Amendments to the constitution.

[Neop]

I'd like to propose the following amendments to the constitution.

To Article 8, Section D:

D: A challenge to an official within 30 days of their election requires the support of four other citizens. Otherwise, a challenge for Delegate requires the support of two other citizens, and a challenge for Officer requires the support of one other citizen. The required support must be received within 7 days of the challenge to trigger an election being posted.

To Article 8, Section F:

F: Simultaneous elections will begin for all Officer positions on the first day of April, August and December, as if a challenge had been made. Incumbent Officers must confirm their intent to run. No challenges for Officer positions may be made within the 15 days before these elections.

---

Maybe we can also add some amendments in response to the recent officer kerfuffle?

Spoiler: click to toggle

To Article 8, Section B:

B: Elections begin once a challenge is submitted. If the elections are for the position of Delegate, any citizens admitted after this time will not be allowed to vote in that election. A challenge for Delegate will be considered to have been submitted, and elections begun, at the beginning of the first month following six months having elapsed from the last vote for Delegate. No additional challenges for the position of Delegate may be made within the 15 days before these elections.

[Catalyse]

The 15 waiting period shouldn't apply to the delegate elections since those are flexible. If someone challenges the sitting delegate 15 days before their current 6 month term ends they won't have another election in 15 days, they'll have one in 6 months.

I also think that maybe the time elapsed before a challenge is null should be a bit longer. A week should suffice.

[Morover]

Seconded to all these changes. It clarifies some of the stuff we were discussing on Discord earlier, without being too over-the-top. 15 days is a good timeframe for these.

A few changes I'd make, though they're a bit nitpicky and has to do with a stylistic opinion:

For Sections B and F, I'd make it "No additional challenges for officer positions may be made within the fifteen days before the aforementioned automatic elections."

For Section D, I'd change it from a specification of four days to just a typical nomination period for automatic challenges for said position that the player is challenging for. I'm sure there is some way to put it more eloquently than I did.

Last-minute change: I agree with Cat on the delegate election - it didn't even occur to me the logistics behind that. Perhaps make it limited to 13 days, in order to avoid any overlap in elections (as it may be interpreted, if kept as-is, for a secondary delegate election to be automatically challenged, even if there is a delegate election currently going on. It's a stretch, I know, but best to plan for a worst-case scenario).

[Neop]

To be additionally nitpicky,

For Sections B and F, I'd make it "No additional challenges for officer positions may be made within the fifteen days before the aforementioned automatic elections."

The word automatic did come to mind, but I hesitate against using such vocabulary in legislation without proper introduction- especially in this case, where we're now creating a new category of election- the constitution doesn't differentiate between these two types of elections beyond the fact that they're scheduled. Key phrasing is "as if a challenge had been made." Considering that no other elections are mentioned in section F, there's really no ambiguity that necessitates any further distinction. There could be in section B, but see below for further comments about that section.

For Section D, I'd change it from a specification of four days to just a typical nomination period for automatic challenges for said position that the player is challenging for. I'm sure there is some way to put it more eloquently than I did.

See above. "Automatic" challenges operate no differently from by-elections.

Last-minute change: I agree with Cat on the delegate election - it didn't even occur to me the logistics behind that. Perhaps make it limited to 13 days, in order to avoid any overlap in elections (as it may be interpreted, if kept as-is, for a secondary delegate election to be automatically challenged, even if there is a delegate election currently going on. It's a stretch, I know, but best to plan for a worst-case scenario).

I did consider this while drafting up the amendments. I think Cat's argument is sound and I agree with her at the moment, but I'm also interested in what precedent there is for such a situation, so I'm going to be keeping the original amendments as they are for now.

[Guy]

Agreed with Cat that there’s no use for this in Delegate elections.

[Spartan Termopylae]

I don't understand the necessity

[Morover]

I don't understand the necessity

It's not so much necessity so much as a measure to reduce redundancy.

[Manson]

These are all good except for the Delegate one which isn't needed. Can't wait to put these up to vote.

[Christian Democrats]

I don't understand the necessity

I agree. Have unnecessary and untimely challenges been a problem?

[frattastan]

I don't understand the necessity

I agree. Have unnecessary and untimely challenges been a problem?

On the second proposal ("The required support must be received within 4 days..."), there was a discussion in chat on whether challenges 'expire'.
John Laurens challenged for Speaker on May 13. He received no seconds and debate died down, but he hasn't withdrawn the challenge. Does that mean it's still pending and that an election will begin if a second is received? What if it receives a second after the July 1 Speaker election? Is it still valid even if the person it was challenging has been replaced? etc.

There was an unnecessary challenge recently - the limit of requiring five 'seconds' to challenge in the first month of someone's term proved ineffective because this joke challenge got the required support. However the proposed amendments aren't addressing that. There also was a challenge for a vacant seat (due to resignation) at the end of November, just before the December 1 scheduled election, but I wouldn't say it was something so widespread to be a 'problem', no.

[Neop]

Removed the portion of the amendment pertaining to the delegate.

Would you guys like to see anything added, removed, desecrated before we motion this to a vote?

[Guy]

With the first amendment, I would truncate the sentence just in the interests of brevity, given that nothing is lost: "The required support must be received within 4 days of the challenge being posted."

I'm also not sure whether 4 days is too short.

Naturally, I think, this requirement should only be for the first challenge that triggers a challenge period, rather than further challenges during the challenge period. Maybe this should be made explicit?

With the second amendment, I'd remove the word 'additional'.

[Neop]

With the first amendment, I would truncate the sentence just in the interests of brevity, given that nothing is lost: "The required support must be received within 4 days of the challenge being posted."

Sure, done.

I'm also not sure whether 4 days is too short.

Currently, the nomination period, which begins upon the first successfully submitted challenge, is 4 days, which is where I draw the number from.

Naturally, I think, this requirement should only be for the first challenge that triggers a challenge period, rather than further challenges during the challenge period. Maybe this should be made explicit?

Probably. This is what I've come up with for that:

The required support for a challenge to trigger an election must be received within 4 days of the challenge being posted in order for the challenge to be considered valid.

With the second amendment, I'd remove the word 'additional'.

Also done.

[Guy]

I understand the logic with using 4 days, but I think it might be too short. The purpose I think is to stop 'ghost' challenges (an indefinite period of time within which you can challenge), I think 7 days is probably more in the right order, but it's not that important to me that I'd vote against if you disagree.

I'm fine with the "trigger an election" wording.

[Neop]

I’ll extend it to 7 days then, given that several people seem to prefer it.
Barring any last minute recommendations, Manson, would it be possible to put this to vote by tomorrow morning?

[Manson]

I’ll extend it to 7 days then, given that several people seem to prefer it.
Barring any last minute recommendations, Manson, would it be possible to put this to vote by tomorrow morning?

Sure.