I have noticed discussions regarding the judiciary (and have commented) in other threads, so I decided to start a thread dedicated to this topic (hopefully we won't start talking about the executive branch or something). I don't know what article this would be, and I don't really care. If someone wants to post a suggested article for the constitution, they can do that. I'll start by saying that the judiciary should judiciate (if that is a word).

The absolutely most important thing the Judiciary has to do is "quickly resolve Citizens-Complaints".

The ruleset and setup of the game seems to be in a form which invites many of those court-cases. That is fine, but we need to be able to count on a swift process of trials. If that cannot be accomplished, the DG5 will suffer a lot.

editted "Customer-Complaints" into "Citizens-Complaints". I'm at work ...

The absolutely most important thing the Judiciary has to do is "quickly resolve Citizens-Complaints".

The ruleset and setup of the game seems to be in a form which invites many of those court-cases. That is fine, but we need to be able to count on a swift process of trials. If that cannot be accomplished, the DG5 will suffer a lot.

editted "Customer-Complaints" into "Citizens-Complaints". I'm at work ...
Actually, everything the judiciary does must be swift.

Why don't we give the judiciary authority to decide if posted instructions are valid or not? Why don't we give the judiciary authority to post game play instructions to *correct* instructions found to be invalid? Such a process would reduce the number of CCs by proactively addressing issues before rules are actually broken.

In DG4 we got so hung up on "impartial" that it caused a lot of headaches. We had trouble getting 5 people at once to agree to work on a case, in the case of CCs, due to requiring a separate prosecutor and defence. We also had trouble with justices not being able to post on a topic for fear that would taint the proceedings, and a desire for the judiciary to deliberate privately, which introduces extra delays while they get things worked out.

I propose some changes to the DG4 system:


Go back to a judge advocate and a public defender.
Once arguments are done, just have each justice post an opinion in the discussion thread for the case. If the opinions are incompatible then the justices can go private to work out their differences and come back with a decision.
Don't restrict the ability of justices to post their thoughts on the matter. The whole thing about "questions only" was ridiculous.
Put strict time limits on each phase of the proceedings. Someone needs to be able to replace a justice who does not rule within the time limit -- mabe have this be the one place the mods get involved?
Keep the ability for prosecution and defense to agree on a "remedy" -- that was a great idea which would have speeded things up if we had been able to muster a complete set of justices and lawyers.


I still want a way to deal with "pointless" JR's and CC's. You know the kind -- the ones which are obviously without merit or have an obvious answer, and appear to be intended for the sole purpose of gumming up the works with endless litigation. Ideally, I'd like to see the judiciary rule on a case being frivolous and in that case have a remedy for the offending originator of the case, or a trial for the frivolous litigator.

So DaveShack, are you suggesting we go back to the system we had for DG3? If you are then I second that suggestion.

Let's just pick and choose what worked in the past. In DG1 and 2, the PI system went quite smoothly (save for those week-long donsig-PI cerimonies).

Citizen posts a complaint.
Chief Justice asked for a defense and prosecution for each party.
A PI thread was posted.
After a number of days, a guilt/innocence poll was made.
After a number of days, if needed, a punishment poll was made.

Quite simple, and it worked. Why change it? The remedy phase could easily be put in by 1 post, saying something like, "How would you two like to resolve this?". If no answer is made within 24 hours (or if that post isn't made within 24 hours), then a PI thread is made.

Sounds good to me. As I see it, the most important aspect of the justices job is not to "punish", but to "correct". To find a remedy should always be a priority.

I agree with the idea of going back to JA and PD.

Further, the rule should simply set a time line in which the CC must be done. It should be short, and the CJ should be required to enforce it, and given the power to do so.

Being new to this I'm not too sure....who actually makes the ruling? Are they made by the 3 justices or by the people?

I agree with the idea of going back to JA and PD.

Further, the rule should simply set a time line in which the CC must be done. It should be short, and the CJ should be required to enforce it, and given the power to do so.
I also like the idea of returning to this system.

Agree with Chieftes.

If you want to correct the Judicial fiascos, I suggest you go back to the Public Defender, Judge Advocate, Chief Justice structure. For JRs, the ruling decision is based on the Majority Opinion of the individually and publically posted Opinions, posted by each of the three Justices. For CCs, polls could be used for Guilt/Innocense verdicts and punishment.

This way, you won't have to LOOK for the Prosecution or the Defense. It will already be established. Voting wisely in the Judicial elections will help expedite all Judicial matters.

If you want to correct the Judicial fiascos, I suggest you go back to the Public Defender, Judge Advocate, Chief Justice structure. For JRs, the ruling decision is based on the Majority Opinion of the individually and publically posted Opinions, posted by each of the three Justices. For CCs, polls could be used for Guilt/Innocense verdicts and punishment.

This way, you won't have to LOOK for the Prosecution or the Defense. It will already be established. Voting wisely in the Judicial elections will help expedite all Judicial matters.
then why are we discussing? lets do it!

There is a proposal on the table to go back to the DG3 style Judiciary, at least at the Constitution level. For reference, here is the corresponding Article, renumbered to fit within the scheme proposed in the Constitution : General discussion thread.


Article F: Judiciary
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.

1. The Chief Justice is the overall head of the Judiciary and can
fill in for either lower position. The Chief Justice is
responsible for maintaining the legal books of the country
and the mechanics of Judicial Procedure.

2. The Judge Advocate functions in a role of prosecution and
attorney to the state when allegations of rulebreaking have
been made.

3. The Public Defendant functions in the roll of defense for any
and all accused citizens.


Any further discussion on this?

none, were done here :)

maybe, give me some time. ;)

Being new to this I'm not too sure....who actually makes the ruling? Are they made by the 3 justices or by the people?

Assuming that we use the traditional PI/CC method, the people themselves vote on guilt or non-guilt. The judiciary processes the case.

I would not mind seeing the JA and PD model. I would like to keep the model of having one opinion (included majority and minory) for judicial reviews. It can be confusing and unclear when there are 3 different opinions posted. Also, if we want to speed up judicial processes, drop the whole public discussion system. Just let the judiciary decide the case as they see fit.

OK, I'm back. I have a question. If this is the entirety of Article F for DG5, where would all the other questions about the Judiciary be answered?

I like the way the above Article is written, it plainly states the role of each position. But there is so much more involved. Where does that come in?

I would not mind seeing the JA and PD model. I would like to keep the model of having one opinion (included majority and minory) for judicial reviews. It can be confusing and unclear when there are 3 different opinions posted. Also, if we want to speed up judicial processes, drop the whole public discussion system. Just let the judiciary decide the case as they see fit.

I believe that if we go with the PD/JA format, we should stick with it in it's entirety. All three Justices post individual opions on JRs, culminating with a yes/no answer to the question. The Majority Opinion will be easy enough to discern.

In regards to the guilt/punishment portion of PI/CCs, including the Citizens in the verdict and sentencing (especially considering the bloodlust most citizens seem to have for being involved in a conviction!) should probably be the way to go. Using a time schedule (Bill_in_PDX knows the appropriate schedule) to keep the process moving along in a timely manner will allow public participation, which is always a goal for me.