Greetings Everyone,
The Dark Council has just approved a few changes to the Dark Covenant and I have used my power as Grand Master to add a few additional changes.
It has become increasingly obvious to myself and others that the Specific Articles of Conduct and Reprimand in the Covenant are not suitable to most things that we need to deal with. The current articles are badly-worded and miss some areas that we desperately need to cover.
The Articles of Conduct are the only area of the Covenant that has yet to receive a complete rewrite since the D. Covs inception, so this is overdue. I asked Kir and Jac to write new articles and they have penned a set that are consistently worded and clearly cover areas the old ones were lacking.
You will see two major changes to the articles. First is an addition to the cloning article to allow us to get rid of the common defense of "My little Brother did it," unless the clone has been registered with the CoJ.
The second big addition is an article on Harassment. Please note that it is not my intention to crack down on the daily banter, and I have asked Jac to write the rule so a narrow interpretation of it is easily found. What this rule is intended to both deter and punish is outrageous harassment of the type we have seen a few times since the split. The previous articles only came close to addressing this issue with Disreputable Behavior; as written it did not work.
You will also find within a set of amendments to clarify the distinction between Executive and Judicial actions. As an example of what this covers: members are not afforded a trial when they are removed from a position for cause or for inactivity. That is an executive action which some people as of late have confused with a Judicial action and tried to apply Judicial members' rights to. These amendments are meant for clarification only; no rules or structure change with them since we already operate this way.
Finally, there is an updated introduction to the Covenant courtesy of Bloodfyre and Jac.
Procedurally, the the DC approved the amendments that modified the Grand Master and Justicar executive/judicial clarifications. The other amendments did not require a DC vote and I have had the JST add them.
Please read over these amendments as they will surely play a part in the future of the DB.
You need to be logged in to post comments
FYI: Amendments (additions) regarding the Executive/Judicial distinctions are 3.01(c), 4.01(b), and 5.01(e)
"members are not afforded a trial when they are removed from a position for cause"
Ok, I'm well aware that we don't operate as a democracy but this sounds like gestapo tactics, no trial? Surely everyone deserves the right to make their own case even if they choose to do so against inexcusable proof? If that's the case, why the hell do we even have a CoJ and Judicial system?
Actually being removed from a command position as stated has nothing to do with the Judicial branch, unless it is the result of a hearing against you. That, as stated, is all up to the executive side. If your superior wants you removed, there is little you can do to stop it, unless its due to something silly, like they just want you gone because they dont like you.
Also I like how it says on Disreputable behaviour that you can be charged with it by doing any action that brings disrepute to yourself. :P Damn and just when I wanted to make more of an ass of myself.
"If your superior wants you removed, there is little you can do to stop it, unless its due to something silly, like they just want you gone because they dont like you."
That something silly is usually the reason for removals, or an advancement denial. :P
I don't think anyone is disputing the GM's right to remove a CON or PCON because they go AWOL. But people do definitely have a problem with them being able to remove a CON or PCON without any sort of formal investigation under most other circumstances.
With the way its written now the GM can blindly fire whoever he wishes without any official in the way of stopping him. If a member is punished (in this case, fired), there should be an official investigation in to this punishment. Removing someone from their position for harrassing another member is the same as convicting them without a trial. It's bs.
Might I recommend instead having a temp removal of the "fired" individual in these cases, and the CoJ investigates whether or not the accused did in fact do what people are claiming he did?
It doesn't have to be "criminal charges", per say. Just an open investigation in to the matter. If a CON goes awol, the GM can temporarily suspend him from his position while the CoJ investigates whether or not the person is indeed AWOL. If that proves to be true, the removal then happens in full. The same can be done for any other circumstance. This way, the GM still retains executive powers, but there's a safety mechanism in place, just in case.
That sounds fair and practical to me.
