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
Add Reply
Citizen Hotline
Topic Started: Aug 17 2010, 09:54:36 PM (2,927 Views)
Free Pacific States
Member Avatar
Number One Drone
Citizens of the East Pacific are not prohibited from participating in regular debate in the Magisterium. But if you've any general thoughts, not relating to a matter under discussion, please feel free to post them here.
The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
I'd like to comment on the World Assembly Representation Act that's currently being discussed by the Magisters here, if that's okay.

I think it'd be a bad idea to regulate delegate votes beyond just having them vote by how the people tell him or her to vote. Part of what makes TEP interesting is its ability to have 'personal touches' in certain areas. One area we've had this in is WA voting, or rather, when the delegate casts the vote. We've had a delegate who voted early on for some resolutions, and one that voted later towards the voting end. Both had their respective reasons for it. That's the beauty of opinion and being free to make those choices without harming the integrity of the region or the people inside it. But to force a delegate to vote within a certain framework could lead to a lot of problems. Like, if the delegate does not do this, what do we do about it? How would this be enforced?

As long as the final vote that is cast reflects the voice of the people, I don't really see a problem. If we try to relegate that further, I think it we're only setting up for disappointment.

I encourage the Magisterium to consider this. I know some have invested a lot of time into this, and I understand the reasoning and that makes sense, but to force this upon a delegate isn't something I think should be done. That's just me though - you Magisters will have to decide where you stand.
"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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
Where is it written that comment by non-Magisters is prohibited during the regular operation of the Magisterium?

Concordat states, "Each nation shall have the right to free speech and the government shall take no action to limit this except when a nation is determined to be acting deliberately to cause a public nuisance by the Conclave."

I can recall no determination by Conclave that a citizen posting in Magisterium regarding proposed legislation is public nuisance. Citizens may post in Conclave or Executive unless they are being nuisance - like interrupting a trial.
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 Quote Post Goto Top
 
Free Pacific States
Member Avatar
Number One Drone
That does indeed appear to be correct. The Rules of the Magisterium do not, in fact, prohibit debate by non-Magisters. I can see no reason, as such, to continue the previous policy of preventing such.
The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kandarin
Member Avatar
Ferret princess
Quote:
 
Because DFD answered OMD's question by saying there are no more nominees,  I hereby motion for a vote on Chancellor Shaw's Arbiterial nomination.  I also motion we vote on a new topic so this one won't get messy.


Hasn't there already been a vote going on for some time?
"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 Quote Post Goto Top
 
Free Pacific States
Member Avatar
Number One Drone
Kandarin
Aug 22 2010, 04:30 AM
Quote:
 
Because DFD answered OMD's question by saying there are no more nominees,  I hereby motion for a vote on Chancellor Shaw's Arbiterial nomination.  I also motion we vote on a new topic so this one won't get messy.


Hasn't there already been a vote going on for some time?

There hadn't prior to that post; I started it after that motion.
The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nalt
Member Avatar
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!
Free Pacific States
Aug 22 2010, 08:45 AM
There hadn't prior to that post; I started it after that motion.

Yes, we were all just discussing how we were going to vote for him. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
OMD wrote:
Quote:
 
My main concern about inactivity is that we could end up with too few active Magisters, or even no active Magisters, and have to wait 3 months to pass anything.


OMD is correct. There is a real risk of too few active Magisters, which is why the commitment to being a Magister is important. Magisters and Arbiters may only be removed by the Magisterium for absence or a high crime.

Just speaking as citizen Barb, being a lump on a log who chooses to do nothing is disappointing but unlikely to be deemed a high crime. As a matter of legal precedent, both Magisterium and Conclave "keep their own house" with regard to their own definition of absence. It's a matter of internal discipline for Provost and Viceroy.

If Magisters are all absent and government has ground to a halt then Viceroy may simply hold new Magisterium elections. Concordat doesn't say Viceroy MUST wait three months to hold a new election, it just says your term as Magister is three months. If you cease to be a Magister in one month for any reason like resignation, your term of service was a month.

If Magisterium shrinks towards zero and the last one or two Magisters left with a pulse during your three month term agree that they are no longer part of a functioning body of government, they may choose to come to Viceroy and resign, which would trigger a new election. I would never ask Magisterium for such a thing, but if you thought it was in the best interest of the region, Viceroy certainly would honor that.

No modification to existing law or Concordat is required for Viceroy to hold an election under these circumstances.
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 Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chancellor Shaw
Member Avatar
Bill Stickers is Innocent
I would like to extend my most sincere thanks to the Magisterium as a whole for the support they have shown me. Thank you for trusting that I will sufficiently fill the roll of Arbiter, I am thrilled to see that no Magisters voted against my nomination.

I shall strive to fulfil and surpass the expectations that have been placed upon me, and I expect to be held to my word. Once again, thank you for your trust, it is not misplaced.
Thank you for your time
Chancellor Shaw, of the Free Land of Moafin
Moafin Wiki: under construction
Moafin Q&A

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Warr
Member Avatar
Warr
Resigning.

Don't count me towards any votes or needed input.

Have a nice time, guys. Hope you have a productive term.
"Last Arrow in Necessities Quiver."

Posted Image
Survival is victory; because the last one standing is the one who tells the tale.
The High Kingdom of Warre on NSWiki
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oh My Days
No Avatar
You got blood on my Suit.
Warr
Aug 26 2010, 08:32 PM
Resigning.

Don't count me towards any votes or needed input.

Have a nice time, guys. Hope you have a productive term.

It's sad to see you go, I'm sure you would have been great for the Magisterium. May I ask why?



Barb
 
OMD is correct. There is a real risk of too few active Magisters, which is why the commitment to being a Magister is important. Magisters and Arbiters may only be removed by the Magisterium for absence or a high crime.

Just speaking as citizen Barb, being a lump on a log who chooses to do nothing is disappointing but unlikely to be deemed a high crime. As a matter of legal precedent, both Magisterium and Conclave "keep their own house" with regard to their own definition of absence. It's a matter of internal discipline for Provost and Viceroy.

If Magisters are all absent and government has ground to a halt then Viceroy may simply hold new Magisterium elections. Concordat doesn't say Viceroy MUST wait three months to hold a new election, it just says your term as Magister is three months. If you cease to be a Magister in one month for any reason like resignation, your term of service was a month.

If Magisterium shrinks towards zero and the last one or two Magisters left with a pulse during your three month term agree that they are no longer part of a functioning body of government, they may choose to come to Viceroy and resign, which would trigger a new election. I would never ask Magisterium for such a thing, but if you thought it was in the best interest of the region, Viceroy certainly would honor that.

No modification to existing law or Concordat is required for Viceroy to hold an election under these circumstances.


So, essentially, the Magisterium can force a snap election by resigning en-masse (although, it would require everyone's agreement), or the Viceroy could force a snap election. However, I see a few problems with this.

The Viceroy may not want to do so, as s/he might deem it unfair. The fact that s/he has the constitutional authority to do so does not necessarily mean that s/he would have the conviction to do so, or would want to get involved with something potentially controversial. With the Magisterium route, one hostile Magister could hold up the whole process.

In short, the ideal situation would enable the Magisterium to remain seated, but add to their numbers, when Magisters fall inactive. This would also be more likely to win the Magisterium's support, as Magisters wouldn't have to run for re-election.
Skype name: ohmydays4
MSN/email: nsomd1@hotmail.co.uk
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nalt
Member Avatar
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!
He wrote why in the thread in the Administration Announcements and I guess didn't want to waste time re-writing the whole reason.

As for all the radical election changes, I like that we have to be re-elected. And while I would like to see inactive magisters replaced I don't see why we should replace magisters that were removed for inactivity and not those that just resign (like Warr).

If we do amend the concordat on this issue, I think we should simply make it so that if 7 people are elected this magisterial term, then the magisterium has 7 seats, and they should be filled for the rest of the term by special elections if they become empty for whatever reason. But even that has me worried that special elections would have difficulty getting candidates. I mean if a regular election has 8 candidates and 7 are elected, and then there is a resignation we already know the one that didn't get elected will likely run and get a seat unless there is someone new (who wasn't around at the regular election) to run against said person. Which would just be a way for people who didn't win the big election to get a seat anyway.

I don't know, it's a difficult issue with a body that has no set number of seats. :blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oh My Days
No Avatar
You got blood on my Suit.
Topid
Aug 27 2010, 06:01 PM
He wrote why in the thread in the Administration Announcements and I guess didn't want to waste time re-writing the whole reason.

As for all the radical election changes, I like that we have to be re-elected. And while I would like to see inactive magisters replaced I don't see why we should replace magisters that were removed for inactivity and not those that just resign (like Warr).

If we do amend the concordat on this issue, I think we should simply make it so that if 7 people are elected this magisterial term, then the magisterium has 7 seats, and they should be filled for the rest of the term by special elections if they become empty for whatever reason. But even that has me worried that special elections would have difficulty getting candidates. I mean if a regular election has 8 candidates and 7 are elected, and then there is a resignation we already know the one that didn't get elected will likely run and get a seat unless there is someone new (who wasn't around at the regular election) to run against said person. Which would just be a way for people who didn't win the big election to get a seat anyway.

I don't know, it's a difficult issue with a body that has no set number of seats. :blink:

We could have a minimum number of Magisters (I'd say 5), so that it can shrink a little if there aren't enough candidates. Generally, though, I don't think people miss out on election.
Skype name: ohmydays4
MSN/email: nsomd1@hotmail.co.uk
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
North Harmoneia
Member Avatar
Kilroy was here
Oh My Days
Aug 27 2010, 11:12 PM
Topid
Aug 27 2010, 06:01 PM
He wrote why in the thread in the Administration Announcements and I guess didn't want to waste time re-writing the whole reason.

As for all the radical election changes, I like that we have to be re-elected. And while I would like to see inactive magisters replaced I don't see why we should replace magisters that were removed for inactivity and not those that just resign (like Warr).

If we do amend the concordat on this issue, I think we should simply make it so that if 7 people are elected this magisterial term, then the magisterium has 7 seats, and they should be filled for the rest of the term by special elections if they become empty for whatever reason. But even that has me worried that special elections would have difficulty getting candidates. I mean if a regular election has 8 candidates and 7 are elected, and then there is a resignation we already know the one that didn't get elected will likely run and get a seat unless there is someone new (who wasn't around at the regular election) to run against said person. Which would just be a way for people who didn't win the big election to get a seat anyway.

I don't know, it's a difficult issue with a body that has no set number of seats. :blink:

We could have a minimum number of Magisters (I'd say 5), so that it can shrink a little if there aren't enough candidates. Generally, though, I don't think people miss out on election.

Although having a minimum could also pose problems that may still, also cause inactivity. I have experienced this in a few other regions when people run just to fill in the seats and then they become inactive because of the lack of passion, and it becomes difficult to achieve majority.

hmm. But then again. This a difficult situation that imposing a minimum might be the most reasonable resolution. I honestly can't think of anything better without twisting the Magisterial system.
Posted Image

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
Quote:
 
So, essentially, the Magisterium can force a snap election by resigning en-masse (although, it would require everyone's agreement)...


It is true that if there were no Magisters left, it would be the responsibility of Viceroy to hold an election, but there is no SNAP election. Nothing that big happens in a snap. Kandarin and Todd and I worked many hours on the last election.

Quote:
 
or the Viceroy could force a snap election. However, I see a few problems with this.


Me too - mostly because I never said Viceroy could force anything. In fact, I said the opposite. I would honor what a dwindling number of Magisters wanted to do - remain in office or to resign. I said that IF they resigned, it would trigger an election.

Quote:
 
The Viceroy may not want to do so, as s/he might deem it unfair. The fact that s/he has the constitutional authority to do so does not necessarily mean that s/he would have the conviction to do so, or would want to get involved with something potentially controversial. With the Magisterium route, one hostile Magister could hold up the whole process.


If there is NO ONE in Magisterium, Concordat calls for an election. The NO ONE scenario isn't unique, it happens every 3 months. There is nothing controversial or unfair about that. There were no Magisters when the Concordat was initially adopted - so Viceroy then held an election per Concordat. Anyone with the authority of Concordat to fulfill a duty who shirks that duty may be removed from office per Concordat.

Because Magisters are elected officials and expected to be more worried about the best interests of the region than themselves, I suggested resignation would be one graceful way of reinvigorating a Magisterium with one or two Magisters left. I didn't recommend it. I specifically stated I would NEVER ask for it. All I said was that Magisters had that power. No laws have to be written for that to happen.

This "what if there are not enough Magisters" discussion is not contemplated by Concordat - which states there may be as many or as few elected Magisters as the voters deem acceptable. Topid is absolutely correct: there is no set number of seats in Magisterium. There may be 3, 30, or 300. 300 isn't a good number and 3 isn't a bad number. There are no bad numbers. That's not an oversight: that was the intent.

As Concordat is written, there are already 6 statutory elections a year. I question the advisability and practicality of adding more.
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 Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oh My Days
No Avatar
You got blood on my Suit.
ultharambassadorbarbara
Aug 28 2010, 04:02 PM
Quote:
 
So, essentially, the Magisterium can force a snap election by resigning en-masse (although, it would require everyone's agreement)...


It is true that if there were no Magisters left, it would be the responsibility of Viceroy to hold an election, but there is no SNAP election. Nothing that big happens in a snap. Kandarin and Todd and I worked many hours on the last election.
more.

My apologies, I meant an election outside of the normal schedule.


Quote:
 
Quote:
 
or the Viceroy could force a snap election. However, I see a few problems with this.



Me too - mostly because I never said Viceroy could force anything. In fact, I said the opposite. I would honor what a dwindling number of Magisters wanted to do - remain in office or to resign. I said that IF they resigned, it would trigger an election.


You've said that you wouldn't, but the Viceroy does have the power to call for an election at any time, even if some Magisters remain, so a future Viceroy might. Please tell me if I've misinterpreted this.

Quote:
 
If there is NO ONE in Magisterium, Concordat calls for an election. The NO ONE scenario isn't unique, it happens every 3 months. There is nothing controversial or unfair about that. There were no Magisters when the Concordat was initially adopted - so Viceroy then held an election per Concordat. Anyone with the authority of Concordat to fulfill a duty who shirks that duty may be removed from office per Concordat.

Because Magisters are elected officials and expected to be more worried about the best interests of the region than themselves, I suggested resignation would be one graceful way of reinvigorating a Magisterium with one or two Magisters left. I didn't recommend it. I specifically stated I would NEVER ask for it. All I said was that Magisters had that power. No laws have to be written for that to happen.

This "what if there are not enough Magisters" discussion is not contemplated by Concordat - which states there may be as many or as few elected Magisters as the voters deem acceptable. Topid is absolutely correct: there is no set number of seats in Magisterium. There may be 3, 30, or 300. 300 isn't a good number and 3 isn't a bad number. There are no bad numbers. That's not an oversight: that was the intent.

As Concordat is written, there are already 6 statutory elections a year. I question the advisability and practicality of adding more.


I was referring to the potential controversy of a Viceroy deciding to call an election before 3 months is up, without the remaining Magisters agreeing. As I understand it, a Viceroy could do this. As I said before, if I am wrong, please correct me.
Skype name: ohmydays4
MSN/email: nsomd1@hotmail.co.uk
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
You're a Magister - an elected official - and Conclave can't interfere in any way with your legislative body except as prescribed (and limited) by Concordat. It has always been the legal precedent of each body to determine the definition of absence. As for high crime, that is reserved for Conclave. AFAIK, there has never been such a trial.

Viceroy runs the elections: every 3 months for Magister, every 6 months for Delegate. There is no interim election, so special election, no snap election.

If there is a manifest vacancy in a elected government office, Concordat states Viceroy is responsible hold an election to fill a vacant office. If DFD quit tonight (she better not or I'll hound her to the end of days), I would start preparing for an immediate election to replace Delegate.

Magisterium is elected en masse (as a group or team) for three months. Concordat would only allow a Magister election prior to three months if there were no Magisters left. Viceroy cannot call an election prior to three months as long as one elected Magister is in place. That would be a violation of our separation of powers.

So your answers are no and no. Viceroy does not have that power. As current Viceroy, I do not want that power.
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 Quote Post Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
I'm confused.

Provost posted:
Quote:
 

STANDING ORDERS OF THE MAGISTERIAL ASSEMBLY
Version to August 31 2010.

Part I. Provost.
Section A. Election of the Provost.
(1) The Magisterium shall immediately elect a Provost following the election of the Magisterium, or upon the position becoming vacant for any reason.
(2) The magisters shall elect the Provost by stating which Magister they believe should serve, and the Magister with the most votes shall be elected.
(3) Any Magister may decline to be elected Provost.

Section B. Provost Pro Tempore.
(1) The Provost may appoint a Provost Pro Tempore to assist the Provost.
(2) The Provost Pro Tempore shall temporarily assume the responsibilities of the Provost at any time that the Provost requests it.
(3) The Provost Pro Tempore shall temporarily assume the responsibilities of the Provost should the Provost be absent from the forums for a period exceeding 72 hours.
(4) The Provost Pro Tempore shall temporarily assume the responsibilities of the Provost in the case of the removal, or resignation.
(5) The Provost may remove the Provost Pro Tempore at any time.

Section C. Removal.
(1) The Magisters may call for the removal of a Provost by a majority vote.
(2) The Magisters may call for the removal of a Provost Pro Tempore by a majority vote.

Part II. Legislation.
Section A. Proposal.
(1) Any Magister may propose a bill.
(2) Any such bill shall be debated following its proposal.

Section B. Debate.
(1) Debate on a bill shall continue until the vote is commenced.
(2) Amendments may be made to the bill during the debate phase.

Section C. Voting.
(1) The Magisterium shall vote on a question when a motion to vote has been made and seconded, and the Provost agrees to begin the vote.
(2) The Provost shall, upon beginning the vote, set a deadline for voting which shall not be less than 72 hours after the vote begins.
(3) A magister may cast a vote of FOR or AGAINST, both of which shall be fully capitalized in order to show intent to vote,
(4) No Magister shall be required to vote on any question.
(5) A question shall pass at the end of voting time if more Magisters vote FOR than AGAINST; a question shall fail at the end of voting time if more Magisters vote AGAINST than FOR.

Part III. Removal.
Part A. Suspension.
(1) The Magisterium may suspend a Magister or remove a suspension by a majority vote.

Part B. Removal.
(1) A Magister may be removed by a vote of two-thirds of the Magisterium.
(2) A removed Magister shall not be barred from seeking election in the future.


but SIX of the eight Magisters didn't vote for that. They voted for this version:
Quote:
 

SECTION I. PROVOST.
(a) Election of the Provost -
(1) The Magisterium shall immediately elect a Provost whenever the position is vacant.
(2) The Magisters shall elect the Provost in a two part election, wherein forty-eight hours are allowed for nominations, and seventy-two hours allowed for voting upon a ballot that shall consist of any individual receiving a nomination.
(3) Any Magister may be elected Provost but no person shall be Provost that does not desire the position.

(b) Provost Pro Tempore -
(1) The Provost shall appoint a Provost Pro Tempore to assist the Provost.
(2) The Provost Pro Tempore shall temporarily assume the responsibilities of Provost at any time when the Provost requests it, at any time when the Provost is absent from the forums for a period exceeding seventy-two hours, or at any time when the position of Provost is vacant.
(3) The Provost may remove the Provost Pro Tempore at any time.

© Removal -
(1) Whenever a Magister motions for the removal of the Provost and whenever another Magister seconds that motion, the Provost Pro Tempore shall officiate a seventy-two hour vote, and if a majority of those voting vote in favor of the motion, the Provost shall be removed.
(2) Whenever a Magister motions for the removal of the Provost Pro Tempore and whenever another Magister seconds that motion, the Provost shall officiate a seventy-two hour vote, and if a majority of those voting vote in favor of the motion, the Provost Pro Tempore shall be removed.

(d) Dean -
(1) The Provost shall determine, at the start of each session of the Magisterium, how many terms each Magister has served, and shall make a list of the Magisters, with the Magisters listed according to number of terms served.
(2) The Magister that is highest on that list shall be the Dean of the Magisterium, except if that Magister has been absent from the forums for a period exceeding seventy-two hours, in which case the highest Magister on the list that has been present on the forums in the last seventy-two hours shall be Dean.
(3) Whenever the Provost and Provost Pro Tempore are both inactive for a period exceeding seventy-two hours, or whenever there is no Provost or Provost Pro Tempore, the Dean shall temporarily assume the office of Provost.

SECTION II. LEGISLATION.
(a) Any Magister may propose a bill, resolution, or amendment to the Concordat, and that bill, resolution, or amendment to the Concordat shall be debated immediately following its proposal.

(b) The Delegate may at any time nominate an executive or judicial official and the Magisterium shall debate that nomination like regular legislation.

© The Magisterium shall debate any legislation until a Magister motions to vote on the legislation and another Magister seconds that motion.

(d) A Magister may motion to amend any legislation at any time during debate and if that motion receives a second, the Magisterium shall vote on the motion for forty-eight hours, and if the motion receives majority support, the legislation shall stand amended as motioned, except if the author(s) of the legislation accept the amendment upon its proposal, in which case the legislation shall be amended as motioned without a vote.

(e) The Magisterium shall vote on any legislation for a period of time that shall exceed seventy-two hours but not exceed ninety-six hours and that legislation shall pass if a majority of those voting vote in favor of the legislation.

(f) Subsection (d) notwithstanding, the Magisterium shall pass a proposed amendment to the Concordat only if two-thirds of those voting vote in favor of the amendment, and the Provost shall submit any proposed amendment to the Conclave immediately following its passage by the Magisterium.

(g) The Provost shall submit to the Delegate, within twenty-four hours of its passage, any legislation that passes the Magisterium, and the Delegate shall have ten days after that submission to consider that legislation, and if the Delegate does not veto that legislation or signals his or her support for that legislation during that period, the legislation shall be enacted into law, but if the Delegate does veto that legislation, then the Provost shall officiate a seventy-two hour vote to overturn the veto, and if three-fourths of those Magisters voting vote in favor of overturning the veto, the legislation shall become law.

(h) Subsection (f) notwithstanding, the assent of the Delegate shall not be required if the legislation is a proposed amendment to the Concordat, or if the legislation is a nomination, or if the legislation is a resolution that only expresses the opinion of the Magisterium.

SECTION III. INACTIVITY AND REMOVAL.

(a) The Provost shall hold a roll call at any time when the Provost suspects that any number of Magisters are inactive, and if any Magister does not sign in during a period to exceed seventy-two hours but not to exceed ninety-six hours, the Provost shall investigate the activity of that Magister.

(b) Whenever a Magister motions for the removal of a Magister and whenever another Magister seconds that motion, the Provost shall officiate a seventy-two hour vote, and if two-thirds of the Magisterium votes in favor of the motion, the Magister shall be removed from office.

