Ator People
TNPer
Looks good to me!
TNP Civil Code Omnibus Law
- Thread starter Romanoffia
- Start date
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Looks good to me.
I would like to move this to a vote (hence, formal discussion will follow).
I would like to move this to a vote (hence, formal discussion will follow).
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
This proposal is now in formal debate. Formal debate shall end in five days, at which time a vote will be scheduled.
Treize_Dreizehn
TNPer
The changes that have been made were excellent, and in line with what I've been suggesting, so I support this wholeheartedly.
Erm.
Won't this bill effectively bar any civil cases, as there are no offenses listed in the section where they are required to be listed?
Won't this bill effectively bar any civil cases, as there are no offenses listed in the section where they are required to be listed?
Ator People
TNPer
The bill provides the framework for defining civil offenses. Right now there is no such framework, except for a passing reference to civil cases in the Constitution. So while we have clear definitions of criminal offenses, we're left to guess whether we have 0 civil offenses or ? civil offenses or somewhere in between. I'd rather not force the Courts to legislate what constitutes a civil offense without at least a little bit of guidance from this Assembly.SillyString:
I also hope that, should this bill succeed, it encourages members of this Assembly to propose amendments to the civil code defining civil offenses. Already it seems there's a desire to see defamation listed as a civil offense, and that would be a good first amendment to the Code.
So that's a yes, then? Failing further legislation, civil cases will become impossible?
Cool by me!
Cool by me!
Can someone explain to me what "real damages" might be? We are playing an online game, for feck's sake. I am hard pushed to think of any real damage that might occur.
Damage to reputation? How is that quantified, and at what point does it become "real". As the case of Flemingovia vs grosse showed, this can be an important detail.
Damage to reputation? How is that quantified, and at what point does it become "real". As the case of Flemingovia vs grosse showed, this can be an important detail.
- Discord
- COE#7110
If there can't be any real damages, then why do we even need civil cases?
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
SillyString:
Well, either way, there will be civil cases especially if the RA creates laws pertaining to punishable offenses that don't rise to the level of a crime.
As it is right now, every offense is a crime and being a crime, the court could ban/eject or otherwise eliminate nations willy-nilly if said nations are convicted of a crime. A civil code with specific limitations on the severity of a punishment would preclude that should prosecutors or judges become over-zealous in sentencing.
A civil code also allows for the RA to create civil laws pertaining to generally shitty or unacceptable behavior. For instance, slander/libel/defamation per se would be a 'misdemeanor' for which a civil punishment could be handed down in a limited fashion.
flemingovia:
Well, 'real' damage could be the result of harassment or defamation which disrupts a nation's ability to function on the forum or in the region. An example is that if someone's defamatory remarks made with malice and forethought were to result in someone getting 'piled on' as a result of defamatory and/or false accusations, it would be considered 'real damage'.
Also, with the advent of a civil code, certain offenses would by design be misdemeanors - in which case 'real damage' to a specific individual would not have to be proved. A real life example is if one were to take a crap on someone's front door step as a prank, no real damage would have been done, but it would be a misdemeanor in terms of trespassing/vandalism/malicious mischief.
Also, given the growing support to legislate anti-Defamation per se/Libel/Slander laws, I think that these should fall in the realm of civil law and we should have the tools to punish in a meaningful way such misdemeanors regardless of 'real' damage.
Simply put, if someone has merely been submitted to the abuse of false accusations or defamation, being subjected to such abuse constitutes 'real damages'.
It is presumed that one has a right to not be abused by defamatory and false statements intended to subject a person to unjust ridicule or other abuse.
I am not sure that your definition of "real damage" would hold up in court. Certainly if I were accused, my first line of defence would be to argue that no "real damage" had been sustained.
No. Scratch that. My first line of defence would be to refuse to recognise the validity of the court and turn up. that seems to work best in TNP.
No. Scratch that. My first line of defence would be to refuse to recognise the validity of the court and turn up. that seems to work best in TNP.
Treize_Dreizehn
TNPer
That's a very very common defense in real life as well. I think successful civil cases will be, and should be rare. The bar should be extremely high, since we have to use criminal penalties to deal with it.flemingovia:
Ator People
TNPer
I would be open to clarifying that there are two classes of civil offenses: misdemeanors or suits between citizens. I would assume the former would be easier to prove, whereas the latter would be more difficult since there would be more room for judicial discretion.Romanoffia:
Either way the way clause 2 is phrased didn't make it clear to me that misdemeanors and suits are two categories of different civil offenses.
Maybe something like this?
Still not sure if that clarifies your intention...I think more needs to be done with this clause.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
That edit works quite nicely to clarify the point.
Here's the edit reflecting the change in item 2:
Here's the edit reflecting the change in item 2:
Ator People
TNPer
So the phrase, "that arise from disputes between citizens where the plaintiff(s) have sustained actual damages" defines "suites", but not "misdemeanors", is that correct? And both of these are considered "civil offenses"?Romanoffia:
I don't necessarily have a problem with the current wording, I'm just trying to determine if the confusion I'm seeing is purely on my end or if it would be cause for confusion in the Courts as well.
EDIT: Maybe just swap the two types of offenses? So:
Another option (not sure if this is what you were intending though):
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Olvern
- Discord
- lordnwahs
Formal Debate has ended. A vote will be scheduled after the next two days.
Ator People
TNPer
Can I make a motion to extend debate?
You cannot. You could, however, formally object to the speaker's decision to schedule a vote, which would give the speaker discretion to either reschedule the vote for a later time or - what I believe you want - send the bill back for more changes.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Olvern
- Discord
- lordnwahs
This.SillyString:
It requires 3 people (I think) to object to the bill being moved to a vote for such a rescheduling to occur.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
The problem with that is that it essentially stifles the bill altogether.
Is it possible to make a motion to extend the debate for 72 hours?
Is it possible to make a motion to extend the debate for 72 hours?
Ator People
TNPer
Then I would like to formally object to the speaker's decision to schedule a vote and request that the speaker consider sending the bill back to the floor for a further debate before it goes to a vote. I think there are some final adjustments that need to be made before this is ready.SillyString:
I am willing to withdraw my objection at Romanoffia's request.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I will second Ator's objection (unless he chooses to withdraw it.)
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Olvern
- Discord
- lordnwahs
That (to my knowledge) is not possible, you could second the motion to object to the move to vote though (which will stop voting from occurring)Romanoffia:
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
OK, off to a vote!
Just make sure you get the final version.
Just make sure you get the final version.
Treize_Dreizehn
TNPer
If this is accurate, I'll be the third objection(as I believe Ator and Grosse are the first two). I'd much rather we get this right the first time and have to fix it later. I think Romanoffia has a good handle on what needs to be fiddled with(as per Ator's suggestions), but I of course will withdraw this objection if the version going to vote is the latest edit, rather than the version we had at the start of the formal debate.Lord Nwahs:
This is in no way a statement of opposition to the substance of the piece, but rather a commitment to ensuring we have the best legislation we can have here.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Olvern
- Discord
- lordnwahs
Since three people object, the scheduled vote is cancelled until someone moves to vote again.Treize_Dreizehn:If this is accurate, I'll be the third objection(as I believe Ator and Grosse are the first two). I'd much rather we get this right the first time and have to fix it later. I think Romanoffia has a good handle on what needs to be fiddled with(as per Ator's suggestions), but I of course will withdraw this objection if the version going to vote is the latest edit, rather than the version we had at the start of the formal debate.Lord Nwahs:
This is in no way a statement of opposition to the substance of the piece, but rather a commitment to ensuring we have the best legislation we can have here.
Ator People
TNPer
With debate continuing, can we work on finalizing clause 2?
My recent proposal was something like this, but I want to clarify whether this conveys the author's original intent:
My recent proposal was something like this, but I want to clarify whether this conveys the author's original intent:
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
It has the same effect as the second clause.
The version going to vote should be this:
The version going to vote should be this:
Ator People
TNPer
Then I guess it makes sense to go ahead and send this to the floor? I motion for a vote.
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
I should note that the motion to vote will require the support of at least six members, including Romanoffia, in order for the bill to move to vote. The motion currently has the support of one member.
Ator People
TNPer
Point of order, Mr. Speaker: why was this not necessary when the bill was moved to a vote the first time?Zyvetskistaahn:
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
The first motion to vote was under the provisions of the Standing Orders before an objection to the proposal to the Speaker's decision to schedule a vote was made, now that such an objection has been successful the proposal may only be voted upon under the RA Rules provision to hold an immediate vote as under that provision it is not the decision of the Speaker on whether and when the vote may be held.Ator People:
I motion to vote.
good Secular, TNP is bound up by red tape.
good Secular, TNP is bound up by red tape.
Treize_Dreizehn
TNPer
I motion to vote.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
A motion for this to go to a vote.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
- TNP Nation
- Olvern
- Discord
- lordnwahs
I motion for this to go to vote as well.
Therefore, this bill shall be voted upon after the conclusion of the current legislative vote, as the motion to vote has met the required amount of support from at least six members.
Therefore, this bill shall be voted upon after the conclusion of the current legislative vote, as the motion to vote has met the required amount of support from at least six members.
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
To note, two legislative votes can take place at the same time and, accordingly, I shall open a vote on this bill forthwith.Lord Nwahs:
This is actually completely untrue. The author of a bill that has been objected to can still push their bill forward into formal debate as they wish, and request it be shortened if it has been there before, which is at the Speaker's discretion. It is only if the Speaker refuses to allow a move into Formal Debate, or people want a vote immediately, that that a 1/10 support motion is required.Zyvetskistaahn:
Ator People
TNPer
Considering this bill failed by one vote, is there an interest in reopening discussion and potentially putting forth a modified version that could get more support?