Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Apr 13, 2009 15:38:20 GMT -6
Another option would be an elected, active Speaker. I do love the ethics code if it is not limited to three MC's as it is at present. 2/3 of all Cosa members [so if 18 actual people are in the Cosa, 12 are required to vote for censure in order for it to take effect] should be needed in order to censure a member of that house. I do agree, however, an active speaker is needed, and as such, I nominate myself.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2009 16:02:21 GMT -6
Wait a sec.....
First, the thing I posted first was a very rough draft intended to spark the discussion.
Second, the three people are not tasked with impeachment or censure, they are tasked with reviewing the ethics code and, if a problem is found, proposing the measure to censure or impeach.
Presently, there is no ethics code (we should probably be focusing on what actions we wish to prevent and how best to phrase the code through this review). And, even if an MC does something unethical (though that term is rather subjective), who would actually move for their removal? Right now, that person could be anyone. People like Senator Davis contend that this is a great system and allows the Cosa to police itself. Arguing that an offence like "rudeness" if it offends a majority of the Cosa, should warrant removal. To me, this is mob rule more than self-policing.
If we have a committee, it can consist of any number of members, or if we simply elect an active speaker, it doesn't matter to me. My objective is to have a set code of ethics and an appointed enforcer(s) to bring down the gavel if someone violates that code. The Senate has a President who can fill that role, but the Cosa does not. So, we can say "here are three people to ensure we all abide by the codes" or "we elect this individual to oversee us as a body" either way, I don't really care, I just want there to be a system.
The main focus at this point should probably be the ethics code, I don't like the rough draft in its present form (thus, a rough draft). Let's hammer out what behavior is totally unacceptable for a legislator and under what conditions an MC should be censured or removed.
|
|
|
Post by Daniel Filan on Apr 19, 2009 16:47:50 GMT -6
I think that all is needed is a sense of the Ziu for an ethics code, and that could just be a guideline for who to get out of the Ziu via the method we already have. There's no point, if you ask me, in adding another route to removing a Ziu member if they can already be removed this way.
As for behaviour we wish to limit, I think that namecalling should be on there just to create an orderly Cosa where we can work for the good of the nation without distraction.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 19, 2009 18:42:49 GMT -6
Yeah, certainly non-contextual ad hominem attacks should be restricted by the Speaker.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2009 9:22:14 GMT -6
I think that all is needed is a sense of the Ziu for an ethics code, and that could just be a guideline for who to get out of the Ziu via the method we already have. There's no point, if you ask me, in adding another route to removing a Ziu member if they can already be removed this way. As for behaviour we wish to limit, I think that namecalling should be on there just to create an orderly Cosa where we can work for the good of the nation without distraction. Again, nobody is trying to add another route to remove an MC. Presently, the procedure is very general and could use refinement. A code of ethics is essential and I have been calling on everyone to discuss this code since the beginning of this thread. Whether we appoint an ethics committee or simply elect a Speaker, it doesn't matter. We need some structure to ensure more orderly proceedings. Allowing a giant mass to govern itself is less like democracy and more like "mob rule."
|
|
Ieremiac'h Ventrutx
Former Senator of Florencia ~ Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 990
Talossan Since: 3-1-1997
|
Post by Ieremiac'h Ventrutx on Apr 21, 2009 14:24:06 GMT -6
Just an FYI - I am against this bill as well ... I just don't want you to be surprised when I vote against it. If what we have is rule by the mob? Then Mob rule is fine
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2009 16:47:25 GMT -6
Again, resolution of the Cosa...
Also, I might add....the Senate has a leader, chosen from among its members, who can do this type of thing.
The Cosa does not.
My contention is simply this. Let's codify the ethics and standards of conduct. Otherwise, I can say "Hey, I don't like MC X, let's give him the boot" and if I can convince enough MCs, MC X is in some serious trouble. That turns it into a popularity contest, no?
Or, we can say, "MC X violated Article X of the Code of Ethics, defacing a picture of the Seneschal with unauthorized fictitious facial hair and horns"
Which seems more reasonable to vote on?
|
|
|
Post by Daniel Filan on Apr 21, 2009 17:31:41 GMT -6
Again, resolution of the Cosa... Also, I might add....the Senate has a leader, chosen from among its members, who can do this type of thing. The Cosa does not. My contention is simply this. Let's codify the ethics and standards of conduct. Otherwise, I can say "Hey, I don't like MC X, let's give him the boot" and if I can convince enough MCs, MC X is in some serious trouble. That turns it into a popularity contest, no? Or, we can say, "MC X violated Article X of the Code of Ethics, defacing a picture of the Seneschal with unauthorized fictitious facial hair and horns" Which seems more reasonable to vote on? But even with a code of ethics, you would be able to say "Hey, I don't like MC X, let's give him the boot" and have it voted on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2009 18:13:53 GMT -6
You don't like what? His coat of arms? His funny hair style? His politics?
