This is an open enrollment citizens group for the purpose of reducing and limiting the effect of litigation on game play within the DemoGame.

The past few terms there have been numerous incidents of Justices, and even ordinary citizens, taking a strong stand against the rule of common sense, and for the rule of Judicial ascendence, priviledge, and independence. This small but freakishly powerful subset of the general population are placing legal matters ahead of social, economic, and military matters. They hold our nation hostage to their interpretation of the letter of the law. Instead of a quick, decisive, and common sense approach to the game, which would foster a broader base of interest and growing excitement at our progress, they would rather have a slow and dodgy process of endless legislation and litigation, choosing the longest time period possible and usually least intuitive interpretation of every question.

This citizen group is not about individuals, or personalities, or vendetta. It is a gathering place for people with shared interests. Individual attacks will not be condoned. I'm more inclined to help the moderators keep order than I am toward character asassinations, flaming, blackballing, or other anti-social tactics. Those who join me will be joining in a fight, but it will be a clean fight of principles, not of personalities.

Members of this group must freely act on their own in all matters, without coercion by the other members of the group and its leadership, but our common goals are:

To act under common sense interpretations of the rules.
To keep the citizens foremost in all things, by asking their advice and consent as needed.
To breathe life into the Democracy Game by actively pushing the in-game agenda
To operate under the principle that "it's easier to do it and beg forgiveness if someone complains, than it is to ask permission" by avoiding submission of Judicial Review material.
To be forgiving to others in judicial matters such as CC and Impeachment proceedings, in all but the worst cases of official abuse.
To support candidates who share our views, and withold our support from those who do not. Friends, I ask for your support. Join with me to fight the cancerous justice system and return this game to the enjoyable pastime it should be. I eagerly await your response.

Sure ill join, i dont pay so much attention to the judiciary things anyways they sorta bore me. Its weird though because to get a law passed limiting the judiciary's power wouldnt it have to go through the judiciary?

I can't get the words out of my mouth fast enough. You have my support here. And BCLG as long as the ammendment is backed by a good majority of the citizens, the justice can't do much, unless he doesn't care about getting re-elected next term. We usually don't do this here in the demogame, but if need be, I'm willing to make the judiciary sucumb to political pressure. It's term 5, were at war, we might build a great wonder, positions aren't being filled, people are mysteriously absent, and there's the good ol' judiciary slowing down the progressive. It's time we take a stand.

I agree with your sentiments DaveShack. I am not particularly in favour of trying to pass laws restricting the Judiciary (though I note that you did not suggest this in your post) as that is likely to get bogged down in the Judiciary etc etc. Also, it is quite possible that in a few months a troublemaker could join the demogame and cause trouble in way in which it would be useful to have the Judiciary.

Some things I think we should try to aspire to:

make sure at least one person stands for every post (if we really have difficulty filling posts, then let's reduce the number of posts)
those who are elected (even if unopposed) make every effort to see their term through and try to post an absent notice if they really have problems
when posting polls etc we make the best effort possible to make sure they are legal, either by reading the CoL etc, or asking a more experienced citizen
if we post a poll/stand for election etc, don't change our mind half-way through. This can cause serious confusion. If things are really not good, then better to close the poll or re-run the election, but even better would be to get some advice (possibly via PM) first to help reduce confusion
rather than waiting for Judical advice before acting (unless our Constitution requires it - eg amending CoL), do it - then let someone else start Judicial proceedings if they really object
if someone does object and the case goes against you, learn from it and move on


And before folks point out that I have either gone against my own advice or been too timid to ever put my self in a position where that advice applied, then I agree with them. I need to change as much as anyone.

I am wondering if a member of the Judicary could join in. I am starting to share many of the frustrations with the Judicary not meeting as regulary as they used to. Originaly when I first came to the demogame, I thought the Judicary was there to resolve disputes between players if they broke the rules and feel that we should return to thoes old roots.

well i always felt the judiciary was called into action if a citizen called for them, not after every single thing

We don't have a very balanced government, the judiciary is pretty much checked by almost no-one.

I think that we should ammend the CoL where the rest of the government and citizen's assembly can delcare a State of Emergency, where the CoL is only used as a guidline. This way, in a time like we are in now, where we can't do almost anything because our censor disapeared, the citizens can over-ride the Judiciary.

I join, when I first wanted to join DG it didn't do it because of the complicated laws and all, it's just not fun and laws shouldn't be just every day.

If you have a problem, just solve it between you and the other guy, don't make a fuss and go to court (or am I just being non-American?)

just noted your sig dutch, kind of ironic that someone that cant spell is minister of science...

Heh, dutch, it's pretty un-American, but then again, I don't like Americans who take no personal responsibility and blame everything on corporations like McDonalds. Totally agree with you there man.

I am in....

First off...they are unimpeachable...therefore above teh law. This needs to change.
Second off...we need to write an amendment which limits them to only rule on citizen brought JR. That way they can not take over teh game by ordering reviews on things that the citizens are not concerned with
Third... We could perhaps get rid of all of the judiary. except for the CJ..and if its needed the president appoints the remaining two positions. This accomplishes getting teh citizens interested in legal positions to actully run for aposition and hopefully have an election instead of members just filling in where no one is running.

Fourth..someone like Dave needs to run for a position to bring common sense back to the game.

As citizens we need to ensure all positions have someone running in the election. We also need to get people back like Tubby and Swissy who left for various reasons..there are others but those are teh 2 that i can remember now.

yeah, i noticed when I looked through the thread that a lot of people with important positions in the first few terms (president, censor) have stopped, it would be great if we got them back

@ BCLG: I can't spell English but i'm willing to bet i'm the best at Dutch spelling in this thread :D

This is basicaly Less goverment = more goverment right? If so, I'm in :)

(I'm a conservative IRL, if ye didn't know ;) )

Yeh, I'm slightly conservative also. I took that test to find out my politcal stance (I followed in someone's sig, I forgot who) and the graph shows me at slightly right-winged slightly socialist (or was it facist). (opposed to left-winged anarchist)

I am wondering if a member of the Judicary could join in. I am starting to share many of the frustrations with the Judicary not meeting as regulary as they used to. Originaly when I first came to the demogame, I thought the Judicary was there to resolve disputes between players if they broke the rules and feel that we should return to thoes old roots.

Everyone is welcome, especially someone who is willing to cross over from the dark side. :borg: (thought we had a vader smilie once upon a time, this will have to do)

OK folks, here's an idea.

In order to transform the Judiciary, one tactic is to assimilate it from within. Any brave folks here wanna take on that idea next term?

Dave..I am eyeing up either of the three Tri positions or Science depending on who runs. I think you are the one who has a chance at winning a judiciary spot.

So, is this about rules for the role playing game within the demogame or about demogames rules? If it's about the latter why are you hiding it here in the RPG?

If you really want less litigaiton you could try having less rules. Way back in the third Civ III DG we played with only a constitution (similar to the one we have now but a little more flexible). It wasn't that bad a game. Why don't you all just get together and draft a repeal of the CoL (without trying to write a replacement)?

slightly right-winged slightly socialist
Grrrr. Being right-winged non-sociallist, I have to fight negative sterotypes people have about me when I say I'm right-winged. I'm more Libertarian than Republican, but I know a third party can never rise in American politics.

I might run for judiciary, but I might run for MoI. Depends on who else runs and what happens at RL work. Much uncertainty going on right now (I still won't know for close to a week if I will be employed on June 1st).

If I stick around for the demogame next term, there is no way I will run for judiciary. I don't have the attention span to write all those long rants.

I won't run for Judiciary, I fear my level of English won't be good enough for it.

So, is this about rules for the role playing game within the demogame or about demogames rules? If it's about the latter why are you hiding it here in the RPG?

If you really want less litigaiton you could try having less rules. Way back in the third Civ III DG we played with only a constitution (similar to the one we have now but a little more flexible). It wasn't that bad a game. Why don't you all just get together and draft a repeal of the CoL (without trying to write a replacement)?

Not hiding it, this is where political parties / citizen groups go.

The current Constitution doesn't do enough to define the offices.

I agree if we divided up the "what" without putting so much (or any) emphasis on "how" then we'd be much better off. Remember I was ranting against all the proceduralism in the current CoL, back in December. :p

If I stick around for the demogame next term, there is no way I will run for judiciary. I don't have the attention span to write all those long rants.
I am actualy considering on running for the Presidency with the "Golden Rule" platform.

Those with gold make the rules?

no George. its "Do on to others before they can do on to you."

I am actualy considering on running for the Presidency with the "Golden Rule" platform.

Good, I hate running for the Presidency on the "save the demogame before it dies of apathy" platform. Head to head battles with other DG veterans over huge ideological differences are so much more fun. :D

Good, I hate running for the Presidency on the "save the demogame before it dies of apathy" platform. Head to head battles with other DG veterans over huge ideological differences are so much more fun. :D


:lol: but it works so well... :D

yeah dave..that platform is the only reason I voted for you this term... :p