Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: [Discussion] Do we need an amendment for this?

  1. #1
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,274
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default [Discussion] Do we need an amendment for this?

    I'm genuinely not sure, so better to double check.

    There's a clear mistake in the Constitution, about Censores, as it says:

    Quote Originally Posted by Flinn View Post
    Two Censors, appointed by the Consul, assist with Curial tasks and review referrals from Curial infractions.
    That is not the case since long (see here), and even before than that since Order 66 amendment assigned the referrals review to Praefects (who later have been removed too as per the related amendment).

    Now, I think it's pretty obvious that in between the various edits, that sentenced got messed up or anyways was not properly amended; we can live with that ofc, but it might as well generate confusion in the future in case no one "who knows" is around.

    I would just move on and edit out the bolded part, and while I know that

    Quote Originally Posted by Flinn View Post

    8 The Consul may correct any spelling, grammatical, or formative errors in the Constitution or any Curial resolution. The details of any such changes must be recorded in the Amendments thread of the Tabularium.
    I'm not sure whether any of those actually encompass this kind of edit. Here you can find a list of similar edits, for reference: the very latest of those seems to confirm that said edits can be made by the Consul without further consultation.
    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

  2. #2
    Gaius Baltar's Avatar Old gods die hard
    Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    campus Martis
    Posts
    7,545
    Blog Entries
    13

    Default Re: [Discussion] Do we need an amendment for this?

    You need to review the amendments that deal with the text and make the appropriate correction. I'm guessing the material in question should have been edited out sometime around the introduction of the Praefects.

    EDIT: Well, after a quick review I see the text and it was part of the Preafect removal amendment. If so, then this was the intended role for the Censors after the removal of the Preafects.

    [Amendment] Getting rid of the praefects
    Last edited by Gaius Baltar; January 31, 2023 at 08:11 AM. Reason: Add information

    ​​
    Pillaging and Plundering since 2006

    The House of Baltar

    Neither is this the dawn from the east, nor is a dragon flying above, nor are the gables of this hall aflame. Nay, mortal enemies approach in ready armour. Ravens are calling, wolves are howling, spear clashes and shield answers



  3. #3
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,274
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default Re: [Discussion] Do we need an amendment for this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius Baltar View Post
    EDIT: Well, after a quick review I see the text and it was part of the Preafect removal amendment. If so, then this was the intended role for the Censors after the removal of the Preafects.

    [Amendment] Getting rid of the praefects
    That is true, but after that, the Referrals have been removed, as I properly linked above (first link in the OP), so in case that is the amendment that needs to be reviewed. But again, if you look at that amendment (once again, the first link on the OP), you will see that nowhere seems to be appearing the sentence in question. I can't honestly reconstruct what happened.

    That being said, the question here is (to make it simple): does a similar edit need an amendment or can the Consul just use their power to amend similar oversights like it happened in the past? Or to make it even simpler: can a similar edit be considered formative, considering that evidences have been provided that it is definitely an oversight from previous amendments?

    ps. @GB, I got you are for the amendment route, noted.
    Last edited by Flinn; January 31, 2023 at 09:07 AM.
    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

  4. #4
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    a 7/11 parking lot with Patron and LaCroix
    Posts
    20,171
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: [Discussion] Do we need an amendment for this?

    I do not believe an amendment is required to correct that, though per the text of the constitution any such corrective formative changes must be recorded alongside actual amendment changes.

    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







  5. #5
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,274
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default Re: [Discussion] Do we need an amendment for this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    I do not believe an amendment is required to correct that, though per the text of the constitution any such corrective formative changes must be recorded alongside actual amendment changes.
    Indeed.
    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

  6. #6
    Gaius Baltar's Avatar Old gods die hard
    Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    campus Martis
    Posts
    7,545
    Blog Entries
    13

    Default Re: [Discussion] Do we need an amendment for this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flinn View Post
    I agree, an amendment is needed to deal with this phantom text. A proposed unlegislated correction of this text does not meet the current constitutional guidelines.
    Last edited by Gaius Baltar; February 04, 2023 at 01:25 PM. Reason: Add information

    ​​
    Pillaging and Plundering since 2006

    The House of Baltar

    Neither is this the dawn from the east, nor is a dragon flying above, nor are the gables of this hall aflame. Nay, mortal enemies approach in ready armour. Ravens are calling, wolves are howling, spear clashes and shield answers



  7. #7
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    53,041
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: [Discussion] Do we need an amendment for this?

    Let me see if I understood - this is about removing a inapplicable (irrelevant) text, made inapplicable\irrelevant by previous (the links) amendments?

    In that case I agree with Akar (Gaius seems to oppose while agreeing?) regarding the approach to resolving the issue. An amendment to replace\remove would only be required if the text had any valid context whatsoever, which clearly is not the case. See also the last correction in the 'formative changes' post.

    "...and thus this part of the Constitution was out of date. This has now been fixed"
    Last edited by Gigantus; February 05, 2023 at 08:10 AM.










  8. #8
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,043

    Default Re: [Discussion] Do we need an amendment for this?

    IMHO no amendment is needed. The amendment to remove referrals is clear in its intent. The remaining text fragment carries no meaning without it. It would be impossible to argue removing it as a 'formative error' amounts to 'abuse of authority'. Besides, if we were to have an amendment, we would have to consider what to do if it failed. Personally I have no idea, except we wouldn't any longer be able to shrug it off as clerical error.
    "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 -

  9. #9
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,274
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default Re: [Discussion] Do we need an amendment for this?

    For the records, I'm keeping this here open because I plan, time permitting, to do those edits.
    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

  10. #10
    Flinn's Avatar His Dudeness of TWC
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    20,274
    Blog Entries
    46

    Default Re: [Discussion] Do we need an amendment for this?

    Since I'm about to post a full reviewed version of the Constitution, this becomes obsolete

    I'm archiving it as per the usual procedure
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •