|
|
|
The East Pacific brought to you by, | |||||||||||||
|
Social
Roleplay
|
|
| Welcome to The East Pacific. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you may register an account here! I'm registered. Where do I start? When you sign up on our forums, your account may be limited to certain forums, and unable to make requests in our roleplay section. We recommend that you Apply for Citizenship to gain all the benefits of being part of our roleplay community! |
| East Pacific Code Act | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 20 2010, 02:59:54 PM (696 Views) | |
| Free Pacific States | Nov 20 2010, 02:59:54 PM Post #1 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Most nations codify their laws, either formally or informally, to facilitate comprehension, reference, and amendment. I feel the East Pacific ought to do so, particularly to facilitate comprehension, and therefore propose this "East Pacific Code Act." Besides renumbering everything, I've made a few non-substantive changes to standing laws, enumerated here: 1) I've provided for the existence, maintenance, and organization of the code. 2) I've required the Provost to maintain a public record of laws (along with the code), a public record of happenings in the Magisterium (already provided for in Concordat), and a public record of the standing orders (already generally done). 3) I've made minor changes to the secondary endorsement cap act (fixed a lot of typos including the accidental non-inclusion of the need for the Delegate to approve applicants to go above primary code). 4) I altered the phrasing of the regional message board regulations to allow for conformity with the rest of the code. That's it. With that all said, I do hereby present the East Pacific Code Act.
|
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 20 2010, 03:27:00 PM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
Title V Section 3 - the sentences seem excessively harsh. A five year ban in NationStates, or any online community, is very much the equivalent to a lifetime ban. I propose reducing sentences prescribed in subsections B, C & D to 18-24 months. |
|
|
| Free Pacific States | Nov 20 2010, 03:34:37 PM Post #3 |
|
Number One Drone
|
I've got no problem with that change. But I recommend we save any debates on amending standing law for later and for the moment just focus on the general idea of codifying law. If we make this a debate on every single provision of East Pacific law, we'll spend months debating this. On the other hand, if we do pass this, it'll be much easier to make amendments to standing law later. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Nalt | Nov 20 2010, 05:05:32 PM Post #4 |
|
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!
|
Personally, I always find it easier to look up information the way we have it now than finding information in one huge document... Especially in a region like this where there is less than one forum page of laws. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 21 2010, 12:32:10 AM Post #5 |
|
Deleted User
|
I agree that this format is very user-friendly. Also- Thanks for the guidance, FPS. |
|
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Nov 21 2010, 02:02:18 AM Post #6 |
|
The Boll Weevel
|
I agree with BGP on this. The punishment does seem extremely harsh. We probably need to look at this closely before making a final decision. |
| Confederacy of Vulshain | |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Nov 22 2010, 04:03:50 PM Post #7 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Well, I'd really preferred this to solely be a debate on whether or not to adopt a code, but I suppose if you both want it done, we can amend the punishment from 5 years to 2 years? |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Nov 22 2010, 04:33:02 PM Post #8 |
|
Planet Telox
|
I'll look at this tonight. I'm guessing we're just debating this right now, so I'll get something up about this tonight.
|
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 22 2010, 04:57:01 PM Post #9 |
|
Deleted User
|
No- I agree with your earlier sentiments. That can be amended later. Pending Todd's response, I move to vote. |
|
|
| Barb | Nov 22 2010, 05:48:18 PM Post #10 |
|
Sergeant Hobo 678
|
Before you vote, might I suggest that deciding what is legal and what is not legal is the business of Magisterium. Until now, deciding what to do about it if a nation has acted illegally has been the business of Conclave. I believe prescribing sentences for nations found to have acted illegally is inconsistent with Concordat Article C, Section 6: "The Conclave may judge the actions of any nation in the East Pacific for violation of this Concordat and the laws of the East Pacific and sentence those found guilty." As a practical matter, fixed sentences require that Conclave sentence different nations found to have acted illegally under different circumstances identically. |
|
Barb Arbiter Barbara Manatee Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier Keep TEP beautiful! The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
| |
![]() |
|
| Allegheny | Nov 22 2010, 06:32:05 PM Post #11 |
|
Partly Cloudy
|
The delegate wishes to impress upon the Magisterium that passing this law quickly is a foolish move and that passing a law just to get it out of the way and amend it later is a gross violation of The East Pacific's trust in the magisterium. It is in the delegate's opinion akin to ramming it down the throats of an unexpecting victim. Sometimes doing the easy thing is not the best idea. This is simply a suggestion. |
![]() There was a hole here. It's gone now. | |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Nov 22 2010, 06:34:07 PM Post #12 |
|
Planet Telox
|
Indeed. We just had this up on Nov. 20th. We should allow *at least* a week for debate. There's no reason to rush things here. That, and not all magisters have voiced their opinion here. The level of gusto is fine, but again, like I said before, expedience is important, but it should never replace democracy. |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Nov 22 2010, 06:35:28 PM Post #13 |
|
Planet Telox
|
As long as I'm here, that won't happen. We're going to go over this. It's my opinion this should be split up into separate documents, as this one is kind of a catch all. So, this debate is far from over. |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Nov 22 2010, 07:03:35 PM Post #14 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Actually, this is not true. I did not make up any of the laws in this "East Pacific Code" except those relating directly to the Magisterium. The sentences prescribed under the Criminal Code already exist under the Treason Act. That law was passed ages ago; this bill merely codifies it. For the record, I oppose mandatory sentences on the bottom end, but I see no problem with the Magisterium restricting the Conclave from over-penalizing. But, truly, that is besides the point. Once again, let me make clear: this bill does not change law, it merely reorganizes law, although it does make several Magisterial procedures into law.
No one is recommending the passage and later amendment of a law. Rather, I am suggesting that this reorganization of laws be passed, then any amendments to standing law be made later. Once again, there is nothing new of substance in this act, merely a reorganization of standing law. With that said, I certainly agree that there is no rush, and invite everyone to carefully read this codification and ensure it is in compliance with standing law (except as I already mentioned). |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Nov 22 2010, 07:42:13 PM Post #15 |
|
Planet Telox
|
Again, I am against the formation of a code. I think it would be much more easier to attack these problems separately and not in a huge document. Quite frankly, the laws this body has passed is a code in its own right. The code exists in the "Laws of the East Pacific" sub-forum. But while it would be easier to debate over these laws in small chunks, people coming into this region (and longtime citizens) would be much more akin to reading short documents rather than the large one presented here. In that subforum, the code is pretty much easily accessible - if I wanted to suddenly be under the secondary endo cap, I could look at that law in the sub forum and go from there, following the procedure in that document. I wouldn't have to sift through stuff about advertising regulations, for instance. That being said, let's read on.
Again, I am against this. Some laws could use reform, I'll give you that, but some laws really don't. Secondary Endo cap is generally fine in my opinion. So is the Advertising on the RMB act, just for example. I guess my main question to all of this is: why? I don't understand why we're taking all the laws we've passed over the totality of Magisterium history and creating an umbrella for them, making one huge document to replace it. I'm a believer that people would be more willing to read the laws by chunks rather than a juggernaut of a document. Just look at the Advertising on the RMB law. We can link that law directly if an advertiser violates it. They can plainly see it and adjust accordingly. What goes through their mind if we present them this document? Would they hunt for it or be more prone to ignoring it? People are more akin to reading small documents than large, right?
Again, we already have this as that Laws of the East Pacific sub-forum. We could add a little disclaimer to that forum if we feel the need, but I really don't see a need to do that. Those laws represent our code. That's... kind of about it ![]()
I see where you're going with this, but it's kind of confusing/jargon-y to be honest.
This is just an idea (and again, if we're going to explore changing laws I suggest we do it law-by-law), but as the archive section grows, perhaps the debates / votes should be hyperlinked?
But it says in the Concordat we are supposed to pass things via majority (or in certain cases by another percentage of 'aye' votes). A tie is not the majority, so it'd still not pass, right? I notice this is already a law... perhaps it would be good to explore it again?
Historically, we've called this group "members", as it's reflected in the masking on the forums.
Raising / lowering the cap has historically been the delegate's job. We've had a good number since ASBS moved the cap to eighty (good enough to last us two years ), but I can see in the future where a delegate may want to raise or lower a cap. I would instead recommend this be done with the approval of the Magisterium *first*, which would eliminate the potential for radical cap changes, like if a delegate made it at 16 for instance. Barring any catastrophes or in-game changes, I don't really see any reason to raise or lower the cap, but if there is indeed a good reason for it, I'd like to have the region agree to it too.Yes, I see the need to have the delegate raise/lower the cap in "emergency situations", but considering the system we have in place that has been allowed to grow and form over the past two years, I don't really think we need to have any radical cap changes. One of the cool things about being delegate is you can endorse whoever you want. If a delegate can't keep his or her cap above 100 in this day and age, I'd question how dedicated they were to the job of protecting the region. Now, again, in the same breath, there may come a time when 100+ endo feeder delegates are a thing of the past. Well, if that's the case, we can adjust accordingly, not rushing to any radical changes, but yeah. We could make a clause for "emergencies", but I think the Magisterium should be allowed to vote it in. It's slightly more cumbersome, but it prevents Allegheny from lowering the cap to twenty or raising it to 150, for instance (not saying you would, All, I'm just feeling like using an example lol! )Again, I notice a lot of this was in the old laws, but I still felt like commenting on it ![]()
Here, the delegate can't change the cap without the magisterium's approval, but the primary endo cap, he/she can. I personally think the primary endo cap is ten times more important than the secondary endorsement cap, and should be better safeguarded. I still think the primary endo cap should be treated as the secondary is - delegate suggests, magisterium approves. I also don't really think we should restrict the secondary endo cap. The magisterium can decide for itself, and I'd rather not handcuff our region where the secondary cap must be at least +15 from the primary. Again, I think 100 is a good number, but this is more of a safeguard for "down the road" problems, if they come.
What happened to they must be in the region for at least a year? This is good.
I'm kind of against this also. Since ASBS, every delegate has had their own policy with how they deal with cap offenders. For the most part, it's been someone informs them of a telegram with explaining to them they have a set amount of time to get below the cap, and if they don't, they're gone. Plus, asking people nicely to leave the region and come back or resign from the WA is not going to be effective. Mostly because it's very rare to find a nation who goes "okay" and is completely okay with losing all his endos. People play the game for different reasons, and generally for those types of nations, they feel endorsements = importance. I had to deal with such nations during my term. They just want to have endos, and there's no deterring them. They either comply with our cap or lose their endos by the fall of the mighty banhammer.
I'm having trouble finding what you've changed vs. what has already been said in the laws. In this case, it's just making this law appear more "formal" for loss of a better word. I know it's an opinion, but I prefer the shorter, less informative version. I'm going to split my go-over here. This is another reason why I think this law is very long - I had to break for dinner just to get through it Still, I know you spent a lot of time on this. Don't get discouraged just because I'm shooting things down. If we need to review some laws, that's fine, I'm all for that. I just don't want this review to include a huge document where very little input is offered by other magisters. We're a team here. We promised the region we'd do our jobs and work for the betterment of the region. |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Nov 22 2010, 08:17:31 PM Post #16 |
|
Planet Telox
|
Part deux Though before I begin, again, it's kind of hard to see where the changes have been made from law to law - so I keep the law up in one window and this proposed change in the other while trying to match them up. This is why I'm going over this thoroughly.
I might as well call V.1.b. the "Civil Disobedience" clause, lol. This was Section 8 in the Treason Act.
Before I make any comments about this, I have to say I did like the idea of defining all these violations, but the more I think about it, the more I don't think it's really needed. This was not there in the Treason Act, for the most part (or at least not organized in this way). That being said, High Treason seems like a specific case of treason. What I'm trying to say is if you commit high treason, you commit treason by default. I think it should therefore be reflected that high treason should be treated as "in addition to treason, high treason is defined as...". I hate this as much as you probably do, but it should be "offense". I'm not trying to be a dork, just pointing out a simple spelling error.
I don't know about the definitions. If we're going to call this a "criminal code", it should probably be all-inclusive. As far as I know, it isn't (based on what offenses merit a trial in the SOC). This is where definitions can be a bit restrictive. I'd like the Conclave to be able to define such things. We've defined a few already in the old law (treason, high treason, etc) and some we haven't (f and g). But dealing with such things seems to me more like a Conclave thing. They're the ones handling the trials, determine the need for a trial, and issue a sentencing.
With practically all of these violations (according to the Standing Orders of the Concordat) are trialable offenses, it states in their document that arbiters are to pass sentencing when there is an offense that has been brought to trial. I don't believe we should include sentencing here. I actually don't really like any of these sentencing clauses. For instance, (e) really should be handled by the delegate first then, if he or she (or someone else) suspects something is going on with a takeover, it should go directly to the conclave for a trial review. I don't want to give them restrictions or guidelines on sentencing.
Again, I know you're trying to implore your sense of style and flair with regards to how this is written, but it would help to know where things are being moved around in this. If a law seems like it's worded weirdly, we can definitely explore that. As a general comment: again, I'm not a fan of having all of this under one document. It's bulky and upon looking at it, difficult to read than just having each law given its own single post in the laws sub-forum. |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Nov 22 2010, 08:20:15 PM Post #17 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Regarding the numerous questions about standing law (which is 2/3 of your post), again, let me make clear that I did not change standing law except in a few instances. And I do not feel that this is the place to debate these issues, for there are three pages of standing law, and dozens of issues that might arise. But I will note that if we implement this code, it'll be a lot simpler to amend those laws, and to keep them consistent across the board. A code does not necessarily make easy reading, yes, but it makes very easy reference. Just like links in the law forum, a person can easily thumb to the "criminal code," knowing that treason is likely contained there. What is more, a code greatly facilitates understanding because a code is constantly updated, whereas old bills are not updated (though often effected by new legislation). And perhaps most importantly, a code makes it easy to spot incongruities in standing law, or to make comparisons between laws. A code can facilitate reading, though that is debatable, but its real helpfulness is in its facilitation of the creation of cohesive, understandable, implementable law. Regarding the repeal of bills in this act (and requirement for future use of the code), there is no purpose to a code if it is not the law itself, except in nations with hundreds of thousand of pages of statute (IE: United States). The Code Act establishes the Code and makes it the only law of the land. It is not really prohibiting new legislation or repealing old legislation, merely amalgamating old legislation into one document, and providing for future legislation to be made through the amendment of that document. Regarding organization, the entire idea is that its jargony. Right now, there is no set way to refer to anything in East Pacific law, and people make it up as they go. This way, there is a set way: there are articles, then sections, then subsections, then parts, then subparts. Each is denoted by a different type of letter. Most countries have a standard legislative organization, except the United States, which organizes its legislation depending on type. Regarding the keeping of a legislative record, I already do hyperlink to the votes/debates in the record. Regarding not being able to see what I changed: good. That was the idea.
This took less time than it might seem and I did it during class, so no worries. If you dislike the idea of a code, you dislike the idea of a code, and that is that. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Nov 22 2010, 08:52:35 PM Post #18 |
|
Planet Telox
|
I know. But if we're going to abolish all laws and make this a single law, are we going to pass this, let the delegate work over it, then have the conclave work over it, only to do it again? If we're going to do this, if, we should do it right rather than give the Conclave and Delegate an incomplete document. Which is also why I'm against making one huge document for this. It took me two hours to go over that document in its entirety. And that's just me.
Again, I just don't understand this. We're taking laws that are clickable and easily viewed and turning it into one huge document. That, to me, does not make for easy reference at all. If I'm an advertiser and I want to make sure my ad is in good standing for TEP, I'm going to want to find it in the fastest way possible, clicking a link that says something to the effect of "Rules on adspum" or something like that. In this document, I'd have to hunt for it. How is this easy? And how does a code greatly facilitate updating? If we're worried about the laws getting clogged with old, repealed laws, the admin team could always make a closed sub-forum for retired laws. I understand that in order to get this code into effect, the old laws have to be repealed. But... again, why are we doing this? I don't understand how this makes things any easier for anyone. I foresee more confusion and a lot of extra work for the delegate and the conclave. I'm down with trying to lighten their load, lol.
I was taught that jargon was generally a bad thing. And we're not the United States, where it is absolutely essential for everything to flow correctly. We're a region. Yes, there may be a bit of laws that are rough, but we can always change them to better reflect the region. The way in which we change the laws does not change and will not change with this code. That was my intent with the other 2/3 of my document. It would be so much more easier if we looked at those laws separately while at the same time minding their congruency. But that's the thing - for most of our laws (dare I say all), they don't really need to flow into one another. They're amendments in their rawest sense. When the US (for example) added amendments to the constitution, they didn't hold a convention to make certain articles that could go together match up with others - they listed them chronologically. And in all honesty, I would rather they keep it that way than a convention in 2011, for instance, trying to make them flow and make better congruency. If there is an issue for congruency, we should bring up the issues individually, I believe. Okay, that's my mistake. I didn't see that, my bad ![]() But it's really hard to go over a completely changed and revised code of law if you don't really see what's being changed. It takes someone a fair amount of time to really compare and see what's been added. For instance, in our laws, these are not listed:
I'm not trying to suggest you did this to hope that we wouldn't see it, but still, it shows that while the laws were revised, they were changed slightly. Passing a large bill like this with the intent of replacing all our ammendments is dangerous if we don't go over what's been changed. |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Nov 22 2010, 09:38:16 PM Post #19 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Given that there is disagreement about whether or not to have a code at all, I merely feel it more efficient to focus on the debate over the code itself, before looking at other matters. I suppose we could amend the code as we want then pass it -- I'm just saying, before we spend hours amending it, let's decide whether or not we want it at all.
The code does facilitate reference by ensuring all laws related to a matter are organized in the same area. The Primary Endorsement Cap Act, Secondary Endorsement Cap Act, and Treason Act all contain provisions relating to criminal offenses yet the three bills are completely separate. To understand criminallaw, a person thus must review all three pieces of legislation, and see how they fit together (which they do not as written). By codifying the law, you combine all those laws into one, which is far easier to comprehend (and cite). With regards to the advertising regulations, those can always be posted in a new thread by the Delegate, and a link to it provided on the regional message board.
So far as I can see, your argument here is "enforcing these provisions means creating a code, which is a bad idea," which is the same argument as above. So...why don't we just focus on that?
Jargon facilitates communication, hugely, and facilitates citation in law writing, hugely. There is, in fact, already jargon in East Pacific law: the Concordat is broken into articles and sections. Lose the articles and sections and it becomes impossible to refer to specific provisions. In the East Pacific Code, the breakdown organization allows for the same, all the way down to the clause. Without it, referencing becomes more difficult, although it is already difficult given the lack of an established system of reference.
The Magisterium failed consistently to do so in the past -- I see no reason for that to change without the creation of a single code. The code requires consistency -- literally, requires it, in the section about organization. That makes consistency more likely -- especially since people can just look up a few lines and say "hey, that section is different."
That's because the United States government did not want to alter the actual, written Constitution, which is a highly historic document. And even so, they carefully wrote amendments to facilitate understanding, and kept those amendments in the same style as the Constitution itself. And when it comes to law, the United States does make changes, maintaining the US Code (which, though not a formal code of law, is regularly cited as though it is a code of law).
This hasn't been changed -- it already exists. The Endorsement Cap Act forbids the illegal solicitation of endorsements in Section 5: "Every one who solicits endorsements from other nations while having a number of endorsements in excess of the endorsement cap, and without lawful authorisation to do so, commits an unlawful act." And the Endorsement Cap Act provides for illegal solicitation of endorsement to be considered treason in the same section: "A nation found to be in violation of this section may also be deemed to be attempting to overthrow the Delegate for the purposes of a prosecution under the Treason Act." And the fact that you did not realize that from the reading of the current laws, I think, demonstrates how a code facilitates comprehension of actual law. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Nov 22 2010, 10:21:02 PM Post #20 |
|
Planet Telox
|
Okay, that's fine. I think I've already addressed my concerns regarding putting our laws into one huge document.
If it is believed there are problems with certain laws, that's why we're here. We can review them. We can even make it a 'packaged deal', like if we wanted to take a section out of the Endo cap and put it into the treason act, we could show those changes and vote over them, have the delegate accept or reject it, and have the conclave interpret it. And if we're going to allow for laws to be posted in separate threads... why are we making them into one bill in the first place? I can almost end my debate right here. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Yeah, I was. It was just a restatement, lol, but that's okay.
I think we're arguing two separate things here. I'm not talking about splitting up the concordat or removing the sections or subsections or what not. I'm trying to say that I don't think it's a good idea to put all of our amendments into a single bill. I don't think you're trying to imply that. Instead, I think our definitions of jargon are different. Which is probably my fault, since mine is wrong. Jargon is technical language, but when I used jargon, I used it negatively to define excessive technical language. So, ignore that part from me.
Well, past magisteriums may not have been as careful to ensure all bills are congruent with each other. But we have to put all of these laws into a huge bill to ensure they are congruent? We should make it harder for citizens to view our laws just because past magisteriums did not make sure everything was consistent? It just seems easier to me to have these laws clickable as their own separate posts. I can't really go further without restating what I've already said.
Actually, the reason why I am having problems finding things is because you moved things around without telling us where you got them from, and without telling us what you renamed them to be, despite outlining your changes in the first post. You have renamed the treason act to criminal code and added stuff from other laws into it to create that section. If I notice an endo cap violator, I'm not going to look into treason unless there was some plot to overthrow the government. I'm going to look in the endorsement cap act. Categorically, that makes sense to me. Basically, I don't want us to argue back and forth until the cows come home, lol. We've pretty much hashed out our opinions here: you think it'd be easier to have amendments in one document, I think it's easier to have them presented as they are. That's pretty much what it boils down to in its rawest sense. I'd like to hear from other Magisters about this too. |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Barb | Nov 22 2010, 10:24:32 PM Post #21 |
|
Sergeant Hobo 678
|
If that was true, you would have reorganized the law by copy and paste. That's not what this is. This is a re-write of every law in the region. For instance, this legislation omits the "in the region for a year" clause from the definition of active nation. What is the wisdom of that? I saw a question about that. I can't find an answer. It's a region security question. Something I care about. Provost has placed seven separate challenges to the Standing Orders of Conclave. I agree with some of them. Conclave will take each one up one at a time. Because that's transparent. That change process will be explicit. What did you omit? What did you re-write? What did you add? I ask because this legislation does all three. Glossing it over as not changing law is insulting our intelligence. That's bullshit. |
|
Barb Arbiter Barbara Manatee Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier Keep TEP beautiful! The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
| |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Nov 22 2010, 11:02:24 PM Post #22 |
|
Number One Drone
|
But it wouldn't work that way. We'd write a new bill, that amended the past bills, but the past bills wouldn't actually be amended. They'd just, legally, be changed, while still being the same on the forums, merely with a new law, in a separate thread, having changed their provisions. A law code provides an updated, centralized place of this knowledge. Right now, all we've got his a history of passed laws, nothing more.
Why would we prevent laws from being posted in separate threads? The Code would be the official law -- not the only place a person can post the law. If someone wanted, they could post as much or as little of the law wherever they wanted, and that'd be their right (and is their right now). The only difference, here, is that there would be a centralized location for the storage of an up-to-date version of the entire legal code.
I'd say a full code is entirely easier to navigate because its topically organized not chronologically organized. A list of statutes is, by definition, chronically organized (and by technical requirement given the way the boards work). But the Code allows people to look and see what's illegal without thumbing through multiple bills. And while we can try for congruency with separate bills, honestly, we'll likely never achieve it, even if we put full-time experts to the task (case and point: USA).
Well, yes. I figured no one wanted to read a page long list of how I reorganized everything. And if you think something is illogically organized, topically speaking, it can always be reorganized -- which is the nice part of a code. If you think something goes better with something else, its very easy to just move it around.
I do believe we can agree to disagree here, yes.
Incorrect. I copy-pasted just about every law, rewriting only those I specified.
Incorrect. The Secondary Endorsement Cap Reform Act removed that requirement. I copy-pasted solely the requirements in the Secondary Endorsement Cap Reform Act, thus maintaining standing law. You can view that bill here.
I specified the substantive changes I made in my original post. Those points aside, I changed nothing except for numbering, placement, and section headers.
Incorrect. Except for at the few points I specified, this legislation did not change standing law in any way, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary (that I have not already disproved). |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| East Malaysia | Nov 22 2010, 11:34:34 PM Post #23 |
|
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
|
I don't think we need one huge document because that's just wayyyy tooo complicated. I suggest if you want revisions for some laws then take them up one at a time because as it currently stands it is too much; it is a copy+past nightmare. |
|
Question with Boldness >Sovereign Empire of East Malaysia [url]East Malaysia @ NSWiki[/url] - WIP The Eastrovia Times wwt.et.em Embassy - Coming Soon Character List - Updating Soon >Forum Support ![]() >>>Forum Descriptions Rework<<< >>>Tapatalk Migration Information<<< #forum-help-center \ Mod/admin requests \ Board Rules \ Internet Safety & You \ ZB TOS & TOU Emergency Contact: east.malaysia@mail.theeastpacific.com (forwards directly to my personal email)
| |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Nov 27 2010, 11:57:44 AM Post #24 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Alright. East Malaysia's statement on the subject means exactly half the assembly opposes this legislation while exactly half the assembly supports this legislation. Recognizing that a majority of East Pacificans do not support the legislation and that it will fail in a public referendum, I hereby withdraw the legislation, so as to save everyone some time. Good debate, everyone. We really did a great job hitting on the merits (and pitfalls) of a code. And every Magister remained respectful throughout the discussion, which is also laudable. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Archive: Magisterium · Next Topic » |






), but I can see in the future where a delegate may want to raise or lower a cap. I would instead recommend this be done with the approval of the Magisterium *first*, which would eliminate the potential for radical cap changes, like if a delegate made it at 16 for instance. Barring any catastrophes or in-game changes, I don't really see any reason to raise or lower the cap, but if there is indeed a good reason for it, I'd like to have the region agree to it too.


7:45 PM Jul 10