Chief Justice Requirement Discussion

[Swissempire]

DZ was merely expressing a preference for candidates who have seen and/or participated in previous judicial battles and their results, and thereby know "how to act". Someone who has been here 1 term but exhibits the right behaviours will get our support. Someone who has been here since Civ3 DG1 might not "act like a justice" and we would quite happily choose a complete newcomer who does.

Were in the constitution does it define how to act like a justice? I think most of the hubub was from overall confusion. I think most of the veterans were confused why curu didn't comply with "Tradition" and i think most of the new players were confused as to why he had to.

@DZ, They was already substantial pro-bew player anti-traditionalist sentiment before you made your comments.

@Nobody, I felt the same way. I was confused as to how you could "apologize" and in the same breath re-iterate the thing you were apologizing for

 

[Methos]

Just to make myself clear, this discussion I brought up has nothing to do with DZ personally. It just made me think on how the real Chief Justice's were accepted and that they had to have experience to gain that position. It seemed odd to me that our own Chief Justice didn't require any prior experience in the DG court. I'm not saying the person has to be a vet, but has to have served at least one term as a public defender or judge advocate. In this case a newbie (like myself) could be elected as CJ his/her second month playing the game.

@DZ: My apologies. It was not my intent to make this look bad on your part. Your statement just got me thinking and as usual my mind began ambling around until it came to the above conclusion. I should have written the discussion without bringing DZ's name into it at all. I apologize to everyone for my foolish mistake.

Edit: I'll wait until tonight to answer or discuss other peoples opinions on this subject. I find it very interesting so many are opposed to the idea. Thanks for everyone's input!

 

[Whomp]

@DZ my comments are not all directed at you. I appreciate your candor and apology but my sense is that some players in other threads believe they should given opportunities based on their past history. I could care less about their past history.

This is a new game with a lot of very dedicated new players that I feel have had to defend themselves while getting piled on by some of the veteran players. Not cool IMO. Dedication, regardless of history, to this game is the most important to me. I'm just an idiot so my .02 may only be worth .01 but it's still how I see it.

 

[ravensfire]

Curufinwe's rulings just came in. Read them for yourself. I am tired of defending myself for expecting "too much" from those who interpret our laws.

You know, DZ, I had a rather long post here, but deleted it because it just wasn't worth it. I'll say this as a personal view of those ruling - some were good, some were atrocious. All were, however, consistent with his views on matters.

Citizens, the Judiciary is there as a tool to quickly resolve questions about the rules and to figure out if a rule was broken. As such, it's the best office out there to never be used, but can quickly devolve into chaos when things get tough. I personally don't care if those in the Judiciary are "veteran" or "new". I've got just a short list of what I expect from any and all candidates.

I want them to be intelligent and knowledgeable. We're asking these citizens to resolve ruleset questions. We're asking them to find out if something wrong was done. These citizens need to ask tough questions when needed, and be able to persuasively state their views. It doesn't help much to say "Decision is X" if most people don't know why - you've got to be able to say "Decision is X, and here is why".

I want them to have a respect for the rules. It's more than just asking them to follow the laws - that's a given. It's about respecting the work that has been done before, the thoughts and effort those who crafted the ruleset put into it. Those of you who have created a ruleset know it's not that simple to do - you've seen the past abuses and know that anything you put out there will be ripped to shreds. This respect is also about the intentions of the ruleset - what are these rules supposed to? How are they supposed to help us? Most importantly, that respect is about the rights given to all citizens, and making sure those rights are respected.

I want them to have at least the appearance of impartiality when making rulings. Look - anyone who thinks we always have a truly impartial Judiciary is living in a fantasyland. We don't. Every citizen who's ever served in the Judiciary has their biases - it's just a question of what they are, and can you accept them.

So what do I look for in candidates?

First, have they ever served before? If so - cool, I can review their rulings and style. Did they address the issues? Did they accept the laws on the books? It's one thing to point out that there are issues with the law, it's something else entirely to ignore laws on the books when making a ruling.

If the office is the Chief Justice - what are their organizational skills like? Do I think they can keep an accurate Docket? Can they clearly deliniate the questions within a JR? Can they keep the Court moving in a timely manner?

If the office is the Public Defender/Judge Advocate - are they persuasive debaters? Can they present solid, logical cases during investigations?

If the candidates haven't served in the Judiciary previously, I have to rely on their answers to questions in the debates, and look to see if they have ever commented on any Judicial issues. Big hint - if you want to serve in the Judiciary, please comment on JR's! I all but categorically refuse to vote for candidates that I don't know anything about!

