Council Vote - Addendum to Section J

Cyc · Jul 16, 2002, 05:04 PM

This Council Vote is for the approval of changing Section J. of the Code of Standards (COS). This Section deals with absenteeism of Leaders and will be changed in the following manner, as proposed by Shaitan below:

My suggestion is an addendum to Code of Standards, Section J (Absenteeism). Following is that section with the added items (Points 3 and 4).

code:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section J) Absenteeism
Point 1) An official is considered absent from the chat
turn when they are not present at the chat turn.
Point 2) An official is considered absent from the forum
when they have not responded to a required
inquiry (Cabinet Vote, request in the official’s
department thread) in 36 hours.
A) An official who is absent from the chat turn is
not considered absent from the Forum until the
Forum absenteeism requirement has been met.
Point 3) An official who has not responded to a required
inquiry in 7 days may be removed from their office
at the President's discretion.
Point 4) An official who is not present on the Forum for 14
consecutive days for any reason may be removed from
office at the President's discretion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This poll will remain open until it received 4 YES or 4 NO votes (quorum). In the event there is a tie, the President will cast the tie-breaking vote. ALL Department Leaders should respond with a YES, NO, or ABSTAIN.

The discussion initiating this vote is here.

Strider · Jul 16, 2002, 05:09 PM

NSD votes:

YES

Cyc · Jul 16, 2002, 05:12 PM

YES

Falcon02 · Jul 16, 2002, 06:03 PM

Yes

punkbass2000 · Jul 17, 2002, 05:37 AM

Culture (and all those other arts) Department:

YES

chiefpaco · Jul 17, 2002, 07:15 AM

FA
YES

Eklektikos · Jul 17, 2002, 01:06 PM

Well, I've just been through the 3 books of the Constitution with a fine toothed comb, and I can't find anything with which this proposal directly clashes except perhaps for

Quote:

Code of Standards, Section G

Point 4) Terms last 1 calendar month.

However, since this is only a standard, a conflict with this does not affect the constitutionality of the proposal as is outlined here

Quote:

The Constitution of Phoenatica

Article B. Governing rules shall consist of the Articles of the Constitution, the Code of Laws and the Code of Standards. No laws shall be passed that conflict with an article and no standards shall be used that conflict with a law or an article.

As there are no other potential conflicts that I can see, this proposal passes the Public Defender's review.

EDIT: Please treat this review as the ramblings of a fool and look to my post below.

Waterz · Jul 18, 2002, 12:07 AM

Trade Dept.
Yes

Eklektikos · Jul 18, 2002, 04:21 AM

I must apologise for the grave error in my above review. After reading this post by Donsig I have come to the conclusion that I need a new fine toothed comb! I somehow spectacularly failed to see the Article which also specifies that terms last one calendar month (the actual text is there in Donsig's post).

Having finally seen this I have changed my verdict on this proposal. It does not pass the Public Defender's Review since the constitutionality of it is highly questionable.

I would suggest that although it would appear to have gone been approved in this council vote, this standard should immediately be revised and not exercised. I have an idea of a more constitutional approach, but I will post that in the discussion thread.

I would also like to assure you that the Womble that it would appear was pulling the levers in my head last night will be severely disciplined.

Cyc · Jul 18, 2002, 05:14 AM

I have to disagree with you on this Eklektikos. The standard was obviously written as a limit not a guarunteed minimum. If you tried to take this logic into today's marketplace, I don't think it would hold up well. The above addendum sets a standard by which the citizens can measure the Constitutional responsibilities of the Leaders. These standards are needed to compare the points laid out in the Constitution with the amount and effectiveness of the work provided. This standard also allows for an action to be taken if these standards are not met. If these standards were not needed they would not have been brought up. I wait patiently for your more Constitutional idea.

Eklektikos · Jul 18, 2002, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cyc
I have to disagree with you on this Eklektikos. The standard was obviously written as a limit not a guarunteed minimum. If you tried to take this logic into today's marketplace, I don't think it would hold up well. The above addendum sets a standard by which the citizens can measure the Constitutional responsibilities of the Leaders. These standards are needed to compare the points laid out in the Constitution with the amount and effectiveness of the work provided. This standard also allows for an action to be taken if these standards are not met. If these standards were not needed they would not have been brought up. I wait patiently for your more Constitutional idea.

Sorry Cyc, it ain't so obvious to me. I see the specified 1 cal month term duration as being akin to the duration of a contract. That contract being with the citizenry, and not with the president. That being the case, only the citizenry should be able to fire an official mid-term. I agree with you that some addition to the standards is necessary to deal with the problem of absentee officials, but I couldn't give this particular one a clean bill of health because I believe it may be counter to the aforementioned Article.

Eklektikos · Jul 18, 2002, 06:23 AM

My suggestion is here

Shaitan · Jul 19, 2002, 04:08 AM

Status

This vote received 6 of 6 YES votes. Pending the completion of Judicial Review the Standard is valid and enforceable.

Eklektikos · Jul 19, 2002, 10:09 AM

new Article G discussion thread has been opened to clarify how it should be interpreted.

donsig · Jul 19, 2002, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shaitan
Status

This vote received 6 of 6 YES votes. Pending the completion of Judicial Review the Standard is valid and enforceable.

I find it quite ironic that the Judicial Review must wait on an absent official to return.

Cyc · Jul 19, 2002, 10:26 AM

Shaitan · Jul 19, 2002, 10:38 AM

Quite. However, that is partially because I am trying to honor your requests by defering judgement. I can conclude this Judicial Review immediately if that is your wish.

Shaitan · Jul 19, 2002, 11:04 AM

delete

donsig · Jul 19, 2002, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shaitan
Quite. However, that is partially because I am trying to honor your requests by defering judgement. I can conclude this Judicial Review immediately if that is your wish.

My wish is your command?

If you can end it then don't let me stand in your way. Please be careful and don't knock me down in the process, though.

donsig · Jul 19, 2002, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shaitan
delete

Darn, I missed something while I was posing!

Jul 16, 2002, 05:04 PM	#1
Cyc Looking for the door... Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Behind you Posts: 14,735	Council Vote - Addendum to Section J This Council Vote is for the approval of changing Section J. of the Code of Standards (COS). This Section deals with absenteeism of Leaders and will be changed in the following manner, as proposed by Shaitan below: My suggestion is an addendum to Code of Standards, Section J (Absenteeism). Following is that section with the added items (Points 3 and 4). code:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section J) Absenteeism Point 1) An official is considered absent from the chat turn when they are not present at the chat turn. Point 2) An official is considered absent from the forum when they have not responded to a required inquiry (Cabinet Vote, request in the official’s department thread) in 36 hours. A) An official who is absent from the chat turn is not considered absent from the Forum until the Forum absenteeism requirement has been met. Point 3) An official who has not responded to a required inquiry in 7 days may be removed from their office at the President's discretion. Point 4) An official who is not present on the Forum for 14 consecutive days for any reason may be removed from office at the President's discretion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This poll will remain open until it received 4 YES or 4 NO votes (quorum). In the event there is a tie, the President will cast the tie-breaking vote. ALL Department Leaders should respond with a YES, NO, or ABSTAIN. The discussion initiating this vote is here. __________________ There is a town in north Ontario, With dream comfort memory to spare, And in my mind I still need a place to go, All my changes were there. Blue, blue windows behind the stars, Yellow moon on the rise, Big birds flying across the sky, Throwing shadows on our eyes. Last edited by Cyc; Jul 16, 2002 at 05:11 PM.

Jul 16, 2002, 05:09 PM	#2
Strider In Retrospect Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,976	NSD votes: YES __________________ We pen our fates on the parchment of time. While turning to pages yet unwritten. But do our stories end once the ink has dried? Are the echoes of history all that remain of the past? #454158

Jul 16, 2002, 05:12 PM	#3
Cyc Looking for the door... Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Behind you Posts: 14,735	The Domestic Dept. YES __________________ There is a town in north Ontario, With dream comfort memory to spare, And in my mind I still need a place to go, All my changes were there. Blue, blue windows behind the stars, Yellow moon on the rise, Big birds flying across the sky, Throwing shadows on our eyes.

Jul 16, 2002, 06:03 PM	#4
Falcon02 General Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 3,100	Military Dept. Yes __________________ Eternal Demogame Returning/Leaving Prodigal Son. "Don't Know and Have No Opinion" - Jet Black from "Cowboy Bebop" (English Dub)

Jul 17, 2002, 05:37 AM	#5
punkbass2000 Des An artiste Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A(sia) Minor Posts: 7,230	Culture (and all those other arts) Department: YES __________________ New Album out as of Easter (Eggs?) Reflecting life, reflecting art.

Jul 17, 2002, 07:15 AM	#6
chiefpaco Emperor Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Fanatika - Where did everybody go? Posts: 1,381	FA YES

Jul 18, 2002, 12:07 AM	#8
Waterz Talking Dog Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 107	Trade Dept. Yes

Jul 18, 2002, 04:21 AM	#9
Eklektikos Eponymous Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 2,635	Judicial bungle! I must apologise for the grave error in my above review. After reading this post by Donsig I have come to the conclusion that I need a new fine toothed comb! I somehow spectacularly failed to see the Article which also specifies that terms last one calendar month (the actual text is there in Donsig's post). Having finally seen this I have changed my verdict on this proposal. It does not pass the Public Defender's Review since the constitutionality of it is highly questionable. I would suggest that although it would appear to have gone been approved in this council vote, this standard should immediately be revised and not exercised. I have an idea of a more constitutional approach, but I will post that in the discussion thread. I would also like to assure you that the Womble that it would appear was pulling the levers in my head last night will be severely disciplined. __________________ "In general, someone is a thing of value if and only if he or she is willing to submit to whatever degradation and abuse is required to preserve that position. Anything less betrays a lack of commitment." - Steve Albini

Jul 18, 2002, 05:14 AM	#10
Cyc Looking for the door... Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Behind you Posts: 14,735	I have to disagree with you on this Eklektikos. The standard was obviously written as a limit not a guarunteed minimum. If you tried to take this logic into today's marketplace, I don't think it would hold up well. The above addendum sets a standard by which the citizens can measure the Constitutional responsibilities of the Leaders. These standards are needed to compare the points laid out in the Constitution with the amount and effectiveness of the work provided. This standard also allows for an action to be taken if these standards are not met. If these standards were not needed they would not have been brought up. I wait patiently for your more Constitutional idea. __________________ There is a town in north Ontario, With dream comfort memory to spare, And in my mind I still need a place to go, All my changes were there. Blue, blue windows behind the stars, Yellow moon on the rise, Big birds flying across the sky, Throwing shadows on our eyes.

Jul 18, 2002, 06:23 AM	#12
Eklektikos Eponymous Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 2,635	My suggestion is here __________________ "In general, someone is a thing of value if and only if he or she is willing to submit to whatever degradation and abuse is required to preserve that position. Anything less betrays a lack of commitment." - Steve Albini

Jul 19, 2002, 04:08 AM	#13
Shaitan der Besucher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 6,546	Status This vote received 6 of 6 YES votes. Pending the completion of Judicial Review the Standard is valid and enforceable.

Jul 19, 2002, 10:09 AM	#14
Eklektikos Eponymous Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 2,635	new Article G discussion thread has been opened to clarify how it should be interpreted. __________________ "In general, someone is a thing of value if and only if he or she is willing to submit to whatever degradation and abuse is required to preserve that position. Anything less betrays a lack of commitment." - Steve Albini

Jul 19, 2002, 10:26 AM	#16
Cyc Looking for the door... Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Behind you Posts: 14,735	__________________ There is a town in north Ontario, With dream comfort memory to spare, And in my mind I still need a place to go, All my changes were there. Blue, blue windows behind the stars, Yellow moon on the rise, Big birds flying across the sky, Throwing shadows on our eyes.

Jul 19, 2002, 10:38 AM	#17
Shaitan der Besucher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 6,546	Quite. However, that is partially because I am trying to honor your requests by defering judgement. I can conclude this Judicial Review immediately if that is your wish.

Jul 19, 2002, 11:04 AM	#18
Shaitan der Besucher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 6,546	delete

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Council Vote to Amend CoS Section H	Donovan Zoi	Civ3 - Demo Game II: Polls	17	Feb 23, 2003 06:29 AM
Council Vote - Change to Section G of the CoS	Octavian X	Civ3 - Demo Game II: Polls	8	Oct 18, 2002 06:14 PM
Council Vote - Addendum to change section G	Zarn	Civ3 Demo Game: Polls	6	Aug 05, 2002 06:37 AM
Council Vote - Addendum to change Section G.	Cyc	Civ3 Demo Game: Polls	3	Aug 02, 2002 06:11 AM
Council Vote - Addendum to Section G	Cyc	Civ3 Demo Game: Polls	7	Jul 27, 2002 10:12 AM

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. This site is copyright © Civilization Fanatics' Center.
Support CFC: Amazon.com \| Amazon UK \| Amazon DE \| Amazon CA \| Amazon FR