[Advisory Question] Endorsement Caps Act / What qualifies as "high crimes" in the Concordat?

The Conclave
1

The Delegate has removed all Viziers from their regional officer roles with boarder controls which is a violation of the Endorsement Caps Act Section 5.5.4. Yet the Delegate and his allies are arguing that it is not illegal for the Delegate to do so.

  • Is the act of removing Viziers from the regional officers role with boarder controls legal or illegal?

  • If the act is illegal, does it qualify as “high crimes,” when a Delegate fails to follow / enforce the law? If not then what does?

Thank you for your time.

2

Also, what does the wordage “opt-in” constitute?

3

Could the Conclave also consider what “on an ejection or banishment order made under this Act by the Delegate” means in context with the other questions brought up here?

4

— Begin quote from ____

  • Is the act of removing Viziers from the regional officers role with boarder controls legal or illegal?

  • If the act is illegal, does it qualify as “high crimes,” when a Delegate fails to follow / enforce the law? If not then what does?

— End quote

To get this review started I will offer quick responses and expect other arbiters to weigh in.

  1. Is the act of Removing ROs illegal? Largely No.

Is the act of removing BC from a Vizier which has opted in under the endorsement cap act illegal? It is certainly against the law.

  1. I would have to check if we have made rulings on what constitutes high crimes in the past. Precedence is important here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

5

— Begin quote from ____

Also, what does the wordage “opt-in” constitute?

— End quote

I have personally interpreted it as posting notice or making it known to the Delegate/public that a Vizier intends to enforce ejection orders made by the Delegate as a result of their BC privileges.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

6

— Begin quote from ____

Could the Conclave also consider what “on an ejection or banishment order made under this Act by the Delegate” means in context with the other questions brought up here?

— End quote

This has in practice been the Delegate putting forward a list of offenders as an order to eject. Under the act, a number of offenders are subject to ejection.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

7

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

  • Is the act of removing Viziers from the regional officers role with boarder controls legal or illegal?

— End quote

  • If the act is illegal, does it qualify as “high crimes,” when a Delegate fails to follow / enforce the law? If not then what does?

To get this review started I will offer quick responses and expect other arbiters to weigh in.

  1. Is the act of Removing ROs illegal? Largely No.

Is the act of removing BC from a Vizier which has opted in under the endorsement cap act illegal? It is certainly against the law.

  1. I would have to check if we have made rulings on what constitutes high crimes in the past. Precedence is important here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

— End quote

If removing boarder controls is “against the law,” and let’s say it does not qualify as “high crimes,” then what is the punishment for going “against the law?”

8

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

Could the Conclave also consider what “on an ejection or banishment order made under this Act by the Delegate” means in context with the other questions brought up here?

— End quote

This has in practice been the Delegate putting forward a list of offenders as an order to eject. Under the act, a number of offenders are subject to ejection.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

— End quote

Given this, doesn’t that mean that absent an order to eject, there is no requirement for viziers to have border control, or in fact RO at all?

9

Thank you for asking this question. I’ll try to answer your questions.

I’ll leave us the act here:

“…5.4- A Vizier shall be entitled to the in-game Regional Officer power “Border Control” if they opt-in to act on an ejection or banishment order made under this Act by the Delegate. The Delegate may revoke this power if the Vizier refuses a legitimate ejection or banishment order under this Act.”

Is the act of removing Viziers from the regional officers role with boarder controls legal or illegal?
It’s illegal.
The first part says “A Vizier shall be entitled…”

As stated by Merriam-Webster Dictionary, entitled means:
“having a right to certain benefits or privileges”

By Vocabulary.com:

“qualified for by right according to law”

By dictionary.com:
“to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim”

Thus, we can say that Viziers deserve to have the right to the BC power, no matter what. The law gives Viziers that, and that’s undisputed. So unless stated otherwise, Viziers will have BC.

However, as we read more, it states that the Delegate may revoke this power if Viziers refuse to enact a banishment or ejection order. So now, we have a condition that, if met, means a Vizier cannot have BC.

This forms a condition: IF a Vizier actively refuses an order, the Delegate CAN revoke their powers. However, obviously, this order has to be legal and following TEP law. Just wanted to mention that.

So if the Vizier has not met the requirement for of refusal of a legal order, then they are more than welcome to keep BC.

Thus, it is definitely against the law to remove Viziers from their BC, as long as they are a) either following orders or b) no orders have been presented to them.

If the act is illegal, does it qualify as “high crimes,” when a Delegate fails to follow / enforce the law? If not then what does?
I would personally say that it would qualify as a high crime by not enforcing the law, which is an abuse of power. However, as Aelitia said, precedence is important for this question.

As stated by the free dictionary, an abuse of power is (which is what not enforcing and failing to follow the law with intention and purpose):
“Improper use of authority by someone who has that authority because he or she holds a public office.”

And as stated by slate.com, high crimes can mean:
“Transgressions Less Serious Than Treason or Bribery”
Link here: What are high crimes and misdemeanors? The impeachment process relies on them.

So under what high crimes means in general, yes it would be considered as high crimes. However, it depends.
If TEP has another definition of high crimes, then we would follow that and that could affect the answer. I don’t have much time right now, so I’ll try to look into this later.

So right now, my personal opinion is yes, but it may change if precedent is found.

Also, what does the wordage “opt-in” constitute?
I believe it means to join in, or to agree to do. So in this case, Viziers who opt in to the act shall get BC control for as long as it is until they either reject an order or are removed as a Vizier by Magisterial vote, as outlined in the Concordat.

Could the Conclave also consider what “on an ejection or banishment order made under this Act by the Delegate” means in context with the other questions brought up here?
It means that the Delegate is literally ordering the a Vizier to ban or eject a nation.

So what Aelitia stated, it’s usually the practice to give Viziers a public list of offenders to be banned/ejected.

If removing boarder controls is “against the law,” and let’s say it does not qualify as “high crimes,” then what is the punishment for going “against the law?”
I’m unsure. I’ll have to look and see if there is precedent, but I won’t have much time to do so for the next few days.

However, if I were to venture a hesitant guess, I would say there is no punishment.

Given this, doesn’t that mean that absent an order to eject, there is no requirement for viziers to have border control, or in fact RO at all?
Can you clarify your question?

10

Yeah, my question is that how is removing RO from a Vizier illegal when the law explicitly says that they are entitled to the Regional Officer power if they opt-in to act on an order from the delegate? So specifically directed at my preceding question, Aelitia posted “This has in practice been the Delegate putting forward a list of offenders as an order to eject. Under the act, a number of offenders are subject to ejection.”

So my question to that was given that there is no current order given to eject nations, how are any viziers entitled to be Regional Officers in the current moment?

11

— Begin quote from ____

Yeah, my question is that how is removing RO from a Vizier illegal when the law explicitly says that they are entitled to the Regional Officer power IF they op-in to act on an order from the delegate? So specifically directed at my preceding question, Aelitia posted “This has in practice been the Delegate putting forward a list of offenders as an order to eject. Under the act, a number of offenders are subject to ejection.”

So my question to that was given that there is no current order given to eject nations, how are any viziers entitled to be Regional Officers in the current moment?

— End quote

Ack, thanks! Seems I didn’t read it closely.
There’s nothing really stopping the Viziers from not being eligible to hold their RO slots after they finished the orders. In any interpretation, it would make most sense to assume that even if Viziers weren’t “entitled” to hold their RO slots when they had no active orders, they would still continue to fill their slots until they either briefly gained entitlement again, or are removed by the Delegate.

Yet, the Viziers were not entitled to RO BC even when there are no such orders, then there would be no need for the second sentence in the clause allowing the Delegate to revoke the Vizier’s BC powers. So you would have to assume that something is interfering with the Delegate’s nominal and non-legislated ability to remove and instate ROs as he wishes.

And it makes sense that the obstacle that forced the writer to add the removal mechanic would be none other than the “entitlement” given by law to the Viziers.
So the fact that a removal mechanic even exists, plus how one would simply assume that the Viziers would keep RO after finishing an order, and since really “keeping their position” is what the law tries to do by entitling it to them, they still remain entitled to their slot unless they refuse an order.

Also, you can interpret the law in two ways. The first, as you’re doing, is reading it more literally: A Vizier is entitled to RO only when acting upon a Delegate’s orders.
However, a second way to put it is “A Vizier is entitled to RO only if they are willing to act upon a Delegate’s orders.” Or, what I mean is, what if a Vizier is willing to act on the orders of a Delegate? Even if no orders exist, if the Viziers are still willing to act upon any order the Delegate gives, thus, fulfilling the requirement for entitlement.

Out of the two interpretations, I would believe the later one is more correct. My reasoning being is that, again, there is literally no other reason to add a removal mechanic unless something stops the Delegate in the first place, and because it would be expected for a Vizier to keep their RO even after they are done with an order. Because if they’re still willing to act on an order, or “are eligble for bc if they opt-in to act on a order from the delegate.”, or “they have the right to keep border control if they agree to enact an order from the Delegate.” Opting-in isn’t a multi-time process.

If I opt-in into a program, then I’ll be considered a part of that program. In the same way, if a Vizier opts-in to the duty of acting upon the orders of the Delegate, then they are entitled to the RO slot that comes with said duty until they opt-out of said duty.

12

— Begin quote from ____

Yeah, my question is that how is removing RO from a Vizier illegal when the law explicitly says that they are entitled to the Regional Officer power if they opt-in to act on an order from the delegate? So specifically directed at my preceding question, Aelitia posted “This has in practice been the Delegate putting forward a list of offenders as an order to eject. Under the act, a number of offenders are subject to ejection.”

So my question to that was given that there is no current order given to eject nations, how are any viziers entitled to be Regional Officers in the current moment?

— End quote

This reading is incorrect in my opinion.

The Viziers opt in to state their willingness to act in such an order, not to specifically opt in to an individual order.

The BC control is a standing privilege if the Viziers agree to help enforce the EndoCap act.

To read otherwise is a backwards incentive. Why would the Viziers opt in to a temporary and limited access at the cost of influence? As the original author that such a clause, I can confirm the original intent was a standing BC power.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

13

Zukchiva mentions two ways to interpret the law. I guess there is at least one more and that has to do with the meaning of the word “entitled”  as stated in his earlier post.
Being entitled to something means having a right to something. That is different to having something. So, according to this law, Viziers have a right to the in-game border control - please, let’s stop writing boarder control - but they do not automatically have border control all the time. So the law could also be interpreted in a way that the viziers are given border control - to which they lawfully have the right - when there is an ejection order from the delegate. And the delegate can then revoke the border control if a vizier refuses to follow this order. (And I guess after the order of the delegate is executed, all viziers can be stripped from the border control power - the power, not the right! - until the next ejection order is given.)

14

— Begin quote from ____

Zukchiva mentions two ways to interpret the law. I guess there is at least one more and that has to do with the meaning of the word “entitled”  as stated in his earlier post.
Being entitled to something means having a right to something. That is different to having something. So, according to this law, Viziers have a right to the in-game border control - please, let’s stop writing boarder control - but they do not automatically have border control all the time. So the law could also be interpreted in a way that the viziers are given border control, to which they lawfully have the right, when there is an ejection order from the delegate. And the delegate can then revoke the border control if a vizier refuses to follow this order. (And I guess after the order of the delegate is executed, all viziers can be stripped from the border control power - the power, not the right! - until the next ejection order is given.)

— End quote

This is a naïve viewpoint which is not based in principles or the concordat or any realism. Game theory very clearly rules out this being a real option, as the Viziers would simply not do this, since it is a job that can be carried out by Executive staffers. Their influence is objectively more important to save for greater regional security.

The Concordat entrusts the Viziers with the power of regional security, and this when written was a way to mechanically tie that in to activity and coordination with the Executive. The argument has been made in the past that Viziers should have BC at all times, rather than being granted by the Endocap act.

This reading is simply wrong. Zukchiva also laid out an elegant reasoning why that is so. I am prepared to make a formal ruling on this matter specifically if we can move past that disingenuous legal reasoning.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

15

— Begin quote from ____

Is the act of Removing ROs illegal? Largely No.

Is the act of removing BC from a Vizier which has opted in under the endorsement cap act illegal? It is certainly against the law.

— End quote

Since you make a distinction here between “illegal” and “against the law” could you elaborate on the difference between these two terms?

Because, in my mind, and according to multiple on-line dictionaries, “against the law” is more or less the meaning of the adjective “illegal”. The Oxford dictionary even literally states “Something that is illegal is against the law”  as they explain the difference between the words illegal and unlawful.

16

And, on a side note, if the Delegate is found to have acted “against the law” and/or “illegal”, does the conclave have laws on which to base the punishment, or is it solely based on precedence?

17

— Begin quote from ____

Zukchiva mentions two ways to interpret the law. I guess there is at least one more and that has to do with the meaning of the word “entitled”  as stated in his earlier post.
Being entitled to something means having a right to something. That is different to having something. So, according to this law, Viziers have a right to the in-game border control - please, let’s stop writing boarder control - but they do not automatically have border control all the time. So the law could also be interpreted in a way that the viziers are given border control - to which they lawfully have the right - when there is an ejection order from the delegate. And the delegate can then revoke the border control if a vizier refuses to follow this order. (And I guess after the order of the delegate is executed, all viziers can be stripped from the border control power - the power, not the right! - until the next ejection order is given.)

— End quote

Again, this is the wrong interpretation in my opinion.

First, Viziers had a right to RO for at least since Yuno’s first term. Older players can vouch for it they held RO slots longer, but ever since I joined in at least, there was a tradition to give RO slots. And I joined only a few months after the passing of this law.

Second, this practice would be nonsensical. Why would anyone write a law that enables the Delegate to remove a Vizier constantly? That goes against the aforementioned tradition, as well as common sense. If I put a person in an RO slot, I expect them to stay there for a good while. And it’s obvious that past Aelitia thought the same, because I’m unsure how anyone could write such a law with your interpretation (no offense). If I interpreted the law the same way you did, I would find a different way to write it.

Third, mentioning the removal mechanism again. Literally no point including it if Viziers were not entitled to BC after they did one order. Because if they loose entitlement, then the Delegate can just remove them at will, even if they never refused a rejection order. So why would anyone add such a sentence to a law, if that was the case?

Fourth, current Aelitia seems to agree with past Aelitia on this interpretation (from what I can see from the original discussion). And I’m not saying that current Aelitia is our best source, past Aelitia who wrote the law is. However, past Aelitia who wrote the law is most likely gone or at least changed into the current Aelitia, which means that the Viceory’s opinion and interpretations differ from his past self. Yet, because he’s literally the same person, his interpretations are probably the closest we can ever get to the true interpretation of the law.

All these reasons are why I believe that when Viziers opt-in, they aren’t opting-in for a singular order. Rather, they are opting-in and agreeing to act on an order the Delegate may give them, at any given time. An order doesn’t have to exist right now, because they’re agreeing to act on future orders as well. And this assuming of that they are opting-in for any order is continued until they actually outright refuse an order. At that point, the Delegate can remove said Vizier from RO.

— Begin quote from ____

And, on a side note, if the Delegate is found to have acted “against the law” and/or “illegal”, does the conclave have laws on which to base the punishment, or is it solely based on precedence?

— End quote

It depends.

Right now, the best chance that the Concordat has in order to act against a sitting Delegate breaking the law is in Article D, which basically states that Viziers can temporarily remove a Delegate if they believe they are acting to destroy the Concordat, which then goes to the Magisterium to make said removal permanent IF there is cause because the Delegate was absent or committing a high crime.

Or, alternatively, the Magisterium can do a vote by themselves to determine if what Fedele is doing is a “high crime” and thus vote him out of power, without anything being done by the Viziers.

A high crime is a vague illegal term that basically means well, any crime “impeachable” by the US Senate, as it is mainly used in the US. It hasn’t been properly defined in the US though. Nonetheless, I would definitely assume that breaking the law they are meant to enforce makes a sitting Delegate eligible for removal, via high crime, because they are putting themselves above the law. Thus, it’s an abuse of power.

As stated earlier by Aelitia, precedence is important. If TEP has a definition of high crime, that’s what we would use instead of the real world definition. Dependent on that, this abuse of power may or may not be actionable. I did try searching for any precedent on our forums, but what I mainly got so far was Magisterium discussions vaguely talking about the term or just mentioning it as a part of the Concordat in their deliberations. I can provide links if needed.

So I’ll attempt to finish my search later today or within the next week and wait for Aelitia to finish his as well, but ASSUMING that a high crime includes power abuse, the Conclave doesn’t have a way forward with this: the Viziers and the Magisterium does.

But for right now, it’s uncertain.

18

— Begin quote from ____

Again, this is the wrong interpretation in my opinion.

— End quote

I haven’t read all of the response yet as a headache (RL, probably not due to anything going on here) is keeping me from it. I will read it later.
One thing I would like to point out right now, is that to my opinion, laws should not be up for interpretation. I did not react to how things were actually done since Yuno, I was merely reading the text of the law. And to my opinion, there should be no discrepancy between the written law and the enactment of that law in reality.

I’ll read on later, and reply if necessary.

19

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

Again, this is the wrong interpretation in my opinion.

— End quote

I haven’t read all of the response yet as a headache (RL, probably not due to anything going on here) is keeping me from it. I will read it later.

One thing I would like to point out right now, is that to my opinion, laws should not be up for interpretation. I did not react to how things were actually done since Yuno, I was merely reading the text of the law. And to my opinion, there should be no discrepancy between the written law and the enactment of that law in reality.

— End quote

Laws are never perfect. We’re humans. Lawyers both irl and in-game attempt to learn how to write the most concisely and precisely as possible. But it’s when people find these little nidbits that suddenly can change what a law means, then interpretation is a must.

Saying that interpretation shouldn’t be used would make our entire system broken. Law is, quite literally, how you read it. When you read law, you aren’t just reading a text, you’re making connections. And honestly, what you’re saying is an interpretation. It isn’t a literal reading of the law. My understanding is different from your understanding of the law. Which is why TEP is so divided on this.

I’ve made, what I believe, to be a good argument that makes my interpretation of the law more closer to the true intent of the law. We also have the BEST source available to tell us how the law was actually created and the thinking process behind it, which is the author himself.

That’s all I can really say, in all honesty.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but I’m just doing the job I was nominated and voted in for. Which is to provide interpretation for a law to clarify what it means, among other things, so that we don’t have two versions of the law running in place and causing confusion. And it happens that my interpretation is less literal than usual, but I believe it’s for a good reason.

20

— Begin quote from ____

…5.4- A Vizier shall be entitled to the in-game Regional Officer power “Border Control” if they opt-in to act on an ejection or banishment order made under this Act by the Delegate. The Delegate may revoke this power if the Vizier refuses a legitimate ejection or banishment order under this Act.

— End quote

Much of the discussion to support the Delegate’s current removal of Border Control power seems to be centered on the first sentence. It has been argued that if there is no ejection or banishment order, then there is no opportunity for the Viziers to opt-in.

This argument ignores the fact that the Viziers already had Border Control power prior to our current situation. The first sentence is moot. Whether the phrase opt-in is clear is not the issue. The Viziers already had the power. Therefore, they had opted-in.

The Delegate has removed Border Control power without a Vizier refusing to act on a legitimate ejection or banishment order. Hence, the Delegate has acted contrary to the second sentence.