Judiciary

[The Church of Satan]

10 sounds reasonable given the activity of the forum.

As for your response on the possibility of abusing this vote, I was referring to foreign powers. Hostile forces could join the region seemingly as mere citizens, a guise. Then with enough of them to outvote us, could ostracize us from the region. Unlikely as it is, we must prepare for all contingencies. It is indeed better to be safe than sorry.

There should also be a reversal of this vote, in the event that it comes to pass for even just 1 of us. Maybe that though, would best be left to the founder and delegate.

[Bustos]

Allow a second if 10 votes or more but failed.  And if it fails a second time, then start the 30 day period?

Sounds reasonable to me.  It would definitely allow for cooler heads to prevail given the time.

A reversal sounds reasonable as well.  Like the president's/governor's pardon?

[Myroria]

I'm in favor of a 30 day grace period after an ostracism vote fails; in fact Athens, when voting to ostracize someone, would hold one vote essentially asking "Should we ostracize someone?" and then an "election" to choose who some time later.

I am also in favor of allowing ostracism to be rescinded, but IMO that power must rest with the Ecclesia and not the delegate/executive.

[Bustos]

And how would we rescind an ostracism via the Ecclesia ?

Another vote?  Even when the Ecclesia voted the person to be ostracized in the first place?

I am asking seriously, not mockingly.  I wanted to make sure I do not seem sarcastic here.

[Myroria]

Yes. Presumably the ostracized citizen had made a name for themselves after they were banned from here, or perhaps made amends, and the Ecclesia would change its collective mind and allow the citizen back.

[The Church of Satan]

Another vote is feasible. Alternatively there is the possibility of adding more bureaucracy to it via a council specifically for deciding if an ostracize vote is rescinded or not. Naturally only trusted citizens of the region should be appointed to such a thing.

That is just 1 alternative though.

[Gulliver]

I also agree that the power to rescind ostracism should lie with the Ecclesia, though perhaps with a simple majority rather than the super-majority required to ostracize them in the first place.

I also think it might be best to adopt something like the classical system Myroria brought up, where rather than proposing an ostracism of a particular individual directly you must first propose a vote on whether to ostracize someone and if so who. Alternatively, the vote itself could be the ostracism vote, but everyone is a candidate by default along with the option not to ostracize anyone and only someone who gets a super-majority of votes will be ostracized, so that way abuse of the system can potentially backfire with yourself getting ostracized.

Also, there could be a universal cap rather than per-person cap on how often these votes could be held, that is, the Ecclesia could only vote to ostracize someone every month across the board for example.

I think that when an ostracism is proposed the term for it should also be part of the proposal, that is one could propose to ostracize for just a month rather than indefinitely for example.

[Myroria]

I also agree that the power to rescind ostracism should lie with the Ecclesia, though perhaps with a simple majority rather than the super-majority required to ostracize them in the first place.

I also think it might be best to adopt something like the classical system Myroria brought up, where rather than proposing an ostracism of a particular individual directly you must first propose a vote on whether to ostracize someone and if so who. Alternatively, the vote itself could be the ostracism vote, but everyone is a candidate by default along with the option not to ostracize anyone and only someone who gets a super-majority of votes will be ostracized, so that way abuse of the system can potentially backfire with yourself getting ostracized.

Also, there could be a universal cap rather than per-person cap on how often these votes could be held, that is, the Ecclesia could only vote to ostracize someone every month across the board for example.

I think that when an ostracism is proposed the term for it should also be part of the proposal, that is one could propose to ostracize for just a month rather than indefinitely for example.

This proposal sounds more than adequate to me.

[Bustos]

I also think it might be best to adopt something like the classical system Myroria brought up, where rather than proposing an ostracism of a particular individual directly you must first propose a vote on whether to ostracize someone and if so who. Alternatively, the vote itself could be the ostracism vote, but everyone is a candidate by default along with the option not to ostracize anyone and only someone who gets a super-majority of votes will be ostracized, so that way abuse of the system can potentially backfire with yourself getting ostracized.

I didnt see it like that.  And I like it!  Seems like an effective way to deter harassment as well.

[Allama]

I also agree that the power to rescind ostracism should lie with the Ecclesia, though perhaps with a simple majority rather than the super-majority required to ostracize them in the first place.

I also think it might be best to adopt something like the classical system Myroria brought up, where rather than proposing an ostracism of a particular individual directly you must first propose a vote on whether to ostracize someone and if so who. Alternatively, the vote itself could be the ostracism vote, but everyone is a candidate by default along with the option not to ostracize anyone and only someone who gets a super-majority of votes will be ostracized, so that way abuse of the system can potentially backfire with yourself getting ostracized.

Also, there could be a universal cap rather than per-person cap on how often these votes could be held, that is, the Ecclesia could only vote to ostracize someone every month across the board for example.

I think that when an ostracism is proposed the term for it should also be part of the proposal, that is one could propose to ostracize for just a month rather than indefinitely for example.

Very nice, I could certainly support this sort of system.

[The Church of Satan]

I like it as well.

In addition however, the OP of an ostracize vote thread SHOULD contain a valid reason as to why the subject of the vote should be ostracized. If the reason is not valid, then obviously the vote will fail. Also, I feel calling it a vote to "ostracize" someone might give people the wrong impression of Taijitu. Maybe we should change the name to something less pretentious. Personally, I think going the route of Sons of Anarchy, we should call it a "Mayhem Vote." Anyone voted out of the region is to be referred to as "Mr. Mayhem" and a record of all Mayhem votes should be kept.

[Gulliver]

I had hoped to stick with the Greek term "ostracism" though I understand your concern.

As to the actual proposal, another detail which I didn't think of at first was what if there's multiple people colluding to cause trouble at once. If only one person has one vote, then  only one person will be ostracizable at a time and we'll have to wait a whole other month before we can ostracize someone else. One way to address this would be to make the ostracism vote an approval vote where you can vote for as many people as possible, and all people who 2/3's of those voting pick get ostracized unless a majority of those voting pick "no one".

[Bustos]

I do not agree with only one ostracism vote a month though, no matter the system in which it's carried out.  Because then we'd have to wait a month to eject deserving person(s) who waited to fuck shit up err, cause trouble after the vote.

[The Church of Satan]

Indeed we do need a way to vote multiple people simultaneously.

[Allama]

One way to address this would be to make the ostracism vote an approval vote where you can vote for as many people as possible, and all people who 2/3's of those voting pick get ostracized

Yes to this!

unless a majority of those voting pick "no one".

Wouldn't a portion of those voters have to have chosen both a candidate to ostracize and also "no one" for a candidate to have 2/3 and "no one" to have over 1/2? Seems like an odd and unlikely scenario unless the voters get really confused.