# \[AMENDMENT\] Conclave fix 'er up **URL:** \ **Category:** The Magisterium\ **Created:** [February 21, 2024, 8:42pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834 "2024-02-21T20:42:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/zukchiva/32/15649_2.png) [@Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Zukchiva)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2024, 8:42pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/1 "2024-02-21T20:42:08Z")
> [@](#): > > # Article A: Executive > > **Section 1** > > This Concordat does hereby invest executive authority in a Delegate of The East Pacific and does appoint the Delegate the executor of this Concordat, subsequent laws passed by the Magisterium, and orders Orders and verdicts imposed by the Conclave. > … > > # Article C: Judicial > > … > **Section 6** > > The Conclave may rule on the actions of the Delegate or the Praesidium and nullify any which are contrary to this Concordat or statutory law. Furthermore, the Conclave may nullify any law passed by the Magisterium that is contrary to this Concordat. The Conclave is empowered to compel a legally required action by Order with an indictable penalty, as limited by law. The Conclave cannot overturn any part of the Concordat. > > … > > **Section 11** > > Any Arbiter with substantial prior involvement with a matter that goes to trial must recuse themselves from said trial. If necessary, an Arbiter may be forcefully recused with the support of all other non-recused Arbiters. Recused Arbiters may not perform Arbiter duties for any matter directly related to said trial. > > **Section 12** > > The Conclave is empowered to compel an action, reversal, or suspension of action by Order with an indictable penalty for if the Order is not met. Orders can be limited in any way by statutory law. Orders can never conflict with the Concordat, and may only supersede statutory law when a compelled action or reversal/suspension of such is necessary to maintain the status quo until an on-going trial concludes (upon which the relevant Order shall no longer be enforced). > [@](#): > > ## SECTION I. CITATION > > …1.1. This Act shall be known and cited as “The Conclave Orders Act”. > > ## SECTION II. DEFINITIONS > > …2.2. An Order shall be defined as any binding statement by the Conclave to compel any individual or institution to complete an action with an explicitly stated indictable penalty for failing to execute said action. > > …2.3. A verdict shall be defined as any binding and final ruling by the Conclave on a matter of trial or legislation interpretation. Verdicts shall not be considered Orders. > > …2.4. A Trial Order shall be defined as an Order to conduct, suspend, or reverse a select action in order to preserve the status quo or security of the East Pacific or rights of a Resident during a trial. Trial Orders cease to hold effect when a trial concludes. > > ## SECTION III. ORDERS > > …3.1. The Conclave may only enact these kinds of Orders: > …3.1.1. Order an individual to preform a duty required of them by law when said individual is failing to preform said duty at the proper time, > …3.1.2. Order an individual to appear before the Conclave as a witness during a trial, > …3.1.3. Order an individual who is currently on trial but has not appeared for trial to appear for said trial, > …3.1.4. Order an individual to cease behaviors that are disrupting the Conclave’s function, > …3.1.5. For the duration of a trial, Order a suspension on a government action/process if the trial concerns said action/process, for the sake of maintaining the status quo during a trial, > …3.1.6. For the duration of a trial, Order a ban or ejection on any nation of an individual on trial if said individual represents an in-game security risk to the East Pacific. > > …3.2. If the Conclave believes it necessary to enact an Order that does not fit under Section 3.1 but is still required for the Conclave to preform its duties properly, it may enact such an Order following its regular processes. > …3.2.1. However, upon enactment of such an Order, the Magisterium shall hold a majority confirmation vote on said Order. Failure of the confirmation vote shall result in an immediate repeal of that Order, nullify/reverse any indictable penalty generated by said Order, and end any trial wherein the Defense is charged with an indictable penalty from said Order. > …3.2.2. The Order shall stand during the confirmation vote. > …3.2.3. The Conclave shall publicly notify the Magisterium of the enactment of such an Order within 24 hours of its enactment. Failure to give notification within that timeframe shall lead to the immediate repeal of that Order once the 24 hours expires. > > …3.3. For Orders temporarily banning an individual during a trial, such a ban shall not constitute as evidence against the individual and may not factor into the Conclave’s decision making. > …3.3.1. As an exemption to the Citizenship Act, such individuals shall also be allowed to maintain Citizenship for the duration of said Order if they were a Citizen when the Order was enacted. If the Conclave does not ban the individual following a guilty verdict for the relevant trial, said individual shall be given 48 hours to become compliant with the Citizenship Act once the Order expires. > > …3.4. Abuse of Orders by the Conclave, wherein the Conclave utilizes Orders in a manner that is unreasonable and/or unjust, shall be considered abuse of power and grounds for removal by the Magisterium following Concordat procedures. > > ## SECTION IV. ADDENDUM > > …4.1. The Conclave reserves the power to remove a Vizier or Magister as granted by Concordat. > > …4.2. The relevant government authorities must execute a Conclave verdict even though Conclave verdicts are not considered Orders. ---
**Author:** ![Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/zukchiva/32/15649_2.png) [@Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Zukchiva)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2024, 8:54pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/2 "2024-02-21T20:54:26Z")
So I’m realizing that the Conclave needs Orders to be carefully reworded. Right now, from my understanding the Conclave can compel any action with legal force and then put people on trial for not doing it. That seems stupid. Unless we take the logical reasoning that Orders can’t contravene laws; then they’re mostly useless. Thus, the Conclave Act is back. The Orders section is simplified to what I think is the most important, particularly 3.3. The problem with Orders is they’re a really broad power, but unfortunately I see little way to properly limit Orders without also limiting the discretion the Conclave needs to utilize Orders. 3.3. is the best way I can see to mitigate this. Legally, there isn’t much one can do if the Conclave is releasing dumb Orders besides removal, but I think listing some abstract standards and what to do if such standards fail could serve as a guide for removal if an abusive Conclave ever emerges. As for Trial Orders, it’s a little weird but ultimately it’s important the Conclave has the ability to take certain actions that need to wait for or happen during a trial without worrying about the nooks and crannies of statutory law. Example one is banning Fedele and co. during pre-trial in 2019 so they stopped gaining endorsements; example two is suspending GE’s recent cit audit so we could see if it must continue or not. In both cases, the Conclave potentially had to act outside of statutory law but those actions were nessecary to either protect the region or ensure a fair trial. I’ll welcome any feedback on this, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2024, 9:03pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/3 "2024-02-21T21:03:45Z")
ew. don’t say plus. “and” pls. or just define Orders to include verdicts? The Conclave is empowered to compel an action, reversal, or suspension of action by Order with an indictable penalty as a part of a trial verdict. Orders can be limited in any way by statutory law. Orders can nevershall not conflict with the Concordat, and may only supersede statutory law when a compelled action or reversal or suspension of such is necessary to maintain the status quo until an on-going trial concludes, (upon which the relevant Order shall no longer be enforced). ---
**Author:** ![Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/zukchiva/32/15649_2.png) [@Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Zukchiva)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2024, 9:05pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/4 "2024-02-21T21:05:53Z")
ill use and i think it’s worth splitting hairs on verdict vs order since an order has an indictable penalty whereas verdicts dont ---
**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2024, 9:07pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/5 "2024-02-21T21:07:09Z")
read my edits. an order would be a part of a verdict under that wording, and we could just say verdicts instead of orders and verdicts in that case? ---
**Author:** ![Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/zukchiva/32/15649_2.png) [@Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Zukchiva)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2024, 9:10pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/6 "2024-02-21T21:10:22Z")
there may be times where an Order can/should be made outside of trial too, which would mean it wouldn’t be a verdict an example could be if GE had done a JR instead or smth. its difficult to know how the conclave needs to use orders in the future since it’s had various uses of them in the past (subponeas, failure to appear for trial) so i’d prefer to keep Orders open outside of verdicts as nessecary it should be noted an Order can absolutely accompany a verdict, if that’s found to be nessecary ---
**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2024, 9:16pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/7 "2024-02-21T21:16:00Z")
arguably a JR result is a verdict of sorts. just remove “trial” ---
**Author:** ![Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/zukchiva/32/15649_2.png) [@Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Zukchiva)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2024, 9:16pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/8 "2024-02-21T21:16:53Z")
i mean it is but the subpoeanas and failure to appear were not verdicts ---
**Author:** ![Vussul](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/v/85f322/32.png) [@Vussul](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Vussul)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2024, 10:34pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/9 "2024-02-21T22:34:55Z")
> [@Zukchiva](#): > > Right now, from my understanding the Conclave can compel any action with legal force and then put people on trial for not doing it I believe you are mistaken here. > The Conclave is empowered to compel a legally required action by Order with an indictable penalty, as limited by law. The correct reading as I understand is that the Conclave can only compel an action that must take place such as the Viceory being required to close elections, the Delegate using UTC time, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/mangegneithe/32/10609_2.png) [@Mangegneithe](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Mangegneithe)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2024, 5:34am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/10 "2024-02-22T05:34:21Z")
maybe just say conclave action ---
**Author:** ![Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/zukchiva/32/15649_2.png) [@Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Zukchiva)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2024, 3:36pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/11 "2024-02-22T15:36:04Z")
Wat about Conclave decrees ---
**Author:** ![Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/zukchiva/32/15649_2.png) [@Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Zukchiva)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2024, 3:39pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/12 "2024-02-22T15:39:05Z")
Could be. Tbf which interpretation I see depends on my mood cuz its that finicky, but if we go for the reasonable one as you state then I firmly think we need to expand the scope of orders beyond that ---
**Author:** ![Vussul](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/v/85f322/32.png) [@Vussul](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Vussul)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2024, 4:51pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/13 "2024-02-22T16:51:57Z")
Exactly how would it be expanded? The only issue we have had is the Conclave not being able to halt an action during a trial. This doesn’t need an entire act, it can be added with a few words to the Concordat. ---
**Author:** ![Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/zukchiva/32/15649_2.png) [@Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Zukchiva)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2024, 6:18pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/14 "2024-02-22T18:18:47Z")
By allowing the Conclave to mandate a general action, so long as it follows the Concordat. This is a general power the Conclave has seen some historical use (a subpoena, some “Failure to Appears”, banning Fedele and co in 2019 during the pre-trial) for as well as modern use (GE), so I think it’s time we actually made it an explicit power so its legality isnt in doubt. The issue here isn’t just actions during trial, but going beyond that to give the Conclave power to mandate actions even if they aren’t already legal duties or halting during a trial. The Conclave’s shown it has shifting needs for Orders over time, so I think just expanding their scope a teensy bit only shoves this problem (the Conclave using dubious legal powers) down the road. The act’s also necessary to regulate some aspects of the power, as a result of the suggested expansion being super broad. ---
**Author:** ![Vussul](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/v/85f322/32.png) [@Vussul](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Vussul)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2024, 9:32pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/15 "2024-02-22T21:32:37Z")
What is there to stop just an Act? Can’t an Act be passed that lists the specific circumstances the Conclave can compel an action? I’m very strongly against a broad allowance and then having every instance we don’t want being restricted. I would rather we have a whitelist instead of a blacklist. ---
**Author:** ![Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/zukchiva/32/15649_2.png) [@Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Zukchiva)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2024, 10:03pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/16 "2024-02-22T22:03:24Z")
White list makes sense, yeah. And it’d be safer for us. My only problem is - what do we do if the Conclave very clearly needs an Order to compel an action not in the white list? Trials do take a while but Orders themselves are pretty time-sensitive, and there may not be time to add stuff to the white list. The only thing I can think of is in such a case, the moment the Conclave springs the Order, the Magisterium is mandated to hold a confirmation vote ASAP to get it done with the Order standing temporarily in the meantime. This wouldn’t be for Orders that are on the white-list, but only on Orders not on the white-list. ---
**Author:** ![Vussul](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/v/85f322/32.png) [@Vussul](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Vussul)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2024, 9:23am UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/17 "2024-02-23T09:23:57Z")
Sounds good to me. Either Magisterium or Praesidium could work. ---
**Author:** ![Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/user_avatar/forum.theeastpacific.com/zukchiva/32/15649_2.png) [@Zukchiva](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/Zukchiva)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2024, 9:01pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/18 "2024-02-23T21:01:51Z")
ill fix up stuff in a few days ---
**Author:** ![system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c1fc1f63483989cc6a5c92e407789a95bd080bca.png) [@system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2024, 9:52pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/19 "2024-02-24T21:52:39Z")
---
**Author:** ![system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c1fc1f63483989cc6a5c92e407789a95bd080bca.png) [@system](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2024, 10:16pm UTC](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834/20 "2024-02-26T22:16:08Z")
[Next page](https://forum.theeastpacific.com/t/amendment-conclave-fix-er-up/17834.md?page=2)