[Amendment] Preservation of the CdeC good conduct period

**Rolanbek** · August 05, 2010, 03:06 PM

Proposer: Rolanbek
Supporters:Mr MM, Bokks, Mega Tortas de Bodemloze

Recent events have identified a loophole within the constitution.

It appears that it may be possible for reapplicants to satisfy part of there CdeC application requirement during a period for which they may have received a Demotion.

The changes below synchronise the warning free period with the required rank holding period

also added a mechanism for notifying and removing unqualified applicants.

Elections Consilium de Civitates members are elected as per Article II, Section II for three months, with the added requirements that they currently have no active staff warnings and that for the period of three months prior to the commencment of the elections they have; held their rank as citizen, and received no warnings from the Consilium de Civitates

~~that candidates have no active Staff warnings and not received any Consilium de Civitates warnings within the last three months at the time of election. and hold their rank for three months.~~

Applicants who do not meet these requirements will be invited to withdraw by the Curator by PM detailing on what criteria they failed. Should the notified candidate fail to satisfy the Curator that they do indeed meet the criteria for application they will be removed from consideration by the Curator prior to the shortlisting of candidates for election. At the time of removal the candidates failed criteria will be placed in the application thread for public scrutiny.
If a member of the Consilium de Civitates resigns during their term, and that term is less than 50% completed (that is, it has over one and a half months left to run), an election will be held for a replacement member to serve the remainder of the term. If the resigning member's term is more than 50% completed, the vacant position may be filled by a volunteering Staff Member who otherwise fits the requirements for the position.

New elections will be held prior to the expiry of member's terms in order to ensure that the Consilium de Civitates remains at full strength.

Original post and proposal below.

Recent events have identified a loophole within the constitution.

It appears that it may be possible for reapplicants to satisfy part of there CdeC application requirement during a period for which they may have received a Demotion.

The changes below synchronise the warning free period with the required rank holding period

Elections Consilium de Civitates members are elected as per Article II, Section II for three months, with the added requirements that candidates have no active Staff warnings and not received any Consilium de Civitates warnings and have held their rank for the ~~within the last~~ three months prior to ~~at the time of~~ election. ~~and hold their rank for three months.~~

If a member of the Consilium de Civitates resigns during their term, and that term is less than 50% completed (that is, it has over one and a half months left to run), an election will be held for a replacement member to serve the remainder of the term. If the resigning member's term is more than 50% completed, the vacant position may be filled by a volunteering Staff Member who otherwise fits the requirements for the position.

New elections will be held prior to the expiry of member's terms in order to ensure that the Consilium de Civitates remains at full strength.

R

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · August 05, 2010, 03:13 PM

Support.

**Lysimachus** · August 05, 2010, 03:26 PM

i dont get it

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · August 05, 2010, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

i dont get it

This is why you are not grasshopper.

**Lysimachus** · August 05, 2010, 03:47 PM

hmmm im on the fence

if new citizens have to put up with arbitrary waiting, why do people who have had their rank removed get away with it

**Augustus Lucifer** · August 05, 2010, 03:56 PM

I'll support for clarification sake since I think this was the intent if not the current wording. I'd still rather we simply abolish all the wait periods as frivolous and unnecessary, but that can happen down the road after the current ambiguity has been resolved.

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · August 05, 2010, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

hmmm im on the fence

if new citizens have to put up with arbitrary waiting, why do people who have had their rank removed get away with it

Um, well, in the case that has brought on this, it might be because new citizens are new citizens, and I have over a year's experience.

**Lysimachus** · August 05, 2010, 03:57 PM

but in continuing with the curia's annoying justification for the 3-month period, wouldnt you need it to "fit back in to the curia" and "show you can behave"?

**Augustus Lucifer** · August 05, 2010, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

but in continuing with the curia's annoying justification for the 3-month period, wouldnt you need it to "fit back in to the curia" and "show you can behave"?

You do realize this amendment makes it so Ferrets would not be able to run, and that it's saying it needs to be consecutive prior to the specific election bid, yes?

If so then I'm confused about the point of contention.

**Legio** · August 05, 2010, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Augustus Lucifer

You do realize this amendment makes it so Ferrets would not be able to run, and that it's saying it needs to be consecutive prior to the specific election bid, yes?

If so then I'm confused about the point of contention.

Hah. Support.

Edit: I like how everyone has migrated from the drama thread to here.

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · August 05, 2010, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

but in continuing with the curia's annoying justification for the 3-month period, wouldnt you need it to "fit back in to the curia" and "show you can behave"?

No, I would need a democratic mandate from an election, and whether or not an individual member of the electorate finds that relevant is completely up to them.

In my opinion.

**Hesus de bodemloze** · August 05, 2010, 04:00 PM

The 3 month period should be for every one new citizen or reinstated citizens.

**Lysimachus** · August 05, 2010, 04:04 PM

oh right, i thought it meant that you need to have been a citizen for 3 months and then regardless of whether you got your rank removed you could apply again the moment you got in again, cos it says:

and have held their rank for the three months prior to the election

which could mean prior in a broad sense

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · August 05, 2010, 04:07 PM

Not with the word the present.

**Lysimachus** · August 05, 2010, 04:07 PM

oh right okay support then

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · August 05, 2010, 04:10 PM

Of course there could be another loophole present that I will nefariously exploit.

**Rolanbek** · August 05, 2010, 04:17 PM

If you like, that's how it's done. If you don't test it you don't know if it works.

Destruct testing legislation, and human patience.

R

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · August 05, 2010, 04:19 PM

Oh come on I'm joking. Cheer, up there's kittens and stuff in the world.

**Bokks** · August 05, 2010, 04:27 PM

There are ferrets in the world too. Ferrets are much cooler than cats.. for one thing you treat them just like cats, but they're not cats, they're mustela furo... a sort of crazy weasel-rodent without the rodent features. But for some reason even though they are mustela and mustela is latin for weasel, they're not considered straight up weasels.

They've been domesticated for longer than cats, too, and although they generally smell unless you get ones that have their scent glands removed (kinda similar to a skunk) they're sorta hypoallergenic. They've also been used in the courts of Queen Elizabeth, Julius Caesar and Hatchepsut, sometimes known as Hatusa.

But on a more relevent note, I support... although it doesn't seem it's very necessary now...