I bring up the subject of the judiciary in an attempt to reform in, to bring a fairer system of justice to the nation.

I believe that the current system is basically flawed. We ask two judges to make decisions in cases where they are practically biased, because they've been asked to defend two different sides of a case. All of them are elected each term, almost making them make popular decisions over the correct ones.

I propose a different system, to reduce bias for the benefit of all.

1. The Justices
- three, the most senior citizen being the Chief Justice
- elected to three month terms - allows decisions to be made without great fear of public backlash
- staggered: one justice elected every month - sake of rotation of justices
- term limited: only allowed one term during the entire game - gets 'new blood' on the bench

2. Additional powers
- by unanimous vote, may block unconstitutional decisions of leaders
- by unanimous vote, may halt gameplay to allow legal issues to be resolved.

3. Checks on Power
- If President or other two justices feel one is clearly abusing power, may call a vote of no-confidence to prevent justice from acting, and to launch a proper investigation.

4. Offices of the JA and PD
- mostly same as before
- elected monthly
- For legal purposes, deputies of Chief Justice. allows CJ to appoint new ones, and allows PD and JA to hold other offices (except for spot on bench)

Thoughts? Other proposals?

So what you're saying is the first month we would have the 1st Justice, the Public Defender, and the Judge Advocate.

The second month a new Justice would be elected to serve with the Chief Justice. This means 4 in the Judiciary.

The third month, a new Justice is elected to serve with the other two Justices.

The fourth month, the Chief Justice is forced to retire and a new Justice is elected. The second Justice elected then becomes the Chief Justice, and the rotation remains. The PD and the JA are re-elected each month?

Seems kind of complicated, Oct.

quoting Octavian X:
1. The Justices
- three, the most senior citizen being the Chief Justice
- elected to three month terms - allows decisions to be made without great fear of public backlash
- staggered: one justice elected every month - sake of rotation of justices
- term limited: only allowed one term during the entire game - gets 'new blood' on the bench
______________________________________

Okay, I am for some of this proposal. I think having three Justices makes for a much better Judiciary, however I have some major changes to that to propose:

1. The Justices should be elected every month, not every three months. Assuming a six-term demogame, each Justice will be in office for half the game and will not be holding any other office during that time, and Judicial resignations may become common, which would throw off the staggering system. Also, there would be either an election of three Justices in Term 1, which would cause trouble both with the staggering system and the concept of seniority determining the Chief Justice, or a Judiciary that has only one Justice during Term 1 (as Cyc pointed out). In a one-month term system, the Justices could be determined in one of a few ways:
--There could be three separate elections, one for Chief Justice and two for the Associate Justice positions (I favor this option).
--There could be one large poll for everybody interested in becoming a Justice, with the top three runners becoming Justices, and the top candidate would become the Chief Justice.
--They could be appointed and confirmed somehow. (My least favorite option)
--Something I didn't think of. ;)

2. I like both of the additional powers, but I think that it should be two of three Justices rather than a unanimous vote in the event that one of the Justices is not present at the time.

3. Looks good to me.

4. I think we should change this to make the JA an appointee of the Chief Justice and subject to an approval vote in a citizen poll, to make the office less official. Also, I think we should sack the position of PD as we know it now but allow the defendant in a PI to seek his own attorney.

How does this sound?

I think you're going the wrong way here, because the thought of what Judiciary is supposed to do is not properly worked out. In my opinion the Judiciary's task is fairly simple; it studies and decides on the topic: 'has person/official X done something illegal, described in the "rules" or not ?'

To determine these rules I follow Donsigs proposal that we start with very few rules and invite citizens to put oup bills or laws and we vote for them. Judiciary first has to decide whether these bills are "smart" (that is possibly restict us later in the game) and when these bills are excpted in a poll, see to that these laws are followed.

What I mean by "smart" is: a bill stating: "Don't go into French territory" is not smart; it limits us when:
A) we are in war with an opponent who is situated on the other side of France; we can't move for them without an illegal set of actions.
B) we are allied with France
c) we have an RoP with France
etc.

The Judiciary bench could instead propose: "Don't move military units into French territory without RoP, MPP or MA with France, or as long as we can get out of their territory in 1 turn, or as long France doesn't ask/demand us to leave".

This (although probably not complete) allows us some freedom, but blocks, by law, a war with France. So it should be, perhaps "Don't move military units into French territory without RoP, MPP or MA with France, or as long as we can get out of their territory in 1 turn, or as long France doesn't ask/demand us to leave, or we have no deals/agreements with Frnace other than war."

An essestial part of this is that no law can 'destroy' a previously accepted law. If we make a law stating: "China is not to be attacked" than there is no way we can attack China, ever. If we go to war with China, ever, it can only be a defensive war as we blocked ourselves from attacking China. Even if we accept a law stating: "We are allowed to capture Chinese cities"; it is not allowed by the first accepted law: "China is not to be attacked".

In my point of view Judiciary should first evaluate law-proposals (bills) before they go to a vote on their "smartness" (not content), and secondly whether (proposed) actions are allowed or not.

That way it makes it clear to everyone if a move is allowed / forbidden or not.

I have to disagree with you, Rik.

There should never be any laws stating something like "Don't go into China" or anything similar. Those are the domain of the respective leaders as backed up by citizen polls as needed to post into the turnchat instruction thread.

In addition, the Judicial bench should not be proposing things like that; that is again the task of the respective leaders. A member of the Judiciary may, however, independently post a new law proposal for something procedural that should have a law in place. I also don't think the Judiciary should have the power to check to make sure that bills are "smart" though they should use Judicial Reviews to check for conflicts with other laws. Whether the law is "smart" should be up to the people to decide.

Also, regarding this:
To determine these rules I follow Donsigs proposal that we start with very few rules and invite citizens to put oup bills or laws and we vote for them. Judiciary first has to decide whether these bills are "smart" (that is possibly restict us later in the game) and when these bills are excpted in a poll, see to that these laws are followed.
We tried to have a small ruleset this game, and it was basically a failure; the only laws that were passed had to do almost entirely with PI's.

I think this is a good idea, bias is never aq good thing.

This is an interesting concept, and one we should explore thoroughly. Let me catch up here.....

Octavian

1. If we were to adopt a system like this(or similar), I think it would be only fair for an accused citizen to appoint his own council. The three judges and JA(Prosecutor? DA?) could still be elected by the people.

For judges, I would recommend no more than two-month terms, with all justices being re-upped at the same time.

2. I don't see how the justices would be able to act on your proposed situations unless all three are present at the turnchat. If they are reacting to delay the chat due to an ongoing legal crisis in the forums, this idea could work. For the record, I am all for similar checks and balances within the three branches. Keep 'em coming. ;)

3. I like this idea as well.

4. Once again, if we were to adopt a three-justice system, I think it would only be fair that a defendant be allowed to pick anyone from the citizenry to represent his/her case. This would obviously eliminate the need to elect a Public Defender. I am not sure if I would want the CJ to be able to appoint defense council either.

Boots

Great minds indeed.....would you believe that I typed the preceding and then read your post? Probably not, but I am not rewriting it now.... ;)

I will have to give some more thought into how we would elect three justices at once.

Of course, I agree that we must clarify as much as we can now, so that we don't have a repeat of DG3. We cannot have a game of checks and balances with the Constitution alone.

Rik Meleet

I remember when the idea of savegame-related laws was tossed around awhile back, and I really don't think there is a way to implement it. However, I would like to revisit the topic once we get a traditional ruleset in place.

i think that if said citizen could not find anybody to represent him/her, then the CJ could appoint a public defender, or we have a public defenders office if someone chooses to go that route.

All and all good ideas octavian

My thoughts...

1. The Justices

I don't like having the Chief Justice determined by seniority of citizenship. I don't know if our poll system allows this, but a good way to do it would to have one election where each citizen votes for 3 candidates and the 3 top vote getters win office and the top vote getter is chief justice. Otherwise, we should just have 2 "regular justice" elections and a chief justice election.

I think they should be elected every month, no staggering. And I don't like term limits.

2. Additional powers

Would these be initiated by the judiciary, or does a citizen have to make a complaint first?

3. Checks on Power
I don't like votes of no confidence or recalls in this game. Ravensfire has put forth my arguments pretty well.

4. Offices of the JA and PD

I like having these as seperate offices from the judiciary. However, I don't really see the point of a PD - just let the accused represent themselves or pick thier own counsel. And whether the JA is elected or appointed, I don't think they should hold another office.

Interesting idea, Oct.

I like the halting a chat - of course, that's assuming that the Judiciary is actually at the chat. Bad, bad assumption. I assure you that many times nobody was there. Not to mention, presumption of chat sessions.

Keep elections for judiciary each month.

JA and PD as appointments - I don't like that. I like the current structure. I personally feel that if a person runs for an office, they ought to know what they are in for. The madness in T3 is a great example - that was a direct failure of certain members of the Judiciary to uphold the duties of their office. Distasteful or not, the duties of the Judiciary, while infrequently needed, require utter impartiality, regardless of the situation. Even when prosecuting a case, or defending a client, the Justice MUST remain open to evidence. The JA should recognize when new evidence proves innocence, and move to drop charges. The PD is a bit tougher, as they must go with the wishes of the accused. A rigorous defense, however, is one of the strongest rights all citizens have. Can it cause conflicts - sure. We've seen them. But is that a failure of the system, or a failure of the citizens to elect individuals capable of fulfilling the duties of that office?



I like the reverse uncon. actions. However, I think it should only be done if a citizen requests it. If the citizenship doesn't complain about an illegal instruction, it implicitly has support by them. The only way this will work is if all instructions must be posted 24 hours prior to gameplay session to allow for adequate review and challenges. I like that idea.

-- Ravensfire

Rik,

Ah, someone defining the role of the judiciary! Bravo!

I agree with you on the resolution of questions of fact, but would add the following:
-- Review proposed legislation for compliance with current law
-- Resolve questions of law

I would not, however, allow the Judiciary to halt a legislative proposal simply because it's not "smart". Good or bad, the Judiciary should only decide the Constitutionality of a proposal. Responsibility for the "smartness" of a law is that of every citizen. The Judiciary may comment on a dumb proposal, but that should be it.

I would also allow a law to repeal an existing law, or modify an existing law. Laws should not be static in nature, defining a boundary for all time. Future events may require changes, we need to allow that.

Finally, the main reason we didn't see many laws passed in DG3 was simple - apathy. Several discussions were started, then died out. The citizens of DG3 appropriately got the legal framework they deserved because they were not willing to put forth a little effort. The PI went through because Peri started it, and I pushed it through. I challenged people to do the same for the other proposals, and the best that happened is the old threads were revived with a "look at this" post. Unpleasant, yes. Accurate, yes.

In general, the nature of this forum is to abide by the status quo. People may complain about it, launch long diatribes, but they won't put forth the effort to change it. When changes are proposed, often the comments are either negative or not about the change, but about future decisions. Various people do put forth effort, significant effort in some cases, and make strong suggestions. Even if the suggestion is to nix the proposal, the reasons are clean, the tone is positive.

Wow - this did wander some. Sorry, Oct - didn't mean to go off topic. Much of it is still on point though, and what isn't, may provoke discussion elsewhere (broad hint!).

-- Ravensfire



Boots, how can you NOT support a law that limits a leader? Consider that all duties of a leader are defined BY laws. If the citizens vote, in accordance with the appropriate standards, to modify the limits of a leader, how can that possibly be wrong? It may not be smart, but it cannot be wrong.

Originally posted by ravensfire
Distasteful or not, the duties of the Judiciary, while infrequently needed, require utter impartiality, regardless of the situation. Even when prosecuting a case, or defending a client, the Justice MUST remain open to evidence. The JA should recognize when new evidence proves innocence, and move to drop charges. The PD is a bit tougher, as they must go with the wishes of the accused. A rigorous defense, however, is one of the strongest rights all citizens have. Can it cause conflicts - sure. We've seen them. But is that a failure of the system, or a failure of the citizens to elect individuals capable of fulfilling the duties of that office?


If we are to keep the Public Defender as an elected position, we should make a law that states that he may not hold a deputy office within the Legislative or Executive branches. When a PD is involved in decisions during the actual game, we run a severe risk of impartiality should he become involved on either side of a conflict. As a matter of fact, I believe that we should ask this of all members of the Judiciary Branch.

However, I still don't see a problem with an accused leader appointing his own council or resresenting himself.

Also, I still like the idea of three impartial justices that have no role within a possible PI process. This is true impartiality, with no more 2-1 votes(as is now standard, since by definition the JA and PD would almost always disagree.)

Wow, this may take a while...

I still believe we need to elect PDs and JAs, in case the accused/accuser can't find somone to volunteer to try the case. The two would still be there as a final backup.
People would have the options of representing themselves, appointing someone else on their own, or using the PD/JA.

RE Three month terms - There is simple reasoning here. In the beginning, one justice would serve one month, and the second two months, with the third having a full term, so that the terms may the staggered.

If people are against the three-month terms, I'd be willing to accept shorter ones, still with the understanding that justices are limited to one term, period. The goal of longer terms/term limits is simple. If justices need to be be looking out for their own reelection, they won't be making the best decisions, only ones that would further their electoral goals.

RE Stopping gameplay: The idea wasn't that the court would stop a chat during the middle of it. It was more along the lines of what eyrei, as a moderator, did during term thre. If you'll recall, he called a halt to all game play sessions.
If the court was in the middle of a big investigation, was about to begin one, or was deciding an important constitutional issue, the court would issue an injunction, preventing the save from being played at all, putting off the next TC until the injunction was over. Obviously, when the formal law is written, the court would be required to, when it places in the injunction, set a specific date for it to be lifted.

RE Selecting CJ and associates: how about this...
Under my staggered system, during Term 1, all those who want to be on the bench put their names onto the ballot.
Top three vote-getters win. The one with the most becomes CJ for three months, number two gets the two month term, and third gets the one month term.
With each month, the Justice who's been on the bench longest gets to be the CJ.

Under different term lengths, top vote getters would get the top spot.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi


If we are to keep the Public Defender as an elected position, we should make a law that states that he may not hold a deputy office within the Legislative or Executive branches. When a PD is involved in decisions during the actual game, we run a severe risk of impartiality should he become involved on either side of a conflict. As a matter of fact, I believe that we should ask this of all members of the Judiciary Branch.

However, I still don't see a problem with an accused leader appointing his own council or resresenting himself.

Also, I still like the idea of three impartial justices that have no role within a possible PI process. This is true impartiality, with no more 2-1 votes(as is now standard, since by definition the JA and PD would almost always disagree.)
Very good points DZ. Your first two I absolutely agree with, especially with all members of the Judiciary having only that office, no deputy position.

On the third point, I guess we have philisophical differences. To me, the role of the JA is potentially the most challenging position in the game. They must review any accusation not with an eye towards a trial, but to a fair and reasoned analysis. The JA needs to take the viewpoint of a modern Grand Jury - is there Probable Cause that the crime happened. If not, toss the charge out. If there is, make the charge.

Only then do the roles of JA and PD become emotional, as they must use the powers of reason and debate to persuade the jury (the citizens) towards their side. We go with a fairly low burden of proof - majority of jurists is the decision. Of course, that's because we have a very lienient punishment system.

I look at the roles of PD and JA to be open-minded and impartial up until the trial begins. That is the only way that Justice can be done - fair and open. I would not compare the JA to a modern day DA. I don't know if there is an equivalent to my concept of a model JA. They should be skeptical about a charge, viewing all evidence in a neutral viewpoint to determine if a charge should be pressed.

But as I said, that's my philosophy.

-- Ravensfire

Oct,

Thanks for the clarification on some points - it did help.

My main concern about enlarging the Judiciary, especially with one term and out, is do we have enough citizens who are willing, and able to fill those roles.

I see your viewpoint about the 3 month term, and it would establish some stability to the court. Of course, Peri did that himself in DG3 - I think he spent 3 or 4 terms on the court! I don't know that people would be looking for reelection with their decision, but I can see the concern there. I have no problem with term limiits per se, just that all consequences be considered.

Should we want to go with a three month term, I would suggest that the top vote getter have the 3 month term, and be deemed the most junior Justice. The 2nd place has a 2 month term, and is number 2 in seniority. The 3rd place has a 1 month term, and starts out as CJ. Or, reverse the places. This prevents having the same person as CJ for 3 terms. I would then not count the 2nd and 3rd place positions as "terms" for term limit purposes. Require the citizen, after leaving the Judiciary, to not run for the Judiciary for at least 2 terms, then do as they please.

Stopping the play of the game.
Thanks for the clarification - I agree with your point. I would stress that clarification so that we don't have someone trying to use that to stop a particular game play session in midstream.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Octavian X
Wow, this may take a while...

I still believe we need to elect PDs and JAs, in case the accused/accuser can't find somone to volunteer to try the case. The two would still be there as a final backup.
People would have the options of representing themselves, appointing someone else on their own, or using the PD/JA.Wouldn't a CJ appointment work just as well if not better for this position? If we wish to make this a deputy position, I think it would make sense to have them appointed by the CJ with the approval of the citizens (or perhaps just a majority of the Judiciary). In this case, if there were any conflicts and a PD or JA were necessary, the CJ could appoint a new one quickly.

RE Three month terms - There is simple reasoning here. In the beginning, one justice would serve one month, and the second two months, with the third having a full term, so that the terms may the staggered.

If people are against the three-month terms, I'd be willing to accept shorter ones, still with the understanding that justices are limited to one term, period. The goal of longer terms/term limits is simple. If justices need to be be looking out for their own reelection, they won't be making the best decisions, only ones that would further their electoral goals.
I think the terms should be only one month long, to stay within the ordinary term length and prevent Judicial resignations from people who wish to hold another office while they are still in the Judiciary. I also don't see the need for a one-term limit, as I don't feel that the Judiciary rules with reelection in mind. I would be willing to accept a rule against consecutive Judicial terms, but I think eventual reelection should be allowed.

RE Stopping gameplay: The idea wasn't that the court would stop a chat during the middle of it. It was more along the lines of what eyrei, as a moderator, did during term three. If you'll recall, he called a halt to all game play sessions.
If the court was in the middle of a big investigation, was about to begin one, or was deciding an important constitutional issue, the court would issue an injunction, preventing the save from being played at all, putting off the next TC until the injunction was over. Obviously, when the formal law is written, the court would be required to, when it places in the injunction, set a specific date for it to be lifted.
I would be in favor of the Judiciary placing an injunction, providing there were controls on it.

