Call to Service - Chief Justice

[Nobody]

No one wanted to run until they heard if they didnt i might get it, and the world will come falling down.

 

[Curufinwe]

I got back into the dg during the end of elections, so couldn't run or anything else. And I then decided to run for CJ because I have a different legal theory than most others, so offering even more choice.

 

[donsig]

No one wanted to run until they heard if they didnt i might get it, and the world will come falling down.

The world is not falling down nobody. I can't speak for anyone else who applied but I did not apply because you wanted the job nor because CT wanted to appoint you. I applied because I want to help safeguard the rights I feel citizens are entitled to, some of the rights I work hard for in previous DGs. After last term when there was absolutely nothing for the judiciary to do I somewhat foolishly thought these rights were not in jeopardy this DG.

 

[ravensfire]

Some questions to all candidates:

1) What changes, if any, would you make in the Judicial procedures used in the past terms?

2) What would you do as the Chief Justice that would be different from the other candidates?

While I know donsig and his style, I'm quite interested in the words from anyone else interested.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Swissempire]

The world is not falling down nobody. I can't speak for anyone else who applied but I did not apply because you wanted the job nor because CT wanted to appoint you. I applied because I want to help safeguard the rights I feel citizens are entitled to, some of the rights I work hard for in previous DGs. After last term when there was absolutely nothing for the judiciary to do I somewhat foolishly thought these rights were not in jeopardy this DG.

Haha ha ha haha ha.... oh wait, you were serious..... right.... rights...

 

[donsig]

Yes, I was very serious Swissempire. Among the rights I'm talking about are the rights of citizens to post polls, the results of which must be followed by our elected officials. The right to participate in the demogame through the forums on an equal basis with those who participate through the chats. Above all the right of us citizens to decide how we want to run our country instead of being told by an elected official how we should run it. I take these rights very seriously.

@ ravensfire: Does that mean you don't want me to answer the questions?

 

[ravensfire]

@ ravensfire: Does that mean you don't want me to answer the questions?

Nope! I know your views fairly well, I don't think most others do.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

To go off of donsig's remarks - we have had some instructions that say "I reserve the right to alter these instruction at a later date, including at the turnchat."

Consider that, and what that means. We require leaders to post their instructions so that everyone can see what was ordered and comment on those instructions. That little phrase "at the turnchat" tosses all of that aside. It's giving the leader carte blanche to change anything and everything without the majority of citizens being able to see, comment or influence on that decision.

So, do you want the rights of a few, or of the majority defended, SwissEmpire?

-- Ravensfire

 

[robboo]

<lurkers comment> to Ravensfire
I included that statement in my orders for the simple fact that troop movement is fluid. Example. last turn chat I agreed to have the DP move an ax in a different direction than what I said. This ax is now in position to aid in the defense of Abydos. If I had kept his orders he would be up with our worker.(who is now covered by another ax who was to be in another location). If you prefer instructions that do not change then why is the preferred method for the turnchat to be held online. The only reason then woud be so others besides the DP to have a feeling of actually playing the game. One of the only turnchats in this game that was really complained about was the one that was off line. So do you want unchanging orders, no orders and let the DP play or fluid orders that can change.

Sorry for the thread Hijack but it seems to have left its orginal purpose a while ago.

 

[ravensfire]

Then WHY bother to post instructions at all? You can actually give the DP some flexibility, you know? How about trying to predict what might happen and allow those of us that don't attend chats to help with that planning?

If you don't want to do that, just post "Instructions to be provided in turnchat" so we all know you're blowing off the forum people.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Chillaxation]

Stifling the application process flies in the face of that interpretation and in my view will taint your appointment.

Clearly, it will. You're a difficult man to please.

But enough about me. This thread is about who's going to become Chief Justice in our game.

Applicants, please also respond to Ravensfire's questions, by PM or here:

1) What changes, if any, would you make in the Judicial procedures used in the past terms?
2) What would you do as the Chief Justice that would be different from the other applicants?

 

[robboo]

Ravensfire..all of my changes were minor in fact I dont think anyone has made major changes or completely disregarded what was posted. .

Have you read my instructions this turn chat..I have 3 instances where I allow the DP to do what they feel is right.

Why are you bringing this up in here..if you have a problem with our instructions bring it up in our threads or in another thread. IF this is directed at me or you dont like my instructions, then post your complaints in my thread and we can talk or PM me.

This is my first demo game and first office..I was following the lead of many other instructions in this game and others.

 

[Curufinwe]

1)I wouldn't make any immediately, if any changes felt to be necessary then those changes would be implemented, but, for now, everythinglooks fine.

2) Commitment to the living-tree doctrine, that the constitution grows and evolves with the society that it serves, and that it is the responsiblit of the judiciary to recognize this in their interpretations.

 

[donsig]

<lurkers comment> to Ravensfire
If you prefer instructions that do not change then why is the preferred method for the turnchat to be held online. The only reason then woud be so others besides the DP to have a feeling of actually playing the game.

