Shireroth

AMENDMENT
- This charter may be amended by the approval of both the overall SCOWL judge; and by 3/4s approval of signatory nations.

I don't think we ever voted in an overall judge; so we just need Gralan, Shirithian and Nelagan support. The amendment is this (which would come at the end of the section marked "Deployment":

-A person's initial deployment in SCOWL counts as a static army which has already waited 20 days. That is, they may deploy initially with a 20 000 point static army; or they may wait and count their next deployment as (days from this deployment + 20). This 20 day bonus only applies to a person's initial deployment, and only applies once; if they change characters, change accounts, leave micronationalism and then return etc, they do not gain a bonus for further 'initial' deployments.

What this means is that those who haven't yet deployed an orbat no longer have to deploy a 0 orbat and wait for their static army to build up; they can just deploy an initial 20 000 army. This should make it easier for those who never got *cough*neverbotheredtoreadtherulesproperly*cough* SCOWL to now post an orbat and get involved. Anyone who already has posted an orbat will have accumulated more than 20 days already - some of you are probably up to the 50 day mark, the max amount you should wait between deployments.

*vague indifference*

Do people actually use SCOWL?

Not yet.

I suppose Shireroth votes in support.

Harvey Steffke wrote:*vague indifference*

Do people actually use SCOWL?

Gralans continue to do so. And I'm starting to make some moves in Shireroth for the purpose of inspiring some use. I'm just hoping that this modification to the rules will make things easier.

Maybe use it for the next civil war instead of Querell. (sp)

Well, its there for use in civil wars.

So Harvey, does Nelaga approve?

I want to abstain, but I'm not sure if that's a functional nay vote and I'd rather vote aye than vote nay. I'm a little shaky on how abstain works in the SC with the way our treaties are written.

I just ignore them myself.

Ask the CC.

Malliki Tosha wrote:Ask the CC.

You know what? I'm doin it.

http://shireroth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=261&t=12174

I did read it, but since I'm not filing a suit against someone specifically here I wasn't entirely sure how to proceed within the guidelines. If I made a mistake in my proceedings please correct me - we can walk each other through this to set some good precedent for court policy.

I thought so too. I'm calling it Harvey v. The Primate, since the suit has to be against something or someone, and I don't want it to be the Small Commonwealth. Could set a bad precedent if we start treating the Commonwealth as a sue-able entity.

I'm kinda inclined towards Steffke v Assembly to be honest, since it is the Assembly deciding these things. And a surname looks more nifty

The problem I have with Assembly is that who is going to argue that case if not the Primate? I feel it is better to have an individual as respondent. The thread now reads "Steffke v. The Primate", but I can change it if you feel very strongly about it.

I don't feel all that strongly and your line of logic is agreeable. Steffke v. The Primate is perfectly acceptable.

Good, and don't see this as a criminal trial, or even a tort or anything. We just need someone that says what you say, and someone that responds to it. Then we make up our minds.

I don't disagree with the name, just whether the CC has jurisdiction. But I took the issue up in the court.

So we're good to have this officially passed, then?

So should I take silence as a yes?

Silence bespeaketh consent.

Excellent, I'll make the changes.