IDK what labels to put for this, plz forgiv
anyways, I’ve recieved permission from aiv to become a co-author on his ad-hoc conclave proposal.
However, since it’s a lot of work to draft something so heavy, I wanted to run a preliminary poll to see what option y’all would prefer. You can read Aiv’s post for more details but the gist of it is that it could be helpful if we could give the Conclave more to do in its “off” periods where it has nothing going on.
To summarize Aiv’s ad-hoc idea, the Conclave as we know it would become a jury-like system where 5 individuals (chosen from a list of Citizens certified by a law test) would serve as Arbiters for a specific judicial matter. So theoretically 5 people could arbitrate a trial while another 5 could arbitrate a judicial review. When there is no standing judicial matter to discuss, there are no standing Arbiters. The Viceroy would be the only consistent individual who will organize judicial procedure, i.e. what the current Viceroy does pretty much.
So let me know what you think. I’ll keep this poll up for 3 days.
- Aiv’s Ad-Hoc Conclave idea
- Allow Arbiters to be Magisters
- I don’t care which one we do
- I don’t think either of the two ideas are good.
Unfortunately, since I can only choose one, I have had to put my thing on “idk what we do.” However, I think both options are worth looking into, since allowing Arbiters be Magisters when there’s no judicial session is a pretty decent idea. Additionally, the whole “allowing citizens to be Arbiters without Delegate nomination” could work, especially with the whole “legal test” similar to the BAR exam and some scrutiny/regulation.
Also Zuk you could’ve messaged me asking me to reopen the thread 
1 Like
I think it’s a good idea and I have voted for it, but I’m afraid of the consequences of Arbiters being elected instead of proposed. I think a similar coexistence between election and appointment, like we see it on the Executive, could work out if fleshed out properly. Another possibility is polling around for interested people, then we test and forward to the Praesidium for double-checking each candidate, then popular vote. As long as it’s checked well-enough, count me in.
(Edit: I just realised Aiv already proposed my second possibility, so I guess this is a full “count me in”)
Just something that came to my mind and I didn’t think about it yet, but it’s kinda a merge between two ideas Aiv had?
What if:
- We allow Arbiters to be Magisters.
- We change how Conclave works. There’s still regular Arbiters BUT each Arbiter gets assigned a specific judicial matter. So it’s no longer responsibility of “everyone” (so no one) to do say a Judicial Review, but one Arbiter is tasked with creating a ruling, it’s then voted / amended by other Arbiters. So say if we have 5 cases, it’s not Arbiters working on all 5 cases at once - but each Arbiter working on their own case and only consulting colleagues at the end.
That could also be pretty straight-forward way to remove inactive Arbiters and solid grounds for evidence in a case of removal vote.
But I didn’t give it a longer thought yet. Just an idea.
I think for point 2 that’s probably something the Conclave can/should decide on its own. But it seems like it could be a good idea.
In any case, it seems people mostly want Magisters as Arbiters solution so I’ll draft something up at sum point re: that.