RE Selecting CJ and associates: how about this...
Under my staggered system, during Term 1, all those who want to be on the bench put their names onto the ballot.
Top three vote-getters win. The one with the most becomes CJ for three months, number two gets the two month term, and third gets the one month term.
With each month, the Justice who's been on the bench longest gets to be the CJ.

Under different term lengths, top vote getters would get the top spot.
I'd rather see a Term 1-type election implemented every election cycle with the Justices under one month terms, or three separate elections, as covered above.

It's apparent that, once we decide on term lengths, we'll need to work on the elections. That specific item is best left for another discussion.

Here's something else to think about. Rather than set investigation procedure in law, why not allow the Bench to set up it's own PI procedure? Mandate that the judiciary develops and votes on it's own prodcedure, and have the CJ write it down somewhere.

Originally posted by ravensfire

On the third point, I guess we have philisophical differences. To me, the role of the JA is potentially the most challenging position in the game. They must review any accusation not with an eye towards a trial, but to a fair and reasoned analysis. The JA needs to take the viewpoint of a modern Grand Jury - is there Probable Cause that the crime happened. If not, toss the charge out. If there is, make the charge.

-- Ravensfire

I wouldn't say that we have philosophical differences, Ravensfire, as I still have several reservations about Octavian's proposal. And you are correct about the JA: in most cases, the position has been handled exactly as you have stated -- with complete objectivity.

Here are my issues with the new system:

1. No term limits for the Judiciary! This is the one aspect of the game where we should not force someone out early. If we are lucky enough to find someone who is adept at interpreting our laws, that person should stick around as long as the voters will have him.

2. I am not really buying into the idea of staggered terms. How will this help our nation? What criteria will determine who gets the 3-month term as opposed to the 1-month term? I am willing to extend Judiciary terms to two months, as long as the election cycle is the same for all jurists.

3. I don't think that one "top three" election poll is the best way to choose our Judiciary, as the vote totals would not be a true respesentation for the three positions. And if we allowed a multi-choice poll to pick the best two(or three) candidates, there would be no way to effectively ensure that people voted accordingly. But if we did individual polls, what would distinguish the three judge positions? As you can see, the election process alone would add too much ambiguity and confusion.

4. What would the three judges do that is not currently being done by the CJ, JA and PD?

-----

If this looks like an about face on my part, it really isn't. I had wanted to get some questions answered about the new proposal and now that I have, I do not see enough benefit to warrant such a change.

And now Ravensfire's comments have strengthened my loyalty to the existing system. My only concern would be in lieu of the elected PD, that the accused be allowed to appoint his own council if he wishes.

im ok, so long as there isnt a bias against people we would have a good system. But if thee is bias, kill it! I for one will not stand for corruption in our government structure

OK, this thread died out but we still need to decide this issue.

Do we devise something new for our Judiciary a la Octavian X's proposal? Or do we go with the tried and true?

And actually, Octavian, I really think we need to iron out the electoral ramifications of your proposal now, lest we approve the measure and then it unworkable due to confusing election restraints.

Let's get this discussion back on track so that we can poll it in a few days. :)

Originally posted by Bootstoots
There should never be any laws stating something like "Don't go into China" or anything similar. Those are the domain of the respective leaders as backed up by citizen polls as needed to post into the turnchat instruction thread.

In addition, the Judicial bench should not be proposing things like that; that is again the task of the respective leaders. A member of the Judiciary may, however, independently post a new law proposal for something procedural that should have a law in place. I also don't think the Judiciary should have the power to check to make sure that bills are "smart" though they should use Judicial Reviews to check for conflicts with other laws. Whether the law is "smart" should be up to the people to decide.

Also, regarding this:

We tried to have a small ruleset this game, and it was basically a failure; the only laws that were passed had to do almost entirely with PI's.

The mindset displayed in this post shows why we never passed any real laws in DG3. I must disagree with both Rik Meleet and bootstoots. If the citizens want to pass a law that says "Don't move units into China" then they should be able to do so. The judiciary should NOT be deciding if laws are *smart* or not in RM's sense of the word. The judiciary should only rule on whether the law is constitutional or not. Unconstitutional laws should not be allowed. Remember that laws can be repealed or changed. It may well be wise to make a law that says "Don not move into China" at one point and then repeal it or modify it later. But it is up to the citizens (and not the judiciary) to decide upon the wisdom of such laws.

As for these type of laws being the *task of the respective leaders backed by as backed up by citizen polls as needed to post into the turnchat instruction thread*, well, isn't a law that is passed by citizens - discussed and polled by citizens - enough? This all boils down to the question of the role of leaders and citizens. There is the idea that leaders must actively seek the *will of the people*, in fact only elected leaders can divine the *will of the people* by posting official discussion and polls. I say that idea is hogwash. We've had many debates in the three demogames and one thing that came out is that any citizen can start a discussion thread or post a poll. We had been working towards the idea that any posted poll, irregardless of who made up the poll, should carry weight when determining the *will of the people* as long as the poll is fairly posted, not biased, up long enough, backed by discussion, etc. This idea combined with the idea that the citizens are the Congress - the body that makes laws - should have resulted in us passing laws to have the game go the way we wanted it. The mentality that leaders need to have their *tasks* preserved for them alone helped shoot down any law making tendencies we might have shown. (That and the fact that most decisions were being made at the chats anyway.)

Now, if you truly want to reform the judiciary, then get rid of the idea pf PIs and votes of no confidence. Let the judiciary concentrate on deciding if laws are constitutional or not. Try actually making some laws and let the judicary be the ones to decide if the laws were broken. Not to punish the wrong doer but to bring things in the game in accordance with the *will of the people* as expressed by their laws. If the law says "Don't move into China" and the DP does move into China then let the judiciary post legal instructions to move back out of China.

As for PIs I say we leave that stuff to the moderators. They have the power to stop the demogame, remove citizens from office or the demogame entirely, even to ban posters from the forums. If we ever get an official who truly breaks our rules we can always go to the mods by private message and have them look into things. If the situation is truly serious enough they will act in the best interest of the demogame.

Interesting thoughts, donsig. I will have to think these over.

I don't know if there would be need for constantly-changing written laws based on the savegame, especially considering our history of (not) creating laws during the actual game. What I could see is perhaps having the Judiciary validate a poll and post in the instruction thread, although we have a system that somewhat does that now anyway.

I can tell you now that I really don't want to use my position as moderator to act outside of the constructs of the Democracy Game. Anything we bring forth that deals with punishment should be written in our laws and should not be left to the mods, especially if we are active in the game.

For the most part, I agree with donsig. This is, more or less, what I've been trying to get at all along. However...

Originally posted by donsig

Now, if you truly want to reform the judiciary, then get rid of the idea pf PIs and votes of no confidence. Let the judiciary concentrate on deciding if laws are constitutional or not. Try actually making some laws and let the judicary be the ones to decide if the laws were broken. Not to punish the wrong doer but to bring things in the game in accordance with the *will of the people* as expressed by their laws. If the law says "Don't move into China" and the DP does move into China then let the judiciary post legal instructions to move back out of China.

As for PIs I say we leave that stuff to the moderators. They have the power to stop the demogame, remove citizens from office or the demogame entirely, even to ban posters from the forums. If we ever get an official who truly breaks our rules we can always go to the mods by private message and have them look into things. If the situation is truly serious enough they will act in the best interest of the demogame.

I do see the advantage of giving moderators this responsibility. In theory, they are the ultimate judges. As they don't have to worry about public outcry, they don't bias any decisions they make.

However, I sincerely don't want to see this happen. What I said in the paragraph above: that is a perhaps unreachable deal. As regular citizens, moderators have their reputation to worry about, especially if they chose to participate in elections. If moderators were given this conflict-resolving power, I would demand that they, for the sake of impartiality, give up the right to hold elected positions.

Rather, I would leave this responsibility to the judiciary. As with normal current PI procecure, they really wouldn't have any power in the conflict's resolution, anyway. The citizenry would still vote on charges and punishments, etc.

If we really do think it's irresponsible for judiciray to run investigations, we can leave that responsibility to the mods, with the understanding that they would only post the discussion and polls, and would not themselves make any judgements unless a tie occurs.

I don't think its irresponsible for the judiciary to run PIs I just think the whole PI process is a bad thing. All of our PIs (save one) have been political in nature. Not once have we had a leader who should have been removed from office for breaking rules. Having mods adjudicate PIs would not only be fairer, it would be faster. If a leader is truly ruining the game it would require fast action, which is something our PI process cannot acheive.

It would be best if our mods were not active but that is not a requirement for fair treatment by them in a PI. I agree with you DZ, punishement should be in the rules. All I'm saying is that we let the mods make the decision if the rules were broken and if so administer the punishment as precribed by our rules.

I think we should consider splitting the legal review and PI responsibilities. Have 3 Justices (1 Chief Justice and 2 Associate Justices) who are responsible for reviewing and reporting on points of law. This would primarily include determining whether lower level laws (CoL) infringes higher laws (Constitution), and interpreting how a law affects particular situations and resolving disputes about what the law means.

The PI process can be partially decoupled from the judiciary by making the JA position a sort of "special prosecutor" role, instead of a "district attorney". I don't want to go into a lot of detail because that belongs somewhere else, but enough explanation of how the idea would work is needed to evaluate this judicial reform proposal...

Accusations would go to the CJ, who would lead private discussion among the court on whether the charge is based on a sound legal interpretation of the law. They would not be responsible for digging into the evidence. If the legal principle behind the accusation is valid, the court would appoint a special prosecutor, who would look at the evidence and present an opinion back to the court if the evidence shows that a crime may have been committed. The accused would be notified when a prosecutor is appointed, and would be allowed to choose a representative to act as defense attorney, if desired. The court would act like a grand jury, deciding if the special prosecutor's case is strong enough to go to trial.

Staggered elections with 3 month terms sounds like a great idea at first, but it probably wouldn't work in this environment. We have trouble enough keeping leaders of all kinds for whole months, much less 3.

In reading this thread, I pretty much agree with DaveShack, Donovan Zoi, and zorven on most points. This thread involves large changes to our basic structure and I'm wondering if this is the appropriate time for this. In my eyes, the Judiciary has the prime responsibility of determining the Constitutionality of proposed laws and standards, the Constitutionality of charges made by one citizen against another, and running the mechanics of the PI system.

Two of the three duties listed above involve determining Constitutionality. People we are nowhere near knowing wtf our Constituion is going to be like yet. And you want to discuss overhauling the Judiciary? I think this would be better off left for an in-game dicussion. :rolleyes:

But, as far as the topics covered in the thread, I will state:

I think staggering term would waste time and energy.

Term Limits would only hurt the game. I haven't seen people in the Judiciary making rulings with re-election as a motivating factor. What I have seen is people like Bill_in_PDX, Ravensfire, Peri, Shaitan, the author of this thread - Octavian X, and others use their authority in these positions to help move the game along in the right direction, when needed. Term Limits would have only hindered these people in their responsibilities.

As far as electing 3 Judges and a PD plus a JA, I like this idea. I also think it's smart to allow the accused to choose their own defense, even mid-trial.

Maybe the elections for the three Judges could be open ballot. Everyone just post who they want for the three positions and the top three vote getters win. The one with the most votes in CJ. Let's not be afraid of an open ballot here. ;)

We definitely need to keep the PI system and keep Mods out of it (except as overseers - their current role). If a Mod wants to be a Judge, fine. Let them run for office, but the forefit Mod action while serving (as far as Judicial responsibilities go). Without a PI system the little guy has no recourse when they have been wronged. I have seen people with power abuse others in the Demogame and we need someway for the abused to protect themselves, instead of walking away shrugging their shoulders.

But mostly, I say leave it as it is and discuss the Judicial changes during DG4. We don't have the time to hold up the completion of the Constitution and law making to worry about how the Judiciary is going to approach the Constituion and law making (or breaking :) ). Let's just move on.

Now this is a thread I can enjoy :lol:

For what it is worth:

1) I think that there is a spectrum of actions that the citizens can take against a sitting office holder. They go from severe to nothing. I am opposed to recalls and votes of no confidence in this game, because the terms aren't long enough, and with the normal time delay's we see in everyday decision making, the game itself gets thrown into chaos while these types of processes occur. That is neither productive for our nation, or fun for anyone in the game, and that last component should be a priority of ours.

On the other end is the idea of repealling all checks on elected officals (such as doing away with PI's) and relying on Mods to take actions is perhaps a swing too far the other way. Instead it shifts the burden of potentially being seen as, or actually being, biased on good individuals, but good individuals who by necessity and definition are not accountable to the nation.

So, we are left with the unpopular, but seemingly always first choice option, of PI's. I think that they are not a perfect solution, but a necessary component of our country. We should discuss ways to limit their scope, and the areas in which they can be applied.

2) I never think that the Judicary should be allowed to determine the best wording for a law, or to somehow be the arbiters of the question regarding "is the law good". They should advise if asked, and as always, the judiciary should step in if the law proposed violates a basic component of the Constitution. Otherwise, by definition, a law properly discussed and polled to a passing level IS a good law. The will of the people is what counts.

3) As noted above, you might guess I am a strong advocate that all citizens can poll and have their voice heard. There is no reason not to handle it that way, imho, and yes, I know that leads to contradictary areas. That is when I view leaders as the key players in driving the discussions and decision making, in order to clear up the discrepancies.

4) I think three members of the Judiciary is best. Simply because then we will not have ties. Also, they should be elected positions, in the normal process we use for other elections. What I never want to see is a Judiciary that is somehow held out as a higher level government entity that is above it all, and somehow has the final word on everything. That leads to more PI's because people think that they are taking their "critical issue" to the top.

My philosophy is that the Judiciary exists to help us all navigate our way through a complicated team game. A help, a resource, and in the last resort, a place to have your case heard.

Anyways, enough rambling from me. I miss the game, and hope to be involved with the next one.

The reason discussing this now is important is that we're kicking around changing the roles of the judges. If we follow past models, the constitution needs to define the branches of government and their makeup, and the results of those aspects of this discussion would need to be incorporated.

The other parts of this thread might be CoL items instead, in particular the PI related ideas.

I propose this ideas for the constitution (wording TBD)

Change the names of the positions as follows, replacing C.3. in the DG3 constitution, or F in the DG2 constitution.

The Judicial Branch consists of 3 Justices of the Court, one Chief Justice and two Associate Justices. The duties of the justices are the same, except that the Chief Justice has the additional duty of organizing activites of the judicial branch. Decisions of the Court require a 2/3 vote. [need something on how vacancies on the court are filled?]

The JA and PD roles can be defined in the PI procedure, which should be in the CoL.

DS, you basically defined two major parts of the roles in your above Constitutional amendment. It again is too detailed for the Con. This is my point exactly. These days we can't even tell if the horse is in front of the cart or not, because we have no idea which way we are going or where we are at in any given day. Let's stop going in this direction and figure out the Constitution and its supporting rules. The roles of the Leaders can be discussed then. We're still just wasting time.

Originally posted by Cyc
Let's stop going in this direction and figure out the Constitution and its supporting rules. The roles of the Leaders can be discussed then. We're still just wasting time.

OK, I'm a little confused -- not surprising maybe given my short tenure compared to others who have been here since the beginning. Is this not how the rule set (all 3 books if necessary) should be debated?

Both of the example constitutions contain definitions of roles of the leaders, and relevant to this thread, definitions of the makeup of the Judicial Branch.. We should clearly work on the constitution first. This thread is titled "Reforming the Judiciary", so I'm making a concrete suggestion about how the constitution can be modified to achieve some of the goals which have been advocated in this thread.

If that's not how we should be approaching this, then please enlighten us.

To all, If you have meaningful comments either for or against the proposed change, I'd be happy to hear them. :)

quoting DS:
Both of the example constitutions contain definitions of roles of the leaders, and relevant to this thread, definitions of the makeup of the Judicial Branch.. We should clearly work on the constitution first. This thread is titled "Reforming the Judiciary", so I'm making a concrete suggestion about how the constitution can be modified to achieve some of the goals which have been advocated in this thread.
________________________________________________

You're right DS, The name of this thread is "Reforming the Judiciary". It's not named "let's write amendments to the future Constitution". As you stated above, we are kicking around ideas to make major changes in the roles of the Judiciary. Roles that have had a long standing in the Demogame for a reason. Just because some ideas have been kicked around doesn't mean we have to propose amendments to the Constitution. That would obviously go in another thread, once we stop kicking around ideas and vote to change the long standing rules of the Judiciary.

Personally, I like the ideas being "kicked around" here. What I don't like is someone saying let's change the Constitution like this in a thread that is only meant for discussion. Boots used to do a similar thing when he would rush a poll on an issue just after it was posted in this forum. We don't need to make a change in the Constitution first, as you say. We need to discuss it and or poll it to see if its what we really want.

If these issues was to take hold and become a turning point in the Judicial sytem, I would think the Article in the Constitution would not look like the previous Artices from games past. Therfore none of the detail would be required. Just a statement about the Department and what it means for the game and the citizens. Anything else can go in the lower books.

What I'm trying to tell you is we need to find out which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Example:

first guy walks in and says "are we having PI's in DG4?" Second guy walks in and says "I don't know, but we should probably write some rules for them."

third guy walks in and says "oh good,we're having PI's in DG4, I think the rules should look like this." Fourth walks in and says "I disagree, we shouldn't have PI's in DG4."

Second guy says, "Well, that's why we're writing rules for them first...to see if you want PI's."

It just doesn't make sense. If you want to work on the Constitution, then go ahead. There's plenty of work that needs to be done on existing stuff. Lot's of it. We don't need to bring in brand new game concepts and start writing amendments to the constitution before anything is firmed up. This stuff can wait.

Actually, this thread should really have nothing to do with PIs. While the discussion taking place here has been very valuable, at the basis of all of it lies one simple question:

Do we want to change the structure of our Judiciary(CJ, JA, PD) or not?

This is the question that I will poll Wednesday afternoon EST if there is no further discussion on the original matter.

Also, if everyone would like, we can continue to use this thread to discuss important matters that fall under Judicial jurisdiction. I will try to rejoin this discussion and others when I get a chance.

Has it ever occured to you DZ that if we actually did get rid of the PI system it would then be quite logical to reform the judiciary by changing the roles of the JA and PD? Without PI's their titles and roles need revamping. It makes no sense to try to decide the structure of the judiciary until we decide what its duties will be.

Have we formally decided we will have PI's handled by the judiciary in DG4 - as opposed to letting the mods handle them?

Also, if we use article F of the DG2 constitution as it is we do not need to decide the fate of the judiciary before drafting that part of our constiution. It can wait till we work on the CoL / CoS.

Originally posted by donsig
Has it ever occured to you DZ that if we actually did get rid of the PI system it would then be quite logical to reform the judiciary by changing the roles of the JA and PD? Without PI's their titles and roles need revamping. It makes no sense to try to decide the structure of the judiciary until we decide what its duties will be.

I can poll the PI matter if you'd like, donsig, but I think you will find the results most disappointing. I can state in the polls first post that acceptance of our current judicial structure will presume that PIs are here to stay.

Originally posted by donsig
Have we formally decided we will have PI's handled by the judiciary in DG4 - as opposed to letting the mods handle them?

Yes, I have decided that mods will not be handling PIs, since there is a chance this mod may want to participate in the game. :lol: Seriously, duties of the judiciary will come after we determine the judicial structure(which I know we disagree on)

Originally posted by donsig
Also, if we use article F of the DG2 constitution as it is we do not need to decide the fate of the judiciary before drafting that part of our constiution. It can wait till we work on the CoL / CoS.

If we wait to draft the Constitution before deciding any of these matters, then we will not get started until March. To me, it is easier to tweak our Constitution based on a polled ruleset than to hope that the populace will make choices that conform to a predetermined Constitution. I do see your point, but for expediency I feel we must put the cart before the horse in some cases.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Actually, this thread should really have nothing to do with PIs. While the discussion taking place here has been very valuable, at the basis of all of it lies one simple question:

Do we want to change the structure of our Judiciary(CJ, JA, PD) or not?


Along with that question, I would like to raise the question of "Do we wish to change the role and duties of the Judiciary?"

Looking through the past, the Judiciary has been used to determine questions of fact through the PI process, and questions of law through the JR process.

Generally, the JR process has worked. While it has sometimes produce results that did not please everyone, it has been noted over and over that these interpretations can be changed with new legislation.

We did have a circumstance arise in T4 (I think) where a citizen questioned if a specific instruction was legal or not, prior to the turn chat. Normally, the PI process would be used, but no laws were violated, as the turn chat had not yet happened.

Should we have a court that can do one or more of the following:

Decide questions/interpretations of laws
Decide questions of fact after the event has occurred
Decide questions of fact prior to the event


Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

Bold items Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

I can poll the PI matter if you'd like, donsig, but I think you will find the results most disappointing. I can state in the polls first post that acceptance of our current judicial structure will presume that PIs are here to stay.

Would we be able to actually discuss the subject properly before you throw up another poll? :rolleyes:

Yes, I have decided that mods will not be handling PIs, since there is a chance this mod may want to participate in the game. :lol: Seriously, duties of the judiciary will come after we determine the judicial structure (which I know we disagree on)

How can we disagree on the judicial structure when I haven't even formed an opinion on the matter yet? As for active mods handling PIs, I find that preferable to the judiciary handling them. Of course discussing the idea does not seem worth while to some.


If we wait to draft the Constitution before deciding any of these matters, then we will not get started until March. To me, it is easier to tweak our Constitution based on a polled ruleset than to hope that the populace will make choices that conform to a predetermined Constitution. I do see your point, but for expediency I feel we must put the cart before the horse in some cases.

If we write (or better yet keep) a generally and vauguely worded constitution we can finalize a constitution and hammer delicate matters out when we write the supporting book(s). Just remember, putting the cart before the horse will no get you where you want to go - unless you want to stay where you are! ;)

Originally posted by ravensfire

Should we have a court that can do one or more of the following:

Decide questions/interpretations of laws
Decide questions of fact after the event has occurred
Decide questions of fact prior to the event


Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

I don't think we should have a court distinct from the judiciary but do agree that the judiciary should have some authority to decide these things. The judiciary should also be empowered to post legal instructions to ensure its rulings are carried out.

Originally posted by donsig


I don't think we should have a court distinct from the judiciary but do agree that the judiciary should have some authority to decide these things. The judiciary should also be empowered to post legal instructions to ensure its rulings are carried out.

My apologies donsig - I was not clear. Replace "court" with "Judiciary" in my previous post. I had just come from the petswarehouse.com lawsuit site, and had the word "court" in my head.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by donsig

The judiciary should also be empowered to post legal instructions to ensure its rulings are carried out.

Interesting idea. It does bring forth the larger question. Assuming the Judiciary determines an instruction does not meet the requirements for being legal PRIOR to the turn chat, what should happen?

Assuming the leader refuses to change the instruction, claiming the Judiciary is wrong and demands a PI or similar venue to discuss the matter, what should happen then?

My personal preference (and yes, this is getting into the legal instruction stuff, but is directly related to the Judiciary) is that all instructions must be posted no later than 24 hours prior to the t/c. Any citizen may challenge a given instruction as not legal, stating the reasons. The Judiciary may also pre-emptively review an instruction.

If two other citizens, or one elected official agrees with this challenge, the Judiciary shall meet to determine the legality of the instruction.

Should the instruction be deemed not legal, the Judiciary must state is reasoning for the decision. The instruction is then considered void. The DP shall then act as deemed appropriate with regards to area of the instruction.

Should the Judiciary be unable to review the instruction, the instruction is considered viable, and the DP must use their judgement in following the instruction.

Implications:

Members of the Judiciary must commit to meeting prior to the t/c
Citizens have to review instructions in a timely manner
As a last resort, the DP may use their judgement and ignore an instruction they deem illegal. This does, of course, expose them to sanctions. This implicitly existed in past games, just never explicitly raised. A DP should never be held liable for an instruction they believe is legal, only the leader giving that instruction
The Judiciary could get very interesting ...


-- Ravensire

*As if out of nowhere, a dark stanger wanders in*

I don't know about the viability of having the judiciary meet before every turnchat. Last term we had chats of various presidents that were at very different times. For me, there were some at 6am, and others at 10pm. So it would be troublsome for me as Chief Justice (;)) to meet before these turnchats with the other members of the Judiciary. They might be from Dublin or New York or Sydney, making chats for us more troublesome than forums.

I suppose if the gap was a little bigger than 24 hours, it might work better.

*And so, like a fleeting whim of a child, the dark stranger was gone*

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Actually, this thread should really have nothing to do with PIs. While the discussion taking place here has been very valuable, at the basis of all of it lies one simple question:

Do we want to change the structure of our Judiciary(CJ, JA, PD) or not?


That's really where I was trying to go, though I'd put it a little differently ;)

What kind of judiciary do you want to see in DG4?

Keep the previous system, with Chief Justice, Judge Advocate, Public Defender
Change to a Chief Justice and an even number of Associate Justices, and leave definition of roles and procedures to a lower law.
Another structure (please specify)
Abstain (Decision -- we don't need no stinkin' decisions!)

Originally posted by DaveShack


That's really where I was trying to go, though I'd put it a little differently ;)

What kind of judiciary do you want to see in DG4?

Keep the previous system, with Chief Justice, Judge Advocate, Public Defender
Change to a Chief Justice and an even number of Associate Justices, and leave definition of roles and procedures to a lower law.
Another structure (please specify)
Abstain (Decision -- we don't need no stinkin' decisions!)


I wasn't trying to talk about PI's either. I was talking about the process we're going through. DZ's question is absolutely correct. DS's statement is also correct, although I would also through in a bit about the JA and the PD in regards to PI's in Article.

DG2 Constitution:

F. The Judicial Branch will be formed of three leaders, one who is tasked with upholding the laws (Judge Advocate), one who is tasked with defending the citizenry (Public Defendant) and headed by the Chief Justice, who will have the power and authority of both lower offices.

So, the question we arrive at is do we want any changes to this section of the constitution? Before you answer, think about whether any changes you would like to see need to be addressed here or could be addressed in a lower level of law.

My answer: leave it as is except "who will have the power and authority of both lower offices". This is ambiguous and we either need to make it clear here or delete it and address it in the CoL. I think it should be deleted and handled under a section related to absenteeism and vacancies.

@ zorven. Correct. I'm suprised you're the first one to post Article F in this thread. I believe the answer to your second question is that we will not only change Article F in the Constitution to read something like the original above, but to start that Article stating that 3 Justices would be elected to oversee the courts and handle all legal activities (or something to that effect), and that the JA and PD will be elected to handle their appropriate jobs in all PI processes.

Of course there would have to be laws in the CoL that list the ways in which our Justices will be resticted in their operations and there would also be procedures listed in the CoS giving guidleines for everyone in the Judicial Department to abide by.

And everything I've said here is dependant upon the results of the poll to determine if we actually want to change the structure of our existing Judicial system.

Cyc - you have me slightly confused. You answered my second question, but I only see one question...

And, my frame of reference from here on out is that we already have a DG4 constitution and it looks exactly like the one from DG2. So, when you you say "we will not only change Article F in the Constitution to read something like the original above", I am not sure what you mean.

I guess I am just a little too tired to think clearly at the moment :)

Anyway, it appears that you would like to see 3 justices and seperately elected JA & PD, right? I just don't see the need if we use a PI system like we had in DG3. You would have 2 justices doing nothing in a PI because their roles are now being fulfilled by a seperate JA and PD. Also, I think it is potentially problematic to be adding elected positions when we seem to have problems filling positions as it is.

:) Very true, zorven. Your second question was unasked. It was kind of directed at the "lower level of law". The reason I mentioned the three Justices was because there has been quite a bit of discussion about them in this thread. One reason that these discussions are so hard to follow is that no one is contributing to them. Maybe one or two post a day.

The DG2 Con is up for changes at this time. There are discussions going on to change these Articles. When the Con is done we will move onto discussions to change the CoL, and so on. The items discussed in this thread were not mine, I was just going with the current flow.

I think its time for me to stop trying to hold these together.

I'm going to revive this discussion - looking at what's happening on Article D, and with Preamble/A/B/C polling, this is coming up soon.

In hopes of trying to speed the discussion up some, let's start on what the judiciary should do, not how it's structured.

So, my starting question is this:

What duties do you feel should the Judiciary be charged with?

-- Ravensfire

Public Investigations, Judicial Reviews (to include rulings on issues raised by citizens, unconstitutional Laws, and other legal matters), keeping the census, and being a role model in the legal portion of the game.

Cyc has the right idea - a general body for mediation when two people (or bodies) come into conflict.

So, to be fairly formal, and avoid using current terms, the Judiciary should:


Maintain an accurate census of the People
Review all proposed legislation
Resolve Questions of Law (JR)
Resolve Questions of Fact
Oversee all Citizen Trials


I would also like to add the following:

Oversee all election proceedings (not handle them, just make sure it's done right)
Arbitrate Private Disputes of Citizens (RPG - not codify it, but just to bring it up)
Advice Citizens on matters of the Law
Review Instructions prior to Game Play Session if requested
Halt game play during a crisis
Provide a mechanism for a speedy resolution of a Question of Fact if such Question is minor (small claims)


I've tried to bring in various ideas I've seen, and some stuff from Beyond - feel free to reach farther than I, or try to control my wild ideas.

Anything else that needs to be added, or questions about what is up there?

-- Ravensfire

Next question, how should the court be structured, in terms of number of justices. The previous courts have used 3 - Chief Justice, Judge Advocate and Public Defender.

-- Ravensfire

As a seperate discussion, the text for Article F.

DG2 Article F:
The Judicial Branch will be formed of three leaders, one who is tasked with upholding the laws (Judge Advocate), one who is tasked with defending the citizenry (Public Defendant) and headed by the Chief Justice, who will have the power and authority of both lower offices.

DG3 Article C.2:

The Judicial Branch will be formed of three Leaders and is tasked with verifying legality of legislation, interpreting rules, and determining when violations occur. Each also has a specific area of additional responsibility.


My initial proposal:
The Judicial Branch will be formed of XXXXX Justices. The Judiciary is charged with deciding Questions of Law, deciding Questions of Fact, ensuring all Elections are handled Fairly, keeping an accurate Census and reviewing all proposed Laws.

Everything else will end up in the CoL or CoS.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
Next question, how should the court be structured, in terms of number of justices. The previous courts have used 3 - Chief Justice, Judge Advocate and Public Defender.

-- Ravensfire

I'm inclined to stick with three justices. This allows for an easy tiebreaker, and is also small enough to ensure that we won't have a justice shortage.

Originally posted by ravensfire
My initial proposal:
The Judicial Branch will be formed of XXXXX Justices. The Judiciary is charged with deciding Questions of Law, deciding Questions of Fact, ensuring all Elections are handled Fairly, keeping an accurate Census and reviewing all proposed Laws.

Everything else will end up in the CoL or CoS.

-- Ravensfire

1) I think 3 justices would be fine.

2) My first thought upon reading this was what does "Questions of Law & Fact" mean? Couldn't you replace both phrases with Questions of Legality?

3) I am not sure where ensuring fair elections overlaps with the moderators - what did you intend here?

4) The census is a mathmatical formula - why does anybody need to keep it?

5) This text implies that all proposed laws must be reviewed - for what purpose does this need to be defined in the constitution? Let the court choose to review legislation or wait until a citizen requests a review.

Originally posted by zorven


1) I think 3 justices would be fine.

2) My first thought upon reading this was what does "Questions of Law & Fact" mean? Couldn't you replace both phrases with Questions of Legality?

3) I am not sure where ensuring fair elections overlaps with the moderators - what did you intend here?

4) The census is a mathmatical formula - why does anybody need to keep it?

5) This text implies that all proposed laws must be reviewed - for what purpose does this need to be defined in the constitution? Let the court choose to review legislation or wait until a citizen requests a review.

2. Question of Law = Judicial Review
Question of Fact = PI

3. It's more of ensuring that mods don't have to get involved, that schedules are posted, etc.

4. We ought to have a person who, at the beginning of each term, determines what the census is. We use various voting levels to determine quorum, etc, this way everyone will know what those are.

5. There are two types of reviews - the typical JR usually involves scenarios not envisioned by the framers. The review I want to see is to ensure no obvious problems exist, and that the proposal is pointed at the correct book of law.

-- Ravensfire

quoting Ravensfire:
The Judicial Branch will be formed of XXXXX Justices. The Judiciary is charged with deciding Questions of Law, deciding Questions of Fact, ensuring all Elections are handled Fairly, keeping an accurate Census and reviewing all proposed Laws.

This works for me. :thumbsup:

Okay - looks like the one big decision left for this article is the number of Justices.

Going through this thread, I've found the following proposals. What do you all think?


Status Quo - Chief Justice, Judge Advocate, Public Defender
3 Justices + 1 Judge Advocate + 1 Public Defender (5 total offices elected)
3 Justices, JA and PD are appointed by CJ (3 total offices elected)


I *think* I got them all, several ideas were stated multiple times. Let's keep pushing on this, folks. The number of elected officials in the Judiciary will be the only limiting factor on the Judiciary in the Constitution. Everything else is granting rights to the Judiciary.

-- Ravensfire

I back the elected justices (3) and the appointed JA and PD. Those two really are more like deputies than officials. I would rather they be appointed because for one, it would mean less elections for our citizens. Having too many elections to go through leads to "ballot fatigue", or a citizen quiting the voting without voting in all of the elections,

For the number of Justices, I say "status quo". I see no need for seperate PA and JA unless we intend to radically change how the PI process is setup.

I am intrigued by the opportunity to have three impartial(to the PI process, mainly) justices with the JA and PD appointed.

To this I would add that the accused should reserve the right to appoint his own defense council, which would make a PD appointment unneccesary.

However, I share zorven's concerns that this change may add more time than we have to related CoL issues. I still think we can make it work with a minor tweak to existing laws.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
I am intrigued by the opportunity to have three impartial(to the PI process, mainly) justices with the JA and PD appointed.


I don't understand why we would need 3 impartial justices when according to the PI procedure used in DG3 none of the justices had any responsibility for judging or sentencing the accused. Am I missing something?

Having 3 justices and separately appointed JA and PD allow these advantages over the current CJ/JA/PD system:


In the current system, if they are doing their jobs right the JA would always vote to pursue a PI and the PD would vote against it. The CJ would always be stuck with deciding whether to press charges or not. With a system with three justices, this potential conflict of interest situation is avoided.
The JA can be appointed on a per-case basis, and thus the justices can choose someone who is known to be unbiased on the issue at hand. No chance of a JA pursuing the PI that they started in the first place.
The accused can appoint private counsel, in which case no PD is needed.

Originally posted by DaveShack
Having 3 justices and separately appointed JA and PD allow these advantages over the current CJ/JA/PD system:


In the current system, if they are doing their jobs right the JA would always vote to pursue a PI and the PD would vote against it. The CJ would always be stuck with deciding whether to press charges or not. With a system with three justices, this potential conflict of interest situation is avoided.
The JA can be appointed on a per-case basis, and thus the justices can choose someone who is known to be unbiased on the issue at hand. No chance of a JA pursuing the PI that they started in the first place.
The accused can appoint private counsel, in which case no PD is needed.


If I ever find a JA that is always voting to pursue a PI, and a PD always voting to dismiss the accusation, I will file a PI against both of them for failing to do their jobs.

(I'm going to assume the status quo system for this arguement)

The roles of JA and PD are some of the most complex, demanding, and needed roles in our system. Up until the actual trial starts, the JA and PD are, and must me, impartial members of the judiciary. They are presenting sides to an arguement, but once the evidence is presented, they MUST be able to look beyond emotion and personal preference and see what the truth is.

Our system guarantees that a citizen is innoncent unless proven guilt. Not a presumption of innocence, nor innocent until proven guilty, but innocent unless shown otherwise. Semantics? Maybe, but a very valid point about just exactly that was made to me in DG3.

As members of the Judiciary, the JA and the PD must take a skeptical eye towards the evidence presented, looking for attempts to shade the truth towards one side or the other. They must be able to render an impartial decision that is in the best interests of Justice about whether to proceed with a PI or not.

Yeah, I'm pretty passionate about the Judiciary. It's easily my favorite area, and one that I hope rarely has to do anything (except for the quorum levels!) in the game. When it must address an issue, the members must act, in all ways, with the utmost impartiality during the initial stage. More than anything else, a firm Court that is trusted by all can calm down a situation. Look at Peri - masterful example of handling a difficult situation.

We MUST hold any citizen that wishes to be elected to the Judiciary to the highest standards. As the ultimate in-game appellate, the standards we set should be of the highest.

In any situation, there is a chance of bias, that is true DaveShack. I do feel that if a JA can't see that representing the interests of the People includes that person accused, and that a bad accusation must be tossed, that person is wrong for the bench.

Same with the PD. First and foremost, the Judiciary represents the People. It then represents individual citizens. Once a trial is started, I wholeheartedly expect the JA and PD to use all of their powers of reasoning and persuation to gain a favorable verdict for their side. Up until then, they represent a larger cause, and must act accordingly.

-- Ravensfire

Whew, now that's out of my system, I'll try to address some of your other points.

Appointed PD:
Right now, I don't think that there is anything requiring an accused to accept the assistance of the PD. There have been a few PD's that I would eagerly accepted any help from, and others that I would rather they just not post.

Appointed JA:
That is a good point. In spite of my essay above, I recognize that not everyone is capable of such detactment. However, I think that most of the bias will come from either a personal disgust over the actions of the accused, or a dislike of the accused. I think that this will strongly influence some people, regardless if they are the JA on the status quo system, or a Justice in a 3 + 2 appointee system. In either case, the final decision will have the same bias.

My personal preference is for 3 Justices - the status quo. During elections, we should hold all candidates for Judicial office to high standards, and ask the difficult questions of them.

-- Ravensfire

I'm planning on posting a poll for the structure of the Judicial branch either tonight or tomorrow morning. Based on the proposals thus far, it will have the following options:


3 Justices (Chief Justice, Judge Advocate, Public Defender) elected.
3 Justices (Chief Justice, 2 Associate Justices), 1 JA and 1 PD elected.
3 Justices (Chief Justice, 2 Associate Justices) elected. JA and PD appointed as needed from non-office holding citizens, process to be defined in CoL/CoS
3 Justices (Chief Justice, 2 Associate Justices) elected. JA appointed as needed from non-office holding citizens, process to be defined in CoL/CoS. Citizens may retain their own attorney as needed.
Other (please specify)


Let's keep this moving - lot's of work still ahead.

-- Ravensfire

I think it is also important to establish now whether justices will be able to post game play instructions.

Originally posted by donsig
I think it is also important to establish now whether justices will be able to post game play instructions.

That is an ongoing discussion that needs to be answered soon.

I'll repeat my suggestion from another thread. As in current day, let us not give the Court the ability to post instructions, but the ability to demand a leader, upon some penalty, to post the instructions.

Yeah, it's pretty much the same thing, but if a leader is either posting illegal instructions, posting no instructions, or violated some rule, the court should be able to direct a leader to give instructions to correct that action. In some cases, that would be the same leader in err. In other cases, it would be a different leader.

Either way, the DP will be getting instructions from the same people, in the same manner. Consistency is a good thing.

-- Ravensfire

If we are going to have the judiciary to have the powers to post in the instruction thread, then we should discuss what kind of powers they would have. What powers can they have?

I would agree with Ravensfire’s proposal. In another thread I was against the idea since it would be nonsense since I was merely thinking of the Civ3 game mechanics. I propose that a judiciary member (CJ and/or JA) would look over the instructions. If they find a violation in the rules then they can post a “Please change the instructions or the judiciary will have to make this set of instructions void”. The judiciary can have an option to post there instructions if there are no rule violations present.

I am still with the old school of the judiciary not being able to post instructions. Hopefully this would be a promising change to the demogame.

With positions determined, we still need to determine the powers of the judiciary.

Based on the discussion, I think another poll should be posted.

- Status quo: running investigations, issuing judicial reviews
- review of proposed laws: reviewing laws to ensure they don't conflict with current ones
- conflict resolution: all above, plus settling disputes between two people/parties
- gameplay halts: can halt all future gameplay sessions in order to allow current legal conflicts to be settled.
- injuctions: can halt leaders from working in official capacity if concerns arise
- post game play instructions: can post game play instructions as needed.

Note that this poll would be multiple choice.

Thoughts? additions?

How about the power to post game play instructions Octavian? Can we please include that in a poll? Also, it looks as though a multi choice poll might help us here, rather than a cumulative poll.

I do not agree that instructing a leader to post a given game play instruction is anywhere near the same thing as the judiciary posting the actual instruction. As a former DP I am well aware of the desirability of limiting the number of people posting instructions. However, we may well find it useful to have the judiciary step in and post certain instructions. We do not now have to go into the whens and wheres of that (which we would do when writing the CoL). All we have to do now is decide if we want to give the judiciary that power.

I see no point in allowing the judiciary to make a determination that a specific instruction must be posted only to have it tell a leader to do so. Why add that extra link into the chain when the judiciary can simply post the darn thing. Also, if someting like this has reached the judiciary then there is conflict between the leader and someone else. We may well end up with a case of the leader ignoring the judiciary. Let's not risk that by simply allowing the judiciary to post game play instructions under whatever circumstances we determine are apporpriate when we write the CoL.:hammer:

Heh, knew I forgot something. We'll post this poll after the first one over structure gets decided.

My fear of the "three perma judges and appointed JA/PD as needed" is that the appointment of the JA will cause problems, mark my words.

PI's are always a contentious issue, and emotions run high. The CJ may appoint a JA who they think is impartial, but then the accused might well disagree. That will lead to chaos.

I have no problem with the accused appointing their own council for defense, but I believe that they used to have that right anyway.

As for the JA initiating a PI, but later voting to not pursue a prosecution, not only is that not a PI offense, it is a good example of the JA doing their job quite well. The purpose of a PI, imho is to say "hey, I think this is illegal by our rules, and I want to have it looked into". It certainly does not imply the accused is guilty. Therefore, the JA, doing their job and looking into the issue, as an impartial investigator, may well determine that there is not a violation (in their view) and vote to dismiss.

After reading Bill's comments, I am compelled to agree. I have read some back issues of the Judiciary thread, where CJ(or JA) Bill was caught in the middle of some pretty emotional times. Adding an appointment process for the prosecutor during these moments seems like it would be a mistake.

Let's resolve this, and soon. I would like to hear some final discussion on the matter, after which we should post two polls:

1. Positions in the Judiciary
2. Powers of the Judiciary

If anyone is interested in polling these, please do sometime on Monday. Also, please post here with your intention to carry out the polling process. I may not have time tomorrow, but I want to get us back on track here. :)

Would it not remove the tension surrounding PIs if instead of using them as an instrument to punish we use them as a means of solving a problem?
ie if the accused is found guilty then the error must be corrected in the most appropriate way and there should be no punitive measures against him/her

Originally posted by Peri
Would it not remove the tension surrounding PIs if instead of using them as an instrument to punish we use them as a means of solving a problem?
ie if the accused is found guilty then the error must be corrected in the most appropriate way and there should be no punitive measures against him/her

That would be great but I do not see the people going for this any more than they will accept turn based terms or the abolition of the chat. This suggestion leads me to remark on something ravensfire posted earlier reprinted here):

I'll repeat my suggestion from another thread. As in current day, let us not give the Court the ability to post instructions, but the ability to demand a leader, upon some penalty, to post the instructions.

What penalty do you suggest ravensfire? My feeling is that a leader might just ignore the directive from the judiciary and this will heap more onto the already exisiting problem.. (I'm assuming there is some existing problem or the judiciary wouldn't be involved to the point of having decided a leader [b]must[/i] do something he or she isn't doing.) If we are going to let the judicary look into these kinds of matters and make a decision that something must be done we might as well steamline the process and let the judiciary post the appropriate instruction.

Originally posted by donsig


That would be great but I do not see the people going for this any more than they will accept turn based terms or the abolition of the chat.

Well I am going to start campaigning for an end to punitive judgements.

The PI exists to stop people cheating not to punish people who make bad decisions or just simply make a balls up.
Since this is a game where we cooperate with each other rather than compete we sould extend this ethos to when things go wrong.
Our first thought should be in such situations 'How can we fix this?' not 'Who can we punish?' The PI procedure should deal primarily with fixing the problem. This will ensure that when things go wrong we the people are still working as a team.

Please join me in ending punitive judgements in PIs for DGIV.

qoting Peri:
Our first thought should be in such situations 'How can we fix this?' not 'Who can we punish?' The PI procedure should deal primarily with fixing the problem. This will ensure that when things go wrong we the people are still working as a team.

I agree with this statement, Peri. But what if someone plays ahead on the save? What if they do it again? What if they take Leader positions only to make a mockery of our system? Do we say "Well, we're not going to punish you in any way, but get up and go stand in the corner for a while?" Should we have them imposed some form of self punishment?

PI's are meant to help solve the problems of the game through a focused discussion on the violation of the Constitution. But some people just break the Laws, period. There needs to be some way to convince people that they should change their ways when they trash the Constitution.

Well if someone is just blatantly trashing the game then they are highly likely to get moderated. In the last game there were no PIs. This shows that for the most part we all just want to get on, play the game and have fun. I just want to put an end to the feeding frenzy that occurs everytime those two letters are mentioned.

What happens if somebody shows contempt for certain laws and standards, but is not blatantly trashing the game? Shouldn't it be up to the citizens to determine what happens to people like that? Ideally there would be no PI's, but there are times when they are necessary. There were PI's, albeit dismissed ones, last game but overall, I'd say we did a fairly good job at having fun with the game. However, we need a method for dealing with people that violate laws without causing a blatant trashing of the game, and the citizens are the best enforcers of these rules. I know that if I were a moderator I wouldn't want to have the sole power of dealing with moderate rule infractions; I'd much rather let the people decide. I do think, however, that minor unintentional infractions should not result in punishment.

Well, bootstoots, we already have that in place. They're called elections. ;)

Originally posted by Bootstoots
What happens if somebody shows contempt for certain laws and standards, but is not blatantly trashing the game? Shouldn't it be up to the citizens to determine what happens to people like that? ...However, we need a method for dealing with people that violate laws without causing a blatant trashing of the game, and the citizens are the best enforcers of these rules. ...

Well if someone breaks the law, people are very quick to point this out. However if the poster is a habitual cheater then the mods will step in as that is what they are for. For example there were times when people actually broke the rules in the last game. However people posted that this was the case and in every circumstance I can remember the situation was sorted out without resorting to PI. In fact people said I dont want a PI but......
The real reason for calling a PI last game was to punish someone. That is a distraction from the game itself and should be avoided in our next DG.

Originally posted by Peri
Well if someone is just blatantly trashing the game then they are highly likely to get moderated. In the last game there were no PIs. This shows that for the most part we all just want to get on, play the game and have fun. I just want to put an end to the feeding frenzy that occurs everytime those two letters are mentioned.

There actually we two PIs(I believe), but the nothing could stick is because there were no laws in place.

So, we can either have a high-risk utopia(as we had in DG3) or a much safer game of check and balances. I opt for number two, and we are running out of time. I predict a very eventful Term 1 in the Judiciary.

As far as moderation goes, my philosophy is we let the game run its course based on its own laws. I have no desire to step in and alter a game because we refuse to write accountability into our ruleset. As far as I am concerned, the PI system stays, though maybe slightly altered.

Once again, it seems we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Since this has evolved into the Article F discussion, all we need to do at this time is determine who comprises our Judiciary. Do we keep the current roster, or do we do something different?

From the discussions to this point, it seems that a majority of us are content with the status quo(CJ, JA, PD). Therefore I suggest we go right to the ratification poll, if there very few objections.

Here is the Current Article F. I suggest leaving it unchanged.

F. The Judicial Branch will be formed of three leaders, one who is tasked with upholding
the laws (Judge Advocate), one who is tasked with defending the citizenry (Public
Defendant) and headed by the Chief Justice, who will have the power and authority of
both lower offices.

Proponents of a new judiciary system, please formulate and post a proposed Article that suits your needs. If there is no proposal, or an adequate discussion in progress, I will poll for ratification of the above in 48 hours.

Status quo works for me. If we want to discuss changing the Judiciary system, we can do that during DGIV. I believe I said that very same thing at the begining of this thread. :crazyeye:

I support the existing system.

To the issue of PI's being punative. As others have stated, that is a necessary event in some cases, though we have gone that route rarely. In a perfect world, PI's ask a question that needs to be solved in regards to a leader's actions compared to the laws. They are the people's check on their government.

In too many times though, PI's have been used as a instrument of attacking a leader, or between leaders, when there is a disagreement. Thus I am a big supporter of JA's who evaluate a situation and aren't afraid to say that nothing wrong occured.

I would support a trimmed-down version of this proposed poll posted by ravensfire, keeping the items in black and having the possibility of dropping the ones in blue.
Originally posted by ravensfire

3 Justices (Chief Justice, Judge Advocate, Public Defender) elected.
3 Justices (Chief Justice, 2 Associate Justices), 1 JA and 1 PD elected.
3 Justices (Chief Justice, 2 Associate Justices) elected. JA and PD appointed as needed from non-office holding citizens, process to be defined in CoL/CoS
3 Justices (Chief Justice, 2 Associate Justices) elected. JA appointed as needed from non-office holding citizens, process to be defined in CoL/CoS. Citizens may retain their own attorney as needed.
Other (please specify)



Edit to add proposed alternative:


F. The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice and two Associate Justices. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.

posted by DaveShack
F. The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice and two Associate Justices. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.

I like the way this one is worded. And this wording would allow for us to specify in the CoL that the 2 Associate Justices fulfill the JA and PD functions or that seperate JA and PD are appointed.

As another option:


The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice and two Associate Justices. The Judiciary is responsible for resolving Questions of Law, Questions of Fact, ensuring fair elections and maintaining an accurate census. The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judiciary absent a legislated procedure.


It's pretty much the same as DaveShacks, just defines the duties a bit more. The final clause is also phrased to allow for a lower court to determine a procedure. Under the earlier wording, as the Chief Justice I would toss out any procedure legislated in the CoL as unconstitutional. This allows the CJ to handle any unforeseen situation, but allows the Legislature to pass procedures as needed.

-- Ravensfire

On the subject of PI's - we are far too often concerned with Justice, defined as punishment for the guilty. We need to refocus our intent on Justice, defined as the mitigation of harm.

I keep thinking we are supposed to be a group of friends, gathering to play a game in a unique format. We don't always agree with each other, and sometimes get downright unhappy. But friends work problems out, and not by starting at the most severe punishment.

Once it has been determined that an action has been done that violates a law, the first thing that ought to happen to determine if there is a way to mitigate the harm. If there is, do that action and drop the case!

Now, some will say that this means the guilty get off without punishment! Yeah - so? That person is theoretically my friend. Last time I checked, I make mistakes. My first session in fact I managed to screw up more than one build queue. This was pointed out to me in a (mostly) polite manner, and I fixed the problem.

Not all problems can be totally undone, true. Most can, and many of the ones that cannot be totally undone can be mitigated to a large extent. ANY complaint the Judiciary has needs to be evaluated with that in mind.

Some will also say, well, but what about the repeat offenders! What about people that just don't care! Fire 'em! Ban 'em!

Ahh, so you want to get rid of the person that the People elected, eh? Surely a mistake was made to elect such a person, right? Or maybe, just maybe, the People didn't do their job in the election. They voted for a person because they liked that person, and felt they were "due" the position. Such a lovely reason - really. What about ability? Skill in the game? Knowledge of the position? Organizational ability? Communication skills?

Ah, but that doesn't matter - we're talking about that repeat offender that just won't learn their lesson!

And you are right, it's a genuine potential problem. And I fully expect the Judiciary, if the same person keeps doing the same, or similar action, to takes steps towards handling that. What steps - probably taking the case to a full trial and going for larger sanctions.

The past PI's have been nothing more than a disruptive mess that causes discord, resentment and anger. It should be means to point out a problem that a leader will not correct on their own. It should not be the first place to air issues.

Okay, off the soapbox - sorry for the vent.

-- Ravensfire

We need a new PI system which focuses on mitigating the harm done rather than lynching the accused. I completely agree with Ravensfire's position on this matter.

I'm all for it too. But in the case of Chieftess ignoring posts and pleas from Mayors and Governors through two consecutive DG's (and no one having the guts to do anything about it), a PI was the only way to go about seeking any recourse. Her playing skills were very adequate (especially with her Chieftain RNG), and her t/c manner was fine, so Chieftess was very popular. But ignoring officials under her was a disgrace to the Office of the President.

If the concerns of the lower officials had been taken care of because of the PI, that would have been fine. But she claimed she had done nothing wrong and still did not address the problems. THIS is what caused the major rukus back in DG2. This type of situation needs to be addressed. If a person with major political power is hurting the nation by ignoring the citizens, then there has to be some way of leveling the playing field. If mitigation of harm does not have the effect it should, then more forceful tactics are required.

Originally posted by Cyc
I'm all for it too. But in the case of Chieftess ignoring posts and pleas from Mayors and Governors through two consecutive DG's (and no one having the guts to do anything about it), a PI was the only way to go about seeking any recourse. Her playing skills were very adequate (especially with her Chieftain RNG), and her t/c manner was fine, so Chieftess was very popular. But ignoring officials under her was a disgrace to the Office of the President.


That is the very situation that would have been helped if the judiciary had the ability to post game play instructions. If the mayors and governors had a solid case they could have gone to the judiciary and if the judiciary found for the mayors and governors then the judiciary could have posted specific instructions. If the judicial instructions were ignored then there is a clear case that the law is broken, right? This case also illustrates why I think the judiciary should be given the authority (in very specific instances) to post actual game play instructions rather than just directing a recalcitrant official to post the *correct* order. Anyone who ignores those in another office may well ignore the judiciary as well!

Status qou is goo for me and I like DaveShack's wording for the article.

donsig,

You know, I'm starting to actually come around to your viewpoint. Under certain, specific circumstances, the Judiciary ought to be able to post legal instructions that override any contradictory instructions. I would even go so far to say that the DP ignoring those instructions should do so at the risk not of a Complaint, but a more severe sanction, perhaps a suspension from DP duties for the next turn, or even that game session being ignored and replayed with a new DP.

With any luck, Judicial Instructions will be rare at most (hopefully unseen!), so the DP should be absolutely aware of them, and ignore them at great risk. Let's actually create a immediate, automatic, and specific penalty for such an action. Ignorance should NOT be an excuse for failing to carry out these instructions.

-- Ravensfire

My apologies to Ravensfire, but I have posted DaveShack's recent version of Article F for ratification as it seemed to have the most support:

Ratification Poll for Constitutional Article F (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71678)