Citizens Complaint #1 DG6- Investigation Thread

[Ashburnham]

Citizen CivGeneral has filed a Citizens Complaint against President Daveshack over his failure to post Turnchat instruction threads the requisite 3 days before the Turnchat itself. The Judiciary has found that this CC has merit, and the case of CC#1DG6 is now in session. As per Judicial Procedures, the first two replys of this thread are reserved for the Public Defender and the accused. This thread will be open for at least 48 hours, afterwards the thread will remain open for as long as continued discussion takes place. For clarity's sake, Civgeneral's CC request has been reproduced below, along with all the evidence for the case.

Originally Posted by CivGeneral

Members of the Judiciary, I wish to file a Citizen’s Complaint on DaveShack on the terms that he failed to post a turnchat instruction thread in a timely manner. I have here, in this document, the time and date of the time of the posting of the turnchat instruction threads along with a schedule of each turnchat.

Turnchats of Term 1:
Chat 7: Saturday March 26, 6:00 PM EST
TCIT Posted: Friday March 25, 01:49 AM EDT

Turnchats of term 2:
Chat 1: Sunday April 3, 07:00 pm EDT
TCIT Posted: Saturday Apr, 06:07 PM EDT

Chat 3: Sunday April 10, 07:00pm EDT
TCIT Posted: Saturday Apr 10, 2005, 03:06 AM EDT

The lateness of the postings of the TCIT clearly violates Article J, Paragraph #1 which states, “An instruction thread must be created at least 3 days before the scheduled turnchat.” (Demogame Constitution). The examples I have shown have the TCITs posted within 2 days of the turnchat, often times on the day of the turnchat.

Article J.  
            1.  An instruction thread must be created at least 3 days 
                before the scheduled turnchat.

Sources:
Turnchat Info
TCIT for 4/10/05
TCIT for 4/2/2005
Demogame Constitution

Sincerely,
Concerned Citizen
CivGeneral

NOTE: The first two posts of this thread are reserved for the Public Defender (Black_Hole) and the accused (Daveshack). NO ONE ELSE may post on this thread until they do so, or until 24 hours has passed.

[Black_Hole]

Public Defener's Response
I ask the citizens, should the Judiciary have been used?
Was this CC that important, to use the Judiciary?

Well, DaveShack broke a law, but how much did this hurt Fanatannia?
Well now we have less confusion, without many many threads for this there is no clutter.
The Judiciary is here as a last resort. Not a first one
Civgeneral could have easily said: "Hey DS, could you post your TCITs 3 days before the chat?"... However this was not done. The Judiciary was used as a tool to make a mockery of the President and Judiciary.
I would like to ask all citizens to keep this in mind, also make sure you don't break any small law as it will be pounced over.

[DaveShack]

I don't see any point in trying to argue the facts, and I can't agree completely with the Public Defender's remark about there being no impact from the instruction threads being posted late. Do not make the mistake of trying to villify CivGeneral for submitting this case. I will defend the right of anyone to bring forward a complaint, even if it is against me.

There are two valid reasons to use the court in this manner, that I can think of. One is to force the accused to change something, which I will suggest has already been accomplished, one need only look at the two most recent instruction threads. The other is to discourage other people from making similar mistakes. This case may or may not succeed in that area, we'll see when someone else is willing to accept the nomination for President whether future occupants of the office do better.

I'm not going to promise to be perfect, or say it won't happen again. Sometimes we make mistakes, and sometimes there are circumstances which prevent things from going how we want. I will say that I will do my best to improve.

I now ask my accuser to recognize this as an acceptable conclusion to the matter.

[CivGeneral]

Ladies and Gentlemen, members of the Fanatannia Citizenry,

I come before you in an act of kindness and offer my forgiveness to Dave’s errors. I thought that filing the CC was the right thing to do since Dave has broken a law. I filed the CC with the mindset that just a small warning would be issued. But I was wrong. Many of you thought that this CC was over the line over something trivial. On the hours that I was forced to be offline (due to technical errors), I gave it some thought, a deeper thought on the situation and came to realized that I should have done what Major Kusanagi (from GITS fame) has said, "Straighten up your own act before whining about the world, or if that’s too much, wear a blindfold, zip your mouth, and live in a cave”. Which in short meant, don’t be hypocritical about small things.

Dave has not hurt Fanatannia in any manner, since it was a minor inconvenience to have the TCITs posted late. The aim of this CC is not to discourage the same event since I feel that lies in the hands of the people who cast the ballot; they are the only ones to prevent the lateness of posting the TCIT. I was not the only one who asked for the TCITs to be posted in time since the request has been posted in term 1 and term 2, but has gone unnoticed for a while in term 1.

I have been moved after Dave responded in the presidential thread that he will post the TCITs on time and his statements in the post above. Even my step father said that “were all not machines, people make mistakes.” In closing, I wish for the CC to be dropped and Dave to be forgiven of his mistakes, if that is possible with the court.

Thank you and Good Night/Morning/Afternoon.

[Furiey]

Originally Posted by Black_Hole

Civgeneral could have easily said: "Hey DS, could you post your TCITs 3 days before the chat?"... However this was not done.

No but there had been other requests for an earlier TCITs and times come to that. So don't mock CG for this; good that he raised it, good that we have the last 2 TCITs posted earlier, good that he has now dropped it.

[Provolution]

Public Defender Black_hole

As a neutral and impartial Chief Justice on this manner, I must first state that I asked Civgeneral and Daveshack to arbitrate this PRIOR to making this a legal case. Since we are not having ANONYMOUS Citizens Complaints anymore, all citizens are in the open.
Now, the situation has been arbitrated, the accuser has forgiven the defendant, the defendant has admitted failure and promised to improve. I have personally been vilified and misrepresented in other cases, and will not accept that happening in my court.

As a future note, I will ask Public Defender Black_hole to consult with his defendant on what core message he want to send across, and not listen to his great colleague guru and former public defender who purposefully and systematically has politically vilified accusing sides interests in the past, on a generic basis. This Court is not here to pass moral judgment, but is here to arbitrate conflicts based on legal violations, and mete out legal penalties if the matters are not arbitrated properly. The Judiciary is not here to soil anyone's reputation based on political preferences, personal bias and sense of moral self righteousness, but to find a neutrally worded and legally sound solution to such a conflict.

Civgeneral was in his legal right to do so, and both Civgeneral and Daveshack showed greatness in the way this was handled. Judge Advocate Ashburnham merely did his job as JA to post this thread. I will ask Public Defender Black_hole to refrain from the future stigmatization and questioning of motivation for filing a CC, but to focus on establishing if a law has been broken or not, and to focus on the severity of the law at hand broken, and NOT to belittle the other side as I see one Judicial tradition in this game has shown in Judicial rulings in the past.

I will now end this Judicial tradition of stigmatization, to get a more neutral court, and
present an amendment to the Judicial Procedures, so we get a more civic and objective Court focussing on the law alone, and not the motives of the sides.

[Ginger_Ale]

I do not think this is a major issue, nor should it have become a CC.

Can CG have just said 'can you post a TCIT earlier next time?'?
Isn't it a given that as a major leader, CG should be able to visit the forums at least once a day, so he could've posted his instructions - if you can't make such a commitment (this is a statement to everyone), then don't accept your nominations.

CivGeneral - based on this CC, what punishment do you think DS should have if he's found 'guilty'? What do you think would solve this problem? A CC, or a PM?

This was taken out of proportion, and Provolution, I thank you for trying to get CG and DS to settle this before they made it a legal case.

[Nobody]

I don't like people hassling people for others making a CC, it might stop others from posting one because they fear ridacule.

[Provolution]

Nobody

you know when someone started that Jimmy Hoffa legal tradition in last DG's Judiciary, a legal tradition of Ernst Röhm Tactics I am here to obliterate. Removing anonymous CC's and the Judiciary questioning of a complainers political motives will end that.
Pre-arbitration is the new order of law. That is, I believe more in bilaterally respectful arbitration above defamation and intimidation of the accusing side.

[Black_Hole]

I wasn't making fun of CG, I was just saying what could have been done. If he had done it before, maybe use a more threatening tone.

To some this made a small difference, to others it didn't. There is no disputing the fact, but I would like to point out to other people that this isn't how the judiciary should be used.

My apologies DaveShack for contradicting your ideas.

[Black_Hole]

Upon review of the Judicial Procedures and Constituiton:
There is nothing saying that CG can withdraw his CC, and nothing saying he cannot.

Therefore, in my opinion he may drop it, however this may be worthy of a JR.

[Provolution]

We just add an amendment proposal adding "the accuser may unilaterally retract his/her CC at any given stage by will, until the sentence poll is posted, where retraction of the case is illegal".

