Citizen group: Modern Democratic Association

[Will_518]

Welcome to the Modern Democratic Association!

Mission statement:

We represent all newcomers and minority groups such as europeans. We support the democratic process, believe in government transparency, and welcome fresh ideas.

We welcome all newcomers to the Civ3 Demogame. (we are willing to answer all questions related to civ3 demogame).

We actively seek civ players, and encourage them to participate in the civ3 demogame.

We encourage newcomers to apply for elected posts. (by nomination and voting for them)

We promote equality for all minority groups.

We encourages new ideas, and questions to be asked about absolutely anything. (yes, even about dutch chickens or Asian birds, which have nothing to do with the demogame).

Want to join? just post here.

 

[Cyc]

quoting Will_518:
We support the democratic process, believe in government transparency...

Then I'd like to suggest a movement towards changing the Procedure for Judicial Reviews. It currently states that the Judicial Members go into Private Discussion to determine the Majority Opinion of the Court.

It needs to be changed to say that each Justice will post their opinion of the Judicial Review in the Judicial thread. This way, by making separate posts and answering yes or no to the question, a natural Majority Opinion will be formed (2 out of 3, at least, will be the same).

This will also enable all citizens to actually see what the Justices they voted for are saying, independently. The way it is now, we get one Opinion, and nobody knows who wrote it. How can we vote for people to be Justices, when we don't know what they've written? That's a blind vote, not transperancy.

 

[Will_518]

My initial thought is, there is a quite good reason why the discussion is private: To protect the justices. Judicial reviews may involve stepping on other people's toes, making dicisions in favor of one person rather than the other, or even corruption; might be someone's reputation at stake.

So, if the discussions by justices leading to the decision are made public, the person the judicials offended may want to revenge of some sort (i know that's unlikely). Or the more possible senorio, the justice more be a friend (all civers are friends) of the accused, so he doesn't want to break this friendship, or doesn't want the accused to think badly of him; so, the justice would base his judgement on this rather than the code of law.

However, MDA supports democracy and transparency, therefore, I suggest a copy of the transcript contining the main arguements leading to the decission should be available on request; but the names of the justices should be missed out (basically a copy of all the PMs without the names). A public report summerizing the judicial discusions leading to the decision should also be made availabe up on request.

 

[Cyc]

Great. We should just put sheep on the Judicial Bench. That way Justice will be acceptable to the most amount of people without offending anyone. We surely wouldn't want any truth in our Justice. That would be a Baaaaahd idea.

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by Cyc

It needs to be changed to say that each Justice will post their opinion of the Judicial Review in the Judicial thread. This way, by making separate posts and answering yes or no to the question, a natural Majority Opinion will be formed (2 out of 3, at least, will be the same).

The last 'open opinion' JR produced three separate opinions. That was the catalyst for 'private discussion' JRs. The point of private discussion is to produce a review which is relevant and cogent. Since these Reviews will become Common Law it is essential that they are well reasoned and articulated.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Peri


The last 'open opinion' JR produced three separate opinions. That was the catalyst for 'private discussion' JRs. The point of private discussion is to produce a review which is relevant and cogent. Since these Reviews will become Common Law it is essential that they are well reasoned and articulated.

Our Laws now state that there must be a question and a Law stated in the Request for Judicial Review. The Justice should be able to answer the question in a yes/no format. Does this action break this Law? Yes or No? - Does this Law conflict with this Article? Yes or No? If the Justice can't do that (even with an added note to it explaining the answer) then maybe they shouldn't be Justices.

If they can, then there has to be a Majority. Two yesses and a no, or two nos and a yes. Justices shouldn't be so wishy washy that they can't answer a question with a yes or a no. If they're icapable of answering with a yes or a no, we'll know not to vote for them next time.

 

[Peri]

That is an inescapable fact Cyc and I do agree with the points you have made. However things arent always black and white. Three independent opinions can be interpreted in a variety of ways ways even if two of them say agree in essence. The JRs that were conducted so far had an element of private discussion. I am more than happy for that discussion to be made public record but the Justices must have the opportunity to consult with each other before making their ruling. The Reviews produced this term were very good and that was in no small part due to the discussion that took place.

 

[Cyc]

Very true, Peri. I agree with you. I am not against the Private Discussion really, that part of it is fine. But each Justice needs to come out of that discussion to write their own decision. It should be fairly obvious to each Justice in the Private Discussion how they feel about the issues at hand (and how those feelings differ from the other Justices' feelings). Therefore it should not be a big stretch to write an Opinion that expressed their yes or no answer with any major side issues taken care of. The big thing for me is the Opinions. Changing back to each Justice writing their own Opinion would stop the closed door aspect of Justice and make the Government more transparent for the common Citizen.

 

[Peri]

I am more than happy with that.

 

[Will_518]

So, cyc means each justice should write their own opinion and decision and put it on the forum? So, everyone can see exactly why a decision is made and what the justices think?

The only thing i'm unsure about is why isn't it like that in the first place?

 

[Peri]

Well there was a time when that was done but due to the litigious and contentious nature of our citizens more problems arose as a result. We moved to the current system to provide clear and unabiguous judicial rulings that could not be subverted.

 

[Cyc]

In other words,Will_518, it was a lot easier for the Justices to have one person write the Opinion that made as many people happy as possible, and the other two to agree to it. It makes the whole process quicker and easier.

Each Justice writing their own Opinion was the way of the Court from the begining. But there is a group in the DG now that would rather do everything behind closed doors, as a matter of control. This is a travesty of Justice. We are only playing a game, not building careers. Put everything on the table, where everyone can see it. It really does help in deciding who to vote for when you can read what people think about certain subjects. A blanket statement from the Judiciary that doesn't really make a decision, is not Justice, it's just paperwork. Let's make these Justices earn the meal here, by writing their own Opinions, and not just saying I agree with ravensfire.

 

[Peri]

Just to clarify; the opinion was always the work of everyone involved as it has been this term. The motive for speaking with one voice was to reduce the likelihood of further contention. Even Cyc agrees that discussion between the members helps to form a better opinion.

 

[Cyc]

Ah, Peri. That was not the case when ravensfire was on the bench. There was no Private Discussion in a chat room. There was only posting statements in his private webpage and to reduce time and hassle, an Opinion was drawn up immediately by ravensfire. While you have served on my Bench, open conversation took place in a chatroom that had the meeting logged and zipped. Everyione spoke their mind because they had to if they wanted their point presented.

There is a big difference between what I think helps the Citizens and the Judiciary both, and what the system was before I became Chief Justice. I think you agree with that.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc
Ah, Peri. That was not the case when ravensfire was on the bench. There was no Private Discussion in a chat room. There was only posting statements in his private webpage and to reduce time and hassle, an Opinion was drawn up immediately by ravensfire. While you have served on my Bench, open conversation took place in a chatroom that had the meeting logged and zipped. Everyione spoke their mind because they had to if they wanted their point presented.

There is a big difference between what I think helps the Citizens and the Judiciary both, and what the system was before I became Chief Justice. I think you agree with that.

I've tried to stay out of this discussion, up until this point.

Cyc, stop the lies. Period. I'm not even going to be polite about it. Cease. Desist. Go forth and sin no more.

Allow me to refresh your memory. The ratified CoS on JR requires the Judiciary to meet privately, discuss the matter, and produce a Majority and, possibly, a Minority opinion. At the beginning of the term, I pm'd all members of that Judiciary, suggesting a few options, giving my opinion, and requesting alternatives from the other members. Remember that message? NO ALTERNATIVES WERE GIVEN. Therefore, Cyc, you accepted the option of a private discussion forum.

On that subject, I have created a private discussion group for the Judiciary. Each term, I invite the Judiciary to use it, and provide them with complete privacy. At the conclusion of each term, I delete all posts from that Judiciary after warning them to save off any documents they might want to save.

Back to the topic at hand. During the JR in question, I was the first to post my analysis of the request. Boots then posted his agreement with my analysis, you posted your strong disagreement and intention to create a Minority Opinion.

I then posted a proposed Majority Opinion. Again, this was agreed to by Boots.

Did a discussion happen? Yes, it did. I posted my thoughts, and one person agreed with them, the other strongly opposed them. That is a discussion. Short, true, but a discussion nonetheless. With two Justices accepting a posted Opinion, that became the Majority Opinion for that review.

Cyc, retract your statement. For all of my dislike for you, you have at least kept within a stones throw of the truth. This is far beyond that.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

I understand that you don't like me, ravensfire, and I understand. If I had a private monopoly on the Judiciary (which I don't ) and someone was trying to end it, I wouldn't be happy either. I can't see why you just don't end this by putting everything on the table for everyone else to see. You're not going to make any money off this, so your career is not in danger. It's just a game. Let us see the Judiciary work out in the open.

 

[Peri]

Is it possible for you both to remember that you aren't truly hostile towards each other and that you have more in common than you pretend.

 

[Cyc]

Anything's possible, Peri.

Both ravensfire and I have tried to do a lot to move this game forward. We both want to see the game forum based and we both believe in giving the President due power. But we are very polarized on closed door turn sessions and Judicial proceedings. I see no need to keep everything secretive and he feels it should be. Where do we find middle ground?

 

[Bootstoots]

I would not be opposed to each justice posting his own opinion after private discussion has taken place. I also support the private discussion; it is better to give the justices some time to discuss the law in question between themselves before the opinions are posted. Regarding what happened early in this term, I would prefer the discussion take place in a chatroom, but if that is not possible, as was the case with Ravensfire, it is perfectly acceptable to find another way to discuss. Cyc, I do not appreciate your denouncement of Ravensfire and his methods; the method that was used was not preferable but was the best option we had.

 

[Cyc]

If meeting in a chat room is not an acceptable way of going about discussimg a JR, then the Judiciary is stuck making posts in a forum or PM/EMAIL. If they going to post in a forum, it might as well be the Judicial Thread. It can be stated before hand that no one is to interfere with the discussion that is not in the Judiciary. This way everyone is aware of the proceedings and know if anything is going on that shouldn't be. Besides, I believe Opinions will be posted quicker and be more honest if the Judicial Members knew everyone was watching. I only wish we could have had it that way in my Term as Chief Justice. We were able to go with the chat room, which worked well, but ravensfire can't make any chat room meetings.