New Constitution

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:05 pm

I will do this during the month of August.
http://www.alfanos.org

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:17 pm

Voila....


Council of Elrond Constitution (v.2.0)

Preamble: In view of the many difficulties arising from the unsatisfactory nature of the original Council of Elrond Constitution, we, the members of CoE 2006-7, propose to disband ourselves and create a new entity – the Council of Arda – under a new constitution and with a revitalized constituency. Therefore…

Ratification: The Council of Elrond will voluntarily disband itself and re-form as the Council of Arda if either:
(1) there are 100 votes and at least 66% in favor, or
(2) at least 50% of all eligible voters cast their votes in favor.
Votes may be cast by any medium (e.g., email, private message on a forum, snail mail). If neither criterion is met, CoE will remain as it is.

Voting will commence the day this announcement is made, and will end 2 months later.

Composition: The Council of Arda will consist of 5 directly elected members, and 1 member nominated by each active national council (by whatever method the national council chooses).

All members of CoA will be able to vote, including representatives of national councils.

Every two years, on the anniversary of the ratification of this document, elections will be held to pick a new slate of members for CoA. In each such election, there will be four slots open. The fifth slot – that of the chairman – will be filled by the exiting council from within its own ranks as its last action; any member of the exiting council may become the chairman of the new council.

The vice-chairman will be nominated from amongst the ranks of the new council as its first action after convening.

Additionally, there shall be a number of non-voting members of CoA:
Representatives of defunct or rising national councils,
Leaders of CoA-sponsored projects,
Organizers of World Championships and European Championships,
The Registrar,
The NetRep,
The Webmaster,
Any others that CoA sees fit to invite.

Powers: CoA shall have five powers:

(1) Maintenance of the rules of the game and all interpretations thereof. This power shall be permanently delegated to the NetRep and any team he selects to help him.
(2) Issuing errata to rules and cards. A rules or card-text erratum shall be considered in effect if all of the following criteria are met: (a) at least 80% of the members of CoA vote, and at least 80% vote in favor; (b) at least 2/3 of the active national councils approve of the erratum.
(3) Recognition of active national and regional councils. CoA shall recognize a national or regional council as “active” if the council organizes a national or regional championship in the previous year in which at least 6 players take part. A council may only retain its “active” status if it has a representative in CoA.
(4) Endorsement of alternative rules, virtual cards, and dream cards. CoA shall select the best of the many alternative rules, virtual cards, and dream cards for the status of “endorsed”. “Endorsed” items are not official (i.e., they will not be in effect in the World Championship Tournament), but they are recognized and affirmed by CoA.
(5) Soliciting and selecting bids for annual World Championships and European Championships. Every summer, CoA will sponsor a World Championship tournament. In preparation for this tournament, CoA will solicit bids from organizers, then select the best from amongst the submitted bids.

Voting: The election of members to CoA shall be effected by anonymous vote. However, voting records by members of CoA shall be recorded unless CoA agrees before a vote to make the vote anonymous.

Items under consideration may be discussed as long as anyone is still interested. An item may be transformed into a motion if a voting member of CoA makes such a motion. A vote will take place on any motion provided that it is seconded by another voting member. Once seconded, a motion may be amended. Any amendment may be deemed friendly by the person who made the motion, in which case it is immediately incorporated into the motion. If an amendment is deemed unfriendly, then it must be seconded before it can be voted on. A motion cannot be voted on unless all outstanding amendments have been dealt with.

After a motion is seconded, two weeks is allotted to discussion and the proposal of amendments; the chair may cut this time short if it is clear that there are none such. After discussion and amendments are over, there shall be two weeks in which to vote. A motion is considered to pass if at least two thirds of the members of CoA vote and at least three fifths vote in favor. Members may abstain; if more than one third of the members abstain from a vote, it is null and void.

As an exception, amendments to the constitution require at least 80% of members to vote and at least 80% of the votes to be in favor; otherwise amendments to the constitution fail.

As a further exception, errata to the rules of the game or to card texts only pass if both of the following criteria are met: (a) at least 80% of the members of CoA vote, and at least 80% vote in favor; (b) at least 2/3 of the active national councils approve of the erratum. Regarding section (b) above, players and collectors who are not members of an active national council may also vote; their votes will be collected together as if they were a national council. This council will be referred to as the Council of Morgoth.

The Chair may veto any motion after it has passed. If he chooses to veto, the motion fails unless at least 80% of the remaining members of the council vote again and at least 80% of them vote in favor of the motion.

Projects: CoA shall sponsor two types of projects: constitutional & supernumerary

Constitutional projects are always ensured by CoA, barring their removal from the constitution. These include
(1) NetRep,
(2) Council Formation & Help,
(3) CoA Website,
(4) World and European Championships,
(5) Global Players List,
(6) Endorsements.
Any other project is considered supernumerary and may be embarked upon if more than 50% of the members vote in favor of it.

A project always needs a leader, a plan, and an anticipated course of action; if any of these is noticeably lacking, CoA must reconsider the project and choose either to repair it or abolish it
http://www.alfanos.org

jhunholz
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:24 pm

Post by jhunholz » Mon Aug 07, 2006 5:22 pm

zarathustra wrote:
Ratification: The Council of Elrond will voluntarily disband itself and re-form as the Council of Arda if either:
(1) there are 100 votes and at least 66% in favor, or
(2) at least 50% of all eligible voters cast their votes in favor.
Votes may be cast by any medium (e.g., email, private message on a forum, snail mail). If neither criterion is met, CoE will remain as it is.
So if we don't have 100 votes, then we only need 50% in favor to enact the new constitution? I don't think we should do it unless we have at least 66%...higher would be nice.
zarathustra wrote: Composition: The Council of Arda will consist of 5 directly elected members, and 1 member nominated by each active national council (by whatever method the national council chooses).

All members of CoA will be able to vote, including representatives of national councils.

Every two years, on the anniversary of the ratification of this document, elections will be held to pick a new slate of members for CoA. In each such election, there will be four slots open. The fifth slot – that of the chairman – will be filled by the exiting council from within its own ranks as its last action; any member of the exiting council may become the chairman of the new council.

The vice-chairman will be nominated from amongst the ranks of the new council as its first action after convening.
So, will the chairman/vice-chairman be only from the elected people? Otherwise there will need to be a 5th slot in voting.
zarathustra wrote:
As an exception, amendments to the constitution require at least 80% of members to vote and at least 80% of the votes to be in favor; otherwise amendments to the constitution fail.
I assume this would need to be ratified by the current player body?
zarathustra wrote: As a further exception, errata to the rules of the game or to card texts only pass if both of the following criteria are met: (a) at least 80% of the members of CoA vote, and at least 80% vote in favor; (b) at least 2/3 of the active national councils approve of the erratum. Regarding section (b) above, players and collectors who are not members of an active national council may also vote; their votes will be collected together as if they were a national council. This council will be referred to as the Council of Morgoth.
This seems to give a lot of power to a smaller council while hurting a larger council. I think we should do 2/3 of all votes cast, not just councils.
zarathustra wrote: The Chair may veto any motion after it has passed. If he chooses to veto, the motion fails unless at least 80% of the remaining members of the council vote again and at least 80% of them vote in favor of the motion.
I don't like this part. The chairman isn't the "president", he's just the one who heads up the discussion. I think this gives too much power to one person.

What do others think?

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

Post by thorondor » Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:25 pm

a new entity – the Council of Arda
i still have some doubts about changing the name. there has been this COE for such a long time. many players know the COE as such, especially veterans will like to see continuation.
on the other hand, what´s going on right now is a major overhauling of the leading body for MECCG. many things get started right now. and i like the name "Council of Arda" very much!
i am indifferent, so both ways is okay for me ;-)
Ratification: The Council of Elrond will voluntarily disband itself and re-form as the Council of Arda if either:
(1) there are 100 votes and at least 66% in favor, or
(2) at least 50% of all eligible voters cast their votes in favor.
also i think at least:
(1) 75%
(2) 2/3
Composition: The Council of Arda will consist of 5 directly elected members, and 1 member nominated by each active national council.
maybe mention, that a nominated member and an elected member may be one and the same person.
Every two years, on the anniversary of the ratification of this document, elections will be held ...
2 years is strongly supported!
The Council of Arda will consist of 5 directly elected members
In each such election, there will be four slots open
is there a contradiction? are there 4 or 5 members directly elected by the community?
in my opinion 4 is too small. let´s have at least 5 ...
Maintenance of the rules of the game and all interpretations thereof. This power shall be permanently delegated to the NetRep and any team he selects to help him.
maybe mention, that the COA appoints the netrep. same for registrar and webmaster.
2) Issuing errata to rules and cards. ... (b) at least 2/3 of the active national councils approve of the erratum.
i´d go for 75% or also 80% here. it´s something of very high importance, which should be borne by the vast myjority of the players.
After a motion is seconded, two weeks is allotted to discussion and the proposal of amendments; the chair may cut this time short if it is clear that there are none such. After discussion and amendments are over, there shall be two weeks in which to vote.
so it would take at least 4 weeks for a motion to pass. too long, imho. i think we can cut both periods to 10 days.
The Chair may veto any motion after it has passed. If he chooses to veto, the motion fails unless at least 80% of the remaining members of the council vote again and at least 80% of them vote in favor of the motion.
i also don´t like this, at least not, how it is worded. there has to be a purpose, why the chair should be able to veto. right now, he coud do it whenever he likes.
maybe he is able to veto, when votings are just a little bit in favour of a motion, let´s up to 60%? so this would mean, the chair feels, that some more discussion is needed and may actually improve the motion.


thanks for doing this rather boring work, mark!!

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:20 am

Great comments. I thought I'd change things up in the make-up of the group and see what people thought. It seems some changes are approved of and others aren't :D

Can a couple others comment before I rewrite?....
http://www.alfanos.org

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:56 am

So the silent-tower list only has 195 members.

I think that with a little effort we could easily get enough votes to change the charter. In the current charter it says that 2/3 of the silent-tower list must vote YES. That's basically 130 people. How hard can it really be?....
http://www.alfanos.org

Wacho
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA

Post by Wacho » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:52 pm

zarathustra wrote:Every two years, on the anniversary of the ratification of this document, elections will be held to pick a new slate of members for CoA. In each such election, there will be four slots open. The fifth slot – that of the chairman – will be filled by the exiting council from within its own ranks as its last action; any member of the exiting council may become the chairman of the new council.
I don't like this at all. Why should the old council get to pick one of their own members as the new chair? The old council might have been voted out for one reason or another but they still have the ability to pick the most important member of the new council? This enable them to essentially control the council for the next two years as well even if the person they pick for Chairman lost in the general election.
Powers: CoA shall have five powers:

(1) Maintenance of the rules of the game and all interpretations thereof. This power shall be permanently delegated to the NetRep and any team he selects to help him.
I think there should be specified size to the team, or at least a minimum number. This would keep the NetRep from being able to make the decisions all by himself.
(2) Issuing errata to rules and cards. A rules or card-text erratum shall be considered in effect if all of the following criteria are met: (a) at least 80% of the members of CoA vote, and at least 80% vote in favor; (b) at least 2/3 of the active national councils approve of the erratum.
I think 80% is too high given that a number of prominent people have philosophical objections to issuing errata. Perhaps 75% or 70%. On the other hand I think 2/3 approval by the councils is somewhat low. I would again recommend 3/4. I'd also like to see a provision for petitioning the council to make errata. If a petition with enough "signatures" was submitted the CoA would be obligated to vote on the errata (and maybe have a lower standard of passing on to the national councils?). Also is the 80% that have to vote in favor 80% of those voting or 80% of the total number of CoA voting members? What happens if a council doesn't vote? I think they should be obligated to vote, perhaps they cannot retain their active status if they do not vote in a timely manner.
After a motion is seconded, two weeks is allotted to discussion and the proposal of amendments; the chair may cut this time short if it is clear that there are none such. After discussion and amendments are over, there shall be two weeks in which to vote. A motion is considered to pass if at least two thirds of the members of CoA vote and at least three fifths vote in favor. Members may abstain; if more than one third of the members abstain from a vote, it is null and void.
Again is the 3/5 that must vote in favor 3/5 of those voting or 3/5 of the total number of members. I think that since you already have a requirement that at least 2/3 vote, the 3/5 should be of those voting.
As an exception, amendments to the constitution require at least 80% of members to vote and at least 80% of the votes to be in favor; otherwise amendments to the constitution fail.
No approval from players/other councils necessary? Perhaps this should have the same format as issuing errata. Approval by the CoA then approval by the national councils.
Regarding section (b) above, players and collectors who are not members of an active national council may also vote; their votes will be collected together as if they were a national council. This council will be referred to as the Council of Morgoth.
Are these players/collectors just those that are not represented by a national council, or is it all players and collectors? If it is all players and collectors maybe they should get more than one vote. And why do we have to be on the Enemy's council anyway? We're the good guys ;)
The Chair may veto any motion after it has passed. If he chooses to veto, the motion fails unless at least 80% of the remaining members of the council vote again and at least 80% of them vote in favor of the motion.
I really don't like this provision. This gives the chair near dictatorial powers. Almost nothing can pass unless he approves it. And the chairman isn't even elected as such. Under these rules he's selected by the former council. Unless you make the Chair a separate elected position I don't think you should give veto powers. Maybe give the Chairman 2 votes instead of one.
Constitutional projects are always ensured by CoA, barring their removal from the constitution. These include
(1) NetRep,
(2) Council Formation & Help,
(3) CoA Website,
(4) World and European Championships,
(5) Global Players List,
(6) Endorsements.
Any other project is considered supernumerary and may be embarked upon if more than 50% of the members vote in favor of it.
What about the Judge Certification Project? I think that should be a constitutional project.

By the way I like the name Council of Arda, I think it fits better than the Council of Elrond.

miguel
Posts: 659
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:21 am

Post by miguel » Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:54 pm

Wacho wrote:
Powers: CoA shall have five powers:

(1) Maintenance of the rules of the game and all interpretations thereof. This power shall be permanently delegated to the NetRep and any team he selects to help him.
I think there should be specified size to the team, or at least a minimum number. This would keep the NetRep from being able to make the decisions all by himself.
Sounds good. Currently a non-NetRep member of the team is always the leader of the NetRep team, and basically he has the final say on things if consensus cannot be reached. So at least a minimum of two people seems necessary.

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:42 pm

Wacho wrote:I don't like this at all. Why should the old council get to pick one of their own members as the new chair? The old council might have been voted out for one reason or another but they still have the ability to pick the most important member of the new council? This enable them to essentially control the council for the next two years as well even if the person they pick for Chairman lost in the general election.
This was put in for two reasons:

(1) That's how the old constitution has it ;)
(2) At the end of the year, the council members all know pretty well who is willing and able to be chairman for the next year.

Other ways to do it would be:

(3) Person who gets the most votes becomes new chairman,
(4) New Council elects a chairman from the new 9 members, and then a VP as well.

I think (3) is a bad idea, since the person with the most votes may not want to be chairman! (4) could work.
Wacho wrote:I think there should be specified size to the team, or at least a minimum number. This would keep the NetRep from being able to make the decisions all by himself.
miguel wrote:Sounds good. Currently a non-NetRep member of the team is always the leader of the NetRep team, and basically he has the final say on things if consensus cannot be reached. So at least a minimum of two people seems necessary.
Sounds good. 2 is an OK minimum?
Wacho wrote:I think 80% is too high given that a number of prominent people have philosophical objections to issuing errata. Perhaps 75% or 70%. On the other hand I think 2/3 approval by the councils is somewhat low. I would again recommend 3/4. I'd also like to see a provision for petitioning the council to make errata. If a petition with enough "signatures" was submitted the CoA would be obligated to vote on the errata (and maybe have a lower standard of passing on to the national councils?). Also is the 80% that have to vote in favor 80% of those voting or 80% of the total number of CoA voting members? What happens if a council doesn't vote? I think they should be obligated to vote, perhaps they cannot retain their active status if they do not vote in a timely manner.
How about 75% for all the numbers listed here? Keeps it simple....

