Vetoing Minister Denial

  • Baron

    With the recent plethora of petitions for advancement in both rank and realm, what justifies a rank-up and the smaller items like roads and details of builds and amount/quality of lore being subjective to the ministers, I and others have become concerned with the lack of an ability to appeal a Minister’s denial on a petition. The charter gives the ability to veto a minister’s approval of a petition, but not the ability to veto a minister’s denial.

    “If any noble member of Candarion feels that the rank was not earned, in the following two weeks after approval is granted, they can begin a legal discussion to call for a vote to veto the rank ascension, which follows the existing legal procedure. If the vote passed with a majority, the rank is revoked.”

    As such, I would like to introduce this amendment to the charter, to fit under 3.g. (or 3.f. if the admins want to pair it with its sibling 3.e., moving the current 3.f. to 3.g.).

    “If any noble member of Candarion feels that the rank was earned in the event of a minister’s denial of the petition, in the following two weeks after the denial, they can begin a legal discussion to call for a vote to veto the minister’s denial, which follows the existing legal procedure. If the vote passes with a supermajority, the rank is approved. If both ministers deny the petition the petitioner is unable to appeal.”

    This amendment includes a supermajority as the old voting system went by a majority, and quite a number of people would approve the vote without examining the contents of the petitioner thoroughly (at the very least that is what was claimed). Due to this reason, the person must pass with a supermajority to avoid returning to the old system.

    The detail about both ministers denying is included due to the fact that if both ministers deem a petitioner lacking, there is likely a larger problem at work.

    The vote on this discussion will require a supermajority to amend section three of the charter.

  • Baron

    As per my replies in the discord discussion, I support this version of the proposal

  • Minister Duke

    As do I, an all around magnificent specimen, who needed more characters to reply.

  • Prince

    So we are just going to do away with the minister positions then?

    This only matters if someone you like gets rejected, and you think they shouldn't then apathy voting takes hold and that person gets a rank up. Cool. That sounds like a terrible system.

    trust your ministers to do their jobs, and if you dont trust them dont vote for them when elections come up.

  • Baron

    Im in agreement with Tywen. We either trust ministers to do the job we elect them to do, or we do away with the concept entirely.

    It'd be a firm no from me on this if it went to a vote

  • Viscount

    This has been discussed at length on discord, but I'll summarize my thoughts here so they can be in a more easy-to-find place.

    This proposal is great. Most obviously, it makes sense given the precedent of what's already in the charter -- we should have both a way for the community to veto a minister's decision in either direction, not just for denial.

    More importantly, however, it is vitally important to have a way to contest the arbitrary, subjective requirements for rankup that ministers have to take into account. These requirements, such as detail, lore integration, and atmosphere (among others) are not possible to codify, and it is not unreasonable to expect disagreement on them. Therefore, we should have a legal process to challenge decisions when they come down to a disagreement on these subjective requirements.

    Some folks have argued that you should just talk with the minister and sort it out if you get denied. This is a great idea. However, it doesn't change the fact that people will inevitably disagree on the subtle dividing line between "not enough detail" and "enough detail." Additionally, for newer or more inexperienced members of the server, it may be helpful to have a codified legal process for challenging these decisions, rather than simply a "talk to the minister and figure it out."

    Another point that has been brought up is that you can just vote for a different minister, or impeach them. This argument takes a simplistic and inaccurate view of the role of a minister. Ministers' jobs are complex and not limited to approving rankup petitions. It is possible to disagree with a minister on where a subjective dividing line is and still support their work in other areas of the job. It would be a huge overreaction to impeach a minister over a simple disagreement like this, especially when said minister is doing a great job otherwise.

    Yet another argument against this proposal is that we elect the ministers to do a certain job, and adding this amendment is essentially nullifying the ministers' job. This is a strawman argument which misrepresents the point of the amendment. This amendment would only come into play when the community feels strongly that a minister has made a mistake -- there must be overwhelming support from the community in order to achieve the supermajority required to override the minister. In any other case, the minister continues to do their job as normal. We are not removing minister positions altogether. We are not saying that ministers cannot do their jobs. This is simply another balance on ministerial power that will only take effect if the community feels strongly about a particular issue.

    Finally, I would like to reiterate something I mentioned a lot in discord: amendments are a good thing. Many people have stated that this reviewing of the charter seems to happen too often and that it can be dizzying or annoying. But the bottom line is that revising our legal system to improve upon it is beneficial to the community. The evolution of laws is natural, and voting against an amendment because we approved what is currently written is a mistake.

  • Baron

    In light of it being stated that this ability is given to us, simply not stated in the charter and not requiring a supermajority, I will not be pursuing this further. If someone is still interested in bringing this to a vote, you may use this discussion but I will not be posting it.

Log in to reply