[PROPOSAL] Constituting Act of The Rejected Realms Media Corporation

[thechurchofsatan]

I thought you came up with this version together...

We did work together on it and decided that whether or not sections 6 and 8 should stay ought to be decided here by public discussion. Truthfully I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I'd be fine with the legislation whether it stays in or not.

[The Grim Reaper]

As I said previously I do think the Assembly having the ability to elect a member of the TRRMC Staff as EiC is a fair compromise.

As far as the question posed in CoS's last post personally I can't really think of any cases where we would need provision 6 or provision 8 to be included in the Bill anymore. Are there really scenarios where the Assembly needs to Recall the EiC when it has the power to elect the EiC and any Staff member can challenge for the position? And doesn't the Delegate appointing an EiC when the spot is vacant go against the whole Assembly elects things. Even if the appointment is supposed to be temporary why can't we wait a few days to have a new EiC elected to carry on normal business? If we're talking about a situation where absolutely no TRRMC staff member wants to be EiC even nominally then we're in even bigger trouble with respect to Media.

And doesn't the Delegate appointing an EiC when the spot is vacant go against the whole Assembly elects things.

That is the point - it means the Assembly can't just force an EiC of its choice because if it vacates the Office it is still someone's else's responsibility to fill it. The Assembly's role is to remove an incompetent EiC - this is a role split from placing a competent EiC, which is the role of the TRRMC aided by the Delegate.

This proposal including the 6/8 removal removes any accountability from the TRRMC. It makes it so that once an Editor-in-Chief is elected by the Assembly, they cannot be removed by anyone other than other members of the TRRMC - which, in my proposal and yours, they fucking define - and the only thing a delegate can do is to permanently make a Cabinet position the "babysit TRRMC" office. It gives TRRMC the ability to hold an officer position to ransom as its sole governing objective.

It removes any incentive for the EiC to be from outside the TRRMC old guard because it necessitates that the EiC have a record of acting in the interests of the region - not just as a competent journalist.

The new proposal makes it impossible to hold TRRMC to account without ending up in the same goddamn position we did before - feeling like we're obliged to have a Media Officer permanently unless a TRRMC constituted by the EiC is able to mount an internal challenge to the EiC.

Constituting Act of The Rejected Realms Media Corporation

This Act constitutes The Rejected Realms Media Corporation as an autonomous organization within the jurisdiction of the government of The Rejected Realms.

1. The Rejected Realms Media Corporation is the organization constituted by The Rejected Realms for the purpose of exercising editorial independence.
2. The Rejected Realms Media Corporation is permitted to utilize the platforms of The Rejected Realms to carry out its operations.
3. The Editor-in-Chief is the head of The Rejected Realms Media Corporation.
4. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for maintaining The Rejected Realms Media Corporation's editorial independence and the authoritative record of Members of The Rejected Realms Media Corporation, in regards to which they may add or remove any current Citizen with their consent, or unilaterally remove any non-Citizen.
5. The Delegate of The Rejected Realms must appoint an Editor-in-Chief when the position is vacant.
6. Members of The Rejected Realms Media Corporation may challenge the Editor-in-Chief in the manner prescribed for an Officer of the Rejected Realms.
7. The Assembly of The Rejected Realms may vacate the Editor-in-Chief by a majority vote.
8. Publications by The Rejected Realms Media Corporation credited to someone who is not a citizen of The Rejected Realms at time of publication must have a credit that indicates they are a Guest of The Rejected Realms Media Corporation.

This new edit by me reintroduces the power for the Assembly to elect the EiC and a non-two thirds majority vote.

[thechurchofsatan]

The version drafted by Jack and I specifically states that the Assembly votes in the Editor-in-Chief just like an officer. It even introduces the challenge system to the position.

Since Jack is the delegate and he's signed off on the draft I'm content with what it means for TRT and the executive. However if the majority wants something changed then they ought to state it here so we can work this out once and for all.

[Deadeye Jack]

So Grim you've convinced me that having a recall provision is still a good thing but I don't see why we would need the Delegate to appoint a new EiC if the Assembly recalls the EiC. Wouldn't another staff member from TRRMC just run once the EiC is recalled?

[Nequedum]

I'd much rather prefer a TRRMC elected EiC confirmed by the Assembly by a majority vote, and with any challenges following the same model as this. The Delegate withdrawing direct involvement would both defend the position's editorial independence as well as TRR's stance of not defining FA by TRRMC publications.

TRT Staff offer up who they believe would be most fit for the job, and the Assembly either confirms or sends the decision back. A failed confirmation vote should also suspend that EiC-elect from contesting the position for 30 days or the like. Same goes for a 2/3rd Assembly vote to vacate the office.

And it'd be great if masking conventions for officers were extended to the EiC over discord. It helps in performing the (Media Officer) role in my experience.

Edit: on second thought, it might be worth removing the Assembly confirmation and having the Delegate confirm, or even have the Delegate nominate 2 or more choices and have TRT Staff vote. The Assembly, for all its democratic merits, would differentiate EiC candidates based on personal stances and preferences. That would be inappropriate for this role. Whereas the Delegate has a deep interest in the performance of TRRMC, because it will be intrinsically linked to their performance as a Delegate and affects their future electability.

And, above TRT Staff and more the Assembly, the Delegate has a greater interest in TRRMC performing at its best.

I also believe the EiC should be given the ability to appoint deputy editors within this Bill, tasked with projects or editing responsibilities (newspaper or radio) that are treated the same as deputy officers.

Say this line of thought is Neq Option B, would you prefer Neq Option A (the op of this message, B, Grim's proposal or Jack/CoS' proposal? Happy to write something up if there's any interest in my ideas here.

That being said, I feel it's important to say, as a former Media Officer, I don't like any of the other proposals that have been made. I don't think I'd vote for any of them, even if urged to do so by friends. They're just not acceptable to me.

Edit 2: I'd say keep the 2/3rd Assembly removal for Neq Option 2 and also have the TRT Staff votes done in private to mitigate demoralising journalists.

[thechurchofsatan]

Believe me I agree with you, Neq. But nobody else is willing to entertain it. They simply will not budge. So we have to compromise on some things. If they won't budge and we won't budge then either nothing will get done or somebody will go with their nuclear option. We need to work together in order to get something done about this.

[Gorundu]

I move for a vote of the most recent proposal by Grim.

[thechurchofsatan]

I motion to vote the proposal that Jack and I have drafted.

Constituting Act of The Rejected Realms Media Corporation

This Act constitutes The Rejected Realms Media Corporation as an autonomous organization within the jurisdiction of the government of The Rejected Realms.

1. The Rejected Realms Media Corporation is the organization constituted by The Rejected Realms for the purpose of exercising editorial independence.
2. The Rejected Realms Media Corporation is permitted to utilize the platforms of The Rejected Realms to carry out its operations.
3. The Editor-in-Chief is the head of The Rejected Realms Media Corporation.
4. The Editor-in-Chief must be a citizen of The Rejected Realms.
5. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for maintaining The Rejected Realms Media Corporation's editorial independence and the authoritative record of Members of The Rejected Realms Media Corporation, in regards to which they may add or remove any current Citizen with their consent, or unilaterally remove any non-Citizen.
6. The Delegate of The Rejected Realms must appoint an Editor-in-Chief when the position is vacant.
7. The position of Editor-in-Chief is voted on by the Assembly of The Rejected Realms in the same manner prescribed for an Officer of the Rejected Realms.
A. The Editor-in-Chief must be a Staff member of The Rejected Realms Media Corporation at the time the election is initiated.
B. Members of The Rejected Realms Media Corporation may challenge the Editor-in-Chief in the manner prescribed for an Officer of the Rejected Realms.
8. The Assembly of The Rejected Realms may recall the Editor-in-Chief by a two-thirds majority vote.
9. Publications by The Rejected Realms Media Corporation credited to someone who is not a citizen of The Rejected Realms at time of publication must have a credit that indicates they are a Guest of The Rejected Realms Media Corporation.

[Cove]

Okay.

So, we have two proposals which have been motioned, Grim's proposal from the previous page as well as CoS's proposal above. Neither has yet received a second to begin a vote. If anyone has any concerns about either of the proposals, now would be the time to share them. Otherwise, if anyone wants either of the proposals to be voted on, upon a second, they will be put to vote accordingly.

Personally, however, the fact that neither proposal has been seconded implies that further debate is needed on the subject.

[Deadeye Jack]

I agree that more discussion is needed. At first glance the proposals aren't really different at all and would like someone to explain the difference. Also I don't feel it's been sufficiently explained why the Delegate needs to appoint an EiC in the event of a vacated EiC

[thechurchofsatan]

I feel like we've argued every side of the discussion to death though. :-/

[Gorundu]

I agree that more discussion is needed. At first glance the proposals aren't really different at all and would like someone to explain the difference. Also I don't feel it's been sufficiently explained why the Delegate needs to appoint an EiC in the event of a vacated EiC

Grim's proposal makes it more the Delegate's prerogative to appoint the EiC while the staff's prerogative is to challenge. It also doesn't have the requirement to be a citizen or a staff member, and only a majority vote is needed to remove the EiC. Cos' version makes it more the Assembly prerogative to elect, so it makes the Delegate appointment clause rather confusing, and requires the EiC to be a citizen and staff member, with a two-thirds majority vote for removal.

Anyway, I agree with CoS, the lack of recent activity in this thread indicates what there is to be argued already has been argued.

[Cove]

I get that you are both saying that all arguments have been exhausted, but it is very telling that no-one has chosen to second the motion to vote on either proposal, which suggests that currently neither proposal seems to have sufficient support by the assembly.

To recap, we have two proposals which have been motioned to vote, the proposal by CoS and the proposal by Grim. If anyone does have any strong opinions on either of the proposals, now would be the time to give feedback, or alternatively, give you support and encourage a vote on a proposal.

We could just let the idea die, but the issue would just crop up against after each delegacy, so speaking as a citizen it is something i’d like to see us reach some form of resolution on, and I don’t think a stalemate is an ideal situation.

[thechurchofsatan]

I do agree. A decision does need to be made or else it'll just keep happening.

[Bormiar]

I second Grim's proposal. viewtopic.php?p=10032441#p10032441

[Cove]

The following proposal has been seconded and will be put to a vote shortly.

[Morover]

For the record, I support a TRRMC-elected EiC with delegate confirmation. I'd be willing to work on a draft with others if this is wanted by several people.

I fear that having the EiC appointed by the delegate or even elected by the Assembly may lead it to be more politicking than merit. Of course, a TRRMC-elected would not be completely devoid of it, but it will probably be more merit-based than Assembly-elected (making promises directly related to media publication won't mean much to non-TRRMC Assembly members, leading it to be based more on who they "like more" - though maybe that doesn't scale down well), and I fear that it being delegate-appointed will be open to more corruption than it's worth. Just because our current delegate is good, it's foolish to take it for granted that no future delegates will be corrupt to some extent.

Sorry for not getting in on this discussion sooner, but better late than never.

[Spartan Termopylae]

Just a point on that. No matter who elects a role, said role is still subject to politicking. Whomever runs in whichever forum will still have to politick to get elected. Such is the nature of elections.

As for being more merit based, the people in media addre just as able to vote in an assembly election, to argue their points in an assembly election, and just as likely to vote for the person they like instead of on merit as someone in the assembly.

Just because they are in the paper doesn't make them better than the rest of us, and I resent the implication that I could not vote for the best person for the job because I'm not a member of your vaunted publication

[Morover]

Just a point on that. No matter who elects a role, said role is still subject to politicking. Whomever runs in whichever forum will still have to politick to get elected. Such is the nature of elections.

As for being more merit based, the people in media addre just as able to vote in an assembly election, to argue their points in an assembly election, and just as likely to vote for the person they like instead of on merit as someone in the assembly.

Just because they are in the paper doesn't make them better than the rest of us, and I resent the implication that I could not vote for the best person for the job because I'm not a member of your vaunted publication

The general premise I'm getting at is that people in media have a better grasp of what is going on in terms of its internal affairs, as well as being able to better weigh the consequences of substantial changes being made in the paper, whereas other non-media citizens would not have as solid of an idea as to the exact implications of any one change. Additionally, members of the corporation are better able to decide whether someone would be able to make a satisfactory leader of said corporation, where people who only view the paper from outside will be unable to make as informed decisions.

It's not necessarily the fact that your input is not appreciated, it's the fact that, speaking in broad terms, most people outside the corporation will not have a singular clue as to the implications of Editor in Chief - and, while it is certainly possible for those in media to present their points to the Assembly at large for being for or against a specific candidate, it seems preferable to explain those points to a group which is already informed on the subject. Presenting to the Assembly itself may require significant reinforcing of ideas, as it is difficult to explain something in terms that matter if it does not directly affect the person. This is different from another election for, say, officer, because almost all of the decisions there will directly affect the region at large, and, as a result, each individual voter. Editor in Chief, however, will only have power in the corporation. It seems nonsensical to me that those who are not affected by something need a say in how that thing is decided. Of course, this is one of my greater critiques with democracy as a whole, so that opinion may need to be taken with a grain of salt.

While it's much more hypothetical than this scenario, say you're a member in a society where the leader is elected and the leader has control over the happenings of this society. It would be disconcerting if outsiders held sway over the election of the leader, and may lead to corruption.

As I conceded in my original post, if the EiC was internally elected, politicking would not completely disappear - it just happens that the results would be much more reliably based on merit, as opposed to any form of general likeability.

Tomorrow, if more critiques come up of my post, I can put together a much more scholarly response - but for tonight, I need to get in bed.

[Gorundu]

Responding to Neq's comments in the voting thread here because I don't want to clutter up the voting thread:

The EiC's simple majority removal in the Assembly contradicts the EiC's responsibility to maintain The Rejected Realms Media Corporation's editorial independence; the CitCo is a real example of where autonomy exists within the jurisdiction of the government, which enjoys a 2/3rds supermajority threshold for removal. I like the Bill but believe its claims for establishing editorial independence are unsubstantiated within the confines of the current simple majority threshold for removal.

I think Neq is conflating the Government (i.e. the Delegate) with the Assembly here. Most citizens agree that TRRMC has to be held accountable to somebody, so if it's not to the Government, then it must be to the Assembly. But the government's will is not the same as the Assembly's will. By being accountable to the Assembly, it's still maintaining editorial independence from the Government. However, as a representative of the region, TRRMC and the EiC must have the confidence of the citizens to do their jobs, hence the Assembly's ability to remove by majority vote.

Secondly, as Grim had said on Discord, a 2/3 majority for removal serves no purpose, because the Assembly could simply repeal the entire bill by majority, thus handing control back to the Delegate.

Lastly, Neq is just flat out wrong about the Citizenship Council. They require a 2/3 majority for confirmation, not removal. It's the exact opposite from what he described.

[Nequedum]

Hm, fair point on a repeal being by simple majority. Your reply does ease some of my concerns. I think I'll change vote in favour actually, because I can't see anything more favourable for TRT Staff being passed. I encourage other staffers to do the same.

That being said, this entire issue has made me realise that TRT Staff will need to unionise if we want to have a stronger voice that is consulted with re TRT decisions. Not all citizens care about TRT, but all citizens have as much of an equal vote on it as TRT Staff. We're going to need to unionise to ensure every TRT Staff members' voice is better respected, and that we're happy with the appointed EiC.

[Spartan Termopylae]

But as the Idea of this is to replace an officer role with another, non officer role that has the same overall powers as that officer had, but disenfranchising most of the region to do it, what's the point?

All of these proposals want to limit state control of what has always been a state run publication. They all want to create a role that has virtually the same powers as the officer, but with none of the accountability that an officer has. Any accountability that there is has only really been added as a sop to people like me who vehemently oppose the idea.

If the paper wishes to shake off government control, then it should lose the right to be be the official publication of the region. It should lose the right to use any regional symbology. It should lose any standing it has in the region, because it will no longer be the regional paper. It will be a paper in the region.

For me, as I've said before, the role should be put under the care of another officer, like outreach (probably the most appropriate of the current jobs), until such a time as it warrants its own department once more.

But who cares what I think? Certainly not people on the paper

[Deadeye Jack]

For the record, I support a TRRMC-elected EiC with delegate confirmation. I'd be willing to work on a draft with others if this is wanted by several people.

I fear that having the EiC appointed by the delegate or even elected by the Assembly may lead it to be more politicking than merit. Of course, a TRRMC-elected would not be completely devoid of it, but it will probably be more merit-based than Assembly-elected (making promises directly related to media publication won't mean much to non-TRRMC Assembly members, leading it to be based more on who they "like more" - though maybe that doesn't scale down well), and I fear that it being delegate-appointed will be open to more corruption than it's worth. Just because our current delegate is good, it's foolish to take it for granted that no future delegates will be corrupt to some extent.

Sorry for not getting in on this discussion sooner, but better late than never.

This would be a significant step backwards in this whole discussion We've gotten to a point where the only substantial difference between the two main proposals are whether we remove the EiC by an Assembly Majority vote or a 2/3rds vote. Not to mention I and others disagree with the notion that people outside of TRRMC aren't affected by what TRRMC produces. Essentially the EiC will be picked from TRRMC staff, that's the mechanism that ensures it is someone with some interest/expertise in the current media operation.

[Nequedum]

Essentially the EiC will be picked from TRRMC staff, that's the mechanism that ensures it is someone with some interest/expertise in the current media operation.

This is very relieving for me to see. I may still eventually want to pass an amendment that better reflects this, but that will ultimately come down to who our next few Delegates even are.

[Morover]

For the record, I support a TRRMC-elected EiC with delegate confirmation. I'd be willing to work on a draft with others if this is wanted by several people.

I fear that having the EiC appointed by the delegate or even elected by the Assembly may lead it to be more politicking than merit. Of course, a TRRMC-elected would not be completely devoid of it, but it will probably be more merit-based than Assembly-elected (making promises directly related to media publication won't mean much to non-TRRMC Assembly members, leading it to be based more on who they "like more" - though maybe that doesn't scale down well), and I fear that it being delegate-appointed will be open to more corruption than it's worth. Just because our current delegate is good, it's foolish to take it for granted that no future delegates will be corrupt to some extent.

Sorry for not getting in on this discussion sooner, but better late than never.

This would be a significant step backwards in this whole discussion We've gotten to a point where the only substantial difference between the two main proposals are whether we remove the EiC by an Assembly Majority vote or a 2/3rds vote. Not to mention I and others disagree with the notion that people outside of TRRMC aren't affected by what TRRMC produces. Essentially the EiC will be picked from TRRMC staff, that's the mechanism that ensures it is someone with some interest/expertise in the current media operation.

In the interest of forward progress, I'll drop the subject, but my opinion remains.