Term 7 - Office of the Censor

[DaveShack]

I object.

There is a relevant law on public polling. The part in bold directly affects this question.

Section 3 Items Several or All Offices

A) Standards of Conduct

II. Polling Standards
IIA. The description and initial post for all official polls should be stated in a clear and neutral manner.
IIB. The initial post should contain a link to all relevant discussion threads. Each option should be explained if not immediately clear. The time frame for the poll, and how the results will be interpreted should also be in the initial post.
IIC. All official polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days to be binding, however it is recommended that binding polls be open from 3 to 4 days if possible.
IID. Official polls should be marked Public unless directly concerning another Citizen.
​

Has the judiciary ruled the IID has no meaning or effect? I'm not familiar with any such ruling. Unofficially I would say that at a minimum the terminology "should be marked" would imply consequences if not followed -- less forceful consequences than if "must" were in the law, but leaving open the possibility of some action to be taken. The straightforward reaction would be to repoll with the correct option chosen. Being an unofficial opinion this doesn't carry any more weight than donsig's unofficial opinion -- to resolve the difference a JR would be necessary.

 

[robboo]

I object too...your the censor its your procedure..
Dont waffle because a citizen has a problem with it. (He is only a citizen according to his earlier post not a judge.) If he really has a problem he would bring it to the judicary. Basically he is trying to end run the process. Stick to your original procedure...you have a little over a week what differnce does it make to change them now.

Besides...he knows any JR now would have to wait till they rule on the amendment that he is dragging his feet on. It woudlnt see the court this term.

 

[dutchfire]

OBJECTION

Come on, it's in the CoL. Not everything in the CoL is followed (how many ministers actually have a deputy for instance), but bashing someone for following the CoL is one step too far IMO.

 

[donsig]

@DaveShack: And we have never decided if initiatives are official polls or not. There are definite and reasonable legal (and common sense) arguments that initiatives and official polls are (and should be) fundamentally different things. The law you quote is about OFFICIAL polls.

@dutchfire: I am not bashing the Censor. I will however bash you for trying to turn a much needed debate into a personal brawl. Try reading the constituion and then the code of laws and then present a constructive argument showing how these support the Censor's position. If you can't or are unwilling to do that then please keep your childish comments to yourself.

@robboo: Please see my response to dutchfire above as it applies to you as well. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the pending amendment about the department of culture. I've been pursuing this matter for many terms now. The obvious thing for me to do is post a citizen's initiative but (like my previous initiatives) it would be a private poll, which the Censor would invalidate because of his procedures, which I would then try to override with a JR, but since I'm usually on the bench that gets into the recusal area. So I'm trying the more leisurely route of asking Censors to rectify this problem.

@the Censor: Not one of the three objectors has posted a single objection to private initiative polls. For all their talk of the CoL, they cannot show you a law that says initiatives MUST (or even should) be public polls. Nothing that says initiative MUST NOT BE (or even should not be) private polls. They haven't because they can't - there is nothing there to show you! That's why the also resort to the argument about standing your ground and don't get pushed around by the BIG BAD donsig! Well, don't get pushed around by them either. Read the constitution and the CoL and remove or leave the clause based on your interpretation of them. But please post your specific reasons for either removing it or leaving it in place. (Hopefully the reason will have nothing to do with being pushed around but will focus on the laws as written with something in there about the benefits or ills of public and private polling.)

 

[dutchfire]

IIIB. The Powers and Duties of the Censor:
1. The Censor shall post his Procedures of Censorship at the beginning of his term, defining how Official Polls will take place during his tenure.

The censorial procedures are about OFFICIAL POLLS. My quotes are about OFFICIAL POLLS. My quotes are about the censorial procedures (=giving rules dealing with OFFICIAL polls), and my quotes try to prove why the censorial prodcedures about OFFICIAL polls are based on what the constitution and CoL say about OFFICIAL polls.

 

[robboo]

@robboo: Please see my response to dutchfire above as it applies to you as well. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the pending amendment about the department of culture. I've been pursuing this matter for many terms now. The obvious thing for me to do is post a citizen's initiative but (like my previous initiatives) it would be a private poll, which the Censor would invalidate because of his procedures, which I would then try to override with a JR, but since I'm usually on the bench that gets into the recusal area. So I'm trying the more leisurely route of asking Censors to rectify this problem.

Dutch answered you just as I would...

