Taijitu
City Center => Zocalo => Taijitu Founder Committee => Topic started by: Eluvatar on June 06, 2011, 11:21:03 PM
-
1. The Taijitu Founders Committee, hereafter called the Founders, is incorporated in Taijitu, subject to its jurisprudence. The Founders reserve the right to ignore arbitrary or capricious exercise of the judiciary's power by unanimous agreement.
2. The Founders will decide on rules and mechanisms for accessing Taijitu Founder by a majority vote.
3. The Founders may expel a member of the Founders by the unanimous consent of the other founders.
4. The Founders may accept a new founder selected by the citizens of Taijitu, hereafter called the citizens, by a majority vote, by a majority vote.
5. The Founders may amend these bylaws by unanimous consent with the consent of the citizens.
6. The Founders must seek to have an odd number of members.
7. The Founders must seek to answer issues of the Taijitu Founder the way the citizens decide. The citizens will have 2 days to decide.
8. Whenever these bylaws refer to the consent of the citizens of Taijitu with no time limit specified, a vote must be held for at least one week. Forum membership may be a requirement to vote.
-
I'm not sure about 7. In sounds like we're circumventing the government. I had hoped the Senate and Delegate could potentially decide issues like they would pass laws normally, so elections would be given an interesting political character and so we don't have the problem of the government having nothing to do like we often did before. Of course, being able to adopt positions to through the petitions and referendum system should also be an option. I had considered that issues should perhaps default to the Senate for consideration, and if someone makes a petition to adopt a position while its under discussion the Senate would stop their discussion and let that run its course and only resume if it failed. If an issue ended up being decided by the Senate, the position to be adopted would require a majority vote like any other law, and then the delegate could sign or veto it. If you wanted to be ambitious, you could leave a period after it passed before implementation to allow people to complain about constitutionality to the Court.
-
But our constitution doesn't cover any IC things.
-
Also, I'd like to suggest a clause 9:
9. The Founders will promise to follow these bylaws.
-
It's true, nothing in the constitution explicitly provides for running the founder nation, but nothing explicitly bans it. Also, if the issues being phrased IC is a problem, wouldn't having citizens, whose membership is defined under said constitution, decide be just as problematic?
-
Looks good to me aside from number 7. I agree with the idea of the citizens answering the issue, which was done in the past by TP, but I don't think it is something that needs to be written down into law. Having it as an unofficial agreement among the founders should be enough. This nation really belongs to no one person now and as such no one person granted access should care how the nation's issues are answered.
-
Looks good to me aside from number 7. I agree with the idea of the citizens answering the issue, which was done in the past by TP, but I don't think it is something that needs to be written down into law. Having it as an unofficial agreement among the founders should be enough. This nation really belongs to no one person now and as such no one person granted access should care how the nation's issues are answered.
Hm. Well, the thing is the Founder is kind of prominent on the page. But I'd be happy to leave that informal as it also simplifies (8). If somebody else agrees with Limi I'll strike it :)
-
I would also prefer whatever arrangement is decided upon be informal if possible, and only set in law if push comes to shove.
-
1. The Taijitu Founders Committee, hereafter called the Founders, is incorporated in Taijitu, subject to its jurisprudence. The Founders reserve the right to ignore arbitrary or capricious exercise of the judiciary's power by unanimous agreement.
2. The Founders will decide on rules and mechanisms for accessing Taijitu Founder by a majority vote.
3. The Founders may expel a member of the Founders by the unanimous consent of the other founders.
4. The Founders may accept a new founder selected by the citizens of Taijitu, hereafter called the citizens, by a majority vote, by a majority vote.
5. The Founders may amend these bylaws by unanimous consent with the consent of the citizens.
6. The Founders must seek to have an odd number of members.
7. Whenever these bylaws refer to the consent of the citizens of Taijitu a vote must be held for at least one week. Forum membership may be a requirement to vote.
8. The Founders must promise to follow these bylaws.
-
- no. 4 is I believe either an involuntary repetition or an unfortunate wording?
by a majority vote, by a majority vote.
- also accepting another founder sounds pretty odd, doesn't it? I would rather think that replacing a missing or inactive founder can be important and would make sense considering the importance of the role assigned.
- could you please explain no 5 and 7? They confuse me. Thanks :)
- what is the point of this if all the founders decide to arbitrary do things silently inside the founder committee? I believe you have no chance of legislating against such a situation to any notable effect.
If you'd ask me I'd change it to:
1. The Taijitu Founders Committee, hereafter called TFC consists of 5 (five) members, called The Founders and is put in charge of the founding nation of the region - [nation]Taijitu Founder[/nation]. TFC is a subject to the jurisprudence of the region. The Founders reserve the right to ignore arbitrary or capricious exercise of the judiciary's power by unanimous agreement and to rule having as sole purpose the well-being and safe-keeping of the region.
2. The Founders will decide on rules and mechanisms for accessing the [nation]Taijitu Founder[/nation] by a majority vote. The set of rules and mechanism thus established is subject to change under the same conditions and is to be constructed in such a way as to respond to the relevant needs of the region in the context of regional and international game-play. The internal organization of the TFC is also subject to the will of The Founders.
3. The Founders may expel a member of TFC by the unanimous consent of the other Founders.
4. In case one or more of The Founders is / are expelled, the TFC will accept one or more new founder(s) in correspondence with the number of those Founderswho have been expelled. The new Founder(s) will be selected by the citizens of Taijitu, hereafter called the citizens, by a majority vote. The Founders have the right to reject the candidate(s) selected by the citizens, if good reason therefore can be publicly shown. In such a case, a new election will be held in order to select an acceptable candidate. The Founders are obliged to accept the results of the second election, irrelevant of its outcome. It is up to The Founders to create a set of conditions to be fulfilled by any citizen of Taijitu in order to be eligible as Founder. Holding the citizenship of Taijitu must be the first condition to be eligible as Founder
5. The Founders must seek to have an odd number of members.
6. Once each year, the activity of the TFT shall be subject to the review of The Senate. The review shall last no longer than 1 week. During the review all and any members of the TFT must be available for questioning and discussions. The conclusions of the review are not binding but are to be taken into consideration by the TFT. Also, a sub-forum will be open for the TFT where any questions or inquiries specific to the role of the TFT are to be answered by the members of the TFT or an assigned Speaker.
-
I'm going to have to think about this.
-
That's awfully wordy PoD, and a lot of it seems redundant and not strictly necessary. The last clause also seems to be impinging on the Senate's sole right to establish it's own procedures.
On a slightly different topic and backtracking to the issue of founder nation issues, instead of having them default to a certain body or procedure and trapping ourselves in a pattern which we may not always want, we could just publicly announce outstanding issues and allow what public bodies may to take the initiative and adopt positions as public acts if they desire. Issues which no action is taken on for some period of time would be dismissed.
-
1. The Taijitu Founders Committee, hereafter called the Founders, is incorporated in Taijitu and subject to its jurisprudence. The Founders reserve the right to ignore arbitrary or capricious exercise of the judiciary's power by unanimous agreement.
2. The Founders will decide on rules and mechanisms for accessing Taijitu Founder by a majority vote.
3. The Founders may expel a member of the Founders, hereafter called a Founder, by the unanimous consent of the other founders.
4. The Founders may accept a new founder selected by the citizens of Taijitu, hereafter called the citizens. Such a selection must be approved of by a majority vote of citizens and by a majority vote of the Founders.
5. The Founders may amend these bylaws by unanimous consent of the Founders with the consent of the citizens.
6. The Founders must seek to have an odd number of members.
7. Whenever these bylaws refer to the consent of the citizens of Taijitu a vote must be held for at least one week. Forum membership may be a requirement to vote.
8. Each Founder must promise to follow these bylaws.
9. Each Founder must make themselves available to each Senate during its term.
-
@ Gulliver: oh well I know, the wording is but the form, if the content is correct I am sure that a better wording can be found by a talented linguist or the other. I'd like to hear what part of it is redundant and not necessary, you just stated such and did not mention anything I can work with, that's rather superficial feed-back. What the last clause is concerned, we are speaking about a possible auditing procedure for a body for which the Senate has no checks in place, so the right of the Senate to set up his own procedures is of no relevance here, I think you raise no valid point.
Also, answering to the issues of the Founder Nation is from my pov of no real importance. If you'd rather dedicate 80% of your post to how we should answer the issues of the founder and what type of regime will it grow to be and ignore the real importance of the Founder Nation, I'll try to look at the decisive aspects of this issue, from my side of the woods, at least. You won't hear me complaining about why the founder nation has allowed abortions or invested into the trout farming industry.
@ Elu: you seem to have either not seen or ignored me asking you to clarify some points from the original form that I do not understand. Please be so kind and enlighten me. Also, the need to 'accept a founder' if all founders stay active and no founder is expelled, still eludes me.
-
I did clarify those parts, but I guess I can clarify them more.
1. The Taijitu Founders Committee, hereafter called the Founders, is incorporated in Taijitu and subject to its jurisprudence. The Founders reserve the right to ignore arbitrary or capricious exercise of the judiciary's power by unanimous agreement.
2. The Founders will decide on rules and mechanisms for accessing Taijitu Founder by a majority vote.
3. The Founders may expel a member of the Founders, hereafter called a Founder, by the unanimous consent of the other founders.
4. The citizens of Taijitu, hereafter called the citizens, may propose a new Founder by a majority vote. The Founders may admit a proposed new founder proposed by majority vote.
5. The Founders may amend these bylaws by unanimous consent of the Founders with the consent of the citizens.
6. The Founders must seek to have an odd number of members.
7. Whenever these bylaws refer to the consent of the citizens of Taijitu a vote must be held for at least one week. Forum membership may be a requirement to vote.
8. Each Founder must promise to follow these bylaws.
9. Each Founder must make themselves available to each Senate during its term.
-
Yeah PoD, I drifted off topic, I shouldn't be posting in places like this when I'm falling asleep >->
-
oh, no worries, Gulliver.
I did clarify those parts, but I guess I can clarify them more.
1. The Taijitu Founders Committee, hereafter called the Founders, is incorporated in Taijitu and subject to its jurisprudence. The Founders reserve the right to ignore arbitrary or capricious exercise of the judiciary's power by unanimous agreement.
2. The Founders will decide on rules and mechanisms for accessing Taijitu Founder by a majority vote.
3. The Founders may expel a member of the Founders, hereafter called a Founder, by the unanimous consent of the other founders.
4. The citizens of Taijitu, hereafter called the citizens, may propose a new Founder by a majority vote. The Founders may admit a proposed new founder proposed by majority vote.
5. The Founders may amend these bylaws by unanimous consent of the Founders with the consent of the citizens.
6. The Founders must seek to have an odd number of members.
7. Whenever these bylaws refer to the consent of the citizens of Taijitu a vote must be held for at least one week. Forum membership may be a requirement to vote.
8. Each Founder must promise to follow these bylaws.
9. Each Founder must make themselves available to each Senate during its term.
urgh that did clarify plenty as in I have no idea what you have clarified.
I have addressed some issues specifically:
1) why not set a specific number of 5 founders
2) why approve a new founder if all 5 are well, true to the region and active - so to speak why add a founder unless one or more is expelled. if you add a founder to already existing 5 you'd actually need to add two of them to keep them at an odd number.
3) explain point 5, 7 and 8: what bylaws?! point 2 states that the founders will decide on rules and mechanisms of the founder committee by a majority vote. passing a bylaw (in my non-native understanding a bylaw is an internal procedure of the founder committee) that needs the consent of the citizens? urgh. I understand the committee might want to address the citizens when deciding on an important issue but I was under the impression we have THIS (http://forum.taijitu.org/petitions-and-referendums/) when we need to do such. Each founder must promise to follow them bylaws? What's the point of that since we're speaking about internal regulations of a body that will expel its members if they do not follow the internal regulations?
-
urgh that did clarify plenty as in I have no idea what you have clarified.
I have addressed some issues specifically:
1) why not set a specific number of 5 founders
I did not want to bind ourselves for the future if it was not necessary.
We could change things, and then require the Founders to accept some Founder selected by the citizens if they expel a Founder. I just thought a somewhat flexible system would be better.
2) why approve a new founder if all 5 are well, true to the region and active - so to speak why add a founder unless one or more is expelled. if you add a founder to already existing 5 you'd actually need to add two of them to keep them at an odd number.
At five yes the bylaws would require the addition to be followed by another addition. I expected this clause to be used to replace Founders that go completely inactive and unreachable, mainly.
3) explain point 5, 7 and 8: what bylaws?! point 2 states that the founders will decide on rules and mechanisms of the founder committee by a majority vote. passing a bylaw (in my non-native understanding a bylaw is an internal procedure of the founder committee) that needs the consent of the citizens? urgh. I understand the committee might want to address the citizens when deciding on an important issue but I was under the impression we have THIS (http://forum.taijitu.org/petitions-and-referendums/) when we need to do such. Each founder must promise to follow them bylaws? What's the point of that since we're speaking about internal regulations of a body that will expel its members if they do not follow the internal regulations?
This document is the bylaws. It has rules for amending itself. As the bylaws specify how the Committee gets citizen oversight, we can't let the Committee amend its bylaws without the consent of the citizens. The bylaws are not simply an agreement between the Founders; they are an agreement between the founders and the citizens.
The internal regulations on access to the Founder nation are not part of the bylaws and are not subject to citizen involvement.
-
Hehe thanks for the key, I understand it now.
I'd like to discuss only
5. The Founders may amend these bylaws by unanimous consent of the Founders with the consent of the citizens.
i propose we turn into 5. The Founders may amend these bylaws by unanimous consent of the Founders.
. Having the citizens consent on the Founders changing the bylaws as long as the TFT is not checked upon by the citizens might sound like a democratic provision but it will never happen. I'd rather we're honest about it.
number 7 sounds kinda odd to me but I think I understand what you mean to do by that. At the moment the only case when the consent of the citizens is needed is when choosing a new founder and then it's not really a consent but more a consultation since it will only happen when replacing an expelled founder is needed. I'm still not sure why we're leaving this loop-hole open but its easy controllable so I don't mind. One week is a fair amount of time to have the Founders get the feed-back of the citizen on major consultation issues. I think it's safe to leave it like that.
We should perhaps include a clause about not celebrating new Harry Potter issues the way we used to. ;)
-
Except it's structured that TFC approves a founder selected by the citizens, not the other way around.
In addition, under these bylaws the Founders agree to be subject to the Court. Yes there is a condition for them to ignore it if they think it is overreaching, but that's a much more limited use for founder unanimity than founder unanimity being able to rewrite these bylaws entirely.
These bylaws make the Founders agree to abide by laws enacted by the Government unless they are enforced in an "arbitrary or capricious" manner. I think it is fundamental to these bylaws that the Founders should not be able to change their mind about this agreement unilaterally.
-
Hm. Ok, I guess its a matter of bending it the right way whenever necessary. Glad to see you finally adopt TFC :P
It's a go from my pov.
-
I will begin a referendum on these bylaws soon.
-
I hate that word. Great! Good to see the other founders participating in this furious debate :D
-
I have nothing to say D:
-
:D I didn't mean you. You were interested from the beginning, you even called the wonderful product of my sublime intellect "awfully wordy" :P ;)
-
...why did the Founder CTE?
-
I saw that. A wee bit disconcerting.
-
SORRY I'm on it
-
Oh dear this is not an auspicious start to your term as delegate. Though, it's a bit odd, since I don't seem to have gotten an email about the looming apocalypse, which I really should have, the forwarding worked fine when we tested it before. Anyway, I should hope that this'll be a prompt to resolve this finally. Starting this evening if possible. Immediately.
-
The nation is revived, apocalypse emailing is now set, and all that jazz.
Also I am immediately beginning a vote on this.
-
Elu, I do believe you should have closed the vote by now o: