I believe the previous vote was rushed through with several aspects not taken into account, which resulted in quite a number of against votes.
Namely,
(1) I believe that the Provost should not be the one deciding the punishment of individuals who have been convicted by the conclave.
If the conclave believes that said individual has committed an error, it is up to the conclave to propose a punishment such as removal of citizenship/banishment from the region.
The Provost should not be the one deciding that a user is untrustworthy to participate in the region, especially if the conclave has handed a lighter sentence to users which does not involve the stripping of citizenship.
(2) I also believe that the Provost should not be the one enforcing security actions on individuals.
Should the Praesidium determine someone as a security threat, the Praesidium should be the one removing citizenship from an individual. The Provost has no part to play in this
If the Praesidium encounters an urgent security threat, they may follow their own procedures to skip their own internal decision making process to remove citizenship, instead of heading directly to the Provost to ask the Provost to remove Magister status from an individual
The highlighted provisions in the SOM doesn’t allow Magister status to be stripped from anyone (as implied by your statement: “[…] instead of heading directly to the Provost to ask the Provost to remove Magister status from an individual”). Being confirmed as a Magister by definition means you are no longer an applicant, which means that 1.5 would no longer be applicable to you.
I also think that the bar of “You can’t have been convicted of a crime by the judicial branch or be considered a security threat by the security branch if you want to be part of the legislative process” is not particularly unreasonable, and doesn’t actually bar anyone from participation in the region (as a whole) as the SOM just affects the Magisterium, which is only one potential area of participation; albeit the one with the lowest barrier to entry.
Your suggestions of the Conclave or Praesidium stripping citizenship to strip membership in the Magisterium deal with currently sitting Magisters but don’t address preventing malfeasants into the Magisterium to begin with – at least, I hope that the Conclave and Praesidium don’t deal with every transgression through stripping of citizenship or banishment from the region.
You right, being confirmed does mean 1.5 no longer applies. Although my key argument still stands - It’s should not be the Provost’s job to ensure regional security and punishment.
The assumption is that all citizens+magisters are here in good faith. If they aren’t, that’s for the other two branches to deal with. The Magisterium-Provost is not here to deal with finger pointing about who isn’t worthy to be in the halls because they’re possible traitors or harmful individuals.
If the other branches have doubts, they can open proper trial to remove said threat from the region, instead of going to the Magisterium-Provost to harrass their applications by turning suspected individuals into second class citizens
If they’re already convicted of committing a crime by the Conclave there’s no question of their malfeasance. Nor should there be a question of their suitability to be in the Magisterium.
It’s not a question of treating people like second class citizens – it has nothing to do with social standing or politics.
Why should someone who has shown sufficient disregard for the laws created by the Magisterium and in some cases voted on by the populace be allowed into the same Magisterium?
I can see a line of logic to removing 1.5.3, though, frankly, I don’t subscribe to it.
Further, please explain how denying an application into the arm of Government that defines what is or isn’t criminal because you have a criminal record is in any way, shape, or form harassment. Having a consequence for a choice is not harassment.
I would say the main reason is that not all lawbreaks are equal.
For example, we have the date/time standards act. If I, under my provost duties, mistakenly use the wrong time format several times, I would be afoot of the law.
Let’s say I get charged, and the punishment is me being forbidden to conduct provost duties for a year.
Being very sad, I leave to take a break for a few months. When I return, my application is denied because I have a record, even though I have full citizenship, and the punishment has nothing to do with being unsuitable for debate in the magisterium.
I protest the decision, but the Provost, who might just hate me says “It’s in my authority in the SOM to decide that you aren’t fit to participate in these halls even though you have citizenship yeah, go shoo”
That’s authority that I would argue is not supposed to be given to the Provost. The Provost office is more clerical in nature, not meant to dole out punishments
But the Provost wouldn’t have doled out the punishment. The punishment would be conviction by the Conclave. The consequence of the conviction is that you would not be able to apply to join the Magisterium, it isn’t the Provost doling out additional punishment.
The target of the ire in that instance would be better directed at a date/time standards act that Discourse makes completely unnecessary.
Or, as an alternative, renumber 1.6 to 1.5.4 (or 1.5.3 if determined to strip the Prae clause), and change it so that any denied application can be challenged to a vote of the entire Magisterium.
In the scenario the punishment is the conviction. The consequence of having a criminal conviction is that you’re unable to apply to join the Magisterium. It isn’t the Provost doling out a punishment, it’s a direct consequence of you having a criminal conviction to begin with.
In other words; the Conclave is the body that is responding to your actions by imposing a punishment. The Provost is just following the SOM that states your application can be denied if you have a criminal conviction.
One is directly a punishment, the other is a consequence of that particular brand of punishment. Just as having your citizenship being stripped is the punishment, and the consequence of losing your citizenship is that you cannot participate in most areas of Government under the various standing orders or terms within the Conk.
The key differentiation is that the Provost isn’t the one who can unilaterally say “You messed up, and this is what’s happening”. Because the SOM states that someone convicted by the Conclave can have their application rejected, the Provost has to make a decision as to whether that conviction should bar entry into the Magisterium. Using your example, not following the correct date/time format shouldn’t bar you from rejoining.
As previously mentioned, the issue of if the Provost is using the provision sensibly (and in the interest of TEP) or not can be safeguarded with modifying the provision that states if the Provost or Deputy Provost think someone is untrustworthy that they can force a vote of the entire Magisterium to if anyone has their application rejected under 1.5 that they can force a vote on their application.
Frankly, I think that 1.6 is more of an issue of both the Provost and the Deputy Provost imposing a punishment based purely on vibes than anything else that was mentioned in this proposal.
As this vote has now concluded, this discussion topic is being closed. The results are available here. Please contact a member of the Office of the Provost if you would like to resume discussions on this matter.