[Withdrawn] Amendments to the Scroll of Ma'at

[Kylia Quilor]

While its true that the actions on the forum alone can't remove a pharaoh, those actions give the forum government the legal remit to work to unseat the delegate gameside - it (the forum government leading the effort to unseat the delegate gameside) certainly has happened in NS, and even in Osiris, and having legal remits tends to count for something (not everything, but something) with the vast bulk of endos in a GCR. Every bit helps.

[Cormac]

I would not in any way suggest that Cormac was being deceptive in taking this method to amending the Scroll of Ma'at, but I would have to agree with JJ in that it seems a little less-than-kosher to attempt to re-pass an entire constitutional document as an amendment. I do understand that it's been done before, but I would argue that it shouldn't have been done then, either, and that we should not allow precedents like these to continue. It didn't happen then, and it most assuredly isn't happening now, but this is a very easy way to get changes snuck into the Scroll of Ma'at that we didn't want to see there. Reading the tl;dr of what changes were being made is a much easier thing to do than to sit down and directly compare the original Scroll with the proposed amended version, and it would not be hard for someone less loyal to Osiris to "forget to mention" a change or two. We would have no one but ourselves to blame for the passage of a document that we simply didn't carefully read... because it was an entire constitution.

I'm not in any way saying that Cormac is or even would do something like this, becaue I feel like we all know that he wouldn't, but I am saying that this is a dangerous thing to let become normal and accepted, and as such I don't believe that I can stand behind this procedure. I realize that individually amending these things piece by piece is a longer process, but I think the time is worth the security that it affords us. This should not have been done the first time, all respect to NK and his administration, and it should not happen a second either.

Here's the thing: I'm literally not doing it this way. What you're talking about doing will take a significant amount of time and effort, and doing what I've already done with this draft already took a significant amount of time and effort. I'm not now going to take this apart and turn it into individual amendments with text stricken through, etc., etc., so I can hold everyone's hand through this process and save them the time and effort of actually reading and comparing. This is a legislature. People will occasionally need to read legislation. If most people can't be bothered with legislating, we need to create an elected legislature so we can elect people who are actually interested in legislating, because nothing is getting done in this legislature these days.

So, if we're going to insist it be done this way, someone else is going to have to do it. And judging by the activity level of the Council of Scribes over the past few months, that means it won't get done, because frankly no one except a couple of people who occasionally post legislation are doing anything. What that means is that all the many problems in our current constitution will remain there. If that's what people really want, that's up to you, but just know that no matter how much people complain about this format, I'm not putting even more time and effort into splitting this up into separate amendments because some folks are too lazy to read and compare. If we're really at a point where Osirans can't be bothered with reading a constitutional draft, we have much deeper problems than what is wrong with our constitution anyway.

Now on the content, I think that many of these changes are a great ideas. I especially like the limitation on allowing citizens to vote in the middle of election cycles/votes with the Scribes. That's just a common sense procedure that every region should have and I definitely think we need to establish it here. I also like the idea of formally including the Pharaoh in executive power. We have so far upheld the idea that the Pharaoh is an executive to such a degree that I barely even recognized that it wasn't legally true, but now that you mention it, that absolutely does need to be amended to give the Pharaoh's inclusion in executive matters legal weight.

I'm glad we agree on these issues.

I do have some philosophical qualms with the procedure for removing a Pharaoh from office - I think the reasons that a Pharaoh can be removed and the measures it would take to have that happen are sound and fair - but I do feel like it's contrary to some of the basic tenants that we hold as a region on the position of the Delegate. Realistically, no forum government can force a Delegate to do anything gameside that he doesn't want to do. We could all take a vote and assuming Koth was on our side, we could entirely remove him from the forum and Discord if we wanted to. If he refused to step down, we could run an unendorse campaign against him and try to get someone else into the delegacy, but ultimately any such action from a forum government would require a gameside coup. Even if it weren't considered a legal coup by our forum government, that's realistically what it would be gameside. If we ever have need to push a government out of power who was bad for Osiris and refused to step down, we would have to use the same old methods to do it. Any legal precedent to remove him from office, I realize, would only be an attempt to preserve OFO 2.0 and I can respect that, but it just almost seems nonsensical. My qualm here is mostly philosophical, as I stated, but I am in general not in favor of laws that can't be enforced, and this one only could if the Pharaoh for some reason refused to leave, and then immediately agreed to get rid of himself after some very drawn out procedures. Assuming the couping/inactive Pharaoh didn't immediately kick us all out of the region as soon as he caught wind that these procedures were taking place, which is also entirely possible.

Well, the point of this would be to ensure that if the Pharaoh does coup, we would be able to run unendorsement campaigns and try to take game-side actions against that coup, and it would be legal. Under current law, it wouldn't be legal, because even in the event of a coup the Pharaoh would remain the head of state for this government as well unless for some reason they abdicated (which they wouldn't, because they would be giving up power over this government that they could use to thwart any counter-coup efforts). Under current law, we would essentially have to accept any coup by the Pharaoh, which makes even having laws or any government besides the Pharaoh pretty pointless. If the Pharaoh can just coup and we can't do anything about it, we're wasting our time even having a legislature, laws, a court, etc., because those things mean nothing and are just window dressing.

This is also something we need from a diplomatic perspective. If it isn't legal for us to unseat the Pharaoh, our allies aren't going to help us with unseating the Pharaoh in the event that the Pharaoh coups, because our allies are obligated to defend our constitutional government. We need to give our allies a legal route to defend us, if we're going to expect them to defend us as a treaty obligation -- and this obligation exists in all of our treaties.

The secondary point of this is to ensure that we can remove an inactive Pharaoh who disappears without notice. This might seem like an unlikely situation, but it has happened here in the past during Dalimbar's term as Pharaoh during the Kemetic Republic of Osiris, and it has happened in several other Feeders and Sinkers over the years. Sometimes something happens in people's real lives and they just are gone. We need a mechanism to ensure we don't have to wait anywhere from 28 days to 60 days for a Pharaoh who has disappeared to cease to exist before we can replace the Pharaoh, because during that 28-60 days, we would be vulnerable to coup attempts by outside forces. (There was a coup attempt here when Dali fell inactive during his term). So we definitely do need to make sure if the Pharaoh just disappears we can remove the Pharaoh from office and have a new Pharaoh.

[Sygian]

I would not in any way suggest that Cormac was being deceptive in taking this method to amending the Scroll of Ma'at, but I would have to agree with JJ in that it seems a little less-than-kosher to attempt to re-pass an entire constitutional document as an amendment.

Well then what is your suggestion? You can't say we shouldn't do this if you don't have a better suggestion.

I do understand that it's been done before, but I would argue that it shouldn't have been done then, either, and that we should not allow precedents like these to continue.

You should have spoken up then. I think that instead of trying to remove precedents, you should try to start a precedent of encouraging people to read the full proposed document, and not rely on a bulleted list to explain to you what is being proposed. While those types of lists help, as a scribe (and Chief Vizier, of course) of Osiris, it is your responsibility and the expectations of all of Osiris that you examine proposals introduced before the Council of Scribes and vote according to your opinion. If you don't do that, you should just request a Guest Visa masking since you apparently can't handle the responsibilities of being a Scribe with the ability to vote.

We would have no one but ourselves to blame for the passage of a document that we simply didn't carefully read... because it was an entire constitution.

I hope that you, the Head of Government of Osiris, didn't just admit that you are unable to fully read and interpret the Constitution of a region you are the leader of.

You obviously have a valid point that anyone can sneak something into a piece of legislation, but it is our responsibility to find and look for things like that, and we should encourage other citizens to do so as well instead of guiding them through each clause of each section of each article because they apparently can't read it for themselves.

[Cormac]

I think maybe we need to have a deeper conversation about what kind of government we actually want.

There has been this tension, since April 2016, between what I'll call Delegate-based government and forum-based government. Many of us tend to respect the authority of the sitting Delegate to determine the course of the region, based on past instances of the Delegate doing that here in Osiris in December 2013 and April 2016. But on the other hand, our government does not reflect that, and instead reflects forum-based government. If we want to let the Delegate decide to change course, our laws and system of government need to reflect that. We need to have a provision in our constitution saying the Delegate can do that. It also doesn't make sense to have provisions that allow the Delegate's veto to be overridden, or to have a judicial branch to interpret the constitution and decide that something the Delegate is doing is unconstitutional, if we prefer for the Delegate to be able to alter the course of the region.

So essentially what we need to decide is: Rule of the Delegate, or rule of law? It can't be both, or some halfway hybrid combination. As we see from the West Pacific, rule of the Delegate doesn't necessarily mean we need to do away with forum elections or other institutions of forum government. What it does mean is that we need to make forum officials and forum institutions subordinate to the Delegate, and recognize the Delegate's right to alter the government as they see fit.

So the question we need to ask and answer, before we can really move forward with anything else, is do we want to do that? Because no legislator can know what to do about things like whether to include a provision to remove the Pharaoh from office until we have collectively answered the question of what kind of government we want to have. If we want to have a government that is Delegate-based, then a provision to remove the Pharaoh doesn't make sense, but neither do a lot of our existing provisions make sense. It would require a deeper rethinking of our government. So I think we need to talk about whether we want to do that, or whether we prefer a more forum-based government with rule of law, and expecting the Delegate to follow the rule of law the same as everyone else.

So, I think we should take a timeout from the draft and have this discussion. Thoughts?

[Wymondham]

I think maybe we need to have a deeper conversation about what kind of government we actually want.

There has been this tension, since April 2016, between what I'll call Delegate-based government and forum-based government. Many of us tend to respect the authority of the sitting Delegate to determine the course of the region, based on past instances of the Delegate doing that here in Osiris in December 2013 and April 2016. But on the other hand, our government does not reflect that, and instead reflects forum-based government. If we want to let the Delegate decide to change course, our laws and system of government need to reflect that. We need to have a provision in our constitution saying the Delegate can do that. It also doesn't make sense to have provisions that allow the Delegate's veto to be overridden, or to have a judicial branch to interpret the constitution and decide that something the Delegate is doing is unconstitutional, if we prefer for the Delegate to be able to alter the course of the region.

So essentially what we need to decide is: Rule of the Delegate, or rule of law? It can't be both, or some halfway hybrid combination. As we see from the West Pacific, rule of the Delegate doesn't necessarily mean we need to do away with forum elections or other institutions of forum government. What it does mean is that we need to make forum officials and forum institutions subordinate to the Delegate, and recognize the Delegate's right to alter the government as they see fit.

So the question we need to ask and answer, before we can really move forward with anything else, is do we want to do that? Because no legislator can know what to do about things like whether to include a provision to remove the Pharaoh from office until we have collectively answered the question of what kind of government we want to have. If we want to have a government that is Delegate-based, then a provision to remove the Pharaoh doesn't make sense, but neither do a lot of our existing provisions make sense. It would require a deeper rethinking of our government. So I think we need to talk about whether we want to do that, or whether we prefer a more forum-based government with rule of law, and expecting the Delegate to follow the rule of law the same as everyone else.

So, I think we should take a timeout from the draft and have this discussion. Thoughts?

I concur perhaps that discussion should happen in the Council's Chambers though?

[Kylia Quilor]

I think maybe we need to have a deeper conversation about what kind of government we actually want.

There has been this tension, since April 2016, between what I'll call Delegate-based government and forum-based government. Many of us tend to respect the authority of the sitting Delegate to determine the course of the region, based on past instances of the Delegate doing that here in Osiris in December 2013 and April 2016. But on the other hand, our government does not reflect that, and instead reflects forum-based government. If we want to let the Delegate decide to change course, our laws and system of government need to reflect that. We need to have a provision in our constitution saying the Delegate can do that. It also doesn't make sense to have provisions that allow the Delegate's veto to be overridden, or to have a judicial branch to interpret the constitution and decide that something the Delegate is doing is unconstitutional, if we prefer for the Delegate to be able to alter the course of the region.

So essentially what we need to decide is: Rule of the Delegate, or rule of law? It can't be both, or some halfway hybrid combination. As we see from the West Pacific, rule of the Delegate doesn't necessarily mean we need to do away with forum elections or other institutions of forum government. What it does mean is that we need to make forum officials and forum institutions subordinate to the Delegate, and recognize the Delegate's right to alter the government as they see fit.

So the question we need to ask and answer, before we can really move forward with anything else, is do we want to do that? Because no legislator can know what to do about things like whether to include a provision to remove the Pharaoh from office until we have collectively answered the question of what kind of government we want to have. If we want to have a government that is Delegate-based, then a provision to remove the Pharaoh doesn't make sense, but neither do a lot of our existing provisions make sense. It would require a deeper rethinking of our government. So I think we need to talk about whether we want to do that, or whether we prefer a more forum-based government with rule of law, and expecting the Delegate to follow the rule of law the same as everyone else.

So, I think we should take a timeout from the draft and have this discussion. Thoughts?

I'm not sure you're right about the notion that a hybrid government is impossible. A Delegate has absolute authority over the region, yes, as long as they hold the position, but no Delegate can perform all the functions of the region alone - they need an army if they wish to act on the world stage, they need loyal supporters who will help them tart and monitor the region, they need additional personel, and those personel need personel, and hence, regional forums and the associated communities on them. Further, the people on the forums (and discord now, these days) are the people who, broadly, choose to get involved, who care enough to invest time and energy into the region.

I'm personally partial to rejecting the notions of the West Pacific, because if a delegate isn't bound by rule of law, there isn't much reason for having it or having the kinds of more elaborate governing structures I play NS to partake in. There's nothing stopping a Pharaoh from changing the WFE, setting up a new forum and banjecting all rivals, no, but there is the social contract a Pharaoh agrees to by agreeing to serve as Pharaoh under our system, and I think we should continue to operate under those norms. I don't think we should just say 'okay, the Pharaoh can do whatever they want because Delegate'. The same holds true with the founders in UCRs, albeit they're more secure - if a Founder agrees to limit their power and not just banject randomly, then they've agreed to do so and to suddenly start doing so would be a betrayal. The same is true for a Pharoah - if a Pharaoh agrees to be bound by the limits on their power in the Scrolls, then they're bound by them. And I think we should keep that as a social norm.

I think we should expect the Pharaoh to follow the rules for the same reason we don't expect the Council of Guardians to coup whenever they feel like it. The basic unit of play here is not the region, but the community, and as a member of that community, the Delegate should be expected to keep to the agreed norms. In a GCR, there does need to be an understanding of the realities of the situation and the Delegates authority, but if we don't have limits on what the Delegate can do, how Delegates are chosen, then we really won't have any grounds to complain if, say, the Grey Wardens invaded Osiris and unseated the delegate, or if they backed someone in a coup against the Pharaoh and succeed. If simply say 'delegate can do whatever because delegate', then any delegate can do whatever because delegate.

The West Pacific is really the only region with the courage of its convictions on this front - no other region, whatever they may nominally say about delegate supremacy, really believes it. The NPO may talk a good game about it, but if the NPO's delegate was somehow overthrown and a new Democratic Republic of the Pacific was set up, I don't think the leadership and elites of the NPO would take it lightly. (I could be wrong, I admit, but still).

[Adytus]

Rule by the delegate.

[Altino]

Well then what is your suggestion? You can't say we shouldn't do this if you don't have a better suggestion.

This was my suggestion:

I realize that individually amending these things piece by piece is a longer process, but I think the time is worth the security that it affords us. This should not have been done the first time, all respect to NK and his administration, and it should not happen a second either.

You should have spoken up then. I think that instead of trying to remove precedents, you should try to start a precedent of encouraging people to read the full proposed document, and not rely on a bulleted list to explain to you what is being proposed. While those types of lists help, as a scribe (and Chief Vizier, of course) of Osiris, it is your responsibility and the expectations of all of Osiris that you examine proposals introduced before the Council of Scribes and vote according to your opinion. If you don't do that, you should just request a Guest Visa masking since you apparently can't handle the responsibilities of being a Scribe with the ability to vote.

I wasn't yet a citizen of Osiris when it happened the first time. That was last year. I will be sure to drop my citizenship and request a Guest Visa mask right away should I ever reach the point in my relationship with Osiris that I could no longer even be bothered to read incoming legislation, thank you for the suggestion.

I hope that you, the Head of Government of Osiris, didn't just admit that you are unable to fully read and interpret the Constitution of a region you are the leader of.

You obviously have a valid point that anyone can sneak something into a piece of legislation, but it is our responsibility to find and look for things like that, and we should encourage other citizens to do so as well instead of guiding them through each clause of each section of each article because they apparently can't read it for themselves.

Yes. It is our responsibility, and you can be certain that I read the document in full myself. However, I have no faith in anyone else to go to the measures that I'm willing to go to get things done. Running on the assumption that laziness and selfishness will never knock at your door and screw you over is a mistake that I'm not keen on making if at all possible. I'm willing to settle on this process if that's what everyone is determined to use for these particular changes, but should this method to changing the Scroll be proposed again, I will oppose it again. It's a genuinely dangerous method to be using and I'm not willing to hinge the region's security on the hope that everyone will do what they're supposed to do just because they're supposed to do it.

[Mike]

So, the way I see as a solution to our first issue about what type of government to have is rather simple. The best course to take is sticking to what we have, while putting in an amendment to officialize the executive powers that the Pharaoh already holds. That is by far the simplest and most efficient route to take for this situation.

Next, dealing with potential situations that require a new Pharaoh. Logically, the best thing would be to somehow temporarily replace the Pharaoh with his successor when needed, as a sort of president pro tempore. However, there is no streamlined or effective way to pursue this possibility, nor is there any way to ensure that doing so won't end up with a coup from the successor to become full Pharaoh and push through whatever (s)he wants. So, restricted by what Nation States can/can't do, having a way to replace the Pharaoh/delegate in the event of a threat to our regional security, then we need to be able to. However, even then we can't ensure that this new Pharaoh won't coup on the region either.

Once this is squared away, then let us continue back to discussing the proposed amendments and their merits/demerits. For, the only way to ensure both liberties and safety is to have a strong regional constitution capable of ensuring both things, and making sure that no person/group can overstep it.

[Adytus]

Guardians will be subject to re-approval by the Council of Scribes every six months, in the months of April and October.

This screams personal abuse and misuse. I saw it first hand in Lazarus, Can we please get this removed? I don't see why people can't issue a recall when a guardian has done something worthy of it.