As this is a new game, I think we should discuss the judicial procedures before they are implemented.

Term 6 procedures from last game (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2440512&postcount=2)

Discussion Points
Keep Spectrum voting on CC sentencing poll?
Stricter regulations on filing CCs?
"Merit" defined somewhat?
Allow CCs to be filed anonymously?
Create discussion threads for JRs?
Allow judiciary to declare a turn chat instruction illegal? Probably because the leader is crossing into another leaders area

If you have any other key points don't be afraid to post them.

Part of the DGV-T6 Judicial Rules read:

ii. The sentence selected shall be the most severe sentence that a
majority of the citizens supported.

Example:Option A- 4 Votes
Option B - 12 Votes
Option C - 13 Votees
The sentence carried out is option B.
The only way I can see that Option B could be selected if it is a lesser included sentence of Option A. Is this correct?

Part of the DGV-T6 Judicial Rules read:


The only way I can see that Option B could be selected if it is a lesser included sentence of Option A. Is this correct?
it would be thought of as option a being impeachment, option b being a warning, and option c being no punishment. imho this isnt the way it should be done. it used to be done where it was a simple plurality, but a moderator wouldnt accept that in a CC....

Cement a procedure to speed up judiciary rulings. There were some instances where issues where held up because one of the justices didn't rule in the matter. Perhaps also add in something for vacationing justices.

Cement a procedure to speed up judiciary rulings. There were some instances where issues where held up because one of the justices didn't rule in the matter. Perhaps also add in something for vacationing justices.

For the second part - see the deputies section. Pro-Tem justices are already in there.

For the first - speed isn't always good. I don't like seeing all three justices rule scant hours after a JR is posted. Citizens should always be given a chance to comment on JR's before justices start to make their rulings. You never know when the words of a citizen will change how a justice votes - I've had my mind changed several times before by well-written arguements.

-- Ravensfire

-require that judiciary members facing a CC recuse thenmelves from that case
-prohibit members of the judiciary from filing CC's

it would be thought of as option a being impeachment, option b being a warning, and option c being no punishment. imho this isnt the way it should be done. it used to be done where it was a simple plurality, but a moderator wouldnt accept that in a CC....

In part, it's to try to deal with some of the quirks of voting when you are trying to "punish" someone. Let's look at an example.

A - Impeach - 7 votes
B - Warn - 5 votes
C - Nothing - 8 votes

Total votes: 20

There's no question that option C - do nothing, got the most votes of all the options. But 12 people, more than option C, wanted some type of punishment. Under the type of system that we used in DG4 and 5, we consider a vote for an option to be for that option, and each option below it. When look to see which is the most severe option that more than half the total voters supported.

A - Impeach - 7 votes, 7 voters indicated support
B - Warn - 5 votes, 12 voters indicated support
C - Nothing - 8 votes, 20 voters indicated support

20 total voters, so option B would be selected - it's the first choice from the start that more than half the people support.

The intent is to allow citizens to vote for the most severe punishment they are comfortable with, and not to have to play voting games. For example, let's say you looking into the poll results before voting, and saw:

A - Impeach - 6 votes
B - Warn - 3 votes
C - Nothing - 8 votes

You wanted to vote for Warn, but you wanted to see some type of punishment happen. If you vote Warn, your vote is probably wasted, and Nothing wins - not the scenario you want. If you vote Impeach, though, your vote is more likely to have an effect, but you're uncomfortable with that high of a punishment. This system encourages everyone to vote their choice.

This works on other, similar areas - such as determining how much cash to spend (ie, Do you want to spend 50, 30, 10, 0 dollars). It's a nice polling option when the situation presents itself.

-- Ravensfire

Discussion Points
Keep Spectrum voting on CC sentencing poll?
"Merit" defined somewhat?

I agree with the spectrum voting we've used recently in CC's. ravensfire summed it up perfectly, so I won't bother to repeat the same stuff. The issue of "merit" is a little trickier. Part of me wants to say, "it's up to judges to define merit, that's why we elect them". But, I think a little more needs to be considered. I consider merit to first of all have something to do with the law. We can't having people calling JR's for "was that orange juice really all natural?". Secondly, a case has merit if it somehow makes the Demogame community a better place. CC's where the accused has done something to hurt the Demogame in a significant way will always have "merit" in my mind.

Create discussion threads for JRs?
Allow judiciary to declare a turn chat instruction illegal? Probably because the leader is crossing into another leaders area\


Discussion threads: As needed, based on the JR. Most don't need it, some will.

Declaring instructions illegal: Much though I'd like it, kinda a fuzzy area. When is an instruction illegal - when it's posted, or followed? Much better to send a PM to leader saying that "I think your instruction X is incorrect for Y reason. Perhaps you should word it as Z"

-- Ravensfire

I see the Judiciary hand out warnings right and left without any trial, and a CC with a poll is in itself a warning. So we should omit Warning as a "punishment", as it serves no real purpose. The unwanted attention a CC creates is a warning enough.

Provo - punishments are decided by the People - not by the Judiciary. There was no incident in DG5 where a citizen got a warning without a trial. In DG4, it happened twice that I can remember, and in both cases all sides agreed to a warning about the situation, preventing the need for a trial. Provide something to back up your inflammitory statements.

Your comment about the "unwanted attention a CC creates is a warning enough" really, really bothers me though. What if the person is innocent? Remember that little thing called a presumption of innocence, or a fair trial? So it's fair that an innocent person gets a "warning" for doing nothing wrong?

-- Ravensfire

Ravensfire

I am not inflammatory.

I think Chief Justice and Public Defender (not JA curiously enough) handed out a warning in Term V for a discussion/poll, as well as unconstitutionally seeking to replace my instructions through a provoked ban, and calling for a replacement a few minutes after the ban was posted. I am going to play very differently this game, as Culture is a pretty "light" office to run, yet, I will not accept anything similar reoccuring to me or others this game. This was two clear cases of Warning and other legal sanctions provided without constitutional backing.

We should also have regulations for objective criteria on where the Judiciary can threaten and warn without a legal case in place.

About innocents being branded in trials, that happens all the time. OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, the Dreyfus Scandal and other famous trials has created a legacy of heavily politicized Judiciaries across the globe. Indeed, if someone files a CC, based on stricter new objective criteria we will develop in this thread, it must be for a reason.
There is no smoke without a fire (no pun intended Ravensfire, and I am not crusading anyone who is not here) . And if the case is dismissed, fair enough, the person is clean of suspicion. However, if the person is found guilty, the guilt proven is in itself a blemishing "Warning", but identification of guilt is not a real punishment. Also, the extreme rarity of CCs should call for stricter punishments, especially as these would be very rare, and warnings serves no purpose as no one ever acts on them.

In addition, removing warning makes spectrum polling much easier to handle, as you are a supporter of simple polls. This means we need to remove at least one option, and the first to go should be "Warning". In my opinion, if a serious transgression of laws and rights are conducted, I believe in short sharp shock, not a mild "Warning".
In place of warning, citizens can post their opinions in the thread, and that is warning enough.

Well, we may see situations where an innocent person may get a CC on his or her head, but you are the ones to give the CC merit. So if the person is indeed innocent, the Judiciary must have done a poor job. That is the risk you must face.
I, for one, will never ever file a CC in this game, and will resort to other means to rectify a situation, also because the Court is the absolute last resort.

As for speed in regards to the Judiciary if justice is delayed excessively then it can not be served. However, introducing any requirement for speed is likely to counteract justice, as arbitrarily decided upon principles are unlikely to match what is just. Therefore, I wish for there ot be no restrictions.

As for voting, if no option receives a majority, there should be a run-off. I'd prefer to have preference voting (rank your choices, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.), but seeing as the forum coding doesn't allow that, a run-off would have to do. Forcing a person to vote according to principles such as 'a vote for a punishment includes a vote for a lesser punishment' clearly violates the voters right to choose what they wish to happen. And going by whichever acheives a plurality fails to do so as well. Approval voting (multiple choice) would perhaps work, but still the final choice must have the support of a majority of the voters for me to ever feel it legitimate. To do otherwise is to allow a minority to speak on behalf of the whole, and is utterly contrary to the principle of democracy.

BH,

I've been reviewing some of the older Judicial threads (some complete tool severly messed up our build box, ruining my afternoon. Oh, joy. Sunday at work), and found something relevant to your "Merit" bullet point. This is from the Term 4 court, and covers JR's only.

The CJ was able to reject or accept a JR on their own, but the other two justices could, acting together, override that decision. So, there could be a quick decision of "Merit vs No Merit", but the opportunity to change that decision. I believe this was in the Term 6 procedures

Quite an interesting trip down memory lane ...

-- Ravensfire

About innocents being branded in trials, that happens all the time. OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, the Dreyfus Scandal and other famous trials has created a legacy of heavily politicized Judiciaries across the globe. Indeed, if someone files a CC, based on stricter new objective criteria we will develop in this thread, it must be for a reason.
There is no smoke without a fire (no pun intended Ravensfire, and I am not crusading anyone who is not here) . And if the case is dismissed, fair enough, the person is clean of suspicion. However, if the person is found guilty, the guilt proven is in itself a blemishing "Warning", but identification of guilt is not a real punishment. Also, the extreme rarity of CCs should call for stricter punishments, especially as these would be very rare, and warnings serves no purpose as no one ever acts on them.


