Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 74

Thread: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

  1. #21
    General Brewster's Avatar The Flying Dutchman
    Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    13,682
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    @General:

    The position of consul is not only empty, if the Consul is VoNC'd. It is also empty, if the Consul is absent or resigned. It has no literally restriction on the case of being VoNC'd.

    Your restriction of "empty position" on the case of being VoNC'd has no backup in the wording of the constitution.

    @Commodus:

    Do we certainly know, that Hader was not absent for more than a week, as VZ started the election thread one week ago?

    No.
    I have no idea what you mean. The office of Consul is not and was not vacant. The stipulations made for the removal of Hader have not been enacted. What you are doing here is prove that Van Zandt acted beyond the limitations he has via the Constitution. By all means and purposes, the consulship is still a occupied position.

    When VZ made his claim that Hader was absent, I checked Hader's profile. Who had, at that time had been online the day before.

    Quote Originally Posted by CommodusIV View Post
    If he can or cannot be proven absent in that time (we can't know for sure due to forum limitations and must fall on other facts) is irrelevant.

    If he was, VZ should have started a process to replace Hader on the spot, something that would have different language than what was used.

    If he was not, and was clearly active enough to tell VZ to do it (assuming VZ was told to do it), then he was active enough to defer authority. The authority then fell on the wrong place. Censors should be maintained in order to keep the process running smoothly. They clearly were not and the activity gap is too large for their absence to have been impossible to note in time for this, so at the very least there was an issue with planning who takes on what.

    By the post you quoted and used to base your point, "Hader is still Consul as he has not been removed via absence". With this any point you're trying to make with the snipe is gone.
    Commodus is spot on. There is no scenario where VZ has not overstepped some part of the Constitutional limitation's his office has. Thus he should not be entrusted to be the moderator of the Curia.

  2. #22
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    In my Mansion
    Posts
    3,079

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    You are intentionally misrepresenting, what i'm saying.

    I'm saying: If Hader was inactive (7 days without log in) or had said to VZ: "I will be inactice from now on the next months", then VZ was absolutely in his competence. Point.

    But do what you Curialists can do best, make your intrigues.

    My point is made.
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly. (Morticia Addams)


  3. #23
    Imperator Majora's Avatar What's under your mask?
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    The Beyond
    Posts
    1,639
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    I'm saying: If Hader was inactive (7 days without log in)
    ...then VZ should have taken control of the system made it clear he was doing so, as would have been his right. But no. He took order from Hader.
    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    or had said to VZ: "I will be inactice from now on the next months",
    ...and if it was that serious, he should have deferred to an emergency election considering the ending term or more importantly, made use of the censor system that is explicitly in place to do this kind of thing. Praefects are not interchangeable with Censors. That was never the point. This was a distinction made in Hader's own Order 66.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    But do what you Curialists can do best, make your intrigues..
    For someone accusing us of making intrigues and deliberately misrepresenting your point, you have a remarkable way of shifting the goalposts on things explained to you in detail by multiple users multiple times. Proud non-citizenship is not an excuse for failing to understand the constitution that already accounts for the exact problem at hand in our tangent and was ignored despite that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Morticia Iunia Bruti View Post
    My point is made.
    Your point was already made. It was just dumb.

    You've pretty much said the same thing multiple times in nearly the same way and I've wasted time trying to rephrase for someone who seems to be trying at all costs to not understand the logic behind the VONC; it is credible by word of law, potentially flexible in how we respond to the issue.

    It's all well and good to be contrary about it. I'm advocating we tone the process down. That said, you're not going to convince anyone by misrepresenting why they brought it up.

  4. #24
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    13,127

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    Let's get down to business then.


    I did indeed ask that, in case I was unable to do so on time, the Consul election threads be taken care of as to not delay the election. This does not specifically fall under the praefects to do; they are to do so in the case of a vacant consulship only. I am not sure it would be considered vacant if I went over my election term time limit without a new election taking place, so the letter of the law here is not quite followed on point, but in the spirit of the law, the intent was to ensure the election was not missed if I could not make it to my computer in time to do so myself, and if the censors were not active to do so either.


    So on a side note, perhaps a great opportunity for an amendment to the constitution for more specificity. Among other things.


    For those unaware, I posted here the reason for my absence. In short, blame COVID. Discussion between myself and praefects/censors in the Politia weeks ago was about the possibility of me not being around in time to do the elections myself. Considering I was also unsure of my current censors being around at the right time as well, it was spoken in general that it would be nice to ensure the election started on time regardless of my absence or not.