Sorry donsig I disagree..
IF you would have put forth as muchy effort in the cultural amendment like you are doing here maybe we would have a poll up. Taking the leisurely route is exactly the problem. and why things are dragging out.

Since you say you have been following this for many terms..dont you think its either time to let it go or step off the bench and file your JR.

 

[donsig]

The censorial procedures are about OFFICIAL POLLS. My quotes are about OFFICIAL POLLS. My quotes are about the censorial procedures (=giving rules dealing with OFFICIAL polls), and my quotes try to prove why the censorial prodcedures about OFFICIAL polls are based on what the constitution and CoL say about OFFICIAL polls.

Ok, your posts are about OFFICIAL POLLS. My disagreement with the Censor's procedures are about polls that are NOT official (opinion polls and citizen initiatives). If you want to contribute to the discussion then quit posting about OFFICIAL POLLS and start talking about polls that are NOT official. Not every friggin' poll is OFFICIAL. Or don't you understand that yet? My whole point is those polls which are not OFFICIAL should not even be in the Censor's procedures in the first darn place.

Sorry donsig I disagree..
IF you would have put forth as muchy effort in the cultural amendment like you are doing here maybe we would have a poll up. Taking the leisurely route is exactly the problem. and why things are dragging out.

Maybe if anyone cared to discuss my concerns (rather than rant about things I'm not concerned with or just accuse me of attacking fellow citizens) then I'd care a little more about what they cared about. You want to talk about leisurely paces. I've been trying to get the same problems fixed since term two.

BTW, if you all don't want me on the bench then run against me. (I'd say don't vote for me but that hasn't been necessary for how long now?)

 

[DaveShack]

I have said before and will happily repeat, OFFICIAL == BINDING, NON-OFFICIAl == NON-BINDING.

The position that official means "created by the responsible official" is based on a reasonable principle, but it is not the definition used by the author nor is it the commonly accepted definition, evidenced by the extremely small number of citizens (1 that I'm aware of) holding this position. The person(s) holding this alternative viewpoint could prove it is the majority viewpoint by a poll, a JR, or an amendment.

According to the author's viewpoint, and coincidentally the commonly accepted viewpoint, citizen's initiatives are binding, therefore they are official.

I suggest discussing private vs public polling as a standalone subject, so it can get the consideration it deserves.

 

[ice2k4]

Firstly, please let's focus on the laws and my procedures in this debate. There is no need to drag in personal grudges.

Secondly, the CoL does not specify which polls are official. I interpret official polls as a poll mentioned in the CoL, which is an official document. Polls in my view do not have to be binding to be official.

For instance naming polls are not binding. However in order to issue instructions in tcit, you must use the name of a city. So if you want a archer to move to Boaring Wallow you msut say "move an archer to Boaring Wallow." But what if, because opinion polls are unofficial you can identify the city with any name you want. Wouldn't that invalidate the instructions, if you said "move an archer to the city of ovaries"?

So I do adress non-binding polls in my procedures becasue they are still mentioned in an official document, rendering them official.

I agree with the citizens objections that we must follow the CoL. Under my interpretation iniatives are official polls, not becasue they're binding, but because they are mentioned in the CoL.

 

[donsig]

The position that official means "created by the responsible official" is based on a reasonable principle, but it is not the definition used by the author nor is it the commonly accepted definition, evidenced by the extremely small number of citizens (1 that I'm aware of) holding this position. The person(s) holding this alternative viewpoint could prove it is the majority viewpoint by a poll, a JR, or an amendment.

I think the only person holding this alternative viewpoint tried to prove via a citizens initiative that private polls are acceptable to a majority of citizens. But the initiative was private and some, how shall I put this, obstructionist citizens saw fit to skew the vote based on the rantings and ravings of the obstructionists rather than how they felt about the issue being polled! You know, if we could get a censor that would allow private initiatives I could redo that poll then if it passed and anyone had a complaint they could ask for a JR and then we could decide what is official and what isn't.

@DaveShack: Our constitution has more than one author whether you like it or not. It was voted upon and each voted on it according to his or her interpretation and not yours! I realize you have a unique perspective on the meaning of what you drafted but we ratified it as a whole and it is our interpretation as a whole that should matter more than just your intentions when producing the draft.

 

[DaveShack]

A thread on private vs public is now open for discussion. We'll see what the people think.