[VOTED] Delegate Elections Act

The Magisterium
1

— Begin quote from ____

BE IT ENACTED BY THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE EAST PACIFIC

SECTION I- TITLE

…1.1- This act shall be known and cited as the “Delegate Elections Act”.

SECTION II- FINDINGS

…2.1- The Magisterium finds that:
…2.1.2 The East Pacific has held democratic elections for around a decade.
…2.1.3- Elections have been run according to the discretion of the Viceroy since the Concordat came into effect.
…2.1.4- Nothing in the laws of the East Pacific holds the Viceroy accountable for keeping elections fair, democratic, and consistent.
…2.1.5- Many unwritten regulations, procedures, and expected norms exist in elections, which causes confusion when these unwritten items are broken or ignored.

SECTION III- DEFINITIONS

…3.1- For the purposes of this act, the following terms are defined as:
…3.1.2- “Write-In”- A vote cast for an unlisted candidate.
……3.1.3- “Candidate” or “Nominee”- A citizen who has accepted a nomination and is running for the position of Delegate in a Delegate election.
……3.1.4- “Regular Election”- An election taking place to elect a Delegate following the four-month term.
……3.1.5- “Special Election”- An election initiated by a Delegate’s resignation or removal. The candidate who wins such an election shall serve for the rest of the previous Delegate’s term.
……3.1.6- “Acting Delegate”- A Vizier who is confirmed by the Magisterium to serve as an interim Delegate upon a sitting Delegate’s removal or resignation. They shall cease being Acting Delegate either when an election is held or when they are replaced by another Vizier.
……3.1.7- “Electioneering”- The act of campaigning outside of a candidate’s campaign thread./ trying to influence an election in prohibited ways.
……3.1.8- “Election impropriety”- Any inappropriate behavior performed during elections, which can include but is not limited to flaming, slandering, liking posts containing votes, or asking inappropriate questions to candidates.
……3.1.9- “Voter Fraud”- Any action by a citizen or candidate attempting to gain a candidate more votes in an unlawful manner by holding unlawful citizenships.
…3.1.10- “Vote Stacking”- "Where a candidate coordinates multiple nations to obtain citizenship for the sole purpose of voting for a particular candidate in an election.  Any action by a citizen or candidate to influence election results by coordinating numbers of citizens in voting for a specific candidate.  extra votes or swing the results of an election.

SECTION IV- GENERAL PROCEDURES

…4.1- Regular Delegate elections shall be held every four months.
……4.1.1- The East Pacific Election Commission shall be the body responsible to conduct all Delegate elections. Its functions and procedure shall be decided by the Viceroy, with changes to its procedures regarding Delegate elections being confirmed by Magisterium vote.

…4.2- A Delegate election shall consist of two periods: a) a nomination period and b) a voting period.
……4.2.1- Elections shall start two weeks before the end of the current Delegate’s term.

…4.3- Nominations of candidates for an election shall occur starting from two weeks before the end of a Delegate’s four-month term, and shall last for a period of one week.
……4.3.1- Nominations for all elections must be held in a designated thread set by the Viceroy.

…4.4- Any citizen may nominate another citizen to run as a candidate for the following elections for that nomination period.
……4.4.1- Self-nominations require a second nomination by another citizen to have the citizen being nominated be considered as a candidate.

…4.5- Voting shall begin the moment nominations are closed, and last for a period of one week.
……4.5.1- Voting shall be conducted in a designated thread set by the Viceroy that is separate from the nomination thread.

…4.6- Only citizens who applied before the start of the election may vote during the voting period.

…4.7- Results of a voting period shall be released within three days after the closure of the vote.
……4.7.1- Write-ins will be skipped or invalidated., and shall be considered as an abstention  Any votes containing a write-in will be considered as an abstention unless it said votes contain a vote for an approved candidate in which case only the vote for any approved candidates will be counted.

SECTION V- CAMPAIGNING

…5.1- All campaigning must be contained within each individual’s campaign thread, which shall be posted in the Viceroy designated forum.
……5.1.1- Only candidates may create a campaign thread, All non-candidate campaign threads will be archived.

…5.2- Candidates and citizens may not flame, insult, or slander any candidate within or outside of the designated campaign threads.

…5.3- Any citizen may ask questions of candidates within each candidate’s respective campaign thread.

SECTION IV- SPECIAL ELECTIONS

…6.1- Special elections shall be held immediately upon the removal or resignation of the sitting Delegate.
……6.2- If there is less than two months before the end of the regular Delegate term, then special elections shall not be held, with the Acting Delegate serving until the end of the term.

…6.2- Special elections shall be exempt from Sections 4.3 and 4.5, though they shall not be exempt from subsections 4.3.1 and 4.5.1.
……6.2.1- The nomination period for a special election shall last for five days.
……6.2.2- The voting period for a special election shall start upon the closure of the nomination period. Said period shall last two days.

SECTION VII- INFRACTIONS

…7.2- Instances of electioneering and/or minor election impropriety (such as liking of votes or inappropriate questions) shall be dealt with by the Viceroy with recommendation by the East Pacific Electoral Commission, upon the referral of a complaint.
……7.2.1- A first offense of electioneering and/or minor election impropriety shall result in a warning. 
……7.2.2- A second offense shall consist of the removal of voting privileges for the election during which the complaint was filed in, along with the next delegate election. shall consist of removal of voting privileges plus removal of the ability to run as a candidate for a period no longer than two years.
…7.2.3- Any further offenses shall consist of the removal of voting privileges and the ability to run as a candidate for one year.
……7.2.3- A third, fourth, or fifth offense of these actions shall result in the removal of voting privileges plus the inability to run as a candidate for one year. permanent banishment from the East Pacific, pending trial.
…7.2.4- Any number of offenses from six and to nine shall lead to temporary banishment from the East Pacific for a period of one year, pending trial.
…7.2.5- A tenth offense shall result in permanent banishment from the East Pacific.

…7.3- Instances of major election impropriety (such as harassment or constant slander of candidates or voters), vote stacking, or voter fraud shall result in permanent banishment from the East Pacific, pending trial.

SECTION VII- FAILURE TO CONDUCT PROCEDURE

…8.1- Should the Viceroy, or the official designated by the Viceroy to conduct elections, fail to follow the procedures laid out in the above sections, they shall be charged with Failure to Conduct Procedure, and they shall be unable to conduct elections and referendums for a period of one year.
……8.1.1- Should the Viceroy be indicted and found guilty of Failure to Conduct Procedure, an Arbiter of the Conclave the Viceroy Designee shall serve in the stead of the Viceroy in opening and closing elections and referendums until the indicted Viceroy resigns from their role.

SECTION IX- ENACTMENT

…9.1- This bill shall be enacted upon its signature by the Delegate, except if the Magisterium votes to override a veto of this bill by the Delegate.

— End quote

So here is my draft on election law. I tried referring to current election memorandum and election traditions.

The punishment sections is just an attempt at trying to set up procedure. Minor behavior infractions are like liking voting posts, and shouldn’t be dealt with harshly. But things, like harassment of candidates or vote stacking should, be on a banishment punishment. It should be up to the Viceroy if a trial is needed (given that a citizen submits a complaint.)
This is an important law, so as always, feel free to rip into it!

2

I like it

3

Even my tendency to be a devil’s advocate is stymied: I see no major flaws. However, I am curious about the selection process called for in 8.1.1- Should the Viceroy be indicted and found guilty of Failure to Conduct Procedure, an Arbiter of the Conclave shall serve in the stead of the Viceroy in opening and closing elections and referendums until the indicted Viceroy resigns from their role.

Instead of saying “an Arbiter,” wouldn’t it be clearer to say “the Designee”? And if the position of Viceroy is vacant, as it was on 11 May 2017, the responsibility should fall on the Designee. If both the positions of Viceroy and Designee are vacant, then the responsibility should fall on the Arbiter with most experience.

4

Some comments and concerns I have:

“……3.1.7- “Electioneering”- The act of campaigning outside of a candidate’s campaign thread/ trying to influence an election in prohibited ways.”
I don’t believe the act specified anywhere else which ways of influencing an election are prohibited. Perhaps all that is needed is prohibiting campaigning outside of a campaign thread?
“……3.1.8- “Election impropriety”- Any inappropriate behavior performed during elections, which can include but is not limited to flaming, slandering, liking posts containing votes, or asking inappropriate questions to candidates.”
I feel like this is too all-encompassing. Wouldn’t something like flaming or inappropriate questions be better dealt with by moderation? I’d suggest limiting it to lying, slandering and liking votes.
“……3.1.9- “Voter Fraud”- Any action attempting to gain extra votes or swing the results of an election.”
This sounds too vague and open to abuse. Isn’t campaigning also an attempt to gain extra votes?

“……6.2.2- The voting period for a special election shall start upon the closure of the nomination period. Said period shall last two days.”
I feel like 5 days is more reasonable, 2 days seem too short.

“SECTION VII- ELECTION FRAUD”
This section only talks about Election Impropriety, so perhaps the name of the section should be changed?
“……7.2.2- A second offense shall consist of removal of voting privileges plus removal of the ability to run as a candidate for a period no longer than two years.
……7.2.3- A third offense of these actions shall result in permanent banishment from the East Pacific, pending trial.”
Sounds harsh. I’d say the maximum punishment should be removing voting privileges and prohibiting running for a period of time. The punishment for a second offense sounds too harsh given the first offense is just a warning. Perhaps a removal of ability to run for up to half a year would be enough.

5

— Begin quote from ____

Some comments and concerns I have:

“……3.1.7- “Electioneering”- The act of campaigning outside of a candidate’s campaign thread/ trying to influence an election in prohibited ways.”
I don’t believe the act specified anywhere else which ways of influencing an election are prohibited. Perhaps all that is needed is prohibiting campaigning outside of a campaign thread?
“……3.1.8- “Election impropriety”- Any inappropriate behavior performed during elections, which can include but is not limited to flaming, slandering, liking posts containing votes, or asking inappropriate questions to candidates.”
I feel like this is too all-encompassing. Wouldn’t something like flaming or inappropriate questions be better dealt with by moderation? I’d suggest limiting it to lying, slandering and liking votes.
“……3.1.9- “Voter Fraud”- Any action attempting to gain extra votes or swing the results of an election.”
This sounds too vague and open to abuse. Isn’t campaigning also an attempt to gain extra votes?

“……6.2.2- The voting period for a special election shall start upon the closure of the nomination period. Said period shall last two days.”
I feel like 5 days is more reasonable, 2 days seem too short.

“SECTION VII- ELECTION FRAUD”
This section only talks about Election Impropriety, so perhaps the name of the section should be changed?
“……7.2.2- A second offense shall consist of removal of voting privileges plus removal of the ability to run as a candidate for a period no longer than two years.
……7.2.3- A third offense of these actions shall result in permanent banishment from the East Pacific, pending trial.”
Sounds harsh. I’d say the maximum punishment should be removing voting privileges and prohibiting running for a period of time. The punishment for a second offense sounds too harsh given the first offense is just a warning. Perhaps a removal of ability to run for up to half a year would be enough.

— End quote

I’ll address your other points shortly, but yeah I had some issues with the punishments and definitions in general.

For special elections, I disagree. We’ve just held a week long election and we’ve had a strong turn out of ~30 citizens. These elections aren’t really your usual elections and should be completed as fast as possible. That was my reasoning behind it.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

6

— Begin quote from ____

I’ll address your other points shortly, but yeah I had some issues with the punishments and definitions in general.

For special elections, I disagree. We’ve just held a week long election and we’ve had a strong turn out of ~30 citizens. These elections aren’t really your usual elections and should be completed as fast as possible. That was my reasoning behind it.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

— End quote

I just remembered something else about Special Elections. I feel like requiring 2 months to be left in the term for a special election is too long. That’s half the term. I think one month is more sensible. As for the special election voting period, I think 2 days might be the shortest voting period I’ve seen anywhere. Extending it by a few days wouldn’t hurt that much, would it? Most regions seem to have special election voting periods to be the same as normal elections.

7

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

I’ll address your other points shortly, but yeah I had some issues with the punishments and definitions in general.

For special elections, I disagree. We’ve just held a week long election and we’ve had a strong turn out of ~30 citizens. These elections aren’t really your usual elections and should be completed as fast as possible. That was my reasoning behind it.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

— End quote

I just remembered something else about Special Elections. I feel like requiring 2 months to be left in the term for a special election is too long. That’s half the term. I think one month is more sensible. As for the special election voting period, I think 2 days might be the shortest voting period I’ve seen anywhere. Extending it by a few days wouldn’t hurt that much, would it? Most regions seem to have special election voting periods to be the same as normal elections.

— End quote

It also doesn’t really hurt to keep it short.

I was thinking of that, but if we consider that elections take one week currently and possibly more if we extend voting, plus the fact that a week after special elections means we are starting regular elections.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

8

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

I’ll address your other points shortly, but yeah I had some issues with the punishments and definitions in general.

For special elections, I disagree. We’ve just held a week long election and we’ve had a strong turn out of ~30 citizens. These elections aren’t really your usual elections and should be completed as fast as possible. That was my reasoning behind it.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

— End quote

— End quote

I just remembered something else about Special Elections. I feel like requiring 2 months to be left in the term for a special election is too long. That’s half the term. I think one month is more sensible. As for the special election voting period, I think 2 days might be the shortest voting period I’ve seen anywhere. Extending it by a few days wouldn’t hurt that much, would it? Most regions seem to have special election voting periods to be the same as normal elections.

It also doesn’t really hurt to keep it short.

I was thinking of that, but if we consider that elections take one week currently and possibly more if we extend voting, plus the fact that a week after special elections means we are starting regular elections.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

— End quote

So if there’s a month left in the term, and it takes a bit over a week for a special election, there would still be three weeks left in the term until the general election, wouldn’t there?

9

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

I’ll address your other points shortly, but yeah I had some issues with the punishments and definitions in general.

For special elections, I disagree. We’ve just held a week long election and we’ve had a strong turn out of ~30 citizens. These elections aren’t really your usual elections and should be completed as fast as possible. That was my reasoning behind it.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

— End quote

— End quote

— End quote

I just remembered something else about Special Elections. I feel like requiring 2 months to be left in the term for a special election is too long. That’s half the term. I think one month is more sensible. As for the special election voting period, I think 2 days might be the shortest voting period I’ve seen anywhere. Extending it by a few days wouldn’t hurt that much, would it? Most regions seem to have special election voting periods to be the same as normal elections.

It also doesn’t really hurt to keep it short.

I was thinking of that, but if we consider that elections take one week currently and possibly more if we extend voting, plus the fact that a week after special elections means we are starting regular elections.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

So if there’s a month left in the term, and it takes a bit over a week for a special election, there would still be three weeks left in the term until the general election, wouldn’t there?

— End quote

The general election begins two weeks before the end of the term. So there would only be one week.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

10

— Begin quote from ____

The general election begins two weeks before the end of the term. So there would only be one week.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

— End quote

Ah, I hadn’t realized that. I assumed the “end of the term” referred to when the election starts. In that case, I think 6 weeks or 1.5 months seem sensible.

11

— Begin quote from ____

Some comments and concerns I have:

“……3.1.7- “Electioneering”- The act of campaigning outside of a candidate’s campaign thread/ trying to influence an election in prohibited ways.”
I don’t believe the act specified anywhere else which ways of influencing an election are prohibited. Perhaps all that is needed is prohibiting campaigning outside of a campaign thread?

— End quote

Agreed and fixed.

— Begin quote from ____

“……3.1.8- “Election impropriety”- Any inappropriate behavior performed during elections, which can include but is not limited to flaming, slandering, liking posts containing votes, or asking inappropriate questions to candidates.”
I feel like this is too all-encompassing. Wouldn’t something like flaming or inappropriate questions be better dealt with by moderation? I’d suggest limiting it to lying, slandering and liking votes.

— End quote

It’s meant to be encompassing. The problem is that we cannot list every single nitty gritty charge that may occur during elections.

Flaming was meant to cover attacks on the candidates themselves (i.e., the candidate is a sh***** person and shouldn’t be-, you get the idea.)

Inappropriate questions means questions unrelated to what’s going on. If you’re in a candidate’s thread and are asking what the weather is like, then it’s an inappropriate question. You’re just clogging campaign threads and providing no content to elections.

Maybe an idea is that we can add a catch-all, that allows Elecomm to somehow deal with cases not defined as voter fraud, electioneering, or election impropriety? In that case, I’m fine with narrowing the definition.

— Begin quote from ____

“……3.1.9- “Voter Fraud”- Any action attempting to gain extra votes or swing the results of an election.”
This sounds too vague and open to abuse. Isn’t campaigning also an attempt to gain extra votes?

— End quote

True. Lemme try to specify the definition.

— Begin quote from ____

“SECTION VII- ELECTION FRAUD”
This section only talks about Election Impropriety, so perhaps the name of the section should be changed?

— End quote

Changed it to infractions, as election impropriety is an action listed in the section along with other actions.

— Begin quote from ____

“……7.2.2- A second offense shall consist of removal of voting privileges plus removal of the ability to run as a candidate for a period no longer than two years.
……7.2.3- A third offense of these actions shall result in permanent banishment from the East Pacific, pending trial.”
Sounds harsh. I’d say the maximum punishment should be removing voting privileges and prohibiting running for a period of time. The punishment for a second offense sounds too harsh given the first offense is just a warning. Perhaps a removal of ability to run for up to half a year would be enough.

— End quote

I disagree on the maximum banishment, but yeah the progression system is a bit messed up. I tried to make it more fair. But the fact is that someone can’t keep doing things like liking votes or something after being told repeatedly not to.

Nonetheless, I’ve finished the amendments. Tell me what you think.

12

In 4.7.1 you have this:

“Any votes containing a write-in will be considered as an abstention unless it said votes contain a vote for an approved candidate.”

It may be unnecessary, but it also might clarify the situation more if you said this:

“Any votes containing a write-in will be considered as an abstention unless it said votes contain a vote for an approved candidate, in which case only the vote for any approved candidates will be counted.”

Or something. Really minor thing, but it still a thing.

Additionally, I found it odd that candidates make their own campaign thread, so that no one can question a candidate if they just don’t set up a thread. So maybe have the Viceroy set up a thread much like the Magister Applicant threads just stating the candidate’s name and validity and inviting questioning? I mean it doesn’t ensure the answers to the questions (for one, Rage Mage didn’t respond to any of the questions on his thread, despite having one) but it at least encourages it.

13

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

“……3.1.8- “Election impropriety”- Any inappropriate behavior performed during elections, which can include but is not limited to flaming, slandering, liking posts containing votes, or asking inappropriate questions to candidates.”
I feel like this is too all-encompassing. Wouldn’t something like flaming or inappropriate questions be better dealt with by moderation? I’d suggest limiting it to lying, slandering and liking votes.

— End quote

It’s meant to be encompassing. The problem is that we cannot list every single nitty gritty charge that may occur during elections.

Flaming was meant to cover attacks on the candidates themselves (i.e., the candidate is a sh***** person and shouldn’t be-, you get the idea.)

Inappropriate questions means questions unrelated to what’s going on. If you’re in a candidate’s thread and are asking what the weather is like, then it’s an inappropriate question. You’re just clogging campaign threads and providing no content to elections.

Maybe an idea is that we can add a catch-all, that allows Elecomm to somehow deal with cases not defined as voter fraud, electioneering, or election impropriety? In that case, I’m fine with narrowing the definition.

— End quote

I think flaming, just like on NS forums, should be covered by moderators as an OOC offense instead. Warnings, bans, whatever they decide. As for inappropriate questions, they are frustrating, perhaps, but not hurting anyone exactly. I don’t think it’s fair to get punished, possibly with a regional ban, for asking an innocuous question like “what’s the weather?”

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

“……7.2.2- A second offense shall consist of removal of voting privileges plus removal of the ability to run as a candidate for a period no longer than two years.
……7.2.3- A third offense of these actions shall result in permanent banishment from the East Pacific, pending trial.”
Sounds harsh. I’d say the maximum punishment should be removing voting privileges and prohibiting running for a period of time. The punishment for a second offense sounds too harsh given the first offense is just a warning. Perhaps a removal of ability to run for up to half a year would be enough.

— End quote

I disagree on the maximum banishment, but yeah the progression system is a bit messed up. I tried to make it more fair. But the fact is that someone can’t keep doing things like liking votes or something after being told repeatedly not to.

Nonetheless, I’ve finished the amendments. Tell me what you think.

— End quote

I personally don’t think bans should be used lightly, especially for something innocuous like liking voting posts. You can keep ramping up the suspension periods, but I doubt anyone will keep doing something, especially something like liking voting posts which is so easy to stop, after being punished two or three times for it.

14

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

“……7.2.2- A second offense shall consist of removal of voting privileges plus removal of the ability to run as a candidate for a period no longer than two years.
……7.2.3- A third offense of these actions shall result in permanent banishment from the East Pacific, pending trial.”
Sounds harsh. I’d say the maximum punishment should be removing voting privileges and prohibiting running for a period of time. The punishment for a second offense sounds too harsh given the first offense is just a warning. Perhaps a removal of ability to run for up to half a year would be enough.

— End quote

— End quote

I disagree on the maximum banishment, but yeah the progression system is a bit messed up. I tried to make it more fair. But the fact is that someone can’t keep doing things like liking votes or something after being told repeatedly not to.

Nonetheless, I’ve finished the amendments. Tell me what you think.

I personally don’t think bans should be used lightly, especially for something innocuous like liking voting posts. You can keep ramping up the suspension periods, but I doubt anyone will keep doing something, especially something like liking voting posts which is so easy to stop, after being punished two or three times for it.

— End quote

I’ve changed it to reflect this! It makes sense, I guess, which is why I did it.

15

— Begin quote from ____

In 4.7.1 you have this:

“Any votes containing a write-in will be considered as an abstention unless it said votes contain a vote for an approved candidate.”

It may be unnecessary, but it also might clarify the situation more if you said this:

“Any votes containing a write-in will be considered as an abstention unless it said votes contain a vote for an approved candidate, in which case only the vote for any approved candidates will be counted.”

Or something. Really minor thing, but it still a thing.

— End quote

Agreed, much so. Changed to reflect this.

— Begin quote from ____

Additionally, I found it odd that candidates make their own campaign thread, so that no one can question a candidate if they just don’t set up a thread. So maybe have the Viceroy set up a thread much like the Magister Applicant threads just stating the candidate’s name and validity and inviting questioning? I mean it doesn’t ensure the answers to the questions (for one, Rage Mage didn’t respond to any of the questions on his thread, despite having one) but it at least encourages it.

— End quote

This is a legitimate concern. However, campaigning doesn’t necessarily mean questioning. This law is meant to reflect that candidates can answer questions outside their campaign thread (It’s implied because it isn’t explicitly forbidden in the law).

What’s illegal in this case is candidate’s promoting their own platform outside the thread. I.e., advertisement, promising votes and bargains, etc.

I’d agree with setting up an automatic thread, but I believe that should be left up to the candidate. For example, Libertanny didn’t bother with a campaign after Marrabuk decided to run, because he supported Marrabuk. In that instance, such a thread would be useless and a waste of space.

If candidates do not have the time OR do not feel the need to put up a campaign thread, then it will show the level of commitment they have to the position itself (I’m not saying that not having time for NS is bad, but we need an active Delegate. However, feeling lazy in putting up a thread is bad.) This should reflect upon the candidate’s level of effort. If they can’t campaign for whatever reason, then what’s the use of electing them as Delegate?

What I’m trying to say is that setting up automatic threads is a nice idea, but campaigns sort of reveal the candidate and their goals and etc. If a candidate doesn’t feel like putting in much effort so as to open a thread, then in the end it’s possible that they won’t be voted in. So it’ll be a waste of time for the Arbiter/Viceroy to open up a thread.

16

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

“……3.1.8- “Election impropriety”- Any inappropriate behavior performed during elections, which can include but is not limited to flaming, slandering, liking posts containing votes, or asking inappropriate questions to candidates.”
I feel like this is too all-encompassing. Wouldn’t something like flaming or inappropriate questions be better dealt with by moderation? I’d suggest limiting it to lying, slandering and liking votes.

— End quote

— End quote

It’s meant to be encompassing. The problem is that we cannot list every single nitty gritty charge that may occur during elections.

Flaming was meant to cover attacks on the candidates themselves (i.e., the candidate is a sh***** person and shouldn’t be-, you get the idea.)

Inappropriate questions means questions unrelated to what’s going on. If you’re in a candidate’s thread and are asking what the weather is like, then it’s an inappropriate question. You’re just clogging campaign threads and providing no content to elections.

Maybe an idea is that we can add a catch-all, that allows Elecomm to somehow deal with cases not defined as voter fraud, electioneering, or election impropriety? In that case, I’m fine with narrowing the definition.

I think flaming, just like on NS forums, should be covered by moderators as an OOC offense instead. Warnings, bans, whatever they decide. As for inappropriate questions, they are frustrating, perhaps, but not hurting anyone exactly. I don’t think it’s fair to get punished, possibly with a regional ban, for asking an innocuous question like “what’s the weather?”

— End quote

FIxed for the inappropriate question thing.

Flaming is an OOC offense, but it has been dealt with in an IC manner a few times. While both of these examples are a decade old, they’re still relevant as our Concordat still exists from back then, albeit massively changed.

The first “trial” for being a public nuisance. I say trial because at that point there was no trial proceedures listed in law, but it was a trial nonetheless.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/the_east_pacific/trial-tep-vs-anur-sanur-t14779.html
This is another trial where flaming and trolling was dealt with. This time, in a permanent ban.

While the first doesn’t form precedent (and I’m unsure of the second, so I’ll be asking the Conclave on that), this shows that TEP has exercised its right to deal with flaming in an IC manner. Also, forum administration has made it repeatedly clear that they want the government to be self reliant as possible, with only forum administration dealing with massive OOC issues like sexual harassment or doxxing.

Flaming was, and still is, imo, something the government can solve through trial rather than relying on forum administration.

17

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

In 4.7.1 you have this:

“Any votes containing a write-in will be considered as an abstention unless it said votes contain a vote for an approved candidate.”

It may be unnecessary, but it also might clarify the situation more if you said this:

“Any votes containing a write-in will be considered as an abstention unless it said votes contain a vote for an approved candidate, in which case only the vote for any approved candidates will be counted.”

Or something. Really minor thing, but it still a thing.

— End quote

Agreed, much so. Changed to reflect this.

— Begin quote from ____

Additionally, I found it odd that candidates make their own campaign thread, so that no one can question a candidate if they just don’t set up a thread. So maybe have the Viceroy set up a thread much like the Magister Applicant threads just stating the candidate’s name and validity and inviting questioning? I mean it doesn’t ensure the answers to the questions (for one, Rage Mage didn’t respond to any of the questions on his thread, despite having one) but it at least encourages it.

— End quote

This is a legitimate concern. However, campaigning doesn’t necessarily mean questioning. This law is meant to reflect that candidates can answer questions outside their campaign thread (It’s implied because it isn’t explicitly forbidden in the law).

What’s illegal in this case is candidate’s promoting their own platform outside the thread. I.e., advertisement, promising votes and bargains, etc.

I’d agree with setting up an automatic thread, but I believe that should be left up to the candidate. For example, Libertanny didn’t bother with a campaign after Marrabuk decided to run, because he supported Marrabuk. In that instance, such a thread would be useless and a waste of space.

If candidates do not have the time OR do not feel the need to put up a campaign thread, then it will show the level of commitment they have to the position itself (I’m not saying that not having time for NS is bad, but we need an active Delegate. However, feeling lazy in putting up a thread is bad.) This should reflect upon the candidate’s level of effort. If they can’t campaign for whatever reason, then what’s the use of electing them as Delegate?

What I’m trying to say is that setting up automatic threads is a nice idea, but campaigns sort of reveal the candidate and their goals and etc. If a candidate doesn’t feel like putting in much effort so as to open a thread, then in the end it’s possible that they won’t be voted in. So it’ll be a waste of time for the Arbiter/Viceroy to open up a thread.

— End quote

Yeah, you’re right.

18

Shouldn’t we add in somewhere that candidates who have been condemned or banned in other GCR’s for couping, assisting a coup or other subversive acts are not eligible candidates? We talked about such rules after the Fedele coup, as security measures for various positions in the TEP government. It seems at least for a Delegate, this is to be considered.

19

— Begin quote from ____

I’ve changed it to reflect this! It makes sense, I guess, which is why I did it.

— End quote

Looks good to me, though ideally I would prefer something less severe for a first time serious impropriety before banishment.

— Begin quote from ____

Shouldn’t we add in somewhere that candidates who have been condemned or banned in other GCR’s for couping, assisting a coup or other subversive acts are not eligible candidates? We talked about such rules after the Fedele coup, as security measures for various positions in the TEP government. It seems at least for a Delegate, this is to be considered.

— End quote

I don’t think couping or condemnation necessarily means someone can’t be a good Delegate. It’s much better to let the voters be the deciders for that - they’ll have to earn the voters’ trust. Plus, we have various methods for preventing people from gaining citizenship in the first place, so this shouldn’t be needed.

20

Question: would the “various methods” that are in place now, prevent us from a new Fedele from becoming a Delegate or a couper?
I wouldn’t leave it up to the voters, seeing that our very large region only delivered about 30 votes in the recent Delegate election. A relatively small group, systematically working towards gaining the delegacy, could still do so, and easily imho.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ANE-LX1 met Tapatalk