Regional Officer Amendment to the Bill of Rights

No, I don't think it is redundant. Even if it is legal for a nation to be banjected, that does not mean it should be legal for *anyone* to banject them. I think the Delegate should be the one doing that the vast majority of the time, except in rare cases where they may be on a leave of absence, or if the delegate has gone rogue, or something like that.
 
Right! That makes sense.

Now I'll come back and consider whether the several prohibitions are correctly ordered and punctuated in the sentence.
 
Version 2 looks good to me. Nothing redundant in it, and the grammar and syntax look fine upon first examination.
 
Comparing the version 2 in the OP to the version 3 I am considering, we get:

8. No Nnation shall may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt and immediat erecourse to judicial review of the matter. No person shall grant or exercise; nor may they be granted the power of ejection to eject or banning from The North Pacific; nor may they use that power, unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a governmental authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code.
Click to expand...

Comparing the same version 3 to the current text in force:

8. No nNation shall may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum, except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Legal Code. ; nor may they be granted the power to eject or ban from The North Pacific; nor may they use that power, Should any official of a governmental authority of the region with authority to act, declare that the immediate ejection or banning of a Nation is an urgent matter of regional security they may order the ejection or banning of the nation. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt and immediate recourse to judicial review of the matter. The WA Delegate shall not exercise the power of ejection or banning unless expressly authorized by a specific action of a government authority of the region pursuant to the Constitution or to the Legal Code.
Click to expand...

What jumps out to me is that I seem to have accidentally removed the sentence guaranteeing access to judicial review. I definitely want to put that back in. Will muse on how to do that.

Edit: it seems obvious that this is a good way to go:

8. No nation may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum; nor may they be granted the power to eject or ban from The North Pacific; nor may they use that power, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt recourse to judicial review of the matter.
Click to expand...

("prompt and immediate" feels redundant <_< )
 
I think saying it will have recourse to judicial review is better than saying it has the right to judicial review. I would prefer will to shall, but that is a matter for a different bill.
 
No, it's really not. There's no reason to introduce a problem that will need to be amended when you could just... not. :P

And I'm not a huge fan of the "recourse" phrasing, either.
 
Bah and now I have a question about punctuation: I'm worried that my use of semicolons and comma in that first sentence might be incorrect.
 
Eluvatar:
Bah and now I have a question about punctuation: I'm worried that my use of semicolons and comma in that first sentence might be incorrect.
Click to expand...
Having reread it, I think the use of commas in place of semicolons would be more grammatically correct. So if we were to amend it with the use of commas instead of semicolons, it would read:

Bill of Rights Change:
No Nation may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum, nor may they be granted the power to eject or ban from The North Pacific, nor may they use that power, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt recourse to judicial review of the matter.
Click to expand...

How does that look?
 
Feels wrong to me that the same punctuation would be used between list items, and separating the final clause of the sentence ("unless expressly authorized...").

Any experts of English punctuation about?
 
Really, it's going to look wrong no matter what. Here's the grammatically correct version, unless I'm somehow wrong:
No Nation may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum; nor may they be granted the power to eject or ban from The North Pacific; nor may they use that power unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt recourse to judicial review of the matter.
Click to expand...
Semicolons can delineate lists if list items themselves contain commas. The "unless" phrase isn't a clause, so it shouldn't have a comma.

It still looks unclear to me, though, since the "unless" part looks like it only applies to the last item in the list. I tried moving it around, but I couldn't make it clearer.
 
Darcania:
Really, it's going to look wrong no matter what. Here's the grammatically correct version, unless I'm somehow wrong:
No Nation may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum; nor may they be granted the power to eject or ban from The North Pacific; nor may they use that power unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt recourse to judicial review of the matter.
Click to expand...
Semicolons can delineate lists if list items themselves contain commas. The "unless" phrase isn't a clause, so it shouldn't have a comma.

It still looks unclear to me, though, since the "unless" part looks like it only applies to the last item in the list. I tried moving it around, but I couldn't make it clearer.
Click to expand...
I like the changes you made, and personally prefer semicolons for the reason you described. However, due to lack of clarity with the last clause, commas have the effect of making the entire sentence one complete thought. With the whole sentence tied together, the "unless" part is more clear.
 
Ash:
I like the changes you made, and personally prefer semicolons for the reason you described. However, due to lack of clarity with the last clause, commas have the effect of making the entire sentence one complete thought. With the whole sentence tied together, the "unless" part is more clear.
Click to expand...
I don't really think that'll make it much clearer. There is likely a way to make it both clear and grammatically correct. I'll give it a think and get back when I can.
 
Trying to fit all that into one sentence means there's no good way to do it. I submit the following language which does not change the meaning of the proposal:

8. No nation may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. No nation may use or be granted the power to eject or ban from The North Pacific unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code.
Click to expand...
 
I was going to reply with the same suggestion earlier, Kondratev, but I'm glad you beat me to the punch. Separating out the clauses into two sentences resolves the clarity issue and makes it less like legalese. The amendment now reads as follows:

A Bill to Amend the Bill of Rights:
1. Clause 8 of the Bill of Rights will be amended to the following:
8. No nation may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. No nation may use or be granted the power to eject or ban from The North Pacific unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt recourse to judicial review of the matter.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have a new idea:

Unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code, no nation may be ejected or banned from the region, or banned from any forum, nor granted the power to eject or ban from The North Pacific, nor may they use that power. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt recourse to judicial review of the matter.
Click to expand...

By putting the unless first, I think it makes it completely unambiguous that it applies to the whole list.
 
I'm not sure it's quite correct in grammar, but that's really just nit-picky stuff. It's good enough for government work.

I also move for a vote.
 
It looks like people want to move forward with this, but I just want to wait for Eluvatar to post again and confirm his final language for the proposal. We did talk about it in Discord and he said he wanted some time to think.
 
The alternative language which was discussed on Discord looks like this:

The power of ejection and banning shall not be granted or exercised unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt recourse to judicial review of the matter.
Click to expand...

The concern is that this language would remove the explicit prohibition on arbitrary forum bans. (The Constitution explicitly allows for forum staff to enforce the Terms of Service and moderation policies.)

Perhaps this is still grammatically cleaner:

The regional power of ejection and banning shall not be granted or exercised, nor forum bans imposed, unless expressly authorized pursuant to the Constitution or the Legal Code. Any ejected or banned nation shall have prompt recourse to judicial review of the matter.
Click to expand...
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
The Bill is now in formal debate. Formal debate will conclude in five days, at which time a vote shall be scheduled.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Zyvet. I'm a bit rusty on RA rules and procedure, so forgive me if I'm motioning on a bill that has already been moved.

Having reread the latest wording of the proposed amendment, I find it to be much cleaner and easier to understand. I am still in favor of passing the amendment.
 
There is no need to move for different variations in wording, Eluvatar can simply make the amendments needed to the version contained in the OP. Additionally, as this is a legislative proposal, it can only be moved by Eluvatar as its proposer.
 
I have updated the OP with my latest draft, which I am pretty satisfied with.

If there are comments on it, they would certainly still be welcome, however.
 
Unfortunately, I will be voting against this bill. I am quite dissatisfied with the two (two! uses of "shall" in the final language, which will both require future amendation for clarity, and the rest of the clause feels stilted and awkward to parse.

If there are two other citizens who would care to join me so we can fix this, I object to the Speaker's decision to schedule a vote.

RA Procedures:
3. If, before a vote on a proposal begins, at least three citizens object to the decision of the Speaker to schedule it, the Speaker must cancel the scheduled vote.
Click to expand...
 
I think removing shall would be a matter for another bill, applicable to the entire bill of rights. As it is, consistency of style in that document would be appropriate.

At this point, I am uninterested in grammatical complaints that are not associated with a suggested wording.
 
Kondratev:
If "shall" was changed to "will," would that satisfy those objecting?
Click to expand...
Too late for that:

RA Standing Procedures:
During the five days after a vote is called for, the citizen who introduced the proposal may continue to amend it. This period, hereafter referred to as Formal Debate, may be shortened at the citizen who introduced the proposal's request. Once Formal Debate has ended, the proposal may no longer be amended, and the Speaker will schedule a vote to begin no fewer than two days hence.
Click to expand...
 
Noting the Attorney General's opposition, I'll go ahead and object to the scheduled vote.

That makes three. The vote is off the table for now.

I think everyone wants this amendment to pass, but let's do it in the simplest way possible which satisfies everyone. We can move for a vote again in a day or two and expedite things as much as possible. Better to do that than waste even more time with a contentious vote and a future proposal to amend the amendment.
 
For further clarification, I simply consider Asta's argument valid. Especially on the matter of banning and ejection, there should not be the slightest room for interpretation. In most cases I would have no problem with "shall," but I would hate to see someone try to use the language to weasel into justifying a legally questionable ban or ejection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top