Moderator: SC Moderators
Could someone please post the declaration of Tor Karlsvat to run for RA for the 16th term ?
I would like to see what time he posted his forum announcement. Maybe someone can uncover it
by Soro Dagostino » Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:57 pm
As posted in General Discussion here is the current "official list" from the SC listing the candidates for office.
Last day to post that notecard and in the Forums is November 5, 2011 -- this Saturday. Post no later than 11:59, SLT
emphasis is mine
I think that he announced his intention by inworld notecard to the SC, which is permissible. I would like to see that confirmed, but I think that is probably the case.
My primary concern with regard to Tor is why he should be permitted to stand in an election he had a duty, as Chancellor, to begin almost a week ago but which he has still not begun. I believe that his failure to convene the election is an impeachable offense -- and that grounds for impeachment should follow him onto the RA given that his actions as Chancellor had the direct effect of allowing him to run for RA in an uncontested election.
Combine that with the secrecy he has shown as Chancellor -- not posting anything on the Executive announcement forum and running his office in what appears to be a factious and parochial manner, and we have a portrait of someone we cannot trust to represent all CDS citizens in any official, elected position (although he might have talents for appointed positions in which he receives supervised instruction from someone with proper, broad-based interests).
That said, if elections do not begin immediately, I call on the existing RA to institute impeachment proceedings against Tor and to disqualify him from standing the RA election.
Beathan
MY POINT IS THAT SORO CLEARLY STATED PUBLICALLY YOU MUST HAVE BOTH,, NOTCARD AND IN THE FORUMS BY ......
by Soro Dagostino » Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:57 pm
As posted in General Discussion here is the current "official list" from the SC listing the candidates for office.
Last day to post that notecard and in the Forums is November 5, 2011 -- this Saturday. Post no later than 11:59, SLT
emphasis is mine
but wait, so when soro wrote the above,
does that not mean the last day to post that notecard and in the forums is Novemeber 5th, 2011?
what dont i get ? hes writing this as the Dean of the SC to the populous, do we assume hes wrong or right? Did people have to post both like he said or just one ?? Is he misleading us on purpose ? or doesnt he know ?
Cleo -- the key Constitutional term is "Any citizen who is eligible to vote, at the time of nomination, may become a candidate by declaring themselves by a message to the Dean of the Scientific Council, within the time set by the Scientific Council for such nominations."
I interpret that broadly to allow any communication to the SC. Because the SC runs the forums, a forum announcement suffices. A Notecard to the Dean of the SC inworld also suffices.
However, your point is well-taken. When the Dean of the SC announces how he wants the message to him to be interpreted, then prospective candidates should follow that procedure. Anything else is arguably not a "message to the Dean of the Scientific Council".
I think that, unless they withdraw their candidacy, we should treat Anna and Tor the way we should have treated the other candidates -- let them be on the ballot and then address the defects in their candidacy by petition to the SC after the election.
The critical point is that the polls need to go up NOW and they should go up with all twelve declared RA candidates for the reasons Gwyn has posted. LAter, we can address, through an impeachment process, Tor's impropriety in not getting this election underway properly and on time.
Beathan
My primary concern with regard to Tor is why he should be permitted to stand in an election he had a duty, as Chancellor, to begin almost a week ago but which he has still not begun. I believe that his failure to convene the election is an impeachable offense -- and that grounds for impeachment should follow him onto the RA given that his actions as Chancellor had the direct effect of allowing him to run for RA in an uncontested election.
Combine that with the secrecy he has shown as Chancellor -- not posting anything on the Executive announcement forum and running his office in what appears to be a factious and parochial manner, and we have a portrait of someone we cannot trust to represent all CDS citizens in any official, elected position (although he might have talents for appointed positions in which he receives supervised instruction from someone with proper, broad-based interests).
That said, if elections do not begin immediately, I call on the existing RA to institute impeachment proceedings against Tor and to disqualify him from standing the RA election.
Beathan,
HOW DARE YOU!!! Your post questioning the integrity of Tor and calling his performance as Chancellor into question for the 14th and 15th term is disgusting. I find it ironic how all these “citizens” come crawling out of the woodwork come election time to stir the pot but are nowhere to be found the other five and a half months we’re in existence. What do you and others do, sit on the sidelines waiting for the next great controversy to blossom in the CDS and then decide to become involved? How many RA meetings have you attended in the past 12 months? I can only remember you being at less than a handful of them.
Besides your recent posting in the forums what have you contributed to the CDS this past year? How many hours have you spent working on improving builds in the CDS and not asking a penny for your time, effort, or skills? How many projects have you initiated and spent countless hours working on and then have some of these projects fall to the wayside? Better yet how many hours a day to you come in-world meeting with your fellow citizens where talks may be about personal real life matters, planning and researching ideas for different events which involves not only finding talent to perform at said events but also organizing a handful of citizens to help you pull off these said events. And the best of them all, how many hours have you spent in-world dealing with people who act like a bunch of elementary brats on the school playground complaining to the teacher, so and so said this, so and so did that. Add to that mess people questioning your loyalty, if you’re friends with so and so than you’re not loyal to them and them.
