This is not forgotten. I want to change some things before motioning
I would like to re-iterate, just for the sake of absolute clarity, that nothing in this thread has enlightened me to any extent as to the need for having appeals against Conclave decisions.
Needless to point out that the same goes for the unsubstantiated presumption that we need 5 arbiters because ātoo few people have too much powerā.
Look. Iām biased on this subject. In fact, Iām too biased to fully consider this subject on my own. As such, in order to try to become more impartial, Iāll try to answer the following three questions:
Do we have a situation at present that requires us to have an appeals process?
Notā¦ necessarily. One possible situation would be Halley asking for a judicial review of a judicial review, which is considered highly irregular. One could say that that is the situation, however besides that there isnāt much else.
Is current legislature unable to cover this situation?
Again, not necessarily. The Conclave Act already exists, and judging by the fact that Halleyās JR was accepted by the Conclave already shows that the appeals process can just be a JR. The Conclave Act already limits the Judicial Powers into the Conclave Orders, I donāt think we need to legislate it further.
Does the Magisterium have the right to pass this proposal?
Legally, yes, however at some point it starts to become a clash between the legislature and the judiciary. Hell, Halleyās proposal is a bit inflammatory, so weāve got to contend with. At some point, the Conclaveās gotta Conclave.
I think that as it stands, right now, I canāt support this proposal. I think weāre forcing the Conclave to do too much, not just with this but with the legal body as a whole.
Iāve been thinking about how laws come to be in the first place. Generally, they come from a notion of some kind, a seed that is planted in the Magisterium. Then, it grows to become a law. The Conclave interprets it, and those interpretations can then serve as seeds to grow new laws.
Weāve been asking, not just the Conclave, but the Magisterium as well, too much. The Magisterium should pass laws based on current situations, problems that are plaguing us on the here and now. The Conclave should be allowed to form precedent, in order to patch the tiny holes that the Magi sometimes leaves. Itās this interplay between the Conclave and Magisterium, between precedent and law, that allows new ideas to grow. In a way, itās a dialogue. A dialogue that occurs through the legal processes of the region. And I think that we should try to not stifle that dialogue as best we can, by not only letting the different branches do their job, but also by letting them focus on their job.
If the Magisterium is slow, so what? Let them move when truly necessary. If the Conclave is given the power to create precedent, then let them create it. If itās wrong, or a problem, appeal to the Magisterium, and let the dialogue happen between the two.
In practice, this may not always be the case. After all, we kinda have a culture here of filling in holes before they occur (and by doing so open new holes at times). But I think we should try to keep this in mind whenever we discuss anything like this again.
anyways, i guess you can consider this a formal apology to the Conclave for what I did. In retrospect, I think it was really shitty of me to go full on civil trial against you all.
kthxbai
Alright, as said prior, I wanted to drastically overhaul this amendment before seeing more action on it, and I have. Albrookās resignation post made me think a lot about what I was trying to do here, and I think I was definitely trying too hard. The rotating court system is one I still think may have some merit, but it is a long way down the road, and in-depth debate needs to occur before it is even introduced as an amendment, so I have removed that part. I also removed the expansion of 4 to 5 arbiters, because we no longer have a fifth readily available candidate, and so it would just be an issue. i also made minor changes to the changes i had made prior. the first reply of this thread still details explanations for each change that is actually included. i HIGHLY RECOMMEND going over the amendment itself and/or the first reply i made before commenting or voting, because the current form of POCA is VERY DIFFERENT from the one previous comments were made on.
Quorum is good, me like
However, I am a little worried about the idea of Arbiters who fail to be renominated because no nomination occurs loosing their seats. I feel we tend to be generally good with dates when it comes to elections and things like that, but for term-specific positions I think we generally suck at renominating people - Voter Registrars are a good example. I think thereās a high possibility we may end up with illegitimate Arbiters serving for long periods of time because people forget they exist - which can have pretty obvious effects on court issues.
One possible way to avoid this may be to have it so that the Magisterium auto-holds a reconfirmation vote every six months at a set date (i.e. Jan. 1st) on any presently serving Arbiters. This would make Arbiter terms variable and limit the Delegateās freedom to nominate Arbiters, but IMO this wouldnāt really be an issue (especially regarding the latter - I canāt recall a time a Delegate nominated a new Arbiter to replace one people thought was doing decently). And if a renomination fails, then the Delegate will have X amount of days to propose a nomination or smth.
Hm maybe. Iām afraid of altering the core system too much, but I think thatās fair enough tbh. I feel like the only reason people forget about renominating Arbiters is because thereās no consequences for not, and thatās partially what this intends to do, but your idea makes sense to me. If we get further comments on it, Iāll consider putting it in.
I do like the auto-reconfirmation vote, but I donāt like it at a set date. If we did that, thereās one delegate term with no possibility of nominating an Arbiter, and I would want that being seen as a lame duck session.
Just out of curiosity, why would a Delegateās term without possibility for nominating Arbiters ever be considered a lame duck?
Maybe not a lame duck, but some quality candidates may wait to run for a term where they can nominate Arbiters over one they canāt.
Personally I feel like any Delegate candidate whose main concern is the power to nominate Arbiters is one that I would not call āqualityā.
Section 5 has been rewritten according to Zukās suggestion.
Why quorum at all? I see no reasoning for its introduction.
The removal of Arbiters without renominations is just added bureaucracy. The Conclave risks being ground to a halt. I oppose it. The reasoning why it was included in the Concordat in the first place was because of predicted laziness, oversight, forgetfulness, etc. This reasoning to me is sound, was sound, and will remain sound.
When an Arbiter is nominated and their confirmation vote is rejected, they shouldnāt get the Arbiter seat anyway just to hold it until someone new comes around. If thatās what you mean. If you mean āArbiter is removed if Delegate doesnāt renominateā thatās not a thing anymore bc I changed it to auto-nomination for sitting Arbiters.
For quorum, I feel like we shouldnāt be having one Arbiter making all the decisions just because the other three are too lazy and busy, if we donāt have enough Arbiters in the decision-making process then decisions shouldnāt be made. The point of having four Arbiters is so that one doesnāt dominate, thatās the same reasoning for quorum, itās just enforcing that.
I actually reworded it again a bit because I wasnāt actually doing Zukās 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.
I am partly mistaken.
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.
Iād rather quorum be instated within the Concordat, but if not I do plan to make an SOC amendment at some point. āActiveā officials have no right to override those who happen to miss a matter if those individuals constitute a majority. If theyāre 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 Arbiterās term is probably more bearucratic than our current system. I mean, the system Iām proposing is also more bearucratic, but IMO itād put less pressure on the Delegate to remember nominating Arbiters every 6 months.
This doesnāt 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 arenāt big things like what the Magi handle, but they arenāt 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. Itās 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 Iām not at my best. I just want to say something, i guess.
gn will accept feedback