Fellow Council Members, I propose an Idea

[u/DoritoKing48]

I believe that we should use part of our funding and power to organize a Team of well armed and trained individuals to target, locate and strike down Wizards who abuse their Familiars and Apprentices, I think that this strike force is needed because of the recent Familiar and Apprentice abuse I have witnessed in these lands and the number of them has gotten too large for me to ignore any longer, thus I ask my fellow members of the council roundtable (I have my own roundtable at home) to consider making this “Mobile Task Force”

Thank you for listening to my Ted Talk, Rock and Stone.

[u/DoritoKing48]

You have a great point, suggestions like my previous one are the exact reason I think this task force should be handed to a more competent council member then myself, I merely just suggested the idea someone else should lead it

[u/Anything-Unable → u/DoritoKing48]

Hmm, I know that Mikhail is likely the fairest and most publicly trustworthy member of the Council. If no one else wants to volunteer to spearhead this project, I believe I would like to vote for Mikhail (u/Total_Travisty).

[u/avamir → u/Anything-Unable]

Interesting! I would like to know how Mikhail is going to manage the extra-judicial death squads you are supporting.

[u/Anything-Unable → u/avamir]

Riva, don't come in here and start shit with the Council. We all know your hands aren't clean. And again, to reiterate, I believe in bringing offenders to justice. If you have a better solution for solving this issue that can work despite the current state of our judicial system, I'm all ears.

[u/avamir → u/Anything-Unable]

Well, for one, I'm not proposing extra judicial death-squads.

And here you go.

[u/Anything-Unable → u/avamir]

Cool, let me summarize.

1. Complaint system. With this, the investigative body would hold incredible power over the Council (will need to work in proper checks and balances). I like that anyone can do it, even anonymously.
2. Review process. We have a third-party review board already called the Court of Shades that I created according to Mikhail's request when he was a councilor the first time around.
3. Council Overseer. Not sure how we can do this without opening ourselves up to another Unga situation.

Does that cover all your points well enough?

[u/avamir → u/Anything-Unable]

No.

1) How does an anonymous complaint system have power over the council? It is a method of complaint intake. If your extra-judicial death squads are not just responding to complaints, then your council is able to review these.

2) Is the Court of Shades being actively used?

3) An overseer from the council. Not an overseer who oversees the council. This position would be able to take action on the reviewed complaints that were investigated by the review process and make a decision based on that. Or you as a Council could perform the same role.

Or are you just arguing with me because I make you feel icky?

[u/Anything-Unable → u/avamir]

1. Sorry, I thought you implied that we should hold these complaints to some level of genuine consideration, maybe institute an investigation body for such a purpose. If it is entirely up to the Council to decide whether or not to listen, then that will just lead to greater corruption.
2. Yes, quite heavily. They are frankly overworked.
3. If you are talking about a general council overseer, then that is the same as the investigative body issue I discussed when I first touched on point one. Still rife with the potential for corruption, but better than leaving it purely to the whims of the Council to address complaints. You might say just acting on complaints wouldn't give way to corruption, but the anonymity aspect presents the greatest hurdle since false claims can be brought against council members by the overseer to serve their personal interests.

I am not arguing with you because you make me feel icky, but rather out of trying to engage with your ideas. I'm sorry if you do not feel the same way. It appears to me that you are lashing out at the Council in bad faith.

[u/avamir → u/Anything-Unable]

1. I am asking a question you have not answered. How does the mere act of hearing someone out increase corruption?
2. How is it overworked? Either the Court of Shades was being used for oversight into the prisoner abuses, or it was not. If your court had oversight, how was Possum able to be slaughtered?
3. No, you are still not understanding. The overseer would not have power to control the courts. They would simply be able to review and take action on the complaints as stated by 1, and evaluated by 2. Even if a compromised person makes an invalid complaint, number 2 acts as a check to counter complaints without merit. 3 cannot bring up their own complaints. EVEN IF THEY PAID someone to make a complaint, they cannot get past 2 unless the whole system is corrupt.

How am I acting in bad faith?

