Discussion: Proposal to Repeal Article 3.5.7

The current laws of Somerset Book III Article 3.5.7 currently says

Quote :

Art. 3.5.7.: Only citizens of Somerset, the king and the regent can participate in any electoral action. This is a light crime and the sentence is set in Article 2.1.3.
Definition of electoral action is and not limited to promoting a list or negative advertises of any list, in all Taverns, Somerset hall, Somerset town hall, castle of Bristol, mass mail to somerset citizens.

I propose that we get rid of this article, since it is offensive to concerned citizens outside Somerset, is discriminatory, prevents cooperation between counties, and harms the unity of the kingdom. If other counties' citizens wish to help us they should be allowed to.

I second the need for a complete repeal of this law. Not only do I find it unnecessarily discriminatory, we are also passing laws that ONLY pertain to those who do not elect us as their representative.

It most certainly does not prohibit any cooperation between the counties.

What it prohibits are the "mouths" of National parties from coming from their respective residential counties to Somerset and arguing and bickering and inflamming LOCAL SOMERSET elections.

My position is IF A CANDIDATE CANNOT ARGUE HIS OR HER OWN PARTY LINE AND REPRESENT IT ON THEIR OWN then they have no business being on council to represent and or defend their Point of view on matters there in.

The only Unity it poses harm to is the unity of Somerset because what happens is these "mouths" of national parties come in and increase the tension and further incite anger and emotion which further divides the citizenry. These people are NOT Somerset Citizens and they do not have to LIVE in the county after election so really their actions have no personal consequence to them it only makes their party look better kingdom wide. It is self serving at best.

The SOMERSET Citizens deserve to have the elections free and clear from external influence and they deserve the bare facts from those who propose to serve them. They deserve to hear from the people they are going to have live with AFTER the election...the people who are going to be making the decsions here that affect their daily lives.

Lord PrettyPolitiks can come in and paint lovely pictures and make promises for his Party members and then Lord PrettyPlotiks can leave and go back to his own county BUT when his party member in Somerset FAILS to deliver what Lord PP promised then GUESS WHAT?????

Lord PP is long gone. and Somerset Citizens cannot hold him to the promises he made ON BEHALF of his party mate.


If A CANDIDATE cannot intelligently express and defend and promote their position on their own they simply do not rise to the measure needed to stand fast for the citizens they represent in local or national politics. If you have to have someone come and hold your hand and sell your position because you cannot then that is a problem.

I am not in favor of repealing this law.

Ellsbeth wrote:

It most certainly does not prohibit any cooperation between the counties.

What it prohibits are the "mouths" of National parties from coming from their respective residential counties to Somerset and arguing and bickering and inflamming LOCAL SOMERSET elections.

Actually the law says nothing about the "mouths" of National Parties, or does it ever mention National Parties at all. It only refers to individuals. Let us take a look:

Quote :

Art. 3.5.7.: Only citizens of Somerset, the king and the regent can participate in any electoral action. This is a light crime and the sentence is set in Article 2.1.3.
Definition of electoral action is and not limited to promoting a list or negative advertises of any list, in all Taverns, Somerset hall, Somerset town hall, castle of Bristol, mass mail to somerset citizens.

I think that you are confusing de lege ferenda (what the law ought to be) and de lege lata (what the law actually is), which is a fairly common mistake- I do it all the time. You are saying that the law should (de lege ferenda) only deal with National Parties, when in reality (de lege lata) anyone not from Somerset is prosecutable under this law, regardless of party affiliation. I would be less opposed (but still opposed) if it only dealt with National Parties "interfering" with Somerset elections. The intentions behind the Council that passed this law may have been to prevent National Parties, but their intentions did not carry through to the language.

Often, people from different places have different points of view; they can bring new ideas to the table, different ways of thinking about things. I am of the opinion that the more points of view we can hear, the better off we will be. Now, this all being said, nobody from outside of the County will take part in the Official Election Thread, nor will they be permitted to publish liable comments anywhere (we already have laws preventing that). So, this law, de lege lata, prevents people from offering positive and constructive ideas around election time.

Ellsbeth wrote:

Lord PrettyPolitiks can come in and paint lovely pictures and make promises for his Party members and then Lord PrettyPlotiks can leave and go back to his own county BUT when his party member in Somerset FAILS to deliver what Lord PP promised then GUESS WHAT?????

I hope this is not an allusion to Lord Public Prosecutor (PP)

Ellsbeth wrote:

If A CANDIDATE cannot intelligently express and defend and promote their position on their own they simply do not rise to the measure needed to stand fast for the citizens they represent in local or national politics. If you have to have someone come and hold your hand and sell your position because you cannot then that is a problem.

This law has nothing to do with the intelligence of those within Somerset. And, while on that topic, the People of Somerset are intelligent enough to see who is from the County and who is not. The People of Somerset can look at what someone from outside the County is posting, and say to herself/himself, "Hey, Person X is not from the County, so I am not voting for them, but I can still hear what they have to say to see if it helps clarify something."

So, let us all make sure we are talking about the law itself (de lege lata), and not what we think it ought to say.

For Somerset!
Lord PP

Counsellor the "mouths" of National parties are individuals. They are the outspoken people of the party. Usually the strongest and most zealous people they have in party and they are the ones who flock in and instigate or further add fuel to the fires of election time.

We all know at least one of these people and have seen them at work in Somerset. I can certainly point to the # of locked threads and removed threads from past elections that involve external influence from these sorts of INDIVIDUALS to make my point.

I am not confusing anything Counsellor.

I am saying that the LAW as it is WRITTEN prevents this action from occuring. Ergo it is a good law.

I am not saying it also prevents non affiliated citizenry from participation as well. But non affiliated external influence is a rare occurance at best. People of Cornwall or Lancaster Who ARE NON PARTY AFFILIATED as a general rule do not stop by to tell Somerset how to vote to run their county....WHY??? because they do not live in Somserset and they stand to gain or lose very little by promoting or detracting from any candidate.


and actually Sir YOU And I do know who is from Somerset and who is not because it is OUR business to know and we better know as we serve them.

A relatively NEW player may not take the time to double check the citizenship of a forum poster against theur INGAME profile which is the ONLY place their actual Citizenry is shown UNLESS they choose to include in their forum profile which some people do not AND some people do not use the same forum name as ingame name either so IN FACT it CAN be confusing to the people who are most easily swayed by the overwhelming nature of it all and that is our newest citizenry.

This Law protects them from external influence and allows them and every citizen the ability to concentrate SOLELY on the people of Somerset and what their friends and neighbors want and who the people are who are asking for thier votes and what their motives are and why.

Closing ranks in election time and letting SOMERSET decide for SOMERSET is not a negative concept. It makes the process clear cut and clean.


If there are all these people with such a plethora of suggestions and views then they can easily show up with their words of wonder at ANY time to amaze and awe us with such wisdom......but funny thing is they never show up till election which means they have a stake in who gets these seats.....which of course renders them BIASED from the get go.....and DOES NOT SERVE SOMERSET the people.

We don't need outsiders trying to influence Somerset elections. Period. It doesn't matter WHO those outsiders might be. Focusing the law to exclude only persons affiliated with a national party would both be a policing nightmare and also discriminatory.

The only people served by repealing this law would be those members of national parties who could then use our Somerset elections to bolster their status within their parties, and outside of Somerset, or local members of such parties who fear that they are unable to adequately represent Somerset views and Somerset needs without assistance from outside of Somerset. Yet how can those who don't live here understand such views and needs?

We, the citizens of Somerset, are the ones who remain here after the elections. We are the ones who must deal with whatever issues arise from the elections. Outsiders have no responsibility to us, our voters, or our county, and won't be here after the fact to help clean up whatever mess they may help to create.

I do not think that this law should be repealed.

I am pleased and encouraged to see a citizen in the Public discussion area was able to sum up the meat of this law much better than I managed

it is a law that puts VALUE on the opinions and thoughts of ACTUAL SOMERSET Citizens above and beyond any non residential citizenry.

and honestly is that not who we are here to serve and to govern and to speak for and work for?

I work for Somerset and noone else. I am not here to make any one else look good. or to boost anyone elses popularity or national presence or to do anyone else's bidding. I am here to listen to Somerset citizens and I cant hear them sometimes over the din of the exteral interference.


This law makes my job of listening to Somerset citizens much easier and that is to their benefit!

National unity should be addressed in the House of Commons in which we all sit. It is not the concern of the Somerset Council. Our first priority is to the people of Somerset. These are the people we need to hear from. We do not need outside influences distracting from our discussion, or degrading topics into flame fests. I have seen this done over and over. We are more than capable of doing that on our own. We need no outside help.

National parties can provide their wonderful idea's of how the best run and most prosperous county in England can improve through their representatives here in Somerset. We do not need to hear their voices from on far.

A side note, I have never seen good advise on Somerset's future from these outside voices. I have seen acrimony, bile, hatred and bating. These do not move the needs of Somerset forward they only set us back. We need to discuss our future, they can discuss their own. Then in the House of Parliament we can discuss OUR future.

This is a good law as written. It does not need to be repealed. Find your talent here. Speak from here. Live here. Prosper here.

What are you afraid of? The voices of "free English citizens" I say this now and if anyone in Somerset wishes to hold it against me, so be it! I am English, I live in and Love Somerset, it is my home county, but I am ENGLISH! G*d save our King; G*d Bless England! And for G*d sake let us repeal this oppressive law, which only curtails the free speech of all ENGLISH men and women!

I am not afraid of anything. I am objecting to having these Englishmen who do not live in Somerset having free reign to disrupt and obstruct Somerset elections.

I am a Sonmersettian. I live in Somerset first and then England.

The House of Parliament is where I speak out for England and work with fellow Englishmen.

In Somerset I want to work with and utilize and listen to voice of Somersettians because THEY are who I work for.

This law is only objectionable to people who need others to speak for them and frankly I think our good citizens are tired of others imposing on THEIR rights to speak for themselves and to run THEIR county the way they envision and not the way a national party or citizens from other counties envision.

before I say I think this law should be repealed or not, lemmie ask one thing:

This law is mainly to do with the negative/positive promotion of lists, right? so if someone from out of Somerset says 'you should/shouldn't vote for this list because...' is illegal, but if someone says something like 'Oh, hey Marshy, we tried that idea in *county name* and it didn't quite work for us because *somethingsomething*, I think it's a bad idea' is legal?

Or did I just say exactly the same thing, just using different words? If so, sorry

What this law says

Quote :

Art. 3.5.7.: Only citizens of Somerset, the king and the regent can participate in any electoral action. This is a light crime and the sentence is set in Article 2.1.3.
Definition of electoral action is and not limited to promoting a list or negative advertises of any list, in all Taverns, Somerset hall, Somerset town hall, castle of Bristol, mass mail to somerset citizens.

in a plainer speak is the following :

It says during Election season only The King of England, The Regent of England, and the actual residents of the towns who make up Somerset have the right to participate in any action that is election related which includes the Election debate.

It says that any NON RESIDENT citizen cannot promote any slate of candidates NOR can they come in and use negative advertsning against any slate of candidates.

It Does NOT disallow any citizen of any county stopping by to post a question in a stand alone thread of their own to the people of Somerset about an ISSUE.

If someone sees for example that Carrot farming is being debated between the parties as being the wave of the future and the salvation of Somerset then they are free to come by and title a Post something like Beware of Carrot Crops!
and then speak to the fact that in say Cornwall they invested in this crop and the return on the investment was poor and it is their recommendation that another avenue be looked at for Somerset.

They cannot come in and tack their Carrot Crops are evil advice onto ANY of the campaign platforms and they cannot Say the The Allied Politicians of Pomp and Circumstance Party is trying to destroy Somerset by intending to use Carrot Farming as part of their platform.


What this does is limit the input of NON RESIDENTIAL People to statements of fact that can be proven during election. It ELIMINATES the tossing about of name calling and rumors and unfounded allegations that stir up the masses and create the toxic political atmospehere that has driven as One citizen has stated alread in the public discussion area " some of the great minds of Somerset" away from her soil.

Noone objects to statements of fact but I believe from the amount of mail I have received and the posts I have read that the citizens of Somerset are sick and tired of outsiders coming by at election to stir up the Privy pots to an uproarious stink and telling them who and how to vote.

They would appreciate peaceful orderly elections that are ABOUT THEM....the PEOPLE of Somerset not about the candidates one upping one another and bringing in their hit mean to try to put them on pedestals and take down anyone who dares question their motives.


What this law says basically is

SOMERSET THIS IS YOUR ELECTION....YOU Hold the reigns....YOU ask the questions....YOU form your OWN Opinions and the Law will prevent interference with and protect that process.

What it basically does is:

Keeps the elections above board. Prevents dirty politics, keeps people honest and forthright in how they speak of others and punishes any attempts of collusion and subterfuge and trickery.

Even the necessarily long winded explanation above of the intent of the law is confusing, and the law is still threatening and repressive to ordinary citizens of England.

I think we see here one of the big differences in the principles of the two main party approaches.
The SNP is only a Somerset party, in spite of the interesting use of the word Nationalist in the title, and to them the smaller local county community deserves privileges denied to others. They even instituted a law (article 1.1.1.i ) which states that Somerset laws take precedence over national laws (which I would like to address elsewhere)
The LoF-UWS parties on the other hand, agree that all people, of whatever nationality or background deserve equal rights and privileges, and we put humanity and human rights first, even before our national allegience, then county, and town and so on. UWS and LoF are all about uniting people, we do not agree with protectionism or elitism, we stand for the freedom and unity of all people. So to us this law is an anathema to our principles, and we reject the reasoning that we can serve Somerset better by cutting us off from the greater community in any way. Citizens of Somerset are best served when we put human rights, equality and respect first, not when we treat persons differenly according to their race, nationality, place of residence, beliefs, or any other discriminatory division.

If we need a law to prevent falsehoods being spoken in Somerset during an election, this law is not the way to address that, and it should be repealed forthwith.

If you go to Parliament you will see that EVERY County spoke out when the HOP begin discussion the idea of drafting the slate of temporary national laws that will soon be completed and stand in for newly created counties until such time as they create their own individual law, EVERY County spoke out to maintain that COUNTY Laws superseded National Law before they would even agree to draft such a proposal.

The COUNTIES in this game work together but they are NOT one united entity in that there is no Kingdom wide governing body that can force any county to do anything. Even the Regency has been designed to only to draw its power and legitimacy from the will of the people. LJS has been very clear on that. So the law we have that county laws supersede National laws is a typical law that EVERY county corpus in England has in one form or another.

The Individual counties fight for freedom in economy and freedom in laws and freedom in their person foreign affairs, they are unified by their cooperation only and fight to maintain their individuality in every other way. Why?

A fellow HOP member said it best :

Quote :

While I do not in any way, shape or form take issue with the notion of having temporary sets of laws in place for new counties established, I certainly do beyond all doubt take issue with the centralized legislative authority for all as you suggest. Counties should and must be responsive to the will of their very own subjects, and their laws ought to reflect a responsiveness that involves the citizenry however much as possible in input into the legislative process.

My firm belief is that centralization of decision making in most respects can only but invite social and economic injustice, and hence unrest, as well as a bureaucratic intransigence that can only mirror dictatorship of arrogance..

But I see once again you are looking to hand over the power and authority of the citizens of Somerset to OUTSIDERS. I must admit to being puzzled as to why you are so eager to see Somerset ruled by outside interference of one form or another?

Somerset belongs to her people and should be governed by her people not outside forces, but the people who live and work in Somerset.

This isn't the place for the election speeches, Vana. That would be in the Public Discussion Area. We're working here, not doing political posturing to see who has the prettiest platform. And as LoF members have REPEATEDLY said that they are NOT UWS, I find it surprising that you so couple the names. You do, however, transparently transmit your agenda - to allow Somerset voters to be harangued by UWS members from hither and yon.

I don't believe that our citizens WANT to hear from people who don't live in their towns and may never have lived in their county. They want to hear those of us who will be their representatives. They want our ideas, not those of someone who once lived in a neighboring county but has gone to a colony somewhere or other. That person doesn't have anything to do with Somerset. You do, Vana. I do. You and I can (and doubtless will continue to) debate for days. All of that might be of interest to Somerset. But would anyone care if, say, Sajanzv debated with Sonnie?

Being open is one thing. That's making friends in other counties, reading other forums and seeing what people are trying that's new and maybe even cool, inviting people to make suggestions or asking them what they think of a new idea. But those friends aren't needed when we're deciding what WE need in Somerset. They needn't interfere with our decisions, nor our decision making.

We are not, England is not, a unified nation (a concept that was foreign to the 15th Century). While all hold allegiance to the King, still the local Duke, or Count, is the unifying force. This is VERY true in this RK game we play. Economics change drastically across County lines, as do policies and politics. Some of this is game mechanics, some seems simple human nature - that each group tends to develop its own identity. We have been elected by those with the identity, "Somerset". We were elected to do our best for the interests of our bosses, the voters. Who live in Somerset, care about Somerset, and mostly don't care what His High Credenza Sir Leosantacruz of Neverland thinks should be important to them.

Too, intrusions from outside Somerset into our elections have, historically, been the direct cause of a LOT of, well, used bull food in our internal politics and relationships, both between people and groups. We, Vana, have no trouble creating our own fights. Those are only exacerbated by our friends from other places.

Somerset citizens are best served by councilors who worry about what Somerset needs, not by politicians fighting the next elections. Leftist rhetoric aside, we in Somserset need to be the ones who define and act upon our needs. Which differ from Stafford's or Sussex's and the Palatines' ... so why should people from those places be here to influence our choices?

The proponents of this law keep saying that it is limited in scope, and only meant to prevent outsiders from tampering with official debates. This was said time and time again during the last election, and I accepted it at face value in an effort to avoid confrontation.

However, now that I read this law in the clear light of day, it is NOT limited in scope at all. It broadly applies to "participation" (whatever that means) and states that electoral acts include "promoting a list or negative advertises of any list, in all Taverns, Somerset hall, Somerset town hall, castle of Bristol, mass mail to somerset citizens." As I see it, this would have rendered several pro-SNP as well as pro-LoF posts illegal during the last election. It also could lead to someone posting someone's discussion in a tavern and using it as proof of illegal speech. Really, I'm just going by what the law explicitly says, let anyone read it for themselves. The wording is so broad as to potentially cover even the slightest "peep" from anyone visiting our county or running a national party.

Ellsbeth said during the election that this was not so, that only posts in official debate threads are covered. Where is this distinction made? I don't see it. In fact, the law appears to read almost completely the opposite.

Prosecuting a non-Somerset citizen for violating this law would likely lead to a diplomatic crisis with their home county. Demanding that another county prosecute their own citizen under this law would almost certainly lead to a refusal and an even more serious diplomatic crisis.

I am not questioning the intentions of those who drafted, passed, or support this law. But I do think this law is seriously flawed.

Let's cut to the chase -- is this law all about Sonnie? Because if it is, there are much better ways of dealing with "outside interference" than this. The notion that anyone is going to successfully conduct an out-of-county criminal prosecution of Sonnie for political statements made in a Somerset election is a pipe dream. And that is regardless of what you think of Sonnie's posts.

I see no benefits to this law.
If it was created targeting one person, party, and county then it is not only unnecessary but biased as well.
It is certainly "flawed" in the wording and leaves too much room for ambiguity and abuse as we have seen.

My concern here is just as much with justice for SNP as for LoF. I can easily imagine a situation in the next election where Hypno or Krelian (for example) post a comment, either introducing an argument or defending their records. Voters are intelligent adults, and I would rather let them make up their own minds about whether such posts are helpful and productive or intrusive and counterproductive. I suspect it depends a lot on the content of the post. In any event, I cannot imagine a circumstance in which it would benefit anyone to prosecute them criminally for such an action.

I could. I do not want Hypno, Krelian, Sonney, Poliphulous, anyone that does not live here to have influence over our election process. Just as Vana argued to remove the votes of resigned councilors as they can flee the county and not suffer the consequences of their actions. Those that do not live in Somerset have no insight into the needs of Somerset and have no need to be here trying to influence the outcome of the election. Therefore, I think there needs to be a law preventing it as they have already proven themselves incapable of restraining themselves.

This law is not crafted against one party, one person, one idea. It is crafted to ensure Somerset has the input and the right to decide her own fate without the interference of outside influences that have no stake in Somersets future, Somersets prosperity, Somersets destiny. That right should be withheld purely for the citizens of Somerset.

Hypno's input would, at this point, be as unwelcome as that of anyone who lives outside of Somerset. While it may have been Sonnie's comments that served as the genesis of this law, certainly it would apply to anyone, although I think we'd have to let the regent and/or LJS speak ...

Chardonnay says, "Hypno's input would be as unwelcome as that of anyone who lives outside Somerset." Gregarious says, "I do not want Hypno...or anyone that does not live here to have influence over our election." They say this about someone they claim to have great admiration for!

Well, for the record, I would welcome constructive comments from Hypno or anyone else with interesting things to say, even when he disagrees with me, which is quite a lot. I do find many of his comments, based on his long experience, quite constructive and useful.
Debates are so that two or more parties who disagree may discuss their diffferences and come to a better understanding of things. Not debating differences doesn't fix problems it only hides them and lets them fester into even bigger misunderstandings. And it's not as if people from outside Somerset can vote, we still have Somerset being managed by its own people. You can't stop the flow of ideas, and to even try shows a level of paranoia that a strong county with a long history like ours does not need. And let's face it, if an outsider wants something said in Somerset, a ban on saying it personally won't stop it being said. People like Hypno Sonnie and Poliphilus are not without friends here who could act as their mouthpiece. The real reason for this law was to be able to prosecute people who said things against the council, because things were being said which were unwelcome. But it's the nature of things said which were the problem, not the people outside Somerset. Banning people is like throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater.

As you were not on council while this law was created for you to state WHY this law was created is nothing but assumption and allegation which is incorrect.

It was not created to prevent people from speaking against council. You assume too much.

The council belongs to and works for Somerset citizens. The citizens can sit and talk about, complain about, dissect and generally have at their council all day long and there is nothing to prevent that and in fact is welcomed to assure council is doing what Somerset citizens want and need.

However this law was created to prevent the sort of election time atmosphere that all but prevented the citizens of being part of the process because NON CITIZENS lined up at the gates to fill the county Inn to have their turn on the soap box and it had become such disorder and so unruly the King himself had to come to Somerset to toss out an ongoing debate and call for a new one at one point.

The law was created to prevent having to have the King come to Somerset to baby sit.

The law was created to assure the people OF SOMERSET had a seat in their own Inn when election was here so they can hear the voices of the people who want to serve them over the crowd of people who show up once every 2 months to tell Somerset how to run their lives.

The law was made for the citizens not for the council.

It was not made for any one person or against any one person.

The Public archives of this discussion completely refute all of the allegations being made about the why and who of this law lest we forget that past council discussion DOES exist and does report for the record all views entered in on a matter.


The Discussion on the creation of this law is located here:



https://somerset.rpg-board.net/The-library-c9/Duchy-council-archive-f37/Revision-of-Book-III-of-Legal-Corpus-of-Somerset-t644.htm

I am not so naive to believe that councillors always post their real intents in public threads. To do so would not win them votes. In the public record referred to there is no mention of LJS intervening, nor any mention of Sonnie whom Chardonnay stated above was the 'genesis of this law', so clearly things were left unsaid in the 'official' debate thread, and the fact that Ellsbeth and Chardonnay know these facts shows that they were aware of reasoning about this law other than that posted in the public record. My assumption that there was an alternate intent is supported by this.

But whatever individual reasons or intents there were for this law, the outcome is still as bad.

I was on council at the time and the revisions and addendums were presented as a whole to be added to the laws.
There was no formal discussion in council of the individual changes as they were being created.

My comments and concerns regarding them at that time were ignored and dismissed without respect for my opinion and it degraded into a bad situation as we all know.

In light of LJS's recent edict about the laws restricting the rights of players to freely play the game I believe this law could be considered under that edict.
LJS said:

Quote :

Every laws that gives less rights to people with a criminal record have to be removed.

I should think that would apply to all people with or without criminal records.
This law certainly "gives less rights to the people".

I DO NOT CLAIM to have great admiration. Do not deem to put intent on my words to suit your agenda. I do have great admiration for him. I am not the one that drove him from Somerset. I am one that voted for him to remain Duke and lead this county with his wisdom and knowledge. Who did you vote for?

Ignouring fact, creating them, twisting them for our own agenda does not serve Somerset. does not serve our constituency, does not move our County ahead. It keeps us embroiled in this hate mongering, this arguing over semantics, over the past. Do as you like, you have the power now, unless the two representatives from Reconciliation chose to vote against you you can carry any motion you wish.

I find the timing of moving motions to vote to give outsiders their voices back and to remove any defamation laws very interesting and telling. This tells me a lot about how the next election is going to be waged.

It will be waged without me if my fears are correct.