I have no idea where Tor is, I only have the same means of communication everyone else has in the CDS, in-world messaging and his email. If I was to guess why we haven’t seen him since the evening of the RA meeting I would guess that he’s probably fed up and has had enough of this whole damn place filled with thankless individuals with calls for impeachments and disqualifications and conspiracies.
Combine that with the secrecy he has shown as Chancellor -- not posting anything on the Executive announcement forum and running his office in what appears to be a factious and parochial manner, and we have a portrait of someone we cannot trust to represent all CDS citizens in any official, elected position (although he might have talents for appointed positions in which he receives supervised instruction from someone with proper, broad-based interests).
What secrecy has Tor shown as Chancellor, Beathan, because he hasn’t made posts to the Executive forums? Running his office in what appears to be a factious and parochial manner, on what grounds do you base these accusations on Beathan? What squawking bird has been filling your head with droppings? How would you know directly how he has or hasn’t acted when you’re hardly in world to observe his actions? Would it be fair of me to form an opinion on you using just your forum postings as my basis?
The Dean of the SC is required to hold monthly in-world meetings and post these meetings to the forum. Where are the calls for impeachment for Soro for not holding these monthly meetings, for totally ignoring the griefing issue that was brought before the SC at the beginning of this term, and the best one yet the total lack of competence he has shown in this election fiasco we’re currently dealing with?
In-world alone I spend upwards of 20 hours a week in the CDS and that doesn’t include the work I do offline such as taking care of the financial statements and working on other various projects and ideas. I can name probably only 12 people who are not only in-world, but active in the CDS on an almost daily basis and you my fellow citizen certainly aren’t one of them.
And for any of you questioning the validity of Tor’s declaration to stand for RA here is the quote under the CDS Constitution, Section 2 The Representative Assembly Body, Line 2
"Any citizen who is eligible to vote, at the time of nomination, may become a candidate by declaring themselves by a message to the Dean of the Scientific Council, within the time set by the Scientific Council for such nominations."
It’s sad when active, well intentioned citizens are handicapped by the incompetency of others who either hold positions they are not qualified for or who are in-world so little that when they do show up it only leads to disaster. And for the rest of you who sit on the sidelines waiting for the next great controversy why don’t you ask yourselves what you can do to become involved in our community on a more regular basis.
Oh and by the way I’m still running for the position of Chancellor. Whether I win or lose it is my hope that more citizens will become involved in the day to day operations of the CDS. Both I and my opponent are worthy candidates for the position and I know both of us have big plans for the CDS that will require all the assistance of any and all available people.
Trebor Warcliffe
Well said Trebor!
I've known Tor to put in many many hours in his VOLUNTEER job as Chancellor. I wouldn't blame him a bit if he decided to toss in the towel. Is that what people want? How many other people will just give up because the CDS is just plain NO FUN with all the bitching and complaining. Where are the extensions of friendships that mean so much to most people in SL? That is far more important than these petty disputes.
I for one thank Tor for all his hard work this past term.
I am also grateful to Tor (and RA members and many other volunteers) for their work to keep our community going. I haven't been in world much for several months now but I'm glad to see that other people still care about the CDS enough to invest their time on the project.
The aim of all of this nonsense is to wear people down so that they get fed up, ditch the project and leave. That's why people are vilified and attacked both openly and by insinuation. Then, when we are all gone, who will be left?
/shrug
Trebor, I dare. That's what I do.
I acknowledge that Tor has been active in world. I have seen him very active at all RA meeting.
However, he has not posted a single official post on the Excutive forum -- NOT ONE. That is neglect of a critical duty -- making official announcements on these forums not just having an inworld presence.
Further, it was his duty -- his sole duty -- to set up the polls. He has ot done so. I have not heard any fleshed-out explanation for that other than a bare accusation that there is some unspecified "technical problem" that happens to coincide with an attempt by a small group of citizens to exclude officially recognized candidates through a highly irregular process. That goes beyond neglect. At the conclusion of the last RA meeting (although not recorded in the minutes) -- I called this situation a "palace coup." I still call it that -- and that is an impeachable offense.
It really is that simple. I don't give a rat's ass how active a citizen is -- if their net contribution is to undermine our democracy, I would rather they not act.
Beathan
Beathen,
Thank you for your reply to my previous post. Being I’m not as experienced in the field of legal matters as you seem to be, I’m more of a numbers man myself, I will ask you to please provide the text of the laws that you are accusing our Chancellor of violating.
However, he has not posted a single official post on the Excutive forum -- NOT ONE. That is neglect of a critical duty -- making official announcements on these forums not just having an inworld presence.
I have provided for you below Article II – The Executive of the Constitution. I can’t find in this description of the Executive position that states he must make official posts on the Executive Forum. The closest I can find would be Section 8 – RA Oversight and as you well know our current Chancellor has attended many RA meetings whether he was asked to or not. No where can I find any rules, regulations, laws, or job descriptions that state he must make posts to the Executive Forum. Can you please provide this information because the accusations you are making against our Chancellor are quite serious.
Article II – The Executive
Section 1 – The Chancellor
The Chancellor will serve as the executive of CDS, working to coordinate and plan community projects.
Section 2 – Powers of the Chancellor
The Chancellor of CDS shall, subject to the laws of CDS, have the power:
(a) to determine the use to which any and all land in CDS shall be put;
(b) to expend monies held by the Office of the Chancellor of CDS for the administration and management of public facilities (including, but not limited to, roadways, signage, public buildings, public events and similar), and to discharge any other duties or powers of the Office of the Chancellor conferred by this Act or any other Act of the Representative Assembly;
(c) to publicise CDS;
(d) to appoint and pay deputies or other staff to hold office in the Office of the Chancellor of CDS to facilitate the discharge of any function of the Office of the Chancellor conferred by this Act or any other Act of the Representative Assembly;
(e) subject to the payment of adequate compensation to any citizen or citizens thereby affected, reclaim or swap any land held by any citizen of CDS for the purposes of discharging any function of the Office of the Chancellor conferred by this Act or any other Act of the Representative Assembly, provided always that no citizen of CDS shall not be caused to have no holding in Neufriestadt at all thereby;
(f) to make regulations pursuant to the above; and
(g) to enforce such regulations in accordance with law.
Section 3 – Public Oversight
The Chancellor must provide for regular and active citizen participation and public review of any decision concerning land use or the aesthetic or functional environment.
Section 4 – Themes
Nothing in this Act shall give the Chancellor of CDS any power to change the overall theme of Neufriestadt or any other sim or administered component of the CDS.
Section 5 – Chancellor Selection Process
1. The Chancellor of the CDS shall be elected by universal suffrage of all citizens from among any CDS citizen who shall make application to the SC.
2. The Chancellor will serve a term ending with the election of the next Chancellor.
3. The Chancellor may not be elected to or serve on the Representative Assembly, nor serve on the Scientific Council.
4. Chancellor vacancies will be filled by a by-election administered on a schedule set by the Scientific Council consistent with other applicable CDS law.
Section 6 – The Chancellor’s Veto
The Chancellor shall have the power to veto any act of the Representative Assembly, except any bill to remove the Chancellor from office. The Representative Assembly may override a veto with a vote by at least a two-thirds majority. In order to exercise the power of veto, the Chancellor shall post a public declaration of her or his intention to exercise that power, together with the name of the the Act in respect of which he or she seeks so to exercise, and the reasons for exercising it in respect of that Act, on the Confederation of Democratic Simulators web forums or wiki within seven days of the posting to the wiki of the Act in respect of which he or she seeks to exercise that power.
Section 7 – Removal from Office
The Chancellor may be removed from office prior to the expiration of the term of office by at least a two thirds vote of the Representative Assembly.
Section 8 – RA Oversight
Each month the Chancellor shall attend a meeting of the Representative Assembly, and fully and truthfully answer there any questions posed by any citizen about any aspect of the affairs of the CDS or of the Office of the Chancellor. The Chancellor will also attend upon three days notice at the written request from any member of the Representative Assembly.
Section 9 – AC Overlap
Any power or responsibility assigned to the Artisan’s Collective by the constitution and precedent that overlaps those provided to the Chancellor in this amendment will be assigned to the Chancellor.
Further, it was his duty -- his sole duty -- to set up the polls.
Point 1 the Chancellor has many duties not just one sole duty. Secondly, funny thing, I can't seem to find an applicable law or section in the Constitution that states it is the Chancellors duty to set up the polls. Besides the information I've provided to you in the previous paragraph I now provide you with CDSL 13-05 Chancellor Election Act which explains how the Chancellor is elected. Please read line 3 and how the Chancellor must declare themselves to the Dean of the Scientific Council, two weeks before the voting booths open. Curious thing there is that it doesn't state the current Chancellor sets the voting booths open, it implies to me that the Dean of the SC is tasked with this duty.
CDSL 13-05 Chancellor Election Act
1. Chancellors are elected for a 6-month term and can hold at most two terms in succession.
2. Chancellor terms start simultaneously with the Representative Assembly terms.
3. Any citizen may become a candidate by declaring themselves by a message to the Dean of the Scientific Council, two weeks before the voting booths open. On the next day, all applicants will be listed by the Dean of the Scientific Council, and campaigning begins one week before the voting booths open. Elections shall be held over a 168 hour period beginning at noon SLT on the Saturday before the 16th of the month prior to the new Chancellor taking office. In the event of a server outage which prevents citizens from casting ballots and which lasts more than 12 hours, the Dean of the Scientific Council has the authority to adjust or extend the election schedule.
4. In case the Chancellor leaves office or is removed from it mid-term, a special Chancellor by-election will be called for by the Scientific Council which will open new applications on the day notice was given and close applications after a week.
5. Voting methodology will follow the same method as for the Representative Assembly election or Single-Transfer Vote if the current method for the Representative Aseembly election does not work for single candidate elections.
6. This bill is null and void if the Chancellor Direct Election Constitutional Amendment Act is not passed.
7. Any other legislation applicable to candidate eligibility and elections in general will also apply to the Chancellor election.
8. In the event that the elected Chancellor resigns after less than half the term, a citizen who fills that term will be limited to that term plus one additional term.
Now I provide you with CDSL 13-09 Campaigning Act and once again I can't find any information that states the Chancellor's duty is to set up the polls.
CDSL 13-09 Campaigning Act
1. Campaigning starts officially two weeks before the last election day.
2. Candidates are encouraged to use good taste and common sense in conducting campaigns. Campaigning is an act of peaceful assembly and the exercise of freedom of expression and thus protected by Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
3. Campaigning is only restricted by other existing laws, namely:
• a. The Linden Lab Terms of Service and Community Standards (which forbid griefing and spamming);
• b. The CDS Covenants (which limit the defacing of buildings and public spaces);
• c. UDHR Article 12 (which forbids defamation and libel);
• d. UDHR Article 29 (2) (which allows restrictions to be set by law to give due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and comply with requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society);
4. Candidates are encouraged to announce their events and meetings via the Public
5. This Act supercedes NL 12-2
Now I draw your attention to our Constitution and Article III - The Philosophic Branch and in particular the last part of the sentence "to resolve citizen disputes and moderate user forums and events." What EVENT in the CDS is more important and relavent to our very existance than our elections Beathen. Those words tell me that the SC is responsible for the elections and any and all events that are tied to the elections such as campaigning, scheduling of debates and meet the candidate sessions, validating the who can and can't stand for office, along with being responsible for setting up the polls and validating all the votes. Also if my memory serves me correctly, our prior Dean of the SC for the previous two terms worked with Jon Seattle to make sure the polls were taken care of, not the Chancellor.
Article III – The Philosophic Branch
Section 1 – The Scientific Council
The Scientific Council (SC) is a self-selected meritocracy. Its governmental role is to interpret and enforce the constitution. Its service roll (ed. note: sic) is to resolve citizen disputes and moderate user forums and events.
So I ask, where are these applicable laws you are using to besmirch the good name of our current Chancellor. I'd love to use the sla**** word but I'm not sure if it's is legally applicable in this situation. i do know however I take it as a personal offence when someone levels accusations against another without providing proof along with the accusations. I look forward to your response.
Trebor Warcliffe
Trebor,
With regard to the lack of official announcements on these forums, I don't believe that is a necessary duty of the Chancellor or that Tor's failure to do so is an impeachable offense. If it was only that, that would be a minor thing. My issue with it has to do with the combined secrecy and behind-the-scenes dealing that the Chancellor and the RA appear to have had this term. Much policy discussion, both between members of the RA and between the RA and the Chancellor, appears to have occurred outside of public view -- bring brought to light only when rubber-stamp-type votes occurred long after any real opportunity for citizens to influence the result had passed. This is illegal with regard to the running of the RA; it is more murky with regard to the Chancellor, but it is just bad policy. Secrecy has NO PLACE in a democracy, especially one as small as the CDS.
You also might be right about the poll placement. If so, I owe Tor and apology. I will look at this issue in more depth and apologize to him in-world and (if requested) in public if I find your analysis is correct. My understanding from our past practice is the the Chancellor was the officially solely-charged with placing the polls. (That's what I meant by the word "sole" -- not that it was the Chancellor's only duty, but that only the Chancellor had that duty so the failure to erect the polls was the sole failure of the Chancellor.) My understanding is that this has always been a Chancellor function in the past -- to allow for separation of powers with regard to elections. It is dangerous to give one branch of government (the SC) cradle-to-grave authority over elections. That creates a situation that opens itself to election tampering, or at least to suspicions of election tampering, which can be as harmful in a small democracy as actual tampering.
Based on that practice, I believe that it was a serious failure of this Chancellor that the polls were not erected last weekend, and still have not been erected. However, that failure might be shared with the SC -- especially with the Dean of the SC. That might also require a formal legal (impeachment) response. (In other words, while I might aplogize to Tor for criticizing him as being solely at fault for the election mess; I will not apologize to him for criticizing him for what is, at least, his substantial part in the election mess.)
I believe that this entire mess would not exist but for some serious misbehavior, whether by intent or neglect. I intend to investigate this matter both as a citizen as and a member of the RA and to make public the results of any such investigation, through formal process if those results so warrant.
Beathan
Beathan,
So let me make sure I understand this correctly. We go from this
NOT ONE. That is neglect of a critical duty
to this
With regard to the lack of official announcements on these forums, I don't believe that is a necessary duty of the Chancellor or that Tor's failure to do so is an impeachable offense.
WOW, pardon my French but that is one HELL of a swing from one side of the argument to the other. We go from the words "CRITICAL DUTY" to "I don't believe that is a necessary duty" all coming from the mouth of the same person in the same day. I am truly baffled by this changing of words.
