Challenge Amendment

drunkenconquerors · Post by **drunkenconquerors** » 24 Dec 2016, 00:03

My point was not that a new citizen could not challenge, but that the 4 Supporters be here for 180 days.

This would insulate the catapaulting of foreign influences into TRR, without veteran, "in the know" citizens of TRR willfully making a choice to involve us with members of foreign regions.

I just do not trust unknown/untrusted variables. I am trying to suggesting limiting those variables! Also let us not laid the CoC too highly, a vpn and new email and boom, we have serious problems!

Suggestions of fear are smear. Unfounded in fact. Suggestions in being cautious would be accurate.

DC

Post by **Guy** » 24 Dec 2016, 00:26

You still haven't explained why new Officers deserve such a higher level of protection from regional security threats (or their challengers pose a higher risk) that the seconders require six months of citizenship. It would seem to me like these arguments should apply to any challenge - in fact, much more to challenges to longstanding Officers.

There are various practical problems with this, too. First, we would need to start ascertaining citizenship gain times of a lot of people. This is a not insignificant amount of work. It would probably fall upon Admins, as only they have access to masking times - and that's a pain to pull out. It would probably also restrict us only to the latest period of continuous citizenship. Second, given we can only look at continuous citizenship When I took a break for a year, was I untrustworthy? What if, who knows, Kandy comes back?

drunkenconquerors · Post by **drunkenconquerors** » 24 Dec 2016, 00:37

If Kandy comes back, actual Kandy and not his bequeathed nation,to the position of delegate you won't need an ammendment. I would be off like a prom dress (or tux)!

But discontinuity wouldn't be the issue or inactivity or whatever you want to call it. Making clear and sure the person is of quality before interrupting a duly elecected officer or delegate, or council members tenure, by virtue of 4 additional 180 day citizens in the region , this gives rapid ability of removal for terrible officers, as well a state insulation against foreign encroachment or larks of whimsy.

Post by **thechurchofsatan** » 24 Dec 2016, 18:15

It also greatly limits our ability to elect an officer should we find candidates in short supply. Our existing system has worked without fail for longer than I've been here. I could see requiring more support but requiring that support to be here for 6 months goes too far to the point of being detrimental.

drunkenconquerors · Post by **drunkenconquerors** » 25 Dec 2016, 04:57

thechurchofsatan wrote:
24 Dec 2016, 16:15
It also greatly limits our ability to elect an officer should we find candidates in short supply. Our existing system has worked without fail for longer than I've been here. I could see requiring more support but requiring that support to be here for 6 months goes too far to the point of being detrimental.

My only concern there would be a schill candidate, appointed by influences that do not prioritize TRR, could just drag a few more of their underlings into the mess, have them gain citizenship, and boom. Same boat as now.

My feelings are the date range could be slightly reduce, but someone like you CoS, guy, LR and Bowie, all sponsoring a challenger, would be no problem to get a deadbeat out of office. Plus, you all generally speak if not daily, than close to it.

The value of invested concern, versus frivolous encroachment to me is a no brainer. While most of us have other homes as well as TRR; some folks are looking to build empires, and follow "family" politics above all else.

What happens after that moment, when the "families" have enough influence and control, across r/d lines, across gcr's.....

Let's just make sure we make the right call here ok?

It's the last time I will post in this forsaken thread. I am not trying to filibuster or be "inactive"! You all know my opinion.

Motion to table the issue, pending revisions to and additions of language guaranteeing longevity of sponsoring citizens (4) has been confirmed to be at or above 180 days within the rejected realms.

Please pardon for my traditional spelling errors.

Merry Christmas to all applicable.

Post by **thechurchofsatan** » 25 Dec 2016, 07:33

I am more comfortable motioning Guy's suggested version to vote myself.

Post by **Yuno** » 28 Dec 2016, 22:16

Guys, can we put this thing to vote yet? o.o

and: I'm back from Xmas vacation ^-^

Post by **thechurchofsatan** » 28 Dec 2016, 22:49

I motion that Guy's suggested version go to vote. Here it is for reference:

Article 7 Clause E of the Constitution of The Rejected Realms shall be amended as follows:

Current Text wrote:E: Newly-elected officials may not be challenged for one month after the close of elections.

Proposed Amendment wrote:E: A challenge to an official within 30 days of their election shall require the support of four citizens.