- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
Well that didn't pass.
Version 4:
Version 4:
Judicial Tweak Bill:
AT VOTE: Judicial Tweak Bill version 4
- Thread starter Eluvatar
- Start date
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I think so.
Chasmanthe
TNPer
That wouldn't necessarily satisfy everybody, if Speaker and Delegate both have a conflict of interest. Some people get very picky about that aspect, I'm surprised they haven't objected yet. In the event that the Speaker and Delegate both have a conflict of interest, can their agreed-upon hearing officers be still be considered okay?
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
Due notice: I'll be making a motion that the RA vote on this on friday, a week after it was submitted, unless constructive criticism leads me to consider changes.
I had made a suggestion, while this was discussed on IRC, that the order of officers in clause 9 be reversed, that is:
I tend to view the Speaker as a more "apolitical" figure than the Delegate, and therefore better suited to make the appointments. Not sure whether this view is shared universally though.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I don't share it.
Gaspo, I never said either of these offices is truly apolitical. I said that the Speaker is more so than the Delegate. It is a comparative, not a positive statement. Your argument does not either support or contradict my statement.
The Speaker acts as a moderator of debate and procedure in a deliberative body, and by convention they try to stay uninvolved, or at the very least act impartial with regards to the issues debated.
The Delegate, on the other hand, is the head of government, and as such is a major stakeholder in every single political decision made by a member of the executive.
Furthermore, by the nature of our penal system, the Delegate is much more likely to be the plaintiff, or a potential witness, or in other ways the source of evidence, in prosecutions than the Speaker.
All these considered, when comparing the Speaker and the Delegate, the former is better suited for the role of appointing hearing officers than the latter.
The Speaker acts as a moderator of debate and procedure in a deliberative body, and by convention they try to stay uninvolved, or at the very least act impartial with regards to the issues debated.
The Delegate, on the other hand, is the head of government, and as such is a major stakeholder in every single political decision made by a member of the executive.
Furthermore, by the nature of our penal system, the Delegate is much more likely to be the plaintiff, or a potential witness, or in other ways the source of evidence, in prosecutions than the Speaker.
All these considered, when comparing the Speaker and the Delegate, the former is better suited for the role of appointing hearing officers than the latter.
Gaspo
TNPer
Given the bar on anyone with a conflict, and how well most of us know each other, I frankly doubt it's likely to be a problem. If the Delegate does have a conflict (arising out of being a party or witness to a trial), and appoints officers who have clear conflicts, those officers will simply be rejected by the Speaker. The bill is fine as it is; the Delegate exists to serve the people of the region. If we have a Delegate who's appointing biased court officers, well, I think the trial in question would be the least of our concerns at that stage.
Chasmanthe
TNPer
I understand now what treating them as absent means and that makes sense. as there is a line of succession for the delegacy and a similar thing for the assembly, that would work well.
