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
Request for Amendment of Standing Orders
Topic Started: Nov 3 2010, 08:33:56 PM (756 Views)
Free Pacific States
Member Avatar
Number One Drone
Arbiters,

The Conclave established the Standing Orders of the Conclave to ensure efficient, legitimate, and honorable operation of this regional court. But the current Standing Orders violate the Concordat of the East Pacific, both in spirit and in letter, and should be amended.

Section IV, Subsection 2 of the Standing Orders of the Conclave violates Articles B and C of the Concordat by assuming authority for the Conclave that is reserved for the Magisterium. Section IV, Subsection 2 provides for the Conclave to "debate over a bill presented to them and determine potential problems regarding the bill and its effect on the region." But the Concordat only allows the Conclave to consider, void, or reaffirm bills that are "contrary to this Concordat." The Concordat reserves the authority to consider legislation based upon its actual effects for the Magisterium. Section IV, Subsection 2 of the Standing Orders clearly violates the Concordat by giving the Conclave the power to consider legislation based upon its efficacy instead of its legality.

Section IV, Subsection 6 of the Standing Orders of the Conclave violates Articles B and C of the Concordat by awarding the Conclave authority over the proposal of legislation in the Magisterium. Section IV, Subsection 6 allows the Conclave to declare any bill twice voided as "dead" and to prevent that bill from being "re-submitted." But the Concordat gives the Conclave no authority over the proposal of legislation in the Magisterium. Section Iv, Subsection 6 of the Standing Orders clearly violates the Concordat by allowing the Conclave to prevent Magisters from submitting bills to the Magisterium.

Section V of the Standing Orders of the Conclave (in its entirety) violates Article B, Section 1 of the Concordat because it constitutes the creation of laws. The Concordat invests "legislative authority in a Magisterium, which shall be the sole legislature in the region." Yet in Section V of the Standing Orders, the Conclave deems a number of actions illegal, essentially establishing law. The Conclave might defend this section if established regional laws prohibited each of those actions, however, no regional law prohibits any of the actions listed in Section V. Section V of the Standing Orders of the Conclave heinously violates the Concordat because it constitutes legislative action by the Conclave, a purely judicial body.

Section VI, Subsections 4, 5, and 6 of the Standing Orders of the Conclave violate Article F, Section 1 of the Concordat by restricting the speech of citizens. Article F, Section 1 of the Concordat clearly provides "the right to free speech...except when a nation is determined to be acting deliberately to cause a public nuisance." Yet Subsections 4, 5, and 6 of the Standing Orders of the Conclave each allow the Viceroy to limit speech by citizens during a trial. Section VI, Subsections 4, 5, and 6 clearly violate the rights of the citizens of the East Pacific by limiting their speech.

Section VI, Subsection 8 of the Standing Orders of the Conclave violates Article F, Section 5 of the Concordat by forcing a defendant to self-incriminate if s/he is unable to reach trial. Section Vi, Subsection 8 of the Standing Orders provide for a defendant to give up his/her right to a defense if s/he does not appear within three days of the presentation of the prosecution. This constitutes self-incrimination since the failure to provide defensive evidence dooms any attempt at defense. Subsection VI, Section 8 of the Standing Orders violates the Concordat as such because Article F, Section 5 of the Concordat clearly prohibits the passage of any law (or policy) that forces an individual to self-incriminate.

Section VI, Subsection 10 of the Standing Orders of the Conclave violates Article F, Section 3 of the Concordat by ruining any opportunity for an impartial trial. Section VI, Subsection 10 allows Arbiters to act as Prosecutors, albeit temporarily. But even temporary service as a prosecutor on a case invalidates an individual from service as a neutral arbiter and violates Article F, Section 3 as such.

Section VIII (in its entirety) violates the Concordat by regulating the removal of an Arbiter. The Concordat provides for the removal of an Arbiter by the Conclave or Magisterium only for high crimes or inactivity. But Section VIII provides for the removal of an Arbiter as part of a sentencing for any crime and in other situations. Section VIII thus violates the Concordat by changing the circumstances under which an Arbiter can be removed.

The Standing Orders of the Conclave are largely in accordance with the Concordat despite what the length of this post may suggest. But the passages that I've mentioned here clearly violate the provisions of the Concrdat and should be repealed by the Conclave as such.
The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Todd McCloud
Member Avatar
Planet Telox
Hey there, FPS. I'll try to answer your concerns.

Quote:
 
Section IV, Subsection 2 of the Standing Orders of the Conclave violates Articles B and C of the Concordat by assuming authority for the Conclave that is reserved for the Magisterium. Section IV, Subsection 2 provides for the Conclave to "debate over a bill presented to them and determine potential problems regarding the bill and its effect on the region." But the Concordat only allows the Conclave to consider, void, or reaffirm bills that are "contrary to this Concordat." The Concordat reserves the authority to consider legislation based upon its actual effects for the Magisterium. Section IV, Subsection 2 of the Standing Orders clearly violates the Concordat by giving the Conclave the power to consider legislation based upon its efficacy instead of its legality.

The Concordat states in C.5 that "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." The word in question would be 'rule'. To me, a ruling may involve consideration, voiding, or a reaffirmation, but it does not need to stop there. Rule basically means to make a decision and, in our case, a decision on a bill made by the body of the Conclave. Therefore, I'm going to have to fall back on what is written in our standing orders.

Quote:
 
Section IV, Subsection 6 of the Standing Orders of the Conclave violates Articles B and C of the Concordat by awarding the Conclave authority over the proposal of legislation in the Magisterium. Section IV, Subsection 6 allows the Conclave to declare any bill twice voided as "dead" and to prevent that bill from being "re-submitted." But the Concordat gives the Conclave no authority over the proposal of legislation in the Magisterium. Section Iv, Subsection 6 of the Standing Orders clearly violates the Concordat by allowing the Conclave to prevent Magisters from submitting bills to the Magisterium.

Both you and I were around when that Concordat was being written, and I believe the consensus at the time was to keep it specific but not too specific. However, the fact that two times around for a bill is enough is immaterial, however. Therefore, I can see this needing an amendment. It's needed, yes, but it is not specifically stated in the Concordat.

Quote:
 
Section V of the Standing Orders of the Conclave (in its entirety) violates Article B, Section 1 of the Concordat because it constitutes the creation of laws. The Concordat invests "legislative authority in a Magisterium, which shall be the sole legislature in the region." Yet in Section V of the Standing Orders, the Conclave deems a number of actions illegal, essentially establishing law. The Conclave might defend this section if established regional laws prohibited each of those actions, however, no regional law prohibits any of the actions listed in Section V. Section V of the Standing Orders of the Conclave heinously violates the Concordat because it constitutes legislative action by the Conclave, a purely judicial body.

I will have to disagree. What we do here is interpret, not legislate. With respect to Section V, (2) is used to determine potential problems regarding the interpretation of a bill and, if it is deemed there are problems with the bill, we vote it down and send it back to the legislative branch, our Magisterium (3). Really those two clauses are the only ones I see relating to the interpretation process in its raw form. Nowhere does it say we may change the bill. We cannot. That is legislative work, not judicial. Our task is merely to determine interpretation. Compared to C.5. of the Concordat, our method of interpretation does not violate the Concordat.

Quote:
 
Section VI, Subsections 4, 5, and 6 of the Standing Orders of the Conclave violate Article F, Section 1 of the Concordat by restricting the speech of citizens. Article F, Section 1 of the Concordat clearly provides "the right to free speech...except when a nation is determined to be acting deliberately to cause a public nuisance." Yet Subsections 4, 5, and 6 of the Standing Orders of the Conclave each allow the Viceroy to limit speech by citizens during a trial. Section VI, Subsections 4, 5, and 6 clearly violate the rights of the citizens of the East Pacific by limiting their speech.

I think you mean Section VI, not VI. Section VI deals with trial processes. I'm going to have to disagree here. The entire purpose of Section VI is to establish an orderly trial process by which we can establish justice to all involved parties. (4) Speaks of if a trial is public or private, (5) basically traffics who can post at what times, (6) is mainly used to organize the trial process for evidence purposes. To break such protocol is to be a nuisance. Just like courts in The United States, people have free speech, people can talk when they want, people can object, etc. But we also reserve the right to maintain trials in an orderly fashion. It's a question of order vs. anarchy, the way I see it. And, just as they have in a common court room, there is a dividing line between the audience and those participating in the trial. If an audience member speaks out, they can be escorted out.

Now, we cannot stop people from posting in a thread. But, we can certainly escort them out to keep the order and uphold protocol so that justice may be carried out.

Quote:
 
Section VI, Subsection 8 of the Standing Orders of the Conclave violates Article F, Section 5 of the Concordat by forcing a defendant to self-incriminate if s/he is unable to reach trial. Section Vi, Subsection 8 of the Standing Orders provide for a defendant to give up his/her right to a defense if s/he does not appear within three days of the presentation of the prosecution. This constitutes self-incrimination since the failure to provide defensive evidence dooms any attempt at defense. Subsection VI, Section 8 of the Standing Orders violates the Concordat as such because Article F, Section 5 of the Concordat clearly prohibits the passage of any law (or policy) that forces an individual to self-incriminate.

This is a gray area. No nation shall be forced to incriminate one's self. However, we give them three days to provide a defense or find someone else to do it for them. The trial should not stop because they won't partake in their own defense. This does not seem like forcing to me - we give them an opportunity to not be self-incriminated. It's not a pretty thing, but again, a trial should not stop because the person does not show up. It's like... let's say someone here is charged with harassing a member or members. If they don't show up to their trial, we're stuck. What should we do? Withhold judgment, or just try them? Heck, in real-life they arrest you and set a bail if you don't show up to court. I'm guessing that'd be the equivalent of a temporary ban. Therefore, once you're jailed, you're *forced* to show up to court.

So really, what else is there to do? We can't force someone to post. If we give them an opportunity to get a defense going, I don't see it as a force. We do the best we can with an understandably tough circumstance.

Quote:
 
Section VI, Subsection 10 of the Standing Orders of the Conclave violates Article F, Section 3 of the Concordat by ruining any opportunity for an impartial trial. Section VI, Subsection 10 allows Arbiters to act as Prosecutors, albeit temporarily. But even temporary service as a prosecutor on a case invalidates an individual from service as a neutral arbiter and violates Article F, Section 3 as such.

I'm not so sure I understand this concern. Arbiters themselves are to hold non-biased opinions on the trials themselves. They were picked because of their supposed ability to do that. I'm not saying they're the only ones that can do that, but I am saying that it's their duty to do that. If you or anyone else feel an arbiter is acting impartial during a trial or what not, it should be addressed. Perhaps the word prosecutor should be changed and instead clarification be made that Arbiters are to ask questions to the involved parties.

Quote:
 
Section VIII (in its entirety) violates the Concordat by regulating the removal of an Arbiter. The Concordat provides for the removal of an Arbiter by the Conclave or Magisterium only for high crimes or inactivity. But Section VIII provides for the removal of an Arbiter as part of a sentencing for any crime and in other situations. Section VIII thus violates the Concordat by changing the circumstances under which an Arbiter can be removed.

This I can agree with you on. An amendment should be drawn up to either clarify or draw up the SOC in this section.
"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
 
Der Fuhrer Dyszel
Member Avatar
Cool like Snakes

My question is how does the Magisterium plan to address the concerns the Standing Orders of the Conclave attempt to rectify?

It seems some of the concerns the Conclave adapted were because of the repeated failures of the Magisterium to maintain activity and subsequently pass any vote within a reasonable time frame. What plans do you have for the Magisterium to ensure that the Conclave does not need to intervene in their laws?

If Conclave can see that the Magisterium has a plan to counter the concerns of inactivity, I think there would be no reason at all to have some of our standing orders and we can discuss the modification of them if not the removal of them altogether.

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 Goto Top
 
Free Pacific States
Member Avatar
Number One Drone
Der Fuhrer Dyszel
Nov 4 2010, 09:46 AM
My question is how does the Magisterium plan to address the concerns the Standing Orders of the Conclave attempt to rectify?

It seems some of the concerns the Conclave adapted were because of the repeated failures of the Magisterium to maintain activity and subsequently pass any vote within a reasonable time frame.  What plans do you have for the Magisterium to ensure that the Conclave does not need to intervene in their laws?

If Conclave can see that the Magisterium has a plan to counter the concerns of inactivity, I think there would be no reason at all to have some of our standing orders and we can discuss the modification of them if not the removal of them altogether.

The question at hand here is not the Magisterium, it is the Conclave. The Concordat of the East Pacific does not provide for the Conclave to assume the powers of the Magisterium in any situation, to violate the Concordat in any situation, or to demand anything from the Provost in any situation. The activity of the Magisterium is irrelevant to the matter at hand, as such, as the question is not whether the Magisterium is active but whether the Standing Orders of the Conclave flagrantly violate the Concordat. In my mind, they do, and there is no justification for that.

If the members of the Conclave want to ensure that the legislature is active, they need to resign as Arbiters, and seek office as a Magister. Until they do that, with all due respect, they've got no place legislating.

Quote:
 
The Concordat states in C.5 that "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." The word in question would be 'rule'. To me, a ruling may involve consideration, voiding, or a reaffirmation, but it does not need to stop there. Rule basically means to make a decision and, in our case, a decision on a bill made by the body of the Conclave. Therefore, I'm going to have to fall back on what is written in our standing orders.


The Concordat does provide for the Conclave to rule on actions of the Delegate or laws passed by the Magisterium. But it allows the Conclave to nullify and prohibit only those laws and actions that "are contrary to this Concordat" and it does not allow them to amend or pass laws. The Conclave thus has no authority to consider legislation based upon "potential problems regarding the bill" or "its effect on the region." The Magisterium holds sole authority to decide whether a bill is a good idea; the Conclave only holds the authority to nullify it if it violates the Concordat.

Quote:
 
Both you and I were around when that Concordat was being written, and I believe the consensus at the time was to keep it specific but not too specific. However, the fact that two times around for a bill is enough is immaterial, however. Therefore, I can see this needing an amendment. It's needed, yes, but it is not specifically stated in the Concordat.


I'll yield that.

Quote:
 
I will have to disagree. What we do here is interpret, not legislate. With respect to Section V, (2) is used to determine potential problems regarding the interpretation of a bill and, if it is deemed there are problems with the bill, we vote it down and send it back to the legislative branch, our Magisterium (3). Really those two clauses are the only ones I see relating to the interpretation process in its raw form. Nowhere does it say we may change the bill. We cannot. That is legislative work, not judicial. Our task is merely to determine interpretation. Compared to C.5. of the Concordat, our method of interpretation does not violate the Concordat.


Are we talking about the same Section V? I'm talking about Section V, which establishes "Offenses that may Merit a Trial," and then outlines a number of offenses that are not prohibited by either the Concordat or any law of the East Pacific.

Quote:
 

I think you mean Section VI, not VI. Section VI deals with trial processes. I'm going to have to disagree here. The entire purpose of Section VI is to establish an orderly trial process by which we can establish justice to all involved parties. (4) Speaks of if a trial is public or private, (5) basically traffics who can post at what times, (6) is mainly used to organize the trial process for evidence purposes. To break such protocol is to be a nuisance. Just like courts in The United States, people have free speech, people can talk when they want, people can object, etc. But we also reserve the right to maintain trials in an orderly fashion. It's a question of order vs. anarchy, the way I see it. And, just as they have in a common court room, there is a dividing line between the audience and those participating in the trial. If an audience member speaks out, they can be escorted out.

Now, we cannot stop people from posting in a thread. But, we can certainly escort them out to keep the order and uphold protocol so that justice may be carried out.


I'll yield that, too.

Quote:
 
This is a gray area. No nation shall be forced to incriminate one's self. However, we give them three days to provide a defense or find someone else to do it for them. The trial should not stop because they won't partake in their own defense. This does not seem like forcing to me - we give them an opportunity to not be self-incriminated. It's not a pretty thing, but again, a trial should not stop because the person does not show up. It's like... let's say someone here is charged with harassing a member or members. If they don't show up to their trial, we're stuck. What should we do? Withhold judgment, or just try them? Heck, in real-life they arrest you and set a bail if you don't show up to court. I'm guessing that'd be the equivalent of a temporary ban. Therefore, once you're jailed, you're *forced* to show up to court.

So really, what else is there to do? We can't force someone to post. If we give them an opportunity to get a defense going, I don't see it as a force. We do the best we can with an understandably tough circumstance.


Why not a temporary regional ban (similar to holding a prisoner in the courthouse jail during a trial in real life) until the defense responds? I certainly agree that the prosecution ought to have a limit on how long it can take to prosecute -- but the defense should have as much time as it wants. Most countries allow the defense unlimited time, except in special circumstances.

Quote:
 
I'm not so sure I understand this concern. Arbiters themselves are to hold non-biased opinions on the trials themselves. They were picked because of their supposed ability to do that. I'm not saying they're the only ones that can do that, but I am saying that it's their duty to do that. If you or anyone else feel an arbiter is acting impartial during a trial or what not, it should be addressed. Perhaps the word prosecutor should be changed and instead clarification be made that Arbiters are to ask questions to the involved parties.


I'll yield this, too, because I clearly misread the passage. But not using the term "prosecutor" might be helpful...
The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
I'm certainly open to amending the SOC. SOC states:
"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."

The preamble of the SOC acknowledges that our internal rules are simply a mutual agreement to create order and predictability and that Concordat is always and in every instance the law and takes precedence. SOC can be suspended if Arbiters agree that the SOC is interfering with a just process or the best interest of the region.

The SOC are over 100 days old. They have sat here - according to you - in violation in Concordat in seven separate instances and you as Provost left them unchallenged during your entire term. Now you challenge them 24 hours before the election of the next Magisterium. The timing of this challenge is a distraction from the election and the naturalization trials of two nations. We will not be trying two nations and deciding seven separate matters about the SOC during an election. That is not in the best interest of the region. That would be a perfect storm of stupid.

This is not accusing FPS of intentionally trying to be a nuisance. It is legitimate for any citizen to bring any concern about the rules of Conclave at any time. If FPS's concerns make our internal rules better, FPS has my thanks. It's just that we can't do it right now.

The nations whose citizenship has been challenged take precedence over a discussion about internal rules, so we will address the challenges of those nations first. These nations will be invited to defend their conduct. They will not be allowed to distract Conclave from that issue by arguing that the process is fundamentally unfair because you have raised these issues. You have been here twice and not once did you previously raise any concern about our SOC being in conflict with Concordat.

One nation, Anur-Sanur, asked that I vary from the "72 hour rule" for posting a defense and I granted that exception. So it's not a rule. It's a guideline and when a nation wants us to vary the procedure to maintain fairness, Conclave does that. Anur-Sanur's own thread on the lounge annoucing the next election before it was declared by Viceroy means that nation knew or should have known in advance that naturalization was about to be suspended. Admin Kelssek and Delegate Allegheny can attest that I have been preparing for that election for over a week.

None of these challenges affect whether or not those nations have deliberately been a public nuisance, which is the charge for both. That is a matter of opinion of the Arbiters reviewing their conduct. It is impossible for one or more Arbiters to NOT act in a prosecutorial role in those matters or no evidence would be presented. Much of the evidence is contained in threads where those nations made direct challenges to the decisions and opinions of Arbiters. The issue is whether or not their conduct was a nuisance. We didn't stop being citizens when we accepted the role of Arbiter and we retain our rights. We have the right to bring matters before Conclave just as you do.

Concordat requires that we conduct impartial trials of citizens. That's a procedural requirement of fairness to others. It is patently absurd to assert that Arbiters are required to be neutral. Quite the opposite: Arbiters are required to be opinionated or we would never get a damn thing done.

As to this notion of free speech. The Terms of Service of InvisionFree restricts our speech on this forum. The expectation of not being a public nuisance restricts our speech. The ability of region government to conduct business in an orderly fashion means each branch can and should restrict who can post in their subforums and when. Arbiters actually have the greatest restriction of freedom of speech of any TEP citizen: we are forbidden to conduct trials privately. We must deliberate publicly.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can post anything anywhere anytime. Or anyone can be a troll and not face consequences for it.

IRL there's a photo of me standing in front of the US White House. Before it was taken by my friend, I set down the backpack I was carrying next to the fence. After the photo was snapped and I bent down to pick it up, I saw Secret Service agents rushing towards me from both directions stop with a look of relief, turn around, and walk back to their posts. Not because you can't legally set a backpack on the sidewalk of Pennsylvania Avenue and have a friend take a picture of you. But because backpacks and packages left unattended are considered a threat. It ain't a matter of what's legal. They were rushing towards me as a matter of preserving the safety of government.

Here, the rules are here to preserve the fun of our online community. It's a game.

Viceroy will call a Convention of Arbiters and ask them to address each of your concerns and consider your requests to amend the SOC. It will not be a trial. It will be exactly as it was when we wrote them initially, a civil discussion of the best way to conduct business - and we will consider each of your concerns.

The convention will be after the election. And the two trials. Not now. I will add this to our Calendar and ask Arbiters to thoughtfully consider each point presented for the convention, which at this point will likely occur in December.

In the meantime, this thread will be locked. This restricts every Arbiter's speech on the matter until then because this is the place, but this is not the time. Don't worry, Arbiters are familiar with Viceroy telling them when they can post and when they can't. It has nothing to do with restricting their freedom of speech.
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
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
« 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