Readdressing PIS

Our PI system currently allows far too much room for disruption of the game, and generally doesn't solve anything. I have some suggestions that might make them less disruptive:

1. All charges are worded by the Judge Advocate, not the accuser. The accuser will make one post listing the charge(s) in the judicial thread in unembellished and unemotional language. Once the charges have been made, 2 of the 3 judiciary members must agree that the charge has merit. If this occurs, then the trial thread is posted.

2. The chief justice is in charge of keeping this thread on topic and clean. He/she will have the support of the moderators, but in that thread, he/she will be able to issue warnings. These can be for anything from flaming to presenting false evidence or even making baseless accusations. The second offense will be considered contempt of court, and that person will not be allowed to post in the rest of that PI (this includes and polls afterwards). If they do post illegally, they will receive a mandatory 3 day suspension from the demogame.

If we are going to have PIs, then we are going to have to learn to behave. I include myself in this.

3. Certain punishments, such as suspension from the demogame will be reserved for certain crimes. Right now, the only two I can think of are the above "Contempt of Court" and playing the save illegally.

4. It is up to the judiciary to determine the intent of the accused before the PI even starts. If they find that the crime was an accident, and the person has not received a warning for a similar transgression, they will issue a warning. No PI will be opened. If the same person commits the same crime while in the same office again, a PI is automatically opened. This is assuming the charge has merit in the first place.

Thoughts?

Sounds good to me

But I think discussion will arise in the Judicial thread when someone post a charge. Maybe it would be better to PM the charges to the Judge Advocate?

2 means a reduction of the free speach act... just as a side comment...

and other cases for suspension may be: cloning for example... we should not set this to fixed crimes, but let the judicacy decide wether it should be a case for suspension or not. even consequent disregarding of rules may be a case for suspension if impeachment does not work on the person.

Originally posted by disorganizer
2 means a reduction of the free speach act... just as a side comment...

and other cases for suspension may be: cloning for example... we should not set this to fixed crimes, but let the judicacy decide wether it should be a case for suspension or not. even consequent disregarding of rules may be a case for suspension if impeachment does not work on the person.

Click to expand...

Free speach act? Free speach is subject to the forum rules at any rate. Do you mean DLs when you say cloning? That will be enforced by the moderators, and will result in a forum ban. Impeachment removes all powers that person had to affect the game except their single vote in polls, so I don't see how they could possibly commit the same crime again.

I have a major problem with #4 eyrei. It's not the Judiciary's job to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That's a major no-no. I can see a lot of justified complaints being swept under the rug, also. #3 is Ok. #1 is going to need A LOT of re-work. #2 seems kind of risky, but has it's good points, although I don't really see a free speach problem. I believe the reasonings for the warnings should be laid out before hand. I would hate to see some cowboy get in there and start shooting people down because they looked at him the wrong way.

How do you look at somebody on a message board? Whatever.... I agree that some of it needs to be reworked, but overall it looks like it has its merits. The PI system definitely needs work, if we're gonna keep it at all.

Originally posted by Cyc
I have a major problem with #4 eyrei. It's not the Judiciary's job to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That's a major no-no. I can see a lot of justified complaints being swept under the rug, also. #3 is Ok. #1 is going to need A LOT of re-work. #2 seems kind of risky, but has it's good points, although I don't really see a free speach problem. I believe the reasonings for the warnings should be laid out before hand. I would hate to see some cowboy get in there and start shooting people down because they looked at him the wrong way.

Click to expand...

Almost all of our PIs have resulted only in a warning. What I want out of the new standards is for PIs that are simply going to result in a warning anyway to instantly become a warning, without us having to spend days yelling at each other. What would you suggest about reworking #1 and #4, since they do kind of go together. I think we need a pretrial phase that will save us the time and effort of a full blown PI.

As far as your point about #2, I agree it is somewhat risky. I would prefer we handled that risk by simply being careful who we elect to Chief Justice. The other option would be for this to simply be handled by the mods, but using a slightly stricter standard than just the forum rules.

As a note, the Chief Justice is already charged with point 2 of eyrei's plan.

I like some of the points of this plan. If the entire judiciary, not just 2/3, declare that the trial would have no merit beforehand, we could save some trouble and preserve some rights.

Another saver of headaches would be if the JA formally files the charges, and if we could combine violations. The last 6 PIs could have been condenced to two.

I like point 4. A formal judicial warning, with the same weight as what would be carried in a sentencing poll, would be good.

I do, however, disagree with number 3. It would be extremely difficult to classify the severity of crimes, and our current system of possibilites of punishments is fine. Constitutional violations carry stricter penalties than violations of the CoL, and CoL iolations carry stricter penalties than violations of the CoS. This is best.

