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
Amendment: Removal of Arbiters with 2/3 Majority
Topic Started: Aug 17 2011, 01:14:28 PM (2,200 Views)
Carondia
No Avatar
Call me Carondia
Quote:
 
The Magisterium of the East Pacific, recognizing that the Magisterium may remove the Delegate or a fellow Magister by only a 2/3 majority but currently must achieve a 3/4 majority to remove an Arbiter, desiring that in the event of the Magisterium needing to remove an Arbiter that the Arbiter should receive no special privilege over a Magister or Delegate, and remembering its authority to propose amendments to the Concordat pursuant to Section 3 of Article G of the Concordat, does hereby propose the following amendment(s) to the Concordat, which shall be voted upon by the East Pacific populace if it receives the support of 2/3 of the members of the Magisterium:

Section 1. Article B, Section 11 is hereby modified to read, "The Magisterium may remove the Delegate or a Magister by a 2/3 vote for High Crimes or Inactivity. Upon the Referral of the Conclave the Magisterium may remove an Arbiter by a 2/3 majority."

Section 2. Article C, Section 8 is hereby modified to read, "The Conclave may remove a Vizier by a 2/3 vote for High Crimes or Inactivity. The Conclave may refer an Arbiter to the Magisterium for removal by a simple majority vote for High Crimes or Inactivity."


This is the current proposal, any thoughts or ideas.
Citizen of The East Pacific
former Magister of The East Pacific
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kelssek
Member Avatar
Hero of the Soviet Onion
I think there is good reason for an Arbiter to be more difficult to remove: they are charged with interpreting law and cannot be in fear of their position if they should make an unpopular - but correct - decision.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Carondia
No Avatar
Call me Carondia
The Inactivity or High Crimes clause fixes that issue (wait, I didn't add that to the proposed Amended Section, whoops). If an Arbiter makes an unpopular decision as long as that isn't "let's completely disband the region" then it isn't a "High Crime" so hence all officials are protected in that way.
Citizen of The East Pacific
former Magister of The East Pacific
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
SCKnightVulshain
Member Avatar
The Boll Weevel
Hm....It seems reasonable. Still, we have to be careful about this. And by inactivity, how long would an arbiter have to be inactive before being removed? This is important we discuss this, as sometimes someone may be gone for a month or a couple of weeks. Now, several years, I can see removing that Arbiter as reasonable and acceptable, but what about a week? Things happen and we can't say, "Okay, you were inactive for a week and a half, so you're no longer an Arbiter." And the Arbiter in question had a family emergency (death in the family, or going to give birth). I wouldn't feel comfortable to strip them of their position for something like that. It isn't right.

So, how long would an Arbiter have to be gone before being removed from their position for inactivity?
Confederacy of Vulshain
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Carondia
No Avatar
Call me Carondia
Well. Considering the Conclave is pretty bored (that is a good thing, I suppose) I would say a month without excuse gets you removed, but then again that is at the discretion of the Magisterium at the time.
Citizen of The East Pacific
former Magister of The East Pacific
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stateless
Member Avatar
Tandy 400
Here's what I think... I think that we should let the Conclave decide if an Arbiter is inactive, and then report the inactive Arbiter to us for consideration.
WhatWhatInTheButt
FORMER: Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Carondia
No Avatar
Call me Carondia
The Conclave already has that written in their Standing Orders, but it is not required. They can refer it to us at their discretion, but the primary authority should remain with us, IMO.
Citizen of The East Pacific
former Magister of The East Pacific
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Reminisci
Member Avatar
One of Us
I think we need to be careful with that word -- authority. Yes, we are charged with the creation, revising and abolishment of the laws of this region. That, in and of itself, is quite a responsibility. Keep in mind, however, that there are two other important parts to this goverment of ours. So yes, we need a good system of checks and balances. But we also need to keep ourselves in check and not grab up more authority for ourselves than is warranted. That being said, I don't believe it to be our responsibility to stick our noses in the other branches' business when it comes to things like inactivity. If they are acting outside the bounds of the Concordant, them sure, let's remove them by 2/3 vote. Otherwise, let the Conclave handle it's own legal removals.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Carondia
No Avatar
Call me Carondia
So, Reminisci, is what you mean that the Conclave should be able to remove one of it's own for Inactivity by a 2/3 majority and the Magisterium should be able to remove an Arbiter by a 2/3 majority for High Crimes?
Citizen of The East Pacific
former Magister of The East Pacific
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Reminisci
Member Avatar
One of Us
I'm saying we should only be responsible for removing them from office by 2/3's vote should they do something unlawful ("High Crimes," as it were), unconstitutional. As for how they remove each other based on inactivity, that should be more policy than law, in my opinion, as it's going to be on a case-by-case basis, with a variety of dynamics per each different situation, scenario.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stateless
Member Avatar
Tandy 400
situations and cases that the Conclave would know more about than the Magisterium. I think that the Conclave should be responsible for things like inactivity, whereas the Magisterium shall only be allowed to interfere if it includes anything criminal
WhatWhatInTheButt
FORMER: Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Reminisci
Member Avatar
One of Us
Right on.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Carondia
No Avatar
Call me Carondia
Stateless573
Aug 18 2011, 02:11 PM
situations and cases that the Conclave would know more about than the Magisterium. I think that the Conclave should be responsible for things like inactivity, whereas the Magisterium shall only be allowed to interfere if it includes anything criminal

