[Draft] State Code of Osiris

Post by **Revert** » Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:57 am

Just wanted to stop in and say that I'll comment on this soon. Life has been unexpectedly busy the last couple days.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:58 am

Okay, the OP has been updated with a revised draft.

The revised draft includes a somewhat revised version of Treize Dreizehn's challenge system (Section 3) given that it's overwhelmingly favored in the informal poll (here) and incorporates a revised version of Josh Sebastian's judicial draft (Section 5). It also addresses other concerns raised here and there throughout the thread, as well as adding a couple new sections on citizenship and rights of citizens (Section 6) and forum administration (Section 7).

There is a bullet point list, by section, of all revisions made in a spoiler below the revised draft.

Thoughts?

Prussia · Post by **Prussia** » Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:07 pm

I like it.

Treize Dreizehn · Post by **Treize Dreizehn** » Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:10 pm

I have yet to give the updated version a full review. However, the relatively minor changes to the challenge system I outline seemed satisfactory.

Dennrick · Post by **Dennrick** » Thu Dec 19, 2013 11:00 pm

The new draft looks good.

Charles Cerebella · Post by **Charles Cerebella** » Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:01 am

Looks good!

barrios · Post by **barrios** » Sun Dec 22, 2013 7:02 pm

Looks good

Theoden Sebastian · Post by **Theoden Sebastian** » Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:59 am

Aye, good job!

Treize Dreizehn · Post by **Treize Dreizehn** » Mon Dec 23, 2013 8:12 pm

Alright, after giving it a good look over I see only two possible issues. First of all, I think the WA Department ought to be a mandatory department.

Second, 3.1.a should read "Should a challenge election be initiated by the Deshret" where initiated takes the place of "approved", As far as language goes "approved" seems to indicate there's a chance the Deshret could not approve a challenge, when nothing in the text really indicates that. It caught my eye the other day, and it did it again today, so I'm pointing it out.

Other than that, I think it's a solid piece of legislation. I'd love to have some other people who are experts on drafting law give this a once over as well to seek out any problems or issues we might've forgotten to include(or accidentally included ourselves).

I'd hate for us to have to amend it right out of the gate(or cancel/scuttle a vote on it because we noticed something was wrong).

Edit: And I just had this thought, will all our voting be public? I suppose as there are vote administrators, it's not required that we set that in stone(and I prefer a public vote so we can avoid some of the same problems we had in Old Osiris). But the challenge system would seem to lend itself to public spectacle, as a feature rather than a bug.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Wed Dec 25, 2013 8:03 pm

I'm fine with making the WA Affairs Department mandatory, but my thinking there is that the Delegate is directly responsible for the WA so he may, depending on who he is, want to handle that himself rather than appointing a minister. For example, as Pharaoh I essentially handled the WA Department myself. That's why it isn't mandatory in this draft. But if others believe it should be mandatory, it's not a huge sticking point for me personally.

I'm not entirely clear on what you're trying to say with the difference between "approve" and "initiate."

The method of voting isn't mandated in this draft and I really don't think it should be in the constitution, I think it should rather be mandated by statute or by election administrators. For the record though, I too support fully public voting and this election for Keeper will have public voting.