My issue with it has to do with the combined secrecy and behind-the-scenes dealing that the Chancellor and the RA appear to have had this term. Much policy discussion, both between members of the RA and between the RA and the Chancellor, appears to have occurred outside of public view -- bring brought to light only when rubber-stamp-type votes occurred long after any real opportunity for citizens to influence the result had passed. This is illegal with regard to the running of the RA; it is more murky with regard to the Chancellor, but it is just bad policy. Secrecy has NO PLACE in a democracy, especially one as small as the CDS.
Again, WOW, talk about conspriacy theories. I ask once again can you please provide evidence of this "combined secrecy and behind-the-scens dealing" or should I ask who is feeding you these accusations since I find it rather inplausable with your limited time in-world this past term that you personally observed any of this type of activity. These accusations you continue to level against your fellow citizens are quite serious. Now you're not only laying accusations as our Chancellor Tor you are also laying accusations to Arria our LRA, Pip, Rosie, Sonja, and Fern. All citizens who take their government positions very seriously. I WILL address the one misstep that occured this term which we are still embroiled in and my part in that misstep further down in this reply after I finish disecting the rest of your latest response.
My understanding is that this has always been a Chancellor function in the past -- to allow for separation of powers with regard to elections. It is dangerous to give one branch of government (the SC) cradle-to-grave authority over elections. That creates a situation that opens itself to election tampering, or at least to suspicions of election tampering, which can be as harmful in a small democracy as actual tampering.
Correct me if I'm wrong but there is a big difference between assuming something, "my understanding is that this has always been a Chancellor function in the past" and spewing forth strong accusations without first researching the laws surrounding these accusations. It is my understanding from personal IN-WORLD experience and READING the forum postings of the past few years that the SC has taken care of these duties. And as far as your reasoning of "it is dangerous to give one branch of government (the SC) cradle-to-grave authority over elections," is not the Executive "one branch" of government and actually "ONE INDIVIDUAL." I see a greater conflict of "seperation of powers" given to one individual than one group. Especially considering that one individual can run in the same election he/she is suppose to be in charge of. No one in the SC can run for RA or Chancellor. For that very reason alone, in my opinion, they are the most capable and the most appropriate of any group of citizens to oversee the elections and the campaigning. The other two branches of government have a DEFINITE conflict of interest in these regards.
Based on the Code of Laws and the Confederation of Democratic Simulators Constitution and not based on a "practice" that may or may not exist that the serious failure that the polls were not erected last weekend needs to be directed to the Scientific Council and specifically the Dean of the SC. There is no sharing of blame because it's not a duty of the Chancellor to perform that duty. The Chancellor has oversight on projects in the CDS while the SC is tasked with "moderate the forums and events." Not the Chancellor and not the RA.
The one misstep that occured this term I will actually address in a post tomorrow. It is getting late and I have a few other things that need to be tended to.
Trebor --
There is no contradiction between calling a duty both a critical duty and not a necessary duty. I was using the word necessary in its logical sense -- as in a duty expressly imposed on the Chancellor as a condition of the office the neglect of which is an impeachable offense. A duty might be critical (very, very important to perform to maintain the legitimacy of the office -- such as holding an office in an open and accessible manner) but not necessary (as in not imposed by the Constitution). Again, no contradiction.
With regard to how far my criticism goes -- you are absolutely right. I criticize each and every office holder in the last term -- every one of them. It is admitted (not even in dispute) that much business was conducted behind the scenes, without any public input, without any forum discussion, and without any meaningful inworld discussion (discussion limited to the anemic "citizen participation" part of the regular RA meeting) in which citizens could influence, or even inform, events or legislation. That said, I am persuaded that the members of the RA, for the most part, are good people and acted in good faith -- and other than the fiasco at the last meeting, I have little to quibble about the actual production of this RA term. However, I have a huge bone to pick with the process -- which appears to have become increasingly broken and secret over the last few terms of the RA -- and I intend to fix that.
I have already announced a program designed to make myself and, through me, the RA readily accessible to all citizens. Part of that will be to bring citizen initiatives directly to the RA. I also will not participate in any behind-the-scenes policy-making.
I was not unhappy with the way things were in the CDS when I announced my candidacy, and I looked forward to participating in a real, contested election with more than ten candidates, including two who had been very active in the CDS some time ago but less so lately (Pat and me); several who had been active in recent terms; and five new citizens. That was exciting -- and real -- and it has been taken away through a completely irregular process in which the current Chancellor, the Dean of the SC, and the current RA all seem to have been involved in the shared objective of excluding candidates after they had been officially recognized as candidates by the SC.
That was wrong, both in substance and in process. It was too late -- causing several longtime citizens who would have otherwise declared to abstain (and if they had declared, we would still have a contested election). It involved the suspension of an election. That does violence to the most fundamental aspect of our community (that we are democratic) and to the Constitution we put in place to protect that democracy (which very clearly, and properly, states that elections must be held on a regular schedule unless there is a bona fide technical problem (which has not been established here)). There is no doubt in my mind that any official who has acted in a manner that causes a suspension of an election, or that causes an election not to begin at the Constitutionally mandated time, has committed an impeachable offense. Our entire project is meaningless if that is not so.
Given that, even aside from the legal and longterm ramifications of the current mess, I believe that the current mess is a proper election issue -- and a proper basis on which a candidate (such as myself) who was not involved in creating it can criticize any candidate (Tor, Rosie) who was.
Beathan
Beathan,
I had to do it, I just had to check the forums one last time before I went to sleep and here I am now five minutes before midnight, typing out another response.
I will not get into a battle of words with you, meaning the definition of this, or the particular use of a word. I may be two classes away from my Bachelors in Accounting but I am not of the legal mind and you would surely win that battle. But what I do have to my advantage and it is something that I share with the majority of my fellow citizens in the CDS is common sense.
“My primary concern with regard to Tor is why he should be permitted to stand in an election he had a duty, as Chancellor, to begin almost a week ago but which he has still not begun. I believe that his failure to convene the election is an impeachable offense -- and that grounds for impeachment should follow him onto the RA given that his actions as Chancellor had the direct effect of allowing him to run for RA in an uncontested election.”
It doesn’t take 7 years of law school to understand the intent behind these words Beathan. You wrongfully accuse someone of failure to perform their duty and further state “and that grounds for impeachment should follow him onto the RA given that his actions as Chancellor had the direct effect of allowing him to run for RA in an uncontested election.” Twist the meaning of the words however you want or twist your “logical” use of the word, you’re still wrongfully accusing someone of something they didn’t do and you’re calling for their impeachment.
Beathan I now ask if you read the transcripts from the RA meeting that took place on October 30th 2011? I’m assuming you’re not considering these charges you’re leveling at our Chancellor. I say that because if you read the entire transcript you will notice that two hours into the meeting the same individual you accuse of acting in “secrecy and running his office in what appears to be a factious and parochial manner,” brings to everyone’s attention in attendance the “28 day issue.” Funny thing Beathan according to the transcripts you were in attendance at this meeting. Where were you and all your infinite wisdom when this question was brought up Beathan? And surely if Tor’s plan was to have a “direct effect of allowing him to run for RA in an uncontested election,” I don’t think he would have brought this question to the RA now would he?
[14:03] Tor Karlsvalt: This is still in effect correct: Section 3
No citizen shall be eligible to vote in any election for public office in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators unless he or she has been a citizen for not less than 28 consecutive days immediately before any such election.
[14:04] Pip Torok: guillaume .. the time to bring this up will be the next RA meeting to whomever the next RA will be ...
[14:04] Guillaume Mistwalker: Seems that our new citizens won't be able to run for RA anyway.
[14:04] Pip Torok: why is that, Guillaume?
[14:05] Fern Leissa: Correct Tor. The amendment lifting the term limit for the RA was never published on the portal
[14:05] Trebor Warcliffe: Rose what is the exact date for citizens to be eligible to run?
[14:05] Arria Perreault: I can inform you that a list of citizen is in preparation. it will be published soon
[14:05] Rose Springvale looks puzzled?
[14:05] Guillaume Mistwalker: Well, 28 days is the minimum. We're so concerned with our young members, so to speak, but they won't be able to vote anyway.
[14:05] Tor Karlsvalt: But that did not pertain to term limits
[14:05] Trebor Warcliffe: Raises hand
[14:05] Fern Leissa: Nov 3rd I think
[14:06] Tor Karlsvalt: That is Article V secon 3
[14:06] Tor Karlsvalt: section 3.
[14:06] Bells Semyorka: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3537
[14:06] Rose Springvale: unless changed by SC: ovember 3: last day to be a citizen eligible to vote in the election (constitutional)
November 5: last day to declare candidacy for Chancellor or RA candidacy (traditional)
November 12, noon: Election begins (constitutional)
November 19, noon, election ends.(constitutional)
[14:07] Pip Torok: once a new citizen has paid tier and is registered by nov 2 .. he is a viting citizen as far as i know
[14:07] Trebor Warcliffe: So all the citizens who are citizens right now can vote and stand for office correct?
[14:07] CLEOPATRA Xigalia: i think its still october.
[14:07] Fern Leissa: correct Trebor
[14:07] Trebor Warcliffe: good
[14:07] Trebor Warcliffe: thats what I was confused about
[14:07] Tor Karlsvalt: OK, just that there were statements that made me wonder if some thought were were changing that rule.
[14:08] Guillaume Mistwalker: Oh, no. I'm aware of it. Just don't see what keeps the young ones from voting in elections for their candidates.
[14:09] Rose Springvale: Eager to see who is running and their platforms
[14:09] Tor Karlsvalt: To vote, one must be paying tier by Nov 3rd
[14:09] CLEOPATRA Xigalia: there are two non citizen plots left if you know anyone
[14:09] Pip Torok: so under the present arrangement, Rose i cannot run for next term?
[14:09] CLEOPATRA Xigalia: but they would have to live next to me
[14:09] Arria Perreault: No citizen shall be eligible to vote in any election for public office in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators unless he or she has been a citizen for not less than 28 consecutive days immediately before any such election.