I would actually think it should be the other way. The Conclave is the Court, in my mind that means they try criminal offenses: High Crimes.
Citizen of The East Pacific
former Magister of The East Pacific
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Reminisci
Member Avatar
One of Us
Is wa
Aug 18 2011, 02:25 PM
I would actually think it should be the other way. The Conclave is the Court, in my mind that means they try criminal offenses: High Crimes.

It has to be fair, unbiased, just. There would be concern of corruption within the entity itself should it investigate/prosecute its own. Thus, the very group to confirm its appointments should also be responsible for removing appointees should they falter.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Carondia
No Avatar
Call me Carondia
That is true. Possibly we should give the Conclave the ability to remove Magisters? I am confused. Personally I think we should give the Conclave the ability to remove Magisters, give the Magisterium the ability to remove Viziers, and lower the amount required to remove an Arbiter.
Citizen of The East Pacific
former Magister of The East Pacific
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
I'm not speaking for Conclave, just as an Arbiter who was Viceroy for a year.

Magisters and Delegates are elected and face re-election. Arbiters are neither elected nor face re-election. The Arbiters in Conclave were nominated by at least three different Delegates and approved by Magisters over the last two years.

Conclave is the only body in the region that has demanded that every active participant be present and vote in every matter without exception. Conclave is the only body in the region which has consistently asked anyone who failed to be present and vote to either resign or be formally referred to Magisterium for removal. Fortunately they resigned.

No Magisterium I can recall has ever chosen to remove a single inactive Magister - even those who had their nation CTE = they were disqualified to even be a citizen. Not because Magisters are less better players, but possibly because the term is short and the job is different.

Never once did any Arbiter claim that it was not legal for Magisterium to act as they did with regard to inactive Magisters because we have a tradition of branches of government staying out of the internal business of the other body. Because there is no primary authority in Concordat. There are independent branches of government that have a limited check and balance on the other within the scope of their role.

An Arbiter in today's Conclave has an average of 11.6 months of service. Viceroy Kurogasa has 21 months. That's dedication. It's not true that Conclave can remove an Arbiter. That is Magisterium's role exclusively. Conclave is similarly ill suited to remove an elected official from office.

The folks who wrote Concordat believed it was unwise to force Arbiters to be subject to political pressure equal to that of elected officials. Giving Conclave the role of removing Magisters would politicize it. Just as making it easier to remove Arbiters would subject the judicial branch to politics. Politics isn't bad - it's just not the kind of influence that makes for a fair courtroom.
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
 
SCKnightVulshain
Member Avatar
The Boll Weevel
It seems that Barb has spoken. Being Provost, I'm going to have to go with Barb on this one as he has been around much longer than I have and knows how this region was formed.

Thus, I have come to the realization that it might be unfeasible to do this.
Confederacy of Vulshain
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Carondia
No Avatar
Call me Carondia
From what I can tell the only thing Barb was advocating against was that the Conclave not remove Magisters. And that seems fair to me. I didn't see a very big argument against the original proposal: lowering the vote of the Magisterium required to remove an Arbiter to a 2/3 majority.
Citizen of The East Pacific
former Magister of The East Pacific
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stateless
Member Avatar
Tandy 400
I say, that, the only reason we should be able to remove a arbiter is if the Conclave refers it to us, If we don't get a referral, we don't interfere.
WhatWhatInTheButt
FORMER: Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kurogasa
Member Avatar
Viceroy
Speaking as a fellow Citizen with absolutely no powers within this hall.

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 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.


It seems clear to me that the Conclave is the only one who can say who is guilty of high crimes.

As for inactivity, how would the Magisterium keep tabs on the activity of Arbiters?, so far the Conclave has done a good job (at least it seems to me that way) at keeping the Arbiters active, and using recusals if an Arbiter can't be active for a period of time.

That being said, removing an Arbiter should be a referal thing, Conclave tells the Magisterium the reason why an Arbiter should be removed, if the Magisterium agrees after the voting has passed, the Arbiter is removed.
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
 
Carondia
No Avatar
Call me Carondia
So the Conclave may refer an Arbiter for removal by the Magisterium with a simple majority, the Magisterium may confirm this with a 2/3 majority.
Citizen of The East Pacific
former Magister of The East Pacific
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stateless
Member Avatar
Tandy 400
If we agree to the 2/3s yea
WhatWhatInTheButt
FORMER: Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Carondia
No Avatar
Call me Carondia
Stateless573
Aug 18 2011, 09:38 PM
If we agree to the 2/3s yea

Define. Do you mean we agree with 2/3 or the Conclave refers it to us by 2/3.
Citizen of The East Pacific
former Magister of The East Pacific
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stateless
Member Avatar
Tandy 400
Sorry, I was still think about the debate from the embassy topic, where we were debating if we wanted a 2/3 majority or a 3/4 majority...

But yea, the Conclave may refer an Arbiter for removal by the Magisterium with a simple majority, the Magisterium may confirm this with a 2/3 majority.
WhatWhatInTheButt
FORMER: Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
SCKnightVulshain
Member Avatar
The Boll Weevel
Hm...I'm going to motion that we start voting on this.

Also, the moment someone seconds this motion, voting will begin.
Confederacy of Vulshain
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stateless
Member Avatar
Tandy 400
Before I second it, can someone post a final copy of what we're voting on?
WhatWhatInTheButt
FORMER: Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Carondia
No Avatar
Call me Carondia
See the OP for the updated version.
Citizen of The East Pacific
former Magister of The East Pacific
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stateless
Member Avatar
Tandy 400
right... thanks, So then, I second The motion to vote
WhatWhatInTheButt
FORMER: Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Barb
Member Avatar
Sergeant Hobo 678
Quote:
 
From what I can tell the only thing Barb was advocating against was that the Conclave not remove Magisters. And that seems fair to me. I didn't see a very big argument against the original proposal: lowering the vote of the Magisterium required to remove an Arbiter to a 2/3 majority.

Then I spoke inarticulately. I said that lowering the threshold for removing an Arbiter injects too much politics into Conclave. They made the threshold 3/4 to limit the Magisterium's power. You expand it by dropping the majority to 2/3. I disagree because being an Arbiter is a different kind of service to the region. I also disagree that Conclave's power should be expanded to remove Magisters. Because that expands Conclave's power.

I also object to the notion that Magisterium would limit its authority to situations where Conclave makes a referral. That's the practice we have honored, but rules are written for situations where players act dishonorably. No one should be above that.

As a housekeeping matter, I also suggest that you consider the considerable time and effort involved in a region wide election. Magisterium's Standing Order eliminating the Delegate Veto from proposed amendments to Concordat is not a law - it's an untested internal rule. Since I've been in the region, the difference between a 2/3 and 3/4 vote of Magisterium has almost always come down to one or less votes. Believe me: if an Arbiter is an idiot, you'll have no trouble getting the 3/4 currently required.
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
 
SCKnightVulshain
Member Avatar
The Boll Weevel
Okay, now I don't know if we should continue with this amendment or vote against it (all of us), because I'm guessing that what Barb's getting at is that we Magisters might be overstepping our bounds. If that's the case, I don't want Barb or anyone else to get mad at us.
Confederacy of Vulshain
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archive: Magisterium · 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