SECTION IV. SUSPENSION, UNANIMOUS CONSENT, AND CLOSED SESSION.

(a) Whenever a Magister motions for unanimous consent on either a motion or legislation, the Provost shall allow forty-eight hours for objections, and if no Magister objects during that time, the motion or legislation shall pass with the full support of the Magisterium.

(b) Whenever a Magister motions for the suspension of the rules and whenever another Magister seconds that motion, the Provost shall officiate a forty-eight hour vote, and if a majority of those voting vote in favor of the motion, the rules shall be suspended in the manner stated in the motion.

© Whenever a Magister motions for a matter to be debated in closed session and whenever another Magister seconds that motion, the Provost shall officiate a forty-eight hour vote, and if a majority of those voting vote in favor of the motion, the Magisterium shall consider that matter in closed session.

SECTION V. AMENDMENT.

Whenever a Magister motions to amend the rules and whenever another Magister seconds that motion, the Provost shall officiate a seventy-two hour vote, and if a majority of those voting vote in favor of the motion, the rules shall be amended in the manner stated in the motion.


Which version of standing orders did Magisterium enact - what was published in Magisterium by Provost August 31st or what was published by Provost and approved by Magisterium in the voting thread?
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 Quote Post Goto Top
 
Free Pacific States
Member Avatar
Number One Drone
Post #1 of the "Magisterial Rules" thread contains the updated rules (which were recently voted to be adopted). All following posts are archival records.

The rules you first quoted, if you'll look, are notated as "version to August 31, 2010," signifying that they were the rules until August 31, 2010, and are not included in the first post of the thread. The second rules you quoted, if you'll look, are noted solely as the Standing Rules, indicating their current enforcement, and are in the first post of the thread.

The second quoted rules, as indicated in post #1 of the standing orders thread, are the current rules.
The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Der Fuhrer Dyszel
Member Avatar
Cool like Snakes

Quote:
 
(g) The Provost shall submit to the Delegate, within twenty-four hours of its passage, any legislation that passes the Magisterium, and the Delegate shall have ten days after that submission to consider that legislation, and if the Delegate does not veto that legislation or signals his or her support for that legislation during that period, the legislation shall be enacted into law, but if the Delegate does veto that legislation, then the Provost shall officiate a seventy-two hour vote to overturn the veto, and if three-fourths of those Magisters voting vote in favor of overturning the veto, the legislation shall become law.

(h) Subsection (f) notwithstanding, the assent of the Delegate shall not be required if the legislation is a proposed amendment to the Concordat, or if the legislation is a nomination, or if the legislation is a resolution that only expresses the opinion of the Magisterium.



Yet I was not given an opportunity to refrute this....hmm...

Official Approval by Terasu

Posted Image


MASTER OF PSYCHOSODOMY

You can't ignore my girth.


Terasu: "Well done DFD you imploded the universe"

:lol:


;)

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
I didn't see the new standing orders yesterday, just the old ones. Now I see both. Thanks. No longer confused.

As for the amendment to Concordat distinction in the new standing orders, I am once again confused.

If a proposed amendment to Concordat is not considered a law subject to Concordat Article B, Section 7, I dunno what you'd call it. Does it have to be enacted by an citizen election held by Conclave? Yep. But I'd call it a law passed by Magisterium yet to be enacted (or rejected) by the citizens.

If you want to call a Concordat amendment a "proposal" rather than a law then all legislation passed by the Magisterium is a proposal for the first 10 days because, "If the Delegate does not veto a law passed by the Magisterium within ten days, it shall be enacted."

An amendment to Concordat has one path to being approved and a law has another path, but both then become law unless rejected. I don't see a distinction that would disallow a delegate to veto a proposed amendment to Concordat.
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 Quote Post Goto Top
 
Der Fuhrer Dyszel
Member Avatar
Cool like Snakes

For what it counts for I do not support the standing orders.

:lol:

Official Approval by Terasu

Posted Image


MASTER OF PSYCHOSODOMY

You can't ignore my girth.


Terasu: "Well done DFD you imploded the universe"

:lol:


;)

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kandarin
Member Avatar
Ferret princess
I feel that it's worth observing that the Magisters currently most interested in using the Magisterium to increase the overall level of regulation in TEP are the same players whose greatest concern only a few months ago was a perceived unnecessarily high level of regulation in the World Assembly. I realize that you have by and large reconciled that earlier example...but you may not wish to repeat it.
"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 Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nalt
Member Avatar
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!
First off, the two things are completely unrelated. Secondly, I also oppose strict regulations on drugs... But I hardly think that should mean I can't argue for regulations on anything. :blink: And third, I wasn't concerned with the level of regulations in the WA, I was concerned that one existing regulation was shitty. A rule in the World Assembly was established that would have made me role-play if I wanted to use the SC. I will never role-play. That was a shitty rule. I couldn't use the SC (the thing I loved the most) anymore. Luckily, I and others worked with the mods to change the way the rule was written to be more workable, and then I was satisfied. I was satisfied even though the 'level of regulation' wasn't reduced because that was never what I took issue with. I'm not sure how closely you follow the NS Forums but I also requested a rule based on ideology, and I am the one who asked for the tit-for-tat rule in the first place. So I wouldn't say that I've ever had any issue with level of regulation.

Now, it would be hypocritical for me to back a law that requires all members of this board to be active in the role-play forums here... But that is about the only way that situation would ever be applicable to here.

Our delegate is going to be pressured from time to time not to vote the way the region wants him/her to until the end of voting. That's just how WA Authors are. "Hey, I know your region-mates want you to vote against my resolution, but just wait a day or two before you vote please! It'd be a big help, and we've always been close friends!!" As of right now, it is totally legal for the delegate to accept that request. For whatever reason, be it because the delegate personally disagrees with what the region thinks or because he/she is being pressured by someone to do it, the delegate shouldn't be allowed to delay voicing the opinion of the region until long after the fate of the resolution is decided.

All that being said, I'm starting to realize now that the interest level in the WA is much lower than I ever would have dreamed. Which makes this rule almost useless seeing as it is based on the same level of interest in my other regions. (There will never be large majorities when only 3 people usually vote. The delegate will never be failing to vote when there is a large majority for one side since the largest majority I can see being possible is two or three. :lol:) The low interest in the WA is a shame, since that is usually at least two debates per week (four if the GA and SC both are acting at max) which is a lot of lost activity that I wish we took advantage of. But, that's just something for other people to think about since personal interest is as it is (and admittedly, the same could be said for all my other regions which miss out on RP activity because role playing isn't part of our personal interests).

EDITed out a few sentences regarding my past as WA Author. Basically I was explaining why WA authors would want to make requests like the one I made up in quotes above, and that even though I've asked delegates to do the same, I was acting in the role of WA Author then where as now I'm acting in the role of TEP Citizen and WA Member.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Allegheny
Member Avatar
Partly Cloudy
Topid
Sep 7 2010, 12:46 AM


Our delegate is going to be pressured from time to time not to vote the way the region wants him/her to until the end of voting. That's just how WA Authors are. "Hey, I know your region-mates want you to vote against my resolution, but just wait a day or two before you vote please! It'd be a big help, and we've always been close friends!!" As of right now, it is totally legal for the delegate to accept that request. For whatever reason, be it because the delegate personally disagrees with what the region thinks or because he/she is being pressured by someone to do it, the delegate shouldn't be allowed to delay voicing the opinion of the region until long after the fate of the resolution is decided.



Implying our delegate would actually do that and not be the proper rep he/she is supposed to be. have a little faith.
Posted Image

There was a hole here. It's gone now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Der Fuhrer Dyszel
Member Avatar
Cool like Snakes
Topid
Sep 6 2010, 10:46 PM
As of right now, it is totally legal for the delegate to accept that request. For whatever reason, be it because the delegate personally disagrees with what the region thinks or because he/she is being pressured by someone to do it, the delegate shouldn't be allowed to delay voicing the opinion of the region until long after the fate of the resolution is decided.


First, I have taken the liberty to add a musical component to enhance the quality of this post. In fact, I think I might just leave it as my response.


Please Listen to Me!

:lol:

Official Approval by Terasu

Posted Image


MASTER OF PSYCHOSODOMY

You can't ignore my girth.


Terasu: "Well done DFD you imploded the universe"

:lol:


;)

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Der Fuhrer Dyszel
Member Avatar
Cool like Snakes

As for a serious response, I think it is rather pretentious to insinuate that our delegates have another agenda in this game. Topid, and before you respond about how amazing the idea is OMD's, I think you both need to learn what a delegate does in a feeder region before you continue to make these ludicrious suggestions, propositions, and continue to speak your misguided and terribly informed ideas.

Feeders are not UCR's....there is an entirely different approach to handling these affairs. The delegate HAS to represent TEP in this region as established in the Concordat and they have always voted on what the region's majority vote had been. The difference has always been a matter of WHEN they voted, not how they voted.

People who are spineless weaklings do not take delegacy. It is hysterical that you would think someone who can be so easily influenced by the opinions of others can become delegate in the first place. Either you are foolish enough yourself to believe this or you have absolutely no faith in our delegates or even any faith in ANYONE in our region. Do you really believe that our region would allow a total pushover to take delegacy? After all, we VOTE our delegates into position. The people who take delegacy in any feeder are the type of people who hold their ground and EARNED their position.

So again, I am just going to cut to the chase and quit playing the role of the nice guy. I suggest you guys shut up and learn what the job entails before you keep running your mouths about what the delegate should do. I encouraged you to run, you did not step up to the plate, now stand down and shut up before you really piss the wrong people off.

Official Approval by Terasu

Posted Image


MASTER OF PSYCHOSODOMY

You can't ignore my girth.


Terasu: "Well done DFD you imploded the universe"

:lol:


;)

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Malaysia
Member Avatar
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
Allegheny
Sep 7 2010, 12:59 AM
Topid
Sep 7 2010, 12:46 AM


Our delegate is going to be pressured from time to time not to vote the way the region wants him/her to until the end of voting. That's just how WA Authors are. "Hey, I know your region-mates want you to vote against my resolution, but just wait a day or two before you vote please! It'd be a big help, and we've always been close friends!!" As of right now, it is totally legal for the delegate to accept that request. For whatever reason, be it because the delegate personally disagrees with what the region thinks or because he/she is being pressured by someone to do it, the delegate shouldn't be allowed to delay voicing the opinion of the region until long after the fate of the resolution is decided.



Implying our delegate would actually do that and not be the proper rep he/she is supposed to be. have a little faith.

A delegate is a leader of the region and from time to time will be pressured but must take the authority of the situation.

I don't exactly see what your point is implying. Regulation where no regulation is required. In my eyes even if it were to happen, it really would not matter. You vote at the start, middle, or end the results would still be more than likely the same.

If a delegate does get out of line I am sure the whip would be cracked out and they would be put in their place.

My :2c: on the matter.
Question with Boldness


>Sovereign Empire of East Malaysia
[url]East Malaysia @ NSWiki[/url] - WIP
The Eastrovia Times wwt.et.em
Embassy - Coming Soon
Character List - Updating Soon

>Forum Support
Posted Image

>>>Forum Descriptions Rework<<<
>>>Tapatalk Migration Information<<<

#forum-help-center \ Mod/admin requests \ Board Rules \ Internet Safety & You \ ZB TOS & TOU
Emergency Contact: east.malaysia@mail.theeastpacific.com (forwards directly to my personal email)

:EM:
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
A law such as the WA voting one you proposed may have worked in a userite region where there's a few people who work together to basically form the government, but I don't think it would have worked here. The delegate in a feeder region must vote how the region votes - putting any stipulations on time frames would be unreasonable to delegates.

You say that TEP doesn't have too much interest in WA affairs here. Trust me, dfd and I can attest that in the many telegrams and countless people asking 'why did you vote on ___' or 'why haven't you voted on ____ yet??' points that many people in this region do in fact care about the WA vote (maybe not enough to post on these forums regularly, but regardless). The delegate does not need to be regulated in this department. In a small region, alright, I can see it working, but in a large region, placing restrictions or time frames on voting does not really solve problems. It opens up disappointment. What if a delegate chooses to totally disregard the time frame? Do you move to impeach him or her? Is it really on that level to impeach a delegate for?

I'm not trying to say anything you propose will be mashed to the ground, but I feel that if you spent time trying to get to know the region, ask questions, gather opinions, etc, you might have a better idea of what you're working against. I feel that if you would've asked the citizens of this region what they'd think of it, many would probably have said no. Kind of like what happened in the proposal thread.
"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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nalt
Member Avatar
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!
There have only been two delegates of TEP in my time in NS (well there was another for about a week because I came around right before Todd became delegate but I don't remember his/her name and never talked to them. Both of those delegates did their jobs as they should.

However you are flat out wrong DFD, I've heard Unibot getting feeder delegates to delay voting before... It would be foolish to think we won't eventually get a delegate who will give in to others wishes. And as I said, even if they aren't giving in to others wishes there are numerous other situations that present themselves, a condemnation of a delegates long-term close friend in NS. I can see that being something a delegate might hesitate to vote for in a timely manor even if the decision to vote for it was unanimous by everyone but him. Or a commendation of a long term enemy/rival. A repeal of a resolution our delegate wrote or co-authored campaigned for or even just strongly supported. There are many reasons a delegate might want to withhold the regions vote even if there is a clear majority and I have yet to hear a good reason why we shouldn't require a delegate to vote as soon as there is a clear majority as long as he/she is online. That's what we do now, that's what you are saying every single delegate would do anyway, so what is wrong with requiring it? Is a rule that we will apparently never break really such a harmful rule?

If you are right, and TEP never gets a delegate that intentionally delays a vote, GREAT! But that doesn't mean this rule would be a problem, it just wouldn't be used. But if we did get a delegate in office that bends rules and does things to advance himself then we should have rules in place to prevent him from doing so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archive: Magisterium · Next Topic »
Add Reply

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