“It is admitted (not even in dispute) that much business was conducted behind the scenes, without any public input, without any forum discussion, and without any meaningful inworld discussion (discussion limited to the anemic "citizen participation" part of the regular RA meeting) in which citizens could influence, or even inform, events or legislation.”
No my fellow citizen you are incorrect on this point. Here are the facts, it is admitted (not even in dispute) that there was ONE situation in question, not as you phrase it “much business,” that was handled incorrectly and that was the RA meeting that was held without the benefit of a public announcement. I will now explain to you the events that led the LRA to make the decision to call this, what all involved, considered an emergency meeting of her fellow RA members.
An email was started on November 4th which involved, meaning these were the people either receiving the emails or sending the email to each other; Trebor Warcliffe Assistant Treasurer, Tor Karlsvalt Chancellor, Sudane Erato Treasurer and EO, Arria Perreault LRA, Delia Lake SC member, Soro Dagostino SC Dean, and Aliasi Stonebender SC member.
The first 8 emails involved verifying citizenship of newer community members on and before November 3rd, the date everyone assumed, wrongfully I admit, was the correct date for citizens to be eligible to vote and stand for office. Two of the eight also had talks of how with Hippo you can add one individual to the “ownership” of a parcel with a fellow citizen.
On the 9th email an individual, the identity doesn’t matter, just the content does, said, ********** and I both thought that at one time there was a discussion and maybe even policy about people required to be citizens for a full month before running for election. Neither of us have been able to find that in the Forum or in the new CDS portal though. I thought it was in policies in the old portal. Does anyone else remember this? If so might you have a link?”
On the 10th email an individual brings to everyone’s attention that they thought Rose’s post in the forum was correct and provided the link http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 537#p18014
The 11th email an individual introduces Article V – Election, Term, and Office Section 3
No citizen shall be eligible to vote in any election for public office in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators unless he or she has been a citizen for not less than 28 consecutive days immediately before any such election.
Followed by the comment of “I guess that the date should be the day when the polls open.”
“HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM” (That wasn’t in the email that’s just my personal comment right now.
This prompts an individual to post the 12th email which is as follows:
“If that is correct than the date Rose provided on the forum is incorrect and the correct date would be October 15th. I have to ask how many citizens will be affected by this turn of events?”
Now I don’t feel I need to go any further in dissecting the emails. All involved, except for the Dean of the SC Soro Dagostino, because even though he was included in the emails and was even asked direct questions, never responded or contributed to any part of the conversation, realized we had a problem that needed to be addressed.
In our innocence it seems we shared the belief, at least in my eyes, that we had a problem. The problem was a mistake was made and action needed to be taken in regards to that mistake. We didn’t think “we’re not going to address the problem, we’ll let everything go on like all is correct and right and then after the fact we’ll raise all kinds of hell and question everything and everyones validity of holding office and who did this and who said that.”
I felt and I’m assuming this was the general consensus that we discovered a mistake and it was better to address the mistake at that time before it ballooned into something bigger and more complicated. Different ideas were thrown around from extending the opening of the polls all the way to December 1st which would have made all individuals who were a citizen on or before November 3rd at 11:59pm eligible to vote and stand for office.
Another idea was to admit a mistake was made and let the elections continue as if it wasn’t a mistake. No talks of calling for resignations of RA members after they would be voted into office because of the mistake.
A question was asked of Soro Dagostino directly in the email “It is possible to push the dates back, changing the election dates is at the discretion of the SC and its Dean. What do you think, Soro?” I don’t think I need to mention that there was no response from the Dean to this question.
Than an idea was presented called a waiver and the whole idea behind the wavier was to allow ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE CITIZENS AS OF 11/03/11 11:59:59PM the ability to vote and stand for office.
“If these 4 new citizens are to be allowed to run for RA for this next term, that article of the Constitution will have to be waved. As that is not an illegal requirement, it would not fall to the SC to handle this. Rather what would seem the most appropriate way to handle it is that the current RA convene for the sole purpose of waiving compliance with Article IV, Section 3 for this election only. Not passing a waiver would leave us with 8 qualified candidates for 7 positions rather than a more robust list 12 candidates.”
A further email expands on this idea
“I agree with ************ comments above. The SC didn’t correct the date published by Rose and as far as all of us were concerned that was the official date. To backtrack and disqualify candidates and voters through no fault of their own would surely be a dark blemish in the history books of the CDS."
“I suggest our LRA, ******, make contact with all current RA members and either through an in-world meeting or if that isn’t possible than via email with all content of the email published on the forum in order to grant a waiver of for this election only of Article IV, Section 3 of the CDS Constitution.”
This same person posted further down in the post…
“With this amount of people running for office allowing only one week to campaign, especially considering we’ve already wasted an entire day and nothing is planned for Monday either, is not fair to the candidates or the citizens. I suggest we push the opening of the polls to Saturday, November 19th. We allow campaigning to continue from here on in. This will give the candidates 10 weekdays and a complete Saturday and Sunday in order to give their campaigns the time needed. I understand the polls would be open the same week as the Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S. but let’s be honest it doesn’t take that long for an individual to log in-world and cast their votes.”