I've seen good Judiciaries, and bad Judiciaries. I've run both as CJ, in fact. I believe the office of Chief Justice is one of the most important simply because they are there to maintain order in chaos, and manage those situations that can drive the DemoGame apart. A strong, knowledgeable Chief Justice is needed in EVERY term, not just the active terms.

Does that mean a "veteran" is the only person that should be CJ? I doubt anyone seriously would say that. I do hope that anyone who is in the office of Chief Justice be strong, capable and respected.

-- Ravensfire

EDIT: So as I mentioned at the start, I actually deleted a long, analytical post, and replaced it with a long opinion post!

 

[Methos]

Interesting discussion. I find it very interesting that the majority (okay, everyone except me) would rather not have a requirement.

They wouldn't get unelected becuase they were very good justices, but then no new people could enter the judiciary.

Good point. I totally forgot that the judiciaries did not have a term limit.

This is the first Civ 4 game...so why should prior experince be needed since no one has been in a CIV 4 demo-game before.

True, but realize we are in our fourth term, meaning that we have already had several individuals who have already met the as mentioned requirement. Obviously anyone who has already held the position of Chief Justice would meet the requirement by default.

It is a good idea, but I don't think we should codify restrictions. However, you can always campaign for the person that has been in the judiciary already.

Thanks for saying it was a good idea, and I agree that this is something I’m going to look at when voting for future CJ’s.

This stuff smacks of the political machine and I find it pretty insulting in many ways. It's really unfortunate some of the veterans of previous demogames feel experience matters this much.

Odd comment, as 1.) I’m a newbie to the Demogame, not a vet; and 2.) it is merely a discussion on my opinion and how others feel towards it, and is no way an attempt to force an issue. I explicitly said this was merely a discussion, and not a proposal.

Now, regarding this proposal, I think there is too much "anti-vet" sentiment at this time (due to my verbal blunder) to even discuss this idea intelligently.

I would have to agree, though I would imagine that even without the anti-vet sentiment citizens would still be opposed to the idea. I also believe though the discussion would be much better.

I believe citizens are also misinterpreting my original post. I’m not stating only a vet could hold the office of Chief Justice, but someone who has held at least one term of either PD or JA. That’s not only vets, but everyone. I just joined this game about a week ago. What if I had run and won a spot as either a PD or JA? That means my second month of playing I would have met the requirement for CJ as a newbie.

Obviously the majority are against my opinion, which is fine by me. I opened this thread with the mind of learning what everyone’s opinions about this subject are. The fact that they are against mine is fine, that doesn’t bother me at all. Thanks everyone for the discussion.

 

[Whomp]

Odd comment, as 1.) I’m a newbie to the Demogame, not a vet; and 2.) it is merely a discussion on my opinion and how others feel towards it, and is no way an attempt to force an issue. I explicitly said this was merely a discussion, and not a proposal.

I suppose I vented in the wrong thread. My comments were a culmination of a lot of thread I've read recently. I guess I'm a little tired of how devisive this game has become. Then again...I'm a noob and maybe that's how these things are done in DG's...I hope not.

Look at how this is developing...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=162647&page=2

I'll go back to governing the little city on the shore and try to make something of it.

 

[Nobody]

The Funnyiest part of this whole mess is that IF we had just let the office of Chief Justice remain Vacant then we would have had no need for a Chief Justice. The entire Judicary is a system that makes work for the Judicary without adding any benefit to the nation as a whole. For terms on end we have to need for a court then when the time arrises for one (presidential draw ect) we don't have one. The president-elects sorted out their issue among themself and the Judicary fought a huge battle between those who would apply for the Job but wanted to say what happened and those who did apply but had a less concrete knowledge. But in the End nothing got done anyway because of all the bickering.

So there was no Chief Justice and Nothing for the Chief Justice to do. Then there was atleast 2 Chief Justices and the plenty for them to Do but in the end they achived nothing. So Nothing needed Doing and Nothing Did.

I can see why in the past some members of the demogames have called for the abolition of the Judicary as a whole.

 

[Curufinwe]

Curufinwe's rulings just came in. Read them for yourself. I am tired of defending myself for expecting "too much" from those who interpret our laws.

Okay, so I didn't post in the right format. Again, as I say continually, I'm sorry, but for those of us new to the judiciary and not quite knowledgeable about its many uncodified customs, could we please have someplace (deeply sorry if it already exists and I am simply not aware of it) where all of this is explained. That would have been a HUGE help in my term, greatly easing me, a neophyte, into doing this. Perhaps I shouldn't be complaining, but in RL politics I've always had access to support and clarification as to how I'm supposed to act, greatly easing my job. Anyways, deeply sorry for my innumerable failures, hope some good will come out of it.

 

[Swissempire]

The good has come and is here. We need only recognize it.