Falcon02
General
Sounds good to me Shaitan, but we might want to wait for some more feedback before posting a poll.
Change need in PI Procedures
- Thread starter FionnMcCumhall
- Start date
Shaitan
der Besucher
All the feedback was positive for this change. It was quite excited feedback too, for the day or so before the issue was abandoned.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Looks good, Shaitan. I have one request. Can you change item #7 to read - "When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed since the investigative thread was initiated, the Judge Advocate will post a trial."
The way it is now, is really not that vague, but the rewording removes any doubt.
The way it is now, is really not that vague, but the rewording removes any doubt.
Shaitan
der Besucher
@Cyc - I'll put it on my "list of little things to change when the whole shebang is messed with". I've already posted the requests for sponsorship and as this change is just cosmetic and clarifying I don't want to take any change that confusion will erupt.
Plexus
Architeuthidae puericomedentis
Sounds good, Shai, Culture supports this proposal.
Shaitan
der Besucher
@Plexus - Will you launch the Council Vote for the change?
donsig
Low level intermediary
These changes are good (and I don't mean to stall them) but there are other changes that are needed. Why is it that the JA only acts as prosecutor for anonymous accusers? The JA should be the prosecutor in all cases and we should relax the requirement wherein the accuser has to specify the exact clause violated. The JA should be able to give input on which charges are actualy filed as well as helping to gather evidence. This would balance the Public Defender's aid which is given to the accused. If we had the CJ post the actual PI thread then the first post can be devoid of any evidence for or against the accused which would be more fair I think. The defendant and PD would get the first two posts followed by the accuser and JA to present the prosecution's side. Then the citizen's chime in.
These proposed changes are well within the thread topic and I see no point in starting a new thread just because we've basically agreed on a few changes already. Is it appropriate to go ahead with a council vote on the accepted changed while continuing to debate additional changes here?
These proposed changes are well within the thread topic and I see no point in starting a new thread just because we've basically agreed on a few changes already. Is it appropriate to go ahead with a council vote on the accepted changed while continuing to debate additional changes here?
Cyc
Looking for the door...
I agree with donsig here. Falcon02 had a good point, too. There's no need to push this, or should I say, (as we're now in the industrial Age), railroad this through 
. If this issue is, as you say cosmetic, then we don't have to be hell bent to push it through.
Have you switched back to caffeinated, Shaitan?
. If this issue is, as you say cosmetic, then we don't have to be hell bent to push it through.Have you switched back to caffeinated, Shaitan?
Shaitan
der Besucher
@donsig - The JA isn't a default prosecutor because of fairness. There are already a load of prosecutors for every PI. Having a professional gun in the mix pushes it across the line against the defendant. If there are absolutely none of the lawyer types willing to site against the defendant that chances are there is a damn good reason for that. This is why we went with Judge Advocate instead of Prosecutor for the title.
There is a Public Defendant on the other hand as there needs to be somebody who's sole concern is for the defendant. If none of the heavies noted above site for the defendant that person would be at a massive disadvantage without a Public Defendant.
I agree the JA should help someone formulate charges. That is in line with their other responsibilities. That's also a COL change though so will be a different process than this. I'd prefer to get these done before they are forgotten again (until the next time they would have been needed anyway). We can discuss changes to the JA responsibilities and the resultant COL and COS changes separately.
@Cyc - Misunderstanding. I didn't mean the proposed changes are cosmetic. I meant the clarifier would be. The changes are definitely needed.
And, yes. Yes, I have. May the Lord have mercy on our souls. :worshp:
There is a Public Defendant on the other hand as there needs to be somebody who's sole concern is for the defendant. If none of the heavies noted above site for the defendant that person would be at a massive disadvantage without a Public Defendant.
I agree the JA should help someone formulate charges. That is in line with their other responsibilities. That's also a COL change though so will be a different process than this. I'd prefer to get these done before they are forgotten again (until the next time they would have been needed anyway). We can discuss changes to the JA responsibilities and the resultant COL and COS changes separately.
@Cyc - Misunderstanding. I didn't mean the proposed changes are cosmetic. I meant the clarifier would be. The changes are definitely needed.
And, yes. Yes, I have. May the Lord have mercy on our souls. :worshp:
donsig
Low level intermediary
I didn't mean to suggest that we hold up the changes we've basically agreed on. Just wanted to be able to continue working on improving the PI process without starting a whole new discussion.
As for the JA position it should be made consistant. The JA should either always be the prosecutor or never be the prosecutor. As the rules are currently written the JA is the prosecutor when accusations are made anonymously. To tell the truth, given my recent experience with PI's I would certainly make any future charges anonymously in order to gain the JA's help.
I was under the impression that the JA could refuse to bring charges if he or she felt the case had no merit. Perhaps I dropped out of the rule debate in mid-stride.
In any event I see our Judiciary as un-balanced in favor of the defendant. It is one thing to protect the rights of the accused it is another to make it darn near impossible to get justice. I'm not a proponent of your Big Gun Theory Shaitan. We recently saw what happens when some of the big guns are pointed at one another. I thought we created the Judicary in order to avoid that sort of thing!
As for the JA position it should be made consistant. The JA should either always be the prosecutor or never be the prosecutor. As the rules are currently written the JA is the prosecutor when accusations are made anonymously. To tell the truth, given my recent experience with PI's I would certainly make any future charges anonymously in order to gain the JA's help.
I was under the impression that the JA could refuse to bring charges if he or she felt the case had no merit. Perhaps I dropped out of the rule debate in mid-stride.
