Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 71

Thread: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

  1. #21
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderation Mentor Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Rhineland
    Posts
    4,154

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Tomorrow afternoon the current version will have been up for three days, so if there are no further concerns I guess we can (re)state support and continue with the usual procedure.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi

    Under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Neadal, Squeaks, Makrell, Kaiser Leonidas, Sheridan, Bercor and Higo Chumbo. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

  2. #22
    Veteraan's Avatar TATW Local Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tilburg, Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    3,023

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Support

    Citizenised by Shankbot - Patron of b0Gia - House de Bodemloze

  3. #23
    Shankbot de Bodemloze's Avatar From the Writers Study!
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Posts
    14,809
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Could I ask you hold off a couple more days Iskar? Sorry to be pain but I've been busy and haven't had a chance to properly look through it yet, which I would like to do before it gets moved to vote (on the unlikely chance I have something useful to say ).

    (very cheeky of me I know... completely understand if you want to push through with it)
    THE WRITERS' STUDY | THE TRIBUNAL | THE CURIA | GUIDE FOR NEW MEMBERS



    PROUD PATRON OF JUNAIDI83, VETERAAN & CAILLAGH
    UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF MEGA TORTAS DE BODEMLOZE

  4. #24
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderation Mentor Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Rhineland
    Posts
    4,154

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    No problem at all. I was just assuming that silence meant absence of concerns. Take your time in reading it. More eyes, especially curially experienced ones as yours, are precisely what such a momentous project benefits from.

    (Sorry, Veteraan, next time, definitely )
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi

    Under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Neadal, Squeaks, Makrell, Kaiser Leonidas, Sheridan, Bercor and Higo Chumbo. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

  5. #25

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Full support.

    Under the patronage of Iskar of the House of Siblesz. Proud patron of atthias.

  6. #26
    Lifthrasir's Avatar Carnival Season is over
    Content Director Citizen Curator

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dunkirk - France
    Posts
    6,924
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Waiting for Shank comments but that would be obviously a support again
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, of the Imperial House of Hader


    - Results published!!!



  7. #27
    Shankbot de Bodemloze's Avatar From the Writers Study!
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Posts
    14,809
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Thanks Iskar.

    After actually studying a part of the Constitution in this new format it is safe to say I find it far more difficult having to go between the different sections... Old habits I guess, I imagine reading it without paying attention to the footnotes makes it much simpler to the current structure.

    Overall looks good and I appreciate the work you've put in to pushing this through, just a couple of broad points (the numbers in brackets refer to corresponding footnotes):

    -I still think VoNC should be able to be called against Staff members, it is currently in the Constitution and removing it is a change I oppose. Being able to VoNC (even if non-binding) Staff members has been a historic aspect of the Curia and further enhances the advisory role the Curia has (with decisions etc.). I know it is highly unlikely a situation would arise where it would be needed, but I don't think that is a reason to warrant its removal.

    -Is there any reason in particular why Censors need to be Citizens for 3 months but Magistrates don't? (3) Perhaps it is leftover from different amendments dealing with different things, but I don't see the need for the difference - either both should have the 3 month requirement or neither should.

    -Is (1) needed? By definition votes on Amendments, Decisions and election threads only take place in a specific forum anyway, if there is a poll in the Curia main it then isn't technically one of the above so has no official process, it just seems like an extra qualifier?

    -I think (5) is maybe stripping the detail too far back, I don't see the harm in Article I. saying '[...] the Curator opens a poll in the Curia Vote forum which lasts for one week', or something to that effect.

    -More line spaces please.

    I think that's it, sorry for asking you to hold off and only having a few thoughts to post! (I guess it is a compliment to the work you've done )
    THE WRITERS' STUDY | THE TRIBUNAL | THE CURIA | GUIDE FOR NEW MEMBERS



    PROUD PATRON OF JUNAIDI83, VETERAAN & CAILLAGH
    UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF MEGA TORTAS DE BODEMLOZE

  8. #28
    Lifthrasir's Avatar Carnival Season is over
    Content Director Citizen Curator

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dunkirk - France
    Posts
    6,924
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    I disagree about the VonC part. Not all staff members are Citizen. Why should they be "judged" as such? From my opinion and even by being involved in both, mixing Curia and Staff is not a good idea even for such unusual case.
    Dedicated Hexers are taking care of the Staff they are responsible for. I can't imagine a Staff member acting wrong and not getting any consequence for that from Hex. And even so again, that would mean that the Curia is above Hex which is not the case. The system might not be perfect but it has worked so far.
    Last edited by Lifthrasir; April 20, 2017 at 12:18 PM. Reason: Typos
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, of the Imperial House of Hader


    - Results published!!!



  9. #29
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderation Mentor Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Rhineland
    Posts
    4,154

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Quote Originally Posted by Shankbot de Bodemloze View Post
    -I still think VoNC should be able to be called against Staff members, it is currently in the Constitution and removing it is a change I oppose. Being able to VoNC (even if non-binding) Staff members has been a historic aspect of the Curia and further enhances the advisory role the Curia has (with decisions etc.). I know it is highly unlikely a situation would arise where it would be needed, but I don't think that is a reason to warrant its removal.
    Tango already made a pretty strong case about this one (see above) and I agree with him. The point is that a non-binding VonC is en effet not a VonC at all, having no effects. If the unlikely case arises the same can be achieved by passing a "Decision" stating that the Curia recommends the removal of XYZ staff member. Separately listing this possible scope of a Decision under an additional label as "non-binding VonC" does not enhance the Curia's role, as it does not add anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shankbot de Bodemloze View Post
    -Is there any reason in particular why Censors need to be Citizens for 3 months but Magistrates don't? (3) Perhaps it is leftover from different amendments dealing with different things, but I don't see the need for the difference - either both should have the 3 month requirement or neither should.
    That was an amendment some months ago, when we were facing a shortage of Magistrate candidates and it was reasoned that the citizen time requirement only made sense for offices dealing with citizenship matters themselves, while Magistrate only concerns ToS matters, knowledge of which can be considered independent of citizen time served. Number 3 is just the compilation of the current candidacy requirements from section IV.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shankbot de Bodemloze View Post
    -Is (1) needed? By definition votes on Amendments, Decisions and election threads only take place in a specific forum anyway, if there is a poll in the Curia main it then isn't technically one of the above so has no official process, it just seems like an extra qualifier?
    Numbers 1 and 2 are just copied from the current text. I personally would vote to remove them if the amendment was brough up, but currently they are standing regulations on the use of the Curia Main and Proth, so I'd keep them in for the time being, since the scope of this amendment is not policy change, but just restructuring of the document.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shankbot de Bodemloze View Post
    -I think (5) is maybe stripping the detail too far back, I don't see the harm in Article I. saying '[...] the Curator opens a poll in the Curia Vote forum which lasts for one week', or something to that effect.
    In the current text there are three or four passages both for elections and bills saying that the poll will last one week. Number 5 is just the simplest possible formulation of that so it covers all cases without having to repeat it four times. Also, how long votes take is indeed a regulation/procedural question, so I would keep it in the R&P, while the basic principle that things are voted on in general appears in the main text.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shankbot de Bodemloze View Post
    -More line spaces please.
    Will do. It is just a question of format anyway.
    Last edited by Iskar; April 20, 2017 at 01:04 PM.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi

    Under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Neadal, Squeaks, Makrell, Kaiser Leonidas, Sheridan, Bercor and Higo Chumbo. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

  10. #30
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    17,956
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Could a VonC be passed through the tribunal, since they have a similar president of 'challenging' staff decisions any way. That negates the 'not all staff are citizens' element. Just an idea, if viable, maybe worth running past the tribunes.

  11. #31
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderation Mentor Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Rhineland
    Posts
    4,154

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    That would be a major policy change, though, and probably stuff for an actual amendment/suggestion to Hex in its own right.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi

    Under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Neadal, Squeaks, Makrell, Kaiser Leonidas, Sheridan, Bercor and Higo Chumbo. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

  12. #32
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    17,956
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    A'yup, I didn't mean for this, it would take a bit more thought and agreement with Hex and the tribunes. Though to be honest I don't recall the last time a staff VonC was even called, maybe it's an antiquated concept.

  13. #33
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderation Mentor Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Rhineland
    Posts
    4,154

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Most likely. It is even hard to imagine a non-trivial case of it, considering that any misdemeanour leading to a Curial VonC against a Staff member would have lead to internal disciplinarian measures by Staff in the first place, most likely leading to the firing of the hypothetical culprit before the Curia even got wind of the entire thing.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi

    Under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Neadal, Squeaks, Makrell, Kaiser Leonidas, Sheridan, Bercor and Higo Chumbo. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

  14. #34
    PikeStance's Avatar I'm European Now!
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,936
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    I thought the point of this was to create footnotes for "regulations and Procedures." Then why are we removing items from the Constitution?
    I advise it is best to keep focus on one thing and if you don't like something within the Constitution then propose a change in another proposal.

    I do not see why we have to this one section at a time. Why can't you make those changes for the whole document and then vote on it once?

    I am also with Shanks on the VonC. There is no reason if the citizens of the site is dissatisfied with a staff member that they can't voice it. <- anyway, this should be an entirely new proposal.
    Modders Wanted | Patronages
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Historical researchers, Text Editors, Scriptors, Modelers and 2D/Texture artists to join our dynamic development team.
    If interested or have any questions, please contact PikeStance (Mod Manager) or wangrin (Mod Leader)
    PLEASE SEE OUR FULL AD HERE
    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    | Hayabusa Sushi | Darios | Destin Faroda | z3n (Opifex) | Tenerife Boy | Bran Mac Born | [email protected] |
    | Zipzopdippidybopbop| izzi | VadAntS | Goutlard | Caligula |


    Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. William Butler Yeats





  15. #35
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderation Mentor Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Rhineland
    Posts
    4,154

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    I thought the point of this was to create footnotes for "regulations and Procedures." Then why are we removing items from the Constitution?
    I advise it is best to keep focus on one thing and if you don't like something within the Constitution then propose a change in another proposal.

    I am also with Shanks on the VonC. There is no reason if the citizens of the site is dissatisfied with a staff member that they can't voice it. <- anyway, this should be an entirely new proposal.
    As laid out above, the Curia can already express dissatisfaction with a staff member, using an ordinary Decision, and this would have the exact same effects as passing a (non-binding!) VonC against a staff member. Therefore removal of the mention of staff members in the VonC section does not remove a competence of the Curia, it just removes its separate and redundant mentioning.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi

    Under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Neadal, Squeaks, Makrell, Kaiser Leonidas, Sheridan, Bercor and Higo Chumbo. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

  16. #36
    Halie Satanus's Avatar Emperor of ice cream
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    17,956
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    On the other hand, a VonC has a civility about it. It also has the built in 'frivolous use' clause, which a decision doesn't.

  17. #37
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderation Mentor Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Rhineland
    Posts
    4,154

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    The precaution against frivolous use is only necessary where the Vote has an actual effect (the removal from office). Where the effect is just an expression of dissatisfaction it is quite meaningless in itself and frivolity would be insubstantial.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi

    Under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Neadal, Squeaks, Makrell, Kaiser Leonidas, Sheridan, Bercor and Higo Chumbo. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

  18. #38
    PikeStance's Avatar I'm European Now!
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,936
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    The stated purpose was not to "remove clauses" but to remove regulations and procedure to footnotes.

    As I said, it would be better to present the entire document as one. I would love to see how the finish document will look. There have been many times something looks great in small doses, but terrible when applied universally. I hate to do all this and then having to revert it because once we all seen out it turns out we all hate. The scary part is, since it is clear you are doing this step for step yourself, not even you know how it will look in the end.

    Also, the more variables you throw into a proposal more likely it is to fail. Most are willing to a take a leap of faith at the changes proposed, but may change their vote because you decided to throw in an additional change. If you do not like it, then make a separate proposal and let's discuss the merits or lack there of there, not here.

    As far as the Vonc is concern, I agree with Halie, a VonC carries something very different from a decision, even though, they may function in the same manner. I still believe that once the "window dressing is done" a redesign of the "Constitution" is necessary in order to remove the "redundancies."

    Please let's do one thing at a time....
    Footnotes then
    Reorganization and/or removal or adding of clauses.

    Seriously, can we just get the whole constitution at once? This could go on for months!
    Modders Wanted | Patronages
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Historical researchers, Text Editors, Scriptors, Modelers and 2D/Texture artists to join our dynamic development team.
    If interested or have any questions, please contact PikeStance (Mod Manager) or wangrin (Mod Leader)
    PLEASE SEE OUR FULL AD HERE
    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    | Hayabusa Sushi | Darios | Destin Faroda | z3n (Opifex) | Tenerife Boy | Bran Mac Born | [email protected] |
    | Zipzopdippidybopbop| izzi | VadAntS | Goutlard | Caligula |


    Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. William Butler Yeats





  19. #39
    Iskar's Avatar Insanity with Dignity
    Moderation Mentor Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Rhineland
    Posts
    4,154

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Since I am the one doing the legwork in putting up these proposals in the first place, I'll do it in such portions as I see fit and I doubt you can judge how much of this process I have already envisioned. Thank you.
    If sensible arguments are brought forth to include additional sections (as done by Veteraan in this very thread) I am perfectly fine with doing so, of course.

    As for the removal of the staff VonC clause, we have removed redundant clauses in the previous amendment as well and nobody seemed to have a problem with it. (The entire paragraph on peregrini was removed, and even now all of Section II is up for removal and there seems to be no problem with that.)

    Now for the actual issue:
    a VonC carries something very different from a decision, even though, they may function in the same manner.
    If they function identically, how can they be different? It is just two labels on the same bottle. There is no harm done in removing the redundant clause while, as I understood Tango, much would be gained in clarifying that the Curia has no authoritative sway over staff members.

    I am not entirely inclinded to keep arguing this point ad nauseam, so, Halie, Shank, what are your thoughts about this (since you brought it up)?
    Last edited by Iskar; April 23, 2017 at 05:48 AM.
    "Non i titoli illustrano gli uomini, ma gli uomini i titoli." - Niccolo Machiavelli, Discorsi

    Under the patronage of the impeccable Aikanár, alongside Neadal, Squeaks, Makrell, Kaiser Leonidas, Sheridan, Bercor and Higo Chumbo. Humble patron of Cyclops, Frunk and Abdülmecid I.

    On an eternal crusade for reason, logics, catholicism and chocolate. Mostly chocolate, though.

  20. #40
    PikeStance's Avatar I'm European Now!
    Content Staff

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    7,936
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: [Amendment] Removing Section II and Condensing Section III

    Quote Originally Posted by Iskar View Post
    Since I am the one doing the legwork in putting up these proposals in the first place, I'll do it in such portions as I see fit. Thank you.
    If sensible arguments are brought forth to include additional sections (as done by Veteraan in this very thread) I am perfectly fine with doing so, of course.
    Is there anyone here not appreciative of your efforts? I do not think so. So, why am I getting a condescending remark. It seems perfectly reasonable to want to see how the whole thing will work so that it doesn't look like disaster at the end. It seems very sensible to me.
    As for the removal of the staff VonC clause, we have removed redundant clauses in the previous amendment as well and nobody seemed to have a problem with it. (The entire paragraph on peregrini was removed, and even now all of Section II is up for removal and there seems to be no problem with that.)
    I didn't catch that.
    Now for the actual issue:If they function identically, how can they be different? It is just two labels on the same bottle. There is no harm done in removing the redundant clause while, as I understood Tango, much would be gained in clarifying that the Curia has no authoritative sway over staff members.
    I am not entirely inclinded to keep arguing this point ad nauseam, so, Halie, Shank, what are your thoughts about this (since you brought it up)?
    It is consistent with the advisory role. A VonC is not a decision. It is not two labels on the same bottle at all. Just because the last part of the procedure is similar doesn't make it the same thing.
    Modders Wanted | Patronages
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Historical researchers, Text Editors, Scriptors, Modelers and 2D/Texture artists to join our dynamic development team.
    If interested or have any questions, please contact PikeStance (Mod Manager) or wangrin (Mod Leader)
    PLEASE SEE OUR FULL AD HERE
    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    | Hayabusa Sushi | Darios | Destin Faroda | z3n (Opifex) | Tenerife Boy | Bran Mac Born | [email protected] |
    | Zipzopdippidybopbop| izzi | VadAntS | Goutlard | Caligula |


    Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. William Butler Yeats





Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •