Post Archive
Region: The Thaecian Senate
We are now voting
aye
Aye
Edit: Aye
Nay because there's no point in release voter lists to the public. There's already a bill in the docket to allow investigations and the minister of legal affairs to ask for relevant information, and there's no point in voting for this bill that has little purpose other than reducing voting privacy.
In response to brototh's points:
Voter privacy is more important that the slight increase in bureaucracy that legislative investigations need to ensure that the info is not being used for illegitimate purposes.
Also, if keeping documents saved was an issue, then we could write a law on that specifically that doesn't involve publishing voter info for the world to see.
Aye
Aye
Like yeah there's no reason to have this but there's also no reason not to have it.
Aye
this has passed 6-0-1 (Porflox)
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1695846
we are now debating this
Brototh
just a good bill really adds an optional second debate no reason not to have this ... i have been here 3y and so many bills have failed or restarted due to a lack of a second debate
Vedenmark
I am very sorry for my late message. I agree with what Brototh said.
let's vote on this bill then
aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Please vote aye to this bill!
Vedenmark
Aye
This bill has passed 5-0-2 (Angypt, Gifty)
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1685737
We are now debating the LR44 Coercion Amendments that... add coercion as a crime
I think the bill is too vague to be effective. I'll try to get an amendment later to restrict its scope to voting (in an election, referendum, or legislative vote) only.
How is this proposal vague?
Because we shouldn't care about non-voting related stuff, which the current proposal allows by being very general (eg. would fighting someone in roleplay count as coercion by enforcing surrender terms?)
Also, the current bribery wording is too specific in my opinion, and the coercion clause could be cover a lot of the holes there. By changing it to only be about voting, and classifying anything (including offering something of no "value") that influences a voter to vote in a way against their personal view, we can both make it more specific and actionable, while expanding it in areas that matter (including the offering of something of no "value", rather than just force and threats).
Chair Sevae
This is actually a good argument Porflox, I agree. I hadn't thought of that but you definitely make a good case. And I did think about amending a prior offence, but I was more thinking about blackmail. But other than blackmail and bribery how else can you make someone vote against their will? I guess Marv making Creck vote for the Presidency amendment (though it passed anyway) could count as coercion but then he must have had some leverage, otherwise it would just be him convincing Creck which shouldn't be criminal. It was either blackmail ("if you don't vote for, I'll expel you from FREE or we will never support you in elections again or I'll publish a hit piece on you") or bribery ("if you do vote for, I'll make you deputy chair of FREE or make you queen of Thaecia"). I'm pretty sure Marv did none of that but even if he did that wouldn't be coercion, and this Marv situation is the closest thing I could find to coercion based on Creck's statements of "why'd you make me do it"
A nation can be coerced into declaring their support for a candidate, joining an organization, publishing a certain article or writing, disclose a crime or suppressing information about a criminal offense, etc the list goes on. I guess I could see adding an exemption to role play but I don't know if that is necessary. This is an important piece to our legal code and purposefully goes beyond strictly voting and election crimes.
Mm, IÂ’ll wait on the amends and whatnot.
The problem is that once something is too general, it doesn't get enforced, and lines get blurred. Focusing on voting would make it much easier to enforce and draw the line (though it is still a bit vague if there is no written indication that the voter is voting against their personal view). I'd also want to widen it to non-threats/force (eg. I think marv mainly just relied on his position of at the very least perceived authority rather than a direct force or threat).
Here are my amendments:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1700574
After reading your amends Porfloxia, why donÂ’t you just amend Marv's amends to L.R. 044? Your amends seems like they do the same as Marvs but with different wording. Also, it said offense against the state, I assume you mean region. If so, you should change the wording from state to region.
Oops, forgot to label the removed and added portions. I'll add them in a sec.
Offenses to the state is how it is called in the Indictable Offences Act.
EDIT: Just checked the IOA
Vedenmark
Author amendments added
I strongly oppose this amendment and I urge the Senate to vote nay. What Porfloxia proposed is not even close to being coercion, which is the intent of this bill. If this amendment passes, it would be difficult to persuade others to vote a particular way since you would be flirting with this charge. In addition, if this amendment passes, you would still be able to coerce others to do something against their will with threats since this only applies to particular votes and not any other sort of action, like executive action for example.
Actias, Porfloxia
As I have stated in NS-Pol, I explained to Creck on why she should vote for the Presidency repeal bill and she replied with "okay"
Porfloxia
I totally agree on Marv - the proposed amendment totally undermines the purpose of the bill and somehow still allows the proposed crime of coercion to occur anywhere else in the region. Limiting this to voting is also needless.
Marvinville, Porfloxia
It applies explicitly to making someone vote in that is not how they want to- convincing someone through logic and reason would not violate the law. However, I have removed that portion because while it is fine in principle, enforcement could become difficult in determining whether the individual was convinced, or whether they acted in a way as a result of something else despite not believing in the way they voted.
The problem with expanding out of voting only is that lines get blurred very quickly. I've already mentioned roleplay (where someone might force someone else to do something through force/threats), but stuff like giving out cards to people to get people to do something (eg. to endorse the delegate or something). Even asking a spammer to stop spamming through the threat of suppression/ban would violate the law in its original form.
However, I do understand some of the arguments about expanding it to generally causing someone to act in a way that they don't want (eg. using your perceived authority to get someone to act in a certain way) to rather than keeping it to just "force or threats," and I have removed that change.
As such, I have made an author amendment to my ammendment.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1700574
Again, we should not limit coercion to only casting votes. In my bill, it applies to ALL situations of coercion, including forcing people to vote in a particular way if they threaten them.
Actias, Vedenmark
"but stuff like giving out cards to people to get people to do something (eg. to endorse the delegate or something)."
This is not coercion, but perhaps bribery. This would be a tough case though since it is so minor.
"Even asking a spammer to stop spamming through the threat of suppression/ban would violate the law in its original form."
There is a difference between enforcing laws of the region and someone threatening someone else to conceal a crime that was committed. So if I told someone to resign from the WA if they have multiple WA accounts or they would be WA banned, is that coercion for your view? Or how about telling someone not to vote twice using two different nations because then they would be committing voter fraud, which is a criminal offense. I believe the Court is competent enough that enforcing the laws of the region certainly does not meet the standards of coercion. And is it truly in the best interests of the spammer to keep spamming the region? I believe it would be negligent for the executive branch to not prosecute someone who possibly broke the law. But those who spam typically get banned for OOC reasons anyways even though its an IC offense.
alright, after all I do realise there's a loophole just because blackmail is such a narrow term that only concerns damaging information. On the other hand, there still is a question of whether coercion is defined too broadly. Perhaps "contrary to their own interests as long as their interests are not in conflict with Thaecian law" or something similar? That would fix the loophole Porflox pointed out, and would generally be a good idea. Marvinville what do you think?
I talked with Peeps, who sent me an amendment that I am gonna propose now
Coercion - A person is guilty of this offense if they persuade convince someone to do something contrary of to their own personal interests by using force or threats with an intent to harm the individual if the action is not carried out; threatening to or taking legal action against an individual for any reason shall not be classified as coercion.
Can we get a Justice to come and give us a brief statement on coercion, bribery, and what voter intimidation is. Or whatever you guys are on about. We are focusing to much on what is not important. We need to debate on the bill, not the word coercion or what it means to anyone. Not to be rude. Though from my interpretation we need so ordinance.
I have no idea what that last sentence means
Also, one of the Justices has submitted the amendment just presented.
I think we all understand what coercion means, we can all use google, the question is which meaning is the most reasonable according to Thaecian law. And here, Peeps' amendment does a good job of separating legal action from other threats because legal action is a legitimate way of making someone do something in a way that is, well, legal
Nevermind I got it in ns-politics
We are now voting on amendments
Amendment A by Porflox https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1700574
Amendment B by Democratized Peoples, sponsored by Marvinville
[spoiler=Amendment B]Coercion - A person is guilty of this offense if they persuade convince someone to do something contrary of to their own personal interests by using force or threats with an intent to harm the individual if the action is not carried out; threatening to or taking legal action against an individual for any reason shall not be classified as coercion.[/spoiler]
A - Nay
B - Aye
I would like to withdraw ammendment A
A-Nay
B-Aye
B: Aye
B: Aye
The amendment has passed.
We are now voting on the whole bill
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1685737
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
This has passed 6-0-1 (Gifty)
We are now debating the nomination of Angypt for Culture Minister
angypt is cool
Creckelenney
Personally, I plan on voting nay. As a Senator, Angypt is barely able to debate and vote on bills, why should I trust him to run an entire ministry? I wonÂ’t. Unless he is able to show me some of his experiences with said ministry, nonetheless his interest, I will consider to change my current position on this. Until then, no.
I have a fairly decent amount of experience with the ministry, and I have a lot of ideas on how the ministry can change in order to change from what essentially amounts to a ministry that will occasionally run an event that will be barely attended to ones that are consistently hosted. I suspect that this will help to bolster the ministry to have more of a presence, which should help us to have much greater participation, which, at the end of the day, is the goal. More people joining events means more people engaging as a whole, and it all starts with having a more consistent and diverse collection of events. If people would like, I can post a list of events that I have considered to be realistic and likely to be enjoyable for all involved.
Great response, please do post your ideas.
Excellent, I will do so momentarily
I would love to bring the movie night into a consistent tradition. One thing I would really like to do would be some sort of puzzle that lasts a couple of weeks so that people can bandwagon on if they want to. Additionally, I would really like to make the hunger games a regular tradition. Who does not like some good old fashioned violence? My thoughts would be to host a new one every time we have a full election. We could run it one of two ways. One would be to have all of the newly elected officials compete, plus some community members who are very well-known, but who were not elected. The other would be to have people volunteer themselves as tribute, which would allow for more community engagement, but it might not be as interesting. If we did go with the first one, a good option to keep people engaged would be to a betting pool, where everyone would start with a set amount of "credits" and be able to bet on who gets taken out first and who the winner might be.
Sevae
Splendid, these ideas can bring great festivity and activity to the community. My last question is about dedication and activeness. As a Senator, you have not really shown much activeness within the debates. How can I trust you to run an entire ministry with the little to no participation in debating as a Senator?
In essence, I usually engage in debate when I feel like the debate is necessary or important. If you look at my history, I very rarely miss a vote. I admit that I should probably be a touch more active when it comes to debates, but often I simply do not see a purpose. In terms of the ministry, you can trust that I can run the ministry because there is a legitimate need for activity in the space, given that has been our largest issue in the past. In retrospect, I can certainly do more on debates, even if it is as simple as simply stating my support or lack thereof for the bill.
Thanks for your answers, nothing more from me.
I believe that Angypt will make a wonder Culture Minister and I support his nomination fully.
I guess there isn't much to add from me. Apart from: what will you do to increase the visibility of the ministry? I feel like even in Kerovia's term there wasn't much that was visible to everyone. I'd like to see some tangible results within 2 weeks and I hope you can promise that
additionally, what are your plans for recruiting staff?
Starting with the first question, I would absolutely love to get more visibility for the ministry. The best thing I can do is to get more people with the CM Pings role. I know it is a small change, but as was demonstrated with the most recent movie night, people simply do not know these events are happening. I want to make sure that CM Pings becomes a reaction role so that we can actually get people to use it. I will start with a Hunger Games event to get some buzz going, and I'll give some reminders to join the role for future events.
As for the second question, I think the best thing that we could do would be to have a smallish group of consistent volunteers. Actias has been very helpful in setting up the movie night, and I would love to continue working with him to make more of these happen. Other staff will probably be recruited on a case by case basis. It very much depends on what the demands for the ministry are. If we start hosting more events with different demands, I will look in to recruiting additional staff to help handle the additional work. In the ministry's current state, I think that a smaller staff group is best.
alright, looking forward to it
Angypt do you have any plans to the creation of a cards program?
Angypt how do you plan to engage more with the less shall we say involved nations in helping develop the culture of Thaecia more going forward?
Starting with Porflox's question, my answer is an apprehensive no. If the demand is present, I would be more than happy to create a program, but I worry about spreading ourselves too thin. Once the ministry is back up and running and the activity levels have increased, I would feel more comfortable creating this program. If there is enough support, I would be more than happy to set this up. If I am confirmed, I will put out a poll in a week or two to gauge the community's interest.
As for Gifty's question, I think that the best thing we can do is to run consistent events, and they will start to see more of the ministry. As it stands, the programs the ministry has run feel like they are secretive, and I want to try to bring it more into the public eye. I know I have mentioned a lot, but I very much think that running the hunger games events more regularly will be fantastic for developing Thaecia's culture. It is simply perfect for everything that I want to do with the ministry. It gets people personally invested in the event and people can see people who are active in the community, which helps for people who are very new or not very involved in the community.
Gifty, Porfloxia
I apologise for the delay. We are now voting
My vote is Aye
Aye
I will have to Abstain After paying attention to the actions of Angypt here in the Senate, I can not vote Aye with good mind. I love the ideas but I will have to abstain.
I feel that Angypt seems to have great enthusiasm for the position and I hope that he can carry out the ideas he had suggested. So with that in mind.
I vote Aye
Aye
aye
I'll abstain, obviously.
the nominee is confirmed 5-0-2
I motion for unanimous consent to confirm Toerana V again as Communications Minister, apparently there was an argument that led to his resignation but now he wants to continue in his role and has been renominated
I acknowledge this motion
Brototh
Just to clarify there was a bit of a heated argument. It happens to the best of us. I apologise for the inconvenience caused to the senators. Bow is a very good comms minister. Feel free to reach out to me on discord if you would like any more info. I would appreciate it if we could get this done swiftly
I would look clarification on this as it seems if someone who is quick to anger and resign in the heat of the moment may not necessarily be the best choice?
If decent clarification is not given I will oppose this.
Currently Nay but will revise based on response.
I acknowledge the motion. As a member of the Communications Ministry, I have seen Bow constantly staying on top of his duty, getting it done. Creating threads and more. Despite the fact he resigned over complicated issues, he has shown me that he takes his position seriously and will continue to progress in his role. Not to mention, I personally think that he is the best Minister we currently have.
Brototh, Toerana V
I acknowledge this motion
Brototh
I acknowledge the motion
Brototh
I acknowledge the motion
Ok after discussion on this topic I am willing to revise my decision on the basis of the following :-
1/ This is the only time this can happen and Bows next resignation (If) is taken 100% seriously.
2/ Going forward he follows the agreement he has made in regards to grievances.
If these two can be agreed to I will change my vote from Nay to Aye.
Having discussed it and had assurances made to my points I am happy to support the motion.
the motion has passed, and Toerana V is reconfirmed
Toerana V
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1703707
We are now debating the Senate classes amendment
I believe this is perfect. It is a wonderful proposal and it will make Thaecia a better region per representation. In return IÂ’m on-board with the idea.
I am very much not a fan of it, I don't like that we'd have two elections for the Senate, allowing the large parties (mostly FREE) to get twice as many candidates elected as they are now. They could get 4 people elected out of 10 if not more, like 6.
Additionally, we would have to reduce the House to 7 seats right away because we oh so clearly don't have space for 21 legislators to be elected. I'm definitely more of a fan of a potential citizen's assembly proposal that would let everyone participate but with a unicameral chamber that would make sure the people don't pass anything harmful
Gifty, Actias, Creckelenney
Big post incoming:
[spoiler=Article IV - The Legislative Branch]> Section IÂ… Sub-section II - The upper chamber shall be known as the Senate and it shall contain no less than five eight Senators.
Huh?
> Section II Â…and the Senate must always contain an even number of seats.
HUH?
> Section II - Either chamber may be expanded or reduced by a motion passed with a 2/3rds 3/5ths majorityÂ
> Section III Â…every two months.
Yeah I guess that makes sense.
> Section IVÂ… Sub-section II Â…In the event a Chamber is equally divided on a bill the Prime Minister shall cast a tie-breaking vote. If they do not vote then the bill will fail.
Okay but what if instead we don't make the senate have an odd number of seats?
> Section VÂ… Sub-section I Â…Alternatives to these votes may be provided for by law so long as they align with these three options.
Okay? I can't really think of any other voting options we would need but sure. No reason not to.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Article VIII - Elections and Referendums]
> Section II Scheduled elections for the whole House of Commons shall be held approximately every two months. Elections for half of the Senate will be held approximately every two months, and Senators shall serve a four month term. The first half of the Senate shall be known as 'Class A' and shall be elected during scheduled House of Commons midterm elections. The second half shall be known as 'Class B' and shall be elected during scheduled Prime Minister elections. The Elections for the Prime Minister will be held approximately every four months. Elections for the Delegacy shall be approximately every four months during scheduled House of Commons midterm elections.
I don't like it. In fact, I almost hate it, but I can see the logic behind it.
> Section VI (Senate Elections) - Term lengths for the current Senate will take retrospective effect. Current Senators will be assigned Classes based on alphabetical order A-Z on short nation name; the first half of Senators shall be assigned Class A and the second half shall be assigned Class B. Any vacant seats created by the Senate Classes constitutional amendments will be assigned so the classes are of an even number and these seats shall remain vacant until their respective regularly scheduled elections. Once the whole Senate is filled to the total number of seats in the below section, this section and that section shall be struck null, void, and must be removed.
> Section VII (Senate Size) - The Senate shall consist of 10 seats.
Okay? This is confusing me right now, so I'll just think about it and come back to it later.
[/spoiler]
Actias
[spoiler=My Thoughts]Sub-section II - The upper chamber shall be known as the Senate and it shall contain no less than five eight Senators.
If our activity fell at all this summer, eight would be a stretch. Five is a good and proper minimum at this time.
______________
Section II - Either chamber may be expanded or reduced by a motion passed with a 2/3rds 3/5ths majority in each chamber and the approval of the citizenry with a 3/5ths majority vote in a referendum. The House must always contain an odd number of seats and the Senate must always contain an even number of seats.
No point in this, other than an attempt to introduce some cultural oddity or ceremony. Take it or leave it, but it is a useless limiting principle.
______________
Sub-section II - In order for a treaty to be ratified, it must be presented to the Senate by the Prime Minister and be ratified by the Senate with a simple majority vote. In the event a Chamber is equally divided on a bill the Prime Minister shall cast a tie-breaking vote. If they do not vote then the bill will fail.
Is this grouped with the ratification of a treaty because it is referring to a tie on a treaty vote exclusively? If so, why does the Prime Minister get to exercise such a power on a singular event? If not, why is this grouped as such?
______________
Sub-section I - Only aye, nay, abstain, and votes for chamber leader candidates shall count as votes for the purposes of this section. Alternatives to these votes may be provided for by law so long as they align with these three options.
Another addition with no real motivation? Take it or leave it, its harmless.
______________
Section II - Scheduled elections for the House of Commons shall be held approximately every two months and elections for the Prime Minister, and the Senate shall be held approximately every 4 months. The World Assembly Delegate shall be elected every four months, at the approximate midpoint between Prime Ministerial elections at the same time as the House of Commons midterm elections.
Scheduled elections for the whole House of Commons shall be held approximately every two months. Elections for half of the Senate will be held approximately every two months, and Senators shall serve a four month term. The first half of the Senate shall be known as 'Class A' and shall be elected during scheduled House of Commons midterm elections. The second half shall be known as 'Class B' and shall be elected during scheduled Prime Minister elections. The Elections for the Prime Minister will be held approximately every four months. Elections for the Delegacy shall be approximately every four months during scheduled House of Commons midterm elections.
What is the point of this? Is this, as most of this proposal is, change for the sake of change? I can understand a desire to diversify the positions available in elections, with mid-terms being more than a competition for the House. But, why shouldn't it be? What difference dose it make? Change a system for the sake of change, even if the change reflects a nearly cosmetic revision such as this proposal, will bring a real potential to harm the system. And of course the idea that this is a politically motivated change to aid 'big parties' is a real one that could also be in play. Whatever. But in reality this is change for the sake of change, the worst kind of reform there is. This proposal adds no value to our current system.
______________
Section VII (Senate Size) - The Senate shall consist of 10 seats.
As previously stated, unless the House gets gutted this makes zero sense. Especially coming up on summer which has been a slow season for NationStates since the first regions were created. So, no.[/spoiler]
Gifty, Creckelenney, Vedenmark
I haven't read it very closely yet though I agree with its general principles. Not sure about the support for this, though imo having the house also get 4 month terms would be beneficial to allow everyone enough time to do the stuff they want to do, and it could go in as an amendment to this bill.
Please withdraw this bill.. I am going to make an emergency 'author amendment' replacing the entire text of the bill with the letter "Q" to force its withdrawal. The reasoning is that the bill has some serious textual errors that I need to fix. While the main substance of the bill ie introducing classes to the senate will remain the same, the actual written quality of the bill is poor and needs fixing. I rushed this bill to give the senate business and so it is not in a finished state. The Prime Minister's office will provide the senate with some completed business shortly if the Rt. Hon Chairman requests.
I am tabling this bill
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.