    The one extra wrench in the situation is that the consul threads were started earlier than needed. 29 March is the start date for the debate/applications, with the election meant to conclude by April 4th, which is the actual end date of my term. I believe VZ went off of prior election thread's end dates, which were different from dates posted in the Politia internal thread for organizing election dates (though should coincide with the sticked Curial Information post showing end of term dates). The last election thread was started a bit later than normal, so as to not appear to be artificially lengthening the term of my consulship, the actual election dates I had posted were: 29 March App Thread, 1 April Vote, 4 April Vote Conclude. That is the full 4 month term from last election date even though the last election Vote thread was posted a couple days late.


    All in all, a far from ideal situation, but hardly one that needs to break much in order to normalize. I cannot stop a VonC from occuring, but I've hopefully done my part to clarify, and Brew and others can proceed as they feel is necessary. Feel free to ask more if needed.

  5. #25
    mishkin's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    The Tribunal
    Posts
    13,035

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    In short: You told Van Zandt directly that he should act as censor starting the consul election process in the event that you were not present when the time came (today)?

    May I ask why haven't you had a censor for (presumably) months? Why didn't you publicly choose a censor to do what, inappropriately, Van Zandt did?
    Last edited by mishkin; March 29, 2020 at 11:44 AM.
    So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. (Revelation 3:16).

  6. #26
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,943

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    I would agree with Hader here, my immediate reaction was surprise. We should probably create a more productive proposal with a solution like an amendment clarifying that in the event of consul and curator inactivity the primes praefect can take over the administrative duties.


    Opposed.
    The AI Workshop Creator
    Europa Barbaroum II AI/Game Mechanics Developer
    The Northern Crusades Lead Developer
    Classical Age Total War Retired Lead Developer
    Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
    RTW Workshop Assistance MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
    Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)

  7. #27
    mishkin's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    The Tribunal
    Posts
    13,035

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    Quote Originally Posted by z3n View Post
    I would agree with Hader here, my immediate reaction was surprise. We should probably create a more productive proposal with a solution like an amendment clarifying that in the event of consul and curator inactivity the primes praefect can take over the administrative duties.


    Opposed.
    What you suggest is already covered in the constitution. Morticia has been quoting that paragraph I think.
    So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. (Revelation 3:16).

  8. #28
    Imperator Majora's Avatar What's under your mask?
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    The Beyond
    Posts
    1,639
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    So, here's where I'm at right now.
    The process was initiated by the Primus Praefect on request from the Consul. Before that, Hader indicates in the Townhall that he notified both the censors and the praefects he would not necessarily be completely gone, but frequently absent enough that they, importantly, the censors per constitution, would probably need to step up.

    Elfdude's profile doesn't say, but his last post was on Feb 14th, and StealthFox's last activity per his profile was on Jan 24th. Was there any response? It seems unlikely. It would appear to me that the censors have been AWOL since before the corona nonsense took wings, and their activity in the curia was weak at best before their respective final dates. Depending on the response to this, it looks like there just haven't been any censors to do the job. Did it ever come to mind to appoint someone(s) more active, or was it decided to just leave them alone and defer to the next best people in the structure, the Praefects? In this I'd like to establish who was tapped for what and who's been available. In doing so I'd like to see if Van Zandt was possibly just doing the best he could when the Consul didn't decide to appoint anyone per how the system is supposed to work and skipped to the next best people for when he couldn't handle it himself or have censors take on the jobs, which strikes me as irresponsible on the Consul's part if there was time to get people in, but not necessarily VZ's fault even if he could have noticed the issue and put a better foot forward. But to make any decisions it would be nice to know from Hader if these thoughts are on the right track and what the deal is on the bits asked.

    It looks like the violations are basically confirmed, and it's not in question what was done, but how badly it was and what was behind it so we can decide how the rest of the VonC should go and what sorts of things people should keep in mind when voting. I believe Brew has a post in the making regarding this stuff, so I defer to him until there's a few more comments to clarify for thought.

    I would still like a few more facts on the table before people oppose or support this more conclusively. There's data that just isn't here yet, and an amendment to make this smoother in the future is another matter. I will say that instead of an amendment to give the Praefects different powers, we should consider doing a better job with the unlimited potential people who are supposed to have been doing the process - censors.

  9. #29
    General Brewster's Avatar The Flying Dutchman
    Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    13,682
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    DP
    Last edited by General Brewster; March 29, 2020 at 12:09 PM.

