Discussion - Dcov Amendments

This topic has been created to provide an avenue for open-discussion and thoughts on the recent Amendments to the Dark Covenant as of July 2nd, 2007.

I ask that members be respectful of one another's comments and point of view; even if you believe it invalid. This topic is meant to encourage questions concerning recent changes and intelligent discussion.

Thank you,
Braecen Kaeth Kunar

If one disputes their removal, there should be a system in place to remand the case to the CoJ.

I understand the need for executive actions, but I believe there should be a system in place for a redress of grievances. In the US Army as Sarin and others are bound to know, there is an Article 15 which is effectively non-judicial punishment (which is exactly what the Marines calls it, Navy calls it Captains Mass). However one has the right to reject the Article 15 and request Court Marshal. Furthermore one has the option at any time, of logging a complaint with the Equal opportunity advisor, the Chaplain, a counselor or the Inspector Generals office.

There is a process. Any member who is removed who thinks their removal is wrongful can challenge the removing member through the CoJ on a Specific Article of Conduct or Reprimand. The ones that come to mind for use are Discrimination, Sexual Favors, Abuse of Power, Disreputable Behavior.

If you are fired because of policy or disagreements with your superior about your job, your workload, your activity level, your temprament, etc....sorry, you're out of luck. The leaders of the DB have the ability to appoint and fire the people who they think are best fit to handle the jobs under them. That power is absolutely vital to the proper running of this club.

However, if the person in charge abuses that privelege by trying to remove people for personal reason outlawed by the covenant, for discriminatory purposes or maybe even as a systematic abuse of that power to remove lots of people who disagree with policy, then there are ways to go after him. For instance, if the GM were to put forth an amendment to the DC and the DC were to vote it down...if the GM goes then to fire all of the DC members who voted no and appoint people who would vote yes, that would absolutely be an abuse of power chargeable by the CoJ. This is specifically why I added the phrase to the end of abuse of power: "or to unfairly influence any Brotherhood proceeding."

In my time in the DB I've only seen a couple times when I would consider CoJ action necessary to combat a removal of a person. We left the EH because of some of those; Astatine occasionally went on abuse sprees.

Just because there is no specific article that outlines word for word what the process is for challenging a removal does not mean the process doesn't exist. Really, there's not many other uses for the abuse of power clause.

So, really, this is a non-issue. The venue already exists for redress. Just, you aren't going to be successful if you get fired for being inactive or being a constant dick.

Can you guys imagine the amount of time we would waste holding a hearing on every position removal? People are fired from BT, AED, QUA, PCON, CON, DC, etc on an almost daily basis (and yes, a hearing would be needed for all or none). It would be an unnecessary waste of time, energy and resources to add a process like that to every action we take.

When there are specific instances of misconduct, those can be challenged by the current articles in the Covenant. This is all we need.

- Jac

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.

Well I can't speak for any of the Consuls and I wasn't privy to the email but I imagine if I was asked "Can you approve these amendments to clarify the distinction between Executive and Judicial actions" followed by a link to the amendments themselves I wouldn't have thought of much to say either.

Actually, they were given a multi-page write-up that explained all of the changes in detail, including the changes to the Articles of Conduct, which was attached to another detailed email from Sarin.

Anyway -- it's all moot now anyway and there is no issue. The Covenant has ways for people to combat an abuse of power, and that's that.

Aye, the entire Dark Council was given a write up that not only presented the proposed changes... but it set them side-by-side to the old document/wording. A good amount of time was used by Jac, Kir & BF to get the wording right... then more time to put it in a format that would allow each DCer to compare the changes being proposed.

If you folks are still unpleased with these changes... address your Consuls in private to get more insight to their reasoning.

I would also like to say that just because someone doesn't have a trial, doesn't mean they don't have recourse, they are free to speak to the person who removed them and to discuss the issue.

I don't recall seeing that e-mail either, but some DCers know how I feel these days.

F-ck them all. Kick out anyone who is being a jackass. I'm tired of being "understanding" and "fair" - Last I checked the DJB doesn't have to be either of those. We are anyway, and obviously that's not getting us anywhere. People abuse the compassion. Time to revoke it.

If you folks are still unpleased with these changes... address your Consuls in private to get more insight to their reasoning.



You made this topic so people could converse and share thier views on this topic.

Folks, i'm sure if you dont understand anything, or unhappy about it, this is the best place to post your concerns, i'm sure Jac would be all to happy to make sure people understand it completely. This is the best place to get insight into the topic, from the people who wrote it, and i'm sure other people who have the same concerns as you, and other concerns you may not have thought of.


Have a nice day.

EDIT:
Kaine, talking like that are you any better then the Jackasses? Because that post reads like Jackassery to me...

Its a classic thing, some one fighting something, and becoming the thing they hate in the process.

Kaine, talking like that are you any better then the Jackasses? Because that post reads like Jackassery to me...

Its a classic thing, some one fighting something, and becoming the thing they hate in the process.



For too many years I have sat idly by trying to be the better person, taking all the bullshit in stride. I'm sick of people acting like complete assholes and getting away with it. I have seen so many others go around plainly stating what they think, their message plagued with typos and misspellings, their intent marred by bias and hatred - yet when I say anything I get attacked? Fuck that. I may not be as verbose as Xanos or eloquent as Oberst, and if that's too much for your fragile little mind to handle, too bad. I will get my point across and say it in any manner that works.

As the phase goes "if you can't beat them, join them" - right? I've decided to stop being nice. Deal with it.

yadda yadda yadfda ...followed by a link to the amendments themselves I wouldn't have thought of much to say either.



Just as well for the good of the DJB you aren't a Consul then, isn't it.

I think the changes are good. It's there in black and white and people know where they stand. If you as a leader wrongly appointed someone below you and come to the realisation that they are effin useless you shouldn't have to wait for a judicial process to agree with you before you can kick them out.
This club is here for the general membership, first and foremost, and if someone's dicking about in a position in the chain-of-command then they should be hoofed out of that job before they ruin it for the members under their charge with as minimum of fuss as possible.

The change is good for the fact that is clarifies a few things. Unfortunately, these changes were implemented as rules before they were even put in to the Covenant as Amendments, but there's noone to dispute the overall leadership on that. So we'll all move on.

As for Kaine...the only person in this topic acting like a complete asshole is you. You're being very hypocritical here. You are insulting other DB'ers, acting like a complete asshole, and getting away with it.

Guess what? People can say what they think here in this topic. THATS WHY THE TOPIC WAS CREATED. The DC endorses these topics, a fact which can be reinstated by a news post made on the DB site not too long ago. People can have opinions. Even assholes, such as yourself.

One thing you should try to remember, though, is that this is a civil discussion, and nobodies throwing around insults or being overly rude to each other. Noone except you. It's easy to get angry when you disagree with someone...but there's really no reason to be "angry" in this message board topic. Nobody is arguing. You're also on the DC, and are held to a higher standard of integrity than the rest of the DB. When a DC'er says something, it's usually a bit more "Official", or carries more prominence than something a normal member says. As a member of the DC, you are required above all other positions in the Brotherhood to lead by example. I'm not saying you aren't allowed to curse or express your opinions, because that's not how it is, but you do have more responsibility to not do as such. It sucks, it might not be entirely fair, but it comes with the job. If you don't like it, you can opt to resign from your position.

For too many years, btw, you did sit idly. Worthless.

Oops we're being civil.

The Covenant changes are good.

That's all I'm saying.

The change is good for the fact that is clarifies a few things. Unfortunately, these changes were implemented as rules before they were even put in to the Covenant as Amendments, but there's noone to dispute the overall leadership on that. So we'll all move on.




The rules about Executive/Judicial changed nothing. We have always operated in that manner. The only real change in that regard was the removal of Dereliction of Duty from the CoJ's list of stuff; it was an ineffective charge since the GM and co already fired derelict leaders.

Anyway, the fact that you think this wasn't our official way of operating before is more of a matter of you not knowing how to interpret the Covenant (and not knowing how the DB works), and is exactly why it was added. I got the idea for the amendment when you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about how the Covenant worked after Tim's removal.

I suppose it is better in the end to have things clarified in the writing instead of relying on common sense judgment of the document. In the end it will make the Covenant more cumbersome, but will stop some of the more creative arguments around it.

Just a couple things.

1) To clarify, I didn't "say nothing." What I did say is that I agree with the changes, and to be honest, I didn't see any major issues with them that needed to be aired. I think all of the Consuls said something definitive by voting for it, which would say to me, we're saying, "Hey, I think it looks good." We didn't "waste our opportunity to voice concerns," we just didn't need to take that opportunity.

2) Kaine has every right to speak his mind openly and honestly. He has every right to express himself how he wants. He has that right because every member has that right. Some of us use it frequently, others do not. You have the right not to like what he says, and to also raise issues with him, just as much as he with you, and so on, and so forth. And yes, there's a subtle point to everything I just said.

3) Just for the record, the only thing I wrote (and Jac edited a bit) was the introduction. As far as everything else, the credit for that has to go to Jac and Kir, and anyone who assistaed them with ideas and such.

1)  ...We didn't "waste our opportunity to voice concerns," ...



I don't think anyone's accusing you of that. Sarin's just saying that this was pretty much unanimous and that the Consuls can be consulted as to why they think this is good for their clan.

I didn't feel like anyone was accusing me, or any other Consul, of that. Just clarifying something.

Oh -- ok, sweet.

The rules about Executive/Judicial changed nothing. We have always operated in that manner. The only real change in that regard was the removal of Dereliction of Duty from the CoJ's list of stuff; it was an ineffective charge since the GM and co already fired derelict leaders.

Anyway, the fact that you think this wasn't our official way of operating before is more of a matter of you not knowing how to interpret the Covenant (and not knowing how the DB works), and is exactly why it was added. I got the idea for the amendment when you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about how the Covenant worked after Tim's removal.

I suppose it is better in the end to have things clarified in the writing instead of relying on common sense judgment of the document. In the end it will make the Covenant more cumbersome, but will stop some of the more creative arguments around it.



...that's exactly what I said. I said they were implemented as rules before being amended in the Covenant. As for Dereliction of Duty being removed from the CoJ's list, that just reinforces my point that certain removals *obviously* fell under the Judicial branch, and not Executive. As I said before, these changes were implemented as rules before anyone even amended them in the Covenant. When you amended it, you are right, you did change nothing. You have always operated under that contradiction. The official piece on the paper simply eliminates the possibility of the "creative" arguments that you didn't agree with.

It's perfectly understandable for you to want to amend a DB Rule on paper because you disagree with it. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, not many of us have the DC at our beckoning as you do. As you said yourself, "I'll just amend the Covenant to say that then.", when you obviously couldn't do that in your non official GM position. It's crazy how it actually went through.

Conspiracy theories (or facts) aside, I won't continue this discussion any further. I'm right, you're wrong, but you have the DC at your very call and I don't. That about settles it. Oh well.

edit: btw hope everyone has had a great 4th of july

The amendments to Section 8.06 (Specific Articles of Conduct and Reprimand) are excellent - they tie up some loose ends.

Good work, folks. I especially like the introduction.

[EDIT:]

I would like to point one thing out: Section 7.03b (Other Honoraries > Lightsabers) could possibly be revised to state that a member may "request a customized lightsaber to be built and displayed on one's dossier at the appropriate ranks." This might be an unnecessary change, but in my opinion, it clarifies to tell people that they can only request custom lightsabers when they have hit the proper rank. In the past, I believe there were a few cases where some overzealous members requested custom lightsabers before they reached KAP/OE/SBM. That might not be a problem for the Herald's office, but it seems somewhat... superfluous?

...that's exactly what I said. I said they were implemented as rules before being amended in the Covenant. As for Dereliction of Duty being removed from the CoJ's list, that just reinforces my point that certain removals *obviously* fell under the Judicial branch, and not Executive. As I said before, these changes were implemented as rules before anyone even amended them in the Covenant. When you amended it, you are right, you did change nothing. You have always operated under that contradiction. The official piece on the paper simply eliminates the possibility of the "creative" arguments that you didn't agree with.

It's perfectly understandable for you to want to amend a DB Rule on paper because you disagree with it. Who doesn't? Unfortunately, not many of us have the DC at our beckoning as you do. As you said yourself,  "I'll just amend the Covenant to say that then.", when you obviously couldn't do that in your non official GM position. It's crazy how it actually went through.

Conspiracy theories (or facts) aside, I won't continue this discussion any further. I'm right, you're wrong, but you have the DC at your very call and I don't. That about settles it. Oh well.

edit: btw hope everyone has had a great 4th of july



lol -- this is fun.

Blade, it would be a contradiction if you can actually name me a time since the Exodus when the CoJ was recreated that Dereliction of Duty was actually used to remove a leader, or even punish a leader. The only CoJ case that I know of that even charged DoD was DB v. Oberst -- and the prosecution didn't win that fight since Oberst wasn't in a position and the rule was written very narrowly.

The covenant was made to codify existing law and policy of the DB, aka it was built to reflect the fact that the CoJ and the Executive were separate. That is why there is a Justice section apart from all of the administrative sections. That's why there is no codified appointment and removal power since it falls unto the GM's ambit. This has been our way of operating for as long as I've been around. In fact -- it was one of the most essential items on the list when we split from the EH. The judiciary and the executive had become one in the EH, we set apart to split it up. No -- the Covenant didn't specifically state that, but it was implied by its construction, format and reliance on common sense. That's what we do in real life too, Blade -- in fact, most of the current Constitutional Law that runs the United States isn't even in the constitution. It's drawn from interpretations, construction, practice and *gasp* the intent of the drafters! Your argument about DoD being in there as evidence of other intent fails on the fact that up until now, the list of articles of reprimand we just a rough copy of some very rough rules Mav posted on the message boards after the split. We have never actually, until now, done a thorough revision of those rules. The article remained not because the judiciary was set to remove bad leaders but because no one thought to remove it, even though we knew it wasn't in use.

Frankly, I don't know why we are even arguing about this because it's a moot point. You are simply trying to claim that you had the right interpretation before, which you didn't at all. You claimed that Sarin had overstepped his power in firing Tim, back then, which is about as wrong as you get.

As for my influence, I don't deny that I can get important changes through if I think they are necessary. But you know why that is, Blade? it's because I take my time to develop logical, well-thought-out reasons for it and then I propose it to the people who can make the changes. Sarin wouldn't listen to me if I told him just to do something, neither would the council. In fact, there have been numerous times already where Sarin has acted contrary to my advice. I can't go in and change things on my own; the difference between you and me is that 1) I actually get off my ass and write proposals instead of bitching non-stop about things; 2) my ideas are actually good and can be backed up with logical arguments; and 3) I actually have a history of and continue to actually contribute to this club in a positive manner. Your idea about suspending leaders and then having a review of the GM's move? Yeah, that's retarded. Even if it was good, proposing it on the comment system gets no one anywhere; I make it easy for the leaders by giving them everything they need. And even then, you have a history of being a moron, so why would people listen to you? Perhaps if you tried writing proposals on good ideas with developed arguments, or maybe did something good at all in the DB, you'd find some relevance in your membership. You have to work extra hard to be heard right now because of the way you act. Wow -- what a concept...people listen to you when you treat them like they are human beings or do something positive every now and again.

For me, it just so happens, Blade, that when it comes to legal topics and the Dark Covenant, I am the authority people go to outside of Kir. The Covenant was my idea, I wrote or re-wrote 95% of the document, and the rest of it I edited and oversaw implementation of. I'm one of the only people in the DB with a real legal education. I am arguably the most experienced member we have in terms of pretty much any part of the DB. I understand how it functions and how it coordinates with the Covenant. The reason people don't listen to you is because your incoherent arguments are just that, and you treat everyone like shit. The only people I ever treat like shit are you and your fellow mouth breathers. O-) Big difference.

And btw: before you whine again about me not being able to take criticism or whatever -- I think you'll find that I tend to get less defensive about people who a) don't make criticism of everything in the DB their one and only job, like you; B) have good arguments; and c) I don't really like arguing with (arguing with you is fun It makes me feel much better about my intellectual capacity -- in fact, I look forward to these little exchanges).

Happy 5th of July, man.

Reading over the changes I don't see anything to complain about myself.

You know, seriously, I know we all have fun debating with each other, especially when it's involving those with a spine and a good attitude about having a bitchfest, but seriously. You all need to shut up about this. Go look through the thread, and tell me if you can honestly say this is productive anymore, or whether there is really a point other than just "proving the other guy wrong."

I may not be the best guy to say this, but yes, I'm saying it. Shut up. Lock this thread. Go have a conversation in an email thread to continue this if you want to.

You know, seriously, I know we all have fun debating with each other, especially when it's involving those with a spine and a good attitude about having a bitchfest, but seriously.  You all need to shut up about this.  Go look through the thread, and tell me if you can honestly say this is productive anymore, or whether there is really a point other than just "proving the other guy wrong."

I may not be the best guy to say this, but yes, I'm saying it.  Shut up.  Lock this thread.  Go have a conversation in an email thread to continue this if you want to.




I was about to say the same.

When I look at the names of the people who are debating about this topic, I realise here are several member of the DJB that I DID expect to go over this topic. Before I opened this topic, I had a list of names already in my head that would participate. And a lot of them popped up here.

I fear this discussion is only taking place among the "usual" group of people that clash together. Besides 1 or 2. I don't see a lot of discussion about the points. I see many even agreeing. I know that Consuls had the insight into those changes.

I also know that some here have no trust in their current leadership enough to want their judgment of these additions of the Covenant.


I am starting to find that this is getting pointless as its as usual the same people that clash together. I don't even know if this reflects the opinion of the majority of the DB membership anymore if its always the same people.



And for Kaine,... whats the problem with him expressing his opinion frankly? I see daily people that express their opinion frankly in the DJB. If people can't take such words, they are wrong in this place: "You mean! You have to be nice to me! ('mommy, he is mean to me!')"

Sorry, but I'm not going to do that anymore. For four years after the split I took the high road and did things over email and in private. When I stepped down from GM and took a good look at where that got me, I decided I would change my ways.

I will confront posts like Blades whenever and wherever they come up. The double standard in who can confront who and where in the DB is sickening, and I'm not going to abide by it anymore.

Sure, the debate might have digressed to pointless bickering between my ego and Blade's, but when he goes after my character on the Message Boards, I'm responding on the Message Boards. Especially when he's pushing false theories that I somehow still run things.

I didn't read anything you typed.

Did i mention i think these changes are pretty good?

And Jac speaks the truth, if you say something, even if thats what it seems.
1) Things here are never what they seem.
2) He will lay into you, in fact he types up entire paragraphs quicker then Jacb0t used to warn for swearing

As for Kaine, the problem there is - hes Dark Council, as Bf said. He's surposed to set an example in my opinion, for the rest of the club. People like me? Well i dont lead anything, but i see everything, or 90% anyway.

I bet i was on that list of names Sil. (Nice Avatar )

Did i mention i think these changes are pretty good?

And Jac speaks the truth, if you say something, even if thats what it seems.
1) Things here are never what they seem.
2) He will lay into you, in fact he types up entire paragraphs quicker then Jacb0t used to warn for swearing

As for Kaine, the problem there is - hes Dark Council, as Bf said. He's surposed to set an example in my opinion, for the rest of the club. People like me? Well i dont lead anything, but i see everything, or 90% anyway.
I bet i was on that list of names Sil. (Nice Avatar )





Nice to see that you agree Morg

And as for the DC stuff. Every member is suppossed to set an example. Just because you are a "normal" member it doesnt give you the right to act like a d*ck.
You don't have to be a leader to be in the center of attention or having people look up at you. Like Oberst. He isn't in any leading position, still many people listen to him, respect his opinion up to the point of hating him.

No. I can't agree. You can't bring up a card that says: about 30 (dont nail me on this number) people have to set an example. The rest can act like d*cks, because they are no leaders.

The leaders ARENT the club. Normal members like YOU are the club. All those small Apprentices, Jedi Hunters,... THOSE are the foundation of the club. The leaders are a sort of bureaucracy stuff set on top - to manage the whole stuff. Stop acting as if you are not in any responsibility since you are "just" a normal member.



And thanks for the avatar I love it.


Edit: And yes, you were on the list of names

Actually, Jac, I wasn't just talking to you. You'll notice, I didn't name names.

I didn't read anything you typed.



You ought to have done he said despite your different viewpoints he thinks you're still a great guy and it's feedback from valued members like yourself that keeps them on the right track.

Well thats a summary anyway you'll have to read through his posts for his exact phrasing.

Ok well this topic seems to have gotten a bit off the beaten path, so I'm going to lock it up.

First I would like to make something clear - we often talk about the fact that leaders are "held to a higher standard" in the DB, and that is true to a certain extent, because the GM expects the leaders at all levels to act in the best interest of the club at all times (instead of merely their own best interest). However when it comes to Conduct, ALL MEMBERS regardless of position or any other factor, are held to the same standards clearly spelled out in the Covenant.

Also from a DB-legalistic/administrative standpoint, Jac is 100% correct in his statements about the GM's ability to remove leaders from their positions. This has always, as long as the club has existed, been a power of the GM - the creation of the DCov and the CoJ did not remove that power from the GM, as was clearly indicated by the Covenant itself, and more clearly by the precedent followed by the CoJ and past JSTs. These new additions clarify this merely to help everyone more easily understand the issue, they do not in any way change the operation of the club in this area.

If anyone has any other comments, questions, concerns, or ideas about the DCov changes or anything else, feel free to email me about them.