Support
Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 & Vladyvid & Dick Cheney & phazer & Jake Armitage & webba 84 of the Imperial House of Hader
Support
Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!
Again having to turn into written law (into the constitution) things that should be obvious. Unfortunately it is necessary.
The wording is clunky and could use work before implementation - opposed.
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
Merits sounds odd.
Why not?
A citizen initiates an ostrakon by making a case via private message to the Consul, who determines if an ostrakon has valid reasons, unsupported allegations are no valid reasons. If an ostrakon has valid reasons:
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
I do take it you agree with the amended part but wish to address 'merit' as well?
-------------------
I believe 'merit' was used in the original to give the consul a means to reject 'frivolous' ostraka, irrespective if it was 'for the giggles' or had no support in it's allegation at all.
What makes a 'valid reason' for an ostrakon is as subjective as is 'merit' - basically there are no guidelines for the former and only the consul's interpretation of the latter, meaning without actual clarification unsupported allegation will still be possible.
Deeming something 'valid' is a huge step up from 'having merit' as well, placing an unnecessary onus on the consul, especially if the ostrakon fails. After all if it was valid it wouldn't have needed the ostrakon in the first place, right?
All constitutional terms need subjective interpretation. In the end the Consul is always responsible for a not justified Ostrakon no matter how we call the term, which is opening the door to a Ostrakon.
Merit is simply a bad sounding term, which makes the constitution difficult to understand for layman.
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
To explain what is no merits/valid reasons can be usefull.I do take it you agree with the amended part but wish to address 'merit' as well?
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
'Merit' is a fairly basic, and rather common term when it comes to evaluation of an issue, see the 'definition' section in the OP. 'Valid' on the other hand implies being supported by objective truth or generally accepted authority.
I am fairly certain I can put an ostrakon together that is valid but also utterly frivolous - which means it would have to be allowed if 'valid' is the benchmark. Whereas with 'merit' it won't see the light of day.
Not for non native speakers like me. But forget it.
As i'm no citizen and never ever will agree to become one i'm asking myself what i'm doing here.
I withdraw my suggestion.
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
I don't have an issue with 'merit', though I can empathize with the non-native case. Even still. I do think the original proposal makes a comma splice and the added bit would stand better as its own sentence.
With great power, comes great chonky dragons to feed enemies of the state. --Targaryens?
Spoiler for wait what dragons?:
Consideration
A citizen initiates an ostrakon by making a case via private message to the Consul, who determines if an ostrakon has merit. An allegation must have supporting evidence in order to proceed.
That is *much* smoother and better worded than the the OP, Pike. I would support that language were it to be adopted.
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
Agreed, I don't think this wording is clear. Do you think any use of 'merit' is less familiar to a non-native speaker? Perhaps this might be simpler:
A citizen initiates an ostrakon by making a case via private message to the Consul, who then determines if an ostrakon would be justified. The case must include supporting evidence for it to be considered.
I also prefer PikeStance's version to the merit one. Although if we were to continue with the original version, I'd suggest 'will not be considered meritorious' or 'will not be considered to have merit' instead.
Last edited by Søren; September 20, 2022 at 10:43 PM.
IMHO it's superfluous. The existing text says a citizen must make a case. This already encompasses arguments based on logic and facts.
The risk with specifying minimum requirements is that such lists can easily turn into boxes that need ticking, achieving the exact opposite of what was intended.
For instance "This is Akar's avatar. He brings shame on the citizenship by acting the clown" ticks the boxes of providing evidence and reasoning. A weak or malicious Consul could decide that's enough to cover his back and allow it.
"Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -
We could VonC that weak and malicious consul any time we wished. Not to mention that slightly more than a year ago we had an Ostrakon that had zero evidence and was let in by the Consul on the basis of "yeah I don't like this guy either" and while it failed it ended up causing serious damage to the Curia which resulted in months of bickering, an outstanding citizen renouncing it and people abandoning the site.
This amendment is necessary.
Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!