|
|
|
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! |
| Amendments to the Standing Orders | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 23 2011, 01:19:16 AM (1,586 Views) | |
| Kelssek | Aug 23 2011, 01:19:16 AM Post #1 |
|
Hero of the Soviet Onion
|
Here is a proposal to do some housekeeping and clarification in the Standing Orders.
A quick explanation of what's going on here: 1. In my opinion the Conclave ruling was a ridiculous, abjectly terrible ruling. It ignored all logic and even the Concordat itself, and if it is challenged in the future I look forward to telling the Conclave exactly that. However, we have to live with that and this will formally amend the rules to comply. 2. Due to the above, we are placed in a situation where absolute and total paralysis can result if the wrong number of Magisters disappear. We can't remove them except by a 2/3 vote, but we probably won't be able to get a 2/3 vote because they're inactive. For example, if 3 Magisters go completely inactive out of a Magisterium of 6 (which is entirely a possible scenario), we cannot remove the inactive Magisters because we'd need 4 votes in favour of removal and there are only 3 active Magisters. And because 3 out of 6 is not a majority, we cannot pass anything either. 3. We need a way to shortcut procedure when it becomes an obstacle or turns into a hopeless mess. The example is with the Southern Yugoslavia arbiter vote - if we adhered strictly to procedure we're just wasting time when the intent and will of the Magisterium is clear. We should not and cannot be bogged down in pointless technicalities. 4. Easy one here: it's entirely redundant, as this procedure is already spelled out in the Concordat. And if the Conclave has a problem with 2. and 3., well, see what I said in 1. I'm happy to take this on. |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Aug 23 2011, 03:27:17 PM Post #2 |
|
The Boll Weevel
|
Looks good. What does the rest of you think? |
| Confederacy of Vulshain | |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 23 2011, 04:04:56 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Call me Carondia
|
I hate to bring up the Conclave ruling but I believe we should pass a resolution for the Provost to appeal the Conclave Ruling in question before the new Conclave. |
|
Citizen of The East Pacific former Magister of The East Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Aug 23 2011, 08:00:22 PM Post #4 |
|
The Boll Weevel
|
That sounds reasonable I guess. Anybody else want to throw their two cents in before we start motioning to vote on this? |
| Confederacy of Vulshain | |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Aug 24 2011, 12:00:30 AM Post #5 |
|
Tandy 400
|
No, looks good to me |
|
WhatWhatInTheButt FORMER:
| |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 24 2011, 03:57:57 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Call me Carondia
|
I would also like to put forward this Resolution BEFORE we edit the standing orders:
|
|
Citizen of The East Pacific former Magister of The East Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Aug 24 2011, 07:39:30 PM Post #7 |
|
The Boll Weevel
|
That sounds about right. |
| Confederacy of Vulshain | |
![]() |
|
| Kelssek | Aug 25 2011, 02:11:10 PM Post #8 |
|
Hero of the Soviet Onion
|
Minor issues: We don't vote "AYE" on things. We vote in favour or against things. "Authorise" isn't the right word here. The Magisterium isn't in the business of authorising anyone to appeal judicial rulings. "Calls upon" would be more appropriate. "Inactivity" should not be capitalised as it is not a proper noun. Otherwise I haven't any issue with making a resolution. |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 25 2011, 03:36:33 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Call me Carondia
|
Modified as Kelssek said. I motion this to vote. |
|
Citizen of The East Pacific former Magister of The East Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| Kelssek | Aug 25 2011, 05:33:19 PM Post #10 |
|
Hero of the Soviet Onion
|
I second the motion to vote. For better organisation, I would advise the Provost to open a new thread for the voting on the resolution. |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Aug 25 2011, 06:56:24 PM Post #11 |
|
The Boll Weevel
|
I will...Um...Did you both modify your posts? It's kind of been a long day for me at work. |
| Confederacy of Vulshain | |
![]() |
|
| Kelssek | Aug 26 2011, 01:51:26 AM Post #12 |
|
Hero of the Soviet Onion
|
No, I don't think I edited any of my posts here. |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Aug 26 2011, 06:37:15 AM Post #13 |
|
The Boll Weevel
|
I'll make a new thread after work today. I get off at around 3:30. |
| Confederacy of Vulshain | |
![]() |
|
| Barb | Aug 28 2011, 06:01:04 AM Post #14 |
|
Sergeant Hobo 678
|
The Conclave ruled: "Magisterium is prohibited from using "of those voting" to determine a majority or super-majority in the voting record of the Magisterium." You propose to use unanimous consent for procedural matters. I see zero conflict between the two - and no need for Conclave to reconsider its ruling or challenge the change proposed to your Standing Orders. If you read the Conclave's thread on this issue, there was a specific concern that unanimous consent might be abused to decide matters specific to the powers of Magisterium: elect a Provost, pass a law, remove a government official, etc. There was never any consideration of how or who decides when Magisterium decides to end debate, hold a vote, limit voting periods, etc. Concordat is silent on procedural matters like that. You could decide that Provost makes all procedural rulings by simply saying "there being no objections, we now gonna do dis ting here." The "voting record of the Magisterium" in Conclave's ruling shouldn't be so broadly construed as to include who seconded a motion or who voted to end debate. I completely agree with Kel that such an interpretation makes it almost impossible to get anything done. This was specifically written to prevent a lone Magister from ramming through legislation without the consent of fellow elected legislators. Their silence in those matters is not a vote FOR. Specific example: one Magister cannot elect him or herself Provost just because other Magisters fail to vote. It's silly and undemocratic. Second example: it is perfectly reasonable to set aside a Magister under consideration of removal from office from the pool of voting Magisters. IRL there are millions of people on the US Eastern seaboard today with no power or Internet. Some may not get any back for a week or more. You can hold votes for 48 hours if you like (again, an internal procedural matter) - but just be mindful this is a game and it is sometimes impossible for your fellow Magisters to log in. Sometimes they can give you the heads up, sometimes they can't. |
|
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
| |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Aug 30 2011, 03:48:44 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Call me Carondia
|
Vulshian? Is it taking this long to bring this to a vote? |
|
Citizen of The East Pacific former Magister of The East Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| Kelssek | Aug 31 2011, 10:06:21 PM Post #16 |
|
Hero of the Soviet Onion
|
There hasn't been a motion to vote on the original topic, only on your proposed resolution, which is now going on in the other thread. Personally it'd be better to have that resolution settled before moving forward with this. Also, I think it'd be best to let Vulshain do his/her job; there is really no rush or pressing emergency here. |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Sep 1 2011, 10:30:21 AM Post #17 |
|
Tandy 400
|
|
|
WhatWhatInTheButt FORMER:
| |
![]() |
|
| Kelssek | Sep 1 2011, 01:32:18 PM Post #18 |
|
Hero of the Soviet Onion
|
That was for a vote on the resolution, and that vote has gone ahead. There's a resolution calling for an appeal on the Conclave's ruling, and an amendment to the standing orders, and those are two separate issues. |
![]() |
|
| Carondia | Sep 1 2011, 03:59:11 PM Post #19 |
![]()
Call me Carondia
|
Currently I say we don't take this off the table yet. Personally I want to get the Appeal before the Conclave fully considered before we take action as to the Standing Orders. Hopefully we can successfully appeal the ruling because (if my notes appear correct) only three of the current six Arbiters supported the ruling and something like this can always be re-visited. |
|
Citizen of The East Pacific former Magister of The East Pacific | |
![]() |
|
| Stateless | Sep 5 2011, 09:00:53 PM Post #20 |
|
Tandy 400
|
I think that 'majority vote' should consist only of the Magisters who were deemed active during the most recent roll call (as long as the number of Active Magister is greater than 3) That would make it necessary for us to take a roll call before each vote. |
|
WhatWhatInTheButt FORMER:
| |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Archive: Magisterium · Next Topic » |







7:42 PM Jul 10