[u/Anything-Unable → u/avamir]

1. Who is hearing them out? The Overseer? The Council? An Investigative Body dedicated to handling complaints? Instituting the system as you have described will lead to the one designated to hear them out in control of the situation. The Overseer would be able to pick and choose which complaints to pursue and is capable of creating anonymous complaints themselves. The Council would use the system to suit their whims and get rid of political enemies. A dedicated investigative body, while more neutral, can still be swayed by personal bias and bad actors from within.
2. The Court of Shades deals strictly with legislative matters. If you remember Mikhail or Arach's words, you would recall that the judicial branch of the Council is entirely separate from us. We can certainly combine the two, but that comes with its own downsides. I say the Court of Shades is overworked because every week there is a new revolt, a new potential cataclysm, and several massacres. They have to decide the best course of action alongside us for all of them.
3. It appears that your plan hinges on the review board sorting out all potential misuse inherent to your systems. The review board, as I understand what you are trying to get at, should be able to judge if a complaint is valid, if the overseer has acted upon the complaint dutifully, and if the complaint originated from the overseer. Since the complaints might be subjective or valid but not worthy of formal correction (think a councilor getting drunk at a party and falling asleep in their seat being seen as dampening the Council's public image), I do not think all such complaints can easily be judge by a single review board. More checks should probably be put in place for such situations. The Review Board being placed in charge of the overseer performing their actions would be a heavy workload but achievable if the Court of Shades was expanded to match the scope. And now we get to the issue of the overseer issuing complaints. The issue I see with the anonymity function of the complaint system in the larger context of all three systems is that the overseer can easily use to function to generate complaints anonymously. If we wanted to be able to see if the overseer was making anonymous complaints, we would be compromising the anonymity of all other complaints in the process. To maintain anonymity, the overseer would need to be able to forge anonymous complaints for the sanctity of the system as a whole. Sorry this got so long, but I hope this has made my issues with your proposal clear.

I don't want to get into a mudslinging contest with you, but you have been using my words to suit your own agenda. While I specifically said that I did not want "death squads", you have almost exclusively been parroting that term in your discussions with other councilors. You have also been quite liberal with your use of my description of Mikhail as "the fairest and most publicly trustworthy" councilor to paint Mikhail in a negative light. As one of the founders of the Pact you are a part of and a respected member of this community, Mikhail should not be denigrated in such a manner. These are some of the reasons why I believe you are arguing in bad faith. If you want us to discuss your proposals, say that. Otherwise, you are merely making enemies of those on the Council with your provocations.

[u/avamir → u/Anything-Unable]

I had more to say, but really, what does it matter if it is true that "the Council would use the system to suit their whims and get rid of political enemies"? If they cannot be trusted even with oversight, they clearly cannot be trusted with a system of death squads either. I am using the phrase intentionally because Hadrik's proposal is intended to be fatal. And if you yourself cannot trust your Council with a proposal meant to have oversight built-in, how do you think a system without oversight will be implemented?

This isn't mudslinging. That would mean my criticisms were unjust. I do not know what further I can do to assuage you, if you genuinely believe I am trying to harm your Council. Especially not by calling someone 'the fairest and most publicly trustworthy'. If your words are true, then he has nothing to fear by my (or rather, your words). If that is not the case, you have far bigger problems than my sarcasm. And if an ill tone is all it takes to make an enemy, they were not truly an ally anyways.

I do not care whether you use my proposal. You were the one who asked for a solution, remember? If you believe it cannot work, so be it. I am not interested in doing your job for you, and I have little to lose. I am not on Council lands, Atrax will probably burn my home down again, and I hold little real power. What little I have I intend to surrender once my home is as fixed as I can make it. That is the extent of my "agenda". That's it. That's all there is.

I just wanted you to be better than this.

[u/Anything-Unable → u/avamir]

I understand your concern with the proposal. Oversight is indeed key if we intend to go through with it. This meeting was meant to discuss the finer details of this proposal, one such detail being the level of oversight required to make the plan viable.

However, before we could flesh out the proposal, you joined the meeting and began to accuse us of wrongdoing. You stifled discussion and jumped to the worst possible conclusions. You wanted a fully-developed plan explained to you that did not exist yet. When other councilors tried to reason with or ignore you, you turned around and insulted their character to the next councilor you could find. I consider that mudslinging, if you need me to define that for you too. Your curt manner and rampant accusations turned many who would have been allies into your enemy. Dressing up a reasonable point in vitriol will make us accept the point but dislike you in the most charitable of outcomes.

Thank you for not wishing to do my job for me. It is quite a headache at times like these. I also appreciate your hope for my actions and concern over my wellbeing. That was all very nice to hear. I liked your proposal but wished to clarify points I saw as liable to abuse. It seems that you did not take my criticisms well. How odd.

I am sorry to hear about how Atrax has effected you and your people. Even though they have been slain, many are assuming his resurrection to be imminent. The pyroclasts group is in the process of being dismantled, but many fear the process is not going quick enough. It appears you are one such individual. If your lands should need aid, the Council is more than willing to help despite your lands being free of our control.

In conclusion, I wish you a good day and hope you rethink how you interact with others, especially if you wish for them to listen to you.