OOC Thread and Chatroom

**The Celtic Viking** · 03-12-2009, 16:49

As I said, rule 4.5 does say a praetor must sponsor it, so it isn't allowed.

**/Bean\** · 03-12-2009, 16:53

So we basically need to change the last CA; rather than no Praetor, say no Praetor availiable. I take it a Praetor cannot sponser more than one house at a time?

**mini** · 03-12-2009, 16:58

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

As I said, rule 4.5 does say a praetor must sponsor it, so it isn't allowed.

And as I said: the rule says a praetor must sponser it.
The rule does not say that creating a house via congressional session is not allowed..
Basically everything is allowed in a congressional session.. if you don't want it, vote against it.
But they do have the legal option to force creation on a house through the Senate session. They just propose their law as: "Creation of House XX without the requirement of a praetor sponsering"
Then all can vote for or against and that's the end of that. Nothing you can do about it.

Originally Posted by _Bean_

So we basically need to change the last CA; rather than no Praetor, say no Praetor availiable. I take it a Praetor cannot sponser more than one house at a time?

No, 1 house / praetor. See my pm concerning the problem. Should be the solution

**The Celtic Viking** · 03-12-2009, 17:04

Originally Posted by mini

And as I said: the rule says a praetor must sponser it.
The rule does not say that creating a house via congressional session is not allowed..
EVERYTHING is allowed in a congressional session.. if you don't want it, vote against it.
But they do have the legal option to force creating on a house through the Senate session.

If there is no praetor to sponsor it, it can't be created. An edict that would propose a house to be created when there is no praestor sponsoring it would thus be invalid.

Also, please don't strawman my position. I have simply said it is impossible under the current rules, and proposed that they should make a CA to change this if that's what they want. That's their only option (unless they can get Cotta to sponsor it, of course), and that's all I'm saying.

**mini** · 03-12-2009, 17:06

And I say that if they create a law like I said, there is nothing you nor the rules can do about it, since it is a legally voted law with a clear overruling of what is currently in the existing law.

Since there is no * in front of rule 4.5, this is not a core law and can be bypassed.
The way I explained above is totally legal.

**SwissBarbar** · 03-12-2009, 17:08

You 2 realize, that you both actually agree, right?

**/Bean\** · 03-12-2009, 17:11

Oh not again. You keep doing this Mini

**The Celtic Viking** · 03-12-2009, 17:12

Originally Posted by mini

And I say that if they create a law like I said, there is nothing you nor the rules can do about it, since it is a legally voted law with a clear overruling of what is currently in the existing law.

Since there is no * in front of rule 4.5, this is not a core law and can be bypassed.
The way I explained above is totally legal.

No law can be bypassed. It can be changed or taken away through a Charter Amendment (which is what I proposed they should do), but it must be followed if it's in the law and any edict that contradicts it is invalid.

The lack of a * simply means it can be modified through CAs, nothing else.

**mini** · 03-12-2009, 17:21

Originally Posted by _Bean_

Oh not again. You keep doing this Mini

Why is it me you direct your comment to? I merely stated they could push it through congress and TCV started argueing...

Besides, there is a difference here..
He says it can only be done by CA
I say that from a legal point of view, an edict is also possible.
They would have to vote their house every sessions, but it's possible :)

Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking

No law can be bypassed. It can be changed or taken away through a Charter Amendment (which is what I proposed they should do), but it must be followed if it's in the law and any edict that contradicts it is invalid.

The lack of a * simply means it can be modified through CAs, nothing else.

Like I said: if they propose the creating of their house, their house becomes a part of the collection of laws. Nothing you can do about it.

Of course a CA would make it permanent, but there's nothing illegal about creating an edict which clearly makes an exception to a certain law. That's democracy.