The judiciary option of the offices poll is running 82% in favor of a single Chief Justice. In case that result holds up, I think we'd better discuss how judicial matters would work in that system.

In the past, we've used the judiciary for 3 kinds of decisions:
Investigating and deciding if an alledged rule violation merits a trial. Interpreting a rule to see if and how it applies to a given situation, or determining which of several rules takes precedence. Reviewing proposed new laws for conflicts with existing laws.


We need to ensure some basic rights are not infringed in a one justice system. We have some ongoing feuds of biblical proportions within the DemoGame population. Not usually something which rises to the level of a forum rule violation, but things could get really ugly. In the system with three justices, you have some check on the power of a CJ with a vendetta, although even then a silver tongue can convince one of the other justices to go along.

The obvious question becomes, how do we check the power of a single CJ? In a RL court system, simple decisions are often made by one judge and can then be appealed to a higher court. We could handle appeals in a couple of ways, such as having the moderators rule on an appeal, or having a poll. However, allowing total access to an appeal process has a negative effect that there's a good chance every decision would get appealed.

How do we allow appeals, without turning the judiciary into an opinion poll for every question? I think we have to set an entry criteria for an appeal such as support from multiple citizens, and/or make an appeal costly to lose.

So I think there are several things to discuss here.
Do we keep the traditional responsibiltiies of the court? Do we have an appeal system? If we do have an appeal system, what kind? Should there be limits or conditions on being able to appeal? If so, what should they be?

I think we should keep the current 3 judge system...
There really isn't a good way to check a 1 judge court

I would have to agree with Black_Hole. 82% or no, there really isn't a good way to check a 1 judge court. Either forget about putting a check and balance on the position and just give them the ball to run with, or use the three Justice system.

Even with the impecable Justices in the CIC3 DGs, I believe a 3 Justice system was needed.

We could always more to a more democratic system, with the one Judge being only a neutral party overseeing the dispute.

Investigations would continue as normal .People should be competent enough to understand the complaints against them after the Judge explains the situation - if we actually need to elect officials in order to help the accused understand the charges, it means our laws are too complex, anyway.

As for handing down interpretations of the laws - should a review be requested, and the Judge finds merit, a new discussion thread is opened up. After a day or two, after the discussion in the public has died down, the Justice summarizes the opposing viewpoints (with some balances to ensure that all options are presented fairly and neutrally - the poll would have to be agreed to by most of the people who actually took part in the discussion, for instance). He then posts a poll of those viewpoints, and the majority wins.

If we were looking to streamline the system, the above could be the process for appeal if people disagree with the ruling made by the Judge, with an appeal only possible if three or four people demand it.

Ideally, of course (and this is something I want to stress while we begin the process of writing laws), our rules will be simple and clear enough NOT to need this process.

We could always more to a more democratic system, with the one Judge being only a neutral party overseeing the dispute.

Investigations would continue as normal .People should be competent enough to understand the complaints against them after the Judge explains the situation - if we actually need to elect officials in order to help the accused understand the charges, it means our laws are too complex, anyway.

As for handing down interpretations of the laws - should a review be requested, and the Judge finds merit, a new discussion thread is opened up. After a day or two, after the discussion in the public has died down, the Justice summarizes the opposing viewpoints (with some balances to ensure that all options are presented fairly and neutrally - the poll would have to be agreed to by most of the people who actually took part in the discussion, for instance). He then posts a poll of those viewpoints, and the majority wins.

If we were looking to streamline the system, the above could be the process for appeal if people disagree with the ruling made by the Judge, with an appeal only possible if three or four people demand it.

Ideally, of course (and this is something I want to stress while we begin the process of writing laws), our rules will be simple and clear enough NOT to need this process.
The problem I see with this is that legal reviews turn into popularity votes instead of the what the law actually says. Or a group of people will vote against what they know the laws says to avoid making an amendment

Well in regards to a Citizen Complaint against a citizen, the Judge should be the impartial, the person who formally filed the complaint should be the persecutor (and may hire someone to advocate and represent him) and the citizen filed against shall be the defendant (and may hire someone to advocate and represent him.) After hearing both sides the CJ will rule on it.

In an amendment process, we should have a citizen who formally files for an amendment, not just an opinion poll. He will present his case as to why the amendment should be ratified. Citizens should have a few days to retort to his argument or point out things he missed. After hearing the formal filing citizen and all comments the CJ should come to a decision. This should all be done after a few days of discussion thread, so all the possibilities and facts are presented, and citizens don't sway their opinion in the middle of the hearing. Also in the formal hearing thread, citizen's (not including the formal-filing citizen) may only be issued one post, so it does not turn into a discussion.

This way we don't have useless Public Defenders and the Judge Advocates and it's still a one justice judiciary.

Personally, I want to minimize the Judiciary role a lot...if this office is going to more reactive than proactive, why not only have 1 member? Filling an extra 2 positions may not seem like much, but when participation is low, we could use those people running for another position.

I'm not a big fan of CCs, Judicial Reviews, amendments, and all that judiciary stuff. I don't mind if you guys like it or not, I'm just saying we should create a good enough ruleset in the first place to ensure that we don't need to change anything (yet another reason to just keep it simple with a small margin for interpretation).

Well in regards to a Citizen Complaint against a citizen, the Judge should be the impartial, the person who formally filed the complaint should be the persecutor (and may hire someone to advocate and represent him) and the citizen filed against shall be the defendant (and may hire someone to advocate and represent him.) After hearing both sides the CJ will rule on it.

In an amendment process, we should have a citizen who formally files for an amendment, not just an opinion poll. He will present his case as to why the amendment should be ratified. Citizens should have a few days to retort to his argument or point out things he missed. After hearing the formal filing citizen and all comments the CJ should come to a decision. This should all be done after a few days of discussion thread, so all the possibilities and facts are presented, and citizens don't sway their opinion in the middle of the hearing. Also in the formal hearing thread, citizen's (not including the formal-filing citizen) may only be issued one post, so it does not turn into a discussion.

This way we don't have useless Public Defenders and the Judge Advocates and it's still a one justice judiciary.
How do we force the judge to be impartial? With only 1 judge its impossible. He can make any decision he wants. Of course in response proponents of having a single judge will say we can make him impeachable, which I am strongly against. A judge should not be fearing impeachment otherwise his decisions will not be impartial. So you can see it is impossible for a single person impartial judiciary

We have had problems with letting a prosecutor and attorney be chosen after the trial has started, this has resulted in many delays and even trials not starting in past demogames

Personally, I want to minimize the Judiciary role a lot...if this office is going to more reactive than proactive, why not only have 1 member? Filling an extra 2 positions may not seem like much, but when participation is low, we could use those people running for another position.

I'm not a big fan of CCs, Judicial Reviews, amendments, and all that judiciary stuff. I don't mind if you guys like it or not, I'm just saying we should create a good enough ruleset in the first place to ensure that we don't need to change anything (yet another reason to just keep it simple with a small margin for interpretation).
Many members (including myself) will join the judiciary when the game slows down. I never had interest in this game for too long, and if we had only a 1 person judiciary, I wouldn't have participated at all. Trying to fix our participation problems by removing the only offices some members will join is not the right way to fix the participation problem


I am not sure why everyone wants to remove something that has been working. In my experience playing the demo game, the best demo games have been with a 3 judge system of CJ, JA, and PD...
The problem was this game, because of the poorly written laws, there was alot of legal wrangling in the game. None of this was because of the judicial setup but because of the CoL and Article C of the constitution... I think some people got made because there was more discussions about legal issues than game discussions. Trying to minimize the judiciary won't increase participation in the game

But wouldn't the best DG be one where the Judiciary did not have anything to do?

I don't really see the reason why someone would participate in this game just because of the Judiciary and not because of the actual game, but that's besides the point. What I'm trying to say is that, technically, we shouldn't need one, but yes, obviously we have to have one since things are bound to arise. But why can't we streamline the whole Judiciary? Instead of sticking with 3 justices because we have a poorly written Constitution, why don't we focus on improving the Constitution to the point that we minimize the need for a Judiciary at all. I'm not saying get rid of the Judiciary, I'm saying make it a position that, if we did everything right, would not really have anything to rule on.

But wouldn't the best DG be one where the Judiciary did not have anything to do?

I don't really see the reason why someone would participate in this game just because of the Judiciary and not because of the actual game, but that's besides the point. What I'm trying to say is that, technically, we shouldn't need one, but yes, obviously we have to have one since things are bound to arise. But why can't we streamline the whole Judiciary? Instead of sticking with 3 justices because we have a poorly written Constitution, why don't we focus on improving the Constitution to the point that we minimize the need for a Judiciary at all. I'm not saying get rid of the Judiciary, I'm saying make it a position that, if we did everything right, would not really have anything to rule on.
__________________
That's like saying the American Constitution is completely faulty because we've made quite a few amendments. Times change. In the beginning of the demogame, things will be going one way (both in-game and forum-wise) where in the middle it may be going another way. There are way to many variables to say that one ruleset would work for all times. Just take a look at history in real life, and all the governments that have been tried.

How do we force the judge to be impartial? With only 1 judge its impossible. He can make any decision he wants. Of course in response proponents of having a single judge will say we can make him impeachable, which I am strongly against. A judge should not be fearing impeachment otherwise his decisions will not be impartial. So you can see it is impossible for a single person impartial judiciary

We have had problems with letting a prosecutor and attorney be chosen after the trial has started, this has resulted in many delays and even trials not starting in past demogames
I was going to suggest impeachment if the judge is not impartial, but never took your point (fearing impeachment) into consideration.

Many members (including myself) will join the judiciary when the game slows down. I never had interest in this game for too long, and if we had only a 1 person judiciary, I wouldn't have participated at all. Trying to fix our participation problems by removing the only offices some members will join is not the right way to fix the participation problem
Although I do not like to get into the judicial debates myself, in the past demogame I have seen that many people enjoy it, and probably participate just for the judicial part of the game.


I am not sure why everyone wants to remove something that has been working. In my experience playing the demo game, the best demo games have been with a 3 judge system of CJ, JA, and PD...
The problem was this game, because of the poorly written laws, there was alot of legal wrangling in the game. None of this was because of the judicial setup but because of the CoL and Article C of the constitution... I think some people got made because there was more discussions about legal issues than game discussions. Trying to minimize the judiciary won't increase participation in the game
I'm not sure either, since I see that it worked fine, but I thought the purpose of this thread was to prepare for the decision of one justice. I would be glad to have a recall poll however.

Jury?

That would be cool, though maybe somewhat complicated.

Jury?

That would be cool, though maybe somewhat complicated.

I was thinking about a jury, but even a jury of 3 would be hard to work with. I wouldn't want people to volunteer for jury, because that kind of kills random selection. And with randomly selecting, people could just simply refuse to do it. And I don't think we should force anyone.

Maybe we could have 3-5 people sign up for jury duty at the beginning of every term, and whenever something comes up, they serve as the jury.

Possibly a set up of 2 or 4 jury, with the addition of the CJ's vote.

Ginger_ale, until we start using the same constitution and code of laws for numerous consecutive demo games, there will be problems that need to be interpreted, no matter how much time we spend on making the constitution, it needs to be run in an actual game. The problem is that we change constitution very fast, so we never have a single one that will prevail.

Some people here prefer the government part of the demo game, while others prefer just playing the game, I don't see the purpose of streamlining an entire set of people playing the game

I don't the jury idea... From what I read, we basically have 2 randomly selected jurors chosen instead of 2 elected judges, which makes no sense to me. It obvious many people don't care about the judiciary and laws, so why force them to make legal decisions? Wouldn't it make more sense to have people that care for the legal situation make these decisions?

I am still strongly against a recall poll for judges, once elected they shouldn't fear making an unpopular although legally correct decision

I am still strongly against a recall poll for judges, once elected they shouldn't fear making an unpopular although legally correct decision
By recall I meant a poll to recall the decision of only having one justice.

By recall I meant a poll to recall the decision of only having one justice.

Oh, then it's just a terminology problem. A recall poll is one to take someone out of office -- what you mean is a repeal poll. :)

One thing I'd like to be perfectly clear on. If a Justice makes a decision which is correct according to the law but that decision destroys the game because a bunch of people leave, it is the wrong decision.

Heck yes, the Justice should fear impeachment. If the majority think a decision is so bad that it warrants removing someone from office, we're better off with a happy populace and possibly having one person leave than we are with an unhappy populace and potentially most people leaving.

Knock those self-righteous ivory-tower cant-say-it-on-the-forum folks (myself included) off their lofty perches and make them decide in favor of the good of the game and not in favor of their own inflated self worth.

I am still strongly against a recall poll for judges, once elected they shouldn't fear making an unpopular although legally correct decision

When I tried to change one word in the constitution last game, donsig (member of the judiciary at that time) didn't really want to look at it, because he thought it was useless (not wrong!). As there weren't enough active judges at that moment, I had to wait for donsig to say that one word wasn't wrong.

I tossed out the idea of a single member Judiciary with the idea of reducing the involvement of the Judiciary in this game.

I've been one of the most involved people in this DG in the Judiciary, serving in every role, and participating in just about every major decision that's been made, including two that were, literally, game changing. I've suggested different options for the Judiciary - some failed miserably, others did fairly well. I've seen what a strong person can do (see Peri) can do with a powerful Judiciary, and also the harm that can come.

I think we've gone too far with the Judiciary - it does too much and is seen as the first option for too many things. When I suggested the single member Judiciary, I wasn't just tossing the idea out, there was a plan for some dramatic changes in the Judiciary.

First and foremost, the sole Justice is there to resolve disputes, answer questions and offer solutions. They are NOT there to make game-changing decisions. By necessity and design, a single-person member of the Judiciary will need to actively seek out the views of various people. This hopefully will turn into more discussions

Consider the three main traditional tasks of the Judiciary - review of amendments, resolution of rules questions and investigations into possible rules violations. Each of these tasks are important, and need to be covered in some way by any Judicial concept.

The review of amendments is there as a check - was anything missed when the amendment was written? It's not a fool-proof system, but it's another chance to find any problems before it's sent to a poll. The review isn't to prevent bad laws, only badly written laws. We're pretty good about finding problems, but I personally, when conducting a review, look at everything afresh. This stays as is.

The most difficult change is in the resolution of rules questions. We've had simple ones (rule x conflicts with rule y) and tough ones (see start of C4DG1). A single person Judiciary isn't the best place to resolve those tough questions, and shouldn't be. Under my concept, the Judiciary is there is resolve conflicts, not create new law. If someone comes up with a question that isn't addressed by the rules, the Judiciary needs to politely decline that request, and refer it to the citizens to address. There's a single exception though - if waiting for an amendment would delay the DG in a significant way, the Judiciary will decide on a temporary basis, and then actively work to get the amendment created. The entire objective of the Judiciary here is to keep the game flowing smoothly and with minimal interruption. If the right ruling goes against popular view - MAKE THE RULING, then get them to change the rules.

Finally, the investigation into possible rules violations. This is perhaps the most unpleasant part of the Judiciary that I've ever been involved in. It's part circus, part debate and part popularity contest. In a single Justice system, the Justice would examine the charges and if there's a reasonable chance the charges are correct, allow the matter to proceed. There would be no guarantee of representation, although I strongly believe that various people here would make sure of that. During a trial, the Justice is there to maintain order, post a verdict poll, determine sentancing options and post a sentancing poll.

The goal of all of this is to pull power from the Judiciary, keep the game flowing and resolve the true rules conflicts.

-- Ravensfire

When I tried to change one word in the constitution last game, donsig (member of the judiciary at that time) didn't really want to look at it, because he thought it was useless (not wrong!). As there weren't enough active judges at that moment, I had to wait for donsig to say that one word wasn't wrong.

Stepping away from the specific incident, and in particular from which people were involved, let's look at what went wrong in this case. For several games now, we have had the judiciary acting as gatekeepers on amendments, with the power to keep an amendment from happening. There is an implicit assumption in this mechanism that the existing law is more important than what the people think right now with the current amendment.

What if we tasked the judiciary with helping with the amendment, instead of approving it? If a new amendment conflicts with existing law, maybe the judiciary should be responsible for removing the conflict, instead of preventing the amendment from happening. The argument against doing it this way is that it doesn't reflect RL politics, but we don't need to model RL so completely that it makes the court the enemy of the people, especially in a game which is meant to be fun.

Oh, then it's just a terminology problem. A recall poll is one to take someone out of office -- what you mean is a repeal poll.
By definition recall worked in my sentence, just wasn't speaking the DG1 lingo anymore.

One thing I'd like to be perfectly clear on. If a Justice makes a decision which is correct according to the law but that decision destroys the game because a bunch of people leave, it is the wrong decision.
So laws are only followed if people like them?
If you don't like a decision a justice made, change the law.
If someone really wants to play this game, I don't understand why constructing an amendment would be so hard for them to do? It doesn't make sense to leave instead of spending 10 minutes drafting an amendment.
This has been the attitude of many players: "The laws should be interpreted to make the game fun", which is what has driven me out of this game...

So laws are only followed if people like them?
If you don't like a decision a justice made, change the law.
If someone really wants to play this game, I don't understand why constructing an amendment would be so hard for them to do? It doesn't make sense to leave instead of spending 10 minutes drafting an amendment.
This has been the attitude of many players: "The laws should be interpreted to make the game fun", which is what has driven me out of this game...

When we get a justice who won't even rule on an amendment's validity because "it isn't needed", what should we do then?

The justice could rule that an area of the law is unclear or improperly worded and needs amending, but for the good of the game it will be interpreted according to what the people want while the amendment process (which usually takes 10 minutes to write, 3 days to have a JR, 4 days for a poll) grinds through to the inevitable conclusion. Or we can have a justice who rules that we have to follow an unpopular and questionable interpretation, and wait those 7 or more days before proceeding.

I'm here to have fun. If a justice makes a decision that makes the game less fun, regardless of what the rule says, of course I'm going to be unhappy. Why wouldn't I be?

Don't be that judiciary-fanatic that makes decisions that make the game less fun just because they are "right" according to the law.

Don't be that judiciary-fanatic that makes decisions that make the game less fun just because they are "right" according to the law.

By who's definition of right? Who's definition of fun?

<on soapbox>
The Rules are the rules - once you start ignoring them, you've completely lost any chance of respecting them. The idea of ignoring them or making "wrong" decision in the name of fun will ONLY lead to more chaos and stupidity.

Make the "right" decisions.

And GET OFF YOUR LAZY BUTT AND FIX THE LAW IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT!!!!!

<off soapbox>

-- Ravensfire

Here's a test. Interpret the following. Hint: There is an obviously correct interpretation which results in minimal delays for the game. There is also a marginally correct interpretation (some would say it is so dubious as to render it incorrect) which adds unnecessary delays to the game.

Question: do all appointments need to wait 72 hours, or only ones for which no jobless citizen comes forward?


Section 8
C) Vacancies
III Cabinet Vacancies
IIIB. If there is no deputy, the President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.
IV Governor Vacancies
IVA. The Governors Council must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Council within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Council may appoint any citizen to the office.
IVB. If there is no Governors Council, the Minister of Interior must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Minister of Interior within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Minister of Interior may appoint any citizen to the office.


Now, I ask you, regardless of which interpretation you believe reflects the meaning of these words, which one is better for the game? Should we go as quickly as we can to maintain interest in the game, or should we add unnecessary delays? You should be able to guess my answer, even if you don't know what position I took on this particular case.

If a future justice is faced with a similar question, I definitely want the right to impeach for a wrong answer.

If a future justice is faced with a similar question, I definitely want the right to impeach for a wrong answer.
This is exactly why I don't plan to participate in this demogame, unless some major things turn around, which doesn't look likely. If I am a judge and rule against what the people think is fun to them, I get impeached, even if I follow the law.

ravensfire brings up an excellent point, who decides what is fun?

This is exactly why I don't plan to participate in this demogame, unless some major things turn around, which doesn't look likely. If I am a judge and rule against what the people think is fun to them, I get impeached, even if I follow the law.

ravensfire brings up an excellent point, who decides what is fun?

You might try participating by playing some civ. :p

What about my other suggestion, to make the judge responsible for fixing the law instead of ruling on it? Then a judge can be a positive influence instead of a negative one.

As for who decides what is fun, each individual does. Each individual can have fun too, as long as they don't have their fun by taking away the fun of others.

As for who decides what is fun, each individual does. Each individual can have fun too, as long as they don't have their fun by taking away the fun of others.

That's a mighty dangerous condition there, DaveShack.

Now, since you're taking such enjoyment from hammering away at donsig in your examples in this, and other fine threads as you make examples, I thought I'd ask you a question about your hypothetical situation - what did you actually do to fix the problem you had with it?

In addition, in the hoopla that was created on this, a citizen asked for a few more days, and you and others hammered him over that. Somehow, I don't quite think that you added to his fun. And we're all about fun, right?

Or is it just the fun that you might have?

-- Ravensfire

That's a mighty dangerous condition there, DaveShack.

Now, since you're taking such enjoyment from hammering away at donsig in your examples in this, and other fine threads as you make examples, I thought I'd ask you a question about your hypothetical situation - what did you actually do to fix the problem you had with it?

In addition, in the hoopla that was created on this, a citizen asked for a few more days, and you and others hammered him over that. Somehow, I don't quite think that you added to his fun. And we're all about fun, right?

Or is it just the fun that you might have?

-- Ravensfire

Excuse me, but I did not say who the conflict was with in that incident. I have been very careful, or at least have tried to be careful, to depersonalize these references. I'm targeting the behavior of interpreting laws to match one's own personal needs instead of the needs of the game, not the individuals themselves.

DS, the Law is the Law. Rules are made for a reason.

Why have a Judiciary if it has no authority? I suspect you have no need for a Judiciary, you just want someone with the power of the High Court to back you in your rise to power.

I also think you're reference to the above question (Section 8 - how appropriate) is slanted towards me as well as donsig. I've said it before, and I'll say it again about that. You are wrong. In all three paragraphs, the gist is the same.

If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.

This means the [official] MAY appoint any citizen after that [official] knows that no [such] citizen has made contact within the 72 hour period. Thats what was meant when the law was written and that's the way it was interpreted. Only a crying and whining baby would still be crying and whining about a little fun they lost because of the ruling. :rolleyes:

Look as to the judiciary ruling as to something that follows the law, or something that follows the fun, the judiciary will decide himself which route. My policy, however would be that, not matter what you decide based on the laws. If you feel it hurts the fun, you bring up a discussion for an amendment, which would change the laws, and still make your decision a lawful one (but can be canceled out if the amendment is passed.)

Using the example above: Instead of ruling No, only appointments where no jobless citizen volunteers must wait 72 hours, rule Yes all appointments must wait 72 hours. You have therefore interpreted the law to exact definition, and have taken the more lawful route. Now if you feel this cuts down on fun, you use the ruling above, and then have an ammendment discussion to change the rule to: only appointments for which no jobless citizen comes forward.

By doing the above you:
A) Do not disregard the law.
B) Do not cut down on fun in sacrifice for the law.
C) Fix the law, so there is no further room for open interpretation of a vague law.

So what's the problem?

I agree, follow the law, if you think it "hurts the fun" propose an amendment to fix the problem.

Why have a Judiciary if it has no authority?


I respect a Judiciary which makes correct, reasoned, logical decisions. Over the years there have been many good decisions (most of them), a few wrong decisions that I could live with because they didn't harm the game, and a very small number of very bad decisions which could, and some think did, severely harm the game. I want a safety valve for those extremely bad decisions.


I suspect you have no need for a Judiciary, you just want someone with the power of the High Court to back you in your rise to power.


Power has nothing to do with it. I fill the needs of the game, nothing more. Take a look at the nomination threads and count the number of times I've said "I'll take it if nobody else wants it". What I wanted was for you, and Ravensfire, and DZ, and CG, and other vets to take some of those turns in the barrel. I wanted Swiss, AlphaWolf (before we found out about the DL issue), Blkbird, Tubby, Whomp, and countless other new people to stand for election and have their glory. I tried to keep this game going for 10 long months, when it was clearly hopeless halfway into that.

As for "the incident"...

Let me ask this:
You're the President. There is something which needs to be done (doesn't matter what for the purpose of discussion). Citizens are leaving because there is too much red tape, things take too long, too many things about the game don't make sense. You're ready to get the game moving but there's a law which says "Do A. After you do A, if B doesn't happen you must wait 3 days, then you can do C". B does happen, but then someone cuts the "you must wait 3 days" out of the middle of the law and pastes that on a stop sign. What should you do?

Wait an extra 3 days, causing more people to leave.
Do something about it, and by doing so, show that you're fixing the red tape issue, and try to get the people to stay.What would you do? I prefer to try to do something about it.

The law will say what others write, I'm done with trying to write laws. I will give my input on things I see wrong, warn y'all about the dangers you face in making laws which are too detailed, urge you to have fun, and vote my beliefs. When we get back to the actual game again, I'll still be there, selectively running for offices as the game needs me, filling in when nobody else will.

I do advise waiting the three days, because when you don't wait the three days all you do is create more legal discussion which in the first place probablly drove away 80% of the people who left.

How about this idea to replace the entire judiacary:

BREAK A DEAL SPIN THE WHEEL

If you break a deal, then you spin the wheel. Breaking a deal means taking up any office and not doing what you say, or at any other time you say something which you dont do.

In the event you are found to break a dead (president decideds) then the president randomly picks a number using a calculator, this number between 1-10 each with a specific punishment next to it. (warning, pardon, 5 day expulsion, life explusion, loss of office, humilation (whereing a signiute as punishment),)

Been watching "Mad Max"? ;)

When we get a justice who won't even rule on an amendment's validity because "it isn't needed", what should we do then?

Have three ACTIVE justices instead of just one. :rolleyes:

I don't recall the circumstances of Dutchfire's proposed amendment but if there had been another active justice (or two) then my inactivity whould not have mattered, would it?

I'm here to have fun. If a justice makes a decision that makes the game less fun, regardless of what the rule says, of course I'm going to be unhappy. Why wouldn't I be?

Don't be that judiciary-fanatic that makes decisions that make the game less fun just because they are "right" according to the law.

Ever stop to think the game is less fun when us mere citizens' don't have a voice in what happens? What fun is there in playing a game when all you can really do is watch a few elected officials make decisons? (Or even less than that cause you can't even watch 'em cause they're doing it all in the chat?) The rules and laws are there to ensure we all have a chance to play. Yes, some of us (like me) enjoy the judical side of the DG. But I enjoy the Civ part as well (if given a chance to participate). I only go on my judicial crusades when I see my right to participate being frittered away.

I've always been a advocate of the citizen's (as a group) right to overule an official. I've also stated time and again we should have as few rules as possible. (I think the Code of Laws is an evil thing.)

What if we tasked the judiciary with helping with the amendment, instead of approving it? If a new amendment conflicts with existing law, maybe the judiciary should be responsible for removing the conflict, instead of preventing the amendment from happening. The argument against doing it this way is that it doesn't reflect RL politics, but we don't need to model RL so completely that it makes the court the enemy of the people, especially in a game which is meant to be fun.

The only purpose of reviewing proposed amendments or laws is to ensure they don't conflict with another law that is unaffected by the propsed law or amendment. The idea is to keep consistent set of rules by not allowing new laws that would create conflict. I don't think the judiciary should be made to help with that process (though they can if they choose to). The trouble (which was obvious from the last ruleset) is that this isn't really a solid goal unless we start with a ruleset that is free of conflicts. The last one wasn't and they usually aren't because we always rush to start the game and end up with a half-assed rule set. If we limited our rules to begin with we'd have a better chance at this.

Question: do all appointments need to wait 72 hours, or only ones for which no jobless citizen comes forward?
...
Now, I ask you, regardless of which interpretation you believe reflects the meaning of these words, which one is better for the game? Should we go as quickly as we can to maintain interest in the game, or should we add unnecessary delays? You should be able to guess my answer, even if you don't know what position I took on this particular case.

Waiting 72 hours to make ANY appointment (except maybe for a sole DP) is not only the correct and most logical interpretation in your test case, it is also the best one for the game. It does not put the freakin' game on hold (or at lease it shouldn't). There is no reason the game cannot proceed without a ny given official (excpet of course a DP). You seem to forget (as do many officials in the DG) that even lowly citizens have the right to poll issues and get things done. What we didn't have last game was a mechanism to get citizen's initiative results into the game play instruction thread. (That, BTW, would be a great job for a censor type official. Much better than letting a Censor unilaterally interpret the law and create hinderences to citizen initiative polls.) We never got to that becasue we were too busy arguing over what official meant and whether a private poll could be a fair and legitimate one.

If a future justice is faced with a similar question, I definitely want the right to impeach for a wrong answer.

I agree that if we are to allow for impeachment of officials then we should allow for the impeachment of justices. I do not agree with impeaching a judiciary member for making a wrong interpretation. By definition (and I know I'm opening up a can of worms by using that word) an interpretation is, well, subject to one's interpretation. If the answer was so flippin' clear things would not get to the stage where a judicial interpretaton was needed. Yes, I know you know what you meant when you wrote the law DaveShack. But what you meant and what you wrote happened to be two very different things.

I respect a Judiciary which makes correct, reasoned, logical decisions. Over the years there have been many good decisions (most of them), a few wrong decisions that I could live with because they didn't harm the game, and a very small number of very bad decisions which could, and some think did, severely harm the game. I want a safety valve for those extremely bad decisions.

You respect a judiciary that agrees with your interpreation, but do not respect one that doesn't, no matter how reasonable their interpretation is. No judicial decison had ever harmed a DG as much as the turn chats so I don't see the problem here. If you want a safety valve then allow for citizen's initiatives that interpret the law. These can be an alternative to a judicial interpretation or they can trump a previous judicial interpretation but in either case any such poll should be reviewed by the judiciary in a manner similar to a review for amendments or new laws to avoid conflicts with existing law. We could even make standards for such a poll since any interpretation would involve two (or more) competing interpretations. Assuming both interpretaitons are reasonable (as is generally the case) then these standards would ensure that all competing interpretations are presented fairly for the citizenry to choose from.

Yes, I know you know what you meant when you wrote the law DaveShack. But what you meant and what you wrote happened to be two very different things.


If you look very closely, you will see I didn't actually write that section. :p

The whole point is that laws should be interpreted according to what the citizens wanted them to mean. My issue with that case was that there was clear evidence what the citizens who wrote the law wanted, and the judiciary did not follow that evidence.


You respect a judiciary that agrees with your interpreation, but do not respect one that doesn't, no matter how reasonable their interpretation is.

I have accepted and respected many rulings which I disagreed with. Agreement with my interpretation is not the point, the point is agreement with reality. There are rules for scanning and decoding languages, and the ruling did not follow the rules of English -- the message decoded by the Judiciary did not equal the message encoded by the people when they wrote the law.

Edit: I will admit that I'm never happy when the Judiciary rules against me. It does help immensely if a convincing factual proof is provided, and not merely an opinion not backed by facts.

The whole point is that laws should be interpreted according to what the citizens wanted them to mean. My issue with that case was that there was clear evidence what the citizens who wrote the law wanted, and the judiciary did not follow that evidence.

And there are some (including those judicial members who actually ruled on that case) who believe it is more important to go by what is actually written than what was meant to be written.

Since you claim that laws should be interpreted according to how the people want them interpreted (a view I agree with to a certain extent) I'm disappointed that you did not comment on my idea about citizen initiative poll acting as interpretaive tools. Could it be that you really don't have the faith in citizen inititatives that was hinted at in the constitution?

I have accepted and respected many rulings which I disagreed with. Agreement with my interpretation is not the point, the point is agreement with reality. There are rules for scanning and decoding languages, and the ruling did not follow the rules of English -- the message decoded by the Judiciary did not equal the message encoded by the people when they wrote the law.

I'm not so sure what all the rules are for decoding English. I'm not a trained linguist nor computer programmer nor poet. But I do know that English is not like a structured computer language. I do know that English can very easily be ambiguous. This ambiguity comes not only from a distinct lack of structural rules (ala computer languages) but from ambiguity in the very meanings of words (as evidenced by our continued disagreement over the meaning of official). If English was as structured as you claim it to be we would not need interpretions of rules. We could just feed a proposed rule into a compiler and have it tell us if any errors exist.

Because of this ambiguity in the English language it is not always possible to find concrete factual proof of how a given rule should be interpreted. Many times one or more interpretation is reasonable and logical.

Since you claim that laws should be interpreted according to how the people want them interpreted (a view I agree with to a certain extent) I'm disappointed that you did not comment on my idea about citizen initiative poll acting as interpretaive tools. Could it be that you really don't have the faith in citizen inititatives that was hinted at in the constitution?


I considered using an initiative for the appointment issue, but decided that there would be a conflict between taking that action and my previous arguement against another similar initiative attempt. I could not in good conscience argue that a justice could not use initiative as a way to get approval for not recusing himself from a case, and then myself use an initiative to effectively force recusal of the entire judiciary. It was less impactful to the game to disregard the ruling while appearing to follow it. :mischief:

A blanket provision to allow initiatives for interpreting the law might go too far. I'd want to hear comments from other people on possible controls. The goal is still to balance and maximize fun, and we want to avoid extremes where possible.

I don't see how making a mockery of our rules maximizes fun, nor do I see how following our rules minimizes fun.

@DaveShack: I'm not really concerned with why you chose not to use an initiative last game. We're talking about how to play the next game so I'd like to hear what you think of the idea in general (besides the fact that you don't like the idea of a blanket provision). I don't recall you ever basing a judicial decision on the current WotP (which could be Will of the People or Whim of the People, your choice). So I'd like to hear more about your general thoughts on how interpreting laws according to the wishes of the people (yet another WotP) fits in with the nuts and bolts of making a judicial decision.

On limiting use of citizen polls to decide interpretations of laws, we need some kind of frivolous poll protection. Either require multiple people to request an interpretation poll, or put in some kind of penalty to the requestor if the people uphold the judiciary's decision.

On limiting use of citizen polls to decide interpretations of laws, we need some kind of frivolous poll protection. Either require multiple people to request an interpretation poll, or put in some kind of penalty to the requestor if the people uphold the judiciary's decision.

I agree we'd need something to prevent frivolous polls but I don't like the idea of requiring multiple requestors and I certainly don't think we should punish anyone for posting a poll. I think a process similar to the one we have for reviewing new laws and amendments would be called for. (Yes, I know that process needs work.) This is the kind of thing that would be good for a Censor type official to be responsible for.

Something like this?


Citizen requests a JR
Judiciary rules
Citizen doesn't like ruling, so posts a proposed initiative
Censor reviews initiative and approves
Poll is opened
If poll result differs from JR ruling, it overturns the ruling


I'm not sure I like the Censor review because if the Censor agrees with the Judiciary it would be very easy to disapprove the requested initiative, and thereby ensure the people don't get to vote on it.

I'm against a Judiciary which rules conflict/no-conflict on an amendment for the same reason. It gives them the perfect method for ensuring that a law they don't like never goes to the people for a vote.

This brings me to another concept I'd like to explore. there doesn't seem to be a good place to suggest it, and the legal types already hang around this thread so...

Instead of having the concept of a law conflicting with another law, especially during the amendment process, let's just have the last one that passes take precedence over what was already there. Instead of ruling that law #2 is void because it conflicts with existing law, the Judiciary would then rule it supercedes.

I don't think we should have a censor... If a poll is horridly bad, the judiciary can invalidate it, but that should be a rare occurrence

Instead of having the concept of a law conflicting with another law, especially during the amendment process, let's just have the last one that passes take precedence over what was already there. Instead of ruling that law #2 is void because it conflicts with existing law, the Judiciary would then rule it supercedes.

Too many problems - including people trying to stick wording in to supercede rules, but trying to keep that hidden. Not to mention, you run into confusion about what is, and it not, an actual rule. If you want to strike down a rule, be explicit about it.

Also, if conflicts are found with a proposal, that is a good indication that the proposal wasn't thought all the way through. Which way should the conflict be resolved? That's something for the people to determine as they craft the laws.

-- Ravensfire

I don't think we should have a censor... If a poll is horridly bad, the judiciary can invalidate it, but that should be a rare occurrence

The reference to a censor in the preceeding posts was because the poll we're talking about is one to ask the citizens directly how a law should be interpreted. We can't have a poll to overrule the judiciary invalidated by that same judiciary. Some other review process for that particular kind of poll, instead of having a censor, would be acceptable -- do you have anything in mind?

Too many problems - including people trying to stick wording in to supercede rules, but trying to keep that hidden. Not to mention, you run into confusion about what is, and it not, an actual rule. If you want to strike down a rule, be explicit about it.


Here's how I'd like it to work.

Citizen discussion results in sufficient concensus that we want an amendment. We go through the normal amendment drafting process, resulting in a mock poll. The judiciary reviews the proposed amendment and produces a report on what effects it will have on existing law, which is appended to the mock poll. The requestor then has the option to submit the amendment for ratification along with its "side effects report", or rework the amendment to remove "side effects" and resubmit to the judiciary. Obviously a good amendment author could prepare the mock poll text to include the effects of the amendment on existing laws, reducing the judiciary's load.

There is no ambiguity in the resulting law, because the expert members of the judiciary have already identified all the related changes and provided that to the people as part of the amendment itself. The judiciary would be stipped of its current power to prevent an amendment from going to a ratification vote, and that legal energy which is so often devoted to saying NO would instead be dedicated to working with the citizens to get the laws they want.

The reference to a censor in the preceeding posts was because the poll we're talking about is one to ask the citizens directly how a law should be interpreted. We can't have a poll to overrule the judiciary invalidated by that same judiciary. Some other review process for that particular kind of poll, instead of having a censor, would be acceptable -- do you have anything in mind?

We don't need the judiciary to invalidate any polls. All we'd need the judiciary to do is decide if the interpretation to be polled conflicts with existing laws (not with exisiting interpretations). We could have the Censor responsible for posting interpretation polls and make any such polls go through the JR process before being posted. We could exclude previously interpreted laws from this new process and mandate actual amendments be passed to overrule existing judicial interpretations.

This would give citizens two options for getting interpretations: 1) the traditional JR and 2) a Censorial posted citizen interpretation poll. Once either route was taken it would require a full amendment to overturn a decision.

Just thinking out loud here but this might help us to restructure JRs. An interpretation case could be handled sort of like a CC, with the JA taking one interpretation and the PD another and then we have a poll to determine the outcome.

@DaveShack: I would certainly be disinclined to run for a judicial postion that was expected to draft legislation. Writing laws should be strictly left up to citizens and the judiciary should confine itself to stating whether or not a conflict exists. It is too much to expect the judiciary to find every conflict in a bad proposal - especially when every game starts with a ruleset that has pre-existing conflicts built into it.

I will say it one more time:

If you want to reduce conflicts in the rules then minimize the rules. Go back to the CIV III DG III constitution and use that as a basis for the next game's rules.

We don't need the judiciary to invalidate any polls. All we'd need the judiciary to do is decide if the interpretation to be polled conflicts with existing laws (not with exisiting interpretations).

You forget that there are two kinds of interpretations needed:


It is unclear what a rule means.
Multiple rules say conflicting things about the same area


I want the citizen poll to resolve both kinds of interpretations, regardless of whether the "ruling" introduces a "new" conflict or not. A poll should be able to make the law mean exactly what the majority wants it to mean, quickly. This makes me think that we want just one layer of laws to eliminate the trump card aspect of multiple layers.

You're going to say something like "just use an amendment if that's what you want!" Yeah, but amendments take time. Usually they cannot be completed before the next game session, or whatever decision the interpretation is needed for. To that you'll say something about it being good for it to take a long time to change things, that people can't get it through their thick heads that the game can proceed anyway. Not if proceeding violates the rule as incorrectly interpreted by an obstinate judiciary.


Just thinking out loud here but this might help us to restructure JRs. An interpretation case could be handled sort of like a CC, with the JA taking one interpretation and the PD another and then we have a poll to determine the outcome.


No, this setup would effectively eliminate the judiciary, and we don't want to go that far. We want a judiciary which functions normally, but which is required to rule correctly instead of being totally unchecked, all-knowing and all-powerful, like we have had at times in recent games.

The proposal for using an ititiative to overrule the judiciary is strictly that. I don't think we should replace the existing system, we should just add a way to fix a bad decision.

No, this setup would effectively eliminate the judiciary, and we don't want to go that far. We want a judiciary which functions normally, but which is required to rule correctly instead of being totally unchecked, all-knowing and all-powerful, like we have had at times in recent games.

Sorry - but your proposal isn't significantly different from donsig's and would do exactly the same thing.

It's also a blatant appeal to mob rule. Why create an amendment, when you can just create your own ruling!

Fun for all! (except the minority)

-- Ravensfire

Sorry - but your proposal isn't significantly different from donsig's and would do exactly the same thing.


Why do you think that? Donsig's has a vote for every JR, mine doesn't.


It's also a blatant appeal to mob rule.

Officials must plan and act according to the will of the people. The Judiciary should not be an exception, but they've had a free pass for 8 games in the Civ3/Civ4 series. We don't even have impeachment, which does exist in RL for judges.


Why create an amendment, when you can just create your own ruling!


Amendments are for changing the law. "Rulings by poll" are for when the law is correct and justice is blind.


Fun for all! (except the minority)


Well, we have ample evidence from this game that if the minority monopolizes the fun, the majority just pack their things and leave. :cry: Even then we don't end up with "fun for all", when the ones who are left don't have anyone to practice their brand of fun on. :sad:

Why do you think that? Donsig's has a vote for every JR, mine doesn't.


Officials must plan and act according to the will of the people. The Judiciary should not be an exception, but they've had a free pass for 8 games in the Civ3/Civ4 series. We don't even have impeachment, which does exist in RL for judges.



Amendments are for changing the law. "Rulings by poll" are for when the law is correct and justice is blind.



Well, we have ample evidence from this game that if the minority monopolizes the fun, the majority just pack their things and leave. :cry: Even then we don't end up with "fun for all", when the ones who are left don't have anyone to practice their brand of fun on. :sad:
Real life impeachment for judges is phrased where they are only removed for high crimes, not because their rulings are disagreed with. Judges would still be subject to CCs, which is all we need for judges.

No, this setup would effectively eliminate the judiciary, and we don't want to go that far. We want a judiciary which functions normally, but which is required to rule correctly instead of being totally unchecked, all-knowing and all-powerful, like we have had at times in recent games.

The proposal for using an ititiative to overrule the judiciary is strictly that. I don't think we should replace the existing system, we should just add a way to fix a bad decision.

Well, DaveShack, you still don't get the point. You are so fixated on right versus wrong decisions that you forget there could very well be more than one reasonable interpretation of a law. Stop thinking like a hard-wired computer and think like a human being who has a brain that can make connections where none existed before. If there truly was always a right and wrong interpretation we wouldn't need a judiciary cause we'd all see the light in the same way and we'd all make the same interpretations.

While we might want a way to overturn an interpretation (short of an amendment) we also have to be sure we don't end up with a system of mob rule. This is a democracy game and by definition the majority should rule - but we have to be sure decisions are arrived at in such a way that the minority at least gets to speak and vote. And of course the problem is not when there is a small minority - the problems come when we are split 50-50 on a topic and each vote has the potential to tip the scales. Our whole ruleset (including the judiciary) is all about ensuring we make decisions in a fair way. If any of you really care about the drop off in participation I suggest you examine the decison making process and see just how unfair it has been. The more unfair it becomes, the more people we lose.

Well, DaveShack, you still don't get the point. You are so fixated on right versus wrong decisions that you forget there could very well be more than one reasonable interpretation of a law.


Hmm, thought I'd said I agree there can be more than one reasonable interpretation.

I've also said, a reasonable interpretation can also be wrong. If there are two (or more) reasonable interpretations, the right one is the one which the majority agrees with.


If any of you really care about the drop off in participation I suggest you examine the decison making process and see just how unfair it has been. The more unfair it becomes, the more people we lose.

Examples please? I know which things I consider unfair, but not what others might think.

If what ever the majority agrees with is the correct interpretation, why do we need a court? We could just post a poll and ask what the majority thinks is correct. Of course this will anger the minority that likes to discuss legal matters, but who cares, they aren't the majority right?

Sweet! All I need, then, is to get a majority that thinks anything, say, Black Hole, does is illegal, and he's gone!

After all, the majority counts. Only the minority would be angered, but who cares, they aren't the majority, right?

Right?

-- Ravensfire

Examples please? I know which things I consider unfair, but not what others might think.

How about decisions made in the chat that run counter to decisons made inthe forum?

How about invalidating polls for various reasons (like it was a private poll)?

How about posting a poll with a short open time?

How about elected officials that think they can make whatever decision they want irregardless of what we want as a group?

What about elected officials that think only they can post polls about topics within their sphere?

Should I go on?

How about decisions made in the chat that run counter to decisons made inthe forum?

Simple to fix, if you see one, prosecute it. I'm not aware of any problems in the rules in this area, which is what we're discussing.


How about invalidating polls for various reasons (like it was a private poll)?

Invalidating polls was an individual's behavior, not a group decision. The people who were present at the time we decided to require public polls wanted all binding polls to be public that didn't have a reason to be private, i.e. about an individual. The use of the word "official' where "binding" was intended caused controversy, and hopefully that will be fixed in this game's rules.


How about posting a poll with a short open time?

I've said many times that I don't buy into the "intermittent citizen" model in the slightest. We each play at the activity level that we are capable of handling and willing to invest. You want the event horizon beyond your own personal activity level, but what's to say that someone like DZ who appears once every two months shouldn't have that right too? Should we leave all polls open for 14 days so that every single citizen can vote in them? Hint: we'd lose all of the short attention span folks if we ran things that way.


How about elected officials that think they can make whatever decision they want irregardless of what we want as a group?

The rules have never said they can do that. If we let them do it, then we're giving them permission to act that way. If we don't like it, then run a poll and CC if the official disregards the result.

Ironic coming from you, when "the JR" was all about what the group wanted vs. what the judiciary wanted (to prove to me that the other interpretation was "reasonable"). If you had bothered to read the discussion which led to the amendment in question, you would have known that the people wanted it to mean exactly the same interpretation that I was arguing for. 1st 3 days, can appoint only someone without an office, after 3 days can appoint someone who does have an office.


What about elected officials that think only they can post polls about topics within their sphere?

Some of us want to be polite to other officials and let them run their own department. Others of us want the lazy bums to get off their duff and do some work. Still others are afraid that if they do step outside their job description, legal action is sure to follow.

The cure for this is education and support. A little leadership by example would do wonders too.


Should I go on?

To be completely honest with you, I'd take anything which might help us get more people and keep them. Strider made the same sweeping generalization (figure it out and fix it) at the beginning of the last 3 games, but refused to pony up on examples. :mad: I'm very happy you're willing to discuss specifics. And please do counter if you don't agree with my assessment of these areas -- I can be convinced to change my mind, when the counter argument is rational.

If what ever the majority agrees with is the correct interpretation, why do we need a court? We could just post a poll and ask what the majority thinks is correct. Of course this will anger the minority that likes to discuss legal matters, but who cares, they aren't the majority right?

That's why my proposal is to keep the judiciary as is, and only use a poll as a last resort when the ruling is obviously inconsistent with what the people want the law to mean.

Sweet! All I need, then, is to get a majority that thinks anything, say, Black Hole, does is illegal, and he's gone!

After all, the majority counts. Only the minority would be angered, but who cares, they aren't the majority, right?

Right?

-- Ravensfire

Is this supposed to be an argument that the Democracy game shouldn't be run by majority decisions? :confused:

Or perhaps you didn't know what was meant by reasonable? I feel confident that a higher authority would intervene if someone attempted to use my proposed JR override mechanism to force an unreasonable interpretation, given that by being unreasonable it would probably involve "material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive ..." and thus violate forum rules.

Sweet! All I need, then, is to get a majority that thinks anything, say, Black Hole, does is illegal, and he's gone!


You got my support

Is this supposed to be an argument that the Democracy game shouldn't be run by majority decisions? :confused:

Of course not - it was to show the absurdity in the majority is always right arguement.

Or perhaps you didn't know what was meant by reasonable? I feel confident that a higher authority would intervene if someone attempted to use my proposed JR override mechanism to force an unreasonable interpretation, given that by being unreasonable it would probably involve "material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive ..." and thus violate forum rules.
Define reasonable. That's not a simple thing as reasonable varies from person to person.

Look back at the past few games - there haven't been many decisions that anyone would disagree with. The VAST majority of cases that have resulted in argument, dismay and disgust were over serious actions (AW, a blown election), not over rulings.

If anything, people have been more disgusted over the lack of focus in GAME decisions, and at the usual back-and-forth and lack of planning that has resulted.

There IS a mechanism to correct a ruling that people don't like - the amendment. At a minimum, that is a week's worth of time. Usually, it's about a week and a half. And low and behold, the problem CAN get fixed without adding anything new.

That process IS harder than a simple poll, and it should be. You're talking about affecting the rules in a permanent manner. That should take a bit of effort to put through. If a decision is truly unreasonable, then getting an amendment through won't take any significant amount of time. That extra time might even get a few people to discover that they might agree with aspects of the ruling, and result in a better amendment than your override poll would.

DaveShack, I cannot agree that your idea would help the DemoGame. It will hurt the aspect of the game that I, and others, enjoy - the simulation of a government. It seems that you're wanting to turn this into nothing more than a giant Succession Game, and that's not what the DG should be.

-- Ravensfire

There IS a mechanism to correct a ruling that people don't like - the amendment. At a minimum, that is a week's worth of time. Usually, it's about a week and a half. And low and behold, the problem CAN get fixed without adding anything new.


Not if the judiciary won't "approve" the amendment. Then it will take up to 6 weeks to change, if it happens to be at the beginning of a term.


DaveShack, I cannot agree that your idea would help the DemoGame. It will hurt the aspect of the game that I, and others, enjoy - the simulation of a government. It seems that you're wanting to turn this into nothing more than a giant Succession Game, and that's not what the DG should be.


That is not what I want at all. I want a safety net that gets us by that 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 ruling at the beginning of a term, that stops the game in its tracks but can't be fixed because the same judiciary that rules wrongly can also refuse to validate the amendment that can fix it. We can't have a branch of government which is totally unchecked by the other branches.

Not if the judiciary won't "approve" the amendment. Then it will take up to 6 weeks to change, if it happens to be at the beginning of a term.

That is not what I want at all. I want a safety net that gets us by that 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000 ruling at the beginning of a term, that stops the game in its tracks but can't be fixed because the same judiciary that rules wrongly can also refuse to validate the amendment that can fix it. We can't have a branch of government which is totally unchecked by the other branches.

I don't think it's worth our time and effort to try to make a rule that will cover a 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 problem. I'm with ravensfire on this one DaveShack. Not only is there an amendment process already in place, your objections about the judiciary are fixed by simply voting in a new judiciary next term. And on top of that (as I said many times last game) none of these things has to stop the game dead in its tracks. All you have to do is keep playing the save. A continuous play system would help aleviate this problem as well.

As for a higher power intervening, that's the worst thing we can ask for. Any time a mod interferes with the demogame we lose people. Also, the very essence of the government simulation is working out our disagreements ourselves.

Finally, maybe I'm getting paranoid in my old age but it seems all your objections relate back to things I've done. You should start taking them in context. You talk about checks and balances and not taking extreme positions yet last game we had an unchecked office (the Censor) who unilaterally went around invalidating polls for political reasons. Last game my polls were trounced because I wanted them to be private. Let's not even talk about a CJ who validated his own appointment. Not only were there no checks and balances I couldn't even get a JR or a decent initiative polled to see if private polls were acceptable to a majority of the citizens. Doing a pocket veto (so to speak) of an amendment JR was a response to these things. I would not have minded the majority going against what I wanted as long as the issue got a fair hearing - which never happened in the last game.

The positions of DaveShack, ravensfire and myself are all valid. We do need to respect the majority's wishes but we also need ro remember the majority can ask for opposing things at times. We also need to ensure that citizens are given an equal chance to take part in a decison so that all sides are dealt with fairly. We need a way to balance all this. Perhaps that way is not to be found through the rules but through other means. :eek:

Finally, maybe I'm getting paranoid in my old age but it seems all your objections relate back to things I've done.

They're the ones I was involved in. Provolution had a serious problem with the Judicary in a previous game, and I'm not sure but think Tao did too before that. You don't have to listen to their complaints because they walked away instead of taking the abuse.

I also had disagreements with JR rulings in DG7, but the judiciary was ruling in favor of the majority by reading extra things into the law which weren't actually there in the words. A perfect example of how I want the judiciary to work BTW, even when the ruling goes against the position I'm taking. I take issue when the ruling is not what the majority intended when the law was created.

You are most certainly not the only one. I have also referred to incidents with Strider (the time when I wanted to repoll the decision on going straight to democracy vs. taking a side trip to economics so we could get Smith's -- I wanted Smith's and he made a big deal about only polls created by officials could be binding) and Cyc (the time I wanted his city to change its build queue to something we needed for a national project, and he got pig-headed about the governor being supreme ruler of the build queues and nobody gave them any respect).

And I'm not above taking friendly jabs at Chieftess either. Playing the game with untested beta code should result in a forced vacation. She voluntarily decided to step back anyway for fear of contaminating the save, and the actual in-game result wasn't all that bad, so we didn't get the chance to put up the gallows. :lol: And it's not really her fault that there was a 6 month or so period where all her political opponents got foot-in-mouth disease and got themselves banned. :lol: (note: not a comment on moderator actions :eek: )


You should start taking them in context. You talk about checks and balances and not taking extreme positions yet last game we had an unchecked office (the Censor) who unilaterally went around invalidating polls for political reasons. Last game my polls were trounced because I wanted them to be private. Let's not even talk about a CJ who validated his own appointment. Not only were there no checks and balances I couldn't even get a JR or a decent initiative polled to see if private polls were acceptable to a majority of the citizens. Doing a pocket veto (so to speak) of an amendment JR was a response to these things. I would not have minded the majority going against what I wanted as long as the issue got a fair hearing - which never happened in the last game.


Sorry, you had a very simple out and refused to take it. If you had merely made the first poll on whether polls should be allowed to be private a public poll, the rest would have fallen out without a problem. Either the people would have validated that private polls were OK, or they would have confirmed that they wanted them to remain public.

I'm not sure who was on the court for the failed JR (probably me if it's the case you're talking about but not 100% sure), but the approach you took (trying to say initiatives are not "official") was the wrong approach. If you had instead pointed out the "should" didn't say "must", it would have been a ruling of "you're exactly right, they don't need to be public, case closed."

As for Curu's appointment, he was ready to recuse from the case. Pressing too hard, and continuing to press after he said he'd consider it, is what forced him to take the harder line.

I did notice another extreme case, and tried to fix it on both sides of the dispute. Our friend Ravensfire's position that two (or was it three) polls were required to approve a war plan was completely over the top. The SoW's (Robi D's?) insistence that no discussion or approval was required was equally over the top in the opposite direction.

Sorry, you had a very simple out and refused to take it. If you had merely made the first poll on whether polls should be allowed to be private a public poll, the rest would have fallen out without a problem.

I did not need an out. The correct interpretation of our rules was that private polls were legal. Accepting the law as written was the easy out you (and our esteemed Censor) could have taken. Allowing my private poll to finish in a fair manner was another easy out for those opposed to private polls. If the vote went against private polls I would have had no recourse. If the poll ended up for private polls then my poll could have been challenged in the judiciary. It wasn't the laws, it was the politics that gave us the problems.

I'm not sure who was on the court for the failed JR (probably me if it's the case you're talking about but not 100% sure), but the approach you took (trying to say initiatives are not "official") was the wrong approach. If you had instead pointed out the "should" didn't say "must", it would have been a ruling of "you're exactly right, they don't need to be public, case closed."

I don't get this one at all. When I read a rule should does equal must. May would indicate a choice is legally possible, should does not. This highlights the fact that you and I do not think alike and do not use words the same way. To you official means binding. To me it means an act by an official. You also tried to structure the decision making heirarchy to cover instances where a) one specific thing was covered and b) a rule was laid down to be followed until such time as another rule over-rode it. To me that distinction should (please read this as must) be included in the wording of the decision itself.

If you held the key to avoiding that whole mess (by having the question simply reworded) why the heck didn't you step forward and produce that key? Sounds like another political failure rather than a problem with our system

As for Curu's appointment, he was ready to recuse from the case. Pressing too hard, and continuing to press after he said he'd consider it, is what forced him to take the harder line.

Yet another political failure. If I had known all it would take was backing off I would have. No one PMed me to suggest that. Also, I don't recall many citizens stepping up and publicly calling for the CJ's recusal. A little bit of that might have swayed him as well.

As I hinted at in my last post in this thread, maybe it's not the rules we have to work on but something else.

When I read a rule should does equal must. May would indicate a choice is legally possible, should does not. This highlights the fact that you and I do not think alike and do not use words the same way. To you official means binding. To me it means an act by an official.


Must conveys an imperative, such as "you must stop at a stop sign". Such imperatives typically result in an automatic penalty if not followed (and observed by someone with the authority to invoke the penalty).
Should conveys a duty or obligation such as "you should pull off the road when an emergency vehicle passes" but does not imply an automatic penalty, for instance if it is not possible to move off the road.
May conveys a sense of an action being optional or permissable, exactly as you use it.


You also tried to structure the decision making heirarchy to cover instances where a) one specific thing was covered and b) a rule was laid down to be followed until such time as another rule over-rode it. To me that distinction should (please read this as must) be included in the wording of the decision itself.

My turn to not follow something, I'm not sure what a and b refer to.


If you held the key to avoiding that whole mess (by having the question simply reworded) why the heck didn't you step forward and produce that key? Sounds like another political failure rather than a problem with our system

In the first instance, I was following the majority's wishes as captured during the rulemaking phase, by trying to fix imperfections in the language. Later when I brought out the distinction between should and must and changed the Censor procedures to say that being private was not sufficient by itself to invalidate a poll, I was following the updated majority wish to allow private polls to be valid.

Should conveys a duty or obligation such as "you should pull off the road when an emergency vehicle passes" but does not imply an automatic penalty, for instance if it is not possible to move off the road.

I guess we're on different levels of moral developement. I if I should do something because it is right then I must do it.

My turn to not follow something, I'm not sure what a and b refer to.

Just goes to show I don't understand your distinction between initiative and referendum. All I know is (according to your definition) one covers the here and now while the other covers subsequent decisions as well (has the force of law as you put it). Understand now?


In the first instance, I was following the majority's wishes as captured during the rulemaking phase, by trying to fix imperfections in the language. Later when I brought out the distinction between should and must and changed the Censor procedures to say that being private was not sufficient by itself to invalidate a poll, I was following the updated majority wish to allow private polls to be valid.

Did it ever occur to you to just state what YOU want it to be so we can count your vote when we tally up the majority?

Just goes to show I don't understand your distinction between initiative and referendum. All I know is (according to your definition) one covers the here and now while the other covers subsequent decisions as well (has the force of law as you put it). Understand now?


It was a bad idea to have that distinction. You'll see in this game's proposal I eliminated the difference between referendum and initiative and said (or at least tried to say) that a later poll can reverse an earlier one.

A better idea on duration would be to include the intended duration in the poll itself. For example "Shall we stay at peace for the next 40 turns (yes/no/abstain)." Successful polls of this type can be recorded in a common place as currently active long-term decisions, and edited out when no longer in effect.


Did it ever occur to you to just state what YOU want it to be so we can count your vote when we tally up the majority?

I did say what I want -- all polls to be public except the ones about individuals which are required to be private. When making my decisions on who to vote for, I want to compare their past statements about what we should do with their corresponding past votes. If we're simulating a government, we're all members of the legislative body, and legislative body votes are on the record.

Please continue discussion of referendum / initiative in the Decisions and how to make them (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=195924) thread.