We can add a clause about petitioning by players to force a vote. That makes a lot of sense. (of course, if an idea is so popular, a player could run with that rules change as his platform and get elected. But having both options is good)

I believe that as it is worded now, 80% of members must vote in order to have a quorum, and 80% of those voting must vote in favor. Otherwise there's no point in having two limitations....
Wacho wrote:Again is the 3/5 that must vote in favor 3/5 of those voting or 3/5 of the total number of members. I think that since you already have a requirement that at least 2/3 vote, the 3/5 should be of those voting.
Right.
Wacho wrote:No approval from players/other councils necessary? Perhaps this should have the same format as issuing errata. Approval by the CoA then approval by the national councils.
Right, makes sense.
Wacho wrote:Are these players/collectors just those that are not represented by a national council, or is it all players and collectors? If it is all players and collectors maybe they should get more than one vote. And why do we have to be on the Enemy's council anyway? We're the good guys
The idea is that people who are not part of Council of Lorien or Council of Isles of the Dead that Live or Council of Rivendell or.... still get representation this way. They can band together into a cosmopolitan council. About Morgoth: hehehehe, ok, that was just a joke. Is there some kind of lost tribe whose name we could use for them? Maybe the council of Numenor?
Wacho wrote:I really don't like this provision. This gives the chair near dictatorial powers. Almost nothing can pass unless he approves it. And the chairman isn't even elected as such. Under these rules he's selected by the former council. Unless you make the Chair a separate elected position I don't think you should give veto powers. Maybe give the Chairman 2 votes instead of one.
Yeah, looking at that again, it is very strong. Maybe no veto at all?
http://www.alfanos.org

zarathustra
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:43 pm

Missed one thing: We'll add the final list of projects when we're done with the rest. I guess the Virtual Cards should go on there as well as the JCP.


Arda is nice, but then we have to buy a new domain and..... I think we should let the techie guys tell us what to do about that :D
http://www.alfanos.org

Sfan
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:59 am
Location: Königswinter, Germany

Post by Sfan » Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:15 pm

zarathustra wrote:
Wacho wrote:I don't like this at all. Why should the old council get to pick one of their own members as the new chair? The old council might have been voted out for one reason or another but they still have the ability to pick the most important member of the new council? This enable them to essentially control the council for the next two years as well even if the person they pick for Chairman lost in the general election.
This was put in for two reasons:

(1) That's how the old constitution has it ;)
(2) At the end of the year, the council members all know pretty well who is willing and able to be chairman for the next year.

Other ways to do it would be:

(3) Person who gets the most votes becomes new chairman,
(4) New Council elects a chairman from the new 9 members, and then a VP as well.

I think (3) is a bad idea, since the person with the most votes may not want to be chairman! (4) could work.
(2) is not too bad if you do the following: The new chairman (elected by the former CoE) must be confirmed with at least say more than 50 % by the new council. If this fails he is dismissed and a new member is added form the election top 10. Then (4) kicks in.

My 2 cents,
Stefan

thorondor
Council Member
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

Post by thorondor » Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:13 pm

stefans proposal sees very reasonable to me!

while i also like the name "Council of Arda" very much, i don´t like the idea of cahnging the name.
changing the name would be a very important change imo. people will ask, why the change happened. what is new? what is left behind? especially now (after all these discussions about the relation between COE and meccg.net) it might lead to some misunderstanding and confusion.

tharasix
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Richfield, MN

Post by tharasix » Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:32 am

In the original constitution, the chairman coming from the previous year's council was intended primarily to ensure some continuity between years. You will guarantee that the person running the show has seen a year of the council working.

I also don't like the idea of changing the name based on the impression it would give to the public.

Locked

Return to “Council Business - Agenda Items”