I think it’d be good if we stopped violating our own caps during Delegate transitions, as a matter of principle.
The language used is very awkward.
I would probably use something along the lines of:
…3.7- An individual whose term has elapsed and is still occupying the World Assembly Delegate position shall be exempt from any Qualified Endorsement Caps until the current Delegate (or a Vizier as designated by the current Delegate) takes the position . This exemption does not apply to any individuals who have been lawfully removed from the Delegacy.
Okay so I really like it but the wording feels off to me, how about this?
In plain terms:
“Following the election of a new Delegate, the outgoing Delegate shall be exempt from any Qualified Endorsement Caps until the newly elected Delegate, or a Vizier designated by the elected Delegate to fill their seat, surpasses the outgoing Delegate in endorsements. This exemption shall not exist for outgoing Delegates removed by relevant legal procedures.”
Two matters I believe need consideration, though:
Should the Praesidium have the power to apply the cap anyway? This could be employed for security purposes, to prevent the Praesidium from having their hands tied in some exceptional case we have yet to foresee.
Should we say “a Vizier designated by the Delegate” or “a Vizier”? Because, to quote America’s next top model Bill Nye the Science Guy, “consider the following:” What if an outgoing Delegate has been surpassed in endorsements by a Vizier, who takes the seat (I don’t like the term “in-game delegacy”)? That Vizier, then holds the seat, and we don’t need the outgoing Delegate to hold the seat for stability or security or WA power because, by natural processes (let’s assume), a Vizier has taken the seat. Suddenly, the Delegate gets to maintain quasi-Vizier endocap-exempt status even when they aren’t holding the seat or don’t need to.
Lol it seems Cyber beat me to the punch while I was philosophizing the best terminology to use
I do not believe that this is good enough for the intent of the amendment.
Technically speaking, there is an interpretation that a former Delegate has been legally removed from their service as Delegate by virtue of Concordat Article I, Section 2:
The Delegate shall be a Citizen elected for a term of four months by a majority vote of Citizens.
With this clause, I argue that once a Delegate’s term expires, they have been removed from office pending a Delegate Election. In a sense, they have been legally removed from conducting their duty as a Delegate by the Concordat.
Intuitively, the process of both election and expiration of a term are legal processes, as we based them off of the Concordat. We also assume that when someone’s term for an office expires, they are no longer part of the office. Because of these two, we can conclude that the expiration of a term is a legal process.
To be honest, there isn’t much other Concordatal precedent for the legal process of a term limit. The Provost, Viceroy, and Grand Vizier don’t have term limits enshirned in the Concordat, only in SOs. For Arbiters in particular, it has been said in detail that at the end of their “term”, they are held on tenure until a new Arbiter(s) has been elected.
I would much prefer something that incorporates indicting and removal for an exemption, that way we can ensure that any rouge Delegate have been charged and found guilty.
tl;Dr: I believe the removal of a former Delegate is a legal process; thus they are being legally removed at the end of their term. Because of this, the proposed amendment will cause a catch-22 to occur, where a transitional Delegate will still be breaking the endo cap.
“Removal” is what it’s called in the Constitution when the Conclave or Praesidium actively and forcibly removes a Delegate. There is no instance in our law, to my knowledge, that writes “removed” to mean “is no longer” or “term is up”. Furthermore, “remove” is an active verb, whereas your term being up is a passive occurrence.
Note I changed this; it is no longer the case.
Current removal processes already deal with that.
do my changes work to fix this?
What’s to keep the former Delegate from endotarting?
Strongly worded letter from the Praesidium, and then if that doesn’t work, Praesidium action to steal the seat.
What Aiv said, but you’re also right - we shouldn’t be in a weird legal situation where some ex-Del can make it harder for the Praesidium to bring them to par.
I think making it so the Praesidium can nullify the exemption in specific scenarios should address this issue. Let me know if the wording is alright.
Looks good to me.
I motion this to vote~
Seconded and Acknowledged.