  10. #30
    General Brewster's Avatar The Flying Dutchman
    Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    13,682
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    Quote Originally Posted by Hader View Post
    Let's get down to business then.


    I did indeed ask that, in case I was unable to do so on time, the Consul election threads be taken care of as to not delay the election. This does not specifically fall under the praefects to do; they are to do so in the case of a vacant consulship only. I am not sure it would be considered vacant if I went over my election term time limit without a new election taking place, so the letter of the law here is not quite followed on point, but in the spirit of the law, the intent was to ensure the election was not missed if I could not make it to my computer in time to do so myself, and if the censors were not active to do so either.


    So on a side note, perhaps a great opportunity for an amendment to the constitution for more specificity. Among other things.


    For those unaware, I posted here the reason for my absence. In short, blame COVID. Discussion between myself and praefects/censors in the Politia weeks ago was about the possibility of me not being around in time to do the elections myself. Considering I was also unsure of my current censors being around at the right time as well, it was spoken in general that it would be nice to ensure the election started on time regardless of my absence or not.


    The one extra wrench in the situation is that the consul threads were started earlier than needed. 29 March is the start date for the debate/applications, with the election meant to conclude by April 4th, which is the actual end date of my term. I believe VZ went off of prior election thread's end dates, which were different from dates posted in the Politia internal thread for organizing election dates (though should coincide with the sticked Curial Information post showing end of term dates). The last election thread was started a bit later than normal, so as to not appear to be artificially lengthening the term of my consulship, the actual election dates I had posted were: 29 March App Thread, 1 April Vote, 4 April Vote Conclude. That is the full 4 month term from last election date even though the last election Vote thread was posted a couple days late.


    All in all, a far from ideal situation, but hardly one that needs to break much in order to normalize. I cannot stop a VonC from occuring, but I've hopefully done my part to clarify, and Brew and others can proceed as they feel is necessary. Feel free to ask more if needed.
    Quote Originally Posted by CommodusIV View Post
    So, here's where I'm at right now.
    The process was initiated by the Primus Praefect on request from the Consul. Before that, Hader indicates in the Townhall that he notified both the censors and the praefects he would not necessarily be completely gone, but frequently absent enough that they, importantly, the censors per constitution, would probably need to step up.

    Elfdude's profile doesn't say, but his last post was on Feb 14th, and StealthFox's last activity per his profile was on Jan 24th. Was there any response? It seems unlikely. It would appear to me that the censors have been AWOL since before the corona nonsense took wings, and their activity in the curia was weak at best before their respective final dates. Depending on the response to this, it looks like there just haven't been any censors to do the job. Did it ever come to mind to appoint someone(s) more active, or was it decided to just leave them alone and defer to the next best people in the structure, the Praefects? In this I'd like to establish who was tapped for what and who's been available. In doing so I'd like to see if Van Zandt was possibly just doing the best he could when the Consul didn't decide to appoint anyone per how the system is supposed to work and skipped to the next best people for when he couldn't handle it himself or have censors take on the jobs, which strikes me as irresponsible on the Consul's part if there was time to get people in, but not necessarily VZ's fault even if he could have noticed the issue and put a better foot forward. But to make any decisions it would be nice to know from Hader if these thoughts are on the right track and what the deal is on the bits asked.

    It looks like the violations are basically confirmed, and it's not in question what was done, but how badly it was and what was behind it so we can decide how the rest of the VonC should go and what sorts of things people should keep in mind when voting. I believe Brew has a post in the making regarding this stuff, so I defer to him until there's a few more comments to clarify for thought.

    I would still like a few more facts on the table before people oppose or support this more conclusively. There's data that just isn't here yet, and an amendment to make this smoother in the future is another matter. I will say that instead of an amendment to give the Praefects different powers, we should consider doing a better job with the unlimited potential people who are supposed to have been doing the process - censors.
    I see that Commodus had covered a lot of ground already so I'll keep it shorter than planned. I think that proposing an amendment to mend this is ruling on today's business. The deeper issue you are presenting us with is that the appointed Censors are not here. While there are people that would've gladly filled it in the void StealthFox and Elfdude left. I mean I can only talk for myself but I'm sure someone like Athelstan would've helped you if the question came. Hell... I would've offered services if only to keep the Curia running. Why did you not replace people who havent been active for months?

    I have respect for you absence and the fact you were absent isn't really a point of discussion. Though I'm happy you're fine and continue to be healthy.

    The extra wrench only illustrates further that VZ overstepped his mandate. Something he has refused to acknowledge. Adding further insult to injury his "defense" is nothing but mocking safeguards in the constitution. I'm not doing this to crucify anyone or for the usual drama. I merely ask that the Constitution, the thing that mandate's everyone with an office here and details how things should be done, is followed. If we do not follow it now, it could easily lead to further things. I know many people are not fond of preserving the history of this institution but I am. Van Zandt has clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of the Constitution, a total disregard for it, a complete lack of self reflection and no respect for the institution he is supposed to moderate. Even if you'd say it's alright for him to do the election out of goodwill, he still broke the constitution by halting the same election... For me this is a clear VonC.

    1. Hader you were un-Constitutional by asking Van Zandt to step in instead of your Censors(or appointing new ones to do so)

    2. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by hosting the election.

    3. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by having the election too early.

    4. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by halting the election after the application period had concluded.

    5. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by going beyond the powers of his office.

    If Van Zandt had any self reflection he's step down right now. He VonC'ed Hitai for similar reasons. He now faces the exact same abuse of power charges but throw the utmost disrespecting defense at us.. Not even taking serious the institution..

    Quite the domino effect that went on here.
    As of now I will proceed with the VonC but will pull the trigger on it later.

    Quote Originally Posted by z3n View Post
    I would agree with Hader here, my immediate reaction was surprise. We should probably create a more productive proposal with a solution like an amendment clarifying that in the event of consul and curator inactivity the primes praefect can take over the administrative duties.


    Opposed.

    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    What you suggest is already covered in the constitution. Morticia has been quoting that paragraph I think.
    Indeed. The constitution has a stipulation for this.. a stipulation VZ decided to break. This smells like changing the rules so they better suit you. Furthermore z3n you were willing to support Van Zandt when he tried to vonc Hitai de Bodemloze for abuse of power in a similar case, but now you won't? While someone now clearly has breached the constitution.

  11. #31
    z3n's Avatar State of Mind
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,943

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    Clearly from what point of view, the letter or the spirit of the law? I can see the argument that the position of consul and censor is empty when they are absent. Nothing will get done in the curia until they get back, which sounds like red tape at its finest. All this demonstrates is the glaring flaw of the constitution in it's current form exposing its inefficiency for everyone to see. From what I learned it is about the spirit of the law, not the letter.
    The AI Workshop Creator
    Europa Barbaroum II AI/Game Mechanics Developer
    The Northern Crusades Lead Developer
    Classical Age Total War Retired Lead Developer
    Rome: Total Realism Animation Developer
    RTW Workshop Assistance MTW2 AI Tutorial & Assistance
    Broken Crescent Submod (M2TW)/IB VGR Submod (BI)/Animation (RTW/BI/ALX)/TATW PCP Submod (M2TW)/TATW DaC Submod (M2TW)/DeI Submod (TWR2)/SS6.4 Northern European UI Mod (M2TW)

  12. #32
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,533

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    Opposed. I don’t believe the premise for this VonC has been established to a degree that would meet the constitutional standard for negligence or abuse as grounds for removal from office. In my view, Hader’s material testimony to the allegations further indicates that standard was not met.

  13. #33
    Lifthrasir's Avatar A Clockwork Orange
    Patrician Artifex Content Staff Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dunkirk - France
    Posts
    13,106
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    ^^This. Opposed.
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, of the Imperial House of Hader


    - Results published

  14. #34
    General Brewster's Avatar The Flying Dutchman
    Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    13,682
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    Alright.

    Taking a step back here and taking a helicopter view while summarizing the facts.

    Article III A VoNC may only be initiated for neglect of duty or abuse of authority10


    Definition of "Abuse of Power" Improper use of authority by someone who has that authority because he or she holds a public office.


    Definition of power abuse via Wikipedia Abuse of power or abuse of authority, in the form of "malfeasance in office" or "official misconduct", is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often a just cause for removal of an elected official by statute or recall election


    As Primus Praefect, Van Zandt is given the power to moderate the Curia, not administrate it. Thus he has gone beyond the power he hold in his elected office. Hence this is a improper use of authority as per it's definition. This is rather clear cut gentleman. Either you don't want to uphold the constitution or you all don't care. So why have it at all then?

    I'll go and post further facts on this via the point system I introduced a couple posts back.


    2. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by hosting the election.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Constitution: Article I
    For every election the Consul opens a thread for applications
    3. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by having the election too early.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Constitution: Regulations and procedures to section I
    Consuls and Magistrates are elected for four months from the day of their election.
    4. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by halting the election after the application period had concluded.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheConstitution: Article II
    Once applications are complete, the Consul opens a poll in the Curia Vote forum
    5. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by going beyond the powers of his office.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Constitution: Article II
    Praefects are the full moderators of the Curia and its related fora
    What exactly about the above points are not constitutional violations?

  15. #35
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,834

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    Brewster's argument is solid. VZ did in breach the regulations laid out in the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Opposed. I don’t believe the premise for this VonC has been established to a degree that would meet the constitutional standard for negligence or abuse as grounds for removal from office. In my view, Hader’s material testimony to the allegations further indicates that standard was not met.
    > Legio not supporting an impeachment.


  16. #36
    Lifthrasir's Avatar A Clockwork Orange
    Patrician Artifex Content Staff Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dunkirk - France
    Posts
    13,106
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    The mistake is genuine IMO and doesn't require such "punishment".
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, of the Imperial House of Hader


    - Results published

  17. #37
    General Brewster's Avatar The Flying Dutchman
    Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of The Netherlands
    Posts
    13,682
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    Except Van Zandt still seems to think he did not make a mistake and that he was fully within his right. He didn't even take this procedure seriously. His arrogance alone makes him unfit for the office he holds.

  18. #38
    Mhaedros's Avatar Brave Heart Tegan
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    8,689
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    Have to agree with Brewster here, it's not the mistake itself as much as the unbecoming reaction when the mistake was pointed out; Support.
    Under the patronage of Finlander. Once patron to someone, no longer.
    Content's well good, innit.


  19. #39
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    13,127

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    In short: You told Van Zandt directly that he should act as censor starting the consul election process in the event that you were not present when the time came (today)?

    May I ask why haven't you had a censor for (presumably) months? Why didn't you publicly choose a censor to do what, inappropriately, Van Zandt did?
    There had been minor need for one at best for pretty much my entire last year in the position. It's no secret curial activity overall has been down a good while, funny how it always picks up because of drama. I should probably have asked for another censor at some point yes, but it was hardly on the forefront of my mind or a priority given the low activity.

    Quote Originally Posted by CommodusIV View Post
    So, here's where I'm at right now.
    The process was initiated by the Primus Praefect on request from the Consul. Before that, Hader indicates in the Townhall that he notified both the censors and the praefects he would not necessarily be completely gone, but frequently absent enough that they, importantly, the censors per constitution, would probably need to step up.

    Elfdude's profile doesn't say, but his last post was on Feb 14th, and StealthFox's last activity per his profile was on Jan 24th. Was there any response? It seems unlikely. It would appear to me that the censors have been AWOL since before the corona nonsense took wings, and their activity in the curia was weak at best before their respective final dates. Depending on the response to this, it looks like there just haven't been any censors to do the job. Did it ever come to mind to appoint someone(s) more active, or was it decided to just leave them alone and defer to the next best people in the structure, the Praefects? In this I'd like to establish who was tapped for what and who's been available. In doing so I'd like to see if Van Zandt was possibly just doing the best he could when the Consul didn't decide to appoint anyone per how the system is supposed to work and skipped to the next best people for when he couldn't handle it himself or have censors take on the jobs, which strikes me as irresponsible on the Consul's part if there was time to get people in, but not necessarily VZ's fault even if he could have noticed the issue and put a better foot forward. But to make any decisions it would be nice to know from Hader if these thoughts are on the right track and what the deal is on the bits asked.

    It looks like the violations are basically confirmed, and it's not in question what was done, but how badly it was and what was behind it so we can decide how the rest of the VonC should go and what sorts of things people should keep in mind when voting. I believe Brew has a post in the making regarding this stuff, so I defer to him until there's a few more comments to clarify for thought.

    I would still like a few more facts on the table before people oppose or support this more conclusively. There's data that just isn't here yet, and an amendment to make this smoother in the future is another matter. I will say that instead of an amendment to give the Praefects different powers, we should consider doing a better job with the unlimited potential people who are supposed to have been doing the process - censors.
    To be clear, I was notified of being activated as a national guard unit the day I posted in the Politia to let these guys know I would be gone for a few days at least. That was the mission at the time. Knowing the gravity of the whole situation surrounding COVID though, I figured it was something that would likely get extended, so I made it clear that may happen. And it did happen, on a day by day basis getting extended further and further. Technically, I am still activated, and on that mission. Just quarantined for now. I could have PMed StealthFox that day when I found out, but that wasn't foremost on my mind, and I instead just posted about it for all praefects/censors to see.

    Quote Originally Posted by General Brewster View Post
    The extra wrench only illustrates further that VZ overstepped his mandate. Something he has refused to acknowledge. Adding further insult to injury his "defense" is nothing but mocking safeguards in the constitution. I'm not doing this to crucify anyone or for the usual drama. I merely ask that the Constitution, the thing that mandate's everyone with an office here and details how things should be done, is followed. If we do not follow it now, it could easily lead to further things. I know many people are not fond of preserving the history of this institution but I am. Van Zandt has clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of the Constitution, a total disregard for it, a complete lack of self reflection and no respect for the institution he is supposed to moderate. Even if you'd say it's alright for him to do the election out of goodwill, he still broke the constitution by halting the same election... For me this is a clear VonC.

    1. Hader you were un-Constitutional by asking Van Zandt to step in instead of your Censors(or appointing new ones to do so)

    2. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by hosting the election.

    3. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by having the election too early.

    4. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by halting the election after the application period had concluded.

    5. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by going beyond the powers of his office.

    If Van Zandt had any self reflection he's step down right now. He VonC'ed Hitai for similar reasons. He now faces the exact same abuse of power charges but throw the utmost disrespecting defense at us.. Not even taking serious the institution..

    Quite the domino effect that went on here.
    As of now I will proceed with the VonC but will pull the trigger on it later.






    Indeed. The constitution has a stipulation for this.. a stipulation VZ decided to break. This smells like changing the rules so they better suit you. Furthermore z3n you were willing to support Van Zandt when he tried to vonc Hitai de Bodemloze for abuse of power in a similar case, but now you won't? While someone now clearly has breached the constitution.
    The wrench was a miscommunication, or a non communication, as it wasn't something I thought would be an issue. I'm sure you're familiar with the Politia thread for keeping track of election dates and whatnot for the consul; that I have updated and kept with the right dates for threads and such. I was unaware that VZ wasn't aware of this one, or at the very least what I was going off of for correct dates. So I do not believe the starting of the election earlier than scheduled was an intentional breach of power. And I do not think anything done in regards to the election was of malicious intent either; misinterpretation or miscommunication at worst.

  20. #40
    Hader's Avatar Things are very seldom what they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse.
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    13,127

    Default Re: [VonC] [Primus Preafectus] Van Zandt

    Quote Originally Posted by General Brewster View Post
    Alright.

    Taking a step back here and taking a helicopter view while summarizing the facts.

    Article III A VoNC may only be initiated for neglect of duty or abuse of authority10


    Definition of "Abuse of Power" Improper use of authority by someone who has that authority because he or she holds a public office.


    Definition of power abuse via Wikipedia Abuse of power or abuse of authority, in the form of "malfeasance in office" or "official misconduct", is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often a just cause for removal of an elected official by statute or recall election


    As Primus Praefect, Van Zandt is given the power to moderate the Curia, not administrate it. Thus he has gone beyond the power he hold in his elected office. Hence this is a improper use of authority as per it's definition. This is rather clear cut gentleman. Either you don't want to uphold the constitution or you all don't care. So why have it at all then?

    I'll go and post further facts on this via the point system I introduced a couple posts back.


    2. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by hosting the election.



    3. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by having the election too early.



    4. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by halting the election after the application period had concluded.



    5. Van Zandt Broke the Constitution by going beyond the powers of his office.



    What exactly about the above points are not constitutional violations?
    Didn't see this post before my other reply but hopefully some of this is answered by this. But for clarity's sake:

    1. What hindsight is great for, what I should have done: at the very least, PMed StealthFox and gotten a hold of him. As I said before, not my first thought when I had but a day to prepare. In even further hindsight, another/new censors would also have been preferable. And again as I said before, given the relative quiet of the curia as of late, was yet another thing not quite that pressing to accomplish right away. It doesn't excuse it completely, but it's just how things were prioritized.

    2. As mentioned, not out of malice or ill intent to screw up the process. The opposite in fact.

    3. A miscommunication, or lack of communication on the right dates.

    4. Technically wrong per Constitution, yes; however, I'd reckon it was out of a desire to not continue the process any longer than absolutely necessary. I had posted the other day (Friday) when I got home finally that I would soon be able to get back, but had to decontaminate literally everything about my and my stuff. That took the better part of yesterday, as expected, so I wasn't on the other night either.

    5. I believe the above answers this part as well? Or am I missing something.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •