Citizen discussion: Our rules and the term two judicial elections...

[donsig]

Yes zorven, that sums it up.

@ravensfire: When you start refereeing democracy volleyball let me know if it's any different.

signed,
The Mob

 

[Bootstoots]

ravensfire: I changed my official ruling on this in light of a standard brought up by donsig that seemed to make it fairly apparent that the second and third place nominees are to be declared Associate Justices. Keep in mind that I was placed in an awkward position by being made the "referee" of this election; no matter which way I go on this issue, there will be people dissatisfied with it. The solution that I changed to seems now to have the most legal backing; I would not have changed my decision had I not seen rules backing up the other option.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig
Yes zorven, that sums it up.

@ravensfire: When you start refereeing democracy volleyball let me know if it's any different.

signed,
The Mob

You've never seen high school club volleyball, have you? The coaches sure think it's a democracy!

'Course, one good warning and me checking to make sure my cards are in my back pocket does wonders when they cross the line!

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
ravensfire: I changed my official ruling on this in light of a standard brought up by donsig that seemed to make it fairly apparent that the second and third place nominees are to be declared Associate Justices. Keep in mind that I was placed in an awkward position by being made the "referee" of this election; no matter which way I go on this issue, there will be people dissatisfied with it. The solution that I changed to seems now to have the most legal backing; I would not have changed my decision had I not seen rules backing up the other option.

Boots,

I understand your position, and trust me, I don't envy you. My wish is that you had waited a bit before making the first decision. Anytime you go back on a decision, people will push you in the future to reverse decisions. After all, you did it once, why not do it again?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Bootstoots]

Ravensfire, I agree that I should have waited a while on my decision and scanned the DG rules thoroughly before making a ruling; however I somehow doubt that there would have been a tremendous amount of discussion on this matter until the call was made.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire

'Course, one good warning and me checking to make sure my cards are in my back pocket does wonders when they cross the line!

-- Ravensfire

Sounds like you'd make a great mod.

I guess I can see what your decision on the JR about the special election will be. Don't say anything here about it - wouldn't want you to violate procedure.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig


Sounds like you'd make a great mod.

I guess I can see what your decision on the JR about the special election will be. Don't say anything here about it - wouldn't want you to violate procedure.

And just what, pray tell, would give you the idea that my referee method applies in any manner to here?

Nevermind - it just doesn't matter.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by ravensfire
The current post in the Election Results thread indicates that Octavian and Boots both withdrew from the race. Obviously, the post above contradicts that statement.

Exactly.

How can we arrive at the conclusion that they won AJ positions when they clearly withdrew.

 

[zorven]

Bill_in_PDX, I think this outlines the position taken:

Originally posted by donsig
@DZ: Even if the Election Office is authorized to *make the call* it cannot flount, ignore or otherwise disregard our Three Books. J.3.d.1.C clearly states:

C. The nominees with the 2nd and 3rd most votes shall be the Associate Justices.

What gives the election office the authority to countermand this clearly written clause of the CoS? I understand the withdrawl argument but it holds little weight for me. Once on the ballot we have no physical means of removing candidates, short of starting the election all over. Since citizens voted in good faith for the withdrawing candidate their votes should not be invalidated. If a candidate wins but decides he or she does not want the job after all then formal resignation should be the course taken rather then dropping out of the race midway.

It matters not what was done in previous demogames. For one thing we have revised rules simply because we did not want to do things the same way as before. Also I believe our method of electing our judiciary is unprecedented in previous demogames. Therefore what we did before is inapplicable to what we are doing now.

Once again, it seems clear that Ravensfire, bootstoots and Octavian X were elected to the judiciary. The latter two repudiated their victories to accept other jobs. According to the laws we have in place the AJ positions should be filled via appointments.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

We also have no laws saying that people cannot withdraw from elections.

 

[zorven]

Bill_in_PDX,

So in the absence of law, the Election Office has decided. Now, you could appeal that to the Judiciary. But whether we have Strider and one appointee, or 2 appointees, they will be deciding a case that can delegitimize their own position in the Judiciary. If that happens the case they just decided becomes void as they were never on the Judiciary to begin with. It becomes a real mess.

What would you propose to get us through this disagreement?

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I have posted my suggestion for the short term already, clearly Strider won a seat on the court. I would post more CC's and JR's over this disaster of situation, but I have already been threatened by a mod for doing so.

Long term solution also posted in the citizen forum. Thanks for asking.

*edited to be kinder and gentler.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by zorven
Bill_in_PDX,

So in the absence of law, the Election Office has decided. Now, you could appeal that to the Judiciary. But whether we have Strider and one appointee, or 2 appointees, they will be deciding a case that can delegitimize their own position in the Judiciary. If that happens the case they just decided becomes void as they were never on the Judiciary to begin with. It becomes a real mess.

What would you propose to get us through this disagreement?

'Course, that has already happened in term 1.

Also, there is already a Judicial Review requested over the Term 2 Judicial Elections. This is the first case on the courts docket.

-- Ravensfire