Amendment- Votes of no Confidence and Ratification

[Scar Face]

Proposer: Scar Face
Supporters: Scorch, Pannonian, Garbarsardar

Votes of No Confidence and Ratification

Article 2 - Election Procedure

When the Curia is required to elect an Officer or Rank, or ratify an appoint, the following process shall be applied:

Ratification Votes
When a member has been duly appointed as a Staff Officer, and where required, is ratified by his branch. After two weeks have elapsed from his appointment the Speaker of the House shall post a poll in the Curia Votes forum. The Speaker shall state which position the member has been appointed to, and that they have been ratified by their colleagues if appropriate. The vote shall last for one week, and the member shall be ratified if they receive a simple majority of non abstaining votes.

Votes of No Confidence

At any time, any Citizen of this site may initiate a vote of "No Confidence" in any Tribunal Judge or Officer, with the exception of Moderation or Technical Staff not on the Council, for neglect of duty or abuse of authority by posting their case within the Curia. Frivolous use of this procedure may result in disciplinary proceedings. In all cases, a vote of "No Confidence" is exempt from veto., however the vote is non binding except in the case of elected officers. The debate and vote on a motion of "No Confidence" shall follow the same procedure as that of a bill as per Article 3 below, but shall be conducted in the Curia Main, and not the Prothalamos.

Essentially the bill is to remove Ratification, as it is a pointless endeavor. Never has a Moderator been turned down, never will one be turned down. The point of ratification was to bring Moderators before the Curia, and essentially, review them. Ratification comes too early though, long before judgment can be past. With the removal of Ratifications, and the additional power to bring down a vote of no Confidence on a Moderator, the Curia can have its voice heard once actual judgment on the Moderator can be made.

[Halie Satanus]

You've gone strait from election to VonC without a procedure for election, if that is your intention.

[Scar Face]

I am only showing the areas where changes have been made.

[aja5191]

I think you're supposed to post the entire section of the Constitution.

[Scar Face]

I think you're supposed to post the entire section of the Constitution.

If anyone wants to clean up my proposals image [though not context], I am fine with that. However, wasting time on actually discussing in what manner it is conventionally proposed in, is pointless.

[gigagaia]

I guess this is just for electing moderators?

Frankly I think moderators should be just as autonomous as technical staff. Having the curia pass a non-binding vote of no confidence is, in my opinion, a strong enough message that Senior Moderators would take not of an investigate...

[Scorch]

So basically this amendment, just so I'm reading this right, removes the ratification procedure for Staff Officers (okay, with you so far, it's a fairly redundant and useless process) and in its stead removes the moderation staff from the group that are unable to be VonCed?

Sounds like a good idea, and I support this.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Absolutely against removing ratification, absolutely for scrutinising the tribunes. Don't support at this point.

[pannonian]

Ratification means little, as in the short time from appointment to vote the public have little evidence to judge the new moderator by. However, the Curia should be able to pass an advisory motion on anything it likes. If this means VONC, then the staff involved and/or their seniors will find it difficult to ignore.

Support.

I guess this is just for electing moderators?

Frankly I think moderators should be just as autonomous as technical staff. Having the curia pass a non-binding vote of no confidence is, in my opinion, a strong enough message that Senior Moderators would take not of an investigate...

Scar Face's proposal amounts to just that. Personally, if I'm VONCed, I'll take it as a clear enough message that I'm not doing my job, and step down.

[Dayman]

Hmm, I think we should be able to VonC moderators and tribunes. That's good.

Don't do away with ratifications. I also think that perhaps tribunes need to be ratified as well.

[pannonian]

There isn't enough evidence available to make ratifications worthwhile. It's the Curia's seal on moderator appointments, but in practice it is pointless. The VONC, or to make its tone clearer, the motion that the Curia has no confidence in any member of staff, is nominally advisory and non-binding, but in practice has far more teeth. Do away with the ceremonials and introduce something with more substance.

[Dayman]

I understand that, but I feel that the ratification should be there anyway, in case of a truly hated appointment.

[Scorch]

I understand that, but I feel that the ratification should be there anyway, in case of a truly hated appointment.

I disagree. If someone that is truly hated is appointed, then you can and should feel free to VonC them as soon as they are promoted. However the whole idea of ratification is rather useless. No one has ever failed their ratification and I don't think anyone will. It's rather useless.

VonCs, on the other hand, can be instituted at any time, not just when the moderator is two weeks into his term (which, as has been pointed out, is far too early to pass judgement, in most cases).

[Garnier]

Why have ratification if you can VONC a moderator? As Scorch said, just start a VONC as soon as they become a mod. It's practically the same thing, but also allows discussion so people can see why the moderator should be removed.

[Garbarsardar]

I understand that, but I feel that the ratification should be there anyway, in case of a truly hated appointment.

And that is exactly the problem. Moderators are not winners of a popularity contest; they are staff members and expected to perform likewise. Take myself as example; I am a liked member but probably unsuitable for moderator since I hold very strong views on issues and my bias may overcome my better angels.

Ratification is an essentially flawed process; we are asked to ratify a moderator after 2 weeks. In this time he is still inexperienced and probably prone to more mistakes than in all his subsequent career. So we will base our vote in a vote that comes early and after an inadequate "observation" period?

Extending the VonC (or censure since it is not binding) is a much better measure to draw the attention of the Strats and the CoM to an underperforming member.

I support.

[Dayman]

And that is exactly the problem. Moderators are not winners of a popularity contest; they are staff members and expected to perform likewise.

I'm not suggesting that it should be.

[Garbarsardar]

I'm not suggesting that it should be.

Then in which terms except of popularity can the appointment of a person that we have never seen perform as a moderator can be deemed

a truly hated appointment.

?

And if the case is for the re-appointment of ex-moderators, well, if someone appoints H&G I will VonC both on the next day...

[Dayman]

Then in which terms except of popularity can the appointment of a person that we have never seen perform as a moderator can be deemed

That's kind of what I meant, but I see your point.

[Fabolous]

I support this bill, for many of the reasons mentioned above, namely the failings of the ratification period and the overall redundancy of the process.

[Belisarius]

We have never not ratified a moderator, but if ever we have issues with a moderators appointment then this is a good tool that we should not use.