Page 1 of 5

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 21 Apr 2015, 18:36
by Cormac
Article 7E of the Constitution of The Rejected Realms will 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: If newly-elected officials are challenged within one month after the close of elections, the challenge will require the support of five other citizens.
First Proposal

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 21 Apr 2015, 18:47
by Guy
two-thirds, not 66%.

I'll have more substantive comments after I get some sleep. :P

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 21 Apr 2015, 19:39
by Cormac
Guy wrote:
21 Apr 2015, 16:47
two-thirds, not 66%.

I'll have more substantive comments after I get some sleep. :P
The other clauses read 75%, not three-quarters. >_> lol

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 21 Apr 2015, 19:40
by frattastan
But 75% is three-quarters. :P

Do you want to introduce the possibility of recall in general, or is it more of a matter of allowing challenges earlier than possible now?
How would Delegate recall work without an immediate replacement (the position is never vacant, at least gameside)? Do we introduce a Vice-Delegacy, or will the Delegate keep holding office until the successor is elected?

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 21 Apr 2015, 20:28
by Guy
Generally against recalls for Delegates, since it makes a few things messy -- most importantly that the position is never considered legally vacant, and this would change that.

I think a better alternative might be to change the prohibition on challenges within a month to Officers. (Or just to remove it altogether, as suggested.) If the community is so disaffected with a Delegate that they'd want to remove them within a month of being elected, something's probably gone seriously downhill anyway.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 21 Apr 2015, 21:43
by Cormac
That may be the better solution, just removing the month long grace period.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 22 Apr 2015, 02:02
by frattastan
My impression is that Cormac has moved away from the recall idea, and prefers to get rid of the waiting period (presumably for future instances of misconduct).

Nobody is going to recall you, you can relax. :P

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 22 Apr 2015, 03:21
by Libetarian Republics
I rather increase the threshold to challenge officers within a month of a being elected rather than abolishing the grace period altogether. I don't want petty elections just because an individual was elected (given that challenges for officer positions only requires support of 1 other citizen) Also I'm against recalls for Delegate.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 24 Apr 2015, 11:11
by Guy
What do you mean by increasing the threshold, LR? Requiring that they receive less than a certain proportion of the vote? This could get messy, especially with multiple candidates.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 24 Apr 2015, 12:36
by Libetarian Republics
A: Any citizen who wishes to become an Officer or the Delegate may challenge for the position. A challenge for Delegate requires the support of two other citizens. A challenge for Officer requires the support of one other citizen. This requirement is waived for officials seeking reelection.
If we wish to remove the grace period for newly elected officers (meaning they could be challenged when just elected to officer), I would propose that we also increase this requirement.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 24 Apr 2015, 14:47
by Guy
Right. Hmm. We could require the support of five citizens, for example, to challenge (either a Delegate or an Officer) prior to the 30 days challenge.

The issue is whether the five-person requirement would only apply to the first candidate, or whether subsequent ones will require it too.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 25 Apr 2015, 01:20
by Libetarian Republics
Guy wrote:
24 Apr 2015, 12:47
Right. Hmm. We could require the support of five citizens, for example, to challenge (either a Delegate or an Officer) prior to the 30 days challenge.

The issue is whether the five-person requirement would only apply to the first candidate, or whether subsequent ones will require it too.
I believe every candidate should require a certain amount of support (prior to a 30 days period.) Consistency.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 25 Apr 2015, 01:52
by Cormac
Article 7E of the Constitution of The Rejected Realms will 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: If newly-elected officials are challenged within one month after the close of elections, the challenge will require the support of five other citizens.
How does this look?

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 16 May 2015, 17:51
by Guy
Do we still want to pursue this?

If so, I might suggest the following wording:
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 newly-elected official within one month following their election shall require the support of five other citizens.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 17 May 2015, 02:19
by Cormac
I'm happy with that wording, though I don't think it differs much from the wording in the OP. :P

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 17 May 2015, 02:23
by frattastan
Will we still get a CormacChallenge?

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 19 Dec 2016, 18:07
by Guy
#AdminAbuse, but I thought it might be better to have the earlier discussion for context.

Essentially, I see a few options that we have:

1) Largely retain the current provisions, just clarify whether the limitation applies to officials who have defeated a challenge, or only to "truly" newly elected officers

2) Implement the proposal in this thread: Challenges require the support of five citizens during the month-long period. We would have to specify whether only the first challenge to a sitting official requires it or if all do. Also same clarification as to scope requires, as above.

3) Get rid of the limitation altogether.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 19 Dec 2016, 18:36
by Katie
Guy wrote:
19 Dec 2016, 16:07
#AdminAbuse, but I thought it might be better to have the earlier discussion for context.

Essentially, I see a few options that we have:

1) Largely retain the current provisions, just clarify whether the limitation applies to officials who have defeated a challenge, or only to "truly" newly elected officers

2) Implement the proposal in this thread: Challenges require the support of five citizens during the month-long period. We would have to specify whether only the first challenge to a sitting official requires it or if all do. Also same clarification as to scope requires, as above.

3) Get rid of the limitation altogether.
I personally think the first option might be best. We could define "newly-elected" as "having been elected to their first consecutive term" or something of the sort.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 19 Dec 2016, 19:06
by LPLTUKM
Against. Also, why everybody now want to change The Constitution? Are you people insane or what?

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 19 Dec 2016, 20:46
by thechurchofsatan
How about this? The first challenge before the end of the 30 day grace period requires the support of 3 citizens and each subsequent challenge that is before the end of the 30 day grace period requires the support of 1 more citizen than the prior challenge. This would apply individually to each different department. Is it too complicated?

I certainly don't think getting rid of the grace period is wise.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 19 Dec 2016, 20:55
by Katie
thechurchofsatan wrote:
19 Dec 2016, 18:46
(insert abridged version of churchofsatan's comment here)
I mean, I suppose that's a good compromise.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 19 Dec 2016, 21:02
by Guy
thechurchofsatan wrote:
19 Dec 2016, 18:46
How about this? The first challenge before the end of the 30 day grace period requires the support of 3 citizens and each subsequent challenge that is before the end of the 30 day grace period requires the support of 1 more citizen than the prior challenge. This would apply individually to each different department. Is it too complicated?

I certainly don't think getting rid of the grace period is wise.
Are you referring to each subsequent challenge within the same election, or to initiate a new election?

I don't really see the point of increasing the threshold - I mean, theoretically I do (if you failed the first time, you need more support for the subsequent challenge) but I doubt it'll have any practical effect. What more, you could only realistically fit 3 challenges in the month-long period anyway.

Things can't apply to departments. They can apply to an individual Officer, though.


I'd say allow to initiate an election with the support of three/four/five citizens, or get rid of the limitation altogether. If we do the former, I'm happy to apply it to re-elected officials.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 19 Dec 2016, 21:21
by Guy
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.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 19 Dec 2016, 21:28
by frattastan
To be honest I wouldn't mind just going for option three (getting rid of the limitation, without conditions), and requiring greater support only for the Delegate.

Challenge Amendment

Posted: 19 Dec 2016, 21:37
by Guy
Sure. I also wouldn't mind getting rid of the clause altogether, if there is support for that.