Term 2 Judiciary - The Court at the Big Rock

[Gaidynne]

Lockes:

I may be mistaken, but I believe it is the Judiciary's job to determine whether a Citizen or a Citizen's action has violated existing Yasutan law.

I have posted a Request for Judicial Review. I have identified, specifically, the law at issue. I have asked whether that law has been violated. I purposefully did NOT identify the specific Elected Officials whom I feel violated the law -- because I didn't want to make this personal! If the Court requires that I post a second Request for Judicial Review with more specificity, including names of alleged offenders, I will do so. But I think it makes this process unnecessarily adversarial.

I agree with you that the Judiciary should not make laws. That is the legislative branch's job. But the Judiciary does have the sole responsibility for reviewing DG conduct to determine if it is compliant with our duly passed laws.

You suggest that a Judicial Review would be a nightmare and imply that it would allow a decision to come down early. I think you are mistaken. To date, there have been several Designated Player sessions. Each of those DPs had legal obligations following their game play. I have Requested that the Judiciary determine if they complied with those obligations. This matter is ripe for review, by YOU. This Court should not pass the buck to the Legislature. They make the laws; you determine if there have been violations.

Gaidynne

 

[ravensfire]

Gaidynne,

We do a couple of things - including both Judicial Reviews and handling requests for Investigations.

That said, my Court is being fairly strict about Judicial Reviews for various reasons. First and foremost, the Judiciary should be a last resort when a citizens sees some behavior that they object to. A quick review of your posts shows that you are concerned about this, and have posted in various instruction threads. Great! Perfect! That is, by far, the best way to change people's behavior. It's also the nicest.

Second, my Court is actively avoiding the types of JR's that you're requesting - large in scope and nature, seeking to judge categories of actions, not specific instances. In past DG's, these types of rulings have caused more problems than they have fixed. That's not how my Court will operate. We'll be glad to review or investigate specific instances that you might object to, but we won't do a bulk review of the nature that you are requesting.

The Court is here to review and investigate specific instances where mistakes might have been made, or violations occurred. We are not here to police actions, particularly not over "conduct (past and future)". That is the role of all Citizens, to monitor and comment on actions.

Respectfully, your request is beyond the scope of what the Judiciary should handle, and exactly in the scope of what a Citizen discussion is more. Those discussions, and your reminders, will have a far larger impact, and a much more positive impact, than a Judicial ruling. The Court is a large sledgehammer - we can fix many problems by swinging hard enough. But sometimes, a gentle tap, or a turn of a bolt is all that's needed.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[ravensfire]

By unanimous decision, the Court has made the following decisions:

NKVD's requests for a Judicial Review about naming and naming polls has been found to have no merit.

Gaidynne's request Judicial Review on the actions of all prior and all future DP's after the save has been found to have no merit.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[Octavian X]

First, Lockesdonkey, tell Methos of your upcoming absence. He's the one with the authority to appoint a pro-tem Justice to fill in.

As for Gaidynne's request, I'm going to have to concur with my fellow justices. Yes, I agree that the matter is one worth investigating. However, the Judiciary is and always should be a court of last resort. Having three judges impose an opinion on the legislature may cause more conflict than harm, especially when the matter may easily be settled by public discussion and a poll, if necessary. Unless you've got a specific grievance against one of the Designated Players - in which case an investigation may legitimately be called - I don't believe a judicial review is necessary. Additionally, a review of past turn threads to determine if a fault occurred in the past by the judiciary seems too much like a witch hunt.

At this moment, as the matter is non-controversial (though still pressing), I must concur with my fellow justices and find no merit to the case.

I suggest, again, a thread in the citizens forum for discussion on the questions, which are all legitimate and will need to be answered in the future as our Empire grows larger, inevitably placing greater demands on our DPs. In fact, there's great potential fodder here for a new citizen's group, dedicated to setting good informal DP guidelines, and perhaps judging past performances along those guidelines.

 

[Gaidynne]

Raven:

I understand your point about the impropriety of using a Judicial Review to address a class of conduct. I think you may overstate your point, as there are many possible examples of such conduct which I bet your Court would leap to stop. Nonetheless, your effort to avoid Judicial Reviews may be a good idea in the long term. Time will tell.

Your suggestion that my concerns may be better handled by a forum discussion is less than satisfying. Like belly buttons, we all have opinions. And many times, I find other people's opinions about as useful as their belly buttons (meaning not at all). I think haggling over the issue in a forum and eventually polling the issue is time-consuming and wasteful. A more efficient way to deal with this 'legal' issue is to have the Court address it.

Existing Yasutan law mandates that DPs create a post-play summary. This Court exists to interpret law and determine whether it has been broken. Chatting with other Citizens about these things is possible, but probably unproductive as none of them has the right/ability to interpret the law. This Court has that obligation.

In the end, I will probably do what you hint at ... I will post a second Request for Judicial Review. I will name names and point out what I think are inadequacies and violations of the law. My preference was not to do so because I felt it was overly confrontational. But if this Court won't act unless confronted with a specific problem, I will get over my distaste and do it your way.

Respectfully,

Gaidynne

 

[Joe Harker]

I don't want to rock the boat but the current name of the capital is invalid as it did not achieve a majority decision which is require under law by the Naming Intative (sorry about spelling)
Please correct me if i am wrong and missed something out.(some how I am sure I have )

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=213530

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=208881

This is the first verison but the phrase, "If there is no majority decision, then the top three options, including ties, will be polled again." I do not believe has been removed.

 

[donsig]

Temporary stand-in donsig reporting for duty!

 

[ravensfire]

I don't want to rock the boat but the current name of the capital is invalid as it did not achieve a majority decision which is require under law by the Naming Intative (sorry about spelling)
Please correct me if i am wrong and missed something out.(some how I am sure I have )

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=213530

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=208881

This is the first verison but the phrase, "If there is no majority decision, then the top three options, including ties, will be polled again." I do not believe has been removed.

Without a full review, and just a quick glance, (translation, this isn't a ruling!)

You do appear to be correct. I would suggest requesting the Chieftain finish up the poll sequence, and only then, if nothing happens, come back to us, and we'll do a full review. First, though, ask the official in question to continue the process!

If my fellow Justices confirm this, I will state that this request has no merit in the immediate case, but may be revisited based on other actions.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice.

 

[ravensfire]

Temporary stand-in donsig reporting for duty!

Welcome to the bench!

Here's the key to the washroom, and THIS is the key to the Judicial bar. No, not the Lawyer's Bar, the Judicial bar. If you need anything else, that's where I'll be!


-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[donsig]

If my fellow Justices confirm this, I will state that this request has no merit in the immediate case, but may be revisited based on other actions.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice.

My inclination is to go ahead with the review but will defer for now. While I agree that steps can be taken to resolve this without a review, I'd prefer to leave the review open and proceed under the assumption that the request for review can be withdrawn if the matter is settled out of court. I'd really like to hear what the other justcie has to say, and also would like to know if the plaintiff would like to withdraw the request or have it proceed.

 

[Gaidynne]

Raven:

I am perplexed by your unwillingness to carry out the Court's duties. There have been at least two requests for Judicial Review, and I think possibly more exist but am too lazy at the moment to look for them. For both my Request and JoeHarker's, specific violations of Yasutan law were brought to this Court's attention. Your response in both instances was not to undertake an appropriate review of the binding legal authority and to judge the offending conduct. Rather, you simply "passed the buck" to the Legislature and/or the Chieftain.

The Citizenry have elected a Court to deal with violations of the law. We have passed several laws. Citizens have come here to point out violations. And they get no action, other than a curt dismissal.

How do you respond?

Gaidynne

 

[Methos]

I would like to bring this to the attention of the court:

Turn 0, 1080 BC: Gold+Cows settled,

In regards to this:

II. Procedure for Naming a New City
On founding, a city will be given the temporary placeholder name: "City#1" (In the event that there is already a city holding that name, the new city will be named "City#2" and so on in numerical order as required).

The most recent DP failed to follow the law in regards to naming new cities as shown by the statement quoted at the top of this post.

I'm unsure how this should be handled, other than as Chieftain I should declare a statement in the next TCIT that the past DP's naming actions should be changed to that of City #1 in following the laws of our nation.

Edit: Yes, I realize I'm going against myself, but that does not change the legal facts of my actions. In truth, it also means that FH was illegally named by Falcon02 as well.

Edit #2: So legally we should rename FH as City #1 and Gold+Cows to City #2 until a proper polling result happens.

 

[Methos]

I would suggest requesting the Chieftain finish up the poll sequence,

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice.

Poll posted

 

[ravensfire]

How do you respond?

This Court reviewed the requests, and by a 3-0 margin, determined that it was not a matter for the court to handle.

Contrary to your desire, the Judiciary is NOT there to enforce the laws. We are not here to police the entire game. We are not here to create new laws. We are here to resolve questions of interpretation, and to conduct specific investigations as requested by citizens.

We have and will continue to refuse the vague and overreaching requests that you have made because they are beyond our scope. The role of policing the game, and ensuring that the rules are followed is the duty of all citizens. By far, the best approach to handling such matters is a gentle reminder, a PM to a person, or a direct post.

This is, ultimately, a game. People participate because they enjoy it. Carrying out a witch hunt, and hanging people for vandalism will kill this game. Reminding people, and allowing them to correct mistakes, when possible, keeps them informed, aware and interested.

If you have a specific matter that you wish to accuse a citizen of violating a law, as you have not yet done, please post specifics of the incident, and we will docket it as a request for Investigation.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[ravensfire]

Poll posted

Thanks, Chieftain Methos!

Joe Harker - does this resolve your concern?

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[ravensfire]

The most recent DP failed to follow the law in regards to naming new cities as shown by the statement quoted at the top of this post.

I'm unsure how this should be handled, other than as Chieftain I should declare a statement in the next TCIT that the past DP's naming actions should be changed to that of City #1 in following the laws of our nation.

Edit: Yes, I realize I'm going against myself, but that does not change the legal facts of my actions. In truth, it also means that FH was illegally named by Falcon02 as well.

Edit #2: So legally we should rename FH as City #1 and Gold+Cows to City #2 until a proper polling result happens.

Oops! It would appear that, at least for the most recent city, that you are correct! I would have to see if FH was founded before or after the Naming initiative was passed to see if that name too was incorrectly done.

If my fellow Justices agree, I think that an acceptable resolution to this would be, as you have already suggested, for you to post instructions to rename those cities to the required, neutral names.

Fellow Justices, is this acceptable to you? This would be treated as a JR, with a specific action ordered by us (Methos to instruct the city names to change).

Thoughts?

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[Joe Harker]

Thanks, Chieftain Methos!

Joe Harker - does this resolve your concern?

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Yes thanks

 

[Octavian X]

My, this naming business is messier than I ever imagined it could be. I am tempted to ask the court to name the cities by Judicial fiat.

But, with Methos' most recent capital naming poll, the system appears to be on track once more. If it does not produce a majority, we move to one last, two-options only poll. This seems straightforward enough, and even though there appeared to some confusion surrounding the process to begin with, I don't think there's any need to stir up controversy with any Judicial action. Since things appear to be on the right track, I find no merit in the current controversy.

 

[donsig]

My, this naming business is messier than I ever imagined it could be. I am tempted to ask the court to name the cities by Judicial fiat.

There have been suggestions to give the judiciary the power to post game play instructions in order to rectify (if possible) acts that have been done contrary to our established rules and laws. Having been no effort made towards that end I have to agree with ravensfire's observation that the judiciary is not here to enforce rules.

At this point I also agree with Octavian X that judicial action is not required. I still hesitate to say this review has no merit since it seems clear the correct process was not followed. Given the fact that the correct process is now underway I think the proper procedure would be for the review request to be formally withdrawn.

In any event, if it is necessary that I make a determination of merit or no merit please let me know. Otherwise, I don't have anything else to say on the matter.

 

[ravensfire]

At this point I also agree with Octavian X that judicial action is not required. I still hesitate to say this review has no merit since it seems clear the correct process was not followed. Given the fact that the correct process is now underway I think the proper procedure would be for the review request to be formally withdrawn.

In any event, if it is necessary that I make a determination of merit or no merit please let me know. Otherwise, I don't have anything else to say on the matter.

donsig, I like that approach.

For now, the Court will table C4DG2JR6 (Was the correct process for the naming of the Capital followed?) pending completion of the naming process. At that time, the Court will ask Joe Harker if they wish to withdraw their request for Judicial Review.

C4DG2JR7 will also be tabled, pending action by the Chieftain to reset the names in the upcoming game session.

I thank donsig and Octavian for an innovative method to solve problems like this, where corrective action can be taken by an official and/or citizen without the need for significant Judicial action.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice