Eluvatar Posted September 27, 2015 Share Posted September 27, 2015 (edited) Seeking to get something going here, and perhaps clarify the concept of Rebellion a little bit. Definitely interested in constructive criticism! (Also, let me know if I'm not in the Voice anymore, I'm not sure where to check). Edit: I've been pointed out here. Procedural Rules of the Voice 1. Administration of the Voice (1) The Advocate and any Deputy Advocates of Legislative Affairs they appoint will administer the Procedural Rules. (2) Deputy Advocates of Legislative Affairs will be retained until an election is concluded when the office of Advocate is vacant. (3) Deputy Advocates of Legislative Affairs may also hold other offices. 2. Voting (1) Except where otherwise explicitly mandated by the Charter of the Union or these rules, votes of the Voice will last for a three day period. (2) Any valid proposal may be seconded by any member of the Voice besides its proponent, and will be voted on no sooner than 24 hours and no later than 72 hours afterward. 3. Sole Powers (1) Any member of the Voice may propose changes to these procedural rules. (2) Any member of the Voice may propose any non-binding resolution excepting resolutions of rebellion. (3) The Advocate or a Cardinal Guardian as recognized by them who is a member of the Voice may propose a resolution of rebellion against the Delegate. (4) Any member of the Voice may propose amendments to the Charter of the Union. (5) A vote to amend the Charter of the Union will last for a five day period. (6) The Advocate or the Delegate may propose a constitutional convention. (7) Any member of the Voice may propose dismissing the Advocate from office, and if no Deputy Advocate of Legislative Affairs is able to bring such a proposal to a vote, a third member of the Voice may administer the vote. (8) Any member of the Voice may propose dismissing any official appointed by the Advocate. (9) Any member of the Voice may propose changing the name of TWPAF (The West Pacific Armed Forces). (10) If the name of TWPAF is changed, these rules will be updated to reflect that change. (11) Any member of the Voice may propose the end of any ongoing deployment by TWPAF. 4. Foreign Relations (1) For the purpose of these rules, Union treaties are treates proposed by the Advocate and Delegate treaties are treaties proposed by the Delegate. (2) The Advocate will propose the enactment or amendment of Union treaties. (3) Any member of the Voice may propose repeal of any Union treaty. (3) The Delegate will propose recognition of Delegate treaties and amendments to them. (4) Any member of the Voice may propose rescinding recognition of Delegate treaties. (5) For the purpose of these rules, Union wars are wars proposed by the Advocate and Delegate wars are wars proposed by the Delegate. (6) The Advocate may propose declarations of war. (7) Any member of the Voice may propose repeal of any Union war. (8) The Delegate may propose declarations of war. (9) Any member of the Voice may propose rescinding confirmation of any Delegate war. 5. Justice (1) Any member of the Voice may state a complaint against another member of the Voice. (2) Any member of the Voice may propose commuting a sentence imposed in a hearing. Edit2: Changed "Clerk" to "Deputy Advocate of Legislative Affairs". Edited September 28, 2015 by Eluvatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malviet Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Please change 'clerk' into 'Deputy Advocate', please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eluvatar Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 Would that not imply that all DAs are responsible for procedural matters? I intended for Clerks to be a special kind of Deputy Advocate, in effect. I could change it to Deputy Advocates of Legislation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Why would we need another position for something that is already a duty of the advocate? Seems an unnecessary slot to be filling over and over... I really liked when the previous regional assembly could simply pronounce its own rules depending on the reality of the RA... we should go back to that instead of moving to a more bureaucratic system tbh Malviet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eluvatar Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 Is the Advocate intended to be primarily a head of government or the presiding officer of a deliberative body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malviet Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 The former, if I'm correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eluvatar Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 Changed "Clerk" to "Deputy Advocate" in the proposal. Why would we need another position for something that is already a duty of the advocate? Seems an unnecessary slot to be filling over and over... At the end of the day, every administrative aspect of the Union is the Advocate's responsibility. That doesn't mean we should expect them to personally do every little thing. I really liked when the previous regional assembly could simply pronounce its own rules depending on the reality of the RA... we should go back to that instead of moving to a more bureaucratic system tbh Could you show an example of how this worked? I'd be happy to rewrite this, I just wrote up something that made sense to me and seemed to map out a process that fits what the community seems to want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Called the Vlagh Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 I would prefer a system where the Advocate was head of a deliberative body and not head of government. I also dislike all of the wording about overruling or overriding the Delegate. Since when does the offsite dictate to the Delegate in TWP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eluvatar Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 There are no new powers in the rules, only matters already in the Charter of the Union... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Called the Vlagh Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 The rebellion clause was not in the Charter.... And I do not believe it was ever actually voted on by the Voice prior to its initial dissolution. Also, some of the authority that you give the Voice here was stipulated with Delegate approval, which is now absent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malviet Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 1. The rebellion clause was not in the Charter.... 2. And I do not believe it was ever actually voted on by the Voice prior to its initial dissolution. 3. Also, some of the authority that you give the Voice here was stipulated with Delegate approval, which is now absent. 1. No. It wasn't. Yet it still happened. I don't mean to say 'screw you' to the Charter, but I think we shouldn't be ignoring the status quo, either.2. Its initial dissolution, which you, with Russo's approval, announced behind all our backs. Authoritarian or not, active or inactive, you didn't even open it up for proper discussion. You just put up the thread and boom, you said it's done. And its initial dissolution was the starting point of the revolution and later, Russo's downfall. 3. Who said the Delegate disapproved of the Voice? Both Medio, the interim delegate, and Ele, the rightful delegate, didn't say a word about disapproval. Heck, Ele was the one who started the movement to restore the Voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Called the Vlagh Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 1. No. It wasn't. Yet it still happened. I don't mean to say 'screw you' to the Charter, but I think we shouldn't be ignoring the status quo, either. 2. Its initial dissolution, which you, with Russo's approval, announced behind all our backs. Authoritarian or not, active or inactive, you didn't even open it up for proper discussion. You just put up the thread and boom, you said it's done. And its initial dissolution was the starting point of the revolution and later, Russo's downfall. 3. Who said the Delegate disapproved of the Voice? Both Medio, the interim delegate, and Ele, the rightful delegate, didn't say a word about disapproval. Heck, Ele was the one who started the movement to restore the Voice. Calm down son. 1. If the new 'status quo' is that TWP is now basically going to be TNP-lite (because let's face it, even TNP lets their Delegate appoint the Ministers and have executive oversight) then that is just something you will all have to do without me. Which is something you and others are obviously fine with since you have made your opinions about me more than clear several times. 2. I am fairly certain I posted the dissolution statement in public. I am also certain that it had precedent and if the Delegate had not been a spineless weasel would have carried forward just fine. As I have stated many times, you and those like you that support this sort of mentality, are doing nothing but setting up future rogue Delegacies. Not every Delegate is just going to bend over and take it because a minority offsite group whines. 3. You misunderstand. The Charter states that the Voice can enter into treaties only with the approval of the Delegate. These procedures outline a completely separate system of treaties from those that the Delegate may or may not support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punkdaddy Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Is the Advocate intended to be primarily a head of government or the presiding officer of a deliberative body? As worded, the Advocate is both. Mind you, I'd love a "Speaker of the House" role to focus on running the government versus running the legislature but that's a matter of style I guess. I would prefer a system where each Advocate was able to create their own rules for the legislature versus putting in a system. Keep it flexible for incoming advocates. Malviet and Yy4u 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 3. Who said the Delegate disapproved of the Voice? Both Medio, the interim delegate, and Ele, the rightful delegate, didn't say a word about disapproval. Heck, Ele was the one who started the movement to restore the Voice. I think vlagh means the delegates approvals for war and treaties which are part of the charter but Elu removed from this. I overall think this document has many contradictions with the charter's spirit and it borders on being a de-facto overstep on the separation of in-game and off-site... I need to analyze it more. Malviet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eluvatar Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 I don't specify the majorities needed for passage either, because those are in the Charter. This document governs who can formally make what proposals and administer votes and when and how long voting is. It does not govern what it takes for a proposal to pass. Resolutions to Rebel under this proposed procedure are under the Voice's power to pass any sort of non-binding resolution as per the Charter. What this document would do is limit who can formally propose resolutions of that nature. These procedures would be legally unable to expand the power of the Voice, so I'm not sure how I could possibly have accomplished that in this proposal. I would prefer a system where each Advocate was able to create their own rules for the legislature versus putting in a system. Keep it flexible for incoming advocates.I think that we need to have written procedures at least for how voting to dismiss an Advocate works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Called the Vlagh Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 I don't specify the majorities needed for passage either, because those are in the Charter. This document governs who can formally make what proposals and administer votes and when and how long voting is. It does not govern what it takes for a proposal to pass. Resolutions to Rebel under this proposed procedure are under the Voice's power to pass any sort of non-binding resolution as per the Charter. What this document would do is limit who can formally propose resolutions of that nature. These procedures would be legally unable to expand the power of the Voice, so I'm not sure how I could possibly have accomplished that in this proposal. I think that we need to have written procedures at least for how voting to dismiss an Advocate works. What it also seems to do is allow the Voice to enter into treaties and wars separate from the Delegate, which is expressly against what the Charter states. Also, why would a Guardian need to be in the Voice to propose an opposition to the Delegate? And when you state 'as recognized by them' within that clause are you stating that the Advocate must recognize the Guardian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eluvatar Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 What it also seems to do is allow the Voice to enter into treaties and wars separate from the Delegate, which is expressly against what the Charter states.It can't and doesn't. These procedures are subordinate to the charter. That said maybe we're interpreting the Charter slightly differently. I understood: "The Voice will, with the approval of the Delegate, have the power to enact, amend, and repeal treaties." to mean that the Voice can propose such changes and the Delegate then approves or denies them. Might you be interpreting that as a requirement for pre-clearance from the Delegate to even vote on a treaty? Also, why would a Guardian need to be in the Voice to propose an opposition to the Delegate?I was under the impression that except for the Delegate's special roles only a member of the Voice should be able to formally propose actions by the Voice. I don't particularly care for that necessity, personally. If others are fine with not requiring such a Guardian to be a member of the Voice, I'm happy to get rid of it. And when you state 'as recognized by them' within that clause are you stating that the Advocate must recognize the Guardian?The intent of that language is to allow persons capable of acting on a resolution and generally respected by the region to make such a proposal when the Advocate is unable to, if the community needs it. The Charter does not define the Guardians, so to refer to them in this procedure I felt I needed to somehow define them. Defining them as the group recognized by the Delegate, however, would lead to a pretty obvious end-run around the clause. It'd be simpler to just remove this language entirely and allow any member of the Voice to propose any resolution, even resolutions of rebellion. Perhaps those could instead have a greater requirement for debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Called the Vlagh Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Yes, I think removing the language around the Guardians would benefit the situation. Also, I do see you point regarding the action by the Delegate after the fact regarding treaties, but you go on to define a separation between Delegate treaties and Voice treaties which (to me) implies that Voice's could exist without the Delegate's approval, which I do not believe is within the spirit or wording of the Charter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eluvatar Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 The distinction is on how they are proposed and the process is within the Voice for them. The separation is defined by the Charter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts