Term 7 - Office of the Censor

[robboo]

Donsig...and this is not legislating from the bench?

IF you have a problem with the censors procedures...call a JR and then step aside since it would be unfair for you to rule on something you think is wrong. Also why is when you see a censor who is "new" or doesnt fit what you want you seem to attack them. First Swiss and now Ice. Since, the censor can never seem to meet what you think a censor should do...why dont you run for censor? I will make sure to nominate you but I cant promise my vote.

/I wonder if I can bring CC against you for trying to lead our censor astray and for overstepping your offices postion by using your own interpetation of the CoL to change the censors procedures...something you are not allowed to do unless a JR is called. I will consult with my legal team...

 

[ravensfire]

What the ....

You're saying that donsig can't comment as a citizen on procedures that he isn't comfortable with?

Sheesh, let me know what your legal decides. I'd like to then hire them to consider a CC on the attempt by a citizen to silence another citizen's criticism of official procedures.

Pathetic. No wonder I'm disgusted by this garbage.

-- Ravensfire

 

[robboo]

whats funny about that comment RF...is when I make a post its always associated to my office (even by you IIRC before)..but donsig can make a comment and its not assocated with his office.

 

[ravensfire]

whats funny about that comment RF...is when I make a post its always associated to my office (even by you IIRC before)..but donsig can make a comment and its not assocated with his office.

Gee, slight exaggeration there?

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Donsig...and this is not legislating from the bench?

Who is legislating and who is on the bench? Do I give up my rights as a citizen just because I am on the judiciary? Besides, who died and made you Censor?

IF you have a problem with the censors procedures...call a JR and then step aside since it would be unfair for you to rule on something you think is wrong. Also why is when you see a censor who is "new" or doesnt fit what you want you seem to attack them. First Swiss and now Ice. Since, the censor can never seem to meet what you think a censor should do...why dont you run for censor? I will make sure to nominate you but I cant promise my vote.

JRs should be filed as a last resort. The first thing a citizen does is approach the official and voice concerns. That is what I've done. Making a post about concerns is not an attack on the Censor or anyone else. And I have run for Censor.

/I wonder if I can bring CC against you for trying to lead our censor astray and for overstepping your offices postion by using your own interpetation of the CoL to change the censors procedures...something you are not allowed to do unless a JR is called. I will consult with my legal team...

Consult with your legal team and file whatever CCs you see fit. In the mean time do not threaten me. I am not overstepping my bounds and I believe the Censor, like the CJ, can change the procedures of his or her office.

@ravensfire (aka another one of the Censors who suffered an attack by donsig): Thanks for pointing out that I'm still a citizen.

 

[ice2k4]

Donsig,

In regards to your first request, I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but there is a part about opinion polls in our CoL, therefore I defined my official procedure towards said polls.

In regards to your second rquest, please read the same argument that dutchfire provided.

 

[ravensfire]

@ravensfire (aka another one of the Censors who suffered an attack by donsig): Thanks for pointing out that I'm still a citizen.

See - I'm just trying to get enough brownie points to change your mind. Okay, maybe not. Especially since you brought those same points up on me! Ni, I say! Ni!

You and I don't always agree - but keeping the Judiciary outta things unless absolutely needed is something we both strongly believe in.

@ice2k4 - perfect response! You ARE the Censor - so long as your procedures are based on the law and your views when the law isn't clear, I can accept them. I may not agree with them, and might try to persuade you to make changes (see donsig's remarks), but ultimately, you create the procedures.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ice2k4]

@Robboo Thank you for backing me up, but for once I have to agree with donsig. He wasn't overstepping boundaries. He was simply inquiring about my procedures, which also clearly state:

Should any citizen disagree with this amendment, he may post an initiative poll which will decide whether or not the amendment will take effect.

I am open to anyones constructive critism and questions, considering this is my first term as censor, and only my 3rd or 4th term playing a demogame.

 

[dutchfire]

Censor,
could you make a poll asking the citizen's if they want peace for philosophy?
Thanks in advance.

 

[donsig]

Donsig,

In regards to your first request, I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but there is a part about opinion polls in our CoL, therefore I defined my official procedure towards said polls.

In regards to your second rquest, please read the same argument that dutchfire provided.

Thank you for your response - sorry I've taken so long to continue the discussion.

The problem I see with the procedures regarding opinion polls lies with the Censor's authority over them. The Censor is responsible for validating official polls. I'm not so sure opinion polls should be considered official polls, even when posts by an official as part of his or her duties. What is the point of validating (or invalidating) non-binding polls? In the past hasn't the censor stayed away from opinion polls?

Dutchfire's comment that opinion polls overrule anything not polled ponpoints the trouble with opinion polls in our constitutional decision making process. Think about his comment and compare it to the idea that opinion polls are non-binding. The two ideas don't fit together well.

Dutchfire's other argument (about public polls) fails to make the distinction between official polls and initiatives. Our laws say official polls must be public. Our laws say certain other polls must be private (elections and those concerning specific individuals). Initiatives are not official polls (and therefore not subject to Censorial validation) nor need they be about specific individuals. So some initiatives are not bound by law to be either public or private which means either form should be allowed. The Censor's procedures make a blanket statement that polls must be public and this is what I object to.

 

[ravensfire]

Initiatives are not official polls (and therefore not subject to Censorial validation)

That is, of course, your personal opinion. It is one that is not shared by everyone.

There was a JR on that very matter, that was not completed due to a member of the Judiciary losing their internet connection. I think it's a matter that should be revisited by those that share your view.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

That is, of course, your personal opinion. It is one that is not shared by everyone.

There was a JR on that very matter, that was not completed due to a member of the Judiciary losing their internet connection. I think it's a matter that should be revisited by those that share your view.

-- Ravensfire

I am revisiting it by asking the current Censor what his view is.

 

[ice2k4]

Well, in short, I follow the common sense rule.

If a poll is non-binding, it does not require my validation, becasue whats the point?

----------------

Initiatives are defined as a binding poll initiated by the citizenry, which has force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type.

Under my interpretation, this means that the initiative can over rule a desion by an official.

Also our CoL states that

II. The Citizens Assembly shall consist of all citizens of the Nation. The Citizens Assembly shall be presided over by the Censor.

This means that the censor acts as a chairperson of the Citizen's Assembly and works to organize there opinions and actions. (Again as I interpret it.)

Therefore as censor, I must work to organize the Citizen's Assembly's decision making. If the citizens decide to overrule the government's decision, I have the right to organize the decision, and in turn have the right to invalidate the iniative if I feel there is good reason.

Even though the censor is a government (official) position, he must not be thought as one. If anything he works more for the citizens assembly. Given he is an official he can be considered a mediator or the man in the middle, but more so he is for the citizens.

Note: The above paragrapgh is based on the "relationship" between the government and people, a complete distinction.

 

[donsig]

Well, in short, I follow the common sense rule.

If a poll is non-binding, it does not require my validation, becasue whats the point?

I think that was my point exactly. I just went one step further and asked why opinion polls (which are non-binding) are even mentioned in the Censor's procedures. Can I assume now that you agree with me that the section about opinion polls should be removed from the Censor's procedures?

For the most part I agree with your interpretation of the Censor's role as a sort of chairperson of the Citizen's Assembly. I do not agree that the Censor has the authority to invalidate initiatives. As pointed out by ravensfire, there is disagreement over that issue which has not been resolved. Setting that aside for now, you say the Censor should be able to invalidate an initiative if there is good reason. I am suggesting that a private poll is not a good reason to invalidate an initiative. Unless the initiative is about a specific individual, our laws are silent about whether it should be public or private. In the absence of such defining legislation should we not allow the citizen posting the initiative to decide whether the poll should be public or private?

 

[robboo]

Mr Censor

Do you have a schedule for elections? I might be gone for a few days and I am curious.

 

[ice2k4]

@Donsig Well I have opinion polls in the procedures, because the CoL mentions them. For now, I see no reason for it to be removed.

Also, there are certain situations that may arise (although rare) that may require an iniatve to be invalid. Such as

An initiative poll is made budding out of a citizen discussion. The citizens vote a certain option, but further into the discussion (and a day or two into the polling) someone has provided a reasonable explanation which many citizens did not vote for, but now feel that they should have. If enough citizens ask for the poll to be re-polled, technically I should have to invalidate the first initiative poll.

@Robboo Sorry for the delay.

Nominations will be the 24th - 26th.
They will start July 24th @ 7:00 p.m. EDT (GMT - 4)
They will end July 27th @ 7:00 p.m. EDT (GMT - 4)

Elections will be the 27th - 31st.
They will start July 27th @ 7:00 p.m. EDT (GMT - 4)
They will end July 31st @ 7:00 p.m. EDT (GMT - 4)

 

[donsig]

@Donsig Well I have opinion polls in the procedures, because the CoL mentions them. For now, I see no reason for it to be removed.

Well, the CoL mentions alot of things. Like states. I don't see anything about states in your procedures. What about Freedom of Information. That's in the CoL. Why isn't it in your procedures? Workers and military land units are in the CoL. They are not in your procedures either. Why? Because they have nothing to do with Censorial responsibilities. Neither do opinion polls so they shoud be removed from the Censor's procedures - unless you can come up with a better reason for keeping them in.

Also, there are certain situations that may arise (although rare) that may require an iniatve to be invalid. Such as

An initiative poll is made budding out of a citizen discussion. The citizens vote a certain option, but further into the discussion (and a day or two into the polling) someone has provided a reasonable explanation which many citizens did not vote for, but now feel that they should have. If enough citizens ask for the poll to be re-polled, technically I should have to invalidate the first initiative poll.

Your example does not call for an invalidation of the original initiative poll. Any citizen (and it takes only one) can post an initiative poll. In the situation you describe there is no need to go to the Censor to have the poll invalidated. There is no need to wait for some critical mass of citizens to speak out against a poll. All that needs be done is for a new citizen's initiative poll to be posted by ANY citizen.

Also, my objection is that a private poll should not invalidate a citizen's initiative that is not about a specific forum member. You have still not convinced me that your procedures are indeed appropriate (and legal) regarding this. How do you justify including this in your procedures?

 

[ice2k4]

Your example does not call for an invalidation of the original initiative poll. Any citizen (and it takes only one) can post an initiative poll. In the situation you describe there is no need to go to the Censor to have the poll invalidated. There is no need to wait for some critical mass of citizens to speak out against a poll. All that needs be done is for a new citizen's initiative poll to be posted by ANY citizen.

And if two or three iniatives are posted reguarding the same manner, which one do you follow?

Also, my objection is that a private poll should not invalidate a citizen's initiative that is not about a specific forum member. You have still not convinced me that your procedures are indeed appropriate (and legal) regarding this. How do you justify including this in your procedures?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Where does it say that a private poll invalidates a citizen's iniative poll in my procedures?

 

[donsig]

And if two or three iniatives are posted reguarding the same manner, which one do you follow?

According to our constition (which is higher or above the CoL), the last initiative that has passed would be in force. So, once again, do you agree that opinion polls should not be in the Censor's procedures?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Where does it say that a private poll invalidates a citizen's iniative poll in my procedures?

I think it is in your polling standards which is a blanket clause that says Polls must be public unless required otherwise by law. BTW, that is in my ORIGINAL post which you did not see fit to respond to (other than to point to dutchfire's arguments). Once again, I will ask this question: Will you remove the clkause about public polls from your procedures?

 

[ice2k4]

Sorry for not responding to your original post. I must of fread right over it. And I guess your right that an iniative should not be invalidated because it is private. Do to this I will propose a amendment to my procedures. Thank you for pointing this out, and I am sorry that it took me so long.

I simply propose to take out

Polls must be public unless required otherwise by law.

This ammendment will be in affect within 48 hours, if no one is opposed.