[DaveShack]

CivGeneral, thanks for your kind words.

Black_hole, we had no idea what CG was going to do. In another circumstance your tactic might have been needed, and you did follow the general plan which was to say the facts are not disputed but this case borders on excess. You can see how easily that can be interpreted by others as an attack on the accuser, which is why I thought it needed to be softened while keeping the core message intact.

Provolution and others, I reread the PD's opening remark again and if you remove CG's name from the post there is nothing there to indicate it is "accuser-bashing". It seems to me to just be commentary on whether this case could be solved easier by mutual agreement. I hope future judiciaries will include the previous game's concept of a "remedy" in the court proceedings. I think CG might have thought there was no formal mechanism to do the equivalent of a plea bargain or settling out of court.

[Provolution]

We actually tried arbitration, and I posted that in the Presidential thread AND sent a PM to all parties involved. I tried as long as I could to make this an arbitration. The late response after a 2 day delay, the longest I could legally wait, was not our fault, and the CJ and JA did everything by the book, and sought an out-of court solution for a long while. Nevertheless, questioning the political motivation of a trial and working with defamation and intimidation as a key legal strategy is not acceptable. I see others could conceivably represent that tradition, but the price for impartiality is that colorful interpretations of legal aspects vs. personal and political aspects is taken out of circulation. By showing respect for both sides and allowing some time for mediation is the best way to go, but as soon as the court sets, no relativization or politication is accepted, and in particular not for members in the Judiciary.

Again, I consider the case to end with a positive outcome all sides can live with, which is a court procedure that worked out well. However, I will not create an environment where people feel mockery and defamation follows with filing a CC.

[ravensfire]

I find this odd, that the citizen filing this CC has ALSO violated the laws around turn chats, twice in this term! Our laws require that our leaders post instructions within 1 hour of the start of the turnchat, yet CG has blown that timeframe twice. Once, he did not even bother to post instructions. The second time, the subsequent chat in fact, he posted mere minutes before the start of the session.

This is yet another in a continuing stream of petty CC's that serve no useful purpose. Once again, the lack of courtesy towards leaders is demonstrated. A post in the thread, a PM, all of these could have handled the matter.

None were used.

This is a CC that should not have happened.

-- Ravensfire

[Provolution]

I agree with Ravensfire here, we indeed saw double standards here, but the Judicary should still be pure of political preference, and do it the way it took place, with preliminary arbitration and mediation respecting both sides, and solve this out of court, without becoming a moralizing institution on the motivation for filing a legal case.

[CivGeneral]

Originally Posted by ravensfire

I find this odd, that the citizen filing this CC has ALSO violated the laws around turn chats, twice in this term! Our laws require that our leaders post instructions within 1 hour of the start of the turnchat, yet CG has blown that timeframe twice. Once, he did not even bother to post instructions. The second time, the subsequent chat in fact, he posted mere minutes before the start of the session.

Shesh, let's not go down that road again. I have worked hard to regain my reputation that was brused in DG4. Plus, this thread does not have to do anything about me.

[Nobody]

you know when someone started that Jimmy Hoffa legal tradition in last DG's Judiciary, a legal tradition of Ernst Röhm Tactics I am here to obliterate.

burmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (thats a plane flying over my head)

[mad-bax]

Originally Posted by CivGeneral

Shesh, let's not go down that road again. I have worked hard to regain my reputation that was brused in DG4. Plus, this thread does not have to do anything about me.

Agreed. In fact I would file a CC against anyone bringing it up again. It is a violation of the use of the thread, it is spamming and therefore violates forum rules, and any law broken by CG or anyone else must have been dealt with, or at least people had the opprotunity to deal with it at that time. Also suggesting that anyone who has already been the subject of a CC in this game, let alone the one before last has no right to file a CC at any future time is completely and utterley against the constitution.

Compare Daves crime against that, look in the mirror, and form a queue to apologise to both of the people this utterly stupid thread is about.

Where the hell are the mods when you need them.

[Provolution]

MAd Bax

As I told countless times, there are one treatment of one group of people, and another treatment of others, at least the Judiciary is impartial this term, and I am happy we agree on the fact that defamation and intimidation should not be the order of the day.

Some people seem to use that as a default mechanism for defining justice their way.
If someone think a CC should be filed against someone, please file it, not use it for extortion, initimidation and slandering people. I agree with you in principle Mad Bax, but never question the mods in here, I have learnt that the hard way.