— Begin quote from ____
I mean, to me, common policy (dis)agreements are just the field of politics and elections. These procedures for removal should be, in my view, reserved for more special circumstances.
— End quote
I’d argue that it is a special circumstance when 4/5 of the citizenry want to remove a Delegate, and not simply “common” disagreement.
I do think allowing the removal for abuse of power is a step in the right direction.
However, I tend to agree with Lerasi on this. The Delegate should be accountable to the Citizenry at all times. It is one thing when the Delegate does something that most voters disagree with. It is another when the Delegate consistently fails to uphold their campaign promises, harms the region, and otherwise simply sucks as Delegate.
Both are policy disagreements. One warrants removal, the other does not. Ultimately, we should be able to hold the Delegate accountable between elections. Four months itself is a long term and much can go awry during that time.
Thought: what if we had a Citizen recall vote that had to be backed by multiple Citizens (like four or five have to present a petition), the motion must pass a high majority vote (maybe 75% of voting Citizens?), and finally has to be confirmed by the Conclave (in that the Conclave would decide, on their end, if the case is justifiable or not via a vote. Note this means a vote without trial).
I think this way, we make it plenty difficult for a removal and therefore hard to abuse, yet also a system we can put into use on the (hopefully) rare- if any- circumstances that need it.
— Begin quote from ____
Thought: what if we had a Citizen recall vote that had to be backed by multiple Citizens (like four or five have to present a petition), the motion must pass a high majority vote (maybe 75% of voting Citizens?), and finally has to be confirmed by the Conclave (in that the Conclave would decide, on their end, if the case is justifiable or not via a vote. Note this means a vote without trial).
I think this way, we make it plenty difficult for a removal and therefore hard to abuse, yet also a system we can put into use on the (hopefully) rare- if any- circumstances that need it.
— End quote
So a lower majority, higher support count before it goes through, and Conclave confirmation? That could work. Adding the Conclave bit may be getting away from the idea of impeachment a bit, but I don’t really have a problem with this.
— Begin quote from ____
Thought: what if we had a Citizen recall vote that had to be backed by multiple Citizens (like four or five have to present a petition), the motion must pass a high majority vote (maybe 75% of voting Citizens?), and finally has to be confirmed by the Conclave (in that the Conclave would decide, on their end, if the case is justifiable or not via a vote. Note this means a vote without trial).
I think this way, we make it plenty difficult for a removal and therefore hard to abuse, yet also a system we can put into use on the (hopefully) rare- if any- circumstances that need it.
— End quote
By “Citizen Recall,” do you mean revoking a member’s status as a citizen? Clarification would be appreciated
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
Thought: what if we had a Citizen recall vote that had to be backed by multiple Citizens (like four or five have to present a petition), the motion must pass a high majority vote (maybe 75% of voting Citizens?), and finally has to be confirmed by the Conclave (in that the Conclave would decide, on their end, if the case is justifiable or not via a vote. Note this means a vote without trial).
I think this way, we make it plenty difficult for a removal and therefore hard to abuse, yet also a system we can put into use on the (hopefully) rare- if any- circumstances that need it.
— End quote
By “Citizen Recall,” do you mean revoking a member’s status as a citizen? Clarification would be appreciated
— End quote
No he means citizens recall the Delegate. This is in relation to removal from high offices, not removal of citizenship. That is under the Citizenship Commission’s authority.
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
Thought: what if we had a Citizen recall vote that had to be backed by multiple Citizens (like four or five have to present a petition), the motion must pass a high majority vote (maybe 75% of voting Citizens?), and finally has to be confirmed by the Conclave (in that the Conclave would decide, on their end, if the case is justifiable or not via a vote. Note this means a vote without trial).
I think this way, we make it plenty difficult for a removal and therefore hard to abuse, yet also a system we can put into use on the (hopefully) rare- if any- circumstances that need it.
— End quote
— End quote
By “Citizen Recall,” do you mean revoking a member’s status as a citizen? Clarification would be appreciated
No he means citizens recall the Delegate. This is in relation to removal from high offices, not removal of citizenship. That is under the Citizenship Commission’s authority.
— End quote
oh. OOOOHHHH. huh. why would- eh, never mind. there would be reasons why
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
Thought: what if we had a Citizen recall vote that had to be backed by multiple Citizens (like four or five have to present a petition), the motion must pass a high majority vote (maybe 75% of voting Citizens?), and finally has to be confirmed by the Conclave (in that the Conclave would decide, on their end, if the case is justifiable or not via a vote. Note this means a vote without trial).
I think this way, we make it plenty difficult for a removal and therefore hard to abuse, yet also a system we can put into use on the (hopefully) rare- if any- circumstances that need it.
— End quote
— End quote
— End quote
By “Citizen Recall,” do you mean revoking a member’s status as a citizen? Clarification would be appreciated
No he means citizens recall the Delegate. This is in relation to removal from high offices, not removal of citizenship. That is under the Citizenship Commission’s authority.
oh. OOOOHHHH. huh. why would- eh, never mind. there would be reasons why
— End quote
Same reasons why we would want to impeach high officials in real life. This is a democracy, and high officials should be beholden to the will of the people - not just the law. High officials that do not break the law but still make decisions that are destructive or widely unpopular within the region need to be recalled before they can do any more damage. Simply waiting for their term to end doesn’t cut it.
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
Thought: what if we had a Citizen recall vote that had to be backed by multiple Citizens (like four or five have to present a petition), the motion must pass a high majority vote (maybe 75% of voting Citizens?), and finally has to be confirmed by the Conclave (in that the Conclave would decide, on their end, if the case is justifiable or not via a vote. Note this means a vote without trial).
I think this way, we make it plenty difficult for a removal and therefore hard to abuse, yet also a system we can put into use on the (hopefully) rare- if any- circumstances that need it.
— End quote
— End quote
— End quote
— End quote
By “Citizen Recall,” do you mean revoking a member’s status as a citizen? Clarification would be appreciated
No he means citizens recall the Delegate. This is in relation to removal from high offices, not removal of citizenship. That is under the Citizenship Commission’s authority.
oh. OOOOHHHH. huh. why would- eh, never mind. there would be reasons why
Same reasons why we would want to impeach high officials in real life. This is a democracy, and high officials should be beholden to the will of the people - not just the law. High officials that do not break the law but still make decisions that are destructive or widely unpopular within the region need to be recalled before they can do any more damage. Simply waiting for their term to end doesn’t cut it.
— End quote
Like what the US tried to do with Trump, but he simply said “Nah”?
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
Thought: what if we had a Citizen recall vote that had to be backed by multiple Citizens (like four or five have to present a petition), the motion must pass a high majority vote (maybe 75% of voting Citizens?), and finally has to be confirmed by the Conclave (in that the Conclave would decide, on their end, if the case is justifiable or not via a vote. Note this means a vote without trial).
I think this way, we make it plenty difficult for a removal and therefore hard to abuse, yet also a system we can put into use on the (hopefully) rare- if any- circumstances that need it.
— End quote
— End quote
— End quote
— End quote
— End quote
By “Citizen Recall,” do you mean revoking a member’s status as a citizen? Clarification would be appreciated
No he means citizens recall the Delegate. This is in relation to removal from high offices, not removal of citizenship. That is under the Citizenship Commission’s authority.
oh. OOOOHHHH. huh. why would- eh, never mind. there would be reasons why
Same reasons why we would want to impeach high officials in real life. This is a democracy, and high officials should be beholden to the will of the people - not just the law. High officials that do not break the law but still make decisions that are destructive or widely unpopular within the region need to be recalled before they can do any more damage. Simply waiting for their term to end doesn’t cut it.
Like what the US tried to do with Trump, but he simply said “Nah”?
— End quote
Lol something like that, yeah
Anyways, I think that this would be a good idea, but only if it’s necessary. We don’t need people using this just because they don’t like the current Delegate. Unless that’s what you’re saying…?
I like how the Conclave also gets to weigh in on this, I always wanna give them more stuff to do
— Begin quote from ____
So a lower majority, higher support count before it goes through, and Conclave confirmation? That could work. Adding the Conclave bit may be getting away from the idea of impeachment a bit, but I don’t really have a problem with this.
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
I like how the Conclave also gets to weigh in on this, I always wanna give them more stuff to do
— End quote
The reason I propose letting the Conclave weigh in is because this way a government branch can weigh into the decision making, but this way we don’t confuse or compromise the Vizier’s abilities to remove the Delegate for security reasons. As the justice system, the Conclave can weigh in with a more impartial air and decide in a quick vote, based on the merits of the case rather than populism, whether such a decision is valid or not.
I agree it is weird, but I think this can help us cut down potential abuse via vote stacking.
— Begin quote from ____
Anyways, I think that this would be a good idea, but only if it’s necessary. We don’t need people using this just because they don’t like the current Delegate. Unless that’s what you’re saying…?
— End quote
Sorta.
It would be up to the people at the time when a situation arises. But IMO it wouldn’t, or at least shouldn’t, be utilized merely because a few people don’t like the current Delegate. But it should be utilized when the Delegate preforms actions that are reprehensible to the point where, whilst being legal, they should be removed from office ASAP. An example could be a Delegate suddenly withdrawing TEP from every single treaty it ever had, or closing every embassy, or being extensively toxic to the Executive, or having an Executive inactivity so extreme it was like Fedele’s third term- extreme situations like that.
Of course in lesser situations it can be hard to determine if recall is the right way to go- and at this point we’d have to trust the TEPers of that era to make the best decision for themselves.
But I firmly believe we need a recall mechanism, merely on a matter of principle. The Delegate should be allowed some freedom from voters (i.e. do things the voters may disagree with to an extent), but if the Delegate consistently acts in a way that is either a) completely to the disliking of the vast majority of voters or b) actually harmful in some way to TEP, IMO they should be recalled and we shouldn’t wait for another election.
Also, this system is highly unlikely to be abused, IMO. Not once in TEP history, as far as I know, has a TEP Delegate been recalled- even though we had such recall procedures through a mere Magisterium vote from 2009-2019. Sadly it’s no longer in the current Concordat, due to a rewrite we did after the Fedele coup. One big thing I regret is the removal of that procedure.
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
So a lower majority, higher support count before it goes through, and Conclave confirmation? That could work. Adding the Conclave bit may be getting away from the idea of impeachment a bit, but I don’t really have a problem with this.
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
I like how the Conclave also gets to weigh in on this, I always wanna give them more stuff to do
— End quote
The reason I propose letting the Conclave weigh in is because this way a government branch can weigh into the decision making, but this way we don’t confuse or compromise the Vizier’s abilities to remove the Delegate for security reasons. As the justice system, the Conclave can weigh in with a more impartial air and decide in a quick vote, based on the merits of the case rather than populism, whether such a decision is valid or not.
I agree it is weird, but I think this can help us cut down potential abuse via vote stacking.
— Begin quote from ____
Anyways, I think that this would be a good idea, but only if it’s necessary. We don’t need people using this just because they don’t like the current Delegate. Unless that’s what you’re saying…?
— End quote
Sorta.
It would be up to the people at the time when a situation arises. But IMO it wouldn’t, or at least shouldn’t, be utilized merely because a few people don’t like the current Delegate. But it should be utilized when the Delegate preforms actions that are reprehensible to the point where, whilst being legal, they should be removed from office ASAP. An example could be a Delegate suddenly withdrawing TEP from every single treaty it ever had, or closing every embassy, or being extensively toxic to the Executive, or having an Executive inactivity so extreme it was like Fedele’s third term- extreme situations like that.
Of course in lesser situations it can be hard to determine if recall is the right way to go- and at this point we’d have to trust the TEPers of that era to make the best decision for themselves.
But I firmly believe we need a recall mechanism, merely on a matter of principle. The Delegate should be allowed some freedom from voters (i.e. do things the voters may disagree with to an extent), but if the Delegate consistently acts in a way that is either a) completely to the disliking of the vast majority of voters or b) actually harmful in some way to TEP, IMO they should be recalled and we shouldn’t wait for another election.
Also, this system is highly unlikely to be abused, IMO. Not once in TEP history, as far as I know, has a TEP Delegate been recalled- even though we had such recall procedures through a mere Magisterium vote from 2009-2019. Sadly it’s no longer in the current Concordat, due to a rewrite we did after the Fedele coup. One big thing I regret is the removal of that procedure.
— End quote
from what i’ve read about Fedele, i dont like them. so can we please refrain from mentioning them? but yeah, makes sense. if this does end up becoming a vote, i will definitely vote for if i can vote… most likely ill need to become a magister however
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
So a lower majority, higher support count before it goes through, and Conclave confirmation? That could work. Adding the Conclave bit may be getting away from the idea of impeachment a bit, but I don’t really have a problem with this.
— End quote
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
I like how the Conclave also gets to weigh in on this, I always wanna give them more stuff to do
— End quote
The reason I propose letting the Conclave weigh in is because this way a government branch can weigh into the decision making, but this way we don’t confuse or compromise the Vizier’s abilities to remove the Delegate for security reasons. As the justice system, the Conclave can weigh in with a more impartial air and decide in a quick vote, based on the merits of the case rather than populism, whether such a decision is valid or not.
I agree it is weird, but I think this can help us cut down potential abuse via vote stacking.
— Begin quote from ____
Anyways, I think that this would be a good idea, but only if it’s necessary. We don’t need people using this just because they don’t like the current Delegate. Unless that’s what you’re saying…?
— End quote
Sorta.
It would be up to the people at the time when a situation arises. But IMO it wouldn’t, or at least shouldn’t, be utilized merely because a few people don’t like the current Delegate. But it should be utilized when the Delegate preforms actions that are reprehensible to the point where, whilst being legal, they should be removed from office ASAP. An example could be a Delegate suddenly withdrawing TEP from every single treaty it ever had, or closing every embassy, or being extensively toxic to the Executive, or having an Executive inactivity so extreme it was like Fedele’s third term- extreme situations like that.
Of course in lesser situations it can be hard to determine if recall is the right way to go- and at this point we’d have to trust the TEPers of that era to make the best decision for themselves.
But I firmly believe we need a recall mechanism, merely on a matter of principle. The Delegate should be allowed some freedom from voters (i.e. do things the voters may disagree with to an extent), but if the Delegate consistently acts in a way that is either a) completely to the disliking of the vast majority of voters or b) actually harmful in some way to TEP, IMO they should be recalled and we shouldn’t wait for another election.
Also, this system is highly unlikely to be abused, IMO. Not once in TEP history, as far as I know, has a TEP Delegate been recalled- even though we had such recall procedures through a mere Magisterium vote from 2009-2019. Sadly it’s no longer in the current Concordat, due to a rewrite we did after the Fedele coup. One big thing I regret is the removal of that procedure.
from what i’ve read about Fedele, i dont like them. so can we please refrain from mentioning them? but yeah, makes sense. if this does end up becoming a vote, i will definitely vote for if i can vote… most likely ill need to become a magister however
— End quote
Being a Magister is easy- since you’re a WA, you’ll get accepted instantly!
This isn’t a bill right now- not sure what to do with this discussion but I’ll wait for Bachtendekuppen to pump out his suggested Concordat amendment about this
As for Fedele: I apologize but I refuse to remain silent on him. I do not like what he did either, having been here for his entire Delegacy and the majority of his TEP career, but we must keep reminding ourselves of what went wrong there. His coup is a reminder that while we are a region with a community, we’re also a political target, and we need to keep that in mind. Always.
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
So a lower majority, higher support count before it goes through, and Conclave confirmation? That could work. Adding the Conclave bit may be getting away from the idea of impeachment a bit, but I don’t really have a problem with this.
— End quote
— End quote
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
I like how the Conclave also gets to weigh in on this, I always wanna give them more stuff to do
— End quote
The reason I propose letting the Conclave weigh in is because this way a government branch can weigh into the decision making, but this way we don’t confuse or compromise the Vizier’s abilities to remove the Delegate for security reasons. As the justice system, the Conclave can weigh in with a more impartial air and decide in a quick vote, based on the merits of the case rather than populism, whether such a decision is valid or not.
I agree it is weird, but I think this can help us cut down potential abuse via vote stacking.
— Begin quote from ____
Anyways, I think that this would be a good idea, but only if it’s necessary. We don’t need people using this just because they don’t like the current Delegate. Unless that’s what you’re saying…?
— End quote
Sorta.
It would be up to the people at the time when a situation arises. But IMO it wouldn’t, or at least shouldn’t, be utilized merely because a few people don’t like the current Delegate. But it should be utilized when the Delegate preforms actions that are reprehensible to the point where, whilst being legal, they should be removed from office ASAP. An example could be a Delegate suddenly withdrawing TEP from every single treaty it ever had, or closing every embassy, or being extensively toxic to the Executive, or having an Executive inactivity so extreme it was like Fedele’s third term- extreme situations like that.
Of course in lesser situations it can be hard to determine if recall is the right way to go- and at this point we’d have to trust the TEPers of that era to make the best decision for themselves.
But I firmly believe we need a recall mechanism, merely on a matter of principle. The Delegate should be allowed some freedom from voters (i.e. do things the voters may disagree with to an extent), but if the Delegate consistently acts in a way that is either a) completely to the disliking of the vast majority of voters or b) actually harmful in some way to TEP, IMO they should be recalled and we shouldn’t wait for another election.
Also, this system is highly unlikely to be abused, IMO. Not once in TEP history, as far as I know, has a TEP Delegate been recalled- even though we had such recall procedures through a mere Magisterium vote from 2009-2019. Sadly it’s no longer in the current Concordat, due to a rewrite we did after the Fedele coup. One big thing I regret is the removal of that procedure.
from what i’ve read about Fedele, i dont like them. so can we please refrain from mentioning them? but yeah, makes sense. if this does end up becoming a vote, i will definitely vote for if i can vote… most likely ill need to become a magister however
Being a Magister is easy- since you’re a WA, you’ll get accepted instantly!
This isn’t a bill right now- not sure what to do with this discussion but I’ll wait for Bachtendekuppen to pump out his suggested Concordat amendment about this
As for Fedele: I apologize but I refuse to remain silent on him. I do not like what he did either, having been here for his entire Delegacy and the majority of his TEP career, but we must keep reminding ourselves of what went wrong there. His coup is a reminder that while we are a region with a community, we’re also a political target, and we need to keep that in mind. Always.
— End quote
right right. so… where would i apply for magister position, even though you’ve said ill be accepted immediately, as theres no harm in doing it? ill look around the forums and the NS dispatches to try to find something
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
So a lower majority, higher support count before it goes through, and Conclave confirmation? That could work. Adding the Conclave bit may be getting away from the idea of impeachment a bit, but I don’t really have a problem with this.
— End quote
— End quote
— End quote
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
I like how the Conclave also gets to weigh in on this, I always wanna give them more stuff to do
— End quote
The reason I propose letting the Conclave weigh in is because this way a government branch can weigh into the decision making, but this way we don’t confuse or compromise the Vizier’s abilities to remove the Delegate for security reasons. As the justice system, the Conclave can weigh in with a more impartial air and decide in a quick vote, based on the merits of the case rather than populism, whether such a decision is valid or not.
I agree it is weird, but I think this can help us cut down potential abuse via vote stacking.
— Begin quote from ____
Anyways, I think that this would be a good idea, but only if it’s necessary. We don’t need people using this just because they don’t like the current Delegate. Unless that’s what you’re saying…?
— End quote
Sorta.
It would be up to the people at the time when a situation arises. But IMO it wouldn’t, or at least shouldn’t, be utilized merely because a few people don’t like the current Delegate. But it should be utilized when the Delegate preforms actions that are reprehensible to the point where, whilst being legal, they should be removed from office ASAP. An example could be a Delegate suddenly withdrawing TEP from every single treaty it ever had, or closing every embassy, or being extensively toxic to the Executive, or having an Executive inactivity so extreme it was like Fedele’s third term- extreme situations like that.
Of course in lesser situations it can be hard to determine if recall is the right way to go- and at this point we’d have to trust the TEPers of that era to make the best decision for themselves.
But I firmly believe we need a recall mechanism, merely on a matter of principle. The Delegate should be allowed some freedom from voters (i.e. do things the voters may disagree with to an extent), but if the Delegate consistently acts in a way that is either a) completely to the disliking of the vast majority of voters or b) actually harmful in some way to TEP, IMO they should be recalled and we shouldn’t wait for another election.
Also, this system is highly unlikely to be abused, IMO. Not once in TEP history, as far as I know, has a TEP Delegate been recalled- even though we had such recall procedures through a mere Magisterium vote from 2009-2019. Sadly it’s no longer in the current Concordat, due to a rewrite we did after the Fedele coup. One big thing I regret is the removal of that procedure.
from what i’ve read about Fedele, i dont like them. so can we please refrain from mentioning them? but yeah, makes sense. if this does end up becoming a vote, i will definitely vote for if i can vote… most likely ill need to become a magister however
Being a Magister is easy- since you’re a WA, you’ll get accepted instantly!
This isn’t a bill right now- not sure what to do with this discussion but I’ll wait for Bachtendekuppen to pump out his suggested Concordat amendment about this
As for Fedele: I apologize but I refuse to remain silent on him. I do not like what he did either, having been here for his entire Delegacy and the majority of his TEP career, but we must keep reminding ourselves of what went wrong there. His coup is a reminder that while we are a region with a community, we’re also a political target, and we need to keep that in mind. Always.
right right. so… where would i apply for magister position, even though you’ve said ill be accepted immediately, as theres no harm in doing it? ill look around the forums and the NS dispatches to try to find something
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
So a lower majority, higher support count before it goes through, and Conclave confirmation? That could work. Adding the Conclave bit may be getting away from the idea of impeachment a bit, but I don’t really have a problem with this.
— End quote
— End quote
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
I like how the Conclave also gets to weigh in on this, I always wanna give them more stuff to do
— End quote
The reason I propose letting the Conclave weigh in is because this way a government branch can weigh into the decision making, but this way we don’t confuse or compromise the Vizier’s abilities to remove the Delegate for security reasons. As the justice system, the Conclave can weigh in with a more impartial air and decide in a quick vote, based on the merits of the case rather than populism, whether such a decision is valid or not.
I agree it is weird, but I think this can help us cut down potential abuse via vote stacking.
— Begin quote from ____
Anyways, I think that this would be a good idea, but only if it’s necessary. We don’t need people using this just because they don’t like the current Delegate. Unless that’s what you’re saying…?
— End quote
Sorta.
It would be up to the people at the time when a situation arises. But IMO it wouldn’t, or at least shouldn’t, be utilized merely because a few people don’t like the current Delegate. But it should be utilized when the Delegate preforms actions that are reprehensible to the point where, whilst being legal, they should be removed from office ASAP. An example could be a Delegate suddenly withdrawing TEP from every single treaty it ever had, or closing every embassy, or being extensively toxic to the Executive, or having an Executive inactivity so extreme it was like Fedele’s third term- extreme situations like that.
Of course in lesser situations it can be hard to determine if recall is the right way to go- and at this point we’d have to trust the TEPers of that era to make the best decision for themselves.
But I firmly believe we need a recall mechanism, merely on a matter of principle. The Delegate should be allowed some freedom from voters (i.e. do things the voters may disagree with to an extent), but if the Delegate consistently acts in a way that is either a) completely to the disliking of the vast majority of voters or b) actually harmful in some way to TEP, IMO they should be recalled and we shouldn’t wait for another election.
Also, this system is highly unlikely to be abused, IMO. Not once in TEP history, as far as I know, has a TEP Delegate been recalled- even though we had such recall procedures through a mere Magisterium vote from 2009-2019. Sadly it’s no longer in the current Concordat, due to a rewrite we did after the Fedele coup. One big thing I regret is the removal of that procedure.
from what i’ve read about Fedele, i dont like them. so can we please refrain from mentioning them? but yeah, makes sense. if this does end up becoming a vote, i will definitely vote for if i can vote… most likely ill need to become a magister however
Being a Magister is easy- since you’re a WA, you’ll get accepted instantly!
This isn’t a bill right now- not sure what to do with this discussion but I’ll wait for Bachtendekuppen to pump out his suggested Concordat amendment about this
As for Fedele: I apologize but I refuse to remain silent on him. I do not like what he did either, having been here for his entire Delegacy and the majority of his TEP career, but we must keep reminding ourselves of what went wrong there. His coup is a reminder that while we are a region with a community, we’re also a political target, and we need to keep that in mind. Always.
— End quote
Hoping on the quoting train, choo choo
my 2 cents of just “Shadow is not adding anything super constructive but is doing Magister stuff so he’s on a responding spree ree”: Getting rid of the recall procedure was probably a safe bet after the Fedele coup because who knows who could’ve tried to abuse it post-Fedele when TEP as a whole was on super high alert for suspicious activity. It also probably gave Marrabuk the ability to be delegate without direct threat of someone recalling for no reason and making enough BS to get him recalled. We are now a year and half removed from the coup, and we have had 2 delegates and are working on a third. Now is the time to re-add the procedure. I’m obviously willing to wait for Bach to propose his thingy, but ya know, my 2 cents are my 2 cents.
I will fade back to the shadows.
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
— Begin quote from ____
So a lower majority, higher support count before it goes through, and Conclave confirmation? That could work. Adding the Conclave bit may be getting away from the idea of impeachment a bit, but I don’t really have a problem with this.
— End quote
— End quote
— End quote
— End quote
— End quote
— Begin quote from ____
I like how the Conclave also gets to weigh in on this, I always wanna give them more stuff to do
— End quote
The reason I propose letting the Conclave weigh in is because this way a government branch can weigh into the decision making, but this way we don’t confuse or compromise the Vizier’s abilities to remove the Delegate for security reasons. As the justice system, the Conclave can weigh in with a more impartial air and decide in a quick vote, based on the merits of the case rather than populism, whether such a decision is valid or not.
I agree it is weird, but I think this can help us cut down potential abuse via vote stacking.
— Begin quote from ____
Anyways, I think that this would be a good idea, but only if it’s necessary. We don’t need people using this just because they don’t like the current Delegate. Unless that’s what you’re saying…?
— End quote
Sorta.
It would be up to the people at the time when a situation arises. But IMO it wouldn’t, or at least shouldn’t, be utilized merely because a few people don’t like the current Delegate. But it should be utilized when the Delegate preforms actions that are reprehensible to the point where, whilst being legal, they should be removed from office ASAP. An example could be a Delegate suddenly withdrawing TEP from every single treaty it ever had, or closing every embassy, or being extensively toxic to the Executive, or having an Executive inactivity so extreme it was like Fedele’s third term- extreme situations like that.
Of course in lesser situations it can be hard to determine if recall is the right way to go- and at this point we’d have to trust the TEPers of that era to make the best decision for themselves.
But I firmly believe we need a recall mechanism, merely on a matter of principle. The Delegate should be allowed some freedom from voters (i.e. do things the voters may disagree with to an extent), but if the Delegate consistently acts in a way that is either a) completely to the disliking of the vast majority of voters or b) actually harmful in some way to TEP, IMO they should be recalled and we shouldn’t wait for another election.
Also, this system is highly unlikely to be abused, IMO. Not once in TEP history, as far as I know, has a TEP Delegate been recalled- even though we had such recall procedures through a mere Magisterium vote from 2009-2019. Sadly it’s no longer in the current Concordat, due to a rewrite we did after the Fedele coup. One big thing I regret is the removal of that procedure.
from what i’ve read about Fedele, i dont like them. so can we please refrain from mentioning them? but yeah, makes sense. if this does end up becoming a vote, i will definitely vote for if i can vote… most likely ill need to become a magister however
Being a Magister is easy- since you’re a WA, you’ll get accepted instantly!
This isn’t a bill right now- not sure what to do with this discussion but I’ll wait for Bachtendekuppen to pump out his suggested Concordat amendment about this
As for Fedele: I apologize but I refuse to remain silent on him. I do not like what he did either, having been here for his entire Delegacy and the majority of his TEP career, but we must keep reminding ourselves of what went wrong there. His coup is a reminder that while we are a region with a community, we’re also a political target, and we need to keep that in mind. Always.
right right. so… where would i apply for magister position, even though you’ve said ill be accepted immediately, as theres no harm in doing it? ill look around the forums and the NS dispatches to try to find something
— End quote
Thanks, will do now
I would suggest Zukchiva - or someone else, maybe - drafts and posts and actual bill on this. It doesn’t seem controversial enough to warrant a poll, and discussion has apparently ended, so a solid concrete draft is the clear next step.