The strength of the charter would affect whether the results of the vote have any weights and whether their enforcement is subject to challenge, but not, unless formulated to allow it, the casting of the votes itself. You are entirely correct though that a poorly written charter could give grounds for a challenge of the way one should vote.
Whether the vote is binding is a separate issue of whether a magus can dictate another's vote.
Would your magi then consider signing a charter which protects votes on more important matters, while allowing it to affect votes in less important matters, and which also defines which matters are more or less important?
Kind regards,
Berengar
As we are both not 'native speakers': would you mind to rephrase this? As written, I just can't make sense of it.
Why would a weak charter's procedures - like 'casting the votes' - not be as open to Certamen as these procedure's results?
Kind regards,
Berengar
OK, sure. 
if you want to vote "YES" and I want you to vote "NO", I can't force the issue with Certamen because I have no authority over you in the first place. If we had a pre-existing agreement, I could challenge you to hold you to its terms, but in the absence of such, I don't have anything to bring Certamen leverage on. If instead of Certamen, I took this "dispute" to Tribunal, they would throw me out (at least, I believe they would), unless I gave them some kind of reason as to why I may control your vote. And if you refuse Certamen on that issue, what have you actually conceded?
A poorly written charter which leaves voting matters unclear may indeed introduce a breach and give me an opportunity to challenge you and force your vote. A well written one may give me explicit control of your vote or give me absolute control of the Covenant. Sure. That's allowed.
With a weak charter, the issue of whether results of the vote are binding is itself subject to dispute. If the vote ended up being "YES", you might thus have to challenge me to abide by it, a problem that wouldn't exist with a ratified charter.
Where is it written that you would need to have such authority in the first place, and that not the won Certamen would suffice?
ArM5 published material excludes, AFAIK, only things determined by the Code of Hermes or a Tribunal from those that can be decided by Certamen.
Do you imply that votes are an exception to that? If so, on which grounds?
Kind regards,
Berengar
I have read my post again, and I may have been a bit rude so please accept my apologies for any offense
None taken at all, but thank you for considering my feelings.
I think that ArM5 is vague about these sort of things on purpose to allow Storyguides and Troupes to craft the saga to their liking. So where you seem to see "Certamen can be used to decide any dispute except a few specifically listed" to mean it can decide almost anything, I choose to concentrate on the word "dispute" and think that MOST things aren't disputes.
I think this is one of those things that you and your Storyguide have to just decide which way the world works in your saga, and let it be known it is a certain way. Heck, Certamen is part of the Periphial Code, so I'm sure it varies a great degree from Tribunal to Tribunal.
If I may digress back to my opinion, I think Certamen is a sort of dirty secret of the Order (in my Saga, at least). Because of their terriably narrow Focus on Certamen, Tremere are probally at a disadvangage in an actual Wizard War, and that's the ultimate alternative to abiding by unfair use of Certamen. They themselves want Certamen to be used, but not abused because the Order could come up with something they don't have such an advantage at (such as a coin toss or summoning a wise old spirit to decide).
I should be clear, I enjoy hearing about your saga, and debating these points with you. It helps refine my own opinions for my Saga.
Cuchulainshound - I am trying to be IC, I have absolutely no intention of challenging anyone to certamen in our out of character, but I thought my character would consider it part of his heritage that he should try to support is all.
Other issues raised that I want to respond to, sorry if this is unstructured:
Although block voting isn't supported by certamen, I thought part of the heritage of Tremere was that you did not get your own sigil back until you could beat your parens (or his parens) at certamen. Therefore the Tremere have established a precedent that the sigil and thus a vote is not an inalienable right as a magi, but something that can be won by certamen.
Although a quaesitor can sign a charter I see it more like a quaesitor must sign off on tribunal votes. He is merely certifying that it does not contravene hermetic law. It is the legal power of the tribunal that grants tribunal decisions there authority. Tribunals decisions are protected against certamen according to the peripheral code, charters are not mentioned. A quaesitor signing a charter does not grant it any specific power in itself, just a protection against prosecution for abiding by it on its own. Take wizards war, a quaesitor can sign off on that to say it was legally done but that does not empower the right to wizards war, wizards war is a right granted in the code. - Simply put a quaesitor has no right to grant authority to any document. Authority must come from the grand tribunal and lesser tribunals which write the code and peripheral code, which grant authority downwards.
The last issue I want to touch on is what Fruny said about certamen is only used to resolve valid disputes where both sides have a legitmate claim. That sounds to me like issues of arguing over resources like vis sources or the division of labs, equipment and wealth for use within a covenant. While those are all legitimate disputes, they are all solved more by voting within the tribunal or the covenant council. All legitimate disputes where both sides have a claim can be solved by discussion and voting at some level. Certamen therefore would not be allowed to solve those, from your argument, because a vote has taken place, and a vote cannot be overriden by certamen. That would leave certamen absolutely without a function. - I must disagree with those arguments.