What if you don't like MC X because MC X supports a certain political position? A majority party could use that to attack members of a minority party, no?
Or, you have a comprehensive code of ethics. So, we can boot MC X because MC X curses in the Hopper, or because MC X disrupts the Chambers of the Ziu. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by Daniel Filan on Apr 21, 2009 19:02:31 GMT -6
You don't like what? His coat of arms? His funny hair style? His politics? What if you don't like MC X because MC X supports a certain political position? A majority party could use that to attack members of a minority party, no? Or, you have a comprehensive code of ethics. So, we can boot MC X because MC X curses in the Hopper, or because MC X disrupts the Chambers of the Ziu. Why not? What I'm saying is that even if there was a code of ethics, people would still be able to kick MCs out the way they do now, but they would also have the ability to point to an agreed-upon code of ethics. The alternative is to make it so that a MC cannot be kicked out without a "Whereas" clause in the bill indicating how he transgressed the code of ethics.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2009 9:34:04 GMT -6
In the UCMJ, there is a "catch-all" (article 134 whist states: “Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”)
Why can't we have a set of agreed upon ethics along with one clause that states "any conduct which brings disgrace upon the Cosa, the Kingdom or the Crown" or something like that.
I cannot imagine a motion to remove an MC that did not include a "Whereas" clause. "Impeach Steve just because I say so?"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2009 9:55:42 GMT -6
Let's try and hammer something out...
Article 1. Members convicted by a Talossan court shall be subject to removal, on a case-by-case basis, when it is determined that an Member of the Cosa lacks the requisite moral character to function in the legislature.
Article 2. As legislators, Members of the Cosa are in a position of great responsibility as they represent the citizens of Talossa. Despite different political affiliations, it is imperative that MCs respect one another when acting in the capacity of a Member of the Cosa. As such, derogatory speech and malicious insults toward a fellow MC, a Senator, Cabinet Ministers, the Seneschal or the Royal Household within the chambers of the Ziu or the Hopper or when spoken from the office of a Member of the Cosa shall be grounds for removal from office.
Let's discuss these two, once we secure the first two articles, we can move on.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 22, 2009 17:10:16 GMT -6
How far does 'derogatory speech' go? I would imagine that calling a fellow peer something along the lines of 'you fool' or perhaps something said within a certian context such as '...and if you think that this bill will make any difference to the situation then you are a fool" would be ok. There is a certian vagueness about the parapgraph at present that I would imagine could cause issues when coming to enforcement.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2009 17:30:29 GMT -6
If I say "you'd have to be a fool to think...." I'm not really disrupting the professionalism of the Cosa because I didn't call you a "fool." Now, if I say "It doesn't make a difference, jackass" that is a problem.
Again, these are not laws. They are not something that need to be nitpicked to death. If you say "you'd have to be a fool not to see.." the code of ethics would not require your removal. But, if your fellow MCs felt you should be removed, there would be a set code to point to.
Look folks, right now you can boot out an MC for anything. How do we know where the line is? Without a code of ethics we don't even have a rough guideline. If I feel insulted because Eddie called me a "fool" and I petition to have him removed, we need to be able to distinguish that from a legitimate, unprofessional ad hominem attack.
Because this isn't law, it doesn't need to be spot on, as we can work more with the "spirit" of what is being said. So we have to approach it with a sense of professionalism.
|
|
|
Post by Daniel Filan on Apr 22, 2009 18:10:39 GMT -6
You don't like what? His coat of arms? His funny hair style? His politics? What if you don't like MC X because MC X supports a certain political position? A majority party could use that to attack members of a minority party, no? Or, you have a comprehensive code of ethics. So, we can boot MC X because MC X curses in the Hopper, or because MC X disrupts the Chambers of the Ziu. Why not? What I'm saying is that even if there was a code of ethics, people would still be able to kick MCs out the way they do now, but they would also have the ability to point to an agreed-upon code of ethics. The alternative is to make it so that a MC cannot be kicked out without a "Whereas" clause in the bill indicating how he transgressed the code of ethics.
|
|