Taijitu
Government of Taijitu => The Ecclesia => Proposals and Discussion => Topic started by: Myroria on November 23, 2014, 03:40:24 AM
-
In light of the new constitution vote, I think we should discuss the powers that the Ecclesia shall see fit to delegate to the judiciary. In the event that Eluvatar's minimalist proposal no one objected to fails, we can always use this discussion to base a new Constitution off of.
A popular proposal I saw floated was the principle of ostracism - that the Ecclesia can vote to expel nuisances from Taijitu. I think this has definite advantages. Someone like our good friend Govindia can be gotten rid of in a matter of days rather than in a long, drawn-out trial. On the other hand, this can definitely lead to tyranny by majority.
Anyone else have any thoughts?
-
I don't think, atm, that rattling the bones of our skeletons is the good way to discuss our judicial system, autocritic is great but we should leave it to the concept of justice and not the faults of our past. (I guess you wouldn't guess this)
I like the Citizen-Mediator proposal, it's not perfect, butttss...
This "Mediator" is also a proposal: Citizen-Mediator will be our fat-free diet skimmed judiciary, he'd serve as a community moderator, avoid disputes between Citizens, explain the direct appliance of the law and negotiating with disputing Citizens. If Citizens cannot agree on the dispute, it will be brought to the Ecclesia so the Ecclesia can create a precedent and formulate new laws or define the ones that exist. I'm sure you guys can write this proposal better than me and together we might build this concept further, but I'd prefer we didn't have someone with the power to judge by interpretation. This is also a defense of Ecclesia as the main open and direct body of action involving all participating citizens, yet avoiding minnow disputes to encumber the Ecclesia.
-
Discussing this in IRC, Allama brought up a good point; what if we were to appoint a Mediator for each independent dispute rather than have a permanent position, and if things absolutely could not be resolved, the dispute would go before the Ecclesia to arbitrate as it sees fit?
-
Would these only be disputes between citizens? What about a dispute between the government and someone, i.e. a criminal case?
-
I suppose in that case the Citizen-Mediator would act more as a Citizen-Ombud, representing the defendant against the government and attempting to work out a compromise.
-
I'd rather have someone appointed "all the time" so the Mediator can actually function as a moderator that can actively intervene in letting our people's rights be secured, even if he is not a forum admin, he can request modifications to benefit the participation of citizens. An example would be when someone wants to form a party, this way the Mediator can assure the citizens that they can do it and, if he cannot accommodate their rights, he'd advise admins to do so. Being there "all the time" would also allow people to question the mediator as legal counsel or legislative counsel if necessary.
-
The problem with an all time appointment, I've found in the past, is that 99% of the time they have nothing to do, and it becomes difficult to find people who want to fill the position.
-
I like the idea of having a mediator appointed on a case-by-case basis. Avoiding formal trials (and formal condemnations) as much as possible would be best.
A popular proposal I saw floated was the principle of ostracism - that the Ecclesia can vote to expel nuisances from Taijitu. I think this has definite advantages.
Some kind of mechanism to do this would be good to have, but be careful with the language you use.
-
I like the idea of having a mediator appointed on a case-by-case basis. Avoiding formal trials (and formal condemnations) as much as possible would be best.
A popular proposal I saw floated was the principle of ostracism - that the Ecclesia can vote to expel nuisances from Taijitu. I think this has definite advantages.
Some kind of mechanism to do this would be good to have, but be careful with the language you use.
Agreed.
-
I like the idea of having a mediator appointed on a case-by-case basis. Avoiding formal trials (and formal condemnations) as much as possible would be best.
A popular proposal I saw floated was the principle of ostracism - that the Ecclesia can vote to expel nuisances from Taijitu. I think this has definite advantages.
Some kind of mechanism to do this would be good to have, but be careful with the language you use.
ok, but what if you have a doubt about something being legal, of course anybody should read the law and understand it, but there might be iffy cases, who do you ask? The Delegate? What if it's something the Delegate has done? This is my problem without having someone available to counsel. Don't think of yourselves the users of this tool, think of the new people who haven't been here before.
Other than that, the recommendations from Gulliver and Wast are suitable.
-
ok, but what if you have a doubt about something being legal, of course anybody should read the law and understand it, but there might be iffy cases, who do you ask? The Delegate? What if it's something the Delegate has done? This is my problem without having someone available to counsel. Don't think of yourselves the users of this tool, think of the new people who haven't been here before.
The Ecclesia votes on everything else: why not have the legislative body discuss and vote on any disputes over legal interpretation*?
Then if the citizenry decides a legal wrong was indeed committed or at least that the law can be interpreted in such a way that it may have been violated, we can move on to appointing a mediator.
* I doubt these will be frequent, if they ever happen at all.
-
I can't recall any situation in which a person had doubt over the legality of an executive officer's actions, and as a result had to appoint a state appointed official to resolve the issue. And if there was doubt, they could always ask anyone else in the region or have the Ecclesia discuss as it as Allama said.
-
I can't recall any situation in which a person had doubt over the legality of an executive officer's actions, and as a result had to appoint a state appointed official to resolve the issue. And if there was doubt, they could always ask anyone else in the region or have the Ecclesia discuss as it as Allama said.
You both make a valid point. Either way I feel about having someone , the general proposal is good.
-
It hasn't been mentioned yet, but I think if we do allow ostracism it should require a 2/3's majority.
-
It hasn't been mentioned yet, but I think if we do allow ostracism it should require a 2/3's majority.
That sounds reasonable. A simple majority isn't quite enough to ostracize someone, IMHO.
-
Has a decision been made yet on this matter? I think it's worth settling now, because it would be extraordinarily unpleasant to have to improvise justice if a serious case arises.
-
I would like to move that we establish the position of Citizen-Mediator, the holder(s) of which will be determined by an Ecclesia vote when an official dispute is submitted to said body. It shall be the responsibility of the Citizen-Mediator to help the two aggrieved parties reach an agreement.
In addition, I would like to move that the Ecclesia reserves the practice of ostracism to itself, wherein the assembled citizens shall vote by a two-thirds majority to expel a person from the region.
-
Thanks for bringing this back up, Wast. It really would be awful to improvise this stuff in the midst of an already-boiling situation.
I would like to move that we establish the position of Citizen-Mediator, the holder(s) of which will be determined by an Ecclesia vote when an official dispute is submitted to said body. It shall be the responsibility of the Citizen-Mediator to help the two aggrieved parties reach an agreement.
SECONDED!
In addition, I would like to move that the Ecclesia reserves the practice of ostracism to itself, wherein the assembled citizens shall vote by a two-thirds majority to expel a person from the region.
Also seconded.
-
I agree with what Mryo said :)
-
Since we really should have actual texts to our laws, if it pleases the Ecclesia I ask we vote on this differently worded proposal:
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.
Hail Taijitu! Hail the Ecclesia! Hail the Glorious Revolution!
I propose we vote on one and two separately but, if they both pass, categorize them under the same act for bookkeeping purposes.
-
This small portion of The Ecclesia is pleased to vote on the newly-formally-worded legislation.
-
I propose to remove the text after 2.c. "Hail Taijitu! Hail the Ecclesia! Hail the Glorious Revolution!".
-
I agree with what has been said, and will pretend that I actually did something useful instead of just bumping the thread.
-
I agree with what has been said, and will pretend that I actually did something useful instead of just bumping the thread.
-
There needs to be some restrictions on how often these ostracism votes can occur.
-
What restrictions do you propose, CoS?
-
There needs to be some restrictions on how often these ostracism votes can occur.
THIS!
-
Well, in order to prevent abuse, something along the lines of "No citizen or resident of Taijitu shall be the subject of an ostracism vote consecutively in any 1 month duration." Although cutting it down to 2 weeks might be fine as well.
Abuse of this vote could result in the systematic purge of the legitimate government of Taijitu.
-
Well, in order to prevent abuse, something along the lines of "No citizen or resident of Taijitu shall be the subject of an ostracism vote consecutively in any 1 month duration." Although cutting it down to 2 weeks might be fine as well.
I'm very much in favor of this! A month sounds appropriate. How about this wording?
"No Citizen of Taijitu shall be the subject of multiple ostracism votes within a single 30-day period."
Hmm, now I have thought about amending that in case someone does something truly awful right after failing to be ostracized. Maybe we could allow a second vote within that 30-day period if 10 Citizens support it or something equally high and hard to meet. That way we can still kick out the truly insufferable assholes but no one less harmful to our community than certain exiled members of the past should ever get enough vote support to get caught up in it. Opinions? Am I over-thinking this?
This, however, is not something I believe we need to worry about: Abuse of this vote could result in the systematic purge of the legitimate government of Taijitu.
Let's assume enough Citizens want to change who is appointed to certain positions (or switch government styles entirely) that they could push through a number of individual ostracism votes to empty the current appointees. Wouldn't it be easier for them to simply propose legislation changing the government legitimately from within in one fell swoop?
-
This wouldn't simply empty the seats but ban/eject/kick from the region/forums those who once occupied those seats. A much more powerful action, imho.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
Indeed we do need a way to vote multiple people simultaneously.
-
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.
-
How about:
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, and recieves at least two seconds.
b. Ostracism shall expel a nation/personage from Taijitu.
c. A vote in an ostracism vote will consist of a list of citizens to ostracize.
d. A citizen will be ostracized if two thirds of those voting list them.
e. There will be no abstentions in an ostracism vote, but citizens may vote to ostracize no one.
-
Still no restrictions on how often such a vote can occur but, we can cross that bridge once we get there.
Add that it's an approval vote? so can vote for multiple choices? Adding this, and it'd get my vote fo sho. Well done, Eluvatar :clap:
-
Or how you are awarded with ostracism without parameters.
btw is that 2.d wording gone wrong?
-
I'm unsure about clause (e), where there are no abstentions. We can't force people to vote, and I worry that if we require an absolute 2/3's majority it'll be impossible to every ostracize someone, since we don't even have that many members of the Ecclesia voting on a regular basis.
On a style note, I think "nation/personage" can be replaced with "nation or personage".
-
I'm unsure about clause (e), where there are no abstentions. We can't force people to vote, and I worry that if we require an absolute 2/3's majority it'll be impossible to every ostracize someone, since we don't even have that many members of the Ecclesia voting on a regular basis.
I believe clause (d) prevents us from needing an absolute 2/3 majority:
d. A citizen will be ostracized if two thirds of those voting list them.
*emphasis added
-
I think Gulliver has a good point - it needs clarification. Clause (e) asserts there can be no abstentions, which (assuming the voting period is finite) implies that someone who does not vote is implicitly assumed to have voted for no one.
With that technicality aside, I like the proposal. As long as the vote is well advertised and runs for a fair amount of time, I'm not too concerned about not requiring an absolute majority.
-
I think I understand what Elu meant, that no one showing up to vote can explicitly abstain. If that's the case I think it would be better worded as a vote will consist of a list of citizens to ostracize, or the option of no one, leaving abstain out of it entirely.
-
I think Gulliver has a good point - it needs clarification. Clause (e) asserts there can be no abstentions, which (assuming the voting period is finite) implies that someone who does not vote is implicitly assumed to have voted for no one.
Ahhhhh I understand your concern now, makes sense.
If that's the case I think it would be better worded as a vote will consist of a list of citizens to ostracize, or the option of no one, leaving abstain out of it entirely.
Seconded!
-
How about:
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, and recieves at least two seconds.
b. Ostracism shall expel a nation/personage from Taijitu.
c. A vote in an ostracism vote will consist of a list of citizens to ostracize.
d. An empty list will be considered a vote to ostracize no one.
e. A citizen will be ostracized if two thirds of those voting list them.
-
That sounds good, it should cover all our bases.
-
I would propose the following minor cosmetic change:
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, and recieves at least two seconds.
b. Ostracism shall expel a nation [st]/[/st] [in]or[/in] personage from Taijitu.
c. A vote in an ostracism vote will consist of a list of citizens to ostracize.
d. An empty list will be considered a vote to ostracize no one.
e. A citizen will be ostracized if two thirds of those voting list them.
A more serious issue which we haven't addressed so far, however, is the question of whether the ballot should be secret or public.
-
imho ALL ballots should be private...the COUNT however should not.
-
It would be impossible for the vote count to be private because then we would not be able to see what the result was.
-
What are you talking about. Count should be secret until the vote ends, but admins atm, and we have so god damn many, can see it either way. So should the ballot be secret, there should be only a list of who voted but not for which option(s). I'm sure Elu can work it out with civics, otherwise there's other ways to do it.
-
What are you talking about. Count should be secret until the vote ends, but admins atm, and we have so god damn many, can see it either way. So should the ballot be secret, there should be only a list of who voted but not for which option(s). I'm sure Elu can work it out with civics, otherwise there's other ways to do it.
I understand the point, and I agree with it but I almost regret it because of the viciousness with which it was worded.
-
As the votes are being made, we should be able to see the counts during the voting period but not who made the votes.
True every other member is an admin. Although its always the same people getting elected anyway, admins.
I have no idea what you're talking about Funk. Are you okay?
-
I don't even know who the admins are, so I can't comment on whether or not we have too many or not.
I would like to be able to see the vote count, without necessarily seeing who voted for who. Perhaps we should start voting in threads and then we could PM private votes if necessary?
-
I really have no preference in the open/secret voting vein other than in elections, where I definitely support secret ballots. I recommend that if someone would like this to be made law, they propose it. Every citizen has the right to make an official proposal.
On the admin discussion - I will refrain from commenting other than to say we wouldn't make admins we couldn't trust.
-
I have a strong preference for secret voting due to the capacity of the will of the crowd to cloud individual initiative in decision making.
-
It would make sense to me to try to conceal the vote counts while the vote is ongoing. There are ways we could pursue this, but as those ways aren't quite ready I wouldn't try to mandate it just yet.
-
I have a strong preference for secret voting due to the capacity of the will of the crowd to cloud individual initiative in decision making.
That is a good point. I will think more about where I stand.
-
On the technical side of things, it seems like it would be perfectly possible, if unwieldy, to have a secret ballot for ostracism votes using the forum's poll functionality, where voters can be hidden, by having a poll with an option for every single citizen, which it seems to permit.
-
If it pleases the Ecclesia, to have both the voters themselves and the count, private, I would go along with it. :drunks:
I care more about the voters themselves being kept private, in case of failed ostracism votes leading to enmity, if that's the right word, of the nearly ostracized nation/person. I would hope it would serve as a :smack: for the nearly ostracized nation/person that his/her behavior has been unfavorable.
-
I'm actually fine with seeing who voted for what after the election ends. It's seeing them in the midst of an election that such will cause issues of autonomy.