When an Arbiter is nominated and their confirmation vote is rejected, they shouldn’t get the Arbiter seat anyway just to hold it until someone new comes around. If that’s what you mean. If you mean “Arbiter is removed if Delegate doesn’t renominate” that’s not a thing anymore bc I changed it to auto-nomination for sitting Arbiters.
For quorum, I feel like we shouldn’t be having one Arbiter making all the decisions just because the other three are too lazy and busy, if we don’t have enough Arbiters in the decision-making process then decisions shouldn’t be made. The point of having four Arbiters is so that one doesn’t dominate, that’s the same reasoning for quorum, it’s just enforcing that.
I actually reworded it again a bit because I wasn’t actually doing Zuk’s full idea, which was all are renominated every six months automatically. So now that happens, instead of all are automatically renominated after their six months is up, which is harder to track.
My other point stands. It is just bureaucracy to open a discussion thread and vote every six months. Just let them sit until they are renominated or someone is nominated in place of them.
I can see this routine of opeining a discussion thread and voting on confirmations get tiring very quickly.
I oppose quorum. I oppose the idea of letting the government freeze due to the inactivity of the majority of its members. No aspect of the government, including the Conclave, should freeze because of the inactivity of the majority of its members. Those who are active have the right and duty to ensure the government continues functioning. Quorum directly injures this. I expect those who are active to take initiative and carry the government when others are busy.
I’d rather quorum be instated within the Concordat, but if not I do plan to make an SOC amendment at some point. “Active” officials have no right to override those who happen to miss a matter if those individuals constitute a majority. If they’re inactive, remove them.
As for the reconfirmation thing, my original idea is more have a discussion and vote on a set date (I.e. January 1st, july 1st) for all Arbiters. I.e. if Arbiter A was appointed March 2nd, and Arbiter B was appointed October 6th, both Arbiters would still face a reconfirmation vote on January 1st. I do agree that having an auto-reconfirmation for each individual Arbiter’s term is probably more bearucratic than our current system. I mean, the system I’m proposing is also more bearucratic, but IMO it’d put less pressure on the Delegate to remember nominating Arbiters every 6 months.
This doesn’t address my point. Yes, they can be removed later. In between that, the Conclave is frozen if quorum is passed. Quorum is not practical. The active have every right to keep the government functioning if the majority are inactive.
I disagree with you on that right, which is how I addressed your point. Inactivity and inaction is not some great evil, but only a mild inconvenience we can stand whilst removing individuals we have found to be inactive.
In 99% of cases, the government doesnt need to make an action immediately.
I agree solely if the quorum applies on the Magisterium, and the Magisterium only. Quorum in the Conclave, in my opinion, is not a good idea. This is because of what I believe is the theoretical legal framework that supports TEP.
An easy way of describing it would be in terms of problems. The Magi deals with big, big problems, so it makes sense to give them quorum to slow down. The executive deals with many different problems, so it makes sense to give them absolute power within that domain, slowing them down only serves to make the problems pile up higher. The Conclave, however, deals with medium problems: the implementation of laws, the interpretation of laws, the legality of actions, etc. They aren’t big things like what the Magi handle, but they aren’t small problems either.
So, if we slow down the Conclave, I fear that it would make problems very difficult to solve for them. They need to get things done while also ensuring that they can focus on details. I fear that the implementation of quorum may slow down Conclave to the point that inactivity will freeze them. It’s as Vussul said: the active must keep the Conclave running.
At the same time, however, I admit that I have not fully thought through Quorum in Conclave yet. MY nose is very clogged right now, and I’m not at my best. I just want to say something, i guess.
Yeah that’s what it is now, every six months no matter what, unless someone was appointed within a month of re-confirmation in which case they last until the next.
Based on your argument it seems that not only do you oppose automatic re-confirmation, but you oppose all re-confirmation. Because nothing is added here that wouldn’t already be done. Without this, Conclave is essentially a life term. The idea of having an Arbiter go on forever without re-confirming because the Delegate or Magisterium is too lazy or busy to do it doesn’t sit right with me. Yet the worst part about the current system isn’t that Arbiters stay longer than intended. The worst part is that the Delegate can neglect re-confirmation, and then leave any Arbiter they want in a constant state of limbo and then, if that Arbiter makes a decision the Delegate disagrees with, the Delegate can pull the rug out from under them and IMMEDIATELY replace them with a new nominee. It hasn’t happened, but it definitely could and there’s really no good reason to let that be a thing the Delegate can do since the entire point is to have six month terms that can be renewed.
If I’m perfectly honest, Zuk’s system sounds less bureaucratic than the current system, and is definitely less dangerous.
Vizier Mangegneithe, Arbiters are not left in limbo. They sit and are active and legalised Arbiters until their replacement. Your amendment does not fix political appointments. The Delegate will still be able to nominate others when the term of an Arbiter is exactly up.
Your amendment just adds bureaucracy. It does not streamline the government and make it function smoother or fix an issue. It gives the Magisterium busy work. I oppose any unneeded bureaucracy.
Actually, no, my amendment in its current form only lets the Delegate replace an Arbiter that has resigned or been rejected by the Magisterium. And ftr, I meant limbo as in “Can be replaced at any time”. Which is true. Ik they are still arbiters and act as such.
I don’t see how this adds any more work than exists in its current form tbh. Either there’s a misunderstanding in the wording of my amendment or you are advocating for Arbiter life terms. Which is something I’m not going to do here but you can propose on your own. There’s always re-confirmation bureaucracy. This is the same amount of bureaucracy as the current Concordat requires. It’s just more organized and less subject to the whims of the Delegate.
Imagine if, instead of renominating the arbiters near the beginning of my term, I held off. And, when the Concrisis happened, I replaced Wall with AMOM or smth. I mean, and I’m ashamed to admit it, it’s something I may have actually done. I would have exerted my power as Delegate in order to force the courts to make a ruling I agreed with instead of one the Court found fitting. Instead, I renominated the court as soon as I could and it was necessary. And what happened? We had to wait months until they could be replaced. Months that were spent cooling the passions that had raged during the Concrisis.