Creating a More Effcient Judciary

[Strider]

Currently the judiciary is kind of packed with CC's and judicial reviews. Which is why I propose the following:

We create 3 new poistions inside of the judiciary, two more Associate Justice's, and an Advocate Justice. The Chief Justice is the highest ranking officer in the judiciary, then the advocate justice, and then the associate justices.

The Chief Justice and two associate justice's will handle half of the judiciary reviews/CC's while the advocate justice and other two associate justices handle the other half, or quite possibly one could handle Judicial Reviews, while the other handle's just CC's.

Still kind of flawed, but it can be fixed to meet the needs of the game, and when/if the judiciary calms down, the extra three poistions could be removed. We could even possibly make this temporary.

 

[Sarevok]

actually, although that can work, we would be better off reforming the constitution which causes all of these disputes. We also need to kill the bureacracy that is the Judiciary.

 

[Chieftess]

Right - I agree with Sarevok. There's a lot of bueracracy right now. The president, or DP takes one false step, and the entire demogame is stalled. People don't participate in discussions as much because they're busy reading the legal mumbo-jumbo spam that's being spit out across the forums.

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Sarevok
actually, although that can work, we would be better off reforming the constitution which causes all of these disputes. We also need to kill the bureacracy that is the Judiciary.

True, but we've got to do something to keep the department entertained untill such time as the const. can be repaired. Also, there is no such thing as a perfect const. and it will still be needed to clarify some things.

In the whole though, this was mainly proposed to open up new poistions, and get more people involved.

 

[Sarevok]

which is a good thing, it possibly could kill off some of the bureaucracy.

 

[ravensfire]

I really can't tell how this is going to help things.

The Judiciary the past two terms has been extraordinarily busy, and that has caused problem.

I'm going to focus on this term, as I've been running the Judiciary.

The first JR we had to handle wasn't even the first filed, but the fourth. All on the same day though. That JR dealt with the Judicial Elections for that term. It HAD to be handled first, and seperate from all the others. Nothing else matters when the legitimacy of the Court is in question. From there, I made the decision to work no more than 3 judicial actions at a time, based on a priority-based queue.

If you'll note, items of immediate import have been handled as quickly as possible.

Some of the actions have been delayed by matters that are not, and will not be made public. In some cases, there was a chance the action would be dropped.

Look through the thread, and count the sheer number of judicial actions requested - 11 Judical Reviews and 4 CC's. That's a heavy workload by anyone's estimation.

This isn't going to help the problem, and may make it worse. People will try to get cases heard by one court or another, or try to appeal from one to the other. Complete chaos.

Keep things the way they are. We don't have the people to staff a court of this proposed size, and we most definitely don't need anything this complicated.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Sarevok]

and why are all of these reviews and CC's coming?

 

[ravensfire]

Read through the Judicial thread, ask the authors and try to read minds - best answer I can give you.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Sarevok]

I know what the problem is, and there needs to be changes.

 

[Sarevok]

The problem is the ocnstitution's rigid rules and the pathetic bureacracy in the Judiciary. Peri and Octavian X can fix this problem and ought to do it. The rigid rules that are completely inflexible and the Burearcracy must end!

 

[Peri]

Everyone here is right to a certain extent. However by increasing the capacity of the Judiciary we will increase its work load. That is a law by some Physicist adapted for this situation.

What we really need to do is reduce the need for these JRs and CCs

Ravensfire's introduction of the CC process has taken a lot of bitterness out of the grievance procedure. However we can go further.
All of the JR's have been on legitimate points. That can't be denied. However they were necessary because our ruleset is based on mistrust.

The constitution itself is a very good document.
There are many Articles in the Laws and Standards which are equally valid. However the areas we need to concentrate on are the areas of our rules which are the result of this mistrust.

We dont have spot votes because we don't trust those in the chat to act as everyone who is not there would like. This is a valid point Suppose it was citizen X who played the save and is a 'bad lot' and did lots of really terrible things. We need to be able to prevent situations like that. However we need to actually be clever enough to find a balance of safety between 'free-for-all' and asphyxiation.

Octavian's proposal is an intelligent solution to a serious problem.

 

[Sarevok]

and that is something we will need to fix. I hope that you and Octavian will be able to do what you say you will do, as I am riding my very future of my life in this democracy game on it.

 

[DaveShack]

I proposed something during the last DG and again during the rules discussions to deal with overcrowding of the docket.

When a charge / review is frivolous, has no merit, and appears to be made for the sole purpose of fostering argument, that should be viewed as a crime unto itself. Take JR11 -- I won't argue the case again here, but it becomes increasingly obvious that a certain individual is looking for ways to find fault with the rules, for finding fault's sake. We need some way to encourage people to use the court processes only when there is a legitimate reason for doing so.

 

[Peri]

In addition when a CC is lodged perhaps the first step should be for a member of the court to arbitrate between the two parties to find an acceptable solution.
Since a pound of flesh is rarely required this would save court time and be a more efficient way of resolving the matter

 

[Sarevok]

indeed, I like your Idea Daveshack, but the ones who thrive off of people who mess up so they can CC them are numerous and such a measure may fail.

 

[ravensfire]

Peri - love the idea!

I think several of the CC's thus filed could have been handled that way. At the very least, I know of one that could have.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

Would have saved me time to...*sigh*

 

[Chieftess]

I thought they were already handled that way. (the resolution phase or whatever it was that was addded).

 

[Sarevok]

good idea Peri!

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Chieftess
I thought they were already handled that way. (the resolution phase or whatever it was that was addded).

Sort of. Peri, please correct my if I'm wrong, but what he's suggesting is that before any investigation starts, someone from the Judiciary meets with both sides, and sees if a quick resolution is possible. For example, in the CC against Shalashaska, I'm pretty confident that the same remedy would have been used had you, he and I met to discuss that matter. This won't work for everything, but it's a way to handle some of the CC's.

And that's a good thing.

A CC is not a bad thing - it's a way for a citizen to point out to another citizen "Hey - I don't think you're doing that right." You fix the problem, and life goes on. The first CC was handled exactly like that - the problem was fixed and life went on with everyone happy.

-- Ravensfire