Warnings do serve a purpose, to warn. As in, you did something wrong, we found out, don't do it again.

OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, and Dreyfus are all in real life, where the evidence is muddled. Here we are on the internet, with a log of every post we make and of all our actions. Here we have substantial evidence.

Curufinwe, most of the people are bent on a fair and speedy trial, which sets a timer from the act of crime to the sentence.

Well, all citizens are free to post warnings separately in the threads, so if I sensed something was criminal, but I had no faith in that the sentence would be more than a warning, I would much rather call in moderators to clean up if its really bad, or simply post a warning thread where all citizens could share their views. You really do not need three Judiciary members to present a warning.

BH,

I've been reviewing some of the older Judicial threads (some complete tool severly messed up our build box, ruining my afternoon. Oh, joy. Sunday at work), and found something relevant to your "Merit" bullet point. This is from the Term 4 court, and covers JR's only.

The CJ was able to reject or accept a JR on their own, but the other two justices could, acting together, override that decision. So, there could be a quick decision of "Merit vs No Merit", but the opportunity to change that decision. I believe this was in the Term 6 procedures

Quite an interesting trip down memory lane ...

-- Ravensfire
this would be good for JRs, but would it also apply for CCs?

Discussion threads: As needed, based on the JR. Most don't need it, some will.

Declaring instructions illegal: Much though I'd like it, kinda a fuzzy area. When is an instruction illegal - when it's posted, or followed? Much better to send a PM to leader saying that "I think your instruction X is incorrect for Y reason. Perhaps you should word it as Z"

-- Ravensfire
the second part I thought up for 2 reasons:
1. To lessen CCs required
2. We are moving to a completely new government, and it is very possible someone will cross the line.

Basically if 2/3 justices agree that instruction becomes invalid, thus the DP doesnt need to follow it.
This will also make it easier for the DP if he/she gets conflicting instructions from different leaders.
And if this wasnt in place a mad leader could file a CC against another leader that crossed into his/her area, so this would eliminate that type of CC, plus this could be done faster than a CC not holding the game up

Well, all citizens are free to post warnings separately in the threads, so if I sensed something was criminal, but I had no faith in that the sentence would be more than a warning, I would much rather call in moderators to clean up if its really bad, or simply post a warning thread where all citizens could share their views. You really do not need three Judiciary members to present a warning.

We elect judiciary members to be judges and to administer, interpret, and uphold the law. It isn't the average citizen's job to publically chastise someone else for their mistakes. Why would moderators need to be called in? Moderators only handle actions regarding forum rules, the judiciary handles actions regarding game rules. The two sometimes rarely cross paths.

this would be good for JRs, but would it also apply for CCs?
Probably not - I'd want to see the investigation, then the 2/3 majority up front before any CC proceedings started.

-- Ravesnfire

the second part I thought up for 2 reasons:
1. To lessen CCs required
2. We are moving to a completely new government, and it is very possible someone will cross the line.

Basically if 2/3 justices agree that instruction becomes invalid, thus the DP doesnt need to follow it.
This will also make it easier for the DP if he/she gets conflicting instructions from different leaders.
And if this wasnt in place a mad leader could file a CC against another leader that crossed into his/her area, so this would eliminate that type of CC, plus this could be done faster than a CC not holding the game up

That thought was running in my head as well. The game sessions in the second half of the month (as more areas begin to get active) will require some give and take. I think a note from the Judiciary, posted in the official thread for that office that instruction XYZ is crossing the line, please don't do it again, should be enough. If the official thinks they are right, call for a JR and open the discussion.

I'm leery about the Judiciary declaring something illegal without that official having the chance to speak about it. Generally, if the DP follows an instruction, they are in the clear, even if the instruction is illegal. The person who posted that instruction is at risk. If the DP ignores an instruction, they are at risk if that instruction is deemed legal.

Honestly, I don't want to see the Judiciary being an active watchdog - I want the people to do that. I hope to see people saying "Hey - that's not in your area, you know that?" or "That's too specific for a Consul" I hope that I, acting as a member of the Judiciary, don't have to do that. Now, as a citizen, I probably will watch for that.

-- Ravensfire

We elect judiciary members to be judges and to administer, interpret, and uphold the law. It isn't the average citizen's job to publically chastise someone else for their mistakes. Why would moderators need to be called in? Moderators only handle actions regarding forum rules, the judiciary handles actions regarding game rules. The two sometimes rarely cross paths.

So you would never chastise anyone publically for mistakes Blackheart?

i was hoping you would stay true to word provo, and forget what happened last game

I am Blackhole, but I need to get the laws straight. But I am not gonna argue more over this, just pointing out that Warnings are not really needed, in general.

Provo - warnings are a good, and useful thing to have.

It's a way for the people to tell someone that they think they did wrong, and are watching. If they do it again, that warning will get brought up, and take things to a different level.

Warning is an option for a punishment that isn't as severe as an impeachment, but is more than "No Punishment".

Warning needs to remain as an option for punishment.

-- Ravensfire

In that case, we need stricter criteria for what a warning should be like.
And a second trespass would lead to no further warnings, but escalate the punishment level to the next level. Compare this to a yellow and red card in soccer.

In that case, we need stricter criteria for what a warning should be like.
And a second trespass would lead to no further warnings, but escalate the punishment level to the next level. Compare this to a yellow and red card in soccer.

Such as .... Details, give us details.

I might have to start calling posts like this undescribed mandates!

-- Ravensfire

We will get to the details, but now we are discussing broader issues.

I liked the "remedy" approach we used in a previous game (don't remember which one). Basically it's very much like a plea bargain or out of court settlement.

On separate threads for JRs, they can be useful if there are several cases at once, to make it easier to view just one case's commentary at a time.

On "merit", I would like us to avoid any requirement of the requestor to cite a law. That policy resulted in more than a few childish exchanges between the justices and citizens -- not valid, is too, is not, etc. It's really a problem when there is no law for an item.

I must agree with Provolution on one point, the concept of a punishment of "warning" is ludricous. The original idea was probably that once you've been warned once, another offense would result in a real punishment, but there is no way to make sure it happens that way. One sample hierarchy of punishments (Chieftess posted it I think) showed 3 warning levels -- we're supposed to only care about a violation on the 4th and greater offense? :eek:

When there is a guilty verdict near the end of the term where removal from office would be ineffective, we need an option for making the offender ineligible for office the next term.

The "guilty but no punishment" option when it's not at the end of a term is also a bit flaky, though it could be used for places the people decide they would rather change the law to match events than punish the offender for doing what is "right".

Honestly, I don't want to see the Judiciary being an active watchdog - I want the people to do that. I hope to see people saying "Hey - that's not in your area, you know that?" or "That's too specific for a Consul" I hope that I, acting as a member of the Judiciary, don't have to do that. Now, as a citizen, I probably will watch for that.

-- Ravensfire

I view coaching all the officials as a Presidential duty. While I hope not to intervene directly, I do plan to keep an active watch on pretty much everything, and give a gentle nudge here and there.

I think citizens would rather make a hard campaign against the mistake in the forums, which is way way more effective than a warning for laying the ground for stricter punishments at a later stage.

I also agree that The President is the leader and should mitigate all inter-office conflicts. However, a weak president would not do that. Last game had a president that acknowledged he never read the Ministry threads, and would never intervene when two ministers conflicted. We saw what came out of such an apathetic and neglecting stance. I believe that the President should mediate as much as possible and keep entities intact and relations smooth.

Judiciary should not boss around and police in the game, but merely draft laws, make legal processes, and handle legal disputes. However, the JA should handle the polling standards IMHO. Several uncontested offices means we need more people to handle the same jobs.

I don't think an anonymous CC should be allowed.

I always like the idea of allowing the judiciary to do a preliminary investigation and vote themselves as to if the claim has merit.

One of the good ways to use warnings is when someone is guilty of violating a law, but because of whatever circumstance the issue is minor. One thing we used to do is say you can only get a warning once, so any future convictions in that game had to be the next higher punishment or more.

Detail for you Ravensfire, there is only one warning, if the convict is lucky.
Then in the following case, regardless of which term, the penalty should become barred from offices, including mayorships, for 1-3 terms, and in Force Majeur cases, even include
Moderator Intervention. Minor bans could also be used, 3-5 days and so on.

I wholeheartedly agree with Bill and DS here.

Anonymous CCs should not be allowed. This allows the accusing side to stand forwards
and make JA and accuser publicly distinct entities. This will make it evident if the accuser has a poor case or the JA is doing a poor job.

I'm not happy with the idea of anonymous CCs.

I realize that there are people who prefer to remain anonymous when making accusations, because they don't want to get into a flame war. However, I suspect for some people making CCs is just another aspect of flame wars. Anonymous CCs would, IMO, encourage that. Also, an accused should be able to know who their accuser is.

anymore discussion?