[DG2] - Judiciary Discussion

[Black_Hole]

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.

So laws are only followed if people like them?
If you don't like a decision a justice made, change the law.
If someone really wants to play this game, I don't understand why constructing an amendment would be so hard for them to do? It doesn't make sense to leave instead of spending 10 minutes drafting an amendment.
This has been the attitude of many players: "The laws should be interpreted to make the game fun", which is what has driven me out of this game...

 

[DaveShack]

So laws are only followed if people like them?
If you don't like a decision a justice made, change the law.
If someone really wants to play this game, I don't understand why constructing an amendment would be so hard for them to do? It doesn't make sense to leave instead of spending 10 minutes drafting an amendment.
This has been the attitude of many players: "The laws should be interpreted to make the game fun", which is what has driven me out of this game...

When we get a justice who won't even rule on an amendment's validity because "it isn't needed", what should we do then?

The justice could rule that an area of the law is unclear or improperly worded and needs amending, but for the good of the game it will be interpreted according to what the people want while the amendment process (which usually takes 10 minutes to write, 3 days to have a JR, 4 days for a poll) grinds through to the inevitable conclusion. Or we can have a justice who rules that we have to follow an unpopular and questionable interpretation, and wait those 7 or more days before proceeding.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I'm here to have fun. If a justice makes a decision that makes the game less fun, regardless of what the rule says, of course I'm going to be unhappy. Why wouldn't I be?

Don't be that judiciary-fanatic that makes decisions that make the game less fun just because they are "right" according to the law.

 

[ravensfire]

Don't be that judiciary-fanatic that makes decisions that make the game less fun just because they are "right" according to the law.

By who's definition of right? Who's definition of fun?

<on soapbox>
The Rules are the rules - once you start ignoring them, you've completely lost any chance of respecting them. The idea of ignoring them or making "wrong" decision in the name of fun will ONLY lead to more chaos and stupidity.

Make the "right" decisions.

And GET OFF YOUR LAZY BUTT AND FIX THE LAW IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT!!!!!

<off soapbox>

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Here's a test. Interpret the following. Hint: There is an obviously correct interpretation which results in minimal delays for the game. There is also a marginally correct interpretation (some would say it is so dubious as to render it incorrect) which adds unnecessary delays to the game.

Question: do all appointments need to wait 72 hours, or only ones for which no jobless citizen comes forward?

Section 8
C) Vacancies
III Cabinet Vacancies
IIIB. If there is no deputy, the President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.
IV Governor Vacancies
IVA. The Governors Council must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Council within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Council may appoint any citizen to the office.
IVB. If there is no Governors Council, the Minister of Interior must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Minister of Interior within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Minister of Interior may appoint any citizen to the office.

Now, I ask you, regardless of which interpretation you believe reflects the meaning of these words, which one is better for the game? Should we go as quickly as we can to maintain interest in the game, or should we add unnecessary delays? You should be able to guess my answer, even if you don't know what position I took on this particular case.

If a future justice is faced with a similar question, I definitely want the right to impeach for a wrong answer.

 

[Black_Hole]

If a future justice is faced with a similar question, I definitely want the right to impeach for a wrong answer.

This is exactly why I don't plan to participate in this demogame, unless some major things turn around, which doesn't look likely. If I am a judge and rule against what the people think is fun to them, I get impeached, even if I follow the law.

ravensfire brings up an excellent point, who decides what is fun?

 

[DaveShack]

This is exactly why I don't plan to participate in this demogame, unless some major things turn around, which doesn't look likely. If I am a judge and rule against what the people think is fun to them, I get impeached, even if I follow the law.

ravensfire brings up an excellent point, who decides what is fun?

You might try participating by playing some civ.

What about my other suggestion, to make the judge responsible for fixing the law instead of ruling on it? Then a judge can be a positive influence instead of a negative one.

As for who decides what is fun, each individual does. Each individual can have fun too, as long as they don't have their fun by taking away the fun of others.

 

[ravensfire]

As for who decides what is fun, each individual does. Each individual can have fun too, as long as they don't have their fun by taking away the fun of others.

That's a mighty dangerous condition there, DaveShack.

Now, since you're taking such enjoyment from hammering away at donsig in your examples in this, and other fine threads as you make examples, I thought I'd ask you a question about your hypothetical situation - what did you actually do to fix the problem you had with it?

In addition, in the hoopla that was created on this, a citizen asked for a few more days, and you and others hammered him over that. Somehow, I don't quite think that you added to his fun. And we're all about fun, right?

Or is it just the fun that you might have?

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

That's a mighty dangerous condition there, DaveShack.

Now, since you're taking such enjoyment from hammering away at donsig in your examples in this, and other fine threads as you make examples, I thought I'd ask you a question about your hypothetical situation - what did you actually do to fix the problem you had with it?

In addition, in the hoopla that was created on this, a citizen asked for a few more days, and you and others hammered him over that. Somehow, I don't quite think that you added to his fun. And we're all about fun, right?

Or is it just the fun that you might have?

-- Ravensfire

Excuse me, but I did not say who the conflict was with in that incident. I have been very careful, or at least have tried to be careful, to depersonalize these references. I'm targeting the behavior of interpreting laws to match one's own personal needs instead of the needs of the game, not the individuals themselves.

 

[Cyc]

DS, the Law is the Law. Rules are made for a reason.

Why have a Judiciary if it has no authority? I suspect you have no need for a Judiciary, you just want someone with the power of the High Court to back you in your rise to power.

I also think you're reference to the above question (Section 8 - how appropriate) is slanted towards me as well as donsig. I've said it before, and I'll say it again about that. You are wrong. In all three paragraphs, the gist is the same.

If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.

This means the [official] MAY appoint any citizen after that [official] knows that no [such] citizen has made contact within the 72 hour period. Thats what was meant when the law was written and that's the way it was interpreted. Only a crying and whining baby would still be crying and whining about a little fun they lost because of the ruling.

 

[ice2k4]

Look as to the judiciary ruling as to something that follows the law, or something that follows the fun, the judiciary will decide himself which route. My policy, however would be that, not matter what you decide based on the laws. If you feel it hurts the fun, you bring up a discussion for an amendment, which would change the laws, and still make your decision a lawful one (but can be canceled out if the amendment is passed.)

Using the example above: Instead of ruling No, only appointments where no jobless citizen volunteers must wait 72 hours, rule Yes all appointments must wait 72 hours. You have therefore interpreted the law to exact definition, and have taken the more lawful route. Now if you feel this cuts down on fun, you use the ruling above, and then have an ammendment discussion to change the rule to: only appointments for which no jobless citizen comes forward.

By doing the above you:
A) Do not disregard the law.
B) Do not cut down on fun in sacrifice for the law.
C) Fix the law, so there is no further room for open interpretation of a vague law.

So what's the problem?

 

[Falcon02]

I agree, follow the law, if you think it "hurts the fun" propose an amendment to fix the problem.

 

[DaveShack]

Why have a Judiciary if it has no authority?

I respect a Judiciary which makes correct, reasoned, logical decisions. Over the years there have been many good decisions (most of them), a few wrong decisions that I could live with because they didn't harm the game, and a very small number of very bad decisions which could, and some think did, severely harm the game. I want a safety valve for those extremely bad decisions.

I suspect you have no need for a Judiciary, you just want someone with the power of the High Court to back you in your rise to power.

Power has nothing to do with it. I fill the needs of the game, nothing more. Take a look at the nomination threads and count the number of times I've said "I'll take it if nobody else wants it". What I wanted was for you, and Ravensfire, and DZ, and CG, and other vets to take some of those turns in the barrel. I wanted Swiss, AlphaWolf (before we found out about the DL issue), Blkbird, Tubby, Whomp, and countless other new people to stand for election and have their glory. I tried to keep this game going for 10 long months, when it was clearly hopeless halfway into that.

As for "the incident"...

Let me ask this:
You're the President. There is something which needs to be done (doesn't matter what for the purpose of discussion). Citizens are leaving because there is too much red tape, things take too long, too many things about the game don't make sense. You're ready to get the game moving but there's a law which says "Do A. After you do A, if B doesn't happen you must wait 3 days, then you can do C". B does happen, but then someone cuts the "you must wait 3 days" out of the middle of the law and pastes that on a stop sign. What should you do?

1. Wait an extra 3 days, causing more people to leave.
2. Do something about it, and by doing so, show that you're fixing the red tape issue, and try to get the people to stay.

What would you do? I prefer to try to do something about it.

The law will say what others write, I'm done with trying to write laws. I will give my input on things I see wrong, warn y'all about the dangers you face in making laws which are too detailed, urge you to have fun, and vote my beliefs. When we get back to the actual game again, I'll still be there, selectively running for offices as the game needs me, filling in when nobody else will.

 

[ice2k4]

I do advise waiting the three days, because when you don't wait the three days all you do is create more legal discussion which in the first place probablly drove away 80&#37; of the people who left.

 

[Nobody]

How about this idea to replace the entire judiacary:

BREAK A DEAL SPIN THE WHEEL

If you break a deal, then you spin the wheel. Breaking a deal means taking up any office and not doing what you say, or at any other time you say something which you dont do.

In the event you are found to break a dead (president decideds) then the president randomly picks a number using a calculator, this number between 1-10 each with a specific punishment next to it. (warning, pardon, 5 day expulsion, life explusion, loss of office, humilation (whereing a signiute as punishment),)

 

[DaveShack]

Been watching "Mad Max"?

 

[donsig]

When we get a justice who won't even rule on an amendment's validity because "it isn't needed", what should we do then?

Have three ACTIVE justices instead of just one.

I don't recall the circumstances of Dutchfire's proposed amendment but if there had been another active justice (or two) then my inactivity whould not have mattered, would it?

I'm here to have fun. If a justice makes a decision that makes the game less fun, regardless of what the rule says, of course I'm going to be unhappy. Why wouldn't I be?

Don't be that judiciary-fanatic that makes decisions that make the game less fun just because they are "right" according to the law.

Ever stop to think the game is less fun when us mere citizens' don't have a voice in what happens? What fun is there in playing a game when all you can really do is watch a few elected officials make decisons? (Or even less than that cause you can't even watch 'em cause they're doing it all in the chat?) The rules and laws are there to ensure we all have a chance to play. Yes, some of us (like me) enjoy the judical side of the DG. But I enjoy the Civ part as well (if given a chance to participate). I only go on my judicial crusades when I see my right to participate being frittered away.

I've always been a advocate of the citizen's (as a group) right to overule an official. I've also stated time and again we should have as few rules as possible. (I think the Code of Laws is an evil thing.)

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.

The only purpose of reviewing proposed amendments or laws is to ensure they don't conflict with another law that is unaffected by the propsed law or amendment. The idea is to keep consistent set of rules by not allowing new laws that would create conflict. I don't think the judiciary should be made to help with that process (though they can if they choose to). The trouble (which was obvious from the last ruleset) is that this isn't really a solid goal unless we start with a ruleset that is free of conflicts. The last one wasn't and they usually aren't because we always rush to start the game and end up with a half-assed rule set. If we limited our rules to begin with we'd have a better chance at this.

Question: do all appointments need to wait 72 hours, or only ones for which no jobless citizen comes forward?
...
Now, I ask you, regardless of which interpretation you believe reflects the meaning of these words, which one is better for the game? Should we go as quickly as we can to maintain interest in the game, or should we add unnecessary delays? You should be able to guess my answer, even if you don't know what position I took on this particular case.

Waiting 72 hours to make ANY appointment (except maybe for a sole DP) is not only the correct and most logical interpretation in your test case, it is also the best one for the game. It does not put the freakin' game on hold (or at lease it shouldn't). There is no reason the game cannot proceed without a ny given official (excpet of course a DP). You seem to forget (as do many officials in the DG) that even lowly citizens have the right to poll issues and get things done. What we didn't have last game was a mechanism to get citizen's initiative results into the game play instruction thread. (That, BTW, would be a great job for a censor type official. Much better than letting a Censor unilaterally interpret the law and create hinderences to citizen initiative polls.) We never got to that becasue we were too busy arguing over what official meant and whether a private poll could be a fair and legitimate one.

If a future justice is faced with a similar question, I definitely want the right to impeach for a wrong answer.

I agree that if we are to allow for impeachment of officials then we should allow for the impeachment of justices. I do not agree with impeaching a judiciary member for making a wrong interpretation. By definition (and I know I'm opening up a can of worms by using that word) an interpretation is, well, subject to one's interpretation. If the answer was so flippin' clear things would not get to the stage where a judicial interpretaton was needed. Yes, I know you know what you meant when you wrote the law DaveShack. But what you meant and what you wrote happened to be two very different things.

I respect a Judiciary which makes correct, reasoned, logical decisions. Over the years there have been many good decisions (most of them), a few wrong decisions that I could live with because they didn't harm the game, and a very small number of very bad decisions which could, and some think did, severely harm the game. I want a safety valve for those extremely bad decisions.

You respect a judiciary that agrees with your interpreation, but do not respect one that doesn't, no matter how reasonable their interpretation is. No judicial decison had ever harmed a DG as much as the turn chats so I don't see the problem here. If you want a safety valve then allow for citizen's initiatives that interpret the law. These can be an alternative to a judicial interpretation or they can trump a previous judicial interpretation but in either case any such poll should be reviewed by the judiciary in a manner similar to a review for amendments or new laws to avoid conflicts with existing law. We could even make standards for such a poll since any interpretation would involve two (or more) competing interpretations. Assuming both interpretaitons are reasonable (as is generally the case) then these standards would ensure that all competing interpretations are presented fairly for the citizenry to choose from.

 

[DaveShack]

Yes, I know you know what you meant when you wrote the law DaveShack. But what you meant and what you wrote happened to be two very different things.

If you look very closely, you will see I didn't actually write that section.

The whole point is that laws should be interpreted according to what the citizens wanted them to mean. My issue with that case was that there was clear evidence what the citizens who wrote the law wanted, and the judiciary did not follow that evidence.

You respect a judiciary that agrees with your interpreation, but do not respect one that doesn't, no matter how reasonable their interpretation is.

I have accepted and respected many rulings which I disagreed with. Agreement with my interpretation is not the point, the point is agreement with reality. There are rules for scanning and decoding languages, and the ruling did not follow the rules of English -- the message decoded by the Judiciary did not equal the message encoded by the people when they wrote the law.

Edit: I will admit that I'm never happy when the Judiciary rules against me. It does help immensely if a convincing factual proof is provided, and not merely an opinion not backed by facts.

 

[donsig]

The whole point is that laws should be interpreted according to what the citizens wanted them to mean. My issue with that case was that there was clear evidence what the citizens who wrote the law wanted, and the judiciary did not follow that evidence.

And there are some (including those judicial members who actually ruled on that case) who believe it is more important to go by what is actually written than what was meant to be written.

Since you claim that laws should be interpreted according to how the people want them interpreted (a view I agree with to a certain extