Shireroth

The Arbiter may be dismissed by a two-thirds vote of the Landsraad.

Although he's generally done a very good job before this, the Arbiter has recently completely ignored the Charter in permitting Steward Oroigawa to revoke Kaiserial decrees when the Charter expressly bans this action. The Arbiter has not made a legal case for his decision; he has simply expressed the belief that his own word is more important than the Charter. This goes against the very idea of having an Arbiter, not to mention a Charter.

I suggest the Landsraad begin the process of dismissing the Arbiter, hopefully to be stopped halfway through once he sees reason.

I agree with Scott on this one.

Uh oh, this won't end well...

I haven't even been around for most of the last few days.. I've been with my gf...so I haven't even had the time to review anything... My opinion was based more on a matter of practicality and precedent. Practically, if there is ONLY the Steward with no current Kaiser over him, he has full authority, and for practical reasons need to be able to deal with the decrees of PAST Kaisers. Especially in light of the ever increasing use of the Steward as an administrative agent in Shireroth. Further, under the reign of Nicholas I, the Steward, with no throned Kaiser, had full Kaiserial authority, including making decrees that counteractive decrees of PAST Kaisers. Further, I recall the charter referring to the present Kaiser.

And lastly, I made that statement on the fly and without a chance to check the exact wording in the Charter. So before you go and try lynching me Scott.. maybe you should actually talk to me.

now... let me check the charter, now that I have some time.

The fight between two giants...

But we're not lynching the Babkhans...and we've got to lynch someone or we won't get to use all the pitchforks and torches we've prepared!
But yeah, this is why I said "hopefully he'll see reason and we can stop this process".

Still could have talked to me first before this..

You mean like we all did on that thread in the forum, where you refused to change your mind?

Whatever. This suggestion is of course withdrawn.

Notice that I never even responded after my first post. ie.. I wasn't around! You all discussed it. I wasn't around for the discussing.

giants in the playground indeed.

Notice that I never even rewasn't around! You all discussed it. I wasn't around for the discussing.

I don't know what thread you're reading, but on the Imperial Decree thread I'm looking at, you posted a second time after we finished discussing, saying something like that you were looking at what was practical.

I forgot about that comment. But that's hardly all the things that you inferred.

Well, I thought by you saying it was the practical thing to do, you were implying you had read all of our comments, but still hadn't changed your mind. All I'm saying is that I feel like we all already told you what we felt, and you didn't change your mind then.

I also feel that this argument is currently pointless, as everyone agrees you're a good arbiter and ought to stay on.

I knew I was right, and thus I am glad that I left over the issue.

Erik of course should not be impeached.

It's moot. Mike is Arbiter at Erik's request.