Osiris Fraternal Order

Adytus wrote:Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:10 pm

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.

Concur

I've talked the Guardian thing over with Adytus, and I agree that clause is problematic. I'll be removing it.

I'll be working on revising the draft within the next few days.

Still has my full support after the change.

First off, forgive me if I have missed similar points already addressing what I have brought up I’ve been scribbling down thoughts for a while now.

On the amendment versus basically writing a new constitution argument I think is unnecessary semantics. This is a service that Cormac provided to better get out our ideas to improve our constitution. Also he provided a TLDR to make it easily attainable for us, which as far as I can tell is a solid summery.

Okay on to my rambling

Changes in Article I

Cormac wrote: “Citizens will be prohibited from voting in elections and votes in the Council of Scribes if they are admitted to citizenship during an election or vote, or if they are admitted to citizenship within seven days of a legislative vote or opening of nominations in an election. (Article I, Section 3)”

This is a great change. I would like to even take this further with a monthly activity threshold (even as low as two posts a month) so that votes came from at least slightly active members of our community. However, I would understand if this seems elitist or logistically challenging.

Cormac wrote:“Oversight over the Pharaoh's power to suspend or revoke citizenship for security reasons is returned to the Council of Guardians, rather than the Council of Priests, as the Council of Priests is not a security institution. (Article I, Section 6)”

Always thought this, great change!

Changes in Article II

Cormac wrote:“Procedure for removing the Pharaoh from office is established. It would require a 3/4 vote of the Council of Scribes, a 2/3 vote of the Council of Guardians, and the Pharaoh may only be removed from office for dereliction of duty, abuse of authority, or violation of the law. (Article II, Section 2)”

In general, I absolutely believe that the pharaoh should have near complete power over security, crime and legislation. That being said, I think the addition of a formal removal of the pharaoh is needed for Osiris to function as a constitutional monarchy and I think you set the bar high enough to not compromise the Pharaoh’s power. So kudos!

Changes in Article IV

Cormac wrote:“The Pharaoh is empowered to remove the Chief Vizier from office. (Article IV, Section 3)”
“The Pharaoh is empowered to serve as acting head of government or to appoint an Acting Chief Vizier is the office is vacant, for the same reason as allowing the Pharaoh to appoint an Acting Chief Scribe. (Article IV, Section 4)”

This, I’m not comfortable with, imagine getting through all the rigors of campaigning to win the election for Chief Vizier and then the Pharaoh just has the ultimate power to remove you immediately if he wishes. There should be some limitations here. Perhaps approval from an outside group (CS maybe) or they have to have displayed clear negligence or threat to security (as supported by the council of guardians). It feels like too great of an unchecked power otherwise, especially because they can then appoint someone in their place until a new CV is appointed.

Changes in Article V

Cormac wrote:“Guardians will be subjected to re-approval by the Council of Scribes every six months, in the months of April and October. Note: This does not mean the Pharaoh would re-nominate them every six months, but rather that existing Guardians would automatically face re-approval votes. This ensures that the Council of Guardians remains independent of the Pharaoh but ensures greater citizen oversight. (Article V, Section 1)”

I like the idea of guardians being dismissed if not serving Osiris’s best interests but I’m not fond of this method. Often times, how do the members of the CS know how well a guardian is doing their job? Considering a lot of what we do takes place in private, I don’t think that they can really make an informed decision about how well the guardian is functioning.

Maybe to separate the influence of the Pharaoh and the Council of Guardians there could be a majority vote of the Council of Guardians required to support candidates that are nominated to the council of guardians before the council of scribes voting begins. This could form a power dynamic where the council of guardians supports the pharaoh while not being entirely connected.

On a side note, I think it would be a useful amendment if citizens had a platform to reach out to the First Guardian to bring up complaints about a member of the council of guardians to be addressed by the council. Although, I hope everyone knows they could just message me or any of us.

Cormac wrote:“The office of Chief Guardian is established to give the Council of Guardians a presiding officer and a liaison to communicate with other branches of government. The Chief Guardian would be elected internally by the Council of Guardians. (Article V, Section 10)”

I’m assuming this is to replace First Guardian, Chief Guardian is a more consistent name for our region now that I think about it so good catch! I think the addition of a more defined role for the (FG/CG) is a good idea and I totally support this notion. My question is if the change alters the role of the (FG/CG) should that prompt a revote? Which, I think would make sense and support if wanted.

