Term 4 - Judicial Debates

Greetings fellow citizens. Welcome to the official Term 4 campaign thread for the Legislative.
This thread is an opportunity for the people seeking election to any of the following positions to state their case:
Chief Justice
Judge Advocate
Public Defender

It is also an opportunity for you the citizens to ask them questions and in general make them work hard for your vote.

The election office has a number of questions it would like the candidates to answer in order to help the citizens decide who is the most worthy.


1). Why are you standing for this position?
2). Why are you standing for other positions too?
3). What are your objectives for the first 7 days of office?
4). What qualities can you bring to this position that your fellow candidates can't?
5). How will you get more people involved in the game?
6). If you have held office before, what was your greatest triumph and worst disaster?
7). What is your view on the role of the Judiciary?
8). How have you contributed to this game?

Please take the time to answer these and have fun debating.

My thanks to the Election Office for this opportunity. My answers are below.

Position: Judge Advocate

1). Why are you standing for this position?
I've finally decided to "de-lurk" and become more active. Seeing the chaos in the JA
position in the current term brought forth the idea that "I can do better!"

2). Why are you standing for other positions too?
No.

3). What are your objectives for the first 7 days of office?
Ensure the new PI process is implemented, all outstanding Judicial Review matters are
dealt with, and communicate with the Executive branch to see if they have any
possible issues. Resolving any problems up front will save time and stife in the
future.

4). What qualities can you bring to this position that your fellow candidates can't?
I bring a calm, relatively unbiased view to the office. I don't have ulterior motives.
I'm not part of a "faction" or have favored people. I agree and disagree with all,
based only on my feelings about that issue.

5). How will you get more people involved in the game?
The JA is the most visible person in the initial phases of a PI. Their ability to calm
the situation down to allow the process to continue is critical. Everyone understands
that these situations will happen. The JA can keep the impact on the game to a
minimum, and avoid people leaving out of disgust.

6). If you have held office before, what was your greatest triumph and worst disaster?
I have not held office before.

7). What is your view on the role of the Judiciary?
The Judiciary serves three purposes.
The main goal is to interpret the laws created
by the people and resolve any issues in a fair manner. Along with this, the
Judiciary is responsible for determining if any laws passed violate the Constitution
or CFC rules. The interpretations should be made in both the spirit of the game, and
the understanding that the original intent was to create a fairly loose and flexible
framework. The Judiciary should always be inpartial in this process, considering only
the existing laws and the good of Fanatika, not allowing personal goals to influence
their decision.
The third purpose is to ensure that all citizens are responsible for their actions under
the law. Here, the Judiciary should strive to resolve matters quickly, peacefully,
using the PI process only as a last resort. All parties to a dispute should be treated
fairly and with respect.


8). How have you contributed to this game?
I have passively participated since the beginning, meaning I would follow discussions and
vote in the polls. I have become more active in the current term.
Directly related to the Judiciary, I have created a new PI process that is currently being
polled.

Click to expand...

I hope that citizens will be able to post questions to the candidates directly as well. I do know about the debate chat (tomorrow for Judicial positions), but would encourage citizens to post questions here.

EDIT: Position added to top, no answers changed.

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire

1). Why are you standing for this position?
I have experience as Public Defender and other judicial positions. I've been in these postitions for months now in this and other demogames.
2). Why are you standing for other positions too?
I'm not. Because I use a Mac, I don't have the current version of Civ III.
3). What are your objectives for the first 7 days of office?
To make sure that the new PI procedure is implimented and followed.
4). What qualities can you bring to this position that your fellow candidates can't?
Experience; plain and simple. I've been through more PI's than I care to remember, many of them had me as an active participant.
5). How will you get more people involved in the game?
By being open and warm to new members of the demogame, hoping to instill them a sense of pride of the Demogame.
6). If you have held office before, what was your greatest triumph and worst disaster?
Not having to go through with the silly PI's of the last term.
7). What is your view on the role of the Judiciary?
A necessity. We are in place to settle disputes between citizens.
8). How have you contributed to this game?
Lurking most of the time, giving my opinion on threads when it is necessary. That is, besides holding various judicial positions.

I am running for the position of Public Defender. Here are my answers to the question posed by Peri. Please participate in this process by asking you own questions in this thread.

1). Why are you standing for this position?

I would like to become more involved in the DemoGame, and I find the judicial aspect of the game very interesting.

2). Why are you standing for other positions too?

I am not currently running for any other positions.

3). What are your objectives for the first 7 days of office?

My objectives are no different than during any other period: to fulfill my constitutional duties with fairness and objectivity.

4). What qualities can you bring to this position that your fellow candidates can't?

I cannot speak for the other canditates. I believe I am able to analyze the laws and objectively apply them to situations brought before the judiciary in a manner that is fair and logical.

5). How will you get more people involved in the game?

I would like to make it easier for new players to get familiar with how the game works. This may entail revising or adding a new sticky thread to the main forum.

6). If you have held office before, what was your greatest triumph and worst disaster?

I have not held office before, and thus my triumphs and disaster are still before me.

7). What is your view on the role of the Judiciary?

The role of the judiciary to to apply the procedures of the PI to ensure justice, and to interpret the constitution and code of laws when asked to do so.

8). How have you contributed to this game?

I have attempting to contribute to this game by participating in a civil manner in discussions and voting in polls. I have also been appointed as Mayor of Yet Another City and have been assisting the governor with the management of that city.

Question for all candidates: Please discuss your views on decisions being made in turn chat. Should those decisions override forum discussion? Are there times that the forums should be ignored? If so, when?

Thankyou for the question. It addresses some very crucial issues which are also very complex. I am reluctant to generalise on this matter but if Bill could be more specific I shall be happy to state my position.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Question for all candidates: Please discuss your views on decisions being made in turn chat. Should those decisions override forum discussion? Are there times that the forums should be ignored? If so, when?

Click to expand...

Bill,

Can't you just give us the creampuff questions? I feel like I'm a Republican judge getting confirmed by the Senate!

You have two questions, I'll answer them in order.

First, should decisions in the turn char override forum discussions. My response to that is, in general, no. This is primarily a forum driven game. Should you look at a turn chat log, there are a relatively few number of people attending. Allowing these people to alter forum decisions gives them a disproportionate amount of power. I did say "generally" however.

There are times when certain events occur in the game that alter small portions of the empire, or decisions are presented that cannot be avoided. Often, these situations are not planned for. The concept of the turn chat is that every department should have a representative present. At those times, the DP should consult with the appropriate department for advice on proceeding. Other citizens in the turn chat should offer advice, but the primary source of information should be the department representative.

The second part of your question, are there times that the forums should be ignored, is easier to answer. The answer is no, there are not. Even if the decision from the forum is a poor one, it is the will of the people and should be followed. This is perhaps the hardest thing for a DP to do, but the will of the people is drawn from the forums, not from the turn chat.

Thanks for the question Bill!
-- Ravensfire

While a bit later than I intended, I have a question for the Public Defender candidates.

During the turmoil of last session, the PD office turned into a revolving door. Several of the resignations were over personal disgust at the actions of the accused. Do you feel that you are capable of defending any accused, regardless of personal opinion?

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

To all Judicial candidates - (ravensfire and Peri can wait to be last)

I have a question. While the proposed PI guidlines were being drawn up by ravensfire, I suggested that his paraphrased statement of "All citizens are innocent until proven guilty" be changed to "All citizens are innocent unless proven guilty".

In your opinion, what's the difference in these two statements? Try to be original, articulate, and wordy.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Question for all candidates: Please discuss your views on decisions being made in turn chat. Should those decisions override forum discussion? Are there times that the forums should be ignored? If so, when?

Click to expand...

Thank you for the question Bill_in_PDX.

The Constitution states the President or Designated Player is responsible for following the legal instructions of the Leaders during gameplay. Therefore, during turn chats (or play of the game), the President or Designated Player must follow the instructions of the Leaders. There are no provisions in the Constitution for the President to override or ignore those orders.

There are, however, events that occur during play of the game that may not have been addressed by instructions from the Leaders. This is where the Leaders, or their appointed representative, have the opportunity to provide specific instruction to the President or Designated Player. Of course, the Leaders are bound by the Constitution to act and plan according the will of the people. The will of the people is communicated to the leaders through discussions and polls in the forums. If a Leader, or the Leader's representative, is absent from the turn chat, then if falls to the President to make the decision because the Constitution states the President is the overall Leader of the Nation. If the decision does fall to the President, as a Leader the President must make the decision in light of the will of the people.

In summary, I beleive that any decisions made during a turn chat are required to follow the will of the people as demonstrated in the forums.

Originally posted by ravensfire
While a bit later than I intended, I have a question for the Public Defender candidates.

During the turmoil of last session, the PD office turned into a revolving door. Several of the resignations were over personal disgust at the actions of the accused. Do you feel that you are capable of defending any accused, regardless of personal opinion?

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

Click to expand...

Thank for the question Ravensfire.

