[DG2] - Judiciary Discussion

[DaveShack]

The judiciary option of the offices poll is running 82% in favor of a single Chief Justice. In case that result holds up, I think we'd better discuss how judicial matters would work in that system.

In the past, we've used the judiciary for 3 kinds of decisions:

• Investigating and deciding if an alledged rule violation merits a trial.
• Interpreting a rule to see if and how it applies to a given situation, or determining which of several rules takes precedence.
• Reviewing proposed new laws for conflicts with existing laws.

We need to ensure some basic rights are not infringed in a one justice system. We have some ongoing feuds of biblical proportions within the DemoGame population. Not usually something which rises to the level of a forum rule violation, but things could get really ugly. In the system with three justices, you have some check on the power of a CJ with a vendetta, although even then a silver tongue can convince one of the other justices to go along.

The obvious question becomes, how do we check the power of a single CJ? In a RL court system, simple decisions are often made by one judge and can then be appealed to a higher court. We could handle appeals in a couple of ways, such as having the moderators rule on an appeal, or having a poll. However, allowing total access to an appeal process has a negative effect that there's a good chance every decision would get appealed.

How do we allow appeals, without turning the judiciary into an opinion poll for every question? I think we have to set an entry criteria for an appeal such as support from multiple citizens, and/or make an appeal costly to lose.

So I think there are several things to discuss here.

• Do we keep the traditional responsibiltiies of the court?
• Do we have an appeal system?
• If we do have an appeal system, what kind?
• Should there be limits or conditions on being able to appeal? If so, what should they be?

 

[Black_Hole]

I think we should keep the current 3 judge system...
There really isn't a good way to check a 1 judge court

 

[Cyc]

I would have to agree with Black_Hole. 82% or no, there really isn't a good way to check a 1 judge court. Either forget about putting a check and balance on the position and just give them the ball to run with, or use the three Justice system.

Even with the impecable Justices in the CIC3 DGs, I believe a 3 Justice system was needed.

 

[Octavian X]

We could always more to a more democratic system, with the one Judge being only a neutral party overseeing the dispute.

Investigations would continue as normal .People should be competent enough to understand the complaints against them after the Judge explains the situation - if we actually need to elect officials in order to help the accused understand the charges, it means our laws are too complex, anyway.

As for handing down interpretations of the laws - should a review be requested, and the Judge finds merit, a new discussion thread is opened up. After a day or two, after the discussion in the public has died down, the Justice summarizes the opposing viewpoints (with some balances to ensure that all options are presented fairly and neutrally - the poll would have to be agreed to by most of the people who actually took part in the discussion, for instance). He then posts a poll of those viewpoints, and the majority wins.

If we were looking to streamline the system, the above could be the process for appeal if people disagree with the ruling made by the Judge, with an appeal only possible if three or four people demand it.

Ideally, of course (and this is something I want to stress while we begin the process of writing laws), our rules will be simple and clear enough NOT to need this process.

 

[Black_Hole]

We could always more to a more democratic system, with the one Judge being only a neutral party overseeing the dispute.

Investigations would continue as normal .People should be competent enough to understand the complaints against them after the Judge explains the situation - if we actually need to elect officials in order to help the accused understand the charges, it means our laws are too complex, anyway.

As for handing down interpretations of the laws - should a review be requested, and the Judge finds merit, a new discussion thread is opened up. After a day or two, after the discussion in the public has died down, the Justice summarizes the opposing viewpoints (with some balances to ensure that all options are presented fairly and neutrally - the poll would have to be agreed to by most of the people who actually took part in the discussion, for instance). He then posts a poll of those viewpoints, and the majority wins.

If we were looking to streamline the system, the above could be the process for appeal if people disagree with the ruling made by the Judge, with an appeal only possible if three or four people demand it.

Ideally, of course (and this is something I want to stress while we begin the process of writing laws), our rules will be simple and clear enough NOT to need this process.

The problem I see with this is that legal reviews turn into popularity votes instead of the what the law actually says. Or a group of people will vote against what they know the laws says to avoid making an amendment

 

[ice2k4]

Well in regards to a Citizen Complaint against a citizen, the Judge should be the impartial, the person who formally filed the complaint should be the persecutor (and may hire someone to advocate and represent him) and the citizen filed against shall be the defendant (and may hire someone to advocate and represent him.) After hearing both sides the CJ will rule on it.

In an amendment process, we should have a citizen who formally files for an amendment, not just an opinion poll. He will present his case as to why the amendment should be ratified. Citizens should have a few days to retort to his argument or point out things he missed. After hearing the formal filing citizen and all comments the CJ should come to a decision. This should all be done after a few days of discussion thread, so all the possibilities and facts are presented, and citizens don't sway their opinion in the middle of the hearing. Also in the formal hearing thread, citizen's (not including the formal-filing citizen) may only be issued one post, so it does not turn into a discussion.

This way we don't have useless Public Defenders and the Judge Advocates and it's still a one justice judiciary.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Personally, I want to minimize the Judiciary role a lot...if this office is going to more reactive than proactive, why not only have 1 member? Filling an extra 2 positions may not seem like much, but when participation is low, we could use those people running for another position.

I'm not a big fan of CCs, Judicial Reviews, amendments, and all that judiciary stuff. I don't mind if you guys like it or not, I'm just saying we should create a good enough ruleset in the first place to ensure that we don't need to change anything (yet another reason to just keep it simple with a small margin for interpretation).

 

[Black_Hole]

Well in regards to a Citizen Complaint against a citizen, the Judge should be the impartial, the person who formally filed the complaint should be the persecutor (and may hire someone to advocate and represent him) and the citizen filed against shall be the defendant (and may hire someone to advocate and represent him.) After hearing both sides the CJ will rule on it.

In an amendment process, we should have a citizen who formally files for an amendment, not just an opinion poll. He will present his case as to why the amendment should be ratified. Citizens should have a few days to retort to his argument or point out things he missed. After hearing the formal filing citizen and all comments the CJ should come to a decision. This should all be done after a few days of discussion thread, so all the possibilities and facts are presented, and citizens don't sway their opinion in the middle of the hearing. Also in the formal hearing thread, citizen's (not including the formal-filing citizen) may only be issued one post, so it does not turn into a discussion.

This way we don't have useless Public Defenders and the Judge Advocates and it's still a one justice judiciary.

How do we force the judge to be impartial? With only 1 judge its impossible. He can make any decision he wants. Of course in response proponents of having a single judge will say we can make him impeachable, which I am strongly against. A judge should not be fearing impeachment otherwise his decisions will not be impartial. So you can see it is impossible for a single person impartial judiciary

We have had problems with letting a prosecutor and attorney be chosen after the trial has started, this has resulted in many delays and even trials not starting in past demogames

Personally, I want to minimize the Judiciary role a lot...if this office is going to more reactive than proactive, why not only have 1 member? Filling an extra 2 positions may not seem like much, but when participation is low, we could use those people running for another position.

I'm not a big fan of CCs, Judicial Reviews, amendments, and all that judiciary stuff. I don't mind if you guys like it or not, I'm just saying we should create a good enough ruleset in the first place to ensure that we don't need to change anything (yet another reason to just keep it simple with a small margin for interpretation).

Many members (including myself) will join the judiciary when the game slows down. I never had interest in this game for too long, and if we had only a 1 person judiciary, I wouldn't have participated at all. Trying to fix our participation problems by removing the only offices some members will join is not the right way to fix the participation problem


I am not sure why everyone wants to remove something that has been working. In my experience playing the demo game, the best demo games have been with a 3 judge system of CJ, JA, and PD...
The problem was this game, because of the poorly written laws, there was alot of legal wrangling in the game. None of this was because of the judicial setup but because of the CoL and Article C of the constitution... I think some people got made because there was more discussions about legal issues than game discussions. Trying to minimize the judiciary won't increase participation in the game

 

[Ginger_Ale]

But wouldn't the best DG be one where the Judiciary did not have anything to do?

I don't really see the reason why someone would participate in this game just because of the Judiciary and not because of the actual game, but that's besides the point. What I'm trying to say is that, technically, we shouldn't need one, but yes, obviously we have to have one since things are bound to arise. But why can't we streamline the whole Judiciary? Instead of sticking with 3 justices because we have a poorly written Constitution, why don't we focus on improving the Constitution to the point that we minimize the need for a Judiciary at all. I'm not saying get rid of the Judiciary, I'm saying make it a position that, if we did everything right, would not really have anything to rule on.

 

[ice2k4]

But wouldn't the best DG be one where the Judiciary did not have anything to do?

I don't really see the reason why someone would participate in this game just because of the Judiciary and not because of the actual game, but that's besides the point. What I'm trying to say is that, technically, we shouldn't need one, but yes, obviously we have to have one since things are bound to arise. But why can't we streamline the whole Judiciary? Instead of sticking with 3 justices because we have a poorly written Constitution, why don't we focus on improving the Constitution to the point that we minimize the need for a Judiciary at all. I'm not saying get rid of the Judiciary, I'm saying make it a position that, if we did everything right, would not really have anything to rule on.
__________________

That's like saying the American Constitution is completely faulty because we've made quite a few amendments. Times change. In the beginning of the demogame, things will be going one way (both in-game and forum-wise) where in the middle it may be going another way. There are way to many variables to say that one ruleset would work for all times. Just take a look at history in real life, and all the governments that have been tried.

How do we force the judge to be impartial? With only 1 judge its impossible. He can make any decision he wants. Of course in response proponents of having a single judge will say we can make him impeachable, which I am strongly against. A judge should not be fearing impeachment otherwise his decisions will not be impartial. So you can see it is impossible for a single person impartial judiciary

We have had problems with letting a prosecutor and attorney be chosen after the trial has started, this has resulted in many delays and even trials not starting in past demogames

I was going to suggest impeachment if the judge is not impartial, but never took your point (fearing impeachment) into consideration.

Many members (including myself) will join the judiciary when the game slows down. I never had interest in this game for too long, and if we had only a 1 person judiciary, I wouldn't have participated at all. Trying to fix our participation problems by removing the only offices some members will join is not the right way to fix the participation problem

Although I do not like to get into the judicial debates myself, in the past demogame I have seen that many people enjoy it, and probably participate just for the judicial part of the game.

I am not sure why everyone wants to remove something that has been working. In my experience playing the demo game, the best demo games have been with a 3 judge system of CJ, JA, and PD...
The problem was this game, because of the poorly written laws, there was alot of legal wrangling in the game. None of this was because of the judicial setup but because of the CoL and Article C of the constitution... I think some people got made because there was more discussions about legal issues than game discussions. Trying to minimize the judiciary won't increase participation in the game

I'm not sure either, since I see that it worked fine, but I thought the purpose of this thread was to prepare for the decision of one justice. I would be glad to have a recall poll however.

 

[dutchfire]

Jury?

That would be cool, though maybe somewhat complicated.

 

[ice2k4]

Jury?

That would be cool, though maybe somewhat complicated.

I was thinking about a jury, but even a jury of 3 would be hard to work with. I wouldn't want people to volunteer for jury, because that kind of kills random selection. And with randomly selecting, people could just simply refuse to do it. And I don't think we should force anyone.

Maybe we could have 3-5 people sign up for jury duty at the beginning of every term, and whenever something comes up, they serve as the jury.

Possibly a set up of 2 or 4 jury, with the addition of the CJ's vote.

 

[Black_Hole]

Ginger_ale, until we start using the same constitution and code of laws for numerous consecutive demo games, there will be problems that need to be interpreted, no matter how much time we spend on making the constitution, it needs to be run in an actual game. The problem is that we change constitution very fast, so we never have a single one that will prevail.

Some people here prefer the government part of the demo game, while others prefer just playing the game, I don't see the purpose of streamlining an entire set of people playing the game

I don't the jury idea... From what I read, we basically have 2 randomly selected jurors chosen instead of 2 elected judges, which makes no sense to me. It obvious many people don't care about the judiciary and laws, so why force them to make legal decisions? Wouldn't it make more sense to have people that care for the legal situation make these decisions?

I am still strongly against a recall poll for judges, once elected they shouldn't fear making an unpopular although legally correct decision

 

[ice2k4]

I am still strongly against a recall poll for judges, once elected they shouldn't fear making an unpopular although legally correct decision

By recall I meant a poll to recall the decision of only having one justice.

 

[DaveShack]

By recall I meant a poll to recall the decision of only having one justice.

Oh, then it's just a terminology problem. A recall poll is one to take someone out of office -- what you mean is a repeal poll.

 

[DaveShack]

One thing I'd like to be perfectly clear on. If a Justice makes a decision which is correct according to the law but that decision destroys the game because a bunch of people leave, it is the wrong decision.

Heck yes, the Justice should fear impeachment. If the majority think a decision is so bad that it warrants removing someone from office, we're better off with a happy populace and possibly having one person leave than we are with an unhappy populace and potentially most people leaving.

Knock those self-righteous ivory-tower cant-say-it-on-the-forum folks (myself included) off their lofty perches and make them decide in favor of the good of the game and not in favor of their own inflated self worth.

 

[dutchfire]

I am still strongly against a recall poll for judges, once elected they shouldn't fear making an unpopular although legally correct decision

When I tried to change one word in the constitution last game, donsig (member of the judiciary at that time) didn't really want to look at it, because he thought it was useless (not wrong!). As there weren't enough active judges at that moment, I had to wait for donsig to say that one word wasn't wrong.

 

[ravensfire]

I tossed out the idea of a single member Judiciary with the idea of reducing the involvement of the Judiciary in this game.

I've been one of the most involved people in this DG in the Judiciary, serving in every role, and participating in just about every major decision that's been made, including two that were, literally, game changing. I've suggested different options for the Judiciary - some failed miserably, others did fairly well. I've seen what a strong person can do (see Peri) can do with a powerful Judiciary, and also the harm that can come.

I think we've gone too far with the Judiciary - it does too much and is seen as the first option for too many things. When I suggested the single member Judiciary, I wasn't just tossing the idea out, there was a plan for some dramatic changes in the Judiciary.

First and foremost, the sole Justice is there to resolve disputes, answer questions and offer solutions. They are NOT there to make game-changing decisions. By necessity and design, a single-person member of the Judiciary will need to actively seek out the views of various people. This hopefully will turn into more discussions

Consider the three main traditional tasks of the Judiciary - review of amendments, resolution of rules questions and investigations into possible rules violations. Each of these tasks are important, and need to be covered in some way by any Judicial concept.

The review of amendments is there as a check - was anything missed when the amendment was written? It's not a fool-proof system, but it's another chance to find any problems before it's sent to a poll. The review isn't to prevent bad laws, only badly written laws. We're pretty good about finding problems, but I personally, when conducting a review, look at everything afresh. This stays as is.

The most difficult change is in the resolution of rules questions. We've had simple ones (rule x conflicts with rule y) and tough ones (see start of C4DG1). A single person Judiciary isn't the best place to resolve those tough questions, and shouldn't be. Under my concept, the Judiciary is there is resolve conflicts, not create new law. If someone comes up with a question that isn't addressed by the rules, the Judiciary needs to politely decline that request, and refer it to the citizens to address. There's a single exception though - if waiting for an amendment would delay the DG in a significant way, the Judiciary will decide on a temporary basis, and then actively work to get the amendment created. The entire objective of the Judiciary here is to keep the game flowing smoothly and with minimal interruption. If the right ruling goes against popular view - MAKE THE RULING, then get them to change the rules.

Finally, the investigation into possible rules violations. This is perhaps the most unpleasant part of the Judiciary that I've ever been involved in. It's part circus, part debate and part popularity contest. In a single Justice system, the Justice would examine the charges and if there's a reasonable chance the charges are correct, allow the matter to proceed. There would be no guarantee of representation, although I strongly believe that various people here would make sure of that. During a trial, the Justice is there to maintain order, post a verdict poll, determine sentancing options and post a sentancing poll.

The goal of all of this is to pull power from the Judiciary, keep the game flowing and resolve the true rules conflicts.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

When I tried to change one word in the constitution last game, donsig (member of the judiciary at that time) didn't really want to look at it, because he thought it was useless (not wrong!). As there weren't enough active judges at that moment, I had to wait for donsig to say that one word wasn't wrong.

Stepping away from the specific incident, and in particular from which people were involved, let's look at what went wrong in this case. For several games now, we have had the judiciary acting as gatekeepers on amendments, with the power to keep an amendment from happening. There is an implicit assumption in this mechanism that the existing law is more important than what the people think right now with the current amendment.

What if we tasked the judiciary with helping with the amendment, instead of approving it? If a new amendment conflicts with existing law, maybe the judiciary should be responsible for removing the conflict, instead of preventing the amendment from happening. The argument against doing it this way is that it doesn't reflect RL politics, but we don't need to model RL so completely that it makes the court the enemy of the people, especially in a game which is meant to be fun.

 

[ice2k4]

Oh, then it's just a terminology problem. A recall poll is one to take someone out of office -- what you mean is a repeal poll.

By definition recall worked in my sentence, just wasn't speaking the DG1 lingo anymore.