[AMENDMENT] SOM Rewrite

[Vussul]

The SOM is long, poorly worded, and redundant in some sections. It needs fixing. I have re-written it but aimed to change nothing about how the Magisterium functions. It is supposed to be just a simplification and clarification rewrite. Anyone have objections or suggestions to the rewrite?

SECTION I. ADMITTANCE OF NEW MAGISTERS
…1.1. A Citizen wishing to join the Magisterium (“applicant” hereinafter) shall :
…1.1.1. Recite the Magister’s Pledge in the appropriate designated locationthread in the Magisterium sub-forum.
…1.1.2. Supply the name of their resident NCitizenship nation and, if applicable, their World Assembly (“WA”) nation. If an applicant is on a military operation, only the resident NCitizenship nation and the involved military must be supplied.
…1.1.3. If applicable, endorse the Delegate and all Viziers.
…1.1.4. Complete an official Public Disclosure Form.
…1.2. The Provost shall verify whether all conditions described in Section 1.1. of these Standing Orders have been met.
…1.2.1. If the applicant has their WA nation in The East Pacific (“TEP”), or is confirmed by the Overseeing Officer of the Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army (“EPSA”) to be a member of the Eastern Pacific Sovereign ArmyEPSA and meets the conditions outlined in 1.1, the Provost shall admit the applicant to the Magisterium.
…1.2.23. If the applicant does not meet one of the conditions outlined in section 1.2.1but meets the conditions outlined in the subsections of 1.1, Tthe Magisterium shall, by majority vote, decide whether the applicant will be accepted.
…1.34. The Provost may deny applications of applicants convicted of any crime and applicants who have committed subversive acts, in The East PacificTEP or abroad.

…1.4. Applicants who are denied acceptance may appeal the Provost’s decision to the Conclave.

…1.5. The contents of the petition will be reviewed by the Conclave and if valid, the Conclave will instruct the Provost to admit the applicant to the Magisterium.

Sentences have been simplified and capitilisation has been made consistent.

Removes old 1.2 since this is redundant and the SOM rather plainly states it’s the Provost’s responsibility to handle admittance.

Clarification regarding meeting the requirements of 1.1’s subsections in new 1.2 and new 1.3.

Old 1.5 is removed as the SOM cannot dictate to the Conclave what it will do and the Concordat states that any Citizen can appeal a government action taken against them so restating it here is redundant.

“(“EPSA”)” was added as well however Discourse is not letting me highlight it green.

SECTION II. LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE
…2.1. The Magisterium may exercise legislative action through threefour different kinds of bills:
…2.1.1. A “Legislative Proposal,” (also, “Proposal”) defined as a bill that, upon enactment, shall form part of the binding body of law of the East PacificTEP or an amendment thereof.
…2.1.2. A “Resolution,” defined as a bill outlining the non-binding opinion of the Magisterium.
…2.1.3. A “Proposed Amendment to the Concordat,” (also, “Amendment”) defined as a bill that, upon enactmentpassing a Magisterial vote, shall be placed before the Registered Vvoters of The East Pacific in referendum to amend the Concordat, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Concordat.

…2.1.4. A “Standing Orders Amendment,” defined as a bill that will amend the Standing Orders of the Magisterium.

…2.2. Any Citizen may start a debate on regarding any such bill or any other topic, in which said Citizen may or introduce a Legislative Proposal, Resolution, or Proposed Amendment to the Concordat (hereinafter “Bill”). Only Magisters may start a debate on or propose a Standing Orders Amendment.
…2.3. The Citizen or Magister that introduced a Bill or Standing Orders Amendment shall be its sponsor. They may amend the Bill at any time during the debate, and designate other Citizens as sponsors.
…2.4. Any sponsor may motion the Bill or Standing Orders Amendment to vote at any time during debate. A Magister who is not one of the bill’sa sponsors must second that motion. The Provost shall be deemed sponsor if the sponsor(s) are absent as outlined in 4.8, or inactive longer than 21 days within the Bill’s thread.
…2.5. The same procedure governing periods of debate as outlined in sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 shall be used for a nomination by the position of the Delegate, the ratification of a treaty, or any other motion which may not be presented to the Magisterium in the form of a Bill.
…2.5. Nominations by the Delegate, ratifications of a treaty, or any other motion which is not a Bill or a Standing Orders Amendment shall follow the same procedure as a Bill.
…2.6. Should a passed bBill that has passed the Magisterium vote be vetoed by the Delegate, it will be returned immediately to debate for a prescribed minimum of 72-hour discussion period 3 days before one of the bBill’s original sponsors may decide to move it to an override vote. It must then be seconded by a Magister who is not one of the bBill’s sponsors before it can be returned to vote in accordance with Section IV, clauses 4.1 through 4.3.2 of the SOM.

