Shireroth

1. All old Procedure threads shall be archived or updated with the passing of this bill.

2. The following shall be amended to the end of the Procedures of the Landsraad.

H. Emissaries.
1. A voting noble may appoint a representative known as an Emissary.
2. An Emissary shall be granted the vote and voice of a noble, to represent that noble within the Landsraad.
3. While a noble has an Emissary appointed and active within the Landsraad, said noble may only speak or vote through that Emissary.
4. A noble may temporarily revoke the status of an appointed Emissary for a single debate, at which point the Emissary must retire from the debate without comment.
5. If an Emissary has been forced to retire from a debate by the Noble they represent, they cannot return to the debate, nor may another Emissary be appointed.
6. A noble's Emissary must reside within the subdivision that the Noble resides within or rules.
7. A noble may only have one Emissary appointed at any given time.

First this gets rid of that outdate Procedure thread at the top of this forum.
Second it establishes the Emissary once again in the law and prevents the problem we are having with the Emissary/Duke of Brookshire. And the confusion it is creating. Though there is a provision for a noble to hijack a thread away from his Emissary if he doesn't approve of how the emissary is representing him.

And... OPEN.

Brookshire, Aye.

It seems like point 4 makes the entire set of procedures moot, nullifying everything else at a whim. There's no reason not to "temporarily" revoke status each and every time the duke wants to speak, in which case this solves nothing.

The way I see it, if a noble speaks when he has appointed an emissary, he is de facto immediately nullifying his emisarry's rights to represent the duchy in the Landsraad without formal notification to the body. Thus, one word out of the duke's mouth and he no longer has an emissary until written notification is resubmitted to the body, with the former emissary speaking again after that point being a criminal offense.

I know that sounds sort of harsh, but the point of the emissary system was to make sure a duchy is represented in the Landsraad if the duke is unable or unwilling to do the job himself. If the duke to be popping in and out of debates, he is neither unwilling nor unable to represent himself and the body should not be recognizing anyone other than the duke as the voice of the duchy. Otherwise there is nothing stopping me, or every other duke, from declaring every other person in their duchy an emissary and having them gain access to this body and going through bizarre yet legal "temporary revocations" of speaking rights every time I want to take myself. I'm sure you see how that could be a mess.

I just added 6 and 7. Since no one else has voted. Now there can be only one per noble. And I set it so once a duke speaks they cannot appoint another emissary for that debate. They are it.

Better?

And you can't have both an Emissary AND a Noble in the same debate. The Emissary can start the debate, but once the Duke shows up. That's it. No more Emissary. Now you won't have the problem that's been happening when Mike shows up, despite my being Emissary.

I like it, but I'm uncertain as too the interpretation of 'debate'. It would be much less confusing if we were talking about entire bills. That way only one person could speak per bill. (As opposed to having to determine when a new debate begins and one ends.)

Then that is how YOU as Prator shall interpret it. I meant it to mean a thread. But I figure the Praetor should get some room to maneuver on this, just in case you need to be strict, or it's a time for laxity.

Well while I am no longer Preator, thank you for the clarification.

Elwynn votes AYE

Sorry.. For some reason I wasn't paying attention and thought Alott had said that.

Kildare votes Aye.

Straylight... oh, what the hell, AYE. You might have noticed that I have had quite a few emissaries represent Straylight in the Landsraad, and any time Straylight has had an emissary I've kept my mouth shut even if there have been times that I actually mildly felt like posting. So you probably understand me if I agree with Harvey that this could be a bit stricter. But... this bill does get the message across, I think, without actually getting into legalism, and in any case once we have the extended nobility there'll be little need for Brookshirithianish trickery anyway.

I am swayed by Ari into voting AYE.

This bill passes 5 for - 0 against.