CoS Discussion: Legal Instructions

ravensfire

Member of the Opposition
Joined
Feb 1, 2002
Messages
5,281
Location
Gateway to the West
As several different sections of the CoS can touch on this, I am hoping to pull any discussion about what constitutes a legal instruction into one thread - here. Try to keep the other threads focused as much as possible on the topic at hand.

Have at it!

-- Ravensfire
 
I believe the issue of Legal Instructions should have its own Section in the CoL, not the CoS.
 
CoL, CoS - regardless of the specific book, we need to discuss this. The specific book will just be part of that discussion.

My take:

Short version: A legal instruction is any instruction, posted in the turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior to the start of the turn chat, by a citizen empowered to do so, within the limitations of the office the citizen is representing.

If you note, there is nothing about the "Will of the People" there, no about polls. Very intentional.

An instruction is a statement to the DP that they are to do X. The DP is a busy person, being pulled in many ways. The DP should be responsible for making sure a given instruction is within the boundaries of the office that posted it, and that is all.

They should be able to assume that the instruction represents the will of the people. As such, if they follow an instruction that is later determined to be against the will of the people, the DP is not responsible, but the person that posted the instruction.

Let's declare that anything in the instruction thread is presumed to be a legal instruction (assuming an office has not overstepped their boundaries). If we have a problem with an instruction, we take it up with the person that posted it.


Of course, that raise the question of how does a leader determine the will of the people, but that's an easier discussion.

-- Ravensfire
 
Nothing to add Ravensfire. I agree with leaving out "The Will of the People" and "poll".

That stops the need for the President to check prior to each turnchat if we voted "yes" or "no" on item XX, and puts it back where it belongs; in the hands of the responsible office.

If a poll-result hasn't been posted in the instruction-thread, it is not an instruction. The responsible leader is to blame. This has a nice side-effect. The Vice-president (a very minor role) gets the duty to verify whether each poll-result and other agreement is posted in the instruction-thread and if not address/remind the responsible leader to make it so.

What do you think ?
 
It is a very sound definition. It covers a lot of bases in regards of accountability and expidites the game process.
 
What is this? Give the VP some responsibility?

Call 911 - I'm gonna pass out!

I like the idea Rik. I would state as the VP *should* verify all posted instructions. It won't always be possible (time constraints, unable to access CFC from period between instruction posted and turn chat) to verify them, but the VP should attempt to do so.

-- Ravensfire
 
I like your "short version" Ravensfire.
 
Great! :) Let's make this CoL - Section K. This subject of what is a Legal Instruction and what is not has been the cause of many disagreements. We need to give this the weight of a Law, not a Standard.
 
Proposal:

CoL:
Code:
K.  A legal instruction is any instruction, posted in the
    turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior to
    the start of the turn chat, by a citizen empowered to 
    do so, within the limitations of the office the citizen 
    is representing.
    1.  Time permitting, the Vice-President should verify 
        that posted instructions are within the authority
        of the poster and reflect the expressed Will of
        the People.
The definition of what is a legal instruction is now anything posted in the TCIT at least one hour prior to the start of the session. The VP CAN verify the posted instructions, but is not bound to do so. If the VP does not verify an instruction that turns out to be illegal, the VP will not be under any consequences, only the leader posting the instruction.

-- Ravensfire
 
Just to clarify, this legislation would make an instruction posted within an hour of the t/c one that is not legal? And does this mean the DP is not required to follow said instruction?
 
Originally posted by Cyc
Just to clarify, this legislation would make an instruction posted within an hour of the t/c one that is not legal? And does this mean the DP is not required to follow said instruction?

That is correct. There is no excuse for our officials to wait until the last second to post an instruction. The DP needs some time to gather all instructions and organize the tasks for that term.

If an official can't be bothered to give the DP some time to prepare, they shouldn't be an official.

-- Ravensfire
 
Originally posted by ravensfire


That is correct. There is no excuse for our officials to wait until the last second to post an instruction. The DP needs some time to gather all instructions and organize the tasks for that term.

If an official can't be bothered to give the DP some time to prepare, they shouldn't be an official.

-- Ravensfire

OK, but then we need a blurb in there that says "all" instructions not posted prior to 1 hour before the chat will be rejected out of hand. This will keep the DP from "picking and choosing" which instructions (posted after the "1 hour prior mark) he or she will put into play. To make the playing field level for all, it has to be all or none, as far as which instructions will be used.
 
Originally posted by Cyc


OK, but then we need a blurb in there that says "all" instructions not posted prior to 1 hour before the chat will be rejected out of hand. This will keep the DP from "picking and choosing" which instructions (posted after the "1 hour prior mark) he or she will put into play. To make the playing field level for all, it has to be all or none, as far as which instructions will be used.

I don't think we need to go quite that far.

The DP is bound to follow legal instructions. In the absense of legal instructions, the DP is the sole determiner of the action to take. Now, the DP can take advice from others. I would consider that an instruction posted after the cut-off time is considered advice. The DP is under no obligation to follow such instructions, but there shouldn't be anything that prevents them from doing so.

So, it is fair - all instructions posted after the cut-off time are advice only. If a citizen doesn't like that the DP carried out only part of the instructions, they should take that up with the official who failed to post the instructions correctly.

For the most part, I put the cut-off time in there to prevent a leader from dropping in last minute instructions, then complaining about the DP not following the instructions.

-- Ravensfire
 
Edit to above as my browser isn't cooperating.

A better way to state my point would be this:

It is fair - no instructions posted after the cut-off time are considered Legal Instructions.

-- Ravensfire
 
So if a Deputy posts instructions that have been discussed and approved by the citizens, after the 1 hour cut-off time (because that's his legal posting time if the Leader doesn't post) then the deputies instructions aren't legal?

We need to clarify this little stuff.
 
Originally posted by Cyc
So if a Deputy posts instructions that have been discussed and approved by the citizens, after the 1 hour cut-off time (because that's his legal posting time if the Leader doesn't post) then the deputies instructions aren't legal?

We need to clarify this little stuff.

I thought the deputy was allowed to post after 24 hours.

Hmmm, that's in the proposal stuck in the appointed position thread.

Assuming the deputy can post legal instructions in a 24 hour window, yes, they still have to be within the 1 hour cut-off.

Cyc, this may inconvience a particular department, but it's going to make life a lot easier for the DP. I'm tired of leaders not doing anything until the last second, then posting in instructions 5 minutes before the chat. That's complete bunk. As a citizen, I am demanding accountabilty from the leaders. Start your discussions earlier and look into the future. As a citizen, I'd like the chance to review posted instructions for errors. If they post 5 minutes before the chat, I don't have that opportunity.

-- Ravensfire
 
Case in point. In the CoS - Turn Chat Instruction Thread proposal you posted the following ~

B. Chat Turn Instruction Thread
1. All instructions to be played out in the chat turn must be entered in the chat turn
instruction thread.
A. Any instructions that are not posted to the chat turn instruction thread
before the start of the chat turn are not considered official.



So now we have the Deputies instructions being official but not binding. This means the Deputies instructions are only advice. Correct?
 
Oops, forgot one comment.

It is pretty clear, personal opinion of course!

Read it literally - legal instructions are those posted in the TCIT, by a citizen empowered to do so, at least one hour prior to the start of the chat.

Elected official, deputy - doesn't matter. Is that citizen empowered to post the instruction, did they post it in the TCIT and did they post it at least one hour before the chat starts.

That's it - anything else is not a legal instruction.

-- Ravensfire
 
Originally posted by ravensfire
Proposal:

CoL:
Code:
K.  A legal instruction is any instruction, posted in the
    turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior to
    the start of the turn chat, by a citizen empowered to 
    do so, within the limitations of the office the citizen 
    is representing.
    1.  Time permitting, the Vice-President should verify 
        that posted instructions are within the authority
        of the poster and reflect the expressed Will of
        the People.

I am not sure I agree with section 1. It should be fairly simple to know if a poster has the authority to post, so stating this in code is a bit redundent. Also, what if the VP thought the Will of the People was not followed? This can get complicated fast. Lets let individuals decide if they want to bring up with the courts issues concerning the Will of the People.
 
Section one begs for trouble since it calls on the VP to make a judgement call on the *expressed Will of the People*. The leaders should be doing that and if they aren't won't we have a mechanism whereby the judiciary would make this determination upon recieving a complaint?
 
Top Bottom