Judiciary

[Eluvatar]

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.

[Bustos]

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 

[Delfos]

Or how you are awarded with ostracism without parameters.

btw is that 2.d wording gone wrong?

[Gulliver]

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".

[Allama]

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

[Wast]

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.

[Gulliver]

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.

[Allama]

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!

[Eluvatar]

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.

[Allama]

That sounds good, it should cover all our bases.

[Gulliver]

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.

[Bustos]

imho ALL ballots should be private...the COUNT however should not.

[Funkadelia]

It would be impossible for the vote count to be private because then we would not be able to see what the result was.

[Delfos]

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.

[Funkadelia]

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.