Standing Orders Discussion

[Zukchiva]

(If you have a better title suggestion below, say so please! :D)

As does every legislative document after a lot of time expires, the Standing Orders deserves a chance to be looked at and (if needed) fixed. And if nothing else, to remind Magisters some of the important sections and orders that are a part of the Standing Orders that not all of us may know.

For now, here’s the proposed amendment I have to get us started! Since I don’t have much time, this is a very quick draft. If any Magister feels that they wish to make separate amendments, or even an entirely different draft, by all means, please post it here! (Please note I may have not highlighted all the changes, due to mistakes, but I have highlighted all the changes I currently have down.)

— Begin quote from ____

Standing Orders of the Magisterium

SECTION I. ACCEPTANCE OF MAGISTERS

…1.1- Citizens wishing to become Magisters must do all of the following:
…1.1.1- Recite the Magister’s Pledge in the appropriate designated location in the Magisterium sub-forum;
…1.1.2- Be a Citizen of TEP for at least one month prior to application;
…1.1.3- Be a WA Member with their TEP resident nation;
…1.1.4- Supply the name of their resident WA nation, except if their WA nation is involved in EPSA, in which case it may remain classified;
…1.1.5- Complete a Public Official Disclosure Form;
…1.1.6- Have posted at least 10 times in the TEP forum or at least 30 times in the Regional Message Board.
……1.1.7- Have received an endorsement from at least one East Pacific resident in support of becoming a Magister.
…1.2- Citizens wishing to become Magisters must have accomplished at least 3 of the following:
…1.2.1- Endorse the Delegate and all Viziers;
…1.2.2- Comment on, or debate legislation in the Magisterium as a citizen three times;
…1.2.3- Complete a course, practicum, tenure or academic publication in The East Pacific University;
…1.2.4- Contribute to ‘TEP Evolved’ subforum five times and have their contributions verified by a roleplay moderator;
…1.2.5- Join and contribute to an Executive ministry, service or agency, including the EPSA, evidenced by recognition of contribution by an Executive minister or, in case of EPSA, the General.
…1.3-The Magisterium shall, by majority vote, decide whether the new Candidate-Magister will be accepted.
…1.4- Citizens who are denied acceptance into the Magisterium may appeal the decision and demand a referendum from all citizens of The East Pacific:
…1.4.1- The appellant must present a petition for Regional Referendum on Magister Acceptance to the Conclave, endorsed by at least 5 citizens;
…1.4.2- The petition will be reviewed by the Conclave and if valid, the Conclave will schedule a regional election;
…1.4.3- If elected by a majority vote of the citizens voting in the election, the appellant will be accepted into the Magisterium.

SECTION II. LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE

…2.1- Any citizen or Magister may propose a bill, resolution, or amendment to the Concordat and the Magisterium shall debate that proposal immediately.
…2.2- The Magisterium shall continue to debate that proposal until a Magister has motioned to vote and another Magister has seconded that motion. Any such motion shall only be valid if 48 hours have passed after the bill, resolution, or amendment to the Concordat has been proposed.
…2.3- A Magister may motion to amend proposed legislation at any time during debate;
…2.3.1- If the author(s) of the legislation accept the amendment upon its proposal, in which case the legislation shall be amended as motioned without a vote;
…2.3.2- If that motion is not accepted by the author(s), yet receives a second, the Magisterium shall vote on the amendment for not less than 72 and not more than 96 hours;
…2.3.3- Were the motion to receive majority support, the legislation shall stand amended as motioned.
…2.4- The same procedure shall be used for nominations by the Delegate as well as motions to overrule a Delegate’s veto.

SECTION III. PROVOST AND DEPUTY PROVOST

…3.1- The Magisterium shall immediately act to appoint a Provost from among its members;
…3.1.1- An election is to be held whenever the position is vacant or at the end of the Provost’s three-month term; to be orchestrated by the previous Provost or a representative thereof.
…3.2- When the position has become vacant, a 48-hour period for nominations is to be held. A Magister may decline nomination for the position of Provost.
…3.3- The Magisterium shall then vote for a period of 72 hours and the candidate receiving the most votes shall be elected as Provost.
…3.3.1- Should the election result in a tie, and neither candidate concedes, all Magisters who previously abstained must cast a vote in favor of a candidate;
…3.3.2- If a tie persists after forced voting, the vote is opened to citizens for 24 hours;
…3.3.3- If a tie exists after the citizen’s vote, the Magisterium may conclude a random selection which grants each tied candidate equal chances.
…3.4- The Provost shall name a Magister as Deputy Provost, who shall assume the Provost’s duties temporarily in the case the Provost is absent for more than 48 hours for any reason.

SECTION IV. VOTING

…4.1- When a motion to vote has been seconded in accordance with subsections 2.1 and 2.2, the Provost shall then officiate a voting period of one week, or 168 hours, upon the motion.
…4.2- Each time a Magister votes, they must also explicitly supply their WA nation in the same post.
…4.3- A motion shall pass if a majority of votes are in favour of it:
…4.3.1- This order is notwithstanding any special requirements set out by the Concordat for certain types of votes, and in the case of extended requirement, the quorum shall always be achieved.
…4.4- A vote will be concluded when:
…4.4.1- The prescribed voting period ends;
…4.4.2- The Provost concludes the voting period, given that all eligible Magisters have voted.
…4.5- When a vote has concluded, the Provost shall then proceed as provided by the Concordat, according to the type of vote.
…4.6- Quorum numbers and voting eligibility will apply to the Magisterium size and its members prior to the voting period.
…4.7- Any Magister that was approved during any voting period shall not have their vote counted for that particular voting period.

SECTION V. QUORUM AND UNANIMOUS CONSENT

…5.1- In order for any exercise of the Magisterium’s powers, a quorum must be shown to exist. If the quorum is not achieved, the vote is considered ineffective and may not be acted upon.
…5.2- To achieve quorum, at least 1/2 of eligible Magisters must have made their presence known during a vote, by providing their vote or abstention.
……5.2.1- Notwithstanding subsection 3.3.2 and subsection 5.2, abstentions shall not affect the outcome of a vote.
…5.3- In the case of a vote under section 8 to remove a Magister for inactivity, any Magister who has not logged into their forum account for more than 72 hours may be excluded for the purposes of determining if a quorum exists for that vote.
…5.4- Where a Magister has made a motion on any procedural matter or suspension of procedural rules for the purposes of expediting the conduct of the Magisterium’s business, the Provost may then choose to proceed accordingly, provided there is no objection within 72 hours of the motion being made.
…5.5- Orders 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4 notwithstanding, where the Magisterium is in receipt of an Executive Nomination by the Delegate, a negative consensus voting period of ten days shall be held in which any Magister may object or move for a Section IV vote:
…5.5.1- Should no Magister object or motion for a Section IV vote, the nomination is to be considered accepted by unanimous vote.
…5.5.2- Executive Nominations for Viziers shall be excepted from this procedure.
…5.6- Under no circumstances shall this procedure of unanimous consent be used to pass legislation or exercise any of the Magisterium’s powers beyond consideration of Executive Nominations.

SECTION VI. CLOSED SESSIONS

…6.1- A Magister may move that a matter be considered in closed session, and if the motion is seconded and a majority of votes are in favour of doing so, the Magisterium shall consider that matter in closed session.
…6.2- The Foreign Affairs Committee is established as a committee of the whole Magisterium and it shall always meet in closed session.
…6.2.1- The Foreign Affairs Committee will be chaired by the Provost.
…6.2.2- The Delegate and any minister(s) he/she designates will be ex officio members of the committee without voting privileges.
…6.2.3- The Delegate or the Provost may initiate a meeting of the committee.
…6.2.4- The Magisterium may not ratify a treaty or declaration of war in a closed session of the committee.

SECTION VII. ABSENCE AND REMOVAL OF PROVOSTS

…7.1- If both the Provost and Deputy Provost have been absent for a period exceeding 72 hours:
…7.1.1- The current active, and longest serving, member of the Magisterium shall assume the Provost’s duties temporarily;
…7.1.2- Said member will be recognized as an “Interim Provost” and carry the duties of the Provost until another Provost is selected.
…7.2- Any Magister may move for the removal of the Provost and upon a Magister seconding this motion, the Deputy Provost shall officiate a vote of a period of 72 hours. The Provost may then be removed by majority vote.
…7.3- The Deputy Provost may be removed and replaced by the Provost at any time.

SECTION VIII. REMOVAL OF MAGISTERS

…8.1-The Provost may, from time to time, hold a roll call and require that Magisters respond within 1 week, or 168 hours, to confirm their activity:
…8.1.1-Any Magister not responding to such a roll call may then be eligible to be suspended or removed by a majority vote of the active Magisters.
…8.2- A Magister may be immediately suspended by the Provost and subject to removal by a majority vote of the active Magisters if:
…8.2.1- the Magister has not logged into the forums for more than two weeks and has not informed the Magisterium of said absence;
…8.2.2- the Magister has not voted or confirmed attendance in at least two successive votes that have taken place at least seven days apart from each other.
…8.3- A Magister will be removed automatically, which shall be published by the Provost, if any of the following circumstances are met:
…8.3.1- the Magister has not logged into the forums for more than four weeks and has not informed the Magisterium of said absence;
…8.3.2- the Magister has failed to vote or confirm attendance in three votes over a three week period to begin on the post date of the first missed vote;
…8.3.3- the Magister is found to have supplied falsified information in their Magister’s Pledge or Public Official Disclosure Form;
…8.3.4- the Magister is found to have supplied falsified information about their WA nation attached to a vote in accordance with Order 4.2.
…8.4- A Magister shall be suspended upon notice by the Provost or Compliance Officer if their resident TEP nation is not a WA member, which:
…8.4.1- Invalidates any vote cast by the suspended Magister during the suspension;
…8.4.2- Shall result in the automatic removal of the Magister if WA membership of their TEP resident nation is not restored within 72 hours of notice;
…8.4.3- Shall result in the automatic removal of the Magister should they be suspended for a second time within the span of thirty days;
…8.4.4- Shall lapse automatically upon restoration of WA membership of the Magister’s resident TEP nation if this suspension has not resulted in automatic removal.
…8.5 - If a Magister is confirmed by the current Overseeing Officer or Delegate to be serving as an active member of the Eastern Pacific Sovereign Army, they are hereby exempt from the World Assembly membership status requirement for Magisters as detailed in Section 8.4.
…8.6- A Magister may resign at any time.

SECTION IX. AMENDMENTS

…9.1- The Standing Orders shall be amended in the same manner as a legislative proposal. Any alterations that conflict with past resolutions shall be remedied.
…9.2- The Standing Orders shall have any headings shown in bold, underlined all-capital text, with the “big” script, (Headings to be known as titles of sections with the numbers immediately preceding them).
…9.3- Any following Order under the Headings shall be removed from the margin by three (3) periods (to distinguish between orders), and shall be notified with the number of the Section and the number of the Order, in bold (example 5.3, being Section 5, Order 3):
…9.3.1- Every Order with no Provisions shall each end with a period “.”;
…9.3.2- Orders with Provisions shall end in a colon “:”, and each consecutive Provision to end with a semicolon “;”, the final Provision ending in a period “.”. The use of the period marks the end of the Order.
…9.4- Any order with necessary addenda shall be added in the form of ‘provisions’, and shall be notified as outlined in the above, but with an added number for the provision. This number may not be bolded, but additionally removed from the margin with seven (7) periods (example 5.3.2).

— End quote

1.1.6- I recommend this change because of most activity nowadays is focused on the RMB or Discord than the forums. 10 Forum posts aren’t really enough to show proficiency with the forums, and I can’t see another reason why not to change this (maybe being shortsighted, sorry!). I wish to add Discord activity too somehow but unsure how, if y’all have any suggestions can you post them? This is due to the fact that as of now, TEP Discord is still “unofficial” in TEP law.

1.1.7- As Llo showed us, it’s relatively quick to do the Magisterium application requirements quickly. I’m aware it’s easy to just have someone say “yes, whatever, you have my endorsement.” if/when bothered to do so by a candidate in this scenario. But at least this is a step towards ensuring that Magister candidates don’t rush through the process and look sneaky while doing it. Because it reflected badly on Llo when he did it so fast, even though he’s proven no ill intentions then and even now. This can help provide a small buffer in Magisterium candidates rushing the applications and giving themselves a bad image.

2.1- I think it’s weird how a citizen can’t post Concordat amendments. Many of TEP’s most experiences lawmakers are no longer Magisters. While it is highly unlikely that they will ever do post such an amendment, I’d rather keep an open mind: if some citizen does want to post such a thing, it would be a shame to turn them away based on one word. Either way, I don’t (opinion here) believe it can hurt TEP in the short term or long term.

5.2.1- Attempting to clear up future confusion on whether an absentation counts as a vote. I meant to say that “it does not count as a vote”. If it isn’t worded properly, I’ll accept suggestions (obviously).

Those are all the changes I’ve made! I may have missed one or two (forgetting to highlight them) as I was doing this. If so, sorry! >.<

As I said earlier, Magisters are invited to debate all of these changes, and add their own!

[Bachtendekuppen]

I didn’t know you were going to post this, so I had posted another reform thread about an hour earlier (Proposing reforms to the Standing Orders of the Magisterium - Part 1 - Acceptance of Magisters - The East Pacific - Tapatalk).

So as not to work in separate threads and avoid confusion, I will add my post and comments here, and the other thread can be closed.

[spoiler]Dear Magisters,

I will be so bold, and I hope you’ll forgive me (particularly the Provost), to take initiative for a sweeping reform of our standing orders. I believe they are duly in need of a proper review, and in order to do so in a somewhat systematic manner, I will be proposing reforms in 3 parts : 1) Acceptance Criteria; 2) legislative process and voting; 3) Magister/Provost absence and removal.

The format I will be introducing these reforms in is as follows. I will post the section I propose to discuss, and the points I believe that need discussion and/or amendments. I sincerely hope for and invite everyone, Magisters and Citizens alike, to chip in and give their own assessment. Thereafter, we can draft the various amendments that are needed depending on the results of such debate.

Without further ado, I present you the current standing orders on the acceptance of new Magisters :

"SECTION I. ACCEPTANCE OF MAGISTERS

…1.1- Citizens wishing to become Magisters must do all of the following:
…1.1.1- Recite the Magister’s Pledge in the appropriate designated location in the Magisterium sub-forum;
…1.1.2- Be a Citizen of TEP for at least one month prior to application;
…1.1.3- Be a WA Member with their TEP resident nation;
…1.1.4- Supply the name of their resident WA nation, except if their WA nation is involved in EPSA, in which case it may remain classified;
…1.1.5- Complete a Public Official Disclosure Form;
…1.1.6- Have posted at least 10 times in the TEP forum.
…1.2- Citizens wishing to become Magisters must have accomplished at least 3 of the following:
…1.2.1- Endorse the Delegate and all Viziers;
…1.2.2- Comment on, or debate legislation in the Magisterium as a citizen three times;
…1.2.3- Complete a course, practicum, tenure or academic publication in The East Pacific University;
…1.2.4- Contribute to ‘TEP Evolved’ subforum five times;
…1.2.5- Join and contribute to an Executive ministry, service or agency, including the EPSA, evidenced by recognition of contribution by an Executive minister or, in case of EPSA, the General.
…1.3-The Magisterium shall, by majority vote, decide whether the new Candidate-Magister will be accepted.
…1.4- Citizens who are denied acceptance into the Magisterium may appeal the decision and demand a referendum from all citizens of The East Pacific:
…1.4.1- The appellant must present a petition for Regional Referendum on Magister Acceptance to the Conclave, endorsed by at least 5 citizens;
…1.4.2- The petition will be reviewed by the Conclave and if valid, the Conclave will schedule a regional election;
…1.4.3- If elected by a majority vote of the citizens voting in the election, the appellant will be accepted into the Magisterium."

I have several observations regarding our standing orders here :

• Posting 10 times : this is nonsensical. One could post 10 times in the Arcade, it has no bearing at all on the applicants qualities to serve as a Magister, or his/her commitment to be involved as a Magister.

• Be a Citizen for 1 month : do we really need this? A month is long time in here. Do we really want interested new Citizens to stand aside for a month?

• Endorse the Delegate and all Viziers : why is this under section 1.2? Shouldn’t everyone in TEP, let alone in the TEP government, endorse the Delegate and Viziers in any case?

• Commenting as a Citizen on legislation 3 times : Why? Sure, it’s nice to do so, but why should it be a prerequisite?

• “Contribute” to TEP Evolved, “Join and Contribute” to an Executive ministry, complete some tasks in the TEP University : these things are a) just done formally but not really; b) scarcely verified and 3) impossible to really pin someone down to. So why should we keep them?

All in all, I think these can be simplified and streamlined. They do currently not really serve to make sure someone is really active in TEP, and - while ensuring a merit-based approach - we also could use some more interested Citizens in our institutions. I believe this can be done better than it is in place now.
[/spoiler]
I will be posting some further remarks regarding the legislative process, voting and the removal of Magisters later on.

[Zukchiva]

— Begin quote from ____

I didn’t know you were going to post this, so I had posted another reform thread about an hour earlier (Proposing reforms to the Standing Orders of the Magisterium - Part 1 - Acceptance of Magisters - The East Pacific - Tapatalk).

So as not to work in separate threads and avoid confusion, I will add my post and comments here, and the other thread can be closed.

[spoiler]Dear Magisters,

I will be so bold, and I hope you’ll forgive me (particularly the Provost), to take initiative for a sweeping reform of our standing orders. I believe they are duly in need of a proper review, and in order to do so in a somewhat systematic manner, I will be proposing reforms in 3 parts : 1) Acceptance Criteria; 2) legislative process and voting; 3) Magister/Provost absence and removal.

The format I will be introducing these reforms in is as follows. I will post the section I propose to discuss, and the points I believe that need discussion and/or amendments. I sincerely hope for and invite everyone, Magisters and Citizens alike, to chip in and give their own assessment. Thereafter, we can draft the various amendments that are needed depending on the results of such debate.

Without further ado, I present you the current standing orders on the acceptance of new Magisters :

"SECTION I. ACCEPTANCE OF MAGISTERS

…1.1- Citizens wishing to become Magisters must do all of the following:
…1.1.1- Recite the Magister’s Pledge in the appropriate designated location in the Magisterium sub-forum;
…1.1.2- Be a Citizen of TEP for at least one month prior to application;
…1.1.3- Be a WA Member with their TEP resident nation;
…1.1.4- Supply the name of their resident WA nation, except if their WA nation is involved in EPSA, in which case it may remain classified;
…1.1.5- Complete a Public Official Disclosure Form;
…1.1.6- Have posted at least 10 times in the TEP forum.
…1.2- Citizens wishing to become Magisters must have accomplished at least 3 of the following:
…1.2.1- Endorse the Delegate and all Viziers;
…1.2.2- Comment on, or debate legislation in the Magisterium as a citizen three times;
…1.2.3- Complete a course, practicum, tenure or academic publication in The East Pacific University;
…1.2.4- Contribute to ‘TEP Evolved’ subforum five times;
…1.2.5- Join and contribute to an Executive ministry, service or agency, including the EPSA, evidenced by recognition of contribution by an Executive minister or, in case of EPSA, the General.
…1.3-The Magisterium shall, by majority vote, decide whether the new Candidate-Magister will be accepted.
…1.4- Citizens who are denied acceptance into the Magisterium may appeal the decision and demand a referendum from all citizens of The East Pacific:
…1.4.1- The appellant must present a petition for Regional Referendum on Magister Acceptance to the Conclave, endorsed by at least 5 citizens;
…1.4.2- The petition will be reviewed by the Conclave and if valid, the Conclave will schedule a regional election;
…1.4.3- If elected by a majority vote of the citizens voting in the election, the appellant will be accepted into the Magisterium."

I have several observations regarding our standing orders here :

• Posting 10 times : this is nonsensical. One could post 10 times in the Arcade, it has no bearing at all on the applicants qualities to serve as a Magister, or his/her commitment to be involved as a Magister.

• Be a Citizen for 1 month : do we really need this? A month is long time in here. Do we really want interested new Citizens to stand aside for a month?

• Endorse the Delegate and all Viziers : why is this under section 1.2? Shouldn’t everyone in TEP, let alone in the TEP government, endorse the Delegate and Viziers in any case?

• Commenting as a Citizen on legislation 3 times : Why? Sure, it’s nice to do so, but why should it be a prerequisite?

• “Contribute” to TEP Evolved, “Join and Contribute” to an Executive ministry, complete some tasks in the TEP University : these things are a) just done formally but not really; b) scarcely verified and 3) impossible to really pin someone down to. So why should we keep them?

All in all, I think these can be simplified and streamlined. They do currently not really serve to make sure someone is really active in TEP, and - while ensuring a merit-based approach - we also could use some more interested Citizens in our institutions. I believe this can be done better than it is in place now.
[/spoiler]
I will be posting some further remarks regarding the legislative process, voting and the removal of Magisters later on.

— End quote

Whoops, didn’t see that!

Sorry, disregard ky draft then!

I’ll look over this one later

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

[Zukchiva]

— Begin quote from ____

I didn’t know you were going to post this, so I had posted another reform thread about an hour earlier (Proposing reforms to the Standing Orders of the Magisterium - Part 1 - Acceptance of Magisters - The East Pacific - Tapatalk).

So as not to work in separate threads and avoid confusion, I will add my post and comments here, and the other thread can be closed.

[spoiler]Dear Magisters,

I will be so bold, and I hope you’ll forgive me (particularly the Provost), to take initiative for a sweeping reform of our standing orders. I believe they are duly in need of a proper review, and in order to do so in a somewhat systematic manner, I will be proposing reforms in 3 parts : 1) Acceptance Criteria; 2) legislative process and voting; 3) Magister/Provost absence and removal.

The format I will be introducing these reforms in is as follows. I will post the section I propose to discuss, and the points I believe that need discussion and/or amendments. I sincerely hope for and invite everyone, Magisters and Citizens alike, to chip in and give their own assessment. Thereafter, we can draft the various amendments that are needed depending on the results of such debate.

Without further ado, I present you the current standing orders on the acceptance of new Magisters :

"SECTION I. ACCEPTANCE OF MAGISTERS

…1.1- Citizens wishing to become Magisters must do all of the following:
…1.1.1- Recite the Magister’s Pledge in the appropriate designated location in the Magisterium sub-forum;
…1.1.2- Be a Citizen of TEP for at least one month prior to application;
…1.1.3- Be a WA Member with their TEP resident nation;
…1.1.4- Supply the name of their resident WA nation, except if their WA nation is involved in EPSA, in which case it may remain classified;
…1.1.5- Complete a Public Official Disclosure Form;
…1.1.6- Have posted at least 10 times in the TEP forum.
…1.2- Citizens wishing to become Magisters must have accomplished at least 3 of the following:
…1.2.1- Endorse the Delegate and all Viziers;
…1.2.2- Comment on, or debate legislation in the Magisterium as a citizen three times;
…1.2.3- Complete a course, practicum, tenure or academic publication in The East Pacific University;
…1.2.4- Contribute to ‘TEP Evolved’ subforum five times;
…1.2.5- Join and contribute to an Executive ministry, service or agency, including the EPSA, evidenced by recognition of contribution by an Executive minister or, in case of EPSA, the General.
…1.3-The Magisterium shall, by majority vote, decide whether the new Candidate-Magister will be accepted.
…1.4- Citizens who are denied acceptance into the Magisterium may appeal the decision and demand a referendum from all citizens of The East Pacific:
…1.4.1- The appellant must present a petition for Regional Referendum on Magister Acceptance to the Conclave, endorsed by at least 5 citizens;
…1.4.2- The petition will be reviewed by the Conclave and if valid, the Conclave will schedule a regional election;
…1.4.3- If elected by a majority vote of the citizens voting in the election, the appellant will be accepted into the Magisterium."

I have several observations regarding our standing orders here :

• Posting 10 times : this is nonsensical. One could post 10 times in the Arcade, it has no bearing at all on the applicants qualities to serve as a Magister, or his/her commitment to be involved as a Magister.

• Be a Citizen for 1 month : do we really need this? A month is long time in here. Do we really want interested new Citizens to stand aside for a month?

• Endorse the Delegate and all Viziers : why is this under section 1.2? Shouldn’t everyone in TEP, let alone in the TEP government, endorse the Delegate and Viziers in any case?

• Commenting as a Citizen on legislation 3 times : Why? Sure, it’s nice to do so, but why should it be a prerequisite?

• “Contribute” to TEP Evolved, “Join and Contribute” to an Executive ministry, complete some tasks in the TEP University : these things are a) just done formally but not really; b) scarcely verified and 3) impossible to really pin someone down to. So why should we keep them?

All in all, I think these can be simplified and streamlined. They do currently not really serve to make sure someone is really active in TEP, and - while ensuring a merit-based approach - we also could use some more interested Citizens in our institutions. I believe this can be done better than it is in place now.
[/spoiler]
I will be posting some further remarks regarding the legislative process, voting and the removal of Magisters later on.

— End quote

I made a post and lost it all, so here’s my basic points.

I agree with 10 points and the month of citizenry being removed or shortened.

I believe 1.2 should be a mandatory requirement, because not everyone does it, contary to popular belief.

I agree with removing the contribute parts, or making them more verifiable.

[Bachtendekuppen]

As to the acceptance of new Magisters, I would alternatively propose something like this :

[spoiler]
SECTION I. ACCEPTANCE OF MAGISTERS

…1.1- Citizens wishing to become Magisters must do all of the following:
…1.1.1- Recite the Magister’s Pledge in the appropriate designated location in the Magisterium sub-forum;
…1.1.2- Be a Citizen of TEP for at least one month prior to application;
…1.1.3- Be a WA Member with their TEP resident nation;
…1.1.4- Endorse the Delegate and all Viziers;
…1.1.5- Supply the name of their resident WA nation, except if their WA nation is involved in EPSA, in which case it may remain classified;
…1.1.6- Complete a Public Official Disclosure Form;
…1.1.6- Have posted at least 10 times in the TEP forum or at least 30 times in the Regional Message Board.
……1.1.7- Have received an endorsement from at least one East Pacific resident in support of becoming a Magister.
…1.2- Citizens wishing to become Magisters must have accomplished at least 3 of the following:

…1.2.2- Comment on, or debate legislation in the Magisterium as a citizen three times;
…1.2.3- Complete a course, practicum, tenure or academic publication in The East Pacific University;
…1.2.4- Contribute to ‘TEP Evolved’ subforum five times and have their contributions verified by a roleplay moderator;
…1.2.5- Join and contribute to an Executive ministry, service or agency, including the EPSA, evidenced by recognition of contribution by an Executive minister or, in case of EPSA, the General.
…1.2-The Magisterium shall, by majority vote, decide whether the new Candidate-Magister will be accepted.
…1.3- Citizens who are denied acceptance into the Magisterium may appeal the decision and demand a referendum from all citizens of The East Pacific:
…1.3.1- The appellant must present a petition for Regional Referendum on Magister Acceptance to the Conclave, endorsed by at least 5 citizens;
…1.3.2- The petition will be reviewed by the Conclave and if valid, the Conclave will schedule a regional election;
…1.3.3- If elected by a majority vote of the citizens voting in the election, the appellant will be accepted into the Magisterium.
[/spoiler]

[spoiler]SECTION I. ACCEPTANCE OF MAGISTERS

…1.1- Citizens wishing to become Magisters must do all of the following:
…1.1.1- Recite the Magister’s Pledge in the appropriate designated location in the Magisterium sub-forum;
…1.1.2- Be a WA Member with their TEP resident nation;
…1.1.3- Endorse the Delegate and all Viziers;
…1.1.4- Supply the name of their resident WA nation, except if their WA nation is involved in EPSA, in which case it may remain classified;
…1.1.5- Complete a Public Official Disclosure Form;
…1.1.6- Have received an endorsement from at least one East Pacific resident in support of becoming a Magister.
…1.2-The Magisterium shall, by majority vote, decide whether the new Candidate-Magister will be accepted.
…1.3- Citizens who are denied acceptance into the Magisterium may appeal the decision and demand a referendum from all citizens of The East Pacific:
…1.3.1- The appellant must present a petition for Regional Referendum on Magister Acceptance to the Conclave, endorsed by at least 5 citizens;
…1.3.2- The petition will be reviewed by the Conclave and if valid, the Conclave will schedule a regional election;
…1.3.3- If elected by a majority vote of the citizens voting in the election, the appellant will be accepted into the Magisterium.
[/spoiler]

[Fedele]

Should the referral be limited to citizens?

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

[Bachtendekuppen]

I think that would make sense.

[Fedele]

This seems like a sensible direction.

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

[Bachtendekuppen]

New version including the change to Citizens :

[spoiler]
SECTION I. ACCEPTANCE OF MAGISTERS

…1.1- Citizens wishing to become Magisters must do all of the following:
…1.1.1- Recite the Magister’s Pledge in the appropriate designated location in the Magisterium sub-forum;
…1.1.2- Be a Citizen of TEP for at least one month prior to application;
…1.1.3- Be a WA Member with their TEP resident nation;
…1.1.4- Endorse the Delegate and all Viziers;
…1.1.5- Supply the name of their resident WA nation, except if their WA nation is involved in EPSA, in which case it may remain classified;
…1.1.6- Complete a Public Official Disclosure Form;
…1.1.6- Have posted at least 10 times in the TEP forum or at least 30 times in the Regional Message Board.
……1.1.7- Have received an endorsement from at least one East Pacific Citizen in support of becoming a Magister.
…1.2- Citizens wishing to become Magisters must have accomplished at least 3 of the following:

…1.2.2- Comment on, or debate legislation in the Magisterium as a citizen three times;
…1.2.3- Complete a course, practicum, tenure or academic publication in The East Pacific University;
…1.2.4- Contribute to ‘TEP Evolved’ subforum five times and have their contributions verified by a roleplay moderator;
…1.2.5- Join and contribute to an Executive ministry, service or agency, including the EPSA, evidenced by recognition of contribution by an Executive minister or, in case of EPSA, the General.
…1.2-The Magisterium shall, by majority vote, decide whether the new Candidate-Magister will be accepted.
…1.3- Citizens who are denied acceptance into the Magisterium may appeal the decision and demand a referendum from all citizens of The East Pacific:
…1.3.1- The appellant must present a petition for Regional Referendum on Magister Acceptance to the Conclave, endorsed by at least 5 citizens;
…1.3.2- The petition will be reviewed by the Conclave and if valid, the Conclave will schedule a regional election;
…1.3.3- If elected by a majority vote of the citizens voting in the election, the appellant will be accepted into the Magisterium.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler]SECTION I. ACCEPTANCE OF MAGISTERS

…1.1- Citizens wishing to become Magisters must do all of the following:
…1.1.1- Recite the Magister’s Pledge in the appropriate designated location in the Magisterium sub-forum;
…1.1.2- Be a WA Member with their TEP resident nation;
…1.1.3- Endorse the Delegate and all Viziers;
…1.1.4- Supply the name of their resident WA nation, except if their WA nation is involved in EPSA, in which case it may remain classified;
…1.1.5- Complete a Public Official Disclosure Form;
…1.1.6- Have received an endorsement from at least one East Pacific resident in support of becoming a Magister.
…1.2-The Magisterium shall, by majority vote, decide whether the new Candidate-Magister will be accepted.
…1.3- Citizens who are denied acceptance into the Magisterium may appeal the decision and demand a referendum from all citizens of The East Pacific:
…1.3.1- The appellant must present a petition for Regional Referendum on Magister Acceptance to the Conclave, endorsed by at least 5 citizens;
…1.3.2- The petition will be reviewed by the Conclave and if valid, the Conclave will schedule a regional election;
…1.3.3- If elected by a majority vote of the citizens voting in the election, the appellant will be accepted into the Magisterium.

[/spoiler]

[Pakitsk]

Personally, I wouldn’t suggest using “endorsement” in section (article? Subsection?) 1.1.7 (or 1.1.6 in the draft without the edits marked)
It might give people who come here from gameside the idea that a WA endorsement is what they need. Perhaps “received an endorsement from” could be replaced by “been vouched for by.”

[Wallenburg]

“Vouch for” often has a connotation of someone taking responsibility for the actions of another. I’d recommend “advocate” or something like that. Either way, Paki’s right that “endorsement” is confusing.

[Llo]

I’m not sure 1.1.6 would actually achieve anything - there are so many citizens, I doubt it would be particularly hard for one to just say that they support you. I also imagine you could just get people pairing up and endorsing each other for the role. Ultimately, if they’re ingenuine, then the Magisterium wouldn’t accept their application regardless, but this seems to render it an unnecessary step that doesn’t prove anything.

Would getting the support of a current Magister (or perhaps any current government official, be it Arbiter, Vizier, or Minister) be a better approach? It means you need the support of someone who is already trusted in the community.

[Davelands]

Lilo makes a good point about people pairing up, however, it at least shows that they have contacted one other person in the region at some point in time.
Useless for vetting? Probably. Useless for showing some activity? Not at all.

1.1.6- Have received a referral from at least one East Pacific resident in support of becoming a Magister. (my change in bold)

[Bachtendekuppen]

I would propose to use “recommendation” rather than “vouch for” or “referral”.

[system]

I am kind of with Llo when it comes to the proposed recommendation requirement and I don’t really see it as substantial enough to include as a requirement. If the argument is that it shows you reached out to someone in the region, I mean, then why get rid of the requirements of participating/joining a Ministry? Obviously that displays more initiative and dedication then asking another Citizen for a recommendation. It would definitely be better if a Magister or an equally significant position ‘sponsored’ the applicant.

As for 1.2 being removed completely, I think its original purpose is obviously to incite some sort of activity, get people going in the region and push them to meet some sort of goal. By removing it completely, does it put people more on a fast-track to join the Magisterium and is that necessarily a good thing? If we think it has been a hindrance, then would it be better to lower the requirement from 3 to 2 or 1? I think issues with verifying executive involvement can be easily overcome once the Magisterium starts holding Ministers accountable for verifying it in some way. I don’t think removing 1.2 is necessarily a bad thing to do, but I do see value in keeping it/modifying it instead of removing it completely.

[Todd_McCloud]

I’m against the addition of 1.1.7. It could serve as an impedance to newcomers and seems like an incentive for others to invite nations into the body. The Magisterium, in my opinion, should be organic. This would seem to make it teeter towards a club instead of a body of native nations seeking to better the laws of our region.

I personally want to keep something with respect to 1.2.3 or 1.2.4, as a nation having a basic understanding of the region as well as knowledge of how integral roleplaying is to the region would seem to be important here. I am unsure how to input that into the orders, especially as I don’t think the ‘verified by an RP mod’ stipulation is necessary, but it would be helpful for those who we trust to make the laws to have a grasp of the nuances of some of the regions more cultural aspects.

Also… how enforceable are these? Let me consider 1.1.4. Say a Magister has a WA nation here, but has a falling out with the delegate or a vizier and chooses not to endorse them. Is this to be interpreted as at the moment they apply to be a Magister or as they are a Magister? If it’s the former, then really, 1.1.3-5 is rather pointless as they can drop WA and forego all those actions the moment they are accepted. If it’s the latter, then how would this be enforced? Say we elect a new vizier and some of us are lax when it comes to endorsing them. Would that be grounds for removal for every Magister found to be in violation of 1.1.4?

[Tim]

Gonna be honest, we should get rid of 1.1.3 and the accompanying clauses that tie into it. I opposed the inclusion of that clause when Drachen championed it, and I continue to oppose it to this day.

I think the Magisterium has, historically, been a body that’s been very good at regulating our standards for who is and isn’t applying, and we’d be better served by returning to that rather than adding in ultra-restrictive requirements.

If somebody is clearly committed to The East Pacific, is working hard in The East Pacific, and clearly harbors no subversive intent for The East Pacific, I would much rather have them part of the Magisterium than somebody with a WA in the region who doesn’t do much of anything but showing up for votes when pinged. Someone being WA-committed to The East Pacific should be a boost to someone’s application rather than qualifying factor of it, and I think that the consistent drop in membership that we’ve seen ever since we passed the new law reflects the restrictiveness of the barrier we’ve added in.

I also agree that 1.1.2 is rather pointless, and once again that’s something that can be moderated better in a case-by-case basis by this body during someone’s application rather than making something like that a disqualifying factor. A lot of these reforms could certainly have been seen as good in principle, but it’s been a year down the line now and it’s clear that they’re far less effective when actually put into practice.

[Todd_McCloud]

I’ve teetered on the WA stance since about 2009, but if a legislator puts TEP first, wouldn’t they have no problems with maintaining WA in the region? To me, if a player puts their WA in a region, it usually means the player tends to focus most of their time and effort, and would likely put the regional policies ahead of another region. We’ve had people in the Magisterium in the past who clearly wore the badge of whatever group they were from and tried to sway things to their vision, but a WA, to me, generally means they plan to keep their focus here. At least, I hope they do.

But as you indicated, the WA requirement is a relatively new piece of legislation (though it has been debated quite a bit in the past with respect to this body). We are currently a body of six - not the lowest point in numbers that I’ve seen, but that is a bit low. Say we drop the WA requirement. If a region gets 3-4 of their people into the WA, what would stop them from running the table with our legislation?

Even so, based on the wordage, to me, it reads that they need to be in the WA when they apply, especially as it reads from in the above: “Citizens wishing to become Magisters must do all of the following”. Citizens wishing to become - not are, meaning that once they become a Magister, the WA is a moot point, right? All they’d have to do is keep their WA here until they’re voted in. Is that right? If it is, then yeah, it is kind of pointless.

I guess what I’m trying to say is this: is there a better way in which we could prevent ourselves from being subverted? As for dropping / reducing the gamut of requirements, in the interest of increasing our numbers and making it easier for bona-fide TEPers to join in, I’d be for it.

[Fedele]

I’m not sure what the legal basis is or was but WA nations needed to be provided with votes and votes with invalid WAs provided could be cast out and Magisters removed by the provost. That has been done in the past. That rule essentially just created a barrier for the kind of low effort subversives that have wreaked havoc on legislatures in other regions. It was quite telling to see who was unwilling to comply with that requirement when it went into effect because their primary loyalty was elsewhere.

Sent from my BlackBerry Pearl using Tapatalk

[Bachtendekuppen]

I’ve always been in favor of the WA requirement, but I’ve been thinking. TEP legislation applies to all Citizens, WA or not. Therefore, it would be more logical that all Citizens can be Magister, WA or not. One could even say that it makes more sense to limit Delegate elections to WA Citizens, rather than Magisterium entry.

But how do we protect the integrity of the Magisterium as the legislative?

• We have the whole deal of requirements regarding participation we have now, that barely make sense.
• We could stipulate that one can only be Magister if one does not have any governmental role in any other region. If not respected, one is booted from the Magisterium.
• We could elect Magisters*.
• We could have a Magisterium with 2 chambers : one with very lax requirements, namely being Citizen and applying, and one chamber with other requirements, such as stipulated above, or elected, or …
• … any other ideas?

*Elections with term limits, and the number of seats determined by the number of Citizens/WA Citizens,… multiple systems are thinkable.