[DISCUSSION] Ad Hoc Conclave

[Mangegneithe]

I want to start this out as a discussion rather than a specific amendment, but for the sake of time and demonstration, I do have an amendment written out below. At, though, I’d love to have discussion on the idea in general rather than the specifics of the amendment, which can be dealt with later, if/when we determine this idea to be something worth moving forward on. With that disclaimer out of the way, let me explain what’s going on.

The Problem: Arbiters are either bored or overworked. We face delays in rulings because they are overwhelmed by the amount of judicial questions that go into the Conclave. However, we often ALSO face long periods where Arbiters are doing nothing. This, coupled with the ban on Arbiters serving concurrently as Magisters, means that we have a lot of Arbiters that are very sequestered away from the rest of the region.

Solution 1: We simply remove the ban on Arbiters serving as Magisters. I will support this. However, it doesn’t deal with the case load issues, and I had a more interesting idea, which we’re here to discuss today.

Solution 2: We take it a step further. The Conclave currently is in limbo a lot of the time, so why don’t we just officially make it so? Under this solution – the reason for this discussion – a Conclave is convened for each judicial question or trial. It’s a new Conclave each time. It’s five Arbiters, yes, but not the same five Arbiters.

Any citizen can serve as an Arbiter, and, hopefully, a lot do. Arbiter, however, is more of a qualification – a certification, if you will. We have a test devised by the Provost that’s kind of like the Attorney Test. Citizens take that test and, if they succeed, the Praesidium (preferably) or the Magisterium (possibly) votes to certify them. Once they’re certified, they’re in the pool to serve when the next Conclave is convened.

Benefits: This allows more people to get more involved in the judiciary. Preparing for and taking the test is activity in and of itself, but it also means a lot more people can be Arbiters, which is another title Citizens can strive for. It also makes it easier to deal with recusals – we just bar Arbiters with conflicts of interest from serving on a given Conclave, and we still have a full panel dealing with the question. It additionally means that coupers can’t nominate people to Conclave to get rid of a voting Magister they don’t like.

In my opinion, this also makes the position of Arbiter less dangerous – having that certification doesn’t mean that you have the same amount of power as an Arbiter in the present day, which means we can be less suspicious about people going for it. Finally, it allows us to be really flexible based on activity. In low activity settings, Arbiters can still be Magisters and in high activity settings we have more Arbiters to deal with the higher volume of questions/cases.

Closing Thoughts: I’m not married to this idea. This isn’t a hill I’m here to die on. It’s just an interesting and creative idea to consider. I understand that it’s radical but that’s why I want to talk about it here in a discussion before proceeding with amendment talk. Again, for those of you who’d like to visualize how this might work, I did provide an amendment text below. But yeah. I’d like to hear what everyone thinks about this.

Click for Text of Amendment

Preamble

We, the assembled Residents of The East Pacific, desiring a more prosperous and perfect region, do hereby gather to establish this Concordat of The East Pacific.

Article A: Executive

Section 1: Establishment

1. This Concordat does hereby invest executive authority in a Delegate of The East Pacific and does appoint the Delegate the executor of this Concordat, subsequent laws passed by the Magisterium, and Orders and verdicts imposed by the Conclave.

2. The Delegate shall be a Citizen elected for a term of four months by a majority vote of Citizens.

3. The Delegate shall not serve concurrently as a Magister, Vizier, or Arbiter.

Section 2: Minister Appointments

1. The Delegate may appoint Ministers to take on any of the roles of the Delegate and Advisors to advise the Delegate.

2. The Delegate or relevant Minister may further appoint Staffers to assist in the Delegate’s or Minister’s duties.

3. As a limit, the Delegate may only order a Vizier to assume the full Delegacy. The Delegate may then retake the Delegacy at any time.

4. Statutory apportionment of Regional Officer positions or powers shall take primacy over discretionary Minister appointments.

5. An individual that has assumed the Delegacy through a means other than that provided for by this Concordat shall not be recognized by the Government as Delegate.

Section 3: General Powers & Responsibilities

1. The Delegate shall eject and/or banish Nations from the Region who have committed a summary offense or have been sentenced as such for committing an indictable offense, by the Conclave, for the prescribed period of time.

2. The Delegate shall represent The East Pacific to foreign entities as Head of State.

3. The Delegate shall nominate Citizens to serve as Arbiters and Viziers subject to confirmation by a 2/3 majority vote of the Magisterium.

Section 4: Recruitment

1. The Delegate is fully empowered to create and send recruitment telegrams to Frontier regions on behalf of The East Pacific.

2. Exceptions to this power include any region with an embassy or treaty with The East Pacific, and any properties thereof.

3. Further exceptions to this power may be defined in law.

Article B: Legislative

Section 1: Establishment & Organization

1. This Concordat does hereby invest legislative authority in a Magisterium, which shall enact legislation and maintain Standing Orders of the Magisterium.

2. The Standing Orders of the Magisterium shall be considered legally binding within the Magisterium, unless contradicted by this Concordat or statutory law.

3. The induction or removal of a Magister shall follow the methods prescribed in the Standing Orders.

Section 2: Magisterium Leadership

1. Magisters shall elect among themselves a Provost, as outlined in the Standing Orders. The Provost shall not concurrently serve as Delegate, Grand Vizier, or Arbiter.

2. The Provost shall preside over the Magisterium, represent it to the Executive, the Praesidium and the Conclave, administrate Referendums, and keep a record of the laws of The East Pacific.

3. Any Magister may motion, with support from another Magister, to remove the Provost for misuse of their ability to make discretionary edits via a 1/2 majority vote - a successful motion shall initiate the vote with the Provost being suspended solely for the vote’s duration.

Section 3: Legislative Process

1. Enactment, amendment, or repeal of legislation, and both ratification and repeal of a treaty or declaration of war submitted by the Delegate, shall be decided by majority vote.

2. The Delegate may elect to, within ten days of passage in the Magisterium, veto or sign into immediate effect an enactment of a law, amendment, or repeal of legislation.

3. A lack of Delegate veto or signature within ten days of passage by Magisterium vote shall lead to the relevant law, amendment, or repeal of legislation being put into immediate effect after the ten day period expires.

4. The Magisterium may elect to override a Delegate veto of a law, amendment, or repeal of legislation by a 3/4 vote.

Section 4: Magisterium Confirmation and Removal of Officials

1. The Magisterium may confirm Arbiters nominated by the Delegate by a 2/3 vote.

2. The Magisterium may confirm Viziers nominated by the Delegate by a 2/3 vote.

3. The Magisterium may remove an Arbiter by a ⅔ majority for abuse of power, inactivity, or dereliction of duty.

Section 54: Magisterium Suspension of Officials

1. The Magisterium may suspend the Delegate, or a Vizier, or an Arbiter by a 2/3 vote for suspicion of indictable crimes or abuse of power.

2. Said suspension shall be considered an Indictment for the named offence or offences as prosecuted by the Provost.

3. Said suspension shall be lifted by any non-guilty decision of the Conclave or by majority vote of the Magisterium.

Section 65: Discretionary Edits

1. Should a spelling, grammar, naming, or formatting (in relation to the rest of the legislation’s format) error exist in the Concordat or statutory law, the Provost may make a discretionary direct edit to correct said error.

2. Discretionary direct edits cannot change the legal effect of the legislation.

3. Discretionary direct edits shall always be announced and recorded in a public area.

4. The Conclave may reverse any discretionary direct edits that violates this clause by a 2/3 majority vote.

Article C: Judicial

Section 1: Establishment & Organization

1. This Concordat does hereby invest judicial power in the Conclave, which shall be the interpreter of this Concordat and the judge and jury of Residents. It shall be tasked with Criminal Trials, Civil Trials, Concrete Review, and Abstract Review, which shall be collectively referred to as judicial questions.

2. The Standing Orders of the Conclave shall be considered legally binding within the Conclave, unless contradicted by this Concordat or statutory law The Conclave shall be convened for each judicial question and follow procedures set out in law.

3. The Conclave shall be composed of five Arbiters, which shall not serve concurrently as the Delegate or as a Magister Each convening of the Conclave shall consist of five certified Arbiters drawn by the Provost to address the question at hand. No Arbiter may serve on a judicial question in which they are the petitioner or respondent, prosecutor or defendant.

4. The Conclave shall decide on matters before it by majority vote of allthe chosen panel of Arbiters.

Section 2: Arbiter Confirmations and Re-Confirmations Certification

1. Every six months, on the first of January and July, discussion for re-confirmation of all sitting Arbiters shall be immediately begun by the Provost of the Magisterium Any Citizen may be certified as an Arbiter and be eligible to serve on the Conclave upon the accurate completion of a test administered by the Provost and the confirmation of their certification by the Praesidium.

2. Arbiters are appointed for a tenure lasting until the next re-confirmation of the cycle unless they are appointed in the month prior to re-confirmation, in which case they hold their seat until the second re-confirmation of the cycleAny Arbiter may renounce their certification at any time. Otherwise, certification will lapse after a year, and Arbiters must pursue recertification in order to retain eligibility.

3. After three days of discussion on re-confirmation, a vote will begin. All sitting Arbiters shall retain their seat for the duration of re-confirmationUpon taking office each term, the Provost shall devise a certification test in line with any provisions set forth in statutory law or the Standing Orders of the Magisterium. This test shall be submitted to the Magisterium for amendment and confirmation.

4. Should any Arbiter(s) fail the re-confirmation vote by the Magisterium, their seat is forfeited Should any Citizen fail the certification test or fail the confirmation vote of the Praesidium, they shall be barred from certification for a period of four months.

5. In the event of any vacancy in the Conclave, the Delegate must nominate a new Arbiter within seven daysIn the event that less than five certified Arbiters may serve on a judicial question, the Grand Vizier shall choose Magisters to fill vacancies.

6. An Arbiter cannot be nominated again for the same seat after their re-confirmation fails There shall be no limit to the amount of Arbiters which may be certified.

Section 3: Conclave LeadershipViceroy of the Conclave

1. The Arbiters shall elect from amongst themselves a Viceroy who shall oversee the proceedings of the Conclave, administrate elections in the Region, and represent the Conclave to the Executive, the Magisterium, and the Praesidium The Delegate shall nominate a certified Arbiter each year to serve as Viceroy, who shall be confirmed by a 2/3 majority vote of the Magisterium.

2. The Viceroy shall submit election regulation changes to the Magisterium for majority approvalThe Viceroy shall which serve on every judicial question, unless on trial, and shall be barred from submitting judicial questions.

3. The Viceroy shall be charged with maintaining the Standing Orders of the ConclaveThe Viceroy shall be charged with administering all votes of the Conclave, and shall represent it to the Executive, the Magisterium, and the Praesidium.

Section 4: General Judicial Powers & Limits

1. Concrete Review: The Conclave may rule on the actions of the Delegate or the Praesidiumthe actions of any government official and nullify any which are contrary to this Concordat or statutory law, or nullify any law passed by the Magisterium that is contrary to the Concordat or that violates proper legislative procedures.

2. The Conclave may nullify any law passed by the Magisterium that is contrary to this Concordat Abstract Review: The Conclave may rule on any proposed legislation or hypothetical action and approve them as in line with the Concordat or statutory law, which shall be pre-emptively binding. This power shall not be construed as to prevent the government from taking any action, but may be used as compelling evidence in future judicial questions.

3. Civil Trial: The Conclave may remove a Vizier or Magister by a 2/3 vote for abuse of power, inactivity, or dereliction of dutyreview an appeal of any action of a government official and rule on its validity as an exercise of legal power, as weighed against any malice. The Conclave by nullify any action which is not applied neutrally and is therefore determined to be prejudicial.

4. The Conclave cannot overturn any part of the Concordat.

5. Limits: The Conclave cannot overturn any part of the Concordat, nor The Conclave may not apply any legislation to any situation that occurred before the legislation was passed.

Section 4: Orders

1. The Conclave is empowered to compel an action, reversal, or suspension of action by Order with an indictable penalty for if the Order is not met.

2. Orders can be limited in any way by statutory law.

3. Orders can never conflict with the Concordat.

4. Orders may supersede statutory law, but only when a compelled action or reversal/suspension of such is necessary to maintain the status quo until an on-going trial concludes (upon which the relevant Order shall no longer be enforced).

Section 5: Trials

1. The Conclave may rule on the actions of any Resident to be in violation of this Concordat or of the indicted offences as prescribed by the laws of the Region and sentence those found guilty pursuant to statutory limits In Civil and Criminal Trials, the burden of proof shall be on the complainant or prosecution.

2. Trials in the Conclave shall be in open session.

3. The Conclave may, via a 2/3 vote, temporarily suspend any government official who is being tried for an indictable offense from exercising some or all of their governmental powers during trial.

4. Temporary suspensions shall be lifted at the end of said government official’s trial or lifted early by a 2/3 vote of the Conclave.

5. Any Arbiter with substantial prior involvement with a matter that goes to trial must recuse themselves from said trial.

6. If necessary, an Arbiter may be forcefully recused with the support of all other non-recused Arbiters.

7. Recused Arbiters may not perform Arbiter duties for any matter directly related to said trial.

Article D: Security

Section 1: Establishment & Organization

1. The Praesidium shall be invested the responsibilities of regional security, stability, and continuity of government.

2. The Praesidium shall be composed of Viziers, each who shall maintain a high level of endorsements in the region and serve for an indefinite period.

3. The Praesidium shall be charged with removing from power any Delegate suspended by the Magisterium, guilty of a summary or indictable offence, or any individual that has illegally seized the Delegacy.

4. The Standing Orders of the Praesidium shall be considered legally binding within the Praesidium, unless contradicted by this Concordat or statutory law.

Section 2: Praesidium Leadership

1. The Praesidium shall elect from among the Viziers a Grand Vizier, who shall preside over the Praesidium, administrate elections in the Region, and represent itthe Praesidium to the Magisterium, the Executive, and the Conclave.

2. The Grand Vizier shall oversee the security of the region as determined by this Concordat and the Standing Orders of the Praesidium.

3. The Grand Vizier shall be charged with maintaining the Standing Orders of the Praesidium.

4. The Grand Vizier cannotshall not serve concurrently as Delegate, Provost, or Arbiter.

Section 3: Delegate Suspension and Trial

1. The Praesidium may temporarily suspend the Delegate via a 2/3 majority vote if it believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the Delegate has acted to destroy this Concordat or has committed an abuse of power.

2. The temporary suspension must be confirmed within seventy-two hours by a decision of the Conclave.

3. The suspension shall be considered an Indictment for High Treason or abuse of power as prosecuted by the Grand Vizier or designee.

4. The suspension and Indictment shall be lifted by a non-guilty verdict of the Conclave, a 2/3 vote of the Praesidium, or a 4/5 vote of the Magisterium.

Section 4: Acting Delegate Selection

1. Should the Delegate be suspended or leave office by removal, resignation, or any other means, the Praesidium shall select a Vizier to serve as Acting Delegate.

2. At any point, the Magisterium may override the Praesidium’s selection and select a Vizier of their own choosing to serve as Acting Delegate via a majority vote.

3. Whether Praesidium or Magisterium appointed, the Acting Delegate may exercise any and all powers of the Delegacy until the Delegate is unsuspended or, if the Delegate left office, a new election for Delegate has been held.

4. A Vizier shall not be considered as serving concurrently as Delegate if serving as an Acting Delegate.

Article E: Residency, Citizenship, Rights

Section 1: Residents, Citizens, and Naturalization

1. A Resident is an individual with one or more nations residing within The East Pacific Region.

2. A Citizen is a Resident that has ratified this Concordat and undertaken Naturalization as defined by law.

3. The Grand Vizier, with assistance from the Praesidium, shall be charged with overseeing the naturalization process and maintaining a record of all Citizens pursuant to statutory law and, secondly, the Standing Orders of the Praesidium.

Section 2: Loss of Citizenship

1. Citizens who leave the Region may have their citizenship removed.

2. Citizens who leave the Region shall also surrender all governmental roles, except in circumstances explicitly provided for by law.

Section 3: General Rights

1. Each Resident shall be free to serve in any office in The East Pacific, as limited by World Assembly Membership, Concordat ratification, and Citizenship.

2. Each Resident may submit to the Magisterium a legislative proposal for public debate and Magisterium vote, excluding those which may only be proposed by a specific governmental entity as according to this Concordat or statutory law.

3. All Residents that have gained Citizenship may vote in Delegate elections and Concordat referenda, except in the case that their Citizenship was confirmed during the voting period for the election or referendum in question.

4. Each Resident may leave the region freely.

Section 4: Rights During Trial

1. Each Resident shall be given a swift and impartial trial by the Conclave if an indictment is made against them.

2. Any Resident may appeal to the Conclave via trial on any government action taken against them.

3. Residents may not be banned or ejected for any reason not stated in law or this Concordat.

4. Under no circumstances shall a Resident be tried twice for the same offence except in the event that new and compelling evidence has been presented to the Conclave, nor shall they be compelled to self-incriminate.

5. Residents shall not be denied the right to representation as limited by statutory law.

Article F: The Administration

Section 1: Recognition

1. The off-site administration team, “the Administration”, shall be understood to be the administration team of The East Pacific’s forum as listed here: ‪About - Tep Forum.

2. The Administration, and any moderation team or designated governmental officials appointed thereto, are those responsible for the technical maintenance of The East Pacific’s official Discord servers, forums, and other official services.

Section 2: Legal Proceedures

1. This Concordat, nor any subsequent laws thereunder, provides the government of The East Pacific no authority over the Administration.

2. Any ban, decided by the Administration in consensus for violations of the applicable rules of conduct related to the official off-site services, shall be considered a ban under the law for the same duration, and executed as such by the relevant regional authorities, without trial, hearing or appeal to the Conclave.

Article G: Regional Name and Emblem

Section 1: Name

1. The official name of the government of The East Pacific shall be the “Confederated East Pacific”.

2. “The Confederacy of The East Pacific” or “The Confederated States of The East Pacific” may be used interchangeably with The East Pacific’s official name.

Section 2: Emblem

1. The regional symbol of The East Pacific shall be the Mason Compass (without the “G” inscribed in its center).

2. The regional colors shall be any variant of green and yellow.

Article H: Enactment and Amendment

Section 1: Establishment & Amendment Procedure

1. This Concordat is understood to have been established on January 11th, 2009, taking effect following a ratification vote of nations of The East Pacific as overseen by the Elders.

2. The Magisterium may propose a Proposal for Amendment to this Concordat by a 2/3 vote

3. A Proposal for Amendment successfully proposed by the Magisterium must receive the support of 2/3 of those Citizens voting in a referendum administered by the Conclave to be ratified and become a legally binding Concordat amendment.

4. A legally binding Concordat amendment ratified by the above process shall be known as an “Amendment” or as a “Concordat Amendment”.

Section 2: Specifications

1. Upon Amendment Referendum close, a Proposal for Amendment that gained the necessary support during the Amendment Referendum shall immediately be considered an Amendment.

2. Proposals for Amendments shall be defined as changes, additions and/or removal of provisions within this Concordat or replacements of this Concordat that have not been ratified in an Amendment Referendum.

3. A Proposal for Amendment is not binding law unless it becomes an Amendment.

[theclockworkvixen]

I like the idea. Kinda feels like the Jury system, which I’m definitely not opposed to.

[Lucklife]

I kind of see Arbiter as the… stable branch? Something that’s supposed to be kept isolated from the fiery temperments of the shifting magisteriums. The cloistered elite with long term visions in mind to make sure things follow the conk.

Changing Arbiters each time would be quite a step away from such a vision
What would you say to this?

[Zukchiva]

mfw i should be doing hw and this is too intriguing

My questions/concerns as I read through this:

1. The Provost selecting the Arbiters concerns me. I think we need to devise the basics of a selection method for a future SOM amendment before this conk proposal to amend goes to vote, if it does. Provost is a highly abusable position in this case and - as we’ve seen - pretty achievable for subversives to get.

2. I personally don’t think re-certification is necessary - TEP law changes all the time but IMO if you’re Arbiter certified you’ll be well equipped to review the law (and thus be aware of any changes upon review. The difficulty with TEP law isn’t nessecarily knowing it but knowing where to FIND things - and the areas where general legal concepts reside tend to stay static, although their specifics alter over time. This goes for more specific concepts like treason and broader things like where one finds statutory law versus prior judicial reviews.

   I think a better system would be to just have the Provost “flush” out the certification list so to speak, checking in every year w/ everyone to make sure they’re oki doki serving as Arbiters if called upon - or not!

3. I disagree with the Provost making a test every term - that’s a huge ask. I agree the Magisterium should confirm the test, but only the questions and let the Provost decide the answers as time progresses. And the test should not have to be updated often so long as the questions are general; the provost can just keep an internal answer key that they update as time goes by w/o Magi confirmation. So just let the provost update the test questions when they need to over time, ofc w/ magi consent. The respondee’s test can be released publically so we can fact check the provost’s grading if needed.

   Alternatively, it could be a good idea to make it so it is the Viceroy’s job to administer this test and the list itself - and only give that duty to the Provost when there is no Viceroy available to do it. to this end perhaps the Viceroy can be an exception to needing Arbiter certification - we’ve done fine appointing Arbiters w/o tests at present, anyhow.

4. I don’t think it’s nessecarily a good idea for the prae to hold votes on every certification, esp. if it’s to be renewed. A better option would (IMO) be the Provost notifies the prae of a new certification, and if no Vizier objects in a week then the certificatio is solidified. If there is a Vizier objection, that triggers a prae vote.

   I think this would be a good idea even if my suggestion of one-time certificatio is taken up.

5. Section 3.2 has a grammar error

6. I’m not sure abstract review makes sense because while a decision could be binding now the law can change in the future. Under this model it may make more sense to just get rid of advisory questions (which I assume this is replacing?) and just let the Magi legislate on the issue.

7. Section 4 clause three should say “the conclave shall nullify”. Also - could you specify on what is the difference between a Civil Trial and a Concrete Review?

[Mangegneithe]

That that’s kinda the point. Being an Arbiter is lonely. It’s as blocked off from the rest of the government as the Delegate with like 10% of the activity and fun/exciting shit. It’s not really worth it for the Arbiter, particularly since this is a game.

I’d also say that “isolated from the fiery temperments of the shifting magisteriums” is a great thing to want of our judiciary but is functionally impossible. We have Arbiters advising Delegates on vetos, proposing legislation, and speaking out for or against certain things. We have Arbiters as Ministers anyway.

Even if we did restrict them even more and banned all of those things, that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t have the same thoughts and ideas, or the same reactions to legislative debates. Even IRL, where there’s heavy restrictions, we see judges that are heavily influenced by politics. The fact is, people are going to have opinions.

In my experience, the only way to ensure decisions are made without regard for fiery temperaments, individual wills, or strong personal biases is to expand the amount of people involved in a decision, so everyone balances each other out. This idea would accomplish that more effectively than our current model.

I also think the long term vision and Concordat adherence are something that’s not diluted but rather strengthened – more people would be made to consider these questions than ever before. Ideally, that increases proficiency with the law and therefore creates a regional culture that has a lot of the qualities we’d want from the judiciary.

For the old, watchful elites, we have the Praesidium – skilled in understanding and preventing attacks on our government. Therefore, we have room in the Conclave to make it more accessible and more flexible. It doesn’t need to be populated by unmoving bastions of institutional knowledge. That, I think, is actually a benefit. Communities and cultures evolve and so too do interpretations of law.

Anyway that’s just my two cents on the issue. I’m open to more questions and other ideas.

[Zukchiva]

I’d like to add that the Conclave may not always share the same principles as the general community - this was seen in the Concrisis of 2022, when many individuals including then-former Arbiters would’ve taken a legal interpretation that differed from the standing Conclave. It’s been widely recognized that the Conclave’s decision then was against the legal understanding held by the majority of the community.

Thus, I agree with Aiv in that it is beneficial to have this revolving system in the sense that it helps the Conclave hold legal interpretations more in line with the general region’s.

[Mangegneithe]

@Zukchiva

The Provost selecting the Arbiters concerns me. I think we need to devise the basics of a selection method for a future SOM amendment before this conk proposal to amend goes to vote, if it does. Provost is a highly abusable position in this case and - as we’ve seen - pretty achievable for subversives to get.

This is why I wanted the Praesidium as a failsafe, but I did also envision some procedures laid out in SOM or law to add some restrictions/guiding principles to the exams, such as 50% reading comprehension, 50% simple interpretation and/or 50% Concordat, 50% Statute. Idk. Maybe even put the whole damn test in law, and the Provost just grade it?

@Zukchiva

I personally don’t think re-certification is necessary - TEP law changes all the time but IMO if you’re Arbiter certified you’ll be well equipped to review the law (and thus be aware of any changes upon review. The difficulty with TEP law isn’t nessecarily knowing it but knowing where to FIND things - and the areas where general legal concepts reside tend to stay static, although their specifics alter over time. This goes for more specific concepts like treason and broader things like where one finds statutory law versus prior judicial reviews.

That’s fair. I can remove that part.

@Zukchiva

I think a better system would be to just have the Provost “flush” out the certification list so to speak, checking in every year w/ everyone to make sure they’re oki doki serving as Arbiters if called upon - or not!

Works for me.

@Zukchiva

I disagree with the Provost making a test every term - that’s a huge ask. I agree the Magisterium should confirm the test, but only the questions and let the Provost decide the answers as time progresses.

The idea was that it would mostly stay the same, but just have to be reconfirmed and amended lightly.

@Zukchiva

The respondee’s test can be released publically so we can fact check the provost’s grading if needed.

Me likely. Can/should be in law.

@Zukchiva

Alternatively, it could be a good idea to make it so it is the Viceroy’s job to administer this test and the list itself - and only give that duty to the Provost when there is no Viceroy available to do it. to this end perhaps the Viceroy can be an exception to needing Arbiter certification - we’ve done fine appointing Arbiters w/o tests at present, anyhow.

I didn’t think of that lol. Mainly because I only thought to keep the Viceroy position after I dreamt up the whole system in the shower yesterday. I will say as an aside that I like the idea of making Provost more powerful/important but that may be a conversation for another day.

@Zukchiva

I don’t think it’s nessecarily a good idea for the prae to hold votes on every certification, esp. if it’s to be renewed. A better option would (IMO) be the Provost notifies the prae of a new certification, and if no Vizier objects in a week then the certificatio is solidified. If there is a Vizier objection, that triggers a prae vote.

Hm. That’s not bad. Very Robert’s Rules.

@Zukchiva

Section 3.2 has a grammar error

And?

@Zukchiva

I’m not sure abstract review makes sense because while a decision could be binding now the law can change in the future.

Tbf…same could be said for Concrete Review.

@Zukchiva

Under this model it may make more sense to just get rid of advisory questions (which I assume this is replacing?) and just let the Magi legislate on the issue.

Yeah, the idea was AQs but strengthened. For the record, this is something that France and many countries IRL do, but I definitely see it as a little pointless – and entirely unrelated to the main idea here.

@Zukchiva

Section 4 clause three should say “the conclave shall nullify”. Also - could you specify on what is the difference between a Civil Trial and a Concrete Review?

I’m going to be honest with you Zukchiva I have no fucking clue. What the fuck is a civil trial? Does anyone fucking know?

[Mangegneithe]

@Mangegneithe

@Zukchiva

I’m not sure abstract review makes sense because while a decision could be binding now the law can change in the future.

Actually for the record let me add: The one thought I was thinking while I wrote that section was that it would have saved a lot of trouble if we had an abstract review on the Repeal + Replace question. If it came out to be illegal (despite that being factually incorrect) we could have adjusted to fix it and if it came out to be legal, then the future Conclave would have been bound by that. The idea is to avoid problems before they arise when it comes to major decisions/changes.

[Zukchiva]

why pull out my full government name like that ;w;

will respond l8r

[Mangegneithe]

I didn’t even say Yura.

Zukchiva Yura.

There we go.

…

Zukchiva Yura Stupidhead.

[Zukchiva]

Maybe even put the whole damn test in law, and the Provost just grade it?

This would probably be the best option yeah

The idea was that it would mostly stay the same, but just have to be reconfirmed and amended lightly.

That makes more sense. Nonetheless, I don’t think there’s a need for it to be reconfirmed every term because if it’s made correctly then it should be mostly bullet proof to change in terms of questions - so thus the answers would change, which IMO doesn’t need Magi confirmation given my prior suggestion of making respondents’ test public. Just letting the Magi alter it when things get too wild on an ad-hoc (heh) basis is fine.

Questions I had in mind were basal concepts like:
“Describe what are the typical requirements for Citizenship?”
“What is the definition of Treason?” [since this rarely changes]
“Provide a link to a Judicial Review the Conclave conducted in 2020”.
“What is the name of one active treaty TEP is engaged in?”
“By what majority must Magisters confirm Viziers nominated by the Delegate?”
“Under which branch is the EPPS and EPSA housed, respectively?”

Things that test your knowledge in the sense of you either know them very well OR are able to actively hunt those facts down. But these are also questions that won’t need changing for years, probably. That kinda thang.

I will say as an aside that I like the idea of making Provost more powerful/important but that may be a conversation for another day.

agreed on the other day bit but my main concern here is just workload burden, since it can be a hard job already - esp. when one cant get good deputies

Tbf…same could be said for Concrete Review.

True, but the difference is that CR is a remedy and has a legal act. An AR (like an AQ) is just used to determine if legislating is necessary or not. So IMO it isn’t worth bothering a gathering of a Conclave when the Magi can just legislate to fix the issue.

I’m going to be honest with you Zukchiva I have no fucking clue. What the fuck is a civil trial? Does anyone fucking know?

That’s valid. IG it’s just difference in format, which ig is good enough to keep around

Actually for the record let me add: The one thought I was thinking while I wrote that section was that it would have saved a lot of trouble if we had an abstract review on the Repeal + Replace question. If it came out to be illegal (despite that being factually incorrect) we could have adjusted to fix it and if it came out to be legal, then the future Conclave would have been bound by that. The idea is to avoid problems before they arise when it comes to major decisions/changes

that’s a good point actually, nvm on ARs then

[Zukchiva]

Yura smelly 1

[Lucklife]

Then I want to ask, why Ad-Hoc conclave, and why not let the 6 month thing remain, but let conclave also serve as magisters.

If you want more participation in conclave, then you can make the delegate re-select new conclave people instead of it just being a reconfirmation

[Mangegneithe]

I sorta address that in the post – I would be in favor of that if more people prefer it, but this also brings other benefits, like making Conclave less coup-able, getting more people involved in judicial activity, dealing with conflicts of interest better, and dealing with high volume caseloads.

[Mangegneithe]

I’d love more thoughts, ideas, and suggestions before ironing out the details of the amendment.

[theclockworkvixen]

I have spoken with Aivintis in private, and he told me that he is alright with me doing whatever I wish with this thread. Seeing as there hasn’t been any activity here for a while, I’m making the decision to close this thread unless Aiv chooses to return to TEP Main or messages me that he would like to reopen the thread.