Simplified and consistent wording and capitilisation. Sentence simplifications.

Removed nonsense reference to 4.8 regarding absent sponsors.

2.5 is completely rewritten.

New 2.6 renders section 9 unnecessary.

SECTION III. PROVOST AND DEPUTY PROVOST
…3.1. The Magisterium shall appoint a Provost from among its members.
…3.1.1. An election shall be held when the position is vacant or before the end of the Provost’s three-month term (on the last days of March 30th, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st), organized by the previous Provost, a Deputy Provost, or a representative thereof.
…3.2. A 96-hour4 day period for nominations is to be held.
…3.2.1. Any Magister may be nominated by another Magister.
…3.2.2. A Magister may nominate themselves. Another Magister must second that nomination before it is official.
…3.2.3. If a Magister was not self-Nnominated, Magistersthey must explicitly accept their nominations if they didn’t self nominate, within the 96 hour nomination period for it to be official.
…3.2.4. Only oOfficially nominated candidates may create a campaign thread that shall contain all campaigning for that Magister.
…3.2.5. Any citizen may ask a candidate questions of candidates within eachwithin the candidate’s respective campaign thread.
…3.3. If there are no valid candidates, another 96-hour4 day period for nominations shall be held and the incumbent Provost will remain in office until a new Provost is elected.
…3.3.1. Upon election of a Provost, all campaign threads relating to the previous election must be locked.
…3.4. After nominations, the Magisterium shall vote for a period of 72 hours3 days. The candidate receiving the most votes shall be elected as Provost.
…3.4.1. If more than two valid candidates have accepted a nomination, Provost elections shall be conducted using Instant Runoff Voting.
…3.4.2. Should the election result in a tie and no candidate concedes, a new 72-hour3 day vote shall be held.
…3.4.3. If a tie persists, the vote shall be opened to all Citizens for a period of 72 hours3 days.
…3.5. The Provost shall appoint up to four (4) Magisters as Deputy Provost, who can conduct the Provosts’ duties upon the request of the Provost.
…3.5.1. Deputy Provosts shall serve at the pleasure of the Provost, or until a new Provost is elected.

More simplifications.

SECTION IV. VOTING
…4.1. When a motion to vote has been seconded in accordance with subsection 2.4, the Provost shall then immediately officiate a voting period of 168 hours (seven days) on the proposal.
…4.2. Voting is conducted as per the following procedure:
…4.2.1 Magisters shall submit a vote via poll or a reply if they are unable to vote via poll in the designated voting thread;.
…4.2.2 Should a Magister be unable to submit the poll, they may submit a vote in the designated voting thread as a reply.
…4.2.32 Should a Magister submit a vote via both poll and reply, only the poll vote will be considered.
…4.3. A vote will be concluded when:
…4.3.1. The prescribed voting period ends, or;
…4.3.2. The Provost concludes the voting period, given that all eligible Magisters have voted.
…4.4. A motion shall pass if:
…4.4.1. Greater than 50% of the votes not including Present or Abstain are in favour of it; and
…4.4.2. The quorum number of 50% or more of eligible Magisterium voters has been met.
…4.4.3. This order is notwithstanding any special requirements set out by the Concordat for certain types of votes, and in the case of extended requirement, the quorum shall always be achieved.
…4.5. When a Bill has passed, the Provost or Deputy Provost shall then:
…4.5.1. Notify the Delegate in the appropriate thread if it is an Act or amendment of such.
…4.5.2. Notify the Conclave in the appropriate thread if it is a Concordat amendment.
…4.5.3. Close the voting thread with a written post detailing each Magister’s vote. Such post shall include, when possible, an image of the final poll results.
…4.6. Upon signature of the Delegate, or after 10 days of passage as defined in the Concordat, the Provost shall implement said Act as a thread within “Laws of the East Pacific” (herein “the Laws”).
…4.6.1. Any amendments shall be logged in the appropriate thread within the Laws.
…4.6.2. A rewrite of an Act shall replace the Act within the Laws, with said previous Act, as well as any repeals, being moved to “Repealed Laws”.
…4.7. Any Magister that was approved during any voting period shall not have their vote counted for that particular voting period.
…4.8. Any Magister removed or resigned from office or on an official Leave of Absence during any voting period shall not have their vote counted for that particular voting period.
…4.9. Threads that have been voted on, tabled, or abandoned for over 60 days, shall be locked.
…4.9.1. The (Deputy) Provost shall be responsible to lock said threads.
…4.9.2. A thread locked as a result of tabling or abandonment can be unlocked by the (Deputy) Provost upon a reasoned request by any Magister.
…4.10. A voting record from each Magisterium shall be publicly available in a forum thread.

More simplifications.

4.4.3 seems strange. I don’t understand what it intends. I could not simplify it.

SECTION V. QUORUM
…5.1. In order for any vote to of the Magisterium’s powers, a quorum must be shown to exist. If the quorum is not achieved, the vote is considered ineffective and may not be acted upon.
…5.2. To achieve quorum, at least 1/2 of eligible Magisters must have made their presence known during a vote, by providing their vote or abstention.
…5.2.1. Quorum does not account for any suspended Magisters at the time of the vote’s closing.

This entire section is cut. Quorum, as I understand, is meant to only apply to votes, not for every Magisterial function. A quorum provision is already in the voting section making this section useless.

SECTION VI. CLOSED SESSIONS
…5.1. A Magister may motion a matter to be considered in a closed session. If the motion is seconded and a majority of votes on the motion are in favor, the matter will be considered in a closed session.
…6.1. A Magister may move that a matter be considered in closed session, and if the motion is seconded and a majority of votes are in favour of doing so, the Magisterium shall consider that matter in closed session.

…6.5.2. The Foreign Policy Committee is established as a committee of the whole Magisterium and it shall meet in closed session.

…5.2. The Foreign Policy Committee is established as a meeting of the Magisterium to discuss matters of treaty and war, and it shall meet in closed session.

…65.2.1. The Foreign Policy Committee will be chaired by the Provost.
…65.2.2. The Delegate and any minister(s) they designate will be ex officio members of the committee without voting privileges.
…65.2.3. The Delegate or the Provost may initiate a meeting of the committee to discuss treaty negotiations or declarations of war without a vote as outlined in Section 6.1.
……65.2.4. The Provost shall publicly announce the opening and closure of each such meeting, including the general subject of the meeting.
…65.2.5. The Magisterium may not ratify a treaty or declaration of war in a closed session of the committee.

5.1 is completely rewritten.

Other changes are simplfications.

SECTION VII. RESIGNATION, ABSENCE OR REMOVAL OF PROVOSTS
…76.1. If the Provost resigns, is removed, or has been absent for a period exceeding 72 hours3 days without official Leave Of Absence (LOA), then:
…76.1.1. The longest serving Deputy shall temporarily assume the Provost’s duties pro tempore and hold a special Provost election until another is elected.
…76.1.2. If no eligible Deputy exists then the longest serving Magister shall temporarily assume the Provost’s duties.
…76.2. Any Magister may motion for the removal of the Provost by majority vote. If a Magister seconds the motion: the Provost shall be immediately suspended and can no longer exercise any of the Provosts’ duties.
…76.2.1. A Deputy Provost or a representative thereof (where there are no eligible Deputy Provosts) shall temporarily assume the Provost’s duties pro tempore and officiate a vote to remove the Provost for a period of 72 hours. If the removal vote passes then a sSpecial Provost eElection shall immediately follow.
…76.2.2. If the vote to remove the Provost fails, the Provost is removed from suspension unsuspended. Both the Magister who proposed and seconded the suspension cannot re-motion for the remainder of the Magisterial term.
…76.3. Special Provost Elections follow the same nomination, campaigning, and election procedures as Provost Elections, as written in Section III of these Standing Orders.
……76.3.1. If any Special Provost Elections begin less than a month before Provost Elections, then the Provost Elections will be called off, and the Provost will serve the next full term in addition to the remainder of their predecessor’s term.

6.2.1 is unclear to me in intent. I could not simplify it further.

SECTION VIII. REMOVAL OF MAGISTERS
…87.1. The Provost may hold a roll call and require that Magisters respond within 1 week, or 168 hours, to confirm their activity:
…87.1.1. Any Magister not responding to such a roll call can be suspended by the Provost, Deputy Provost, or removed by a majority vote of the responding Magisters.
…87.1.2. Any Magister who has informed the Magisterium of their absence shall be exempt to this rule, as long as the roll call is within the time frame of inactivity as stated by the Magister.
…87.2. A Magister may be suspended by the Provost, and removed by a majority vote if:
…87.2.1. tThe Magister has not logged into the forums for more than two weeks and has not informed the Magisterium of said absence,; or;
…87.2.2. tThe Magister has not voted or confirmed attendance in at least two successive votes initiated at least seven days apart from each other.; or
…87.2.3-. tThe Magister was accepted under Section 1.2.1 of these Orders but currently has their WA nation outside of TEP, unless they are a verified EPSA soldier and/or following EPSA orders.
…87.3. Any suspended Magister may be unsuspended by informing the Magisterium of the reason for their inactivity, and voting in any legislative proposal. If said Magister was suspended per 87.2.3., they must also return their WA nation to TEP and inform the Magisterium of the reason forwhy their WA nation having beenwas moved outside TEP.
…87.4. A Magister will be removed automatically, which shall be publishedannounced by the Provost, if:
…87.4.1. tThe Magister is found to have supplied falsified information in their Magister’s Pledge or official Public Disclosure Form.; or
…87.4.2. tThe Magister has no resident TEP nation.
…87.5. A Magister may resign at any time.

More simplifications.

SECTION IX. AMENDMENTS
…10.1. The Standing Orders shall be amended by a majority vote of Magisters, following the same procedure as a Bill.
…10.2. Amendments to the Standing Orders may only be proposed by Magisters.

Merged into section 2.

[SiriusBlack8009]

Looks to be good

[Silvae]

You did a great job. I support it.

[Mangegneithe]

starting from where i left off in discord, in section 2:

7. in 2.7, a “minimum of three days” should be “minimum of 72 hours”. we do things in hours here. and tbh it’s clearer, because hours are much more objective than days as tools of measurement.

section 3 stuff:

1. what’s the point of changing March 30th to the last day of March (same for rest but it’s quicker to pull an example)? there’s never gonna be a leap year to complicate it. and i mean, it’s easier to say quantitatively when it is than qualitatively imo. (3.1.1)

2. 3.2, back to 96 hours pls. same argument as for 72 hours.

3. 3.2.3, first of all, there’s two “must”s in there

4. 3.4, pls for the love of god make 3 days 72 hours again i am begging you

5. 3.4.2!!! 72 hours!!! please!!!

6. 3.4.3!!! i can’t stand it!!! im screaming!!!

section 4 stuff:

1. 4.2.1, can has comma before “if”?

2. on 4.4.3….basically what i understand it to be saying is “Quorum shall be considered achieved during votes in which additional requirements are explicitly set by the Concordat” because whoever wrote it didnt want the SOM’s ideas of quorum to fuck up a concordatially mandated requirement which might mess with traditional procedure

section 5 stuff:

1. ftr you didnt number it 5.1, 5.2, etc. you left it as 6.1, 6.2, etc. despite renumbering the section itself

2. while we’re touching closed sessions…… why should there be a vote on whether or not something should be considered in closed session? why cant it just go with a second? wouldnt that make more sense for urgent or sensitive material? idk, what do you think? tbh i find it quite silly that something has to happen to move a matter into closed session bc it means that the matter itself is talked about in public before it’s moved into the closed session. so like if we wanna repeal a treaty with fnr because we think they’re smelly, they’ll know we’re trying to repeal the treaty, even if they dont know that its because we think theyre smelly. i mean treaties probably dont apply bc the FPC exists but you understand my meaning?

3. 6.2, while removing “whole” just remove “committee of the Magisterium”. how about “The Foreign Policy Committee is established as a meeting of the Magisterium to discuss matters of treaty and war, and it shall meet in closed session.” Calling it “committee of the whole Magisterium” or even “committee of the Magisterium” reeks of a base structure that the Magisterium just doesnt have. It’s almost definitely taken from the US Committee of the Whole idea, and the US legislative structure of committees dealing with specific matters. Or another country that does it that way. That’s not how TEP works, so IMO we shouldnt emulate that in the wording here.

section 6 stuff:

1. again, numbering is not altered to reflect the removal of the old section 5

2. 7.1, 72 hours, ykwim

3. 7.3.1, is the “regular” modifier necessary? regular provost elections are called provost elections, special provost elections are called special provost elections, so they are still distinguished by the terminology. and nowhere else is the “regular” modifier stuck before “provost elections”. ykw this goes for 7.3 too. but basically yeah my point is calling it “regular” feels redundant and superfluous and unnecessary. i’d prefer using the actual terms.

section 7 stuff, god the som are longer than i thought:

1. AAAAA take away the week leave the 168 hours pls. expanding more on my reasoning, you dont know where to start with “days” or “weeks” really and so you have to specify “1 week from the time it starts” right but thats not actually a week that just happens to be the same length as one, right? idk it’s weird i think, but my brain is weird and i just think having it in terms of hours means we know exactly when it is. (8.1)

2. 8.2.3, the reason “and/or following EPSA orders” was added is because sometimes non-soldiers go on operations. the “civilian militia” as we called it, participated in major operations such as the Phoenix Flock Fleet liberation of South Pacific and Smol Fur Empire and Operation Boom Beach. these ppl went out on EPSA orders, without being EPSA soldiers, and we wanted to protect their Magister status. so i think it should stay.

fuck okay that’s all.

sorry for the overload. some of it is really nitpicky but yeah.

[Vussul]

To summarise the changes made in response to Aivintis’ suggestions:

@Aivintis on Discord

Reading the big SOM rewrite, and writing comments as I go, idk if any of these have been discussed or not. parentheses indicated which clause in the new numbering that i am pointing out.

1. “all” Viziers should stay imo, or at least “the” Viziers, so no one goes “umm i endorsed Viziers” when they did like two (1.1.3)
2. why must we lengthen TEP to The East Pacific? save space and clutter with acronyms methinks (1.2)
3. member of THE EPSA pls, not member of EPSA (1.2)
4. “in the subsections of 1.1” can just be “in 1.1” i think, since the subsections of 1.1 fall under the jurisdiction of 1.1 (1.3) (and 1.2 actually)
5. in 1.4 while youre at it can you remove the superfluous comma in front of “in The East Pacific and abroad”?
6. hear me out….is 1.5 necessary? the concordat already says all government decisions can be appealed to conclave, right?

that’s section 1 stuff

1. I considered it to still be clear it meant all Viziers to begin with but I have changed it regardless.
2. The acronym has to be defined before being used so I expanded the first instance and added a bracket to define the acronym.
3. I consider “EPSA” to also mean “the EPSA” under the correct context. Fixed nontheless.
4. Done.
5. It has been cut out.

@Aivintis on Discord

section 2 stuff:

1. in 2.1.3, why are you adding another word to the tag which should be added in the title? [AMENDMENT] is so much cleaner than [PROPOSED AMENDMENT]. we know it’s proposed, everything is. the other two categories, proposal and resolution, are just one word, too. also the shortening is supposed to be a convenient length, which is why it’s one word.
2. while we’re into the three types of stuff in 2.1, maybe we should add a fourth - “SOM” for amendments to the Standing Orders of the Magisterium. it’s very different from a normal proposal, so for clarity’s sake and for ease of reading i think we should have additional categorization reflecting that.
3. small small thing but in 2.2, instead of “Legislative Proposal, Resolution, or Proposed Amendment to the Concordat” why dont we just use the shortened versions indicated; “Proposal, Resolution, or Amendment” if i have my way or “Proposal, Resolution, or Proposed Amendment” if we keep your change
4. for 2.4, maybe we should change “inactive” to “inactive within the Bill’s thread” to make things easier. cuz if i’m posting up a storm in every other thread but i have a 21 day old proposal i’m not touching, that should fall to the Provost to do with as if I was just not there at all
5. for 2.5, “which may not be presented to the Magisterium in the form of a Bill” feels clunky. how about “which is not presented within a form regulated by these Standing Orders” or “which is not presented within the form of a Bill” or “which is not presented as a Bill”
6. in 2.6, “following the same procedure as a Bill however amendments to the Standing Orders may only be proposed by Magisters.” is a run on sentence. i suggest “following the same procedure as a Bill. Amendments to the Standing Orders may only be proposed by Magisters.” Or maybe put the second sentence into its own clause. Although maybe all of this should be delegated to 2.1 following my suggestion to make it a listed type of legislative action

1. Changed.
2. Done.
3. Done.
4. Done.
5. Done.
6. As stated in 2., done.

@Mangegneithe

starting from where i left off in discord, in section 2:

7. in 2.7, a “minimum of three days” should be “minimum of 72 hours”. we do things in hours here. and tbh it’s clearer, because hours are much more objective than days as tools of measurement.

7. I’m completely resistant to using hours. We can all agree that a day is 24 hours. Days is also a more comprehensible time format for me and, I assume, for most people. I cannot fathom 168 or 72 hours except as 7 and 3 days.

@Mangegneithe

section 3 stuff:

1. what’s the point of changing March 30th to the last day of March (same for rest but it’s quicker to pull an example)? there’s never gonna be a leap year to complicate it. and i mean, it’s easier to say quantitatively when it is than qualitatively imo. (3.1.1)
2. 3.2, back to 96 hours pls. same argument as for 72 hours.
3. 3.2.3, first of all, there’s two “must”s in there
4. 3.4, pls for the love of god make 3 days 72 hours again i am begging you
5. 3.4.2!!! 72 hours!!! please!!!
6. 3.4.3!!! i can’t stand it!!! im screaming!!!

1. This is more to get rid of what I considered excessive numbers. It can be reverted if people prefer the old way.
2. (This is 3., Discourse is insisting otherwise for some reason) Fixed.

@Mangegneithe

section 4 stuff:

1. 4.2.1, can has comma before “if”?
2. on 4.4.3….basically what i understand it to be saying is “Quorum shall be considered achieved during votes in which additional requirements are explicitly set by the Concordat” because whoever wrote it didnt want the SOM’s ideas of quorum to fuck up a concordatially mandated requirement which might mess with traditional procedure

1. You may.

@Mangegneithe

section 5 stuff:

1. ftr you didnt number it 5.1, 5.2, etc. you left it as 6.1, 6.2, etc. despite renumbering the section itself
2. while we’re touching closed sessions…… why should there be a vote on whether or not something should be considered in closed session? why cant it just go with a second? wouldnt that make more sense for urgent or sensitive material? idk, what do you think? tbh i find it quite silly that something has to happen to move a matter into closed session bc it means that the matter itself is talked about in public before it’s moved into the closed session. so like if we wanna repeal a treaty with fnr because we think they’re smelly, they’ll know we’re trying to repeal the treaty, even if they dont know that its because we think theyre smelly. i mean treaties probably dont apply bc the FPC exists but you understand my meaning?
3. 6.2, while removing “whole” just remove “committee of the Magisterium”. how about “The Foreign Policy Committee is established as a meeting of the Magisterium to discuss matters of treaty and war, and it shall meet in closed session.” Calling it “committee of the whole Magisterium” or even “committee of the Magisterium” reeks of a base structure that the Magisterium just doesnt have. It’s almost definitely taken from the US Committee of the Whole idea, and the US legislative structure of committees dealing with specific matters. Or another country that does it that way. That’s not how TEP works, so IMO we shouldnt emulate that in the wording here.

1. Corrected. Funnily enough, the current SOM section IX has this mistake as well.
2. This proposal is only a clarification and simplification rewrite. I don’t want it delayed by proposals to change how the Magisterium functions.
3. Rewritten.

@Mangegneithe

section 6 stuff:

1. again, numbering is not altered to reflect the removal of the old section 5
2. 7.1, 72 hours, ykwim
3. 7.3.1, is the “regular” modifier necessary? regular provost elections are called provost elections, special provost elections are called special provost elections, so they are still distinguished by the terminology. and nowhere else is the “regular” modifier stuck before “provost elections”. ykw this goes for 7.3 too. but basically yeah my point is calling it “regular” feels redundant and superfluous and unnecessary. i’d prefer using the actual terms.

3. Changed.

@Mangegneithe

section 7 stuff, god the som are longer than i thought:

1. AAAAA take away the week leave the 168 hours pls. expanding more on my reasoning, you dont know where to start with “days” or “weeks” really and so you have to specify “1 week from the time it starts” right but thats not actually a week that just happens to be the same length as one, right? idk it’s weird i think, but my brain is weird and i just think having it in terms of hours means we know exactly when it is. (8.1)
2. 8.2.3, the reason “and/or following EPSA orders” was added is because sometimes non-soldiers go on operations. the “civilian militia” as we called it, participated in major operations such as the Phoenix Flock Fleet liberation of South Pacific and Smol Fur Empire and Operation Boom Beach. these ppl went out on EPSA orders, without being EPSA soldiers, and we wanted to protect their Magister status. so i think it should stay.

2. Reintroduced.

@Mangegneithe

fuck okay that’s all.

sorry for the overload. some of it is really nitpicky but yeah.

Thank you for the feedback.

[Halleyscomet08]

Comments

Section 1

none, some slight nitpicks on whether or not the Provost gets the ability to deny people who was not able to fulfill the conditions of 1.1, but like its so minor it chill

Section 2

2.1.4 - I’m torn on whether or not the Standing Orders Amendment should be one of the ways we exercise legislative action. On one hand, the SOM isn’t necessarily a law, so we aren’t really legislating anything. On the other, it has legal powers thanks to the Concordat, so we might actually be affecting the legal body by amending it?

SOs, the piece of legislation stuck in the grey zone of law. Oh how I hate it.

Section 3

not sure with the shift from hours to days here but meh. Agreeing with Aivintis here. Days feels too imprecise. im neutral on it.

Section 4

4.4.3’s main goal is to ensure that if the Concordat requires a supermajority, such as when appointing Arbiters and Viziers, the Standing Orders do not override that requirement, however will require a quorum.

Section 5

Soft Disagree. A definition of a quorum I feel is necessary in order to further clarify what is meant by a “quorum” is from the voting section. It keeps it explicit in ensuring that a vote is ineffective if only a subset of people actually voted. However, I can see your point, I can accept cutting it.

Section 6

none

Section 7

7.2.1 details the procedure in the event of a Provost being motioned to be removed. A Deputy Provost shall assume the Provost role and host a vote as to whether the Provost is removed or not. If it passes, then a Special Provost Election occurs.

Section 8

none

Section 9

Please see Section 2 for my thoughts on this.

Overall, it’s alright, I didn’t see any big holes that would blow up the Magisterium if this passed. Very nitpicky, but it should be ok.

[Vussul]

Motion to vote.

[Cloud]

Seconded.

[CyberiumShadow]

Acknowledged.

Vote here: [A-2023-34] Rewrite of the Standing Orders of the Magisterium

[vw53a]

Without having read everything, I can state I agree with Mangegneithe that time frames should be stated in hours. Or better state the end time as a date and time into UTC. Because if you just state a number of days, when will it end? When a date is passed?
Or do you mean days of exactly 24 hours, starting from the time of a certain notification (a post, presumably)?