Osiris Fraternal Order

Sygian wrote:Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:59 pmYes, I agree with that change as it helps the Council of Guardians maintain their sovereignty. In fact, I'm not sure why it was necessary that we removed it in the first place.

It was removed to streamline the legislative process.

If we're going to restore the Council of Guardians voting on treaties, it would probably make sense to restore their voting on constitutional amendments and declarations of war as well. That said, I'm not sure I favor restoring their legislative oversight. One of the most positive aspects of this draft, to me, is that the Council of Scribes is granted more autonomy, and I think restoring legislative oversight to the Council of Guardians would mean adding another obstacle to passing legislation, and would be inconsistent with what the rest of the draft is striving to do. Additionally, if we allow Guardians to vote in the Council of Scribes, we would be essentially allowing them to cast two votes on a lot of legislation. They will already have two votes in confirming the Crown Prince(ss), sure, but that is a vote that takes place once every few months at most, and a vote that makes much more sense for them to have a separate role in as our in-game security institution.

Much of what we did before wasn't necessarily something that should be preserved forever, but rather was necessary due to the circumstances of the time. The Council of Scribes was initially made a weaker institution, with many checks on its power, because after the April conflict we were a small community and could have been vulnerable to foreign vote stacking to overthrow the fledgling government. We aren't a small community anymore and we aren't nearly as vulnerable to that possibility. Likewise, some of the citizenship issues we've been debating were implemented in response to a particular situation, which was the threat posed by the Grey Wardens. These decisions were necessary at the time they were made due to particular circumstances, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be retained forever. With growth and change in our community, growth and change in our laws should follow.

Edit: Some additional changes.

Article II, Section 1(3)

(3) The Pharaoh and Crown Prince/Crown Princess will have no vote in the Council of Scribes. The Acting Pharaoh will have no vote in the Council of Scribes for the duration of their service as Acting Pharaoh.

Will now be

(3) The Pharaoh, Crown Prince/Crown Princess, and the Council of Priests will have no vote in the Council of Scribes. The Acting Pharaoh will have no vote in the Council of Scribes for the duration of their service as Acting Pharaoh.

Article III, Section 4(4)

(4) The Chief Vizier may declare war by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council of Scribes and the assent of the Pharaoh.

Will now be

(4) The Chief Vizier may declare war by a two-thirds majority vote of the Council of Scribes, a two-thirds majority vote of the Council of Guardians, and the assent of the Pharaoh.

I think those changes make sense. I also appreciate that the provision I suggested to make it possible for a citizenship appeals process to be enacted by law was included.

I'm not seeing any further issues with the language of the draft. Looks good.

If a Priest is accused of a crime by breaking a law mentioned in the legal code, is there another priest that is appointed to temporarily take his spot until a verdict (and in some cases a sentence) is handed out or would this situation be outlined in the Rules of the Council of Priests, or whatever they decide to call it? "(10) The process by which the Council of Priests reaches decisions is to be determined internally by the Council of Priests."

Sygian wrote:Mon Jan 02, 2017 5:52 pmIf a Priest is accused of a crime by breaking a law mentioned in the legal code, is there another priest that is appointed to temporarily take his spot until a verdict (and in some cases a sentence) is handed out or would this situation be outlined in the Rules of the Council of Priests, or whatever they decide to call it? "(10) The process by which the Council of Priests reaches decisions is to be determined internally by the Council of Priests."

That would fall under the rules of order of the Council of the Priests.

If there are no more objections, I motion this to vote.

Treize Dreizehn wrote:Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:59 amIf there are no more objections, I motion this to vote.

Seconded.

Seconded.

Fourth'd
I think this is ready to go to vote.

Scribes are advised that a vote has been presented to the floor of this council.