Amending the Constitution

As most of you have probably noticed, Shaitan and I have been added as moderators for this demo game. While I have no intention of running for office again, and believe for most offices it would be inappropriate for a moderator to hold them, the case of the Chief Justice position is unique. As the author of much of the constitution, and a master at interpreting that document, Shaitan has provided an invaluable service to this game. Because the moderators have the final word on many of the issues that are brought before the judiciary anyway, I do not see why it creates a problem to allow moderators to hold the office of Chief Justice if they are elected. I think it is obvious that Shaitan can be trusted not to abuse any extra power he would bring to the position, and that, where possible, decisions would be made according to the will of the citizens. Anyway, this is the opening of a discussion to amend the constitution to allow moderators to run for the Chief Justice position only, and believe me, I don't want the job. We must change the constitution first to allow the "Step-father of the Constitution" to continue as that document's chief administrator. Since the game is in hiatus for the moment, it is probably not necessary to appoint a new Chief Justice quite yet. Please state your opinions on this subject here, and if there are 2 more supporting opinions posted, I will open a poll 48 hours from now.

The actual change required isn't in the Constitution but the Code of Laws:

F: Forum Moderators

1. Are responsible for handling elections and site maintenance.
2. Are responsible for enforcing Civfanatics Forum rules within the Democracy Game Forums.
3. Are not officials.
4. May not hold Leader positions.

I agree that the Chief Justice position can be held by a moderator without conflict. What about the other positions? As the duties of the Public Defendant and Judge Advocate are scripted and technical (like the Chief Justice position) I think that these positions should be eligible to mods as well.

I am uncomfortable getting a "special dispensation" law for my benefit alone so if we are going to do this I'd like to make sure it fits logically in our rules and that all options are explored.

Originally posted by Shaitan
The actual change required isn't in the Constitution but the Code of Laws:

F: Forum Moderators

1. Are responsible for handling elections and site maintenance.
2. Are responsible for enforcing Civfanatics Forum rules within the Democracy Game Forums.
3. Are not officials.
4. May not hold Leader positions.

I agree that the Chief Justice position can be held by a moderator without conflict. What about the other positions? As the duties of the Public Defendant and Judge Advocate are scripted and technical (like the Chief Justice position) I think that these positions should be eligible to mods as well.

I am uncomfortable getting a "special dispensation" law for my benefit alone so if we are going to do this I'd like to make sure it fits logically in our rules and that all options are explored.

Click to expand...

Well, as the "Leaders" referred to in this section are actually the cabinet members and president, and as the judiciary did not exist when this section was written, there may be no conflict. However, I do think it would be best to discuss and vote on adding a clause stating that certain judicial positions may be held by moderators.

True, this was originally written before there was a Judiciary. But, "Leader" was specifically broadened to include the judiciary and the governors when the three books were worked up. I know that my understanding of it was no elected positions for mods.

I don't think a problem with Shaitan in this dual role. If I have a concern, it is that we are assuming it will always be Shaitan. While I realize mods do not come and go, I don't know how I'd react to someone else. If we make the rule, I think it should be generic enough to suit anyone, and not one person (even if Shaitan deserves special status here).

I can't imagine the game without Shaitan as Chief Justice so I guess I would accept this proposal.

Shaitan could still workup proposal, he just wont be the one to accept them for poll ;-)

It is still an elected position, so the citizens will ultimately decide if a moderator gets it or not on an individual basis.

but this would maybe prevent people from opening a pi when it has to be mailed to a mod?!?
well, in any way it will be an accusition of to much power in one hand. like if you put together judical, legislative and executive powers into one hand by having one guy decide to veto anything (hey, we had this before?).

i dont mind it personally, but i thinks its against the spirit of our ruleset.

The one concern I have about making the Chief Justice position open to moderators is the part of the job description involving standing in for the two other judicial roles. Both of those roles require the incumbent to take the part of one of the opposing sides during PIs. Since they are both supposed to attempt to represent the interests of their respective side to the best of their ability in that situation, it may serve to cast doubt on a mod's impartiality where their role as the last recourse in demogame affairs is concerned.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
The one concern I have about making the Chief Justice position open to moderators is the part of the job description involving standing in for the two other judicial roles. Both of those roles require the incumbent to take the part of one of the opposing sides during PIs. Since they are both supposed to attempt to represent the interests of their respective side to the best of their ability in that situation, it may serve to cast doubt on a mod's impartiality where their role as the last recourse in demogame affairs is concerned.

Click to expand...

Good point. I hadn't considered that. But doesn't that create a conflict of interest even if the Chief Justice is not a moderator? Seems that may be a flawed concept in the first place...

I can answer that one.

The "fill in" was put there to allow continuous service in the event one of the justices is absent. It is in lieu of any kind of "deputy" position in the branch. It allows all functions of the bench to continue unless 2/3 of the officers are absent.

To this end, the duties of the other two positions were scripted in detail. As you read the duties of those positions you'll see that the only call for agressive practice is in defense of an accused during a PI. The only time the Judge Advocate must prosecute a case is if the accuser wishes to remain anonymous. Even then, the requirements of prosecution are minimal and scripted in detail.

I think the conflict would be more pronounced if the Chief Justice were also a mod, since there would be no-one with sufficient power to keep them in check. Normally, if the Chief Justice was thought to be acting dubiously it would be possible to take up the issue with one of the mods and they could make a decision on whether the CJ was at fault. With a mod in that office, we would be at risk of losing that recourse.

There's always someone to keep a mod in check. First, there's another mod. Second, there's Thunderfall.

I agree that there's only a limited potential for conflict, but I'm not sure that demogame moderators should expose themselves even to that degree. Also bear in mind that the role of Public Defender may call for some creative interpretation of the constitution in order to mount a serious defense. Not exactly an ideal position for someone who is supposed to be the "last word" on constitutional matters.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I agree that there's only a limited potential for conflict, but I'm not sure that demogame moderators should expose themselves even to that degree. Also bear in mind that the role of Public Defender may call for some creative interpretation of the constitution in order to mount a serious defense. Not exactly an ideal position for someone who is supposed to be the "last word" on constitutional matters.

Click to expand...

Couldn't the Chief Justice, if placed in a position where he/she felt there would be a conflict of interest, appoint a temporary public defender to work on that case? Seems this would be a useful stipulation even if we don't make the change this thread is addressing.

Originally posted by eyrei


Couldn't the Chief Justice, if placed in a position where he/she felt there would be a conflict of interest, appoint a temporary public defender to work on that case? Seems this would be a useful stipulation even if we don't make the change this thread is addressing.

Click to expand...

I think that this is a very good idea. It would resolve the issue nicely, and would make me a lot less concerned about the idea of a moderator occupying the Chief Justice's office.

I'm not sure that the mod is supposed to be the "last word". My view of my mod duties are to ensure that the Civfanatics Forum rules are upheld, maintain the Demo forums and assist wherever possible to help the game community. The only direct control a mod should have over the game rules are where they conflict with the Forum rules. Although the Duck crafted the original Constitution, it has been 100% Community Property since then.

The only real conflict I see is that mods determine the length of suspension if that is the result of a PI. Concerns for this can be easily allayed by having the non-involved mod determine sentencing.

You all beat me to the punch on this, as I had just drafted my proposed change to the law.

I agree that a Mod should be allowed to be Chief Justice, but I don't agree that a Mod can serve as JA or PD during times of investigation, and they should appoint Special Council during those times should they arise.

Bill
Judge Advocate of Phoenatica

Not that I don't trust Shaitan, but I think that our current law should continue to be upheld. It's not like Shaitan is going away. He'll still be here to perticipate in discussions and such.

I do fear, however, what a mod in the court could possibly do, what with his power of basically altering anything a person says. Again, I don't think Shaitan would ever do that, but its possible by someone else in the future.

One more thing. I think its good that at least one member of the court has left. This would obviously create a vacancy. It would be a good chance to let someone else's view into the court.