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.

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. Where do I start?
When you sign up on our forums, your account may be limited to certain forums, and unable to make requests in our roleplay section. We recommend that you Apply for Citizenship to gain all the benefits of being part of our roleplay community!

Username:   Password:
Multiquote ON Multiquote off
Locked Topic
Standing Orders of the Conclave, draft:
Topic Started: Jun 22 2010, 03:16:28 PM (2,393 Views)
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
((This is pretty much a Creole between Barb and I's drafts, with the originals located in the next post. Here goes nothing, lol))

((Also, anyone may propose a change in this document))


Section 1: Introduction
The Conclave of The East Pacific does hereby invest in a written set of protocols, henceforth known as The Standing Orders of the Conclave, with the intent of preserving the basic rights of citizens, protecting the well-being of citizens, and interpreting written laws created and designed to be enforced upon citizens. This document should not be rigid to the point where it handcuffs the Arbiters of The East Pacific, but it should also not be too loose as to create gray areas that may deter from established code. Therefore, anything not specifically mentioned in this document may be interpreted by the current Arbiters of The East Pacific and may be subject to amending. The SOC is an agreement between Arbiters on how to best conduct Conclave business. It is subject to change at any time. Nothing in the Standing Orders of the Conclave shall be construed as establishing rights of any party not contemplated by the Concordat or laws of The East Pacific.

Section II: Duties of the Arbiters (Expanded)
An Arbiter of The East Pacific is empowered responsible to:

  1. Interpret laws passed by the Magisterium and signed by the Delegate and make a clear decision on how the law should be interpreted (or voided).
  2. Settle any disputes presented by citizens of The East Pacific.
  3. Hold trial for any members or citizens that have been accused of a particular crime within the region.
  4. Establish verdicts and sentences for members or citizens during a time of a trial.
  5. Elect among them a Viceroy to serve a period of six months to conduct elections, grant citizenship, oversee trials, and report to the Magisterium with the decision regarding any bills presented to the body.
  6. Remove a Vizier for inactivity or high crimes by a 2/3 vote.
  7. Remain active and punctual during their tenure.
Section III: Voting

  1. For each voting period, the Viceroy is charged with outlining the purpose for voting, the choices, and the voting time frame.
  2. If all Arbiters have voted on a particular issue, voting ends immediately.
  3. In the event of a tie vote, a re-vote may be initiated. A grace period of three days is used for open debating of the issue at hand prior to voting. The Viceroy is then charged with initiating a new voting period. If by the end of the re-vote a tie still exists, the Viceroy’s vote may count as an extra vote.
  4. All voting periods are to last a maximum of one week. Any Arbiters who do not vote in this period will be counted as “abstain” and will have their non-participation recorded. Those who do vote within this period are designated as “active Arbiters” in this document.
  5. Any Arbiter who brings a matter before the Conclave with the exception of a Motion to Dismiss or is materially involved in matter to be considered must recuse themselves and may not be considered an active Arbiter in that matter. Once recused, the Arbiter must not participate in any part of the matter.
  6. Prior to voting, the Conclave may use a private discussion subforum to debate a bill, trial, or amendment to this document.
Section IV: Interpreting Laws

  1. The Viceroy is charged with opening any debate for a bill presented to them by making a post topic which outlines the bill verbatim and if the debate is open to the public or is private.
  2. The Conclave will have a period no greater than one week to debate over a bill presented to them and determine potential problems regarding the bill and its effect on the region. Any arbiter may ask for a one one-week extension to the debate
  3. Once the debate period has ended, the Conclave must vote on the bill to determine if it is to be passed or voided. This voting period ends on the following conditions:
    a. If a majority vote has been achieved under the current number of Arbiters in the Conclave.
    b. If one week has passed and a majority among active Arbiters has been established.
  4. If a bill is declared a law, the Viceroy is charged with sending the law back to the Magisterium to be amended into the Concordat.
  5. If a bill is declared void, the Viceroy is charged with sending the law back to the Magisterium for review. Comments as to why the bill was voided may be included.
  6. If a bill moves through the law-making process and is voided twice, the bill is dead and may not be re-submitted.
  7. Multiple bills reaching the floor of the Conclave may be debated and voted on synchronously.
  8. One week after the Conclave has announced their decision on a bill, any citizen may request any private discussions regarding the bill be made public to the Viceroy. The Viceroy is then charged with moving the discussion from the private quarters to the public Conclave subforum.
Section V: Offenses that may Merit a Trial
A citizen or member of The East Pacific may be placed on trial if he or she is accused of

  1. Severely harassing or teasing, expressing prejudice against, or acting with intent to harm members or citizens.
  2. Creating a disturbance that is distressing to other members or citizens, or the government of The East Pacific.
  3. Accepting bribes while serving in a governmental position of The East Pacific.
  4. Committing treason upon The East Pacific.
  5. Committing voter fraud.
  6. Actively contradicting the written laws of the Concordat.
  7. Compromising or overriding the judiciary powers of the Conclave The East Pacific.
Section VI: Trial Process

  1. Any citizens or members may bring up accusations of offending members or citizens for the Conclave to review in the form of a post topic. These accusations must include the accused person(s) and offense(s) they are accused of committing in addition to any witnesses or advocates each side wishes to appear before the trial.
  2. Any offenses brought to the attention of the Conclave must be determined to merit the need for a trial. The Conclave may have no more than one week to determine if a trial is needed by active Arbiter majority vote, and the acceptance of any advocates and witnesses proposed.
  3. If a trial is deemed unnecessary, the Viceroy is charged with explaining why a trial is not granted and may offer advice as to how the issue may be resolved. Arbiters may be called to offer advice as well. The post topic is then locked.
  4. If a trial is deemed necessary, the Viceroy is charged with pinning a topic that designates a motion for trial. In the opening post, the Viceroy must establish the conflicting parties, charges brought upon the accused person(s) by the accuser(s), and if the trial is open to public comments or is private.
  5. The Viceroy is charged with guiding the direction of the trial: from the motion, to evidence provided by the accuser(s), to defense of the accused person(s), to opening the floor for questions, and suspending the trial to allow for arbiters to reach a sentence and verdict. Only those given clearance to post during the trial may do so as directed by the Viceroy and in response to a question proposed by an Arbiter.
  6. Any party or Arbiter who becomes aware of a witness with relevant information as to the legality of a bill or the guilt or innocence of any party before the Conclave may petition the Viceroy during proceedings to amend the list of nations allowed to present evidence or argument. Once a vote has been taken, any such submission would be in the form of a Motion To Reconsider the matter based upon new evidence.
  7. The accuser(s) have three days maximum to present enough evidence to convict the accused person(s). If the accuser(s) do not provide evidence in the time allotted, the trial is ended and declared void.
  8. Once the evidence has been presented, the accused person(s) have three days maximum to provide a defense. If the accused person(s) do not provide a defense in the time allotted, the defense is dismissed.
  9. Either side may call upon witnesses that have been cleared by the Viceroy, and request for more time, which may be granted by the Viceroy in the form of a numerical amount.
  10. When the floor is opened for questions Arbiters may act as prosecutors in order to better assess the situation. The parties involved may only comment on questions asked by the Arbiters.
  11. Trials are to last two weeks or until active arbiters have finished asking relevant questions, in which they must request for more time prior to the two weeks’ end. The thread is then locked by the Viceroy until a verdict is reached and a motion for debating between Arbiters is enacted.
  12. To debate on a verdict and sentence, Arbiters will retire to a private subforum. Arbiters are not to speak about the debate elsewhere or rely on outside sources to affect their judgment.
  13. If either party is found electioneering (attempting to sway the outcome of the trial outside of the trial thread), further consequences will be debated by the Conclave.
Section VII: Verdict and Sentencing

  1. The Conclave shall have a period of no greater than one week to reach a verdict and an appropriate sentence for the convicted if found guilty simultaneously. This sentencing may include, but is not limited to, forum suspension, removal of governmental positions, regional banning, and forum expulsion.
  2. Once a verdict is reached, the Viceroy is charged with unlocking the thread, posting the verdict and the sentence, and locking the thread
  3. Upon reaching an appropriate sentence, the Viceroy must inform the Delegate of any punishments that relate to the region for him or her to enact. Likewise, for any punishments relating to the forums, the Viceroy must inform the Admin team through the back room of the sentences to be carried out.
  4. Sentences that require the removal of positions may be brought to the attention of the Magisterium for vote at the digression of the Conclave.
  5. If new evidence is found after a verdict and sentence has been reached that may have changed the outcome, the trial may be re-opened by the Viceroy and the process will begin again.
Section VIII: Removal of Arbiters / Viziers
An Arbiter / A Vizier may be removed:

  1. As a condition of their sentencing if he or she is found guilty in a trial.
  2. By proven abuse of his or her duties as an Arbiter / a Vizier of The East Pacific.
  3. Through inactivity, in which 2/3 of the active Arbiters vote to remove him or her from office.
    a. For inactivity removal, the Viceroy is charged with starting a topic addressing the issue of the inactive member. The process for removal is to be treated the same way as passing a law: a maximum of one week of debate and one week of voting.
  4. If an Arbiter / a Vizier is voted to be removed, the Viceroy is charged with informing the Admin team of the removal of the Arbiter / Vizier.
Section IX: Extraneous Duties of the Viceroy
In addition to what has been outlined above, the Viceroy is charged with

  1. Appointing a Viceroy Designee upon being elected in case he or she is absent for an extended period of time greater than one week or during a matter of importance. If the incumbent Viceroy has been absent for a period greater than 28 days, both posts will be relinquished and new Arbiter elections will be held, overseen by the Viceroy Designee.
    a. If the Viceroy is urgently needed for a matter of importance, the incumbent Viceroy has 48 hours to respond before the Viceroy Designee claims Viceroy duties until the incumbent Viceroy returns.
    b. The incumbent Viceroy may ask the Viceroy Designee to handle the responsibilities of the Viceroy at any time
  2. Updating a pinned calendar thread for the purpose of announcing and scheduling events of the Conclave. This thread will contain this document, and will be locked unless updated by the Viceroy.
Section X: Amendments

  1. Amendments to this document may be proposed at any time by a member of the Conclave.
  2. Any proposed amendments will be presented to the Conclave body in the form of a post topic. Conclave members will have a period no greater than one week to debate over the necessity of said amendment.
  3. The Viceroy is charged with opening the voting for an amendment, which is to be the same procedure for voting on a bill for passage into a law. If the vote passes, the Viceroy is charged with adding the amendment to this document.
  4. All amendments, including this document, must be passed by a 2/3 majority vote.
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Let me begin by saying this is by no means perfect or the final product. This is why we have multiple Arbiters – between the eight of us, we should be able to come up with something that is defined, but at the same time flexible and won’t cause us to get bogged down. That was our main intent with this: it looks a little cutthroat with the time frames and the defining and use of active Arbiters, but inactivity is a worse scenario: it’s better to accomplish things with some defined standards than to have half of our team stumble to the pitfalls of inactivity. While I am not saying this is a concern among anyone here, having people in positions that are not active are essentially dead weight, bringing the entire team down. We should be cognoscente of that.

With that in mind, I’d like to run down the line, section by section, as to why we wrote what I did, covering some of the parts. I ask that you please rip this document a new one – this has to be something that we all agree on and something that should have all the potential issues minimized. As Barb said in an earlier post, this is pretty much a blend of our two documents. I’ll provide links to the originals prior to the blending (Barb's and Todd's), but we both feel this is a pretty good start.

Section I is more of a treatise than anything else. I don’t think we’re going to cover every base in this protocol or process, and it’s pretty much a ‘catch-all’, much like the US 9th and 10th Bill of Rights. If it doesn’t say what the Conclave should do, well, let the current team figure it out rather than debate on if the document eludes to a particular thing or not.

Section II is just an expansion of the duties of the Conclave, more or less a restatement of what we already know. It is not absolutely necessary for this document, but it is nice to have a little bit of an expansion written to more clearly define what we believe our duties are in more detail.

Section III defines a few details regarding voting. Explained here is the voting time limit. Perhaps one week is a little harsh, and I would be flexible with changing it, but really, if we are appointed to such roles, we should feel obligated to be active here. While an argument can be made that people who are not as involved in the region can have an outside perspective on certain rulings, really, if someone isn’t going to be active, it’s going to bring us all down. Also, conditions for a tie are also outlined. I don’t expect ties to happen often, but if they do, really, by the second vote they should be knotted out, I’d imagine. We’re all open-minded, level-headed individuals here, individuals who do not compromise fair judgment, of course, but open to the point where we are not blindly rigid, lol.

Section IV defines how we would interpret laws. It calls for one week of debate (or shorter, at the discretion of the Viceroy and if no one seems to have a qualm over it), followed by one week (or shorter, if everyone who is active votes) of voting a bill into a law to be written into the Concordat. It shouldn’t matter if this is a fairly rare occurrence – we should have some kind of standard for this, I believe. And this process is clean-cut. It reaches the floor, we discuss it, we vote on it. Bam. And don’t get me wrong, I do not think we should compromise complete resolution for speed, but really, two weeks should be enough for everyone to say their piece on the issue and come to some sort of agreement. It’s not like we should expect damaged goods either – these bills have passed through two branches already, and should have most of the problems ironed out.

Section V outlines what offenses merit a trial. I think I covered most things, but I could be wrong. Some are obvious, like someone accused of treason or bribery. Some are grayer, like distressing members of TEP or disputes between a few people. Really, this has to be interpreted by the Conclave as to whether or not an issue should go to trial. I would imagine most personal disputes would be asked to be resolved among the parties at fault and, if they cannot be resolved, we’ll step in, but yeah. That is pretty much the beginning of Section VI.

Section VI contains the conditions for a trial. Important clause, I believe, are the first three: anyone can call for a trial, we are to determine if a trial is necessary, and if not, explain why and lock the topic. Basically, it prevents the ‘he called me a ____, so I’m taking you to court!’ thing. Really, if something like that can’t be resolved personally, that concerns me. If, however, it appears that an instance like that cannot be resolved between the two parties for whatever reason, and attempts at fixing it personally have been fruitless, then yes, let’s give it a go. We’re all level-headed folks here, we should be able to figure out if a trial is necessary or not. And, if not, the topic’s locked to prevent any problems stemming from the resolution. Just like in a real hearing, the judge can bang his gavel and adjourn the dispute. The issue may be revisited later, of course, if different evidence is provided. I don’t think we’ll really need to worry about that, but it at least puts a cap on some possibly unnecessary trials. The trial period itself is clearly defined, as is its protocol. Barb and I worked a lot with trying to hammer this part out, lol. She had very good ideas with how a trial should be structured. The time limits are perhaps a little harsh, but really, it’s not like the Viceroy will refuse people to have more time. We’re basically trying to prevent trials in some regions which do not have caps and have gone on for months. That’s ludicrous - we should be able to guarantee the citizens’ rights to a fair and speedy trial. Trials can damage those who are present in it, and I’d personally not want to draw something like that out, especially since it not only affects the offender (and sometimes the accuser) in a negative way, but it also acts like a thundercloud over the region. Plus, we should be able to provide a quick yet concise judgment. Also, we’re here to make sure people have a fair trial. Fair first, then speedy, in my opinion. All discussions between the Arbiters regarding the verdict and sentence should be done in closed quarters, we suggest a subforum only Arbiters can see. This section also outlines rules against electioneering – trying to sway the vote one way or another outside of the trial thread.

Sentencing is provided in Section VII. Again, clear-cut. Sentencing that includes punishments for the TEP on-site region should be brought to the Delegate’s attention. Any forum sentencing should be brought up in the back room and handled by the Admin team. Simple as that. In addition, we outline a procedure for what should happen in case evidence is supplied later that may have affected the outcome of the verdict and/or sentencing.

Section VIII is an important section as it gives us protocol to deal with inactive Arbiters / Viziers, or Arbiters / Viziers who commit crimes against The East Pacific under their current position. Really, I don’t think they should be immune to face a trial in such an instance. This does, however, create the possibility for a hung jury in the case of Arbiters, as an even number of Arbiters will be forced to determine the Arbiter’s removal, but such conditions should be left up to the current Conclave body.

Section IX is pretty much awesome suggestions by Barb that don’t fit anywhere else. The idea of a Viceroy Designee is a great idea: if ever the Viceroy is absent or goes on vacation, we don’t have to stop the body. So, I agree, this is great. Also, having a Calendar thread was suggested by Barb to help inform Arbiters of what is going on. Arbiters can also track this topic and receive email alerts whenever the thread is updated. This is really good for travelers and people who may be too busy to check up on the forums.

Section X is basically for amendments to the Standing Orders, and is pretty much self-explanatory (I hope, lol).


A few other points to consider:
We need to keep all trials and law passing events out in the open. But, perhaps we could hold trials and law-passing events on another subforum that is open for viewing for all people, but requires a forum mask to post, such that only people invited to court can post in it? That way we can stay more on task and prevent people from threadjacking, perhaps.

Also, is it our responsibility to mediate problems between members of TEP, or should we only handle violations or bad behavior on the forums?
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Allegheny
Member Avatar
Partly Cloudy
Section IX

I think an emergency option needs to be added to the 28 day absence period.

Say the Viceroy is urgently needed for any reason I think 2 days should be sufficient, after two days of no response or show they are replaced as quickly as possible to take care of the emergency.

I will post more later should i think of something.
Posted Image

There was a hole here. It's gone now.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Allegheny
Jun 22 2010, 05:08 PM
Section IX

I think an emergency option needs to be added to the 28 day absence period.

Say the Viceroy is urgently needed for any reason I think 2 days should be sufficient, after two days of no response or show they are replaced as quickly as possible to take care of the emergency.

I will post more later should i think of something.

I agree, a time frame should be given for those matters of importance. Maybe something like this?

Quote:
 
Section IX: Extraneous Duties of the Viceroy
In addition to what has been outlined above, the Viceroy is charged with





  1. Appointing a Viceroy Designee upon being elected in case he or she is absent for an extended period of time greater than one week or during a matter of importance. If the incumbent Viceroy has been absent for a period greater than 28 days, both posts will be relinquished and new Arbiter elections will be held, overseen by the Viceroy Designee.
    a.    If the Viceroy is urgently needed for a matter of importance, the incumbent Viceroy has 48 hours to respond before the Viceroy Designee claims Viceroy duties until the incumbent Viceroy returns.


  2. Updating a pinned calendar thread for the purpose of announcing and scheduling events of the Conclave. This thread will contain this document, and will be locked unless updated by the Viceroy.




How's that?

I also think something else should be added, like if the incumbent comes back in the middle of a trial, he or she will be allowed to return to their post until the trial or what not is finished. Does that sound good, or would it create problems?
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
Allegheny is right about an emergency. Perhaps the Designee Viceroy has the power to step if an emergency occurs and we aren't able to reach the Viceroy. A lot crazy crap can happen real fast in a few hours in NS. I wouldn't make it 48 hours. The definition of emergency is often "right now."

Concordat:
==Article C: Judicial==

Section 1) This Concordat does hereby invest judicial power in the Conclave, which shall be the sole interpreter of this Concordat.

Section 2) The Conclave shall be composed of an odd number of Arbiters but there shall not be more than seven Arbiters at any one time.

Section 3) An Arbiter shall not serve concurrently as a Magister or the Delegate.

Section 4) The Arbiters shall elect from amongst themselves for a term of six months a Viceroy, who shall oversee the proceedings of the Conclave and administrate all elections in the East Pacific and represent the Conclave to the Magisterium and the Delegate.

Section 5) The Conclave may rule on the actions of the Delegate or laws passed by the Magisterium and nullify and prohibit any which are contrary to this Concordat.

Section 6) The Conclave may judge the actions of any nation in the East Pacific for violation of this Concordat and the laws of the East Pacific and sentence those found guilty.

Section 7) Trials in the Conclave shall be in open session.

Section 8) The Conclave may remove a Vizier by 2/3 vote for absence or high crimes.


Mediation
There's nothing in 1, 5, or 6 about dispute resolution. My personal preference would be that we not reference resolving disputes and not offer mediation. Not because I'm a "strict constructionist" (LOL) but because I've done mediation IRL and:
- it's very different than a trial: usually only one mediator and conducted privately
- it's a pain in the butt

I would like to avoid the perception that there is a "right to trial" in TEP. A party may present a bill or bring charges, but SOC Section VI (3) allows us to say no, this is not a venue for that issue. I like the way Todd worded it: we can advise the party who brought the matter where a remedy may be found, if any.

7 Arbiters/Odd Number
I think we should explicitly empower the Viceroy to ensure there is an odd number and no more that 7 "active Arbiters." The Viceroy can simply "call the roll" by having us check in by putting something on the calendar and if he/she gets an odd number, cool. If not, we empower the Viceroy to remedy the "8th Arbiter/even number" problem by either:
- stating that the Viceroy will in this proceeding preside but not vote; or
- ask someone to volunteer to sit on the bench: we can watch but not participate in this round

We were elected because somebody considers us reasonable players of some integrity and I think there's no reason to not allow the Viceroy to make this call. None of us are so stubborn we wouldn't be willing to step aside.

Just Say No to Smileys
As fun as they can be, smileys can also inject sarcasm and snark. At best a distraction in a trial. I just thought of this one because a Fridge Owl is watching me.

Conclave Chambers
Trials shall be in open session. I would still like to have an "Arbiter only" forum where we can discuss the merits of a case privately if we want to before we vote. Juries always debate in private, so does the US Supreme Court. It's evidence of intelligence to listen to others and to be willing to change your mind. Everything we say in a Conclave thread is history: it can't be changed. We are always smarter when we check our perceptions with smart people. Not only does this protect the parties from our discussion being taken out of context, it also protects us.

Example:
"Barb said she thought I was not guilty, then TAO told her off and she changed her vote. I hate that bitch!" When what TAO really did was point to convincing evidence I had overlooked. We all have to live with the consequences of our votes. I accept that. I'd rather not have my (or your) judgment questioned because we listened to reason and changed our minds to best serve the region and the parties before the Conclave.

There is no need to even reference Chambers in the SOC. It's not part of a trial. It's for brandy, cigars, and intellectual debate. If the Viceroy asks the active Arbiters if they want to retire to Chambers before the vote and we all say no, then we don't. If I'm confused about something you're clear about, I'd like a quiet place to ask and learn.

Excellent work, Todd!
Barb
Arbiter Barbara Manatee
Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific
Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier

Keep TEP beautiful!

The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Quote:
 
Todd McCloud: don't feed the trolls
Quote:
 
Vulshain: you don't want the disco-roller skating bots to come
Quote:
 
Kurogasa: honest to Quetzalcoatl
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kandarin
Member Avatar
Ferret princess
I've had a look at this, and have a number of comments. Excuse me if they're not particularly structured; this document gives one a lot to think about and some parts draw critique while others do not.


Quote:
 
Section II: Duties of the Arbiters (Expanded)
An Arbiter of The East Pacific is empowered to:

  1. Interpret laws passed by the Magisterium and signed by the Delegate and make a clear decision on how the law should be interpreted (or voided).
  2. Settle any disputes presented by citizens of The East Pacific.
  3. Hold trial for any members or citizens that have been accused of a particular crime within the region.
  4. Establish verdicts and sentences for members or citizens during a time of a trial.
  5. Elect among them a Viceroy to serve a period of six months to conduct elections, grant citizenship, oversee trials, and report to the Magisterium with the decision regarding any bills presented to the body.
  6. Remove a Vizier for inactivity or high crimes by a 2/3 vote.
  7. Remain active and punctual during their tenure.


1,2: More on this later.
5: Does this include the (Concordat-mandated) role of the Vizier to keep a dossier of all citizens, or are we moving to scrap that?
7: Nothing empowers an Arbiter to remain active and punctual. Coupled with 'empowered', this suggests, however, subtly, that one must hold a position to have a significant impact. Could we get a different word besides 'empowered'? "An Arbiter of The East Pacific is responsible to:", perhaps.

Quote:
 
Section III: Voting

  1. For each voting period, the Viceroy is charged with outlining the purpose for voting, the choices, and the voting time frame.
  2. If all Arbiters have voted on a particular issue, voting ends immediately.
  3. In the event of a tie vote, a re-vote may be initiated. A grace period of three days is used for open debating of the issue at hand prior to voting. The Viceroy is then charged with initiating a new voting period. If by the end of the re-vote a tie still exists, the Viceroy’s vote may count as an extra vote.
  4. All voting periods are to last a maximum of one week. Any Arbiters who do not vote in this period will be counted as “abstain” and will have their non-participation recorded. Those who do vote within this period are designated as “active Arbiters” in this document.


Just to clarify, how open is open debate of a re-vote (or for that matter, a debate, see Section IV)? Arbiters only? Citizens? People with relevant commentary, subject to approval? I can see the case for either, and would like that to be something that the Viceroy sets at the beginning of debate.

Quote:
 
Section IV: Interpreting Laws

  1. The Conclave will have a period no greater than one week to debate over a bill presented to them and determine potential problems regarding the bill and its effect on the region.
  2. Once the debate period has ended, the Conclave must vote on the bill to determine if it is to be passed or voided. This voting period ends on the following conditions:
      a. If a majority vote has been achieved under the current number of Arbiters in the Conclave.
      b. If one week has passed and a majority among active Arbiters has been established.
  3. If a bill is declared a law, the Viceroy is charged with sending the law back to the Magisterium to be amended into the Concordat.
  4. If a bill is declared void, the Viceroy is charged with sending the law back to the Magisterium for review. Comments as to why the bill was voided may be included.
  5. If a bill moves through the law-making process and is voided twice, the bill is dead and may not be re-submitted.
  6. Multiple bills reaching the floor of the Conclave may be debated and voted on synchronously.


1. The one-week period can be a little harsh for a particularly lively or contentious debate. There should be the possibility of an Arbiter requesting a (one) extension, with a set limit (say, another week). Of course, this should be something active, not passive; an Arbiter would have to actively request for it to happen.
3. This needs to be reworded for clarity - not all laws to be voted on are part of the Concordat.
6. Hell yes.

Quote:
 
Section V: Offenses that may Merit a Trial
A citizen or member of The East Pacific may be placed on trial if he or she is accused of

  1. Severely harassing or teasing, expressing prejudice against, or acting with intent to harm members or citizens.
  2. Creating a disturbance that is distressing to other members or citizens, or the government of The East Pacific.
  3. Accepting bribes while serving in a governmental position of The East Pacific.
  4. Committing treason upon The East Pacific.
  5. Committing voter fraud.
  6. Actively contradicting the written laws of the Concordat.
  7. Compromising or overriding the judiciary powers of the Conclave.


2. Gotta ask about the intent of this. Are we talking about things like posting spum that's out of line in threads? A lot of things can be distressing.
3. What constitutes a bribe? I can think of a lot of things - anything from trading favors (hard to prove, gray area) to Delegates taking access to third-party endoscanning software. I feel like this is something vague enough and contentious enough that we need a law passed outlawing it before we add it to our list of offenses.
6. Again, the Magisterium is empowered to make laws forbidding things that aren't forbidden in the Concordat - such as going over the endocap or violating adspum rules. This section should acknowledge violation of such laws as well.

Quote:
 
Section VI: Trial Process

  1. Any citizens or members may bring up accusations of offending members or citizens for the Conclave to review in the form of a post. These accusations must include the accused person(s) and offense(s) they are accused of committing.
  2. Any offenses brought to the attention of the Conclave must be determined to merit the need for a trial. The Conclave may have no more than one week to determine if a trial is needed by active Arbiter majority vote.
  3. If a trial is deemed unnecessary, the Viceroy is charged with explaining why a trial is not granted and may offer advice as to how the issue may be resolved. Arbiters may be called to offer advice as well. The post is then locked.
  4. If a trial is deemed necessary, the Viceroy is charged with pinning a topic that designates a motion for trial. In the opening post, the Viceroy must establish the conflicting parties, charges brought upon the accused person(s) by the accuser(s).
  5. The Viceroy is charged with guiding the direction of the trial: from the motion, to evidence provided by the accuser(s), to defense of the accused person(s), to opening the floor for questions, and suspending the trial to allow for arbiters to reach a sentence and verdict.
  6. The accuser(s) have three days maximum to present enough evidence to convict the accused person(s). If the accuser(s) do not provide evidence in the time allotted, the trial is ended and declared void.
  7. Once the evidence has been presented, the accused person(s) have three days maximum to provide a defense. If the accused person(s) do not provide a defense in the time allotted, the defense is dismissed.
  8. Either side may call upon witnesses that have been cleared by the Viceroy, and request for more time, which may be granted by the Viceroy in the form of a numerical amount.
  9. When the floor is opened for questions Arbiters may act as prosecutors in order to better assess the situation. The parties involved may only comment on questions asked by the Arbiters.
  10. Trials are to last two weeks or until active arbiters have finished asking relevant questions, in which they must request for more time prior to the two weeks’ end. The thread is then locked by the Viceroy until a verdict is reached and a motion for debating between Arbiters is enacted.
  11. To debate on a verdict and sentence, Arbiters will retire to a private subforum. Arbiters are not to speak about the debate elsewhere or rely on outside sources to affect their judgment.
  12. If either party is found electioneering (attempting to sway the outcome of the trial outside of the trial thread), further consequences will be debated by the Conclave.


