months? We're not talking about an individual who might be burdened by such a requirement, but a group of people who can share and take on the burden according to the needs of their members.

I'm hyper-focused on the games and events aspect of our culture because it's one of the most prominent yet one of the most fragile parts of our region. We have a massive culture portfolio of games and activities that continues to grow, but many of them are supported by just a few people...what happens to those things when they get busy or leave? We need to encourage more people to get involved in the work of building and maintaining our culture, and I hope clubs will do that by allowing groups to self-organize for that purpose. And if other types of clubs arise, even if they have no link to a particular game or event (fan clubs, for example), then that's even better...the more varied our culture is, the better. And let's remember, there's more ways to contribute to the region than games and contests. A legal group could also put out a newsletter that, say, reviewed any legislation passed that season or start a discussion on the effects of some law.

But the reason I question the need for a separate kind of organization is because I don't think you've shown that there is a need at all. You're proposing a different kind of group that's exempt from all but the most basic activity requirements and could have government power delegated to them. I don't believe you've shown that there's a need to exempt a group from contributing to the region or to give them government power. Even when I said that maybe a club could be elevated to a guild and have its leader be a thane, that was a potential idea for the future if the system worked out and the need arose. It's a big step to go from "maybe we'll consider this in the future" to putting it in actual legislation now.

I would argue that is an extremely bad-faith characterization of my point. Why should they be forced to do that kind of stuff, if their focus isn't on culture at all, but instead on other areas.

Additionally, I don't see much reason why we can't adopt a "We will see how this works" with Organizations and worst comes to worst, we just remove Organizations entirely. However, I don't particularly see why you seem to have this hyper-focus on culture when other groups or people may not entirely care about having to do the cultural stuff, and just want to have an organization that can do something and has some recognition from the government.

Sorry for the delay in replying, it's just now that I've had the time and energy to make what I knew would be a lengthy post.

You once told me that politics and legal stuff was part of the regional culture too, so by that definition wouldn't their focus be on an aspect of Wintrean culture? I think I gave some good examples of how a group focused on law could contribute to culture without going out of their wheelhouse, so why can't a group of people do something like that every few months? We're not talking about an individual who might be burdened by such a requirement, but a group of people who can share and take on the burden according to the needs of their members.

I'm hyper-focused on the games and events aspect of our culture because it's one of the most prominent yet one of the most fragile parts of our region. We have a massive culture portfolio of games and activities that continues to grow, but many of them are supported by just a few people...what happens to those things when they get busy or leave? We need to encourage more people to get involved in the work of building and maintaining our culture, and I hope clubs will do that by allowing groups to self-organize for that purpose. And if other types of clubs arise, even if they have no link to a particular game or event (fan clubs, for example), then that's even better...the more varied our culture is, the better. And let's remember, there's more ways to contribute to the region than games and contests. A legal group could also put out a newsletter that, say, reviewed any legislation passed that season or start a discussion on the effects of some law.

But the reason I question the need for a separate kind of organization is because I don't think you've shown that there is a need at all. You're proposing a different kind of group that's exempt from all but the most basic activity requirements and could have government power delegated to them. I don't believe you've shown that there's a need to exempt a group from contributing to the region or to give them government power. Even when I said that maybe a club could be elevated to a guild and have its leader be a thane, that was a potential idea for the future if the system worked out and the need arose. It's a big step to go from "maybe we'll consider this in the future" to putting it in actual legislation now.

First off, why should an organization be focused on such things when it's aim could be other things? An organization could do things like training people in Wintrean law and encouraging the discussion and development of it? Why should the organization dedicate itself to doing other things that would, outside of a legal mandate, fall outside of its purview. I would absolutely not form a club for legal stuff if we only had clubs, because I have no desire to have my arm twisted to contribute to festivals which I have no interest in (which can be seen in my, general, lack of participation in Summersend, or any cultural event really).

Also keep in mind in my plans, the 'elevation aspect has always been around. My initial ideas for 'guilds', and all evolution of that have usually had some aspect of being given government authority or power, so it makes sense for it to be included here, especially so that it is at least a possibility. It makes it easier in the future as opposed to adding it in later, and having debates over "whether or not this was entirely intended" and the like. A simple amendment can always remove it.

However, if you've noticed I've been focusing a lot on myself, which is largely because I wrote organizations using myself as a base to work upon. I don't want to be forced to contribute to festivals that do not interest me, when I could be working on things that are generally better for my time? Especially when there are people that are more willing to do that, and thus will put more effort than myself. If I were to drop organizations completely, then I would necessarily be excluded from this area by design. Just like how you didn't see that a 'post requirement for citizenship ' would lead to issues, and how you felt like it wasn't a big issue to make five posts, it turned out to be more of an issue that you thought. While I will admit, I was not the only one saying that during that discussion, certain decisions necessarily precludes the participation of other people. Organizations are necessarily meant to include and target a different kind of person that you are doing with clubs, such that I consider them separate enough and I don't think I am necessarily the only person that would be appealed to with Organizations.

It seems that the only reason you put organizations in this proposal is because you do not want to form a club but something similar to it. Is that the case or am I misunderstanding you?

I put an idea I had after seeing this discussion in the Citizen's Platform on the Discord.

First off, why should an organization be focused on such things when it's aim could be other things? An organization could do things like training people in Wintrean law and encouraging the discussion and development of it? Why should the organization dedicate itself to doing other things that would, outside of a legal mandate, fall outside of its purview. I would absolutely not form a club for legal stuff if we only had clubs, because I have no desire to have my arm twisted to contribute to festivals which I have no interest in (which can be seen in my, general, lack of participation in Summersend, or any cultural event really).

How will they train people? How will they encourage discussion and development of law? Would it perhaps involve discussions, activities, and events? Those sound like they would contribute to a regional culture. Contributing to festivals (of which we have only had one a year for several years now) would not only help make them more successful, but would also promote the clubs in a venue that many Wintreans and even some people outside the region hang out in. Most groups should have an interest in that, at least.

Also keep in mind in my plans, the 'elevation aspect has always been around. My initial ideas for 'guilds', and all evolution of that have usually had some aspect of being given government authority or power, so it makes sense for it to be included here, especially so that it is at least a possibility. It makes it easier in the future as opposed to adding it in later, and having debates over "whether or not this was entirely intended" and the like. A simple amendment can always remove it.

Why? Why should clubs/guilds/organizations be given government authority? I'm not necessarily opposed to it, I just haven't seen the case for it made. And I could make the opposite argument, that if we find a need for it later on a simple amendment can always add it.

However, if you've noticed I've been focusing a lot on myself, which is largely because I wrote organizations using myself as a base to work upon. I don't want to be forced to contribute to festivals that do not interest me, when I could be working on things that are generally better for my time? Especially when there are people that are more willing to do that, and thus will put more effort than myself. If I were to drop organizations completely, then I would necessarily be excluded from this area by design.

But even groups that you're involved in aren't going to be just about yourself...all groups should have at least 3-5 active people, and maybe if you don't want to be involved in festivals or contribute to regional culture others in your group will. There's no requirement that says everyone in a club must be involved in everything that it does, so I don't see how this excludes you by design. If it would help though, I would be willing to drop the festival requirement, and clubs could optionally contribute to festivals in order to meet the requirement for that season (with the other options being to do something outside of the festival during that season).

Just like how you didn't see that a 'post requirement for citizenship ' would lead to issues, and how you felt like it wasn't a big issue to make five posts, it turned out to be more of an issue that you thought. While I will admit, I was not the only one saying that during that discussion, certain decisions necessarily precludes the participation of other people. Organizations are necessarily meant to include and target a different kind of person that you are doing with clubs, such that I consider them separate enough and I don't think I am necessarily the only person that would be appealed to with Organizations.

And? The purpose of Citizenship requirements was to encourage people to get involved...it didn't work out and was removed. The purpose of this is to allow groups to organically help build and maintain the region. There's no equivalency, and I still don't see the need for a separate group of organizations...clubs are called to contribute to the regional culture in a broad manner, not specifically to put out games and contests (although games and contests are a fine way to fulfill it, too).

First off, why should an organization be focused on such things when it's aim could be other things? An organization could do things like training people in Wintrean law and encouraging the discussion and development of it? Why should the organization dedicate itself to doing other things that would, outside of a legal mandate, fall outside of its purview. I would absolutely not form a club for legal stuff if we only had clubs, because I have no desire to have my arm twisted to contribute to festivals which I have no interest in (which can be seen in my, general, lack of participation in Summersend, or any cultural event really).

How will they train people? How will they encourage discussion and development of law? Would it perhaps involve discussions, activities, and events? Those sound like they would contribute to a regional culture. Contributing to festivals (of which we have only had one a year for several years now) would not only help make them more successful, but would also promote the clubs in a venue that many Wintreans and even some people outside the region hang out in. Most groups should have an interest in that, at least.

Because their focus is on the small group of people interested in this stuff, and not necessarily the people that don't?

Also keep in mind in my plans, the 'elevation aspect has always been around. My initial ideas for 'guilds', and all evolution of that have usually had some aspect of being given government authority or power, so it makes sense for it to be included here, especially so that it is at least a possibility. It makes it easier in the future as opposed to adding it in later, and having debates over "whether or not this was entirely intended" and the like. A simple amendment can always remove it.

Why? Why should clubs/guilds/organizations be given government authority? I'm not necessarily opposed to it, I just haven't seen the case for it made. And I could make the opposite argument, that if we find a need for it later on a simple amendment can always add it.

I would argue, we would have more debate over giving them power then, than if we initially include it. Additionally, I could think of a few instances where we might grant government power or 'monopolies' to them. For example, the creation of a Mandatory Wintreath Bar Association.

However, if you've noticed I've been focusing a lot on myself, which is largely because I wrote organizations using myself as a base to work upon. I don't want to be forced to contribute to festivals that do not interest me, when I could be working on things that are generally better for my time? Especially when there are people that are more willing to do that, and thus will put more effort than myself. If I were to drop organizations completely, then I would necessarily be excluded from this area by design.

But even groups that you're involved in aren't going to be just about yourself...all groups should have at least 3-5 active people, and maybe if you don't want to be involved in festivals or contribute to regional culture others in your group will. There's no requirement that says everyone in a club must be involved in everything that it does, so I don't see how this excludes you by design. If it would help though, I would be willing to drop the festival requirement, and clubs could optionally contribute to festivals in order to meet the requirement for that season (with the other options being to do something outside of the festival during that season).

There are many ways to structure an organization as well. I already have charters written for what I would like to have, and these generally have a singular head. While individuals may wish to contribute to other things (which they may very well be given the go-ahead to do so), I generally would rather the organizations I wish to create do other things that would. in my opinion, be more productive with the time of the organization. I generally would not care to participate in a club that does things for festivals, because by the nature of that club, I would probably be expected to participate in it, or the club may very well mandate it. In any case, these are not groups I would, generally, be interested in participating in.

Just like how you didn't see that a 'post requirement for citizenship ' would lead to issues, and how you felt like it wasn't a big issue to make five posts, it turned out to be more of an issue that you thought. While I will admit, I was not the only one saying that during that discussion, certain decisions necessarily precludes the participation of other people. Organizations are necessarily meant to include and target a different kind of person that you are doing with clubs, such that I consider them separate enough and I don't think I am necessarily the only person that would be appealed to with Organizations.

And? The purpose of Citizenship requirements was to encourage people to get involved...it didn't work out and was removed. The purpose of this is to allow groups to organically help build and maintain the region. There's no equivalency, and I still don't see the need for a separate group of organizations...clubs are called to contribute to the regional culture in a broad manner, not specifically to put out games and contests (although games and contests are a fine way to fulfill it, too).

The purpose of this is to encourage people to get involved in building culture Wintermoot.. Phrasing doesn't really change things here.

It seems that the only reason you put organizations in this proposal is because you do not want to form a club but something similar to it. Is that the case or am I misunderstanding you?

I put an idea I had after seeing this discussion in the Citizen's Platform on the Discord.

A part of it, another part of it, is because I fundamentally believe the Storting should review organizations and clubs relatively regularly. Because, it seems, people don't like that idea, and due to the type of organizations I wish to create I feel like this is necessary. Further, branding is also an issue, I hate 'clubs' as it presents too much of a juvenile and weak association for me to really be comfortable creating anything called a 'club'. The terminology also inherently contains ideas as to how they are structured, where-as an organization can be structured in a myriad of ways.

Because their focus is on the small group of people interested in this stuff, and not necessarily the people that don't?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I would argue, we would have more debate over giving them power then, than if we initially include it. Additionally, I could think of a few instances where we might grant government power or 'monopolies' to them. For example, the creation of a Mandatory Wintreath Bar Association.

What would this Bar Association do, and why would it need government power?

There are many ways to structure an organization as well. I already have charters written for what I would like to have, and these generally have a singular head. While individuals may wish to contribute to other things (which they may very well be given the go-ahead to do so), I generally would rather the organizations I wish to create do other things that would. in my opinion, be more productive with the time of the organization. I generally would not care to participate in a club that does things for festivals, because by the nature of that club, I would probably be expected to participate in it, or the club may very well mandate it. In any case, these are not groups I would, generally, be interested in participating in.

I've already offered to drop the festival requirement, but I strongly feel that there needs to be some requirement that groups are contributing in some way once in awhile. In your example, you've said that the group would be contributing, so I'm not sure what the issue is. Also, besides the requirement that they have a charter and 3-5 active members, there are no requirements on how a club has to be structured, your response to North is more about semantics than actual requirements.

The purpose of this is to encourage people to get involved in building culture Wintermoot.. Phrasing doesn't really change things here.

Right, and we've previously discussed that culture is more than just games and contests, so I'm not sure what the problem is.