OOC Thread and Chatroom

[/Bean\]

In the Fourth Congressional Council - Legislation Voting he have voted upon this matter:





The rule is the same, it only does not need the confirmation of the "Dictator" anymore.


And in the Fifth Congressional Council - Legislation Voting we decided this:




A vote of the senate would be necessary. But however it is, you must be a Quaestor to form a house in any case.

And now there is a standing Praetor, so this rule is no longer valid.

[mini]

Correct

The edict clearily states: IF no standing praetor, vote in senate


There IS a standing praetor atm, so it must be requested of the current praetor.


Nevertheless, nothing stops potocello from issueing an edict to start a house. As this is a democracy, any law may be proposed.

So Mooks: my advice is: get Potocello to propose an edict, calling your house into creation. Have your members seconding this proposal, so it will go to the votes.
If enough people vote yes, your house will be made by law, no matter what the rules say.
There is no rule in the faq that forbids you to create your house this way.

[The Celtic Viking]

Nevertheless, nothing stops potocello from issueing an edict to start a house. As this is a democracy, any law may be proposed.

So Mooks: my advice is: get Potocello to propose an edict, calling your house into creation. Have your members seconding this proposal, so it will go to the votes.
If enough people vote yes, your house will be made by law, no matter what the rules say.
There is no rule in the faq that forbids you to create your house this way.

This is incorrect. Without a Praetor sponsoring it, there is no way to create a house now that we have one. If you want this changed, a Charter Amendment that proposes such a change must go through first. Rule 4.5 is quite specific on this.

[mini]

There is no law saying that a house may not be created by a vote in a congressional session.

And what is not forbidden, is allowed.

If they propose the creation of the house in Congress, everyone gets a vote at it.
if it passes, it's legal.

[The Celtic Viking]

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

[/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?

[mini]

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.

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

[SwissBarbar]

Sounds logical. Why should a praetor sponsor 2 not-allied houses. Indeed we need to change the rules

[The Celtic Viking]

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]

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]

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

[/Bean\]

Oh not again. You keep doing this Mini

[The Celtic Viking]

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]

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 :)

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.

[The Celtic Viking]

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.

No, it would not. The only way to change the rules is through a Charter Amendment. Edicts don't do that. Stop saying that "there is nothing I can do about it", because that's just the way it is. I do not care if they create a house or not, and have no personal interest in this.

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.

Yes it is, because edicts do not create nor do they change laws, nor can they contradict the laws that are in place. That's why a house cannot be created the way you suggest, because it is in direct contradiction with rule 4.5.

[/Bean\]

Let me get this straight.

Mini, are you saying that they could ask the Senate to let them create a house through an edict?

Because there must be either one of them is a Quaestor and there are no Praetors, or they need a sponsership from an existing Praetor, while one of them is already a Quaestor. Since there is an existing Praetor (me), and your rank reforms have yet to be passed, they cannot in anyway ask to form a house, even if I did sponser it; because one of them must be a Quaestor.

[mini]

And I say that, from a legal point of view, an edict can say: "We waive rule 4.5 and the need from a sponser of a praetor, and hereby establish House XX"

And if it reaches a majority, the house will last for 12 turns.
It may contradict your sense of 'playing by the rules' -which I understand - but it's a legality point I'm making.

We're roleplaying a sort of real life situation, as the Roman Empire did exist. Which means Law is like reality.
And looking from it's PoV, this can be done.


And tbh, that's just the FUN part about a PBM about Roman Republic. The whole history of Rome is nothing but a succession of Roman senators who found loopholes in the law to do what they wanted to do.


I see no law currently stating that edicts who contradict rules are invalid.
What is not forbidden, is allowed

ERGO, it is possible.


End of story.

[mini]

Let me get this straight.

Mini, are you saying that they could ask the Senate to let them create a house through an edict?

Because there must be either one of them is a Quaestor and there are no Praetors, or they need a sponsership from an existing Praetor, while one of them is already a Quaestor. Since there is an existing Praetor (me), and your rank reforms have yet to be passed, they cannot in anyway ask to form a house, even if I did sponser it; because one of them must be a Quaestor.

That is what I am saying.
If their edict clearly states that the edict waives the preriquisites from law 4.5, and it gets passed, their house will be legally valid for 12 turns.


There is no law forbidding edicts which are contradictionary to the rules.
Thus an edict which specifies that the requirements are waved that gets passed in session , IS VALID.


Only for 12 turns though :) I wouldn't risk my house being abadond after 12 turns :D


But for Mooks, it's the only option he has to make a house now, because it wil ltake another long time before any of them has a high enough rank.

[/Bean\]

But none of them are Quaestors, Mini. The rules state that there must be a Quaestor to start a house, no matter how long it lasts.

[mini]

Bean

Rule 4.5 states indeed there must be a quaestor.

But like I said: if their edict specifies that law 4.5 will be waived in this matter (AND THEREFORE DOES NOT INFLUENCE THIS EDICT PROPOSAL) it doesn't matter what the rules say.

If this edict passes in congressional session, the edict will be valid for 12 turns. (and thus their house valid)
Thus, if you do not wish to see rule 4.5 avoided, vote against it or ask a tribunus plebis to pose his veto.



There is nothing in the rules that prevent the usage of this loophole.
It is a serious bending of the rules, but it's not breaking them.


And mooks and his friends have no other option.

[The Celtic Viking]

This is ridiculous.

No, Mini, you cannot ignore the rules. You simply can not. Edicts can't contradict any rule, even if it says so and everyone votes for it. Det är omöjligt. Det er ikke mulig. Geht nicht. I would say it in other languages to get you to understand this, but I don't know as many as I would like. The point is, the rules must be followed, and using an edict to try and break the rules is not doing that.

It is a serious bending of the rules, but it's not breaking them.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[mini]

And you can say what you want, but it is not a breaking of the rules. it is working with the tools of law.

The rules DO NOT SPECIFY that edicts which contradict rules are invalid.

So it's not breaking of the rules. Point finale.

Besides, I have no benefit with the creation of this house, so I would like you stop saying that I ignore the rules.
I have done nothign here, I'm just giving Mooks a way to achieve his goals.

And frankly, if he goes for it, i'll give him my vote simply to spite you.

[/Bean\]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't contradict mean break? Therefore you are breaking the rules.

[Iskander 3.1]

It's like the US Constitution. Senators can't just vote to override something in the Constitution; it must be amended. BtSH works the same way, I believe.

[mini]

Bean

If I make a law that says: LAW 0.6 all apples must be green.
And a year later I make a law that says: Law 1.3 all apples must be yellow

This means that the second law contradicts the first. We can't have two colours.

But I say to mooks: make a law which says: Law 5.1 My apple right here, can be blue, even though 0.6 is in effect.


If this proposal reaches a majority, democracy has said that mooks apple can be blue.





THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CURRENT RULES WHICH SAY THAT EDICTS CANNOT CONTRADICT GAME RULES.

[mini]

It's like the US Constitution. Senators can't just vote to override something in the Constitution; it must be amended. BtSH works the same way, I believe.

If you want to match this to the US constitution, the CORE RULES (rules with an * in front of it) would be the constitution.

All the other rules are just laws enacted later.

[The Celtic Viking]

And you can say what you want, but it is not a breaking of the rules. it is working with the tools of law.

The rules DO NOT SPECIFY that edicts which contradict rules are invalid.

They don't have to. Anything that contradicts the rules are against the rules. Since the rules aren't followed, it should be obvious that edicts that contradict them are invalid.

So it's not breaking of the rules. Point finale.

Yes, it is. Point finale.

Besides, I have no benefit with the creation of this house, so I would like you stop saying that I ignore the rules.

This is a non sequiteur if I ever saw one. That you have no benefit from the creation of the house does not mean that you're incapable of proposing something that is against the rules.

I have done nothign here, I'm just giving Mooks a way to achieve his goals.

And frankly, if he goes for it, i'll give him my vote simply to spite you.

