Counsel Membership

[Boilermg]

Greetings Seekers!

There has been much discussion of late regarding the acceptance (or non-acceptance)of members of certain organizations...

I would like to open this up for suggestions (as the Counsel must be seen as fair and unbiased):

My .02:
General Counsel members are not to be associated with those mentioned orgs (Any Fighing/Magi).
One member of each Guild (ALL ORGS.) will be nominated by their org to hold a seat on counsel...Each member serves 4 moons just as the COunsel leader...
These will be considered assistants to counsel and will be supervised by General Counsel.

(Ugh...I am glad I am not a politician in real life!)

How does that sound? Talk amongst yourselves

Meg (aka. Margaret)

[cedric]

I must admit, I'm confused. If one member of each guild holds a seat on the council, then that group cannot be assistants to the council because they comprise the council. If General Counsel supervises them, then who is General Counsel? All but the three who are in those groups? I think I'm probably not reading it right, but I've tried a few times and that's the best I could come up with.

(By the way, a 'council' is a group of people, and Counselors give counsel. These particular Counselors happen to sit on a council.)

How about something like this. A council leader is selected from the then current Counselors every four moons. That leader and the rest of the Counselers make up the General Council. Any group that does not already have one of it's members as a Counselor may elect one council advisor to sit on the advisory board if it so chooses. The input of the advisory board will be welcome during any discussions being had by the council. If and when the council votes on a matter, a two-thirds majority of the council votes will decide the matter. If there is not a two-thirds majority, then the votes of the advisory board will be added to the votes of the council, and the majority will prevail regardless of margin.

It sounds complicated, but it works, and probably won't have to be used very often.

Just my 2¢,
Cedric

[Boilermg]

One of the issues brought up is the fact that certain guilds wish to have someone mediating that understand the issues...
For example, if there is a dispute regarding magic, someone who understands magic should be there...so, we need representation in the not so formal mediations as well...

[Seidl]

O.k., maybe its just me, but I'm OOC confused as to what the councelor's office is trying to achieve here.

I thought the councelors were to be more like mediators. Impartial people two parties could take things to before doing to a duel or court. What would the councel ever have to "rule" on?

I guess its hard to give OOC feedback when I don't understand. But even with not understanding, this seems pretty complex. And a 4 month term? I'd want to be able to change faster than that if the group admited someone who would be better for the councelor position. Why not simply allow each group to send a representitive to the meetings?

-=- Matt - Confused as ever

[cedric]

I think we've made things too complicated. (Mostly my fault, it appears.)

My picture of how things work is that if two parties have a dispute, they find a Counselor. That counselor helps them find a comprimise. The parties involved can bring whatever witnesses to bear that they want. The groups who cannot be Counselors can still be witnesses and can help explain to the Counselor the relevant facts that they need for a decision.

If a Counselor finds that they are having a hard time making a decision, they can go to another Counselor (or anybody else) for an opinion, but it still up to them to make a decision on their own.

I'm unclear on why the entire council would need to meet to make a ruling on anything other than its own internal processes, or possibly to decide upon the form of discipline to impose on one of its own for breaking the rules. And for that kind of function, the meeting should be held without outsiders present.

Another 2¢,
Cedric

[Boilermg]

Sigh...

Ok - Matt: What you proposed was the original charter...however, some characters were upset that a mage or dueler of some sort could not be on counsel...

So, I am trying to find a happy medium...

DOes that clarify things?

[cedric]

Okay, what about this. (And this goes against the original charter, so I expect it to be nixed, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.)

No group is kept from being a Counselor, however no Counselor may provide their services in a dispute where one claimant is a member of a group in which that Counselor is a member. If all claimants are in that group, then no problem.

Thus, a Duelist can't serve as mediator between a Duelist and a Watchman. But the same Duelist could moderate for two other Duelists. As a member of the Brotherhood of Poets, I couldn't mediate between an Awakener and a fellow Poet. But I could mediate for an Awakener and a Rememberer if neither of them is also in the Poet's Brotherhood.

This way, neutrality is served while at the same time avoiding exclusivity.

If a Counselor knowingly and officially serves as a mediator between two claimants where one of them shares an organization membership with the Counselor, then the ruling of the Counselor is thrown out and the Counselor receives reprimand and whatever punishment the Council Leader feels is appropriate.

Over a nickel now at 6¢,
Cedric

[Seidl]

I guess I don't understand why the group has to be inclusinve. Or exclusive. I would say, knowing very few of the issues either:

Since the conccelors have to be neutral, they can join no other guilds.

Or

Since you can go to which ever councelor you want, let who ever be one. If I'm a watchmen, I'm not going to GO to a duelist councelor.

But thats just my opinion. Pick IC reasons for excluding people, and then do it. If they don't like it IC, they won't come to you.

-=- Matt

[cedric]

Purely OOC, my guess (and it is just that) is that Skotos wants there to be exclusivity so that there can be tension. After all, without tension, where do the stories come from?

So, given that, we need to find IC explanations for exclusions.

[Monkey]

My comment:

Duelists and Watch members are supposed to be much more likely to settle their differences through a duel of honor than third party mediation (that's why we have swords). So if we're going to be bloody-minded about it, don't let us in http://www.skotos.net/ubb/wink.gif

The Battle Guild has evolved from its original charter, and now seems to be just folks who gather to practice the sword. Since they have no stated political agenda, and have yet to turn anyone away from their practices that I know of, maybe you could let them in, but not the Watch or Duelists?

Maybe a deciding characteristic is that anyone in the habit of carrying a real sword (not the practice swords of the Battlers) isn't allowed in (so while Margaret is now permitted to carry a sword, she chooses not to so that she can retain her membership in the counselors).

Just an idea.

[Boilermg]

Well, the duelists and the Watch cannot possibly be objective about one another.

So many are skeptical about magic and the lack of objectivity it is hard to include them.

Finally regarding the Battlers...this one is trickier...I think the battlers should be allowed based on individuals...some would not be as apt to promote peace through mediation vs. fighting.

That is IC why they havent been included...

[cedric]

The decision of a Counselor, according to the charter can only be appealed to Sir Launfal. It can't be appealed by right of battle, so a tendency to settle things through fighting isn't really an issue. A Counselor should not have the option of saying "Okay, let's see who's right. Pick up a couple swords and try to kill each other like civilized people."

So, if a Duelist is a Counselor that does not imply that they will advocate the duel. To do so, after being asked to perform mediation service, would be a breach of the charter. They will be required to reach a decision that is a peaceful comprimise between the two parties.

I do think that there are times when complete impartiality is impossible. If my fiancee Diana has a beef with soembody, I couldn't possibly serve as Counselor for them. And a Watchman cannot be a fair arbitrator between somebody and another Watchman. But in these cases, why would both parties agree to use an impartial arbitrator? I would agree that it should be up the parties involved to agree on which Counselor to use.

A Counselor should also be free to deny service if they themselves feel that they cannot be impartial. That is about the only grounds on which such denial should be allowed.

So, to sum up, here's where I stand at this point: 1) Nobody should be excluded based on group affiliations. 2) Anybody can serve as witness. 3) It is up to the arguing parties to choose an impartial Counselor. 4) A Counselor can decline if they feel they cannot be impartial. 5) A Counselor cannot use the right of battle to determine an outcome. 6) A Counselor shown to have acted in a biased way while executing their office should be reprimanded and punished.

Almost to a dime, at 8¢,
Cedric

[Atama]

Ok...

Now I'm confused.

I think what needs to be done here, is:

1) State the reason for this Counsel.

2) State what it does.

3) State how it does what it does.

4) State who will be in it.

I really don't think any of these things have been fully explained yet, if they have even been decided on, and when they are, then some of this confusion might be cleared up. http://www.skotos.net/ubb/smile.gif

[cedric]

Um, I think that's what we're trying to do.

[ChrisW]

Forgive me for injecting a dose of cynicism here, but I just can't help it--for me the parallels are all too clear:

This "Council of Counsels" is sounding an awful lot like a high school student council--a sort of popularity contest, and a sop tossed out by the school administration to apease antsy, overeager students by letting them pretend they have some say in how the school is run.

*shrug* I hope it all works out, but I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[Boilermg]

Chris- First of all, you must not know Margaret or any other member of the council at all...for you would know her intent about the council and its high purpose in mediating disputes. You couldnt be more off base with the popularity thing. In fact, I am slightly insulted as I have put so much work into it.

Perhaps you should have read the charter before making your comments. Please, all of you read the charter...it lays out clearly the original mission of the council.

I was seeking input on the issue of the exclusion of the groups listed in the council as a few people have expressed concern.

IF you have input on how to resolve that issue, please, I am anxious for your feedback.

Otherwise, we will keep the Charter as stands and all orgs will still be able to attend meetings n such. But some will not be able to be members.

Finally, I do like the idea of consulting members of guilds as needed. That just might have to be the solution.

[Atama]

Ok, lemme see if I can answer my own questions then. I looked over the charter again, and lemme see if I am right.

1) The Counsel (or Council, I've seen you use both terms Boiler http://www.skotos.net/ubb/smile.gif ) seems to exist as sort of a judiciary commitee, almost like a People's Court thing. Civil cases might be brought to their attention for settlement.

2) It seems that they try to find fair, non-biased resolutions to problems, in order to find a compromise for people who can't compromise.

3) I'm still not sure how this will be done, besides the fact that there will be a meeting each moon (RL months? Or every couple of weeks game-time?).

4) I guess those people mentioned, and who knows how many more, will be Counsellors (Councilers?) as well as representatives from the guilds who will represent the best interests of their group.

Another question... are these decisions suggestions, or enforceable mandates? And who will enforce them? I assume Sir Launfal, but will it be up to the Guard, the Watch, or someone else to be the actual muscle?

Also, I assume these will be IC conflicts, OOC comflicts should be handled by CE.

[Monkey]

As far as enforcing the compromise reached by a counselor, I imagine they aren't done until both parties actually agree to compromise.

And if the counselors are expecting back-up from the already existing law-enforcement and judiciary systems in place, I'd imagine that it will take a lot of work, much like the first few years of the US Supreme Court. Folks initially looked at their decisions, shrugged, and kept on going. It took a really strong-minded Chief Justice (whose name I can never remember) to push the US Supreme Court towards the prominence it has today.

I'm imagining a scene where Margaret is chewing out Petris for arresting some violent newly awakened after all the work she's done to reform him. I think that this is an excellent RP opportunity for the first four counselors http://www.skotos.net/ubb/smile.gif

[ChrisW]

Originally posted by Boilermg:
Chris- First of all, you must not know Margaret or any other member of the council at all...for you would know her intent about the council and its high purpose in mediating disputes. You couldnt be more off base with the popularity thing. In fact, I am slightly insulted as I have put so much work into it.

Perhaps you should have read the charter before making your comments. (...)

And *I* am slightly insulted by *this*. Of course I read the charter, wherein I found the following passage pertaining to the means for gaining membership: "Prospective counselors must submit a statement of intent explaining why they wish to be a counselor and why they should be selected. In addition, prospective counsel must have 5 petitions submitted on their behalf" (emphasis mine). How is this not a popularity contest?

As for my not knowing Margaret or any of the other counsellors, again you are in error--my character has at least a passing acquaintanceship with 3/4ths of the counsel (including Margaret), and I'm good friends, both ICly and OOCly, with one of them.

But I didn't post my initial response looking for a fight. And as I freely admitted at the outset, my opinion is rather on the cynical side. But seen from that position the entire *point* to playing on Castle Marrach is to participate in one huge, drawn-out popularity contest. To a cynic's eye, "gaining the favor of the court" sound suspiciously like "toadying." I think part of the frustration that Jennifer is evidently currently feeling is the result of the long-standing tradition of jealous-student backlash against the perceived "teacher's pet." And there's nothing wrong with *any* of this (well, except for the part about the OOC attacks on Jennifer...shame, shame; it's only a game...)!

Good RP can come from the cynical point of view too--isn't part of the challenge that you're looking for in becoming a counsellor that of withstanding the schemes and intrigues of your fellow castle-dwellers who will be jealous of your (in their eyes) rise to power? http://www.skotos.net/ubb/wink.gif

I appreciate that you've worked hard on this project--and more to the point, I'm sure the CE staff are *very* appreciative of your efforts. But all that hard work might mean that you're a little too close to it to be objective, a little too quick to leap to its defense. I did not attack the validity of the Counsel; I was just having a little fun at their expense. Hence my request for forgiveness up front.

[Le]

IMHO.....We should all remember we are still in a beta test.Nothing is going to be perfect and that is why it is important that issues and concerns are addressed here and now. I also believe that there should be an alternative to a duel to settle disputes. This process of developing the council is going to take a bit of time, but there have been guidelines drawn up and we should start there as a basis for growth and direction to achieve the ultimate goal of judicatory mediation for the citizens of the outer baily. As for the comment on being a popularity contest, I do not see my character as being miss popular.She has IC reasons for wanting such a position, and had to apply for that position, much as I would have to for a job in RL, refrences included.

[cedric]

I suggest we get back to the topic at hand.

Meg (Margaret, boilermg, whatever) what is your opinion of what I said a while back?


1) Nobody should be excluded based on group affiliations.
2) Anybody can serve as witness.
3) It is up to the arguing parties to choose an impartial Counselor.
4) A Counselor can decline if they feel they cannot be impartial.
5) A Counselor cannot use the right of battle to determine an outcome.
6) A Counselor shown to have acted in a biased way while executing their office should be reprimanded and punished.


I think this would be a reasonable solution to all the problems we've discussed.

Still trying to make ¢,
Cedric

[LadySilverwolf]

The reason for ommission of those who have swords and magic is because they already have tools at thier disposal to take care of their own problems!!!

I truly believe that the council exists to add more hostilities to the game. The Charter purposefully states that some groups can NOT have representation on this council. Let it remain this way. The Duelists duel, the Watch arrests, the Battlers settle their own differences within thier guild, and the magi have magic and Lady Serista.

Please folks, stop and think a moment. Castle Marrach is a place of intrigue, mystery, and gaining favor to attain the ranks of Lady, Lord, and others that we may not know about. It is also a place were plots are made and created to keep factions working against each other, as well as politics.

Characters are suppose to find ways to work around things, and hope their work is 1. never detected, 2. positive results come about from the methods they use, or 3. undermine the activity of others.

You can not undermine the activity of others if everyone is on the same bandwagon. This particular group of Councilors forces other groups into acting on their own, and possible even breaking the law or forcing more issues of Duels, or even report the law is being broken.

The council is there for the reason to provide a NON BLOODY route to solve problems of the the COMMON guest, if they do not seek to use the WATCH or the DUELISTS or the BATTLERS, or the MAGI! It is also there to promote strife with the other groups that are there who are not Represented as well.

Folks... think of the plots and the blackmail that you can get from this! Think of the possible power your characters can gain from this! Use the tools provided your characters to further yourself in the court and gain favor!

[Atama]

The Counsel has already agreed to allow a representative from each guild to bring their input, so no guild is being excluded here...

[Whyndam]

I may be wrong, but isn't part of the dueling process almost exactly what this Council is proposing they do. Before some one can actually duel, they must choose a second. Then the two seconds try to hammer out some kind of deal that pleases both parties so they don't actually have to fight. This is basically what it seems to me the Council is trying to do, minus the seconds/lawyers part. Like I said, I may wrong but that is just how it appeared to me.
---
Whyndam

[cedric]

Originally posted by Atama:
I just wish we had actual Counsel members answering these questions instead of non-members who have to speculate. http://www.skotos.net/ubb/smile.gif

What am I? Chopped liver? http://www.skotos.net/ubb/confused.gif

The way I see it (and feel free, Margaret, to jump in and correct me any time), when two people have a dispute, they can settle it in any of three ways: They can agree to try to stick swords into each other, one can press charges against the other using the Watch, or they can agree to be heard by a Counselor. The choice is up to them.

In a case where none of the Queen's laws have been broken, people have up until now been forced to try to stick each other with sharp pointy things or else sit silently and take it.

Now, if they don't want to duel, they can agree to be bound by the decision of a Counselor. Once both sides have officially requested the assistance of a Counselor, they are bound to agree with the decision the COunselor makes. The Counselor hears both sides of the argument, listens to witnesses, listens to any who wish to advise, and then presents a decision based on peaceful comprimise.

If either claimant disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it to Sir Launfal. Sir Launfal will talk to the Counselor and the claimants and decide if the decision was made impartially. If so, he will most likely uphold it. Otherwise he may reverse it, negate it, change it, or uphold it as he sees fit.

Cedric,
Counselor-Elect

[cedric]

Originally posted by Whyndam:
Isn't part of the dueling process almost exactly what this Council is proposing they do.

Sort of. If you think of both seconds in a duel as a single person, then that person is the Counselor. They come up with a comprimise. The difference is that the claimants don't have to worry about being stuck with a sharp metal stick if the seconds don't reach a comprimise.

A comprimise will always be reached. It's entirely possible that one or both sides won't particularly like the decision made, but it will be made on grounds of impartiality and peace. And the claimants will live with the outcome in the same way that those in a duel must live with it's outcome regardless of if the sword fight ever actually happens.

Cedric
Counselor-Elect

[StaciD]

Technically, the primary responsibility of a second in a duel is not to play mediator, but to make sure that the person they support shows up to the duel. Presumably, the primary duelists would be too heated to meet and arrange the details of the upcoming confrontation themselves, so they recruit someone to do the arranging for them. The seconds are also there to clean up the wounded and dead when the duel is over. I think that seconds are only asked if some non-violent agreement can be reached is only a nicety. I know that if I were incensed enough to challenge someone to a duel, I'd never choose a second who would try and sway me from my point of honor!

Ergo, the Counselors provide a very complementary function to dueling. After all, not every disagreement calls for blood to be spilt.

Staci

[Atama]

That's true, Whyndam... and as a second to both Erin and Punzel I've been through all of that. But, I'm pretty sure that the Counsel will try to mediate things before they get bad enough that people want to duel. And not every conflict ends in a duel (thankfully). More simple matters, such as a debate about the ownership of an item, or maybe disputes between the interpretation of an oath, tamer subjects like that might be the province of the Counsel.

I just wish we had actual Counsel members answering these questions instead of non-members who have to speculate. http://www.skotos.net/ubb/smile.gif

[Atama]

Hehe, you might think that Stacy... but Zero actually got Erin and Lask to talk to each other, and they apologized and decided not to duel. Maybe as Erin's second that was wrong, but Sir Launfal was pretty insistent about there being a real attempt to patch things up. I guess Zero can't help trying to keep the peace around the castle. http://www.skotos.net/ubb/smile.gif

[Boilermg]

Thank you all for your valuable comments...

For now...the Charter will stay as stands with the same restrictions on membership.

One member from all organizations within the castle will be able to attend each meeting...we hope that each org. will recommend someone for that position. When issues arise that need more expertise...we will go to that person for advice. So, please choose a representative that you would trust to represent your organization.

As mentioned, the Counsel has been formed to help take many burdens off of the Chamberlain...he and I urge all members to seek Counsel in resolving disputes.

Thank you again for your input...as always...let us know if you have suggestions.

Meg (aka. Margaret)

[Kyle]

I agree with lady silverwolf... the councel is intended to provide excitement not to make everything better. I also feel that the councel should have more power and not just be a dispute settling thing but have say in other things that government ususaly does (got me what that actualy is) http://www.skotos.net/ubb/smile.gif