My *preferred* method is definately NOT an online turn chat. The turn chats started out merely as a social thing. It did give others a feel for playing the game. It allowed us to see our carefully laid plans unfold. But of course unforseen things crop up when playing and the tendency of DPs is to always ask for *advice* from those at the chat. This at times has grown from advice to officials giving full blown instructions at the chat. Under either system those who can attend the chats are able to exert much more influence on our country's actions than can someone who is only able to post in the forums. This reduces interest in the game in a couple ways. First if the turn chats are regularly held at the same time (as they generally are) then invariably the times chosen are inconvenient to people living in certain parts of the world. We lost many European participants when the turn chats became institutionalized. Also, since citizens (and to a lesser extent officials) know they can give input at the chat they tend to post less in the forums.

I see nothing wrong with fixed orders. Would it have been such a great disaster if that axeman had moved as first instructed?

 

[Strider]

I'm going to just come out and say it pure and simple. Your both wrong.

The turnchat is not a place to put your instructions. Submitting instructions VIA turnchat has been illegal for years inside of the demogame, the fact that it somehow "changed" in two months is surprising. The only instructions leaders should give should be inside of the turnchat thread, and they should not be edited atleast a day before the turnchat.

Regardless, online chats are a necessity for this game. The log by itself is one of the best watch-dogs we have on the DPs. Giving instructions over the turnchat to the DP is wrong, however, I see no reason why the DP shouldn't seek out the citizens in the chat for decisions. It is ultimately up to the DP what will be done, but what the hell is wrong with the DP asking those in the chat for advice? A representation of the DG citizens, however small, is still better than nothing.

What I really want to know, is why the hell you guys picked the two months I wasn't around to put in the biggest piece of crap on the planet. I'm the one who's always trying to change the constitution, constantly picking and fixing to get things perfect. All I've heard from that is complaints, but the moment I don't point out every little mistake.. is the one time you guys decide just to leave everything out?

This thing sucks up more filth than most vacuum cleaners.

 

[Nobody]

1) What changes, if any, would you make in the Judicial procedures used in the past terms?

None they seem fine to me

2) What would you do as the Chief Justice that would be different from the other applicants?

I will interpret only the law found in the Constitution thrad and the case law in the Judical Log. The current code of laws is horrible and long, it is hard for the average citizen to follow at the best of times, but to expect everyone to read the Code of Laws and then search the forums for all updates its crazy.

 

[donsig]

Clearly, it will. You're a difficult man to please.

But enough about me. This thread is about who's going to become Chief Justice in our game.

No, I'm not really difficult to please. All you had to do was make the call and wait 72 hours before making an appointment. You can still do that by making a fresh call and waiting 72 hours before making the appointment. Not a very difficult thing to do at all and I would be very pleased. Then we can all ask the judiciary to review section 8 and give us the guidance we need to avoid this in the future. (We could also actually start drafting an amendment that contained clearer language.) I'm really wondering what the rush is all about as far as getting a CJ appointed. Yes, we all want clarification of section 8 and what we can or can't do if run-off elections leave offices unfilled when a term begins. But actually drafting laws or amendments to address these issues would be much better than forcing the judiciary to decide these things for us. In any event, we won't need these answers until the beginning of next term so there seems to be plenty of time left this month to get these JRs completed even if we take another week to get a CJ.

1) What changes, if any, would you make in the Judicial procedures used in the past terms?

That's a darn good question. My first thought would be to address two issues. First I'd want internal judicial procedures in place that would allow the court to function in the absence of one of it's members. After that I'd try to get the judicial procedures on a more permanent footing, allowing them to stay in effect from one term to the next. Not sure how to do that legally, though. Would definately get something in there about justices having to recuse themselves in JRs or CCs that impact them! I would adopt the procedures used in the first two terms and use the mechanism within it to make these changes.

2) What would you do as the Chief Justice that would be different from the other applicants?

How am I supposed to know what the others would do? To be blunt, the first thing I'd do if I thought my appointment was tainted would be to ask for a JR to find out if my appointment was legal. Of course I could not be part of that JR as a justice. I would of course participate as a citizen but would have to argue against my own appointment being valid since the reason for bringing the JR was because I thought it was invalid. Don't think the others would do that. I've already laid out my interpretation of the 72 hour clause. At least one other applicant has gone on record with an opposing interpretation. Another has gone on record as supporting an evolving interpretation of our laws. I would base my interpretations on what is written (as in what has actually been passed by the assembly and not merely what is poted in the laws thread), delving into intent and what I've called *common law* only when the actual wording itself leads to more than one credible interpretation.

One thing I think I would do that others would not is jealously guarding the rights citizens have gained that allow them to call the shots in this country of ours.

 

[Swissempire]

So, do you want the rights of a few, or of the majority defended, SwissEmpire?

-- Ravensfire

The sign signifies a, you know, joke. Also i'm a majoruty man myself, and thusly am the FREAKIN' CENSOR. I know hard to beleive, ain't it. I mean we all secretly know i'm a facist

 

[Chillaxation]

You can still do that by making a fresh call and waiting 72 hours before making the appointment. Not a very difficult thing to do at all and I would be very pleased.

Ah. Why didn't you say so?

 

[ravensfire]

I will interpret only the law found in the Constitution thrad and the case law in the Judical Log. The current code of laws is horrible and long, it is hard for the average citizen to follow at the best of times, but to expect everyone to read the Code of Laws and then search the forums for all updates its crazy.

Would you ignore an amendment that was passed and either not entered in the ruleset thread or only partially mentioned?

This seems to be to be what you are saying, and is puzzling.

-- Ravensfire