What you would vote for doesn't mean a thing since such an edict would be invalid. It's not a personal thing, it's just the rules.

If you want to match this to the US constitution, the CORE RULES (rules with an * in front of it) would be the constitution.

All the other rules are just laws enacted later.

As I've already said, you're dead wrong. The * only marks which rules you can modify through a Charter Amendment and which you cannot. That's it. It doesn't mean you get to ignore the others, with or without an edict.

[mini]

They don't have to. Anything that contradicts the rules are against the rules. Since the rules aren't followed, it should be obvious that edicts that contradict them are invalid.
it not against the rules to contradict edicts, because it isnt stated :)






This is a non sequiteur if I ever saw one. That you have no benefit from the creation of the house does not mean that you're incapable of proposing something that is against the rules.
I propose to Mooks to do it as such. I myself have DONE NOTHING at this point, simply beyond stating that if he wants to have a chance, he should do it as such. I haven't proposed anything IC, ergo I have nto broken any rules nitwit.



What you would vote for doesn't mean a thing since such an edict would be invalid. It's not a personal thing, it's just the rules.
Again, there is no legal point stating a contradictionary edict is invalid.



As I've already said, you're dead wrong. The * only marks which rules you can modify through a Charter Amendment and which you cannot. That's it. It doesn't mean you get to ignore the others, with or without an edict.
Again, the Senate (and congressional Session) IS A DEMOCRACY. Which means you can put anything you want to the vote. And since there is nothing in the constitution (in the rules) that say that edicts which contradict the rules are invalid, this issue can be put to the vote.

1) if you want contradictionary edicts invalid, make a CA to add it to the rules. As logn as it's not forbidden, it is allowed. That's a worldwide fact.

2) Stop accusing me of breaking the rules. I have done nothing IC which gives you the right to accuse me of such a thing. Beyond some sound advie to Mooks, I have done nothing wrong here. So I appreciate you ceasing your personal assaults, thankyouverymuch.

3) Roman law has NUMEROUS occassions were older laws were looped around in new laws for specifik reason, without removing the older law or invalidating the new law. It was what distinguished the intelligent from the others, that they found loopholes around things that stood in their way of achieving their goal.
Current history isn't much better on that point. This PBM is not based on fantasy, but tries to relive history a little bit. Ergo we should act like it.

4) keep the game a little bit dynamic ffs. Otherwise we might go play chess instead for some real excitement.

[The Celtic Viking]

1) if you want contradictionary edicts invalid, make a CA to add it to the rules. As logn as it's not forbidden, it is allowed. That's a worldwide fact.

As far as something being allowed if it's not forbidden, that's true. However, creating a house without a sponsoring praetor is forbidden in the rules. Edicts that contradict the rules are automatically invalid because they would break the rules.

What you're saying here is "unless the rules say we can't break the rules, we can break the rules". That is ridiculous.

I propose to Mooks to do it as such. I myself have DONE NOTHING at this point, simply beyond stating that if he wants to have a chance, he should do it as such. I haven't proposed anything IC, ergo I have nto broken any rules nitwit.

Calling me names now, are you? That's... great. No, seriously, just stop that. It does no good.

As for the rest, I suggest you read what I said once more, because you'd then perhaps note that I haven't accused you of breaking any rule.

Roman law has NUMEROUS occassions were older laws were looped around in new laws for specifik reason, without removing the older law or invalidating the new law. It was what distinguished the intelligent from the others, that they found loopholes around things that stood in their way of achieving their goal.
Current history isn't much better on that point. This PBM is not based on fantasy, but tries to relive history a little bit. Ergo we should act like it.

*Yawn*

The historic Romans' laws are completely irrelevant here. The game's rules are the ones we are obliged to follow, and if you want them to be more according to the historic laws, then you must make Charter Amendments first, and they must then be seconded and be voted for by the senate.

[The Celtic Viking]

And now you edit out your personal attack against me and replace it with a plea for me to stop making personal attacks against you (something which I've never done)?

That's rich.