In any event I see our Judiciary as un-balanced in favor of the defendant. It is one thing to protect the rights of the accused it is another to make it darn near impossible to get justice. I'm not a proponent of your Big Gun Theory Shaitan. We recently saw what happens when some of the big guns are pointed at one another. I thought we created the Judicary in order to avoid that sort of thing!
Shaitan
der Besucher
The JA has no option to decide a case should not be filed.
We have the BGT (Big Gun Theory) due to the openness of our judicial process. In a real life court setting there is the offense (prosecution), the defense and the mediator (judge). All of the offense comes through a single source and all of the defense comes through another single source. This is weighed for merit by the judge as it comes out. Nice and orderly.
We have chaos. Any number of people can be for the offense or defense and there is no way for a mediator to affect anything.
In a real life setting each side presents arguments which are rebutted by the other side. The mediator ensures that arguments are not introduced at inappropriate times and that rebuttals actually rebut the arguments. We have chaos. Any number of arguments and rebuttals are posted simultaneously and by many people. Arguments are mixed with rebuttals and new arguments introduced in the rebuttals themselves.
Because we have this chaotic free speech system and we maintain that the accused is innocent until proven guilty it is absolutely necessary that we weight things so if there is slippage it favors the defense.
The best solution will be very unpalatable to most players:
Have an actual court system with a prosecuting attorney, defensive attorney and mediating judge. The only people who can post in the PI threads would be the Judiciary. Exception: The accusor could step in as the prosecutor and the accused could act as their own defense attorney. Either way there would be 3 people posting in a measured and orderly fashion. Anybody who has feedback would send it to the appropriate attorney who would use it or not at their discretion.
We have the BGT (Big Gun Theory) due to the openness of our judicial process. In a real life court setting there is the offense (prosecution), the defense and the mediator (judge). All of the offense comes through a single source and all of the defense comes through another single source. This is weighed for merit by the judge as it comes out. Nice and orderly.
We have chaos. Any number of people can be for the offense or defense and there is no way for a mediator to affect anything.
In a real life setting each side presents arguments which are rebutted by the other side. The mediator ensures that arguments are not introduced at inappropriate times and that rebuttals actually rebut the arguments. We have chaos. Any number of arguments and rebuttals are posted simultaneously and by many people. Arguments are mixed with rebuttals and new arguments introduced in the rebuttals themselves.
Because we have this chaotic free speech system and we maintain that the accused is innocent until proven guilty it is absolutely necessary that we weight things so if there is slippage it favors the defense.
The best solution will be very unpalatable to most players:
Have an actual court system with a prosecuting attorney, defensive attorney and mediating judge. The only people who can post in the PI threads would be the Judiciary. Exception: The accusor could step in as the prosecutor and the accused could act as their own defense attorney. Either way there would be 3 people posting in a measured and orderly fashion. Anybody who has feedback would send it to the appropriate attorney who would use it or not at their discretion.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Or we could apply BGT to the defense as well. Why do we assume that the guns would only be used to shoot preople down and never to protect the innocent?
You haven't answered the part about the JA being prosecutor when cases are filed anonymously. If the JA can do it then, he can also do it all the time. We should either have a JA/prosecutor or remove the part about the JA helping to gather evidence. etc., in anonymus cases.
You haven't answered the part about the JA being prosecutor when cases are filed anonymously. If the JA can do it then, he can also do it all the time. We should either have a JA/prosecutor or remove the part about the JA helping to gather evidence. etc., in anonymus cases.
Shaitan
der Besucher
I agree with that. Have the JA be consistant with all cases. Which is better though?
Also, we're not assuming that the guns will always be aimed at the defendant, we're just protecting against that eventuality.
Also, we're not assuming that the guns will always be aimed at the defendant, we're just protecting against that eventuality.
Donovan Zoi
The Return
I am ready to sponsor this proposal. If anyone has anything to add to this discussion, please do so now. Barring any major opposition to this proposal, I will be posting a council vote at approximately 1pm EST tomorrow.
These are proposed modifications to the Code of Standards, Section H (Investigations). The applicable lines are noted below in the CODE section with changes indicated in bold italics.
These are proposed modifications to the Code of Standards, Section H (Investigations). The applicable lines are noted below in the CODE section with changes indicated in bold italics.
Code:
6. Citizens post their opinions on the charge, whether they think the
suspect is guilty of an infraction, if the case should go to trial (poll),
[i][b]what punishment(s) would be in order if the defendant is found
guilty, etc. [/b][/i]
7. When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have
passed the Judge Advocate will post a trial.
[i][b]A. If the defendant pled "guilty" to the charges, the trial
poll is skipped and the Judge Advocate will proceed to
posting a sentencing poll.[/b][/i]
B. If the results of the investigation thread are overwhelmingly
in favor of the defendant the Judge Advocate will submit the
case for Judicial Review and possible dispensation as a "No
Merit" case.
C. The trial poll will have options of Guilty/Innocent/Abstain and
will remain up for [i][b]48[/b][/i] hours.
D. In the event the trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the
Judiciary shall decided amongst them if the defendant is
innocent or guilty. If the triumvirate of the Judiciary cannot
come to an agreement, the Chief Justice alone will cast the
tie breaking vote.
8. If the suspect is found guilty [i][b][delete] through the trial poll,
[/delete][/b][/i] a sentencing poll is held.
A. The sentencing poll will remain up for [i][b]48[/b][/i] hours.
