RO Act amendment to specify that only Viziers can be ordered to assume the in-game Delegacy.
doesnt that make the position of the outgoing delegate even more illegal than it already is
There is another amendment to address that.
When it says “assume the Position of WA Delegate”, I presume that means the actual game-side WAD seat?
What if Vizier accidentally gets the Delegacy?
I.e. if a Vizier isn’t ordered to take the Delegacy, and theoretically is not doing so with malicious intent (punishable under law and SOP), are they not allowed to hold the Delegacy? Say, if the Delegate forgets to endotart for a bit, or just isn’t endotarting as much, and the Vizier doesn’t realize?
Given JUST “Delegate” is the position in TEP law, there is no other valid interpretation of that phrase IMO.
My vote on this is contingent on 4.3. Further clarification is needed as to know who “they” refers to. This is in order to know what the target of that clause refers to; as it stands it simply makes no sense.
Otherwise, the amendment seems alright. I had a few issues with the former wording which would be cleared up when 4.3 is made more clear.
Hopefully I fixed the language a bit better. My argument here is that the Delegate isn’t ordering an out-going Delegate to hold the seat with this new language, but just that the law permits the out-going Delegate to hold the seat until a Vizier or the in-coming Delegate takes it over.
Fixed the other issues raised as well, hopefully.
4.3 makes it so an individual who is not the current Delegate occupying the in-game Delegacy cannot exercise the powers legally required of the in-game Delegate or required to defend this region unless explicitly instructed to by a Delegate that may have lost the in-game Delegacy due to inactivity.
If the Delegate falls inactive then I don’t think the in-game Delegate should be able to use the powers they obtain for everyday matters. The Delegate was elected to serve their position specifically in the in-game seat, so it doesn’t make sense to allow an unelected person to do as they please. The solution to an inactive Delegate should be to have a removal procceedure of them and then appoint an Acting Delegate - not grant an unelected official broad range to use powers they were not chosen to wield.
That being said, the security thing is a good point. I’ll try to make some changes in that front.
EDIT: changes made. thoughts?
I don’t see any glaring issues with the current draft now.
I motion this to vote.
Seconded and Acknowledged.