Citizen group: Modern Democratic Association

[War_Mongrol]

I consider myself new to all this, so please correct me if I err and explain to me why if I do.

But in reading these posts I have the urge to agree with Cyc, for as we know this is a game, but it is after all a role playnig type of game. In which we do bond with the rules and regulations, the people, the stories and the way for life that we create for ourselves on an electronic screen. Yet in examinning the ideals behind this game I see that one thing, the sole purpose to this entertainment, is the idea of the citizen. The idea, much like in real life that fuels the process of creation and ultimately in enjoyment.

And as a citizen, I feel that, yes things are arranged, and yes sometimes things might not work out the way they are intended but isn't the out come (as frustrating as it may be) what sometimes feeds life into the game? Isn't the ability to see and take part of the creation of a nation the whole idea to the game?

Personally (once again as a citizen ) I feel that I would like to see and hear ideas that will in turn affect us. I would like to know what is going on in the "higher ups" of our system. Yes I agree that sometimes it may be unwise to see everything, but isn't that the premise behind it all. And I do not mean this as an accusation beacause after all I am relatively new, but if you try to censor and control, will you not just end up creating an environment that will ultimately break down on itself? Because after all the whole idea that draws people into our nation is the idea that they will enter a world in which they may be free and creative. Not free and creative with limits.

Hmmm I seem to have rambled so I beg your pardon but the point is that we, the citizens, the building blocks for the nation, sometimes would rather have the insight to see what ,why, and where, rather than just be told.

If I make no sense please ignore this, but if I do I thank you for your patience.

Respectfully,
War Mongrol
Citizen of Fanatica

 

[Cyc]

Wow! I whole-heartedly agree with you, War_Mongrol.

That's exactly how I feel about the situation. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it that way. Thank you.

 

[Will_518]

hey, yes, maybe it is a good idea for all citizens to see everything.

But I don't think so, because somethings are maybe a bit sensitive for one reason or another (it is after all a RPG with a lot of commited members). take a look at the situation between cyc and Ravenfire, that shows people on the board could dislike each other.

I was trying to say (perhaps not very clearly), for the judges to be totally just and objective they must have the freedom to say whatever they want to say, without having to think about what other people would think if they say this, or if they say that. That is a main reason why we have private discussion instead of public discussion, isn't it?

AAnother main reason why we have private discussion is probably 'cos it's faster, like peri said somewhere before, when the system was totally open, too much people argued too much. if we vote a judge in to the position, we should let him/her get on with the job, which isn't arguing on the forum, but making decisions objectively and efficiently, ie saying yes or no. If private discussion allows this, then so be it.

And of course citizens should have the right to see what is going on, so, the judges should prepare a copy of the discussion (without the names) on request.

The judges have the job of making decisions according to the laws and objectively, effectively, and efficiently, i say we should let them do that; if private discussion allows this, then I support private discussion. We don't want public discussions because it may affect objectivity and we don't want the judges spending all their time arguing ; because that's not why we have judges.

 

[War_Mongrol]

Considering that situation, yes I whole heartedly agree with you Will_518, but what I envision as a more "open" process is some what like the american court system. where spectators are allowed but they don't necessarilly have an impact on the current case other than to observe. In that manner the everyday citizens can see for themselves how and why certain decisions were made. I guess fanatica's equivalent would be a thread that only those involved were allowed to post in but that others are able to view. that way we will be able to fully understand why a decision was made rather than just being told "this is it". Becuase in the end it still ends up being "this is it" but atleast we were able to see how that came about.

(hopefully we can persuade other new folk into joinning in on their views here)

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by War_Mongrol
Considering that situation, yes I whole heartedly agree with you Will_518, but what I envision as a more "open" process is some what like the american court system.

I just wanted to address this statement. I liken our Judiciary with the U.S. Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court decides cases, they meet in private and make none of their discussion public. They then work together to write ONE majority opinion and ONE minority opinion which are then issued publicly as their decision. Our Judiciary is modeled this way.

Again, our current system was developed to give ONE clear, concise majority opinion to the citizens. Before this system was used, it was not unusual to have 3 opinions use different reasons and justifications (sometimes conflicting) to reach the same final outcome. This only led to more debate, confusion, and Juducial Reviews and did not serve the citizens as intended.

 

[Will_518]

yeah, i just thought of something. over here, in UK, we have public enquiries and some-sorta-private enquiry. i've no idea how they work.

But, we could have a system on here of private and public judicial discussions. When a case could offend somone (as in only one or two people) directly, or directly concerns only a few members, it's a private discussion. Otherwise it's public.
The judges decide whether it's private or public.

Oh, and whatever sorta discussion, only the judges are allowed to say stuff, in public ones, the citizens just watch and keep their mouth shut.

*edited for spelling*

 

[ravensfire]

As a further note to zorven's explanation, and as a comment to Will (BTW - great to see new faces in these discussions!), the private discussion is the next to last step in the process. The last, of course, is publishing the opinions.

Before any Judicial discussions happen, a thread is created in the citizen's sub-forum by the CJ asking for comments from the citizens on the matter. Everyone is not just allowed to post their opinion on the matter, but is strongly encouraged, most especially in this game.

We have a large number of new rules, and changes from tradition in this DG. More than a few problems have been found, others will be found. Discussions like this are more than useful - they are vital. Nothing is perfect - I'll be the first to admit that. As one of the primary contributors to the ruleset, I kick myself way too often about things that were missed resulting in some of the JR's we've seen.

