The Judiciary Act: Ostracism

[Myroria]

The Judiciary Act

1. The Citizens of Taijitu establish the position of Citizen-Mediator.
    a. The Citizen-Mediator shall be elected by the Ecclesia on an interim basis when a formal complaint against another Citizen is lodged with the aforementioned body.
    b. The Citizen-Mediator shall be responsible for mediation with the aggrieved parties.
2. The Citizens of Taijitu shall reserve the process of ostracism to their legislature, the Ecclesia.
    a. An ostracism vote shall be undertaken when a Citizen proposes it against another Citizen, and recieves at least two seconds.
    b. Ostracism shall expel a nation/personage from Taijitu.
    c. An ostracism vote shall be passed only with at least a two-thirds majority.

The section of the law we are voting on is in bold. This vote will run for five days.

[Bustos]

I must have missed the discussion on this.  Can I be linked to the discussion thread to see the rationale behind Section 2?

Looks like if 3 people don't like you, there is a potential you're getting kicked, because that's all you need to get a vote going.

If they fail, what stops them from getting another vote going?  How often can these votes be created?

[Myroria]

Here is the link.

[Bustos]

Looks like if 3 people don't like you, there is a potential you're getting kicked, because that's all you need to get a vote going.

If they fail, what stops them from getting another vote going?  How often can these votes be created?

Well I still have these questions and until reasonably amended, my stand is No.

[Eluvatar]

I'm not sure I'm comfortable doing it this way; will think on my vote.

[Allama]

Looks like if 3 people don't like you, there is a potential you're getting kicked, because that's all you need to get a vote going.

That's a little like saying if you're American-born and over 35, there is a potential you're getting elected President. Just because the bare minimum requirements are met for being a candidate doesn't mean you're likely to get the vote.

If a poll opens considering ostracism for a Citizen, there's no reason to expect a majority of the Ecclesia to support kicking that person for the hell of it or out of despotism. Since pretty much anyone can be a Citizen and participate in these votes, it seems to me highly unlikely that anyone would be ostracized without good reason.

If they fail, what stops them from getting another vote going?  How often can these votes be created?

These points have not yet been considered, as far as I am aware. I agree that it would be good to limit how soon ostracism can come up again for the same Citizen as this avoids a small contingent from opening repeated votes as a harassment tactic.

[Bustos]

That's a little like saying if you're American-born and over 35, there is a potential you're getting elected President. Just because the bare minimum requirements are met for being a candidate doesn't mean you're likely to get the vote.

If a poll opens considering ostracism for a Citizen, there's no reason to expect a majority of the Ecclesia to support kicking that person for the hell of it or out of despotism. Since pretty much anyone can be a Citizen and participate in these votes, it seems to me highly unlikely that anyone would be ostracized without good reason.

Not quite, but I believe I understand the point you're trying to make.  It takes a lot more than 3 supporters to get on the ballot.  This section says that's all it takes to get a vote for ejection going.  I believe a higher standard should be required.

I do not have the faith of people being reasonable as you do.  Elected members, as COS pointed out, could be ejected from the region if they make an mistake that leads to an emotional reaction, rather than simply allowed to resign or voted to be removed from office.

These points have not yet been considered, as far as I am aware. I agree that it would be good to limit how soon ostracism can come up again for the same Citizen as this avoids a small contingent from opening repeated votes as a harassment tactic.

And until such measures are included, such harassment is allowed.  Which can go back n forth and create further division and disruption in the region/forums.  All the more reason to say No.

[Allama]

That's a little like saying if you're American-born and over 35, there is a potential you're getting elected President. Just because the bare minimum requirements are met for being a candidate doesn't mean you're likely to get the vote.

If a poll opens considering ostracism for a Citizen, there's no reason to expect a majority of the Ecclesia to support kicking that person for the hell of it or out of despotism. Since pretty much anyone can be a Citizen and participate in these votes, it seems to me highly unlikely that anyone would be ostracized without good reason.

Not quite, but I believe I understand the point you're trying to make.  It takes a lot more than 3 supporters to get on the ballot.  This section says that's all it takes to get a vote for ejection going.  I believe a higher standard should be required.

I do not have the faith of people being reasonable as you do.  Elected members, as COS pointed out, could be ejected from the region if they make an mistake that leads to an emotional reaction, rather than simply allowed to resign or voted to be removed from office.

I don't have faith that we won't ever have 3 Citizens be emotional and bring a potential ostracism to a vote when it is not warranted. That will almost certainly happen.

What I have faith in is that the majority of our Citizens won't vote for an unfair ostracism like a bunch of jerks. If you can't trust in that, direct democracy is a bad idea from the very start.

These points have not yet been considered, as far as I am aware. I agree that it would be good to limit how soon ostracism can come up again for the same Citizen as this avoids a small contingent from opening repeated votes as a harassment tactic.

And until such measures are included, such harassment is allowed.  Which can go back n forth and create further division and disruption in the region/forums.  All the more reason to say No.

Agreed. I'm changing my vote. Would like to see this fleshed out with better restrictions before we pass it.

[Bustos]

What I have faith in is that the majority of our Citizens won't vote for an unfair ostracism like a bunch of jerks. If you can't trust in that, direct democracy is a bad idea from the very start.

I, too, have faith that just because 3 people don't like you and put such a vote into action, the rest of the Citizens would flat out defeat the vote.  My initial comment was more to set up my frame of mind for the questions I had and the problems it would lead to if allowed to pass as it currently stands.

We are in agreement.  It needs to be "fleshed out with better restrictions before we pass it."

[Wast]

Agreed on the suggestion to revise the provision to include some restrictions. However, I think the act is acceptable in its current state even though it is a bit vague. I would prefer this to be a plain statement of the formal power to remove someone from the region without becoming too mired in technical details. Whenever possible, it's better to rely on the citizens to prevent abuse than to place explicit restrictions on the power.

[Bustos]

Join us...

 http://forum.taijitu.org/proposals-and-discussions/judiciary/

[Gulliver]

This proposal has been defeated.