On Amendment Clauses

[Ferrous]

Don't worry, it's not my usual wall of text. I really want to get this point across, and it would be very counter-productive to make it overly long.

The following is mainly aimed at newer alliances and those who are considering (or are in the process of) making their own alliance.

I'm aware that not every alliance holds their charter to the letter, but many alliances at least hold their charters to the spirit. A charter, at its core, is the fundamental document for every alliance - it should show at least four components:

-Who can be in the alliance

-Who runs the alliance and how

-How things are decided in general

-How the charter itself can be changed

Most charters get at least the first three components, but miss out on the last one. The last one can be quite important - everything in the alliance could be running smoothly, and then a change is suggested or needs to happen because the charter (by human nature) isn't perfect. How do you change it? What, no clause on how to change it? Well that's a problem.

The second problem is that some alliances do in fact have an amendment clause, but is simply, "The emperor/king/chairman/leader can change the charter whenever he/she wants." Why is this bad? Because it makes the rest of the document pointless. If the document can be changed at the will of the leader, then we're looking at a big piece of fluff, and if the leader wanted to take over the alliance, they legally could.

Not all new alliances suffer from these problems. When Olympus was announced, it was incredibly refreshing to read a charter that was well thought out. But they are the exception to the rule. Please, plan ahead people.

[Xiphosis]

Last one is pretty essential. Don't forget it for blocs, either!

[MutedFaith]

It's only a problem if your members are willing to make it a problem. Otherwise, it's just a technicality and nothing logic and common sense can't handle.

[New Frontier]

As usual I have a hard time disagreeing with your theses, Ferrous. However, I disagree with your point that a charter that can be amended at will by the leader is pointless.

Any charter with this clause is very likely to already give all real power to the executive, in which case there is nothing to "take over". People assign these executives the power that they have by joining their alliance, and can remove that power by leaving if the leader makes choices (or in this case amendments) that they disagree with, especially in the current world of new alliances being created each day.

[Delta1212]

The point isn't that it's pointless because the ruler can take over. It's pointless because you might as well just say "whatever the ruler says goes" and not bother laying out any actual structure in the document itself. That's what he meant by it being fluff.

[Heft]

The point isn't that it's pointless because the ruler can take over. It's pointless because you might as well just say "whatever the ruler says goes" and not bother laying out any actual structure in the document itself. That's what he meant by it being fluff.

The document isn't fluff if it essentially says "Whatever the leader says goes." It should just be a short, concise document, like the IRON Charter. It still is worthwhile to have an official charter if for no other reason than to firmly establish "Whatever the leader says goes." Charters usually also help set the tone and style of an alliance, and often either implicitly or explicitly establish the funademental principles and values of the alliance, and they do all of this in a succinct, concise way that you can easily point new members to. At least, they should. Charters for autocratic alliances tend to focus more on these than on procedural details (which, honestly, a charter should never be filled with anyway).

Now, if someone makes an alliance based on "I'm King and I rule absolutely" and then writes a multiple page charter that lays out the specific procedures by which the King is to rule, that would be (among other things) fluff.

[Madmonkey24]

The document isn't fluff if it essentially says "Whatever the leader says goes." It should just be a short, concise document, like the IRON Charter. It still is worthwhile to have an official charter if for no other reason than to firmly establish "Whatever the leader says goes." Charters usually also help set the tone and style of an alliance, and often either implicitly or explicitly establish the funademental principles and values of the alliance, and they do all of this in a succinct, concise way that you can easily point new members to. At least, they should. Charters for autocratic alliances tend to focus more on these than on procedural details (which, honestly, a charter should never be filled with anyway).

Now, if someone makes an alliance based on "I'm King and I rule absolutely" and then writes a multiple page charter that lays out the specific procedures by which the King is to rule, that would be (among other things) fluff.

I agree here. A constitution is far more important in a democratic or semi-democratic alliance than in an autocratic government, where charters usually contain the qualifier "whatever the Emperor wants to do, he can".

[jerdge]

[...]

Please, plan ahead people.

Sure you had AHEAD in mind:

Constitution Amendment, Reform, Substitution, Abrogation

The Constitution can be amended, reformed, substituted or abrogated only with the procedures by itself (hereby) set.

The regularly elected AHEAD Parliament in charge is the only organism that can legally change or abrogate the Constitution. Every other entity or Institution is expressly forbidden to attempt against the integrity of the Constitution.

Under no circumstances the Constitution or its effects can be "suspended".

The AHEAD Rationale can’t in any way be amended, reformed or substituted.

Any proven attempt to illegally change, abrogate or suspend the Constitution or its effects, from inside AHEAD, will be considered High Treason and a crime against the Constitution.

Any proven attempt to illegally change, abrogate or suspend the Constitution from outside AHEAD will be considered an act of Aggression.

Abrogating or substituting the whole Constitution requires 100% of the Parliament votes.

Amending or Reforming the Part I of the Constitution requires 90% of the Parliament votes.

Amending or Reforming the Part II of the Constitution requires 75% of the Parliament votes.

Amending or Reforming the Part III of the Constitution requires 67% of the Parliament votes.

The percentages of this paragraph relate to the overall number of Deputies, not to the number of voting Deputies.

[Ferrous]

Sure you had AHEAD in mind:

LOL

That's a lot of planning ahead. I don't think it's that necessary, but bravo on making an effort.

[Duncan King]

We made sure to made Zenith's amendable. The previous alliance I helped found's charter did not have an amendment clause. We had to amend it to make it amendable.

[Ryan Greenberg]

Not all new alliances suffer from these problems. When Olympus was announced, it was incredibly refreshing to read a charter that was well thought out. But they are the exception to the rule. Please, plan ahead people.

Thanks for the complement

[Haven for Peace]

We made sure to made Zenith's amendable. The previous alliance I helped found's charter did not have an amendment clause. We had to amend it to make it amendable.

Wouldn't that be breaking the charter?

Personally, when charters have the "emperor/king/chairman/leader can change the charter whenever he/she wants" clause, I like to think that the leader himself or herself doesn't actually do it without discussing with his or her alliance and getting a general approval from them. A great leader wouldn't. Without great leadership, an alliance wouldn't be able to make it whether or not they have a good charter. Anyways, I have always been a fan of democratic alliances, and with that, my alliance requires membership approval to pass any amendments to our charter.

To me, the main problems that I see are the "who runs the alliance and how" and "how things are decided in general" because these are the ones that will determine how the alliance will be like.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Star Gazing

[Aurion]

I knew it was going to happen. I knew it. And I knew you'd be the one to do it.

Hey there, Ferrous.

Edit:

A constitution is far more important in a democratic or semi-democratic alliance than in an autocratic government, where charters usually contain the qualifier "whatever the Emperor wants to do, he can".

No man will lead forever, you know. If nothing else, there needs to be a succession plan of some sort.

I honestly think it depends on the membership of an alliance more than the type of government you have. There are some people who just don't need as specific a line of directives as others.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Aurion