I suggest that some of the newer citizens go through the DG3 Judicial Log - link to log. In the beginning, the open discussion method was used. Look at some of the rulings and find a definite majority opinion - more than a few you cannot. Each citizen must interpret what the three Justices said. Once Term 4 starts, look at the rulings again. It is very, very clear what the opinions are.

You'll also probably note that my name is on some of those JR - I was on the court for Term 4 and 6. Our discussions ranged from quick (here's an analysis, yup, we all agree, here's the proposed opinion, looks good post it) to more involved (debate lasted several days and had several changes). In the end, a single statement was produced that gave all citizens a clear idea of what was ruled.

When I created the JR process, I intentionally wanted the final decision process to be private, but the initial discussion had to be public. The Judiciary is elected to make rulings, to make decisions. It is not condusive to this process to have this final discussion in public where you have to deal with second-guessing, attacks and general comments. The thread in the citizen's forum is where that should happen. I think the Judiciary can be more active in that process, by asking pointed questions, and running through scenarios in that thread.

I think it's a process that has worked, is working and will continue to work better than the previous method.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Again I have address the comment from zorven about our Judicial System being compared to the American Supreme Court. First of all this is a game, where all the participants vote for the Justices. The Supreme Court is above the Law really. That's why they can do whatever they want. They are not elected by the people and only have to please the President with their rulings. They don't have to worry about how there interpretation suits the general public, they've got the job for life.

Here in the Demogame, our Justices need to be elected each month by their peers. Because of this, we the Citizens need to know what our currently elected Justices are thinking and writing.

1. It's not necessary to hide behind closed doors. Are you afraid we'll find out what you're thinking, or writing, or that you're really not qualified to be a Justice?

2. It is necessary that we Citizens know what our Justices are thinking and writing. We also need to know that our Justices are qualified. I am fully aware that people such as Shaitan, Bill_in_PDX, Peri, Octavian X, and donsig (I know I left some out) are fully qualified to be Chief Justices because I have read what they think about Judicial issues and have read the written Opinions. No doubt about it. It's written in these forums for me (and everyone) to read. Not put together in some backroom. You people may be afraid to see the truth develop, but you shouldn't be. It's a beautiful thing. You should allow yourselves this privilage by changing the Law back to what it was. No Privat Discussions and No Blanket Opinions. (Sorry Peri!) Even the Private Discussions should be logged and zipped and posted for all to read.

OK, I'm done for now...

 

[Cyc]

Ravensfire, the reason you had trouble discerning the different Opinions of the Justices back in DG3 (as did most people I'm assuming?) is there was no clear question asked. Now our procedures cover that. Yes,...or No? Does it or doesn't it? Constitutional or not? Now we have the structure for definite answers. When the Judicial Sytem was first developed, we didn't have problems figuring out what a Justice was trying to say. That was before our Justices started talking political rhetoric in their answers. We can eliminate that problem by have them answer the question, now in our process.

Again, there is no need to do this behind closed doors.

Guess I wasn't quite done.

 

[DaveShack]

A point of order, isn't taking over a thread for another purpose one of those no-no's? If you want to have a discussion about the judiciary maybe it should be held in a thread for that purpose, and not in a citizen group's thread.

On the original thread topic, I don't have time to do this myself, and am "first contact challenged" meaning I break out in a sweat talking to new people, but maybe we should have a volunteer staff to send a Welcome to the Demogame PM to all newcomers who register for the game.

 

[War_Mongrol]

Great suggestion daveshack, I'd love to take on that idea as long as I can get another volunteer to help out since due to my new schedules I'm only available late at night or early in the mornning.
But I will get cracking on it when I get back tonight.

(As a side note sometimes as a new comer I am not so sure that they will know what a PM is )

 

[Will_518]

Good idea daveshark, about the welcome PM. Unfortunately, the combination of my mum and coursework is really getting to me (after all i can't stay on the PC all day); so, maybe a couple weeks from now I'll have more time. But if one of you want to do it, by all means just do it.

About this judicial thing, i have to admit i'm quite lost, to clarify, is this right:

ravenfire is basically saying in the current system the citizens are allowed and encouraged to express their opinions about all judicial stuff, and the private judges' discussion is the most objective and efficient way to get a decision. there is no need for the citizens to see the final discussion aince all the arguement in it are from the public debate.

cyc is basically saying there is absolutely no need for private discussion, this is a democracy, the citizens have the right to see exactly what's going on. Making decisions behind closed doors is against the ideals which are behind this game (ie democracy, transparency...).

Am I right? please clarify.

 

[zorven]

DaveShack's idea to have some volunteers to send welcome messages is a good one. I did just that for much of the 2nd half of DG3 and I think many new citizens enjoyed it and used it as an opportunity to ask me some questions. I also made a point to make them feel welcome and to encourage them to participate. I meant to continue that with DG4, but have been limited on time and never got around to it.

 

[Will_518]

If that is your positions, then why don't one of you post a poll about this, there is no use hearing you two argue all this time, i don't think either one of you is going to change your opinion, so, why not see what the other citizens want.

Also, to this point, only about 30 citizens have voted in the polls, there are 89 registered citizens, but only 30 active ones?! We ain't called MDA for nothing. What can we do about this?