View Full Version : Term 1 - Nominations for the Public Defender of the Court


Alphawolf
Dec 24, 2005, 10:24 PM
The Public Defender is part of the Judicial Branch along with the Chief Justice and Judge Advocate, and is tasked with upholding, clarifying and reviewing all changes to the Constitution and its supporting laws through Judicial Reviews, and upholding the rights of all citizens through Investigations. The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.

Please submit nominations for the Public Defender of the Court in this thread and Accept or Decline any nominations you may receive. Self nominations are allowed. Citizens may only run for one elected position.

Nominations will close and elections open 00:00 GMT on the December 29 (7PM EST/6PM CST December 28).

-the Wolf

RoboPig
Dec 25, 2005, 07:22 AM
i nominate I am the Future!

Slim_Chance
Dec 25, 2005, 09:54 PM
I nominate Stilgar08.

I am the Future
Dec 25, 2005, 11:19 PM
I accept my nomination as public defender and believe that I would be a plus good representative of the people. All changes to the constitution will be fair and uphoalding to the principles of the demogame.

Black_Hole
Dec 26, 2005, 09:49 AM
I nominate myself and accept...

Let the debate begin!

Stilgar08
Dec 26, 2005, 01:57 PM
I accept the nomination by Slim_Chance! Thank you! If I get voted I'll do all I can to maintaint a most-possible base-democracy! :)

ravensfire
Dec 26, 2005, 03:10 PM
Hmm, this looks like fun!

I'll nominate myself, and accept. Speeches will begin tonight, but I'll be happy to answer any questions you've got!

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire
Dec 26, 2005, 03:15 PM
To all candidates, what do you feel is the role of the Public Defender?

What do you feel you can bring to this office?

Why should you get my vote?

-- Ravensfire

I am the Future
Dec 26, 2005, 03:29 PM
Not seeing any better place to post this here it shall go.

Vote Future for a better Future

Hello, I am new to the demogame like most of you. So I know how you feel. I am lost and trying to take care of myself and my own. I want to be a fair and honorable advocate of the people. So any thing that is changed in the laws will only be done so if it seems in the best interest of the people.

Some of you might know that I am the leader of 2 organizations. One of these is a political party and the other is a little known demogame church. Though I am the leader of these organizations I will not let them influence my thinking. I will still represnt the people, regardless of their political standings. We are all citizens. And their is nothing that changes that.

I am a highly active member in demogame Roleplaying. As I have just mentioned I am a leader of citizens and theirfore I will be a protector of their rights. I am a man of the people, because in the end I am just a normal person. I just love CivFanatics. When I am on the internet it is allways one of my tabs. And I answer all of my PMs so those of you who have questions about my views or who want to help get me elected should feel free to PM me.

In the end I am just another Citizen, who knows what citizens need. Vote Future for better future.

DaveShack
Dec 26, 2005, 05:13 PM
If any of the fine candidates for this race would also be interested in other offices, we do have a couple of positions which are currently uncontested. ;)

RoboPig
Dec 26, 2005, 09:21 PM
future has by far the best motto!

Black_Hole
Dec 27, 2005, 10:19 AM
Hello, I'm Black_Hole incase you can't read the thing to the left;)

I have served on the Judiciary multiple times during the Civ3 demogames, so many times I can't count anymore...
I served as Chief Justice for a term, public defender for 3 or so terms, and judge advocate for about 5 turns, I think...

As you can see, I have experiance in all areas of the court, so I know how best to protect your rights, which is my primary job. With these more complicated ruleset, it will be possible for activists to launch more CCs, so the public defender could be a very important job. I have also been involved in many CCs(filer and judge advocate), so I know how they work

I started the Civ3 demogame in DG4 and I am still a judge advocate in the current term of DG7(term5). Besides being in the judiciary, I have served as governor multiple times and science minister a few times.

Vote for me and vote for protection of your rights!

To all candidates, what do you feel is the role of the Public Defender?

Well the public defender obviously defends the public from frivalous lawsuits. Many times lawsuits are used to hurt the accused's reputation. My other job is to rule on JRs, which you can view many judiciaries in Dg5-7 for examples of my work.
When ruling on JRs I rule on what the law says, not what it should say or what the author meant.


What do you feel you can bring to this office?

I can bring experiance, as stated above, I have lots of experiance in the judiciary.


Why should you get my vote?

Well, it might be hard to get specifically your vote ravensfire, but I can try;)
In general(doesn't just go for rf) I have experiance, a set style of how I rule on all JRs(see above), and the determination to defend you from lawsuits.

Vote for me and vote for protection of your rights!

BCLG100
Dec 27, 2005, 10:38 AM
to all candidates- what would you do if you had to defend something/someone you didnt believe in?

I am the Future
Dec 27, 2005, 11:19 AM
to all candidates- what would you do if you had to defend something/someone you didnt believe in?
This is a very good question.
I would rethink why I didn't believe in it. And then if it turned out I still didn't believe then I would decide what the best defence is. Afterall under the right circumstances Murder isn't Murder, ask OJ.

I can guarantee that I will make sure that you are innocent untill proven guilty. And i will fight for you, and that right.

Vote Future for a better future.

ravensfire
Dec 27, 2005, 12:05 PM
I'm Ravensfire, and I'm running for the office of Public Defender.

I believe the Public Defender serves three roles, and in the past, I've served all of those roles as a Public Defender.

First and foremost, the Public Defender is there is safeguard the rights of the Public, of all people. That means bringing them up in discussions, reminding people when they go too far, and working to balance the rights of all citizens against the rights of a single citizen.

The Public Defender is also there to defend the rights of one single person. Unique among all members of the Judiciary, the Public Defender guarantees two rights of any accused citizen - the presumption of innocense and the right to representation. The Judiciary is charged with conducting its affairs in a "fair, impartial, public and speedy manner". Foremost among those is fair, respecting the rights of any citizen being investigated or tried. It doesn't matter to me who that person is, or what they've been accused of. During an investigation, my duty is to determine, without bias, if anything violating our laws was done. During a trial, my duty is to rigorously protect the interests of the citizen I am defending, presenting them in the best possible light.

Finally, the Public Defender works with the other Justices to resolve questions of Law through review of questions from citizens and potential amendments. I believe that the rules are there to help all of us enjoy the process of playing the game, and that some leeway should be given in the interest of "fun". That leeway is limited, however, when the word of the law is clear. The Judiciary is there to interpret the laws, not to create whole new law at will. While this isn't always possible, I strive to keep my interpretations as limited as possible, and expand only when obvious secondary questions are present.

I bring a great deal of experience to this position. I do not, however, bring an underserved reliance on "tradition" or "past games". Our rules are that - our rules. I bring an understand of how past games have been done, and feel that experience is vital.

We have a great many new citizens that bring new ideas on how to accomplish things. The introduction of political parties and a radical new ruleset are just two examples of this. I do not, nor will I, belong to any political party. I have been active in the development of a ruleset, and have continued to offer comments and suggestions as we finalize this process.

Thanks,

-- Ravensfire, Candidate for Public Defender

ravensfire
Dec 27, 2005, 01:10 PM
Ravensfire's responses:

What do you feel is the role of the Public Defender?
As I indicated, the Public Defender should protect the Public in discussions, defend the rights of a Citizen under investigation or in a trial and resolve questions of law.

What do you feel you can bring to this office?
I bring a great deal of experience in both this position and in the Judiciary as a whole. I've been involved in the Judiciary since the third demogame. I've served in nearly every role we've created, including several terms as the Public Defender. Of all the candidates, I am the only one that's actively participated in a trial as the public defender.

I bring well-reasoned arguements for my decisions. As Black_Hole pointed out, I have a track record of decisions that's available in the current Civ3 demogame and in the archvies.

I bring a willingness to work for the resolution of problems. In the fourth demogame, I created an alternate system to resolve disputes that eliminated the need for public trials IF both parties agreed to the resolution.

I bring aggressive defense of the rights of all citizens. Fortunately, I have only had to defend one citizen in a public trial. The result

Why should you get my vote?
I believe I'm the best qualified candidate!

what would you do if you had to defend something/someone you didnt believe in?
It doesn't matter. I will defend any citizen, regardless of their action, unless they tell me otherwise. During the investigation, my role to determine if the evidence supports a reasonable chance a violation of law occurred. During the trial, my role to assertively defend my client.

Related to that matter, I will request that the Judicial Procedures include a provision for a settlement between the aggravated parties that can resolve disputes before they blow up. A trial should be a matter of last resort, where no reasonable solution can be found or the alledged mis-deed is quite severe. In all other matters, the Judiciary should seek for a resolution to the matter that all parties can accept.

-- Ravensfire, Canidate for Public Defender

Black_Hole
Dec 27, 2005, 03:49 PM
to all candidates- what would you do if you had to defend something/someone you didnt believe in?
Of course I will defend them, any Public Defender would... In fact everytime this question has been asked in a debate(which is almost every election) it is the same answer

BCLG100
Dec 27, 2005, 04:09 PM
well kinda has to be asked, plus there isnt an overwelming number of questions to ask for this posistion.

DaveShack
Dec 28, 2005, 10:35 AM
Ravensfire has already posted his view on this subject and I'd like to hear what the other candidates have to say.

When ruling on Judicial Reviews are you most likely to be lenient and rule in a way which promotes a more fun experience, or strict and rule according to the words of the law with less emphasis on context? Put another way, do you leave room for interpreting the author's intent which would allow a mistake in the text of the law to be interpreted the way it is meant to be, or do you limit your approach to what it actually does say?

I am the Future
Dec 28, 2005, 11:33 AM
Ravensfire has already posted his view on this subject and I'd like to hear what the other candidates have to say.

When ruling on Judicial Reviews are you most likely to be lenient and rule in a way which promotes a more fun experience, or strict and rule according to the words of the law with less emphasis on context? Put another way, do you leave room for interpreting the author's intent which would allow a mistake in the text of the law to be interpreted the way it is meant to be, or do you limit your approach to what it actually does say?
I believe that things should be able to be stretched. Because Without stretch their would be to long and complicated law system. Though I trust that AlphaWolf would be more then capable in writing this, we just don't need any more then we allready have. The game will be the most fun and exciting if the people didn't need to know "silly" laws while playing.

Another reason to support a stretchable law is that we do not want to be needing to amend the constitution every time something comes up that isn't writen down. Then we need to make up the amendment and have it go through all of its beurocratic crap. It would be much easier to just say that Section 2 clause B line 4 States _____, which could then be taken as ______.

For these reasons I would support a stretchable constituion.

Vote FUTURE for a better future.

Black_Hole
Dec 28, 2005, 03:34 PM
Ravensfire has already posted his view on this subject and I'd like to hear what the other candidates have to say.

When ruling on Judicial Reviews are you most likely to be lenient and rule in a way which promotes a more fun experience, or strict and rule according to the words of the law with less emphasis on context? Put another way, do you leave room for interpreting the author's intent which would allow a mistake in the text of the law to be interpreted the way it is meant to be, or do you limit your approach to what it actually does say?
actually I have answered this already, and probably not in the way you want ;)
I would rule stricter on the law, I am not going to stretch it... If a law isn't fun, its not the judiciaries obligation to fix it, it is the assembly/people's. Start an amendment if the law isn't fun, don't have the judiciary stretch the constitution

Black_Hole
Dec 28, 2005, 03:36 PM
I believe that things should be able to be stretched. Because Without stretch their would be to long and complicated law system. Though I trust that AlphaWolf would be more then capable in writing this, we just don't need any more then we allready have. The game will be the most fun and exciting if the people didn't need to know "silly" laws while playing.

Another reason to support a stretchable law is that we do not want to be needing to amend the constitution every time something comes up that isn't writen down. Then we need to make up the amendment and have it go through all of its beurocratic crap. It would be much easier to just say that Section 2 clause B line 4 States _____, which could then be taken as ______.

For these reasons I would support a stretchable constituion.

Vote FUTURE for a better future.
it shouldnt be up to the judiciary to stretch it, thats the people's job as I explained in my last post... by your idea, 3 people can basically change the constitution...

I am the Future
Dec 28, 2005, 07:51 PM
it shouldnt be up to the judiciary to stretch it, thats the people's job as I explained in my last post... by your idea, 3 people can basically change the constitution...
3 people can not change the constituion, three people can decide wether or not something is mentioned. This means that all things not specifically said under the constituion come under the jurisdiction of the judiciary. And i believe that to make the game more fun for everyone this is neccessary to keep court processes moveing

Alphawolf
Dec 28, 2005, 08:25 PM
Nominations for Public Defender of the Court are now closed. Please continue any discussion in the Election Poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150561).

-the Wolf