Changes in Article VI

Cormac wrote:“To be eligible for senior government office (Pharaoh, Heir Apparent, Chief Vizier, Chief Scribe, Priest), a citizen must have maintained a WA nation in Osiris endorsing the Pharaoh or active participation in the Sekhmet Legion for two months or longer, or alternatively must have held citizenship for a cumulative total of six months or more. (Article VII, Section 5)”/

I’m mixed about this, I think it makes sense in that we want to ensure that those in this high status positions are loyal to Osiris, but it might make those who are skilled/experienced nation states players from other regions less likely to immigrate to Osiris resulting in us losing the chance to grow and better ourselves. Having said that I think 3 months would be enough and a good compromise.

All in all great changes! Great work Cormac, let me know what you guys think of my thoughts. It’s fun talking policy again after a bit of a hiatus

With regards to Jurs suggestion on the Council of guardians I fully agree

Weast Jurmany wrote: This is a great change. I would like to even take this further with a monthly activity threshold (even as low as two posts a month) so that votes came from at least slightly active members of our community. However, I would understand if this seems elitist or logistically challenging.

While I agree that the people voting should be semi-active, it may be easier to separate how active they are for different things. For instance, I feel as what we currently have for our minimum is sufficient for say the elections, I believe people should be slightly more active, both on here and on discord, for major policy changes such as this current amendment we are discussing.

Weast Jurmany wrote: On a side note, I think it would be a useful amendment if citizens had a platform to reach out to the First Guardian to bring up complaints about a member of the council of guardians to be addressed by the council.

I agree that this will be one of, if not the best means of getting messages to those of you in the council of guardians both in terms of speed and efficiency. The only thing is, where will it be situated, and who will be able to see said complaints/responses?

This, I’m not comfortable with, imagine getting through all the rigors of campaigning to win the election for Chief Vizier and then the Pharaoh just has the ultimate power to remove you immediately if he wishes. There should be some limitations here. Perhaps approval from an outside group (CS maybe) or they have to have displayed clear negligence or threat to security (as supported by the council of guardians). It feels like too great of an unchecked power otherwise, especially because they can then appoint someone in their place until a new CV is appointed.

A smart pharaoh isn't going to abuse this power on a regular basis, and if there is such a divide in the region that the Pharaoh is abusing the power, then we may have bigger problems.

Kylia Quilor wrote:Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:59 pm

Weast Jurmany wrote:This, I’m not comfortable with, imagine getting through all the rigors of campaigning to win the election for Chief Vizier and then the Pharaoh just has the ultimate power to remove you immediately if he wishes. There should be some limitations here. Perhaps approval from an outside group (CS maybe) or they have to have displayed clear negligence or threat to security (as supported by the council of guardians). It feels like too great of an unchecked power otherwise, especially because they can then appoint someone in their place until a new CV is appointed.

Kylia Quilor wrote: A smart pharaoh isn't going to abuse this power on a regular basis, and if there is such a divide in the region that the Pharaoh is abusing the power, then we may have bigger problems.

Although I don't think one of our Pharaohs would do something like this (all those I've served under have been great!) the point is to provide power checks for a worse case scenario. From my viewpoint, I was concerned that the pharaoh can both remove a CV with absolutely no needed criteria and then choose their temporary replacement. Anyway, thanks for commenting I get where you are coming from and I hope you get me too!

Weast Jurmany wrote: This is a great change. I would like to even take this further with a monthly activity threshold (even as low as two posts a month) so that votes came from at least slightly active members of our community. However, I would understand if this seems elitist or logistically challenging.

USMC.LT.hopeful wrote:While I agree that the people voting should be semi-active, it may be easier to separate how active they are for different things. For instance, I feel as what we currently have for our minimum is sufficient for say the elections, I believe people should be slightly more active, both on here and on discord, for major policy changes such as this current amendment we are discussing.

That's a good point, I'm certainly guilty of being inactive on discord and prefer to interact with people on here and on the RMB. I think I would like the minimum to be specifically on here but that may be self-serving. I would definitely be open to a discord post requirement if others are for it. I don't know if there's a way to see monthly discord post though?

Weast Jurmany wrote: On a side note, I think it would be a useful amendment if citizens had a platform to reach out to the First Guardian to bring up complaints about a member of the council of guardians to be addressed by the council.

USMC.LT.hopeful wrote: I agree that this will be one of, if not the best means of getting messages to those of you in the council of guardians both in terms of speed and efficiency. The only thing is, where will it be situated, and who will be able to see said complaints/responses?

I think a separate discord channel might be nice because then I could be pinged with each post, however for the sake of privacy and accessibility perhaps a forum on here is in order. I would be happy with either or both?

Anyway, thanks for reading my ramblings and for the input!

Wymondham wrote:With regards to Jurs suggestion on the Council of guardians I fully agree

Hey thanks buddy!