This looks good, but as has been (kind of) pointed out already, the Viceroy should be able to specify whether the debate will be public or private.

Quote:
 
Section VII: Verdict and Sentencing

  1. The Conclave shall have a period of no greater than one week to reach a verdict and an appropriate sentence for the convicted if found guilty. This sentencing may include, but is not limited to, forum suspension, removal of governmental positions, regional banning, and forum expulsion.
  2. Once a verdict is reached, the Viceroy is charged with unlocking the thread, posting the verdict and the sentence, and locking the thread
  3. Upon reaching an appropriate sentence, the Viceroy must inform the Delegate of any punishments that relate to the region for him or her to enact. Likewise, for any punishments relating to the forums, the Viceroy must inform the Admin team through the back room of the sentences to be carried out.
  4. Sentences that require the removal of positions may be brought to the attention of the Magisterium for vote at the digression of the Conclave.
  5. If new evidence is found after a verdict and sentence has been reached that may have changed the outcome, the trial may be re-opened by the Viceroy and the process will begin again.


I see sentencing as somewhere where we might get stuck. We should clarify that it's one and the same as the verdict process. So instead of deciding a guilty/not guilty verdict in the allotted time and getting stuck on a punishment, the Conclave should be making decisions between (for example) "Guilty, ban", "guilty, suspension", "not guilty", etc.

Quote:
 
Section IX: Extraneous Duties of the Viceroy
In addition to what has been outlined above, the Viceroy is charged with

  1. Appointing a Viceroy Designee upon being elected in case he or she is absent for an extended period of time greater than one week or during a matter of importance. If the incumbent Viceroy has been absent for a period greater than 28 days, both posts will be relinquished and new Arbiter elections will be held, overseen by the Viceroy Designee.
  2. Updating a pinned calendar thread for the purpose of announcing and scheduling events of the Conclave. This thread will contain this document, and will be locked unless updated by the Viceroy.


In addition to the 2-day emergency time noted above, it should be clear that the Viceroy can hand off responsibilities to the Viceroy Designee at any time (i.e. The Second Coming of Govind happened, but Viceroy Barb has to be on a plane in two hours, so she hands it off to Designee Allegheny).

---

Now with all that said, there's one thing I really want to settle: There shouldn't be any restrictions on an Arbiter or Viceroy having the right to propose subjects to the Conclave, just like anyone else. I know there's nothing restricting that in the document or the present rules (or lack thereof) but I've always felt a reluctance to propose things to the Conclave when they are obviously my agenda, and I doubt I am the only one. However, what I propose is that if an Arbiter proposes something to the Conclave, they automatically recuse themselves on their own proposal, thus breaking the tie (or creating the need for a tiebreak) and cementing the objectivity of the Conclave.
"Torpored Caitiff Antediluvian"

Quote:
 
ClipSnap says:
Kandarin should just implode from the sheer ridiculousness of it all.
ClipSnap says:
I mean, no nation could ever sustain that many contradicting belief systems and still exist.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
ultharambassadorbarbara
Jun 22 2010, 05:25 PM
Allegheny is right about an emergency.  Perhaps the Designee Viceroy has the power to step if an emergency occurs and we aren't able to reach the Viceroy.  A lot crazy crap can happen real fast in a few hours in NS.  I wouldn't make it 48 hours.  The definition of emergency is often "right now."


Hmm, well I don't know if we can make it immediately - we should at least give the incumbent viceroy some time to respond and do his or her duty. What about 24 hours for an emergency?

Quote:
 

Mediation
There's nothing in 1, 5, or 6 about dispute resolution.  My personal preference would be that we not reference resolving disputes and not offer mediation.  Not because I'm a "strict constructionist" (LOL) but because I've done mediation IRL and:
- it's very different than a trial: usually only one mediator and conducted privately
- it's a pain in the butt

I would like to avoid the perception that there is a "right to trial" in TEP.  A party may present a bill or bring charges, but SOC Section VI (3) allows us to say no, this is not a venue for that issue.  I like the way Todd worded it: we can advise the party who brought the matter where a remedy may be found, if any.

Yeah, mediation might open up an entirely different can of worms here. Plus, now that I think of it, I don't want us to come across as the only mediators of the land. Bottom line: from this, we'll be allowed to determine what merits a trial and what should be sent back to the person who called for a trial for them to work out, with a possibility of advising them on how to maybe fix the issue. I think that alone will prevent a lot of headaches, especially when emotions are high.

Quote:
 
7 Arbiters/Odd Number
I think we should explicitly empower the Viceroy to ensure there is an odd number and no more that 7 "active Arbiters."  The Viceroy can simply "call the roll" by having us check in by putting something on the calendar and if he/she gets an odd number, cool.  If not, we empower the Viceroy to remedy the "8th Arbiter/even number" problem by either:
- stating that the Viceroy will in this proceeding preside but not vote; or
- ask someone to volunteer to sit on the bench: we can watch but not participate in this round

I think keeping the odd number is a better route. But that only works if everyone votes - we could have another arbiter who doesn't vote, and we're back down to six. I like the tied vote solution in this document, but perhaps the Viceroy could save his or her vote to the end if we have an even number? Therefore the Viceroy acts as that tiebreaking vote or can prevent a tie altogether?

We were elected because somebody considers us reasonable players of some integrity and I think there's no reason to not allow the Viceroy to make this call. None of us are so stubborn we wouldn't be willing to step aside.

Quote:
 
Just Say No to Smileys
As fun as they can be, smileys can also inject sarcasm and snark.  At best a distraction in a trial.  I just thought of this one because a Fridge Owl is watching me.

Couldn't agree more. Those Fridge Owls are strange birds with their heads that roll in the form of a figure eight!

Quote:
 
Conclave Chambers
Trials shall be in open session.  I would still like to have an "Arbiter only" forum where we can discuss the merits of a case privately if we want to before we vote.  Juries always debate in private, so does the US Supreme Court.  It's evidence of intelligence to listen to others and to be willing to change your mind.  Everything we say in a Conclave thread is history: it can't be changed.  We are always smarter when we check our perceptions with smart people.  Not only does this protect the parties from our discussion being taken out of context, it also protects us.

Example:
"Barb said she thought I was not guilty, then TAO told her off and she changed her vote.  I hate that bitch!"  When what TAO really did was point to convincing evidence I had overlooked.  We all have to live with the consequences of our votes.  I accept that.  I'd rather not have my (or your) judgment questioned because we listened to reason and changed our minds to best serve the region and the parties before the Conclave.

There is no need to even reference Chambers in the SOC.  It's not part of a trial.  It's for brandy, cigars, and intellectual debate.  If the Viceroy asks the active Arbiters if they want to retire to Chambers before the vote and we all say no, then we don't.  If I'm confused about something you're clear about, I'd like a quiet place to ask and learn.

I highly support this, Barb!



Quote:
 
Excellent work, Todd!

The same to you. Excellent work, Barb!
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Kandarin
Jun 22 2010, 07:34 PM
Quote:
 
Section II: Duties of the Arbiters (Expanded)
An Arbiter of The East Pacific is empowered to:

   1. Interpret laws passed by the Magisterium and signed by the Delegate and make a clear decision on how the law should be interpreted (or voided).
   2. Settle any disputes presented by citizens of The East Pacific.
   3. Hold trial for any members or citizens that have been accused of a particular crime within the region.
   4. Establish verdicts and sentences for members or citizens during a time of a trial.
   5. Elect among them a Viceroy to serve a period of six months to conduct elections, grant citizenship, oversee trials, and report to the Magisterium with the decision regarding any bills presented to the body.
   6. Remove a Vizier for inactivity or high crimes by a 2/3 vote.
   7. Remain active and punctual during their tenure.


1,2: More on this later.
5: Does this include the (Concordat-mandated) role of the Vizier to keep a dossier of all citizens, or are we moving to scrap that?
7: Nothing empowers an Arbiter to remain active and punctual. Coupled with 'empowered', this suggests, however, subtly, that one must hold a position to have a significant impact. Could we get a different word besides 'empowered'? "An Arbiter of The East Pacific is responsible to:", perhaps.


Yeah, empowered does sound really funny - I think I overlooked that. I like your suggestion - change "empowered" to "responsible". If it's okay with everyone here, I'm going to make this change and outline it in red, with the old part either italicized or struck out.. Regardless, we need to change this. *Waits for responses 1 & 2.


Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Section III: Voting

   1. For each voting period, the Viceroy is charged with outlining the purpose for voting, the choices, and the voting time frame.
   2. If all Arbiters have voted on a particular issue, voting ends immediately.
   3. In the event of a tie vote, a re-vote may be initiated. A grace period of three days is used for open debating of the issue at hand prior to voting. The Viceroy is then charged with initiating a new voting period. If by the end of the re-vote a tie still exists, the Viceroy’s vote may count as an extra vote.
   4. All voting periods are to last a maximum of one week. Any Arbiters who do not vote in this period will be counted as “abstain” and will have their non-participation recorded. Those who do vote within this period are designated as “active Arbiters” in this document.


Just to clarify, how open is open debate of a re-vote (or for that matter, a debate, see Section IV)? Arbiters only? Citizens? People with relevant commentary, subject to approval? I can see the case for either, and would like that to be something that the Viceroy sets at the beginning of debate.

I could see the Viceroy outlining the conditions as to who should speak in a debate. I can see cases where only Arbiters should speak, but I can also see times when citizens may be needed to add extra input. This is more about the debate than the voting (obviously only arbiters should vote for arbiter matters, and I know you didn't mean to imply otherwise), but yes. I think we should be flexible with that, but certainly, the Viceroy should outline that. Re-vote debates should be held to the same standing as a regular vote, I believe: Viceroy decides. I suppose the re-vote debate or voting debates could even be moved to the arbiter closed session (which we're advocating for), depending on the decision of the Viceroy.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Section IV: Interpreting Laws

   1. The Conclave will have a period no greater than one week to debate over a bill presented to them and determine potential problems regarding the bill and its effect on the region.
   2. Once the debate period has ended, the Conclave must vote on the bill to determine if it is to be passed or voided. This voting period ends on the following conditions:
      a. If a majority vote has been achieved under the current number of Arbiters in the Conclave.
      b. If one week has passed and a majority among active Arbiters has been established.
   3. If a bill is declared a law, the Viceroy is charged with sending the law back to the Magisterium to be amended into the Concordat.
   4. If a bill is declared void, the Viceroy is charged with sending the law back to the Magisterium for review. Comments as to why the bill was voided may be included.
   5. If a bill moves through the law-making process and is voided twice, the bill is dead and may not be re-submitted.
   6. Multiple bills reaching the floor of the Conclave may be debated and voted on synchronously.


1. The one-week period can be a little harsh for a particularly lively or contentious debate. There should be the possibility of an Arbiter requesting a (one) extension, with a set limit (say, another week). Of course, this should be something active, not passive; an Arbiter would have to actively request for it to happen.
3. This needs to be reworded for clarity - not all laws to be voted on are part of the Concordat.
6. Hell yes.

Alright, I like the idea of a set time limit, like as you said - upon a written request in the debate, an Arbiter may request for an extension of a maximum one week for debating at the digression of the Viceroy. I like that. I'm going to red in this in too.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Section V: Offenses that may Merit a Trial
A citizen or member of The East Pacific may be placed on trial if he or she is accused of

   1. Severely harassing or teasing, expressing prejudice against, or acting with intent to harm members or citizens.
   2. Creating a disturbance that is distressing to other members or citizens, or the government of The East Pacific.
   3. Accepting bribes while serving in a governmental position of The East Pacific.
   4. Committing treason upon The East Pacific.
   5. Committing voter fraud.
   6. Actively contradicting the written laws of the Concordat.
   7. Compromising or overriding the judiciary powers of the Conclave.


2. Gotta ask about the intent of this. Are we talking about things like posting spum that's out of line in threads? A lot of things can be distressing.
3. What constitutes a bribe? I can think of a lot of things - anything from trading favors (hard to prove, gray area) to Delegates taking access to third-party endoscanning software. I feel like this is something vague enough and contentious enough that we need a law passed outlawing it before we add it to our list of offenses.
6. Again, the Magisterium is empowered to make laws forbidding things that aren't forbidden in the Concordat - such as going over the endocap or violating adspum rules. This section should acknowledge violation of such laws as well.

2. Well, it is a bit vague, but let's say a citizen decided he didn't like the threads in the lounge and started posting spum messages in all the threads, with walls of text or other types of spum. It doesn't really fit into 1, 3, or any of the other laws. This is basically an "annoying" clause, I suppose. Creating some kind of disturbance that isn't necessarily covered in 1, I think. Plus, according to VI, 3, we can still throw out charges if we think they're unecessary.
3. I was thinking mostly like a "you vote for me, I'll vote for you" thing in the Magisterium, or "you don't try me for this crime, I'll help you with ____". Those sorts of bribes, I think. But yeah, those are hard to prove in general. We can omit it for now and give it to the Magisterium to chew on a bit, lol.
6. What about "Actively contradicting the written laws of The East Pacific"? I think written would cover everything, but I could be wrong.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Section VI: Trial Process

   1. Any citizens or members may bring up accusations of offending members or citizens for the Conclave to review in the form of a post. These accusations must include the accused person(s) and offense(s) they are accused of committing.
   2. Any offenses brought to the attention of the Conclave must be determined to merit the need for a trial. The Conclave may have no more than one week to determine if a trial is needed by active Arbiter majority vote.
   3. If a trial is deemed unnecessary, the Viceroy is charged with explaining why a trial is not granted and may offer advice as to how the issue may be resolved. Arbiters may be called to offer advice as well. The post is then locked.
   4. If a trial is deemed necessary, the Viceroy is charged with pinning a topic that designates a motion for trial. In the opening post, the Viceroy must establish the conflicting parties, charges brought upon the accused person(s) by the accuser(s).
   5. The Viceroy is charged with guiding the direction of the trial: from the motion, to evidence provided by the accuser(s), to defense of the accused person(s), to opening the floor for questions, and suspending the trial to allow for arbiters to reach a sentence and verdict.
   6. The accuser(s) have three days maximum to present enough evidence to convict the accused person(s). If the accuser(s) do not provide evidence in the time allotted, the trial is ended and declared void.
   7. Once the evidence has been presented, the accused person(s) have three days maximum to provide a defense. If the accused person(s) do not provide a defense in the time allotted, the defense is dismissed.
   8. Either side may call upon witnesses that have been cleared by the Viceroy, and request for more time, which may be granted by the Viceroy in the form of a numerical amount.
   9. When the floor is opened for questions Arbiters may act as prosecutors in order to better assess the situation. The parties involved may only comment on questions asked by the Arbiters.
  10. Trials are to last two weeks or until active arbiters have finished asking relevant questions, in which they must request for more time prior to the two weeks’ end. The thread is then locked by the Viceroy until a verdict is reached and a motion for debating between Arbiters is enacted.
  11. To debate on a verdict and sentence, Arbiters will retire to a private subforum. Arbiters are not to speak about the debate elsewhere or rely on outside sources to affect their judgment.
  12. If either party is found electioneering (attempting to sway the outcome of the trial outside of the trial thread), further consequences will be debated by the Conclave.


This looks good, but as has been (kind of) pointed out already, the Viceroy should be able to specify whether the debate will be public or private.

Agreed, I'll red ink it. I agree with this certainly, but I think the Viceroy should be very selective as to public trials, as those have more potential to get out of hand, or at least off-topic.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Section VII: Verdict and Sentencing

   1. The Conclave shall have a period of no greater than one week to reach a verdict and an appropriate sentence for the convicted if found guilty. This sentencing may include, but is not limited to, forum suspension, removal of governmental positions, regional banning, and forum expulsion.
   2. Once a verdict is reached, the Viceroy is charged with unlocking the thread, posting the verdict and the sentence, and locking the thread
   3. Upon reaching an appropriate sentence, the Viceroy must inform the Delegate of any punishments that relate to the region for him or her to enact. Likewise, for any punishments relating to the forums, the Viceroy must inform the Admin team through the back room of the sentences to be carried out.
   4. Sentences that require the removal of positions may be brought to the attention of the Magisterium for vote at the digression of the Conclave.
   5. If new evidence is found after a verdict and sentence has been reached that may have changed the outcome, the trial may be re-opened by the Viceroy and the process will begin again.


I see sentencing as somewhere where we might get stuck. We should clarify that it's one and the same as the verdict process. So instead of deciding a guilty/not guilty verdict in the allotted time and getting stuck on a punishment, the Conclave should be making decisions between (for example) "Guilty, ban", "guilty, suspension", "not guilty", etc.

I see what you're saying... so if we're debating on a verdict, we add the sentence in as well to sort of speed up the process? I like that kind of thinking.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Section IX: Extraneous Duties of the Viceroy
In addition to what has been outlined above, the Viceroy is charged with

   1. Appointing a Viceroy Designee upon being elected in case he or she is absent for an extended period of time greater than one week or during a matter of importance. If the incumbent Viceroy has been absent for a period greater than 28 days, both posts will be relinquished and new Arbiter elections will be held, overseen by the Viceroy Designee.
   2. Updating a pinned calendar thread for the purpose of announcing and scheduling events of the Conclave. This thread will contain this document, and will be locked unless updated by the Viceroy.


In addition to the 2-day emergency time noted above, it should be clear that the Viceroy can hand off responsibilities to the Viceroy Designee at any time (i.e. The Second Coming of Govind happened, but Viceroy Barb has to be on a plane in two hours, so she hands it off to Designee Allegheny).

Noted in red, I agree with this.

Quote:
 
Now with all that said, there's one thing I really want to settle: There shouldn't be any restrictions on an Arbiter or Viceroy having the right to propose subjects to the Conclave, just like anyone else. I know there's nothing restricting that in the document or the present rules (or lack thereof) but I've always felt a reluctance to propose things to the Conclave when they are obviously my agenda, and I doubt I am the only one. However, what I propose is that if an Arbiter proposes something to the Conclave, they automatically recuse themselves on their own proposal, thus breaking the tie (or creating the need for a tiebreak) and cementing the objectivity of the Conclave.

I couldn't agree more. I don't really think we *need* to put that in the document, but it should be understood. Arbiters are a team, regardless of whatever role they are fulfilling. Just because someone might not be as active or as loud as the other guy in the Conclave doesn't mean their voice counts any less.

As far as recusing one's self in a proposal they themself brought up, I like that. It's sort of a "gentleman's agreement", like voting for yourself in an election (which is allowed, of course, but it's a pattern I've noticed here). The proposer shouldn't really vote on their proposal unless there is a tie. I don't know about making that into a law though. It's more or less a courtesy thing. What do you think? Should we put it in?
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
Re: Kandarin's thoughts ...

I think an extra week to allow Arbiters to hold a lively debate of non-urgent matters is an excellent suggestion. I suggest one of us has to ask or it's a week.

I think "distressing" might be construed as disturbing to a reasonable player. There are those who "play at the edges" and create bad morale with objectively offensive crap. spum and "off topic" is an issue for forum Admin. Being a persistent offensive ass is a matter of keeping order in the region. I've been around long enough to see what any reasonable player would consider regional vandalism - and it can devolve the order of law into chaos.

I think it's smart to let the Viceroy "admit" interested parties (or decline admission) to the trial thread as needed. A nation who is not a party should apply to Viceroy by PM. The last thing we need is "just my 2 cents" posts.

As for re-vote, I suggest that's a new motion based on new information. I recommend against building into the Conclave a "right to appeal." If we screw it up, then let anyone who can show us why file a Motion to Reconsider, which would unlock the thread and start a new consideration of a previous matter. If it's just arguing that we were unreasonable, we can collectively yawn with a Motion to Dismiss. If it's new info, we ought to consider it.

Kandarin nailed this one: if an Arbiter brings a matter before the Conclave, they cannot question, debate, or vote. They have become a party to that matter.
Barb
Arbiter Barbara Manatee
Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific
Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier

Keep TEP beautiful!

The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Quote:
 
Todd McCloud: don't feed the trolls
Quote:
 
Vulshain: you don't want the disco-roller skating bots to come
Quote:
 
Kurogasa: honest to Quetzalcoatl
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kurogasa
Member Avatar
Viceroy
Kandarin
 
However, what I propose is that if an Arbiter proposes something to the Conclave, they automatically recuse themselves on their own proposal, thus breaking the tie (or creating the need for a tiebreak) and cementing the objectivity of the Conclave.


Todd
 
As far as recusing one's self in a proposal they themself brought up, I like that. It's sort of a "gentleman's agreement", like voting for yourself in an election (which is allowed, of course, but it's a pattern I've noticed here). The proposer shouldn't really vote on their proposal unless there is a tie. I don't know about making that into a law though. It's more or less a courtesy thing. What do you think? Should we put it in?


Barbara
 
if an Arbiter brings a matter before the Conclave, they cannot question, debate, or vote. They have become a party to that matter.


I think this should be added to the SOC instead of being part of what Todd calls a "Gentleman's agreement", as those things tend to be broken as soon as someone thinks they need to.

I believe that whenever an arbiter/viceroy is directly involved (or talks about it outside of the conclave) in an issue being discussed in the conclave he/she should recuse himself until the process is over. and not only the accused, but also the accuser.

As a side note, I think the word "Topic" should be used instead of "post" in Section VI. 1 and VI. 3. It's just a technicality but is the word used in the forums.
I don't want to conquer the world, I want the people to put me as their leader for themselves (or I will have to conquer it, anyways it will be mine soon).

"What is a rebel? A man who says no" -Albert Camus-

"The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him. To ride their horses and take away their possessions. To see the faces of those who were dear to them bedewed with tears, and to clasp their wives and daughters in his arms." -Genghis Khan-
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Kurogasa
Jun 23 2010, 02:15 AM
Kandarin
 
However, what I propose is that if an Arbiter proposes something to the Conclave, they automatically recuse themselves on their own proposal, thus breaking the tie (or creating the need for a tiebreak) and cementing the objectivity of the Conclave.


Todd
 
As far as recusing one's self in a proposal they themself brought up, I like that. It's sort of a "gentleman's agreement", like voting for yourself in an election (which is allowed, of course, but it's a pattern I've noticed here). The proposer shouldn't really vote on their proposal unless there is a tie. I don't know about making that into a law though. It's more or less a courtesy thing. What do you think? Should we put it in?


Barbara
 
if an Arbiter brings a matter before the Conclave, they cannot question, debate, or vote. They have become a party to that matter.


I think this should be added to the SOC instead of being part of what Todd calls a "Gentleman's agreement", as those things tend to be broken as soon as someone thinks they need to.

I believe that whenever an arbiter/viceroy is directly involved (or talks about it outside of the conclave) in an issue being discussed in the conclave he/she should recuse himself until the process is over. and not only the accused, but also the accuser.

As a side note, I think the word "Topic" should be used instead of "post" in Section VI. 1 and VI. 3. It's just a technicality but is the word used in the forums.

Hmm, this has been brought up by a few people in the debate so far, so it should probably be added in. I can see this making sense too - better to have it written in protocol than to rely on those 'unspoken rules' sort of thing.

What if we added this to the end of section III, the one that concerns voting?

Quote:
 

Any arbiters who are the subject of the trial or source of the proposal at hand are to be excused from voting on the particular issue.
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
Perhaps a little more specific:

Any Arbiter who brings a matter before the Conclave with the exception of a Motion to Dismiss or is materially involved in matter to be considered must recuse themselves and may not be considered an active Arbiter in that matter.

Todd:

DFD says there are 8 of us and the Concordat demands no more than 7. That's why I suggested we have the Viceroy sort it out so it's always an odd number at the start of a trial. The Concordat states an odd number is always required, not just in the instance of a tie vote.
Barb
Arbiter Barbara Manatee
Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific
Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier

Keep TEP beautiful!

The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Quote:
 
Todd McCloud: don't feed the trolls
Quote:
 
Vulshain: you don't want the disco-roller skating bots to come
Quote:
 
Kurogasa: honest to Quetzalcoatl
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
ultharambassadorbarbara
Jun 23 2010, 05:33 PM
Perhaps a little more specific:

Any Arbiter who brings a matter before the Conclave with the exception of a Motion to Dismiss or is materially involved in matter to be considered must recuse themselves and may not be considered an active Arbiter in that matter.


Perhaps we should change active Arbiter to active voter, perhaps? That way they're still allowed to debate it. I don't know if we want to go that route, but I think they should be able to debate if they'd like, or clarify things, just not vote. I'll red in what you've written down though.

Quote:
 
Todd:

DFD says there are 8 of us and the Concordat demands no more than 7.  That's why I suggested we have the Viceroy sort it out so it's always an odd number at the start of a trial.  The Concordat states an odd number is always required, not just in the instance of a tie vote.


True. One of the first things the Viceroy would need to do is motion to dismiss an arbiter so we're back down to the legal limit of seven, I believe. And I do believe he or she should be charged with maintaining that odd number, which would be something we could add onto Section IX, something maybe like this:

Quote:
 
3. Maintaining an odd-number count of arbiters no greater than seven, as stated by the Concordat


But regardless, I do like the idea of the Viceroy simply removing the problem of potential tie voting from the start and laying down the line as far as ensuring that an odd number is present for all votings. Truly, according to the Concordat we're only supposed to have an odd number anyway. I guess my concern is if for instance if three people vote for, three vote against, and one abstains, for instance. I think that's when a re-vote would be initiated. That was kind of my thinking with that. Really, for any controversial laws we have (I don't anticipate any, but regardless), extra time to debate over it and another vote would be good to have.
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
Should an Arbiter active in trial be allowed to abstain unless they discover a reason to recuse themselves and present that reason to Viceroy? Recusal is ideally done when the matter is placed on the Calendar, but could even happen in deliberations when one of us has an "Oh snap" moment and discovers the integrity of our vote can be questioned due to conflict of interest.

I suggest voting is a duty. Abstention for any reason other than recusal compromises the integrity of proceedings. Abstentions are not just forcing the rest of the team to "be the bad guys" because we feel the obligation to fulfill our duties even when the matter is distasteful, abstentions put us in violation of the Concordat unless the Conclave has means to restore the odd number.

The 8th/even number Arbiter is a valuable resource in the instance of absence or recusal. Because the "bench player" may be called at any time to replace another Arbiter who recuses, they ought to be part of the proceedings. I understand why RL legislators abstain: their vote won't help them politically. RL judges can't refuse to rule on a case assigned to them unless they recuse.
Barb
Arbiter Barbara Manatee
Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific
Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier

Keep TEP beautiful!

The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Quote:
 
Todd McCloud: don't feed the trolls
Quote:
 
Vulshain: you don't want the disco-roller skating bots to come
Quote:
 
Kurogasa: honest to Quetzalcoatl
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
ultharambassadorbarbara
Jun 23 2010, 06:46 PM
Should an Arbiter active in trial be allowed to abstain unless they discover a reason to recuse themselves and present that reason to Viceroy? Recusal is ideally done when the matter is placed on the Calendar, but could even happen in deliberations when one of us has an "Oh snap" moment and discovers the integrity of our vote can be questioned due to conflict of interest.

I wouldn't see why not. If a conflict of interest exists, it should be the duty of the conflictee to realize he or she should recuse. If not, then the Viceroy should be able to spot it, or another Arbiter inform the Viceroy of it. If such an instance where a conflict of interest is found by that person during the discussion, I'd rather a recuse happen instead of let him or her vote. It's just less messy that way.

Quote:
 
I suggest voting is a duty.  Abstention for any reason other than recusal compromises the integrity of proceedings.  Abstentions are not just forcing the rest of the team to "be the bad guys" because we feel the obligation to fulfill our duties even when the matter is distasteful, abstentions put us in violation of the Concordat unless the Conclave has means to restore the odd number. 

This is why I suggested keeping a running tally of who votes and who does not (though we shouldn't count recuses as 'inactive votes'). We do not need 'dead weight' here, so to speak. We were appointed because the appointee (either me or DFD, along with the Magisteriums of the time) felt the person was capable of making tough but fair decisions. If someone doesn't participate altogether, there's no safety in that. It is sort of like that Biblical parable of the sons and their talents - one buried them, one spent them and made more, one spent them and made less (I could be wrong, it's been a while). A few mistakes, in my opinion, are better than doing nothing.

Now, I don't know how this body will act once we get things going, but I think in the following months we will have a clear picture of what is going on. I hate to bring up an example, but everyone here is aware of the standstill in the Magisterium, which is caused by mainly inactivity by a few members. That doesn't mean they are bad members, or can't do that job - it just means that for whatever reason, they are inactive. Should we be held responsible to keep inactive members on, or should we try to trim a little and keep what we have active alive and well? Again, it isn't the mistakes or the occasional disagreements or conflict of interests that worry me - it's the inactivity.

However, active members that abstain... unless they really *have* done some soul searching and decided they can't really decide, can be just as damaging. We need to really think things over and voice our opinions. One shouldn't be afraid of voicing one's opinions or beliefs, no matter how unpopular they are. It's a statement of fact - look at something, make a decision, and defend it. If someone wants to change their mind, they should be allowed to, of course. But yeah. I really believe abstaining should be used sparingly. Though I do not think we can make it a requirement that all active Arbiters should have to vote yes or no, without abstaining. Or... maybe we should? Jury members cannot abstain, they must vote yes or no. Law makers and interpreters can abstain, but they usually do that if they're not in attendance, going back to the original point. What if we had it so all active Arbiters had to vote aye or nay?

Quote:
 
The 8th/even number Arbiter is a valuable resource in the instance of absence or recusal.  Because the "bench player" may be called at any time to replace another Arbiter who recuses, they ought to be part of the proceedings.  I understand why RL legislators abstain: their vote won't help them politically.  RL judges can't refuse to rule on a case assigned to them unless they recuse.

I agree. But where do we put him or her? The Concordat states we can only have seven. Technically, we are in violation right now, but I do understand the reasoning behind it, and it is workable for the time being. Still, where would we put that eighth player? Do we make a position for him or her, like 'Alternate Arbiter'? What happens if the Alternate Arbiter goes inactive? Do we have to ask the delegate to choose another? I'm not condemning this idea, don't get me wrong, I am just trying to figure out how this will fit in with what we have been given to work with.
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
My personal preference is that in absence of recusal, Arbiters are duty bound to vote thumbs up or thumbs down. I invite the other Arbiters to weigh in on what they think about that.

My suggestion is that we empower the Viceroy with the authority and flexibility to fix any even number that crops up so all votes are odd. If half way through a trial I fall and break my arm and am laid up too geezed on painkillers to be a functional Arbiter, I should PM the Viceroy with my rescusal and the Viceroy should immediately remedy the even number problem before the trial proceeds.

As for the 8th Arbiter, my personal interpretation is that the Magisterium gave us eight players. Not a violation if we always have a vote of 7 or an odd number of less. The inactive player is not considered an Arbiter of that matter. I like the "active Arbiter" concept you established and I suggest we state in the SOC that the inactive Arbiter(s) in any matter are not considered Conclave Arbiters under the Concordat for the consideration of that matter.

The Magisterium chose not to yoink the 8th nominee and we can use the 8th man/woman/manatee as we see fit. It's not a legal problem if our proceedings conform to the Concordat, it's a resource.
Barb
Arbiter Barbara Manatee
Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific
Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier

Keep TEP beautiful!

The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Quote:
 
Todd McCloud: don't feed the trolls
Quote:
 
Vulshain: you don't want the disco-roller skating bots to come
Quote:
 
Kurogasa: honest to Quetzalcoatl
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Allegheny
Member Avatar
Partly Cloudy
About abstain votes; I think they need to be banned for conclave matters. I hate them and they can cause problems when you are trying to break a tie. If you don't feel good about voting on something then thats what recusal is for.

Also, I think after a one to two week period the Private debate thread should become public knowledge, Why? I think it will create a 'check' for the conclave. People can read and see how the decision was made. this will prevent using the private debate as a way to further agenda's, make unfair rulings, and to make sure arbiters are always impartial to both parties.
Posted Image

There was a hole here. It's gone now.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Allegheny
Jun 23 2010, 09:33 PM
About abstain votes; I think they need to be banned for conclave matters. I hate them and they can cause problems when you are trying to break a tie. If you don't feel good about voting on something then thats what recusal is for.

I agree - remove the abstain choice. Abstain is used only for those who fail to vote in the allotted time, which counts against their activity record. I've been thinking about this more, and I quite honestly think abstain votes are just as bad as not showing up to the voting floor altogether... because it's the same outcome regardless. We should be able to choose yes or no for whatever comes to the floor.

Quote:
 
Also, I think after a one to two week period the Private debate thread should become public knowledge, Why? I think it will create a 'check' for the conclave. People can read and see how the decision was made. this will prevent using the private debate as a way to further agenda's, make unfair rulings, and to make sure arbiters are always impartial to both parties.

I am in agreement for this, but I am unsure for trial debate threads, because I worry that if Arbiters know the thread will become public, it could make people more reserved in their judgment. Like, if someone here who was well-liked or at least a regular was tried, it might prevent an accurate ruling because the debate thread might be made public and Arbiters might worry that it would hurt the person's feelings. So I think I'm against the making trial debates public.

What we could do is this: for non-trial debate threads, citizens can request that a debate thread be made public after 1-2 weeks if they would like. That way, the check remains, but the Arbiters would feel more private in their debates. Plus, we're going to be on the honor system here - if an Arbiter is blatantly making bad choices in the private discussion, we should correct that or take it to a process that will correct it.
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
Agree that the existence of Conclave Chambers is no secret. Also believe anyone who has access to Chambers is honor-bound to not speak of what is said by others.

I proposed it publicly. If it's created, everyone should be aware what "retiring to Chambers" means. It may (or may not) be a venue for a pause to think and speak freely after hearing a case and before voting.

I've been in too many RL proceedings where the "guy in the robe" didn't give a rat's ass about how the parties might be affected by their casual comments. I was struck by whomever it was that posted how much stress a player brought up on charges might experience, which is one of the big reasons I want Chambers as a Conclave institution: I don't want to be afraid to ask stupid questions and learn from my fellow Arbiters - and for that in itself to have no negative effect on any player but me.
Barb
Arbiter Barbara Manatee
Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific
Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier

Keep TEP beautiful!

The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Quote:
 
Todd McCloud: don't feed the trolls
Quote:
 
Vulshain: you don't want the disco-roller skating bots to come
Quote:
 
Kurogasa: honest to Quetzalcoatl
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Allegheny
Member Avatar
Partly Cloudy
After thinking about it releasing Trial debate threads could cause problems that can ruin the future of other trials. SO if what i got from todd's and barb's post is correct, I can go with making debates on bills public but keeping debates on trials private. Obviously the Admin team will be able to see and if they think there are any shenanigans can say something about it, plus i think we have a pretty trustworthy group here.

Also I agree that instead of making it auto public, there should be a process for requesting as in PM'ing the viceroy or something.
Posted Image

There was a hole here. It's gone now.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
ultharambassadorbarbara
Jun 23 2010, 10:01 PM
I proposed it publicly. If it's created, everyone should be aware what "retiring to Chambers" means. It may (or may not) be a venue for a pause to think and speak freely after hearing a case and before voting.

Yeah, I think the Viceroy should announce that motion when it comes time for the Arbiters to retire and initiate a debate on the sentencing and verdict or simply if a law should pass or fail.
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
Excellent suggestion!

1. Debates on bills regarding the legality of the laws passed by the Magisterium should be public.

2. Conclave Chambers may be used (as needed) for deliberations prior to votes in trials regarding violations of the Concordat and laws. And for fart jokes.
Barb
Arbiter Barbara Manatee
Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific
Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier

Keep TEP beautiful!

The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Quote:
 
Todd McCloud: don't feed the trolls
Quote:
 
Vulshain: you don't want the disco-roller skating bots to come
Quote:
 
Kurogasa: honest to Quetzalcoatl
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kurogasa
Member Avatar
Viceroy
Todd McCloud
Jun 23 2010, 06:04 PM
Perhaps we should change active Arbiter to active voter, perhaps? That way they're still allowed to debate it. I don't know if we want to go that route, but I think they should be able to debate if they'd like, or clarify things, just not vote. I'll red in what you've written down though.

I disagree with that...if they are out of the trial for any reason, they shouldn't be allowed to debate it or even see the debate, at least for the duration of that trial they are citizens...at the moment they are recused they stop being involved on the trial and lose that right.
I don't want to conquer the world, I want the people to put me as their leader for themselves (or I will have to conquer it, anyways it will be mine soon).

"What is a rebel? A man who says no" -Albert Camus-

"The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him. To ride their horses and take away their possessions. To see the faces of those who were dear to them bedewed with tears, and to clasp their wives and daughters in his arms." -Genghis Khan-
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Kurogasa
Jun 24 2010, 04:28 AM
Todd McCloud
Jun 23 2010, 06:04 PM
Perhaps we should change active Arbiter to active voter, perhaps? That way they're still allowed to debate it. I don't know if we want to go that route, but I think they should be able to debate if they'd like, or clarify things, just not vote. I'll red in what you've written down though.

I disagree with that...if they are out of the trial for any reason, they shouldn't be allowed to debate it or even see the debate, at least for the duration of that trial they are citizens...at the moment they are recused they stop being involved on the trial and lose that right.

Alright, that makes sense to me. I would still like the Viceroy to give the recuser the option to speak for clarification purposes, though. I am not sure when this would be used, though. The only time I could see it coming in handy is if the Conclave is confused about a certain thing, like a part of an amendment to this document that the recuser suggested, or is in disagreement and could use the recuser's clarification. I don't know, do you see that as a potential scenario?
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
ultharambassadorbarbara
Jun 23 2010, 11:23 PM
Excellent suggestion!

1. Debates on bills regarding the legality of the laws passed by the Magisterium should be public.

2. Conclave Chambers may be used (as needed) for deliberations prior to votes in trials regarding violations of the Concordat and laws. And for fart jokes.

Hmm, I will add this to the respective sections... and I'll try to apply it to what has been said above... how about this?

Onto Section IV:
Quote:
 
8. One week after the Conclave has announced their decision on a bill, any citizen may request any private discussions regarding the bill be made public to the Viceroy. The Viceroy is then charged with moving the discussion from the private quarters to the public Conclave subforum.

I think one week would be good, mostly because by the time the Conclave has made the decision, the discussion for it is pretty much over anyway, but one or two people might still want to comment.

Onto Section III:
Quote:
 
6. Prior to voting, the Conclave may use a private discussion subforum to debate a bill, trial, or amendment to this document.


I've red-inked these. Do these points cover the above, or should they be changed?
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Todd McCloud
Jun 24 2010, 12:48 PM
Kurogasa
Jun 24 2010, 04:28 AM
Todd McCloud
Jun 23 2010, 06:04 PM
Perhaps we should change active Arbiter to active voter, perhaps? That way they're still allowed to debate it. I don't know if we want to go that route, but I think they should be able to debate if they'd like, or clarify things, just not vote. I'll red in what you've written down though.

I disagree with that...if they are out of the trial for any reason, they shouldn't be allowed to debate it or even see the debate, at least for the duration of that trial they are citizens...at the moment they are recused they stop being involved on the trial and lose that right.

Alright, that makes sense to me. I would still like the Viceroy to give the recuser the option to speak for clarification purposes, though. I am not sure when this would be used, though. The only time I could see it coming in handy is if the Conclave is confused about a certain thing, like a part of an amendment to this document that the recuser suggested, or is in disagreement and could use the recuser's clarification. I don't know, do you see that as a potential scenario?

Also, I changed part of III. 5:

Quote:
 
Any Arbiter who brings a matter before the Conclave with the exception of a Motion to Dismiss or is materially involved in matter to be considered must recuse themselves and may not be considered an active Arbiter in that matter. Once recused, the Arbiter must not participate in any part of the matter.


I want to add to this section "... unless requested by the Viceroy" Do you think that is feasible? Pesonally, I think we should have the option available, but if not, I understand. I could go either way on it.

EDIT: I'm not ignoring other things presented above... I have a bit of a need to go right now. I'll be on later.
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
I concur with Kurogasa: a recused Arbiter is not part of trial or debate - because recusal is essentially an admission of a significant conflict of interest.

Recusal will probably be rare, whereas the 8th Arbiter/even number problem is more frequently require remedy in the form of "benching" an Arbiter, in which case I suggest the same: no involvement. They can be bring themselves up to speed in the unlikely event they are called to be active during a trial. Everything is written.

It puts them at somewhat of a disadvantage not having participated from the start - but nothing prevents the Conclave from submitting additional question(s) to a party in the trial thread during debate if necessary - and we all have to do our best to make sound decisions based on less than perfect information.

As for "locking" an Arbiter out of Chambers, I have mixed feelings. All of us are bound by our own honor and integrity to keep our yap shut when it's not proper and all of us are similarly bound to keep Chambers discussion between us. An Arbiter who recuses isn't saying they aren't trustworthy - they are saying that the impartiality of their vote can be questioned due to conflict of interest. Recusal for good cause is demonstration of integrity.

Not being considered an Arbiter in a matter to ensure the Conclave is consistent with the Concordat is simply conducting business according to the parameters of the Conclave.

When I was writing my draft and Todd and I were discussing making our different versions work together, what was foremost in my mind is to create a structure that is simple, predictable and contains the least likelihood that justice can be frustrated by someone down the line using the SOC to invent a technicality to create a diversion from the matter at hand by pointing to how we don't "follow the rules." Procedural rules that might create perverse outcomes can and should be changed.

So Toddly, another proposed change. Maybe add to the the preamble something like:

The SOC is an agreement between Arbiters on how to best conduct Conclave business. It is subject to change at any time. Nothing in the Standing Orders of the Conclave shall be construed as establishing rights of any party not contemplated by the Concordat or laws of The East Pacific.
Barb
Arbiter Barbara Manatee
Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific
Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier

Keep TEP beautiful!

The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
Quote:
 
Todd McCloud: don't feed the trolls
Quote:
 
Vulshain: you don't want the disco-roller skating bots to come
Quote:
 
Kurogasa: honest to Quetzalcoatl
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kandarin
Member Avatar
Ferret princess
There's no need to lock an Arbiter out of Chambers. Anyone we can trust as an Arbiter we can trust to keep quiet about what goes on in Chambers (and expel if they don't). Given the nature of TEP, I expect a fair amount of discussion to go in in there that's not related to any one proceeding, not to mention any more detailed schedule maintained by the Viceroy. It wouldn't make sense for an Arbiter submitting an issue for Conclave review to face the 'price' of removal from private discussion for it, and the Arbiters make up a big enough proportion of our active population that that would become a regular problem. It's best to just give Arbiters constant access to Closed Chambers as long as they remain Arbiters.


My first observation on the question of how to deal with the eighth Arbiter and the potential for a tie is that in practice, the Viceroy would not often have to intervene in the matter. Due to the nature of our medium, the norm will be at least one de facto abstention. We are asking eight distinct people to show up for an event in an Internet game; no matter how much they care about and are active in the game, real life will usually conspire to take at least one of them out of the running at any given time.

My second observation is that the presence of eight Arbiters is a temporary thing. We have several new Arbiters, but we also have several inactive old ones whose inactivity will come under scrutiny very soon. The number of Arbiters was allowed to ease over the limit because the input of the new Arbiters was needed in ordering the Conclave; once that is settled we can set ourselves to considering who is really participating. Barring the sudden, permanent and genuine re-emergence of multiple people who have long since departed from the Conclave, we will not have a "bench player" to plan around in the near future.
"Torpored Caitiff Antediluvian"

Quote:
 
ClipSnap says:
Kandarin should just implode from the sheer ridiculousness of it all.
ClipSnap says:
I mean, no nation could ever sustain that many contradicting belief systems and still exist.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
ultharambassadorbarbara
Jun 24 2010, 02:26 PM
I concur with Kurogasa: a recused Arbiter is not part of trial or debate - because recusal is essentially an admission of a significant conflict of interest.

Yep! Works for me.

Quote:
 

Recusal will probably be rare, whereas the 8th Arbiter/even number problem is more frequently require remedy in the form of "benching" an Arbiter, in which case I suggest the same: no involvement.  They can be bring themselves up to speed in the unlikely event they are called to be active during a trial.  Everything is written.

It puts them at somewhat of a disadvantage not having participated from the start - but nothing prevents the Conclave from submitting additional question(s) to a party in the trial thread during debate if necessary - and we all have to do our best to make sound decisions based on less than perfect information.

Well, I think it'll be rare too, but really, it's all about just preventing conflicts of interest, as we've been talking about, lol. Still, I am seeing what you mean about that 8th arbiter and the importance it has. I've warmed up to the idea, and I think it's something one of us Arbiters could become. Is this something that should be added to the document? I'm feeling it should be placed in the Extraneous duties of the Viceroy, I think that's Section IX

Quote:
 
As for "locking" an Arbiter out of Chambers, I have mixed feelings.  All of us are bound by our own honor and integrity to keep our yap shut when it's not proper and all of us are similarly bound to keep Chambers discussion between us.  An Arbiter who recuses isn't saying they aren't trustworthy - they are saying that the impartiality of their vote can be questioned due to conflict of interest.  Recusal for good cause is demonstration of integrity.

I'm thinking no arbiter should be locked out. If they've been recused, they should remain so on their honor. Plus, what happens in there should remain private unless it's requested by someone to bring out a private non-trial debate thread. That's not to make us look shifty or weird (The Magisterium has a forum like that too), it's just that sometimes it's a little less pressure for us to come up with decisions and proper judgments, I think.

Quote:
 

When I was writing my draft and Todd and I were discussing making our different versions work together, what was foremost in my mind is to create a structure that is simple, predictable and contains the least likelihood that justice can be frustrated by someone down the line using the SOC to invent a technicality to create a diversion from the matter at hand by pointing to how we don't "follow the rules."  Procedural rules that might create perverse outcomes can and should be changed.

Yep! Hence that Section I I wrote in mind. I was really glad we were in total agreement of that.

Quote:
 
So Toddly, another proposed change.  Maybe add to the the preamble something like:

The SOC is an agreement between Arbiters on how to best conduct Conclave business.  It is subject to change at any time.  Nothing in the Standing Orders of the Conclave shall be construed as establishing rights of any party not contemplated by the Concordat or laws of The East Pacific.

If it's okay with you, I'm going to add this verbatim!
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Kandarin
Jun 24 2010, 05:56 PM
There's no need to lock an Arbiter out of Chambers. Anyone we can trust as an Arbiter we can trust to keep quiet about what goes on in Chambers (and expel if they don't). Given the nature of TEP, I expect a fair amount of discussion to go in in there that's not related to any one proceeding, not to mention any more detailed schedule maintained by the Viceroy. It wouldn't make sense for an Arbiter submitting an issue for Conclave review to face the 'price' of removal from private discussion for it, and the Arbiters make up a big enough proportion of our active population that that would become a regular problem. It's best to just give Arbiters constant access to Closed Chambers as long as they remain Arbiters.

Agreed thoroughly.

Quote:
 
My first observation on the question of how to deal with the eighth Arbiter and the potential for a tie is that in practice, the Viceroy would not often have to intervene in the matter. Due to the nature of our medium, the norm will be at least one de facto abstention. We are asking eight distinct people to show up for an event in an Internet game; no matter how much they care about and are active in the game, real life will usually conspire to take at least one of them out of the running at any given time.

What if we allowed the eighth 'alternate' to view the private forums and essentially be treated as an Arbiter, but he or she would only be able to vote / discuss if called upon by the Viceroy or in the event of a tie? I don't know about that, though... that's kind of a bum rap for someone, like, "well, you're not really an Arbiter, unless we need you" sort of thing. Then again, we should maintain the integrity of that number seven. So I guess it's either that option or the Viceroy refrains from voting unless he or she feels the need to or in case of a tie?

And as for the RL concerns, yes, I would be surprised if all eight voted on a single issue, or seven for that matter.

Quote:
 
My second observation is that the presence of eight Arbiters is a temporary thing. We have several new Arbiters, but we also have several inactive old ones whose inactivity will come under scrutiny very soon. The number of Arbiters was allowed to ease over the limit because the input of the new Arbiters was needed in ordering the Conclave; once that is settled we can set ourselves to considering who is really participating. Barring the sudden, permanent and genuine re-emergence of multiple people who have long since departed from the Conclave, we will not have a "bench player" to plan around in the near future.

Yeah, we will have to review those cases. We should cross that bridge when we get there, I believe, but keep it in our sights.
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archive: Conclave · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Infinite is a customized version of Simple ZB created by Protego of Outline & Zetaboards Theme Zone
Icons by Paomedia and hosted by imgur


© The East Pacific 2003-2018