Dear Members:
Since being appointed as Justicar, I have taken to the task of redeveloping the Covenant. After a long process of revisions, we are to the final stage: membership review of the new Covenant. I beg you to become involved in this process; read this report and help me make the Covenant the best it can be.
Our goals in redeveloping the Covenant were simple, but hard to get to. We wanted to:
This process has taken about a year so far. I initially started by simply working my own way through the Covenant a section at a time and made major revisions and additions along the way. Since then, I have gone through an additional nine large revisions. Each of those revisions has been based off of more and more commentary from select members, including the Hands, the former Justicars, Sarin/Mav, the Appeals Panel, the Dark Council, and about 20 members that I hand selected for the task as being either the judicial type, a respected member, or a stickler on this subject. I have very literally worked my way through hundreds of pages of commentary and suggestions and re-writes to get to this point. As you will see from the redline version I am providing, there are only a few sections left in the Covenant that were not almost completely rewritten. I am happy with it and very happy to get closer to the finish line.
The last stage of review before a vote to adopt the Covenant is for the membership to review. This process isn't mandatory; the Electorate could adopt the changes now. But given the vast overhaul of the Covenant, I believe it is the proper thing to do to have a membership review.
I am providing you with links to three files:
Please review the revised Covenant over the coming weeks and give any comments you have. In particular, I want you to look at it from the perspective of your respective positions, but also from your perspective as a member in general. I am open to any feedback, including "Jac wtf are you thinking?" I also like the occasional atta-boy for a job well done. :) Please also feel free to ask questions, state confusion, or suggest alternative language. A primary purpose is clarity, and if that is not coming across to all members, then we need more revisions.
I likely will not provide specific feedback to each and every comment; that task has been too overwhelming to do in the past. I will try to acknowledge all comments at least. If your comment is well taken, I will make revisions where appropriate. All revisions will be reviewed by the Electorate as part of the adoption process.
This membership review period will last through Sunday, September 4. After the membership review period and after final revisions are completed, the Electorate will hold a vote to adopt the Covenant.
I look forward to hearing from many of you. Please do help us make the Covenant perfect.
Thank you!
Jac Cotelin
You need to be logged in to post comments
JST review the new Covenant already! Gosh!
Of course you would pun... Reduced legalese can only be good for everyone!
Cracks fingers
Time to get reading, I suppose. Regardless of outcome: good work, Jac ol' boy. You do us all proud, and I am happy you are a part of this (admittedly dysfunctional) family.
So, first question springs to mind... Brotherhood Policies, what exactly are they? Is this a new thing? Apparently not since it was also in the old version, but what are some examples of policies? Because it generally seems the covenant is usually specific enough to not warrant policies, also what would be an example of a short term one? My first thought was "no unit transfers during vendettas" but that's more of a short term effect but a long standing rule.
As someone who has gotten to see the insane amount of work that has gone into this process, I can't begin to explain JST how excited I am to see this entering the final stages. This is a huge opportunity for members of the Brotherhood to be involved and have an active voice in how our club operates and protects its members. Jac has been highly communicative and response to any feedback I've thrown and has addressed my multitude of concerns I raised.
I love how the lawyer-language has been reduced and the scenarios outlined have been updated to reflect contemporary changes in both technology and the way we communicate as members with one another.
Thank you for all the hard work and effort you're putting into this, Jac. It's really appreciated, and while I'm sure there will be a lot of questions, I am confident that you will, as you have time and again so far, take the feedback and questions and use that to create the best possible Covenant for us to use as a club and organization.
So if I find a typo... :P
I've said before, this is incredible, Jac, and an excellent step for our club. Everyone, please review! It's not just some long technical document. It's what defines us.
Thanks, all, for the kind words! I appreciate it.
Malik, good questions. The policies are pretty much any standing administrative rule by a DC member. Look at "MAA Policies" or "HM Policies" on the wiki and those are good examples. The idea is that no member should ever really be surprised by administrative actions, and we're trying to get stuff from getting lost in the news page on old reports.
An example of a short yet policy would be Sarin's no movie spoilers policy. It was short lived, posted on the news, but still expected to be followed.
Typo corrections are more than welcome!
Short yet = short term
I really like how this came out. It reads a lot easier (and yes, that's a lawyer saying that :P) and a lot of thought has been put into making a lot of things clearer. Good show to Jac and Co.
In response to Malik's question, and to reinforce Jac's response, despite nobody asking: Voice policies come into play anytime I (or my staff) tell a member no, and deny them something. We should always be able to point to a policy. No you can't be a hutt. No you can't give yourself bonus Force powers in an Aspect, no you can't get Clusters of Ice for that pokemon fiction competition, etc. That said, there are weak areas where things aren't well documented (artifacts, species, to name a few) currently but it's something I've been working on with Atra.
This helps ensure the things that we do are done fairly and consistently and members have a predictable experience.
I actually like that there's a 'that is' for a lot of things, that also not only clarifies exact wording but intent of things, too. That's really handy for someone like me who likes to think that they get it but totally don't.
Thank you - to Jac, to all the contributors. You guys have done a wonderful thing!
I feel like this document would be much easier to use if there was a contents page at the start, especially so if these were linked to the relevant articles further down.
@Elincia Rei: I would assume that once the new version is approved, it will be wikified just as the current version is.
That's correct: it will have a table of contents on the wiki.
@Mateus Kelborn: Thanks for saying so. Using clarifying phrasing like "that is" is one of my favorite thing to do in legal writing and it makes me happy that you picked up on it.
Jac
wow alot of work so first off great job to all who worked on this, 2nd will any of this(since its not always easy to catch all the differences) have you make any adjustments to the COJ courses?
@Silent: yes, we are planning a full re-write of the CoJ courses. Anyone that wants to have he old ones on their dossiers better take them quick.
Thanks for your exceptional and hard work, it really shows. Listed below are somethings I'd like to see some clarification on!
1.02.b.i or ii - By what criteria can members of the Electorate discriminate against proposals? Are they required to entertain all proposals?
2.01.c - is Independent Unit allegiance or membership a protected class?
3.02.a - I meet two criteria for temporary voting status in the Star Chamber. Awesome. No clarification required here, I'm just happy.
4.01.b - how and to whom should a member express themselves?
4.02.e - how is the member of the Star Chamber chosen?
4.03.b.iv - who decides if the Star Chamber or Electorate gets involved?
5.03.a and b and c - on what grounds?
5.03.d - am I to understand the JST can sit in judgment of a trial after returning to work after an appeal of their removal even if evidence in the appeal process revealed a conspiracy related to that trial? Is that not a conflict of interest?
7.01.h - who decides which?
7.03.c - how is the replacement chosen and is the ordering in the New Covenant's writing significant to that decision?
7.03.p - this section is poorly labeled because it reads 'NO MOTIONS ACCEPTED except that one motion'; consider renaming or breaking into two sections
7.04.a - what means will the SCL use to randomize choices and how will it be demonstrated to be truly random?
7.05.b - Selected how? Can multiple members of the same Independent Unit serve simultaneously?
7.05.d.i - Hypothetically speaking, what if both the JST and GM were implicated?
7.06.c and e - is creed understood to mean religious and spiritual affiliation or profession?
Again, thanks for your work and I look forward to your replies!
Vodo - which version are you reading from? I'm getting confused on a few of your comments because some of the sections don't seem to have anything to do with your question (for example, 2.01.c doesn't speak of "protected class" nor does it speak about independent units in that section when I read the New Covenant doc). The ones that do line up are good questions (7.04.a is a very good point, same with 7.05.d.i).
2.01.c - refers to the protected classes of rank, position, and tenure but I was inquiring if unit membership wasn't protected as well.
4.01.b - I meant to refer to 4.02.b. Who should a member interested in expressing their candidacy for GM express themselves?
4.02.e should be 4.02.d
4.03.b.iv should be 4.04.b.iv
7.01.h - please disregard, I can't find what I was referring to
Sent this by email but if anyone else is interested my comments can be found here