Our LRA in her duty as LRA took all this information and sent a notecard to all RA members that said the following…
“M. Dean of the Scientific Council,
I have organized a vote (IM and notecards) in the RA to solve the issues of the current election. Here are the proposals submitted to the vote:
1. The RA votes a waiver to allow all declared candidates to run, including the candidates who are not in compliance with Article IV, Section 3. This waiver is valid for this election only.
2. The RA votes a waiver to move the election dates. The voting will start on November 19 and will conclude on November 26.
3. The RA sets a committee of three members who will be in charge to organize the campaigning posters and events, as the current Chancellor and the current PIO are running for a RA seat.The members of this committee are Pip Torok, Fern Leissa and Sonja Strom.
The RA has accepted the three proposals (4 times aye for each on 4 votes).
Pip has said that he would like to get the relevant permission to help with the signs.
Now the SC should make a communication about the elections. Fern and Pip are ready to help with the campaign. They should be informed about their tasks.”
Everything else regarding this matter can be found in the forums. As you can see all the talk in these “secret emails” and the “secret RA meeting” was to INCLUDE ALL THE CANDIDATES, not exclude them. The excluding part wasn’t actually brought up until the forum postings started and than a proposal was submitted to the SC calling into question the actions of the RA which were done to INCLUDE all citizens not include some and exclude others.
So Beathan, and anyone else for that matter, this was the only situation I am aware of in the CDS where “much business was conducted behind the scenes, without any public input, without any forum discussion, and without any meaningful inworld discussion (discussion limited to the anemic "citizen participation" part of the regular RA meeting)”
I also ask you to provide any shred of evidence of your other accusation to not only this term of the RA but as you put it “the last few terms”
“However, I have a huge bone to pick with the process -- which appears to have become increasingly broken and secret over the last few terms of the RA -- and I intend to fix that.”
So for someone who doesn’t spend much time in-world you sure seem to have a lot of information on what goes on in-world. I am rather curious as I’m sure my fellow citizens are, where this evidence is at?
It is now 1:50 in the morning and I have to keep wiping my eyes to see the monitor. Good night.
Trebor Warcliffe
Trebor,
It's late -- and I'm probably not my sharpest -- but you have lost me here.
The fundamental wrongful act I hold Tor accountable for is not putting the polls out last Saturday, which I understand to be the traditional duty of the Chancellor. That act, and that act alone, condemns him.
I hold the SC at fault for the shifting voter and candidate roll -- the reconsideration of a final and official list after the election should technically have already started, which is now being cited as a "technical problem" justifying the polls not being put out last Saturday as they should have been.
I hold the RA at fault for an irregular process of amending the Constitution to change the date and rules of an election that should already have begun to give the SC a fig leaf to cover themselves with based on their mess of changing their mind to justify (or cause) the Chancellor's determination not to put out the polls as required.
(I know -- this is all beginning to sound like the house that Jack built -- and it would be sad if our project ended in such a nursery rhyme fashion.)
I don''t know how these parts fit together. I don't know which actors caused which problems. Nothing in your post answers these critical questions. If this process had occurred in an open and public manner, these things would not be uncertain because they would have been done openly and publicly.
What I do know is that the polls should have been put out, and voting should have begun, last Saturday morning -- before the RA met to vote in Amendments that attempt to retroactively fix what was already an irremediable Constitutional violation (the polls not being put out in an election for which campaigning had already begun based on an announced election date, citizen list, and candidate list).
I think that all actors are at fault. I believe that they all should resign and not stand for elected post (or the SC) until they have rehabilitated themselves. I have said as much -- even to the point of directly asking all these actors to follow the honorable course Arria bravely charted for them.
To me it is very simple, and simply wrong.
Beathan
I just need to point out here that I was never aware that Chancellors have the duty to manage the voting booths. The election law implies, that the SC had control over dates of the election and by implication the voting booths. In practice, in the almost two years I have been a citizen of the CDS, the SC has managed the voting booths. The SC has arranged for the booths to be programmed and had control of the booths during the election. Indeed the it was not until SL8B that I was given a non-working copy of a booth for the display in the CDS pavilion. I believe at the time, I was actually told that I should NOT have a working copy of the booths.
I do not want to cast any blame here, but I do feel there is a bit of an attempt to make me or the exec the demon here.
As Trebor alludes, in that RA, I was becoming concerned. I mentioned, if not in that meeting then shortly afterword, that the Nov 3rd assumes that the polls closing date would be the "election" date. That logic at the time seemed the only way the Nov. 3rd date would work relative to the residency requirement. I am remiss for not questioning this further. I must admit to have been lead by the seeming acceptance of the date. For me to be held as the villain in this matter begs credulity.
It is very late and I have to work. So before this forum eats my posting like it did earlier I am submitting and going to bed... REALLY. 