|
|
|
The East Pacific brought to you by, | |||||||||||||
|
Social
Roleplay
|
|
| 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! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Amendment: Removal of Arbiters with 2/3 Majority | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 17 2011, 01:14:28 PM (2,202 Views) | |
| Carondia | Aug 17 2011, 01:14:28 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Call me Carondia
|
This is the current proposal, any thoughts or ideas. |
|
Citizen of The East Pacific former Magister of The East Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| Kelssek | Aug 17 2011, 04:21:17 PM Post #2 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 17 2011, 05:54:34 PM Post #3 |
![]()
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 | |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Aug 17 2011, 07:50:34 PM Post #4 |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 17 2011, 07:58:41 PM Post #5 |
![]()
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Aug 17 2011, 08:46:23 PM Post #6 |
|
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:
| |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 17 2011, 08:52:21 PM Post #7 |
![]()
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Reminisci | Aug 17 2011, 09:52:26 PM Post #8 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 18 2011, 10:03:30 AM Post #9 |
![]()
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Reminisci | Aug 18 2011, 01:58:30 PM Post #10 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Aug 18 2011, 02:11:12 PM Post #11 |
|
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:
| |
![]() |
|
| Reminisci | Aug 18 2011, 02:25:06 PM Post #12 |
|
One of Us
|
Right on. |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 18 2011, 02:25:53 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Call me Carondia
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Reminisci | Aug 18 2011, 02:31:37 PM Post #14 |
|
One of Us
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 18 2011, 02:34:08 PM Post #15 |
![]()
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Barb | Aug 18 2011, 05:16:51 PM Post #16 |
|
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
| |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Aug 18 2011, 05:21:46 PM Post #17 |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 18 2011, 05:52:43 PM Post #18 |
![]()
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Aug 18 2011, 06:22:24 PM Post #19 |
|
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:
| |
![]() |
|
| Kurogasa | Aug 18 2011, 08:45:52 PM Post #20 |
![]()
Viceroy
|
Speaking as a fellow Citizen with absolutely no powers within this hall.
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- | |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 18 2011, 08:49:03 PM Post #21 |
![]()
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Aug 18 2011, 09:38:29 PM Post #22 |
|
Tandy 400
|
If we agree to the 2/3s yea |
|
WhatWhatInTheButt FORMER:
| |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 18 2011, 09:40:29 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Call me Carondia
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Aug 18 2011, 10:46:47 PM Post #24 |
|
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:
| |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Aug 18 2011, 11:37:57 PM Post #25 |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Aug 19 2011, 11:08:15 AM Post #26 |
|
Tandy 400
|
Before I second it, can someone post a final copy of what we're voting on? |
|
WhatWhatInTheButt FORMER:
| |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 19 2011, 11:27:37 AM Post #27 |
![]()
Call me Carondia
|
See the OP for the updated version. |
|
Citizen of The East Pacific former Magister of The East Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Aug 19 2011, 12:22:05 PM Post #28 |
|
Tandy 400
|
right... thanks, So then, I second The motion to vote |
|
WhatWhatInTheButt FORMER:
| |
![]() |
|
| Barb | Aug 19 2011, 03:15:39 PM Post #29 |
|
Sergeant Hobo 678
|
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
| |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Aug 19 2011, 05:40:55 PM Post #30 |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archive: Magisterium · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







7:43 PM Jul 10