The problem with suspending position holders instead of removing them is simple - you cannot appoint a successor. This isn't so much an issue with CONs since there should be a PCON to serve the job as an interim solution, but the issue may come up. Also, it should be noted that a position is not a right nor even an earned privilege in the DB. I support the right of any superior to revoke a position assignment he can also appoint. If this right is misused, we already have "abuse of power" as a transgression in the rules and the superior can be charged for it.
Before this discussion spirals out of control, I have set up a topic on the Message Boards for questions/discussion.
Link: http://www.darkjedibrotherhood.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4394
Before you cry gestapo tactics, I suggest you speak with your Consuls. They were sent this document and given an opportunity to voice their opinions on the matter. The only Consul who gave input on the changes was Braecen, and his input was on the topic of harassment. None one of the Consuls commented or opposed the changes concerning executive and judicial actions.
This is the way we have always done business and it is the way we are going to continue doing business.
Edit: To follow up on this. Executive powers are not soley that of the GM. The Consuls also may remove leaders in their clan based on merit. We are not going to have trials when a Consul wants to remove his BT Leaders. :p
Awwwww you closed one of my favorite loop holes :-P
It is about frigging time :-)
Actually, I have to agree that I don't see this as "Gestapo Tactics." I'd have raised issues with if it I had believed so. When someone higher along the command chain believes that someone is "not doing their job," or is doing it in an improper manner, they are obligated to remove that person. The situation is dealt with, unless there is a CoJ matter attached to it, basically.
The removed person DOES have a chance to make their case: to the person who removed them. They are more than capable, and allowed, to object and discuss it with said person who removed them. If they believe that person is wrong, they go to someone else. i.e. if your Consul removes you without cause, you go to the GM. If a GM removes a Consul or Proconsul without cause, the members of that Clan are then the "higher authority." Believe it or not, if the members of any Clan didn't want their Consul removed, the GM would have to have one hell of a good cause for doing so, or he/she would be abusing their power, and I can tell you with 100% certainty, the rest of the Consuls and DC would not stand for an absuive GM.
Nor would the members of the Star Chamber.
So, there are checks and balances in everything, and in my opinion, this is an acceptable way to handle the Amendments, and the situations that encouraged amending these portions.
BF's right for the most part -- I would qualify the talk about removing a Consul in two ways:
1) The key phrase in that is "without cause"...aka it all depends what the Consul is removed for. If the Consul is absolutely inacitive but wildly popular with the members of his clan, there's not much the members, or a vocal minority of the members, will be able to do to save him. Consuls have a duty to the Brotherhood to keep their clan active and in functioning order, especially when it comes to the 200 new recruits we send to that clan each year. If the Consul is not doing his job, his friends should not be able to save him. And this isn't a subjective thing -- there are very objective benchmarks that can be used to judge a clan that a Consul is responsible for. Even if the active members of the clan like the Consul and don't want him removed, if he's not doing his job, he's not keeping his job.
But, without cause is a whole other story:
2) The DC and the Star Chamber are the third and fourth step in the chain -- BF left one out. As BF said, the first step is to address the person's superiors. If that doesn't work, then the second step is not a member "higher authority" uprising...charges must be brought with the CoJ, even if against the Grand Master. If the charge is valid, then the DC votes...if nothing works at all, the SC steps in.
But we have yet to see that in this incarnation of the DB. Consuls and people in other positions are generally fired for cause.
And...in the real application, if there were an abuse, somewhere along the line the GM is either convinced--through commentary, not uprising--to change course or convinced to step down before it gets to his removal.
Let's remember that this is a discussion about the Covenant, and in the Covenant, mobs don't rule -- process and laws do. The members voice can surely be heard, and always are heard in those situations, but we have specific processes for these things specifically so members never have to rise up against an administration -- they can go about things orderly.
Yeah, but BTL isn't a DC position. CON is :P
The chain of command is the chain of command regardless of where you sit on it.
No the chain of command is the chain I use to beat you with till you do as I say!
Im sorry I had to say that. As for the rest of this, go to the MB's and post! :P
I believe that this action is a wise one in order to maintain sanitary social structure with in the DB.