Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:05 pm
I will do this during the month of August.
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:
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, will the chairman/vice-chairman be only from the elected people? Otherwise there will need to be a 5th slot in voting.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.
I assume this would need to be ratified by the current player body?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.
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: 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.
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.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 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.a new entity – the Council of Arda
also i think at least: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.
maybe mention, that a nominated member and an elected member may be one and the same person.Composition: The Council of Arda will consist of 5 directly elected members, and 1 member nominated by each active national council.
2 years is strongly supported!Every two years, on the anniversary of the ratification of this document, elections will be held ...
The Council of Arda will consist of 5 directly elected members
is there a contradiction? are there 4 or 5 members directly elected by the community?In each such election, there will be four slots open
maybe mention, that the COA appoints the netrep. same for registrar and webmaster.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´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.2) Issuing errata to rules and cards. ... (b) at least 2/3 of the active national councils approve of the erratum.
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.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.
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.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 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.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 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.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 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.(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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 guysRegarding 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.
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.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.
What about the Judge Certification Project? I think that should be a constitutional project.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.
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.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.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.
This was put in for two reasons: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.
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.
Sounds good. 2 is an OK minimum?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.
How about 75% for all the numbers listed here? Keeps it simple....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.
Right.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, makes sense.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.
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: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
Yeah, looking at that again, it is very strong. Maybe no veto at all?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.
(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.zarathustra wrote:This was put in for two reasons: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.
(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.