The point of certamen is to resolve arguments that have no other way to be resolved. That is the definition, and it is a lot wider than just issues where both sides have a legitimate claim to a argued object or position. Looking at games I have played in, and sagas written up on the redcap net, there are far wider uses - Like a way to stop another magus you believe is about to break the code who will not listen to you otherwise, you challenge him and make the condition that he will not cast such a spell. If he declines the challenge or loses he must obey - This is clearly nothing you have a right to, no part of the code says you have the right to decide what spells another magus casts, but if it is the only way short of killing another mage to prevent him from performing an action that would get him marched, then it is a legitimate argument for using it.
I agree fully that SGs and troupes can rule these things as they please, in order to have a fun campaign, and can either houserule the Order or - more subtly - have their local Tribunal make a few restrictive decisions about Certamen.
But
So he wants it as 'official' as possible.
And the ArM5 example for the issue of a Certamen, on p.90f, is one where it is explicitly stated, that Moratamis "doesn't have enough for an official Quaesitorial investigation, so she challenges him [scilicet: Carolus] to a certamen, demanding him that he tell her what he has done if he loses. Carolus agrees, with the condition that Moratamis will not ask him about his activities again unless she is on official Quaesitorial business. (He has to add the condition, although he would prefer not to, or else the Tribunal is unlikely to uphold a result in his favor.)"
So here we have an example of a Certamen fought about an issue which a Tribunal would not decide, but where a Tribunal might later be called upon to ratify its terms. And where - contrary to Fruny's opinion, whose rationale is still very unclear to me (Fruny wrote: "I can't force the issue with Certamen because I have no authority over you in the first place.") - exactly the lack of other authority lets Moratamis resort to Certamen.
And such issues are - to my experience - the typical issues for Certamen.
Who gets the top lab in the recently built tower, who gets that pawn of Corpus Vis found on an expedition, which holidays shall the covenant hold?
All these issues can become 'disputes' by any common meaning of that word, and valid arguments can exchanged for hours about how to resolve them.
All these issues would also most likely be thrown out at Tribunal, and could either be determined by vote of covenant members, by other decision making procedures laid down in a covenant charter (such as a coin toss or summoning a wise old spirit to decide 
), or by Certamen. Hence the importance of the relation of Certamen and the covenant charter.
Kind regards,
Berengar
I agree with this. If a covenant charter shall protect its procedures from interference by certamen, it needs to state - some way or other - that its signataries will abide by it as if it had been given by the local Tribunal. The Quaesitorial ratification is only required to make that statement valid.
Kind regards,
Berengar
Even if you do make a charter that specifically states that its terms are as binding as a tribunal decision, and that part of the charter is that any member of the covenant can vote as he chooses, that will protect you against fellow members of your covenant. However non members of your covenant who want to interfere in the internal politics of your covenant are not bound by that and can challenge you over your vote without problem. Would it protect you to say to them that such a challenge goes against the charter and that you have sworn to consider the charter as binding as a tribunal decision? No!
After all you could put in your charter a provision banning you from ever engaging in certamen, then by swearing to uphold the charter as a tribunal decision you could say that therefore you cannot be forced into certamen on any point, whoever challenges you. Such a charter would not possibly be upheld in tribunal when the challenger takes you for judgement. Charters protecting you from awkward and undesirable things which are guarenteed under the code and provisional code cannot be upheld.
The real basis of my argument is that the code and peripheral code are established by the grand tribunal, a lesser body cannot limit the activities granted by a greater body. If the grand tribunal was to limit it then that would work, if a local tribunal was to make local procedures then that would have validity over the tribunal region only. Council decisions are on a completely different scale of legality.
An interesting argument.
I see certamen as serving two possible roles. It can a) resolve conflicts as a simpler, faster replacement for a Tribunal or b) resolve conflicts that no one, not even a Tribunal, can justly resolve. It can decide who's vis this is (a), or what cloths to wear (b). So I agree with both Berengar and Fruny.
But I see certamen as a binding agreement between magi. In the ArM5 example, I think Carolus could have refused certamen without a tribunal later censoring him or anything. This is why Moratamis agreed to not investigate the matter further if he lost - he needs an incentive to convince Carolus to engage him in certamen. Except loss of face, there are no bad ramifications to refusing a certamen. The loss of face can be very significant by itself, but this depends on the circumstances.
In the case of forming a covenant, I think taking a covenant oath is another way to form a binding agreement between magi. Generally speaking, magi will consider the oath to the covenant as very binding (second only to the Hermertic Oath itself, and perhaps to the duty towards one amici and familiar). They would therefore consider it prudent to refrain from entering another agreement by certamen that runs against the covenant's oath. Using certamen as a means to subvert the covenant's oath would not be generally acceptable.
The FV (i.e. standard) charter specifically would be interpreted as encouraging magi not to participate in such a certamen by emphasising they need to vote wisely, and that FV magi would hence be seen as prudent for not agreeing to engage in certamen over votes - declining certamen under such circumstances would not only incur no loss of face, it would be seen as a wise and virtuous decision. Some, however, may decide it is wiser to trust to certamen to decide their votes - this is acceptable by the charter, just like Tremere magi consider it wiser to place their sigils in their masters' hands.
I don't think any charter can outright forbid the use of certamen to decide votes, as certamen is well anchored in grand tribunals (the greatest quorum there is), part of the Code and hence above the covenant's oath. But by negating the only drawback to refusing certamen, the social implications, a covenant's charter and oath negate its ability to constrain and artifically influence the counsil's proceedigs.
So we agree on the initial question of Cuchulainshound. Very good.
That's quite another subject, which so far has not been treated in this discussion. But as we appear to agree on the initial one, we can as well tackle this new issue.
You are right about this.
IME, however, attempts to control by certamen voting from outside the body making the agenda and entitled to vote are quite hopeless.
Certamen is just too coarse a tool to script a loser's behaviour in great detail in general, and in particular to prevent him from communicating certain information. No matter how carefully the winner worded his requirement, the loser in such a case can always find a way to conform to the letter of it, while thwarting its purpose and making the winner look like a fool.
(As a simple example: if you had to concede to vote in way x on item A, talk to your sodales and have them remove this item from the agenda, replacing it with item A' where you are not bound how to vote.)
Also note, that an outsider is in any case forbidden to monitor you by magic and cannot attend the Tribunal meeting, hence cannot show any knowledge how you voted without confessing a high crime or revealing to have an ally in your covenant.
In short: While a covenant stands united, it is far easier to beat all its magi in Certamen and have them concede your point individually, than trying to control a vote of that covenant by certamen. And if a covenant has members putting your agenda over their covenant's, you have far more efficient ways to influence that covenant than trying to directly control votes by certamen.
Indeed. A Quaesitor would not ratify such a provision in the charter.
Kind regards,
Berengar
Note that we are discussing here certamen as written, and that ArM5 p.89 contradicts you: "One need not accept a challenge to certamen, but that is the same as conceding defeat." As always, you can of course run it differently IYC.
Kind regards,
Berengar
Note however True Lineage, pg 55:
"If a magus believed he had been challenged to certamen over a Code protected issue, he might refuse it. This would technically forfeit the dispute, but if the challenge was illegal it would be unenforceable. If the challenger believed the challenge was legal, he could publish a case (that is let the parties know a case will be brought at Tribunal) for failing ot respect a certamen result. If the Tribunal ruled the challenge legal, the Presiding Quaesitor would enforce the result, adding damages, fines, and punishments as appropriate."
Note this puts the burden of enforcement on the challenger, and the Tribunal ruling could be years away.
Now the issue of Moratamis' and Carolus' certamen is clearly not about a 'Code protected issue', and also not about an issue you would expect an existing Tribunal ruling. So Carolus in the end would first have to explain his nighttime activities - actually as a burglar and highwayman - to the entire Tribunal, and then be in for 'damages, fines, and punishments as appropriate'. So he did the wise thing and fought the certamen.
Kind regards,
Berengar
I was making comments as I read, some of the following were covered on page 2 or 3
Certamen is intended to resolve disputes, situations where both magi have a valid claim...that may be it's intent but it's not stated that it can't be used for anything as minor as "I think you should tell me your secret family recipie for roast duck" to "I claim the east facing chair at dinner." It can also be used for "oh look at this nice magical ring I "found" next to the bathing hut." "You say it's yours but I disagree"
Certamen can always be refused...true...if you are willing to admit defeat and loose what ever was wagered anyway
Once your vote is cast, assuming there is no tie calling for a revote, I dont see how certamen would be useful. You need to challenge before hand with the outcome being how the looser will vote.
Wording as simple as "you will vote as I do upon the issue of stewed turnips at next weeks meeting" would work
I would allow certamen to influence votes, I would go so far as to say you can NOT disallow certamen for any reason with out breaking more important hermetic rules.
I also dont see it being used often, if at all, to influence votes. While there is no real restriction on what you can certamen over, there is also no real restriction on what you can declare wizards war on to remove a "certamen bully"
Silly me.
I'll certainly ignore that rule IMS. Works far better without it, IMO.
I don't understand why Moratamis agreed to not pursue the matter again if he lost the Certamen. Carolus was bound to accept his certamen offer (or face a Tribunal investigation) anyways.
By the RAW, I think right now that
a) Certamen cannot be forbidden by charter.
b) Certamen can be waged on how to vote, in council or Tribunal.
c) Certamen is hence broken.
YMMV,
Yair
Once Mortimus made the challenge, Carolus HAD to make an equivalent counter, for if he won. The text indicates that Carolus would rather not have stipulated this, but that he had to or else the Tribunal might overturn the result. At thatb point, Mortimus had no choice but to accept the condition.