WE HAVE MOVED. CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE NEW FORUM!
Please note that this forum is now archived, and some links may not work. To access forums, please click on the text above the banner and NOT the banner itself. If you have any questions please contact CGJ
|
|
|
|
|
Claim your spot on the map Join the Regional Assembly Check out the Hall of Guidance Get involved in some Open Roleplays |
Time until The Independent Order's Fourth Birthday: |
Vice Chancellor: CGJ Premier: DaveIronside Vice Premier: SatanLord Minister for Home Affairs: Yolotan Minister for Foreign Affairs: Tama Speaker of the Assembly: Zee Lord Chief Justice: Achkaerin Roleplay Moderator: DaveIronside |
None Debates: Roleplay Realism Buff Act Request for an Inquiry into the use of mass-alts in the Z-Day episode |
| Welcome to the Independent Order Archive. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. If you previously had an account on the forum, then feel free to login. If you're new, please note we have moved to a new forum and have left this forum here to serve as an archive. |
| Amendment to the CTO Charter; Regarding concurrent SG/SC terms | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topic Started: 10th August 2015 - 08:30 PM (252 Views) | ||||
| CGJ | 10th August 2015 - 08:30 PM Post #1 | |||
![]()
Franz Kaufmann (1886-1944)
|
|
|||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 10th August 2015 - 09:49 PM Post #2 | |||
![]()
|
(OOC- Consider the IC section of this said by Cheryl Holmes) Since we're discussing the Secretary General in this could we consider amending the election procedure as well? I'm assuming this is up to the South Hills delegates as to whether they'd accept the addition but Achkaerin's going to put this out there:
Now to the matter raised in this proposed amendment, I see the theory and support the spirit of it but I question the methodology, because of the way the Security Council is set up I can't see the proposed approach working because in order to work it would need to restrict which nations are eligible for Security Council seats and which aren't. That sounds simple enough since with Tim Carpenter as Secretary General East Moreland would know that it couldn't run for a seat. However we should remember the take up of uncontested seats- by which I mean the process if the incumbents of the Security Council seats on any continent are not 'challenged' is established to be that if no one nominates for those seats then the two incumbents would continue to sit.[1] Additionally we should remember that the General Assembly can call a vote of no confidence in the Secretary General and also the means to expel a member from the Security Council exists. However both require a course of conduct to be shown or one absolutely 'crazy' moment. Now since the issue would only arise in circumstances where the casting vote of the Secretary General is in play why not give the 'victim' party a right similar to that of patients- a second opinion? Essentially let's take the CTOMM as an example let's assume that went 3-3 and let's hypothetically assume that Evanthe Anselmo was the Secretary General for her to make that decision would amount to a conflict of interest in the same way that Charles Ofdensen making that decision amounts to the same. So in that situation Achkaerin as the 'victim' party by which we mean the party that could potentially lose out unfairly due to national background, family tie etc could request that someone else make the decision- so for example a previous Secretary General such as Tim Carpenter whose judgement would objectively be independent. Have a list of such people kept at the CTO and in such situations allow the Security Council to utilize it. OOC- I do agree that this is mainly an OOC issue (hence the mass building of the case above) but we need to be clear that we're OOCly aware of is not necessarily the same as what is ICly perceived, for example Evanthe now if she were ever nominated for Sec-Gen again the first thing I would OOCly seek would be clarification from both Rhodes and Beatrice as to who Evanthe's controller in CTO matters is- I would also do the same in the case of any 'shared' character. Now I'm aware that OOCly Beatrice and Rhodes aren't about to go and rig something but ICly if Rokkenjima's involved Evanthe making the decision isn't viable because she's still Beatrice's cousin so it's a family tie and ICly that would be used against her. Now bearing in mind the circumstances where this potential double vote could occur I don't personally think preventing someone who wins the Sec-Gen position from having their nation on the SC is the way to go. We've seen the constant changing landscape of Mundus through the RP those out of favor can suddenly find themselves back in favor and vice versa, added to which there will be thanks to this changing landscape certain nations we will at times ICly look to keep off the SC by strategic voting and strategic nominations. So given the small chances of the double vote coming in I would look to remove the possibility by removing the sitting Sec-Gen's ability to cast the decisive vote and leave it to someone independent in the matter. [1] OOC- I believe this to be the case from IRC discussion a while back |
|||
| ||||
| CGJ | 10th August 2015 - 10:34 PM Post #3 | |||
![]()
Franz Kaufmann (1886-1944)
|
OOC because I cba ICing it: I don't think it'd be right to have this list system, we should be able to trust the RP controller to not act selfishly. However, ICly the positions are independent, so an issue with South Korea can still be dealt with by Ban Ki-Moon. However, I do support the ban on concurrently serving on the SC and as SG, so I propose two formal amendments:
|
|||
| ||||
| Beatrice | 10th August 2015 - 10:35 PM Post #4 | |||
![]()
|
While I don't support this measure I have to head back to work. Expect a more detailed objection sometime tonight. | |||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 11th August 2015 - 07:09 AM Post #5 | |||
![]()
|
The way I see it there are four options 1. The ban as stated- I don't support this it's fundamentally flawed in that it creates situations where people are asked to to bring OOC views and understandings into play ICly, also when you consider how few times this situation could happen and the factors required to make it happen it's not worth writing a nation out of the security council for six months just for something that's not going to happen 90+ times out a 100. Additionally the opportunity to be able to write a character trying to 'tightrope walk' or be corrupted by power is something not to be missed. 2. Second opinion seeking- it's simple and workable ultimately on the security council if the situation looks likely someone is going to say 'hang on is this fair?' whether that be ICly or OCCly, and nipping it in the bud with delegating the authority of that decision to someone with the experience to make the decision is preferable to constant votes of no confidence in the General Assembly and constant opinions being sought in the ICJ. 3. Increase the number of security council seats to seven- It's simple logic the deadlock scenario can only occur if the number of seats remains even i.e 3-3 with no remainder. If we were to have seven seats (and I suggest given the membership numbers that Albion would receive the seventh seat) the number combinations are 3-3-1 or 2-2-2-1 the point is there's always a vote that can be reallocated because the membership number of the council is a prime number, therefore we eliminate the casting vote as an issue altogether by destroying it. 4. Look at reform of the security council- we're going to end up doing this anyway (I suspect) Edited by Achkaerin, 11th August 2015 - 07:28 AM.
|
|||
| ||||
| Rhodes | 11th August 2015 - 06:26 PM Post #6 | |||
![]()
|
One possibility is to have the security council have one elected member from each region (3) in addition to four generally elected members (4) This may also eliminate the "no contest" thing we saw last election. |
|||
| ||||
| Achkaerin | 11th August 2015 - 10:05 PM Post #7 | |||
![]()
|
Just to put everyone in the picture the present make up (after map relocations) by constituency is: Gold indicates present SC member so is presumed not to be eligible to run this time though we know Rokkenjima is exempted due to by-election procedure. Ardia (5) Rokkenjima South Hills Supreme Sovereignty Genstatum Quinntopia Albion (9) Odmony UNP Dartfordia Ojiway Dijel UAE Verover Tytor Strathakoka Northern (9) Achkaerin Seaforth East Moreland (SG) Aeternum Vendosia United Holland Daniat Jukawa Cohdinia (Note that of the 9 northern nations 4 of them are Illumic/Alba Karinya) So assuming two from each Ardia is 2/4, Albion 2/7, Northern 2/7 now if we look at activity in the RP we're talking Ardia being the same, Albion becomes probably 2/4(5), Northern becomes 2/5. With a total CTO membership of 23. I'm just laying this out so we know what we're working with at the moment. |
|||
| ||||
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | ||||
| « Previous Topic · Archive · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
^ 7:04 PM Jul 11
|
May the force be with you.