The role of the PD is to represent the accused during legal proceedings. The personal opinion of the PD should in no way alter the application of the law. I have no doubt that I am capable of performing those duties fairly, objectively, and impartially.

Originally posted by Cyc
To all Judicial candidates - (ravensfire and Peri can wait to be last)

I have a question. While the proposed PI guidlines were being drawn up by ravensfire, I suggested that his paraphrased statement of "All citizens are innocent until proven guilty" be changed to "All citizens are innocent unless proven guilty".

In your opinion, what's the difference in these two statements? Try to be original, articulate, and wordy.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the question Cyc.

While it may appear the two statements are interchangeable, I see them as very different. "Until" implies that the accused is guilty and that the legal process is in place to demonstrate guilt with only a preponderance of the evidence. "Unless" implies the accused is innocent and that there needs to be enough evidence to demonstrate guilt beyond a resonable doubt.

I would much rather be accused under a system where I was innocent unless proven guilty.

Hello. I have tried to engage my opponent in debate but without success so I am posting my answers to the questions as a substitute.


1). Why are you standing for this position?

I have firm views on the role of our judiciary. Some people may say that there is more power and glory in other roles but I am not standing for those reasons. I think this game is a really good idea and that the rules help keep it on track. I believe that I can contribute most by acting as an arbiter of the Constitution and helping people to get the most out of this game. In my actions as a member of the Judiciary I have always acted impartially and in the best interests of the people.


2). Why are you standing for other positions too?

I am standing for these other positions to ensure there is a choice at that election doesnt become confirmation.


3). What are your objectives for the first 7 days of office?

Avoid any PIs is my main aim since it is better to resolve any disagreement amicably before it reaches the Bench.
Maintain the Judicial Log to guide the citizens on current interpretations of the constitution. Also to encourage people to seek solutions to problems through teamwork and co operation.


4). What qualities can you bring to this position that your fellow candidates can't?

My main strength is that I am impartial and post regularly in the threads. I also think that the Judiciary should not make laws.


5). How will you get more people involved in the game?

Getting people involved in the game is a very difficult task. Participation seems to have actually dropped since the game began. I believe that the best way to get more people involved is through advertising. There should be regular summaries of progress in the DG main thread and also on the News page of Civfanatics. There should also be regular recruiting drives there too. The game should be plugged as much as possible. I only found out about the game through accident after many months at CFC. Out of the 30,000 members we have I am sure that there are those who would want to join in if only they knew about it. I personally always try to encourage greater participation whenever I can.


6). If you have held office before, what was your greatest triumph and worst disaster?

I don’t really want to re open old wounds but my main achievement this term was helping to keep things together at the beginning through a very eventful period. The worst disaster was not being able to sort it out more quickly


7). What is your view on the role of the Judiciary?

Unlike some other candidates I do not believe that the Judiciary should have any role whatsoever in the coding of our laws. Only the Legislative branch has that right. The Judiciary exists solely to ensure that the laws are applied correctly and fairly to all without exception. If the Judiciary seeks involvement in lawmaking then this will have a detrimental effect on all branches of government, the citizenry, and the game itself.


8). How have you contributed to this game?

I have been a very active citizen, belonging to several citizen groups. I have also served Fanatica as Judge Advocate and Chief Justice. I post regularly attend turn chats and always speak up when it is needed.

I hope these answers encourage you to vote for me.
I am the right choice for this position.

Thankyou.

While the proposed PI guidlines were being drawn up by ravensfire, I suggested that his paraphrased statement of "All citizens are innocent until proven guilty" be changed to "All citizens are innocent unless proven guilty".

Click to expand...

I created the new PI guidelines with the intent of making the process fair, speedy, and just. Of absolute importance is the belief that all citizens are fundamentally good (innocent) unless their actions prove otherwise.

The original statement was "All citizens are innocent until proven guilty." Cyc requested that it be changed to "All citizens are innocent unless proven guilty." My initial reaction was, "Bah - mere semantics!" Then several neurons fired, and a thought was born.

Two words, until and unless. Very similar, yet they provide two completely different messages to the citizens. "All citizens are innocent until proven guilty." is almost any oxymoron. "... until proven guilty." strongly implies that all citizens are guilty of something, they just haven't been caught yet.

"... unless proven guilty." is the opposite. The implication there is the innocence of the citizen is paramount, and should not be impinged lightly.

By far, "unless" was what should have been there in the first place. Once the phrasing was pointed out, it was immediately apparent that the change needed to be made.

Great question Cyc, thanks!
-- Ravensfire

EDIT: Spacing issues corrected