Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Trending Topics
Regional Information
The East Pacific brought to you by,
Where to Start?

Social
Discord
IRC
Skype
Steam Group

Roleplay
Regional Atlas
In-Character
News Broadcasts
Out of Character

Government
Executive Offices
Delegate: Yuno
Magisterium
Provost: Drachen
Conclave
Viceroy: Aelitia





Welcome to The East Pacific. We hope you enjoy your visit.


How to register an account
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you may register an account here!


I'm registered. How can I post?
When you sign up on our forums, your account is classified under the "visa" group. Individuals who are in this group will only be able to post in certain areas of the forum. To gain the ability to post on all public sections of these forums, read this post and follow the directions to make a post in that forum. An administrator will review your account and if there are no problems you'll be able to post in no time!

Username:   Password:
Multiquote ON Multiquote off
Add Reply
Arbiter and Conclave Amendments; Proposal to amend various sections of the Concordat
Topic Started: May 4 2018, 05:27:49 PM (621 Views)
Aelitia
Member Avatar
The Fluffy Horde
As a long-time Arbiter, I have noticed the portions of the Concordat surrounding Conclave have become less intuitive and even more unwieldy. I would like to spark discussion on simplification of the language and distilling back some of the original intents that worked, while also keeping an eye forward for new changes. I have long believed that our government is too artificially separated for our own good; the activity is not equally spread and it encourages some positions (such as Arbiter) to become dust collectors while preventing potentially active legislators from participating to their capacity. As such, I would like the Magisterium to consider the removal of the prohibition of cross membership in the Conclave and Magisterium (except possibly for the heads of the bodies).



Article A- Executive
Original
 
Section 5) The Delegate shall nominate citizens to serve as Viziers, and Arbiters. If the Delegate fails to nominate an Arbiter before the time frames outlined in Article C, Section 9, the Provost shall exclusively nominate the Arbiter(s). [2014 Am 2, §1 and 2016 Am 2 §1]
Proposed
 
Section 5) The Delegate shall nominate citizens to serve as Viziers, and Arbiters. If the Delegate fails to nominate an Arbiter before the time frames outlined in Article C, Section 9, the Provost shall exclusively nominate the Arbiter(s). [2014 Am 2, §1] and 2016 Am 2 §1]



Article B- Legislative
Original
 
Section 14) A Magister may not serve concurrently as Delegate or Arbiter. [2013 Am 1, §3]
Proposal
 
Section 14) A Magister may not serve concurrently as Delegate or Viceroy Arbiter. [2013 Am 1, §3][1]

Original
 
Section 16) Each time a Magister votes, he must also explicitly supply his WA nation (if applicable) in the same post. [2013 Am 1, §6]
Proposal
 
Section 16) Each time a Magister votes, he they must also explicitly supply his their WA nation (if applicable) in the same post. [2013 Am 1, §6]
A minor text change, no functional difference but if a suite of changes are being considered, why not do minor corrections as well.


Article C- Judicial
Original
 
Section 3) An Arbiter shall not serve concurrently as a Magister or the Delegate.
Proposal
 
Section 3) An Arbiter shall not serve concurrently as a Magister Provost or the Delegate.

Original
 
Section 9) Arbiters are appointed for six month terms. Two arbiters shall be appointed on January 1 and July 1. One arbiter shall be appointed on March 1, May 1, September 1, and November 1. [2014 Am 1]

Section 10) Arbiters shall retain their seat until a citizen is nominated to replace them for the remainder of the current term as set out in Section 9 of this Article. An Arbiter may be reappointed when their term ends. There is no limit on the number of terms an Arbiter may serve. [2014 Am 1 & 2016 Am 2 §2]
Proposal
 
Section 9) Arbiters are appointed for six month terms. Arbiters shall then retain their seat after their term until a citizen is nominated to replace them. Two arbiters shall be appointed on January 1 and July 1. One arbiter shall be appointed on March 1, May 1, September 1, and November 1. [2014 Am 1]

Section 10) Arbiters shall retain their seat until a citizen is nominated to replace them for the remainder of the current term as set out in Section 9 of this Article. An Arbiter may be reappointed when their term ends. There is no limit on the number of terms an Arbiter may serve. [2014 Am 1 & 2016 Am 2 §2]
Partnered up because language from Section 10 is more appropriate in the new Section 9, only functional difference is the removal of set "terms" of Arbiters to be appointed on certain days and introduces a system close to what we end up using. An Arbiter is "appointed" for six months whenever, and keeps their seat after the six months until there is another nomination; this is more like a renewing tenure system.


I would like to welcome discussion on this proposed reform package!
[1] It seems this amendment reference is a type since the target amendment does not have a direct reference to Section 14 - found here http://forum.theeastpacific.com/topic/5161711/1/
Edited by Aelitia, May 4 2018, 08:14:24 PM.


Former Delegate
Posted Image


"Viceroy Aelitia, whatever pills he might use, sure has ushered in a new era of TEP law"-EPNS 18/09/14

Civillian Missile Commander, Nuclear Apocalypse, April 2017
Posted Image
Past Positions

Delegate
Viceroy of The East Pacific 05-25-14 to 09-08-16
Arbiter of Conclave 05-06-14 to 09-08-16
Vizier 07-30-15 to 11-24-16
Magister
Vice Chancellor TEP University



Aelitia on NS
Aelitia RP Embassy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zukchiva
Member Avatar
Where am I?
After going over the proposed changes, they all seem to benefit TEP. The fact that I do not know who current Arbiters are only proves the point that not many few people who have the chance to help the East Pacific are limited in their chance to become an Arbiter.

However, I would like to point at one thing, which is:
Quote:
 
Proposal

Section 14) A Magister may not serve concurrently as Delegate or Viceroy Arbiter. [2013 Am 1, §3][1]

What is your reasoning behind not allowing a Magister to server as a Vicerory at the same time?

Posted Image Posted Image



My name is Zukchiva! You can also call me Zuk if you feel like it.
I joined NS and TEP on December 6th, 2017.
Citizen since December 11th, 2017.
Two Latin Phrases I found



Now for a few banners:
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aelitia
Member Avatar
The Fluffy Horde
Zukchiva
May 4 2018, 05:49:16 PM
After going over the proposed changes, they all seem to benefit TEP. The fact that I do not know who current Arbiters are only proves the point that not many few people who have the chance to help the East Pacific are limited in their chance to become an Arbiter.

However, I would like to point at one thing, which is:
Quote:
 
Proposal

Section 14) A Magister may not serve concurrently as Delegate or Viceroy Arbiter. [2013 Am 1, §3][1]

What is your reasoning behind not allowing a Magister to server as a Vicerory at the same time?

That is exactly the question I was asking myself, so thank you for this one!

I think that the essence of the decision was to keep the heads of the bodies intent only on that body. In the current draft, the Viceroy and Provost cannot be in the other body, as they act as representatives between the bodies and might have to organize processes involving the other body. Though the capacity for "abuse of power" or something like that would be very little, I felt the heads should stay separate.

I am more than willing to accept a friendly amendment to the proposal re:cross-membership if the Magisterium sees it as a good addition.


Former Delegate
Posted Image


"Viceroy Aelitia, whatever pills he might use, sure has ushered in a new era of TEP law"-EPNS 18/09/14

Civillian Missile Commander, Nuclear Apocalypse, April 2017
Posted Image
Past Positions

Delegate
Viceroy of The East Pacific 05-25-14 to 09-08-16
Arbiter of Conclave 05-06-14 to 09-08-16
Vizier 07-30-15 to 11-24-16
Magister
Vice Chancellor TEP University



Aelitia on NS
Aelitia RP Embassy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drachen
Member Avatar
Yare yare dawa...
Considering, to my knowledge, that no member of the executive aside from the delegate is prevented from becoming a Magister, I see no reason why this should not apply to our Arbiters as well. I'm sure many of them would be able to serve both of their positions both fairly and favorably.

As for the change pertaining to Sections 9 and 10 of Article C, I would have to say that your changes offer a welcome improvement. The way it currently reads feels a bit wonky to me.

In response to the previous posts concerning the idea of barring the Viceroy from serving as Magister, I don't know how I really feel about this. It may be a good idea to keep the head of the judiciary from being a Magister as we do for the head of the executive, but ultimately I can't see any blatant dangers that might result from awarding such a privilege. Unless someone is able to offer a substantial and convincing argument for why the Viceroy shouldn't be permitted to participate within the Magisterium, I would support the idea of merely restricting the line in Article B Section 14 to just the delegate.
[edit_reason]Wording and language[/edit_reason]
Edited by Drachen, May 4 2018, 08:26:31 PM.
Badges

Actual Dragon
Posted Image

Loli Protector
Posted Image

Marine Biologist
Posted Image

Queen of the Fairies
Posted Image

Yuri Enthusiast
Posted Image
Shan'alah bandu ni Verdrassil

Posted Image

"Fal andu'balah nei il'amare."
"Through love, the nation is preserved."
- Lady Al'Ameth
Posted Image
Roles

Vizier
Posted Image

Minister of Culture
Posted Image

Minister of World Assembly Affairs
Posted Image

Provost of the Magisterium
Posted Image

Pollster
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zukchiva
Member Avatar
Where am I?
You do make a good point in that it would make sense for the heads of different branches to be separate from each other. However, I share Provost Drachen's stance, in that there seems to be no dangers in allowing a Viceory to be a part of the Magisterium. Even if I don't support it, I still shall wait to see if other Magisters may find a hidden danger to our region by allowing cross-membership to occur, before throwing all my support for cross-membership.
Posted Image Posted Image



My name is Zukchiva! You can also call me Zuk if you feel like it.
I joined NS and TEP on December 6th, 2017.
Citizen since December 11th, 2017.
Two Latin Phrases I found



Now for a few banners:
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Atlae
Member Avatar
Whaddya mean, there's no caek delivery down here?
Do you think cross-membership with the Magisterium could hinder the judgment of Arbiters if they have to make a ruling on procedures in the Magisterium?
"Gloria in Terra"

"The pronunciation of "Atlae" is /ętleɪ/. Don't you forget it." AND NOT ALTAE

Maintainer of the "game streak," or posting on the whole first page of the game room.

It's dark and lonely down here in TEP's server.
All these banners
TEP Positions
Other Positions
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zukchiva
Member Avatar
Where am I?
Changed Proposal
 

Section 14) A Magister may not serve concurrently as Delegate or Viceroy Arbiter.[2013 Am 1, §3][1]


Since no one has come up with any serious counter to cross-membership, here is the changes to reflect allowing Viceroy-Magister cross membership to take place.
Posted Image Posted Image



My name is Zukchiva! You can also call me Zuk if you feel like it.
I joined NS and TEP on December 6th, 2017.
Citizen since December 11th, 2017.
Two Latin Phrases I found



Now for a few banners:
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aelitia
Member Avatar
The Fluffy Horde
Section 3) An Arbiter shall not serve concurrently as Provost or the Delegate.

(Excuse my formatting I am on mobile)
Following your suggestion, would you also like to see an arbiter be able to serve as Provost?


Former Delegate
Posted Image


"Viceroy Aelitia, whatever pills he might use, sure has ushered in a new era of TEP law"-EPNS 18/09/14

Civillian Missile Commander, Nuclear Apocalypse, April 2017
Posted Image
Past Positions

Delegate
Viceroy of The East Pacific 05-25-14 to 09-08-16
Arbiter of Conclave 05-06-14 to 09-08-16
Vizier 07-30-15 to 11-24-16
Magister
Vice Chancellor TEP University



Aelitia on NS
Aelitia RP Embassy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zukchiva
Member Avatar
Where am I?
Aelitia
May 13 2018, 03:56:06 PM
Section 3) An Arbiter shall not serve concurrently as Provost or the Delegate.

(Excuse my formatting I am on mobile)
Following your suggestion, would you also like to see an arbiter be able to serve as Provost?
Following the train of thought you suggested, there are also no apparent dangers for the Provost of the Magisterium to serve as an Arbiter at the same time. However, I would think that there would be bias involved in cases dealing with someone who is both the Provost and the Judiciary, so I would like other Magister's opinions on this issue.
Edited by Zukchiva, May 13 2018, 05:12:43 PM.
Posted Image Posted Image



My name is Zukchiva! You can also call me Zuk if you feel like it.
I joined NS and TEP on December 6th, 2017.
Citizen since December 11th, 2017.
Two Latin Phrases I found



Now for a few banners:
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
A Slanted Black Stripe
Member Avatar
What stripe?
I am struggling to see the advantage of allowing the same people to be both Arbiters and Magisters. If the Conclave is reviewing an issue originating in the Magisterium, those Arbiters who are Magisters will have to recuse themselves from the judicial review. And if they are all members of the Magisterium (with the exception of the Viceroy) that gives lots of unchecked judicial power to the Viceroy.

Isn't it enough to have only one role: Magister, Arbiter, or Delegate? The Magisterium welcomes debate from all citizens; you don't need to be a Magister to join the debate. The Conclave has procedures to allow non-Arbiters to speak. You have the opportunity to be heard. Do you really need to vote in all the different government venues?

The current system limits a lot of potential conflicts of interest.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fedele
Member Avatar
OSS 117
I would agree with ASBS here.
Don't take my word for it, see what others have said!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Saradania0914
Member Avatar
You got blood on my Suit.
I believe that the limitations should be imposed on the members of their respective branches (i.e. Magisters and Arbiters) if they want to serve concurrently as a head of a different branch of government as stated in the proposed versions of Article B, Section 14 and Article C, Section 3 by Viceroy Aelitia, but there can be nothing in the Concordat that would prevent a Magister to serve concurrently as an Arbiter and vice versa, as I think that it does not pose any real danger to the integrity of the Concordat. As such, I approve of Viceroy Aelitia's proposed amendments.

As a side note, The Magisterium does allow all citizens to join the debate, but I highly encourage my fellow magisters to support the will of our constituents ourselves, and to not stray from doing what is right, but also to distance ourselves from the reach of impunity, because as public servants of the East Pacific,, we all answer to the will of the people.
"Call me Saradania. But never 'Sara'."

"You want caek? Then spell it right! C-A-E-K!"

"Whatever happens, Kushina will always be 'Tomato' to me."

"Say hello to the cops on patrol, Say hello to the ones in control."

-"Say Goodbye" by Green Day


Chief Ambassador

Magister

EPPS Patrolwoman


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
A Slanted Black Stripe
Member Avatar
What stripe?
Saradania0914
 
... as I think that it does not pose any real danger to the integrity of the Concordat.


Could you please respond to the scenario presented in my post:

If the Conclave is reviewing an issue originating in the Magisterium, those Arbiters who are Magisters will have to recuse themselves from the judicial review. And if they are all members of the Magisterium (with the exception of the Viceroy) that gives lots of unchecked judicial power to the Viceroy.

Aelitia
 
... it encourages some positions (such as Arbiter) to become dust collectors ...


Is this really the heart of the issue? The Arbiters don't have enough to do?

Originally, they were appointed to open-ended terms and they tended to disappear and weren't available when we needed them. We switched to 6 month terms to limit the amount of "dust collected." It was thought that if there was an affirmation that the Arbiter wanted to continue for another 6 months, they were more likely to stay engaged. Then, we had Delegate(s) who didn't acknowledge they needed to reappoint Arbiters, so we came up with some provisions for the Provost to act.

The solution to allow Magisters to be Arbiters may resolve the "dust collection" issue, but it eliminates the separation of powers and creates the potential for lots of conflict of interest.

I would challenge the Magisterium and the region to consider other ways to make the Arbiter position more engaging without destroying the separation protections built into the Concordat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zukchiva
Member Avatar
Where am I?
With the following fact of the danger of conflict of self interest, I would like to deny Aelitia's proposal to allow cross-membership between the Provost and as an Arbiter. However, the issue of denying the cross-membership of Magister-Viceory still has not been discussed by the Magisterium extensively. Is conflict of interest possible if someone is both a Magister and a Viceory?
Posted Image Posted Image



My name is Zukchiva! You can also call me Zuk if you feel like it.
I joined NS and TEP on December 6th, 2017.
Citizen since December 11th, 2017.
Two Latin Phrases I found



Now for a few banners:
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
A Slanted Black Stripe
Member Avatar
What stripe?
Zukchiva
 
However, the issue of denying the cross-membership of Magister-Viceory still has not been discussed by the Magisterium extensively. Is conflict of interest possible if someone is both a Magister and a Viceory?


Suppose the Magisterium passes a law. Then, one of the citizens of the region challenges the law as being contrary to the Concordat. Who rules on the question? The Conclave, which is led by the Viceroy. How does the Viceroy provide an independent review of the law if they were part of the Magisterium that created the law?

The Viceroy and the other Arbiters need to be independent of the Magisterium, as they are the only place for a citizen to appeal an unfair and unjust law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zukchiva
Member Avatar
Where am I?
A Slanted Black Stripe
May 14 2018, 07:12:56 PM
Zukchiva
 
However, the issue of denying the cross-membership of Magister-Viceory still has not been discussed by the Magisterium extensively. Is conflict of interest possible if someone is both a Magister and a Viceory?


Suppose the Magisterium passes a law. Then, one of the citizens of the region challenges the law as being contrary to the Concordat. Who rules on the question? The Conclave, which is led by the Viceroy. How does the Viceroy provide an independent review of the law if they were part of the Magisterium that created the law?

The Viceroy and the other Arbiters need to be independent of the Magisterium, as they are the only place for a citizen to appeal an unfair and unjust law.
From the points you prove, conflict of interest seems to be the danger here. I see no way out of it, so cross-membership should be denied to the Judiciary and Legislative branches.
Posted Image Posted Image



My name is Zukchiva! You can also call me Zuk if you feel like it.
I joined NS and TEP on December 6th, 2017.
Citizen since December 11th, 2017.
Two Latin Phrases I found



Now for a few banners:
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aelitia
Member Avatar
The Fluffy Horde
Although I disagree with the points presented against it, as I believe a conflict of interest would not exist in such a case, I will be setting aside the cross membership idea for now. I would like to get the appointment and term amendments cleared up, though since they are quite frankly a mess.



Article A- Executive
Original
 
Section 5) The Delegate shall nominate citizens to serve as Viziers, and Arbiters. If the Delegate fails to nominate an Arbiter before the time frames outlined in Article C, Section 9, the Provost shall exclusively nominate the Arbiter(s). [2014 Am 2, §1 and 2016 Am 2 §1]
Proposed
 
Section 5) The Delegate shall nominate citizens to serve as Viziers, and Arbiters. If the Delegate fails to nominate an Arbiter before the time frames outlined in Article C, Section 9, the Provost shall exclusively nominate the Arbiter(s). [2014 Am 2, §1] and 2016 Am 2 §1]


Original
 
Section 16) Each time a Magister votes, he must also explicitly supply his WA nation (if applicable) in the same post. [2013 Am 1, §6]
Proposal
 
Section 16) Each time a Magister votes, he they must also explicitly supply his their WA nation (if applicable) in the same post. [2013 Am 1, §6]
A minor text change, no functional difference but if a suite of changes are being considered, why not do minor corrections as well.


Article C- Judicial
Original
 
Section 9) Arbiters are appointed for six month terms. Two arbiters shall be appointed on January 1 and July 1. One arbiter shall be appointed on March 1, May 1, September 1, and November 1. [2014 Am 1]

Section 10) Arbiters shall retain their seat until a citizen is nominated to replace them for the remainder of the current term as set out in Section 9 of this Article. An Arbiter may be reappointed when their term ends. There is no limit on the number of terms an Arbiter may serve. [2014 Am 1 & 2016 Am 2 §2]
Proposal
 
Section 9) Arbiters are appointed for six month terms tenure. Arbiters shall then retain their seat after their term until a citizen is nominated to replace them. Two arbiters shall be appointed on January 1 and July 1. One arbiter shall be appointed on March 1, May 1, September 1, and November 1. [2014 Am 1]

Section 10) Arbiters shall retain their seat until a citizen is nominated to replace them for the remainder of the current term as set out in Section 9 of this Article. An Arbiter may be reappointed when their term ends. There is no limit on the number of terms an Arbiter may serve. [2014 Am 1 & 2016 Am 2 §2]
Partnered up because language from Section 10 is more appropriate in the new Section 9, only functional difference is the removal of set "terms" of Arbiters to be appointed on certain days and introduces a system close to what we end up using. An Arbiter is "appointed" for six months whenever, and keeps their seat after the six months until there is another nomination; this is more like a renewing tenure system.


I would like to welcome discussion on this focused proposed reform package! I believe these were the uncontroversial proposed changes, and would like to see these move forward


Former Delegate
Posted Image


"Viceroy Aelitia, whatever pills he might use, sure has ushered in a new era of TEP law"-EPNS 18/09/14

Civillian Missile Commander, Nuclear Apocalypse, April 2017
Posted Image
Past Positions

Delegate
Viceroy of The East Pacific 05-25-14 to 09-08-16
Arbiter of Conclave 05-06-14 to 09-08-16
Vizier 07-30-15 to 11-24-16
Magister
Vice Chancellor TEP University



Aelitia on NS
Aelitia RP Embassy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zukchiva
Member Avatar
Where am I?
After re-reading these proposals, I still say that there is nothing really wrong with them, as far as I can see. I support these proposals unless something is noticed that can affect East Pacific. I support my first statement.
Posted Image Posted Image



My name is Zukchiva! You can also call me Zuk if you feel like it.
I joined NS and TEP on December 6th, 2017.
Citizen since December 11th, 2017.
Two Latin Phrases I found



Now for a few banners:
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drachen
Member Avatar
Yare yare dawa...
I had nothing against the Arbiter-Magister cross-membership and still have nothing against the Viceroy's proposed appointment and term amendments. Very much in favor of these new changes.
Badges

Actual Dragon
Posted Image

Loli Protector
Posted Image

Marine Biologist
Posted Image

Queen of the Fairies
Posted Image

Yuri Enthusiast
Posted Image
Shan'alah bandu ni Verdrassil

Posted Image

"Fal andu'balah nei il'amare."
"Through love, the nation is preserved."
- Lady Al'Ameth
Posted Image
Roles

Vizier
Posted Image

Minister of Culture
Posted Image

Minister of World Assembly Affairs
Posted Image

Provost of the Magisterium
Posted Image

Pollster
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
« Previous Topic · Magisterium · Next Topic »
Add Reply


© The East Pacific 2003-2018