[Amendment] Judge's Gavel

**Augustus Lucifer** · December 06, 2009, 06:33 PM

Required Support: Harry Lime, Sqυιd, y2day

Medium Awards
...

Judge's Gavel
The Judge's Gavel is awarded at the discretion of the Tribunal liaison in consultation with the administrative council. To qualify for the medal, a member must have made a significant contribution to the Tribunal process in the capacity of a Tribune or Magistrate.

-----------------------------------------

I'm proposing this due to the valid concerns raised with the other two proposals on the floor that seek to add a new medal. This proposal probably doesn't need to wait the 30 days, since due to the same technicality people are denying the other proposal on, the others only mandate a medal be created rather than attempt to create it. However, if the Curator deems that they are 'substantially similar' this will have to wait 30 days, but that doesn't prevent it from being discussed. The framing of the proposal is to make it work with my Medal Cleanup bill, but the formatted place is otherwise irrelevant.

As to the qualifications, I decided the best way to do it is base it on the Wiki Contributor medal. The reason for this is there are two similar capacities, one elected and one appointed, and only one of the two have terms. Rather than using some type of conversion chart, it's easier to arbitrarily define it as significant contribution, which is what all Medium Awards fall under. The other reason is the majority of Tribunal work is done behind closed doors, so the only people qualified to award Tribunes and Magistrates are the administrators who can read the discussions and reference the Archives.

The position of "Tribunal overseer" defined herein refers simply to the administrator who is tasked with seeing to the needs of the Tribunal, and can be altered, especially if GED who is currently in that capacity can think of a better name for it.

Finally, I'm not specifying an award graphic because there are no such things defined in 95% of the awards in the Constitution. As such specifying a graphic only creates another reason for opposition, when it can be altered by Art Staff in consultation with Hex at any time.

**Harry Lime** · December 10, 2009, 01:24 PM

I like this. I like the logic behind it, the flexibility and the wording. I also prefer it to the currently being voted on proposal.

Support.

**Squid** · December 10, 2009, 02:28 PM

Support.

Just a question is "overseer" the right word? It sounds like the head seer instead of the person overlooking the the tribunes on hex.

**GrnEyedDvl** · December 10, 2009, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Augustus Lucifer

The position of "Tribunal overseer" defined herein refers simply to the administrator who is tasked with seeing to the needs of the Tribunal, and can be altered, especially if GED who is currently in that capacity can think of a better name for it.

I think the term used when it was discussed with me was Tribunal Liason, but you can call it whatever you want. Just another part of GED's Sweatshop.

Obviously since this proposal puts the decision on me, I can neither support or oppose.

**y2day** · December 10, 2009, 09:30 PM

Support -

**Каие** · December 11, 2009, 03:27 AM

You know this can't be moved to vote until 28 days after the current one finishes it's vote?

**Augustus Lucifer** · December 11, 2009, 05:44 AM

I've changed the word 'overseer' to 'liaison' as suggested by GED. If the Curator feels this semantic change results in a proposal that requires re-declaration of support, I'll obviously have to comply, but for now I've added the three supports to the OP.

Originally Posted by Яome kb8

You know this can't be moved to vote until 28 days after the current one finishes it's vote?

I'm aware that the bills could be considered 'substantially similar', as I noted in the OP, and would not be chuffed if this had to wait before going to vote. However, as I also noted, the proposal currently being voted on only mandates that someone create an award, it doesn't actually create the award. So had that have passed it would be prescribing a bill like this one, due to a technicality in its wording that makes it not effectively do any amending, which is partly why it's being voted down. As such the bills may be substantially similar in intent, but not in practice. That's for you to decide, Mr. Curator.

**Каие** · December 11, 2009, 05:52 AM

Well I'm prepared to let it go to vote as soon as you get the 3 supporters and wait the necessary three days, and I would be very happy about that. I take the same opinion as you.

**Augustus Lucifer** · December 16, 2009, 03:15 PM

Feel free to move this to vote since there isn't much discussion, unless of course it's to wait the 28 days which is fine.

**Augustus Lucifer** · December 29, 2009, 12:26 AM

Looks like it failed by 1 vote. Will re-propose in 25 days, and hopefully the naysayers will speak up this time so whatever qualms they have can be addressed. Record low number of voters almost as well, only 31 votes cast, I thought we were at least averaging in the 40s-50s.

**GrnEyedDvl** · December 29, 2009, 01:49 AM

Holidays.

**Augustus Lucifer** · December 29, 2009, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by GrnEyedDvl

Holidays.

True, but it's almost a Curia tradition for medal proposals to skirt the line between passing and failure. The Scribe's Quill passed 22:11, the University Medals 26:12, Phalera 29:13. What's really funny to me is that the Fantasy Sports Award got more yes votes.

Que sera sera, once, twice, thrice more into the breach until it skims by a vote.