(04-20-2017, 03:05 PM)Roavin Wrote: Rhetoric perfectly delivered, yet still sophistry at its finest — No. I'm not advocating a status quo of the Assembly being at the Chair's mercy, because it's very obviously not. As Glen has pointed out, the legal tools of recalls plus Charter IV.7 are available to fight against it.

To look at it from another angle: If despite loud outcry and discussion the chair refuses to budge on one of these supposed unchecked powers, and it really is a serious issue, then more often than not a recall is actually in order! If that goes through, either the Chair then has a fundamentally incompatible view of something like the game-side/forum-side separation than the bulk of legislators, or is using the Assembly as a political tool; in both cases, a recall is perfectly justified.

I continue to insist there should be means other than recall -- which should be a last resort -- to correct mistakes or even small abuses of power by the Chair. That someone is wrong about something but too stubborn to admit it does not necessarily mean he should be recalled.

I will also point out that recall is not as easy as you're making it out to be, by Glen's design. According to Article XI, Section 1a of the Charter, recalls may only be initiated for "dereliction of duty, abuse of authority, or violations of the law." The Chair can make a ruling that is just a bad ruling but is not necessarily going to be viewed as "dereliction of duty" or "abuse of authority" by the High Court. Most bad rulings also will not be "violations of the law." Many rulings are political in nature, and as such fall beyond the scope of recall. So what you're advocating is that the Assembly continue to have only an extremely limited check on the Chair's power, which should be a last resort rather than the only available option.

The bottom line question is this: Does the Chair answer to and work for the Assembly, or does the Assembly answer to and work for the Chair? Without the Assembly having checks on the Chair's power to ensure that a majority of legislators can't be overruled by a single legislator, we are currently in a situation in which the Assembly answers to and works for the Chair. It's supposed to be the other way around. More is needed than the limited, last resort recall option.

If any legislators feel the current language for overruling the Chair is too broad and prone to overuse, I'm open to suggestions to improve it, or alternative options. I prefer to take a reasonable, consensus approach to legislating. What I'm not open to is continuing the status quo in which the Chair wields unchecked power over the Assembly that allows him to make a minority of one the deciding factor in legislative debate.