For the record, I’m voting NAY since I also don’t wish to support a nomination for an Arbiter that agrees with the Concrisis ruling. I have no other real qualms about you as a nominee, though.
Coming back to this while the vote is ongoing, I would like to say that I see and understand your point, and how my earlier comment was misguided.
I was looking at the situation from a surface level perspective, rather than applying this scenario to actual law and the judiciary, which I acknowledge can be a rather crippling flaw in an Arbiter candidate.
I know it’s probably a bit late for me to comment on this, but taking the time for me to reflect on this conversation has led to this comment I am making now, and I swear to do better should the vote pass.
If there’s time and you want to provide that in depth consideration, provided your examination aligns with my moral and legal principles, my vote’s not set in stone
As you and Bach have said, the original ruling on the Judicial Review that sparked the initial ConCrisis was illegal, which as Bach pointed out was because the Conclave simply did not have the power nor the jurisdiction to rule on such a case to begin with. At first, I did not see that, until I took the same scenario and put it into a more understandable kind of perspective.
The Judiciary cannot rule on something of that scale, simply because it would be a massive amount of overreach (after all, the Concordat establishes and therefore involves every single branch of the government. This is why the referendum process for Concordat amendments is in place: that way most (if not all) branches of government have a say, as far as I am aware). The way the initial verdict was presented made it a bit difficult for me to interpret that, but, as I said, putting this exact same scenario into a real-world setting, in addition to yours and Bach’s comments, helped me. Because of this, I can confidently say that I heavily disagree with the original ruling, and I’m glad that they did, in fact, overturn it.
I apologize if this isn’t the kind of answer you’d like, but it’s late (1:05 AM as of the time of writing) and I kinda wanted to get this out of the way before I forgot (while still putting some actual thought behind it). If you’re looking for something in particular, just let me know and I’ll get to it in the morning (or after work, depending on when).
Just a general point:
Remember, I wasn’t around when the ConCrisis happened, so I don’t have experience with that sort of thing first-hand. If my opinions seem off, then that might be why.
I know the confirmation vote is underway, but I do have one additional question for the nominee:
Do you agree with the ruling in JoWhatup v TEP? Why or why not?
If I remember correctly, that was a Not-Guilty verdict on charges of treason and omission, correct?
Indeed
Before I continue, I owe the Magisterium an apology. I should have been more active in discussing this nomination. Previous comments that I have made were not made with the consideration of the full situation. I need to do better. That’s on me.
I have taken some time to think about the matter, and just out of practicality, I believe I am going to vote in favor. Folly has shown an ability to adjust to the circumstances (see Concrisis statements; comments re: the proposed OGO repeal that fell short simply because nobody got around to actually organizing the evidence). I can sing her praises about her time as Deputy Provost under my leadership until the cows come home, as I’m sure I have a great many times. Additionally…the way things are now, who else is gonna do it, y’know? We keep 5 Arbiters so that if one is stupid the other four can un-stupid them. Worst-case, Folly will learn. That’s just how things work.
Folly has shown a necessary commitment to the Concordat and seeing all sides of this Government’s functions. I see little issue with bringing her on given the circumstances.
A verdict of Not-Guilty, in my mind, doesn’t make sense, at least for the charge of Omission. If someone knows that someone else is about to commit treason or otherwise engage in hostile action against TEP, regardless of whether or not they hold citizenship, then it is that person’s legal obligation to speak up, again regardless of their citizenship status. The Conclave’s ruling that Jo didn’t have citizenship nor any diplomatic ties at the time, therefore they had no legal obligation to our laws, in my honest opinion, makes no sense, especially considering, as AMOM put it in his appeal request…
Because, if this were to become precedent…
All in all, I feel that I side with AMOM on the outcome of that trial, at least on the Omission charge. I, however, do agree with the High Treason verdict, as (as far as I understand it) the Presiding Arbiter of that case did make some sound points.
I hope this answers your question!
(Also if formatting or anything is weird I’m sorry, there’s no preview on mobile and my home wifi is down for whatever reason… also had to repost because it didn’t reply properly…)
Lovely comment, AC wheeze
good enough for me, voted changed to AYE
Now, whilst I’m new to the Magisterium and consequently lack the ability to vote on this nomination, I nevertheless feel compelled to comment after taking some time to try to understand what the “ConCrisis” was and why it’s such a big deal for a prospective Arbiter to answer questions on it in a specific manner. A lot’s been said on this in this thread, in fact.
The “ConCrisis” is, by this point, not the most recent of issues. However, it’s recent enough for me to take note of something interesting. One of the first things I noticed after reading the scathing analyses of Folly’s response remains that the individual serving as Viceroy — yes, the very same Conclave Folly would like to become an Arbiter in — at the time of the “ConCrisis” and not only permitted the Judicial Review to be taken up, but also presided over the ruling that has since been roundly criticised as jurisdictionally flawed is also our Viceroy today. I’d say that even in light of the fact one of the most experienced judicial minds in the region is still a member of the Conclave today despite having, at the time, initially mishandled the matter, it seems unreasonable to treat Folly’s answer (which was a fairly prudent and safe response because it agreed with the past judgements of those in the office she aspires to hold), years after the fact and without having lived through it first-hand, as disqualifying in itself.
However, let’s say that it isn’t unreasonable, and that I’m merely downplaying the relevance and importance of Folly’s reply. What’s more relevant, in my view, is how Folly responded to criticism. Unlike certain elements involved in the “ConCrisis” itself, which spiralled precisely because some refused to take into consideration how their decision could’ve affected others (even after taking over twice the maximum amount of legal time necessary for a review), Folly has demonstrated the one quality that might well have prevented the entire debacle: listening and trying to comprehend — with some, let’s say, guidance from other Magisters or Arbiters — how her verdict might’ve been erroneous or possibly dangerous.
Folly acknowledged her misstep, reconsidered her position with the benefit of this feedback, and clarified her reasoning. That sort of receptiveness is one I wouldn’t call a weakness but a strength, particularly for an Arbiter, whose duty is to weigh opposing arguments and reach conclusions informed by ponderance rather than let themselves be deceived personal obstinacy.
Again, this is where I feel like the “trick” dimension of the question Aiv asked comes into play for me. If Folly were to double down on her decision, she could be considered “inflexible” and unwilling to hear what other organs of the government and citizens have to say. Not fit to be an Arbiter. If Folly uses this as a learning experience and pays attention to what other Magisters and Arbiters have to say, she’s “fold[ing] to political pressures”. Not fit to be an Arbiter, either. There doesn’t seem like a “right way” to get out of the pit here.
Furthermore, some have pointed out that the mindset behind this nomination is reportedly improper. That perhaps the reasoning behind Folly’s nomination is not that she is sufficiently qualified. To that, I’d respond with a few things. Firstly, for any “natural growth” (Luck dixit) to occur, Folly has to grow into the Arbiter role. Secondly, for that growth to occur — i.e., for Folly to become an impartial and conscientious Arbiter — one must be determined, one must have energy.
Once more, I am new to The East Pacific. However, from reading the thread, it appears that Folly had the energy, dedication, and skillset to thrive as a Magister and member of Cabinet. With this knowledge, are there really many other people with this level of understanding of the way the different bodies of the region operate and both the willingness and energy to be a receptive Arbiter? [insert joke about people not wanting to become Arbiters]
Sure, perhaps Folly’s answer isn’t the one you’d expect an Arbiter to give, but to assert that this says more about her sagacity and legal intelligence than her record, denying her the chance to grow as an official in the region — even when one knows that due to her very vocal aspirations to become a Delegate she’ll have to be held accountable and give this role her all — doesn’t seem fair to me.
After all, if listening is folly, then perhaps we could use a little more of it in the Conclave.
Okay that’s genius, I love that
As a general response to Ernest’s idea that asking about the ConCrisis is somehow unreasonable, I’ll cross-post what I stated on Discord:
The bolded part is mine.
In my view, one of the best ways to prevent a repeat ConCrisis or other, perhaps less extreme but still severe law interpretations, is to put into place Arbiters who do NOT read the law strictly by its words and textual limits, but also take into context more grander principles that establish law like community well-being or popular sovereignty.
The ConCrisis occurred because more Arbiters (as a note, acting in good-faith) than not could not see any reasonable legal interpretation beyond the fact that the Concordat was ‘repealled’ when such power was never granted to the Citizenry. I believe this stems from how they ruled the law - strictly based on what the text said and that alone. They simply could not read the law in any other way.
Asking Arbiters if they agree with the ConCrisis ruling is thus a limitus test to see how they interpret the law.
There is merit to the fact that upon a negative answer to the question, a potential nominee can be stuck if they change their answer. There’s also the fact the nominee can lie [albeit we probably have bigger problems if someone is willing to lie to become an Arbiter… likely that person is trying to coup us down the line or is simply a bad fit to participate in TEP gov]. This could be mitigated by asking another question that tests the same principles, but ultimately the same concerns remain. One solution is to encourage people asking that question to be forgiving if an Arbiter nominee changes their answer upon deeper analysis, which I think is a reasonable request.
In any case, as I said prior - I do think it’s a good prevention measure and one we should continue doing, despite its flaws. If another Concrisis-esque situation came up, I’d rather say that at the very least I tried to select for Arbiters who WOULDN’T choose the destructive legal interpretation, as compared to washing my hands in terms of screening for that tendency.
I therefore reject the idea that the question is “unreasonable”. It is far from so, and should remain a standard question any Arbiter nominee must answer before ascension to the Conclave.
Unlike certain elements involved in the “ConCrisis” itself, which spiralled precisely because some refused to take into consideration how their decision could’ve affected others (even after taking over twice the maximum amount of legal time necessary for a review), Folly has demonstrated the one quality that might well have prevented the entire debacle: listening and trying to comprehend — with some, let’s say, guidance from other Magisters or Arbiters — how her verdict might’ve been erroneous or possibly dangerous.
In the interest of good faith I will say “certain elements” reads like a slight against Shadow, though I apologize if that isn’t the intent. You may wish to change your wording with that.
That being said, as a point of clarification - the Arbiters who voted in favor of the ConCrisis decision knew full well how damaging their verdict was. But they viewed the damage of leaving this decision for later as even worse. In their eyes, there was no other legal arguments [they did consider other people’s arguments, which I can safely assume because I saw them do so for other cases], so it would be better to have the verdict handed down now (when TEP is relatively stable and okay) rather than later periods of time (where TEP may be unstable and/or vulnerable to coupers).
The Arbiters involved listened. But listening does not equate acceptance. And, because of their legalistic principles/framework, they came to the conclusion that there was only one possible verdict and thus it’d be better to “rip the bandaid” off so to speak, than have a festering wound.
THAT is why this question is so key. It’s not really a question of an Arbiter’s flexibility or legal prowess. It’s a simple test: in an extreme legal situation, will they be able to make a reasonable legal interpretation that does NOT harm TEP? Or will they only be able to read the law in the strictest possible sense, and thus be at risk of causing a future Con-Crisis level event?
To be very blunt, the Con-Crisis can occur really again at any time because the legal interpretations made by those same Arbiters nullifies basically anything we can possibly do to fight against how a strict textualist would interpret the ConCrisis decision, short of just creating a new constitution. We can of course simply remove Arbiters, but considering that a) even a temporary ConCrisis decision is devastating [as we saw] and b) this region treats removing a government official like a radioactive substance [thus prolonging the duration of any ConCrisis decision that would inevitably be reversed somehow], it’s important to screen Arbiters to mitigate the possibility of that happening again.
Perhaps I didn’t express myself correctly, but what I hold to be “unreasonable” is basing one’s judgement entirely and exclusively on Folly’s response to the question, not asking the question itself. The latter I consider a very valid question, and an interesting one at that.
I’m convinced the scare of possibly failing nomination, coupled with the valuable input and lesson from the likes of Aiv or Bach, will make this thread one Folly will keep in mind during her time as Arbiter. As aforementioned, to truly grow one needs to be determined and persevering. I believe Folly’s displayed that in this thread alone, if we want to ignore her successful past in our region’s government.
As stated above, that wasn’t my argument, or at least not what I intended to convey.
In truth, having been absent at the time and having no knowledge of how private discussions unfolded at the time, I wrote “certain elements” to precisely avoid implicating anyone directly. Shadow, if you’re reading this, it was not meant as an insult towards you, or anyone in particular, for the matter. I’m assuming not everyone acted in a considerate manner then, and as such my remark is aimed at those who didn’t.
Of course. That’s why I specified that it wasn’t solely Folly’s ability to listen to feedback that I was lauding, but also her receptiveness. I believe I say it twice, too. I fully concur with what you say on certain people being capable of listening to many things but information ultimately entering through one ear and blowing away through the other. That’s precisely a characteristic I’d deem unfit for an Arbiter.
Zukchiva, I am in broad agreement with the things you say; the question asked was a fair one to expect a professional answer from, and in some ways, the “ConCrisis” remains relevant today. If anything, as something to take note of and learn from. What struck me as strange was just how many Magisters hinged their votes on an otherwise solid nomination (as stated by practically all) on one mere answer.
My issue is not and has never been with whether or not she changed her mind, but rather whether or not she agreed with the legal basis of the ruling. As far as I’ve seen she’s yet to agree with my own analysis. I don’t think that’s inflexible I just think it’s a dangerous legal perspective.
I would add that Shadow was one of the strongest voices against the ruling, even as Viceroy of the Conclave during the Crisis. Everyone who supported it is gone, due to failed renominations or resignations following the event.
Fair enough, sorry for not understanding clearly oop
In any case, I do find it reasonable to reach aye or nay on someone’s answer to that question, based on my prior stances. Perfectly fine if you disagree, I’m mostly stating it for Magisters who may be on the fence regarding the matter. As I said prior, the legalistic perspective that makes one agree with the ConCrisis ruling theoretically puts us at risk of a future event of a severe caliber, which I do not have an interest in allowing for. When an Arbiter nominee expresses a legal mindset that was almost the sole purpose for why the ConCrisis occurred in the first place, I simply don’t think they should be an Arbiter regardless of their other redeeming traits. It may be harsh but at least in my mind, not really unreasonable.
As I said prior, given folly’s change in opinion I have voted aye :p. I don’t really wish to be strict with who gets to be an Arbiter (as I said in Discord, Folly’s a more qualified nominee than I was when I was first nominated), but a nominee’s legalistic stance is pretty key to me and thus is the main factor in my votes.