Quoting eyrei:
Almost all of our PIs have resulted only in a warning. What I want out of the new standards is for PIs that are simply going to result in a warning anyway to instantly become a warning, without us having to spend days yelling at each other. What would you suggest about reworking #1 and #4, since they do kind of go together. I think we need a pretrial phase that will save us the time and effort of a full blown PI.
___________________________________________________

I feel the first part of your paragraph is wrong in that our PI system is meant to identify problems in our gameplay. Most PI's should result in only a warning. People here do not commit actual crimes so these PI's should just be official slaps on the wrist for doing something that is against the rules. The documentation of the wrong doing and the discussion that follows helps everyone get a firmer grasp of the law or standard in question. If an Aticle of the Constitution is violated, discussion should be mandatory, as the different interpretations can be hashed out and hopefully will mesh as a common understanding. So what I'm saying is, the documentation is the important part. It helps us to see where we are. As we look back at DG1 and see the PI's there, we can now immediately see faults and benefits of certain points of view, which we may not have seen then. By logging these problems and working them out in discussion, we are building a better Demogame. Having the Judiciary pre-determine the guilt or innocence of a citizen is a bizzare, kangaroo court, Louis the (you call the number) set up that would make a mockery of the Democratic system. Can you imagine if this type of process took place in real life? Oh, wait a minute, I think it already does....In Somalia, Eastern Europe and a few other hot spots.

With these type of changes (numbers 1 and 4), the PI system would be a total waste of time. Complaints would be given to the JA, who would word the charges (sieg heil!), then the Judiciary would determine the charges worth (sieg heil!), Then if the High Court felt you complaint was good enough and didn't really like the defendant anyway, then it could go to trial. But if the Judiciary did like the defendant, then the accuser could go stand at the end of the line of other accusers. If there's one thing Fanatika doesn't need, it's a Judicial system that's above the law.

EDIT: Just as an added note here, eyrei. I am not calling you a nazi. It's just when I think about this kind of Judicial process, I see in my mind's eye black and white film footage of 1930's Germany and here those words in the back of my mind.

Cyc, it is not as though the judiciary can convict someone with more than a warning for punishment without the actual trial taking place. The worst the judiciary could do if they liked the person, would be to let them get away with a warning the first time, which was likely going to happen anyway. The worst that could happen if the judiciary dislikes the person is that we end up with a PI we don't really need, and the person gets a warning.

I see your point about having a recorded discussion about the different ways of interpreting a rule. However, almost every one of these has turned into a shouting match, and that is the main reason I even brought this up.

one problem with the "fast pi" system: all the pi's we had till now (i also think of last game donsig trials as well as the shaitan cases) resulted in rule discussion which lead to improovement in rules. with the fast-pi system, flaws in our rules will never come into the light in the future, as they wont attract as many people ready and becomming aware of the flaws and discussing them.

a warning is good. it tells us that some things maybe need improovement and people get aware of how the game goes.

i just wonder why people get so picky about just a warning... it would be something else with impeachment, which i believe will almost never happen...

also:
i think the only thing we need to do is remove no punishment and suspension from the sentencing possibilities. then our system is ok.

also the judges should have the power to combine requested pi's into one pi if they think they are related. they should also be able to deny a pi with a 3 of 3 vote of all judges because of no merit.

Originally posted by disorganizer
one problem with the "fast pi" system: all the pi's we had till now (i also think of last game donsig trials as well as the shaitan cases) resulted in rule discussion which lead to improovement in rules. with the fast-pi system, flaws in our rules will never come into the light in the future, as they wont attract as many people ready and becomming aware of the flaws and discussing them.

Click to expand...

I think this is Cyc's point, too. Maybe we could have the Chief Justice post a law review to go with each PI. These would not have a time limit, wouldn't be nearly as divisive, and it would avoid the problem of having those discussions intermix with the trial, which causes confusion about whether the person is guilty or not. This would also allow us to process PIs that result from a misunderstanding over the rules quickly, but give us a chance to review the rule itself.

I also agree that suspension should be removed from the sentencing possibilities except in the case of playing out illegal moves. This has to remain the way it is to make sure people do not do this. I don't want to define a specific punishment for each offense, but this particular one should always be punished by a 3 day suspension if the person is found guilty.

problem there: urgent issues get unnecessarily delayed.

maybe a bit more flexible:

1) any citizen may request a pi at the judical thread. the citizen has to present evidence and state which part of the rules were broken. he also may state witnesses who also saw the breaking of the law. multi citizen pi's are allowed (pi's "sponsored" by multiple citizens)

2) the judical department then decides about the merit of the pi. the judges may deny a pi because of "no merit" if all of them vote for this denial (public judical ballot).

3) if all judges think a rule discussion should preceede the pi decission or may be needed at any time during the pi, the pi process may be temporarily halted and the discussion finished before any decissions are taken.

4) if an accused citizen pleads guilty no guilty poll is needed.

5) the only options for sentencing polls are warning, final warning and impeachment.

6) if a person is found guilty of a crime and charged with impeachment, it is up to the judicacy to decide whether the citizen should be suspended from the demogame. if all judges comply on having the accused suspended, they present the request with all evidence to the moderators who decide about suspension or not.

7) at any time during the game, the judicacy may request immediate temporary removal of any official from office. this may be needed in emergency cases if a pi would take to long and too much damage would be done to the game. the process of this emergency trial would be that all judges must comply on the emergency and the case must be presented to the moderators for final decission.
if a official is removed via the emergency clause, his office is considered absent until the normal pi-process is finished. the emergency clause is no impeachment, but a temporary removal of the suspect out of office.


note:
i added 7 because at the moment if for example the president would run 20 turns each tc with 1 tc each day, he can not be removed from office before about 1 week is over... this would be 7*20=140 turns played which we can not correct. the "emergency removal" will limit this to up to 24h.
the only alternative to 7 would be that any suspect of a pi which is found to have merit is temporarily removed from office until the pi is finished. this would limit the above example to 3 days worst case and would be bad for persons who will only be warned.

Originally posted by disorganizer


3) if all judges think a rule discussion should preceede the pi decission or may be needed at any time during the pi, the pi process may be temporarily halted and the discussion finished before any decissions are taken.

Click to expand...

We can't go changing the rules and then trying someone with the new ones. A person will be charged only under laws that existed when they committed the offense. In such a case, the PI would run its normal course, and rules discussion would continue until it is sufficient.

7) at any time during the game, the judicacy may request immediate temporary removal of any official from office. this may be needed in emergency cases if a pi would take to long and too much damage would be done to the game. the process of this emergency trial would be that all judges must comply on the emergency and the case must be presented to the moderators for final decission.
if a official is removed via the emergency clause, his office is considered absent until the normal pi-process is finished. the emergency clause is no impeachment, but a temporary removal of the suspect out of office.


note:
i added 7 because at the moment if for example the president would run 20 turns each tc with 1 tc each day, he can not be removed from office before about 1 week is over... this would be 7*20=140 turns played which we can not correct. the "emergency removal" will limit this to up to 24h.
the only alternative to 7 would be that any suspect of a pi which is found to have merit is temporarily removed from office until the pi is finished. this would limit the above example to 3 days worst case and would be bad for persons who will only be warned.

Click to expand...

I don't see any reason to complicate our rules with this. If someone gets out of hand, they will simply be removed from office by the moderators. I doubt this will ever happen, however.

nevertheless, if he does not offend the forum rules, where is the right of moderators to take action?
if our rules dont cover leader-rampages, we have no official means of removing someone from office...

to 3): this is meant more as a rule clarificationing discussion. many pi-cases tended to become rule discussions not for the changing of rules but about the interpretation of rules.

I just think it will be too difficult to define when someone needs to be removed under such an emergency clause.

Dragging PIs out to wait for rule interpretation is the opposite of my goal here. Rules interpretation can and must take place in the PI thread. What I am saying is that the discussion regarding an actual change in the rules should be separated from the PI.

so what about if we open 2 threads for each pi? one for pi-related and one for rule-related discussion. this way we would get regular rule reviews with each pi

The main complaint about the current PI system seems to be that it is lengthy and potentially disruptive. One could say much the same thing about most legal systems which are generally regarded as "fair" or "just". If there were substantial compaints about the fairness or justice of the system, then I think that there would be real grounds for reform. As it is, I think that the procedural difficulties which are apparent are simply the price we pay for fairness. Quicker and easier is not always the same as better or more just.

There is nothing wrong with the Judiciary dismissing a complaint. In the real world if the District Attorney does not believe he can prove a case the accused is not tried. I don't like the Judiciary determining guilt though, unless the accused requests a judgement instead of a trial.

I had been talking about this with FortyJ and neglected to post what we had come up with (which is very similar to much of the above). Basically, PI's need to be done professionally. In the last batch of PI's the actual complaint post was used to start the PI threads so they included Cyc's comments. That biased the threads right from the start. There were other problems with the complaints as filed. As previously noted, they should have been drawn into a single concise PI with multiple charges of not following legally posted leader instructions. The problem is the JA position is currently that of bailiff, not prosecutor. The JA merely starts the PI on its course and shifts gears as necessary.

Complaints should be sent to the JA. The JA determines what rule(s) were violated and whether a case can be tried. If they decide a PI is in order they file a PI charge with the Chief Justice (the Chief Justice would now handle all of the mechanics of PI that are currently tasked to the JA). If the JA believes a PI is not in order or that the case is untriable they submit the original complaint and their reasoning to the Chief Justice and Public Defender. If both of the other Judicial officers agree then there is no PI.

The CJ posts the PI thread. In the first post is all of the information we currently require for a PI. The next post is used to present the evidence and arguments against the accused. This would be written up by the JA and submitted to the CJ when they filed the PI. (This must be done via PM obviously). The next two posts are reserved for the defendant and PD. Note that the JA information is posted first so the defense can specifically adress the accusatory items (just like RL).

After that, things continue like normal.

Originally posted by disorganizer
so what about if we open 2 threads for each pi? one for pi-related and one for rule-related discussion. this way we would get regular rule reviews with each pi

Click to expand...

LOL, dis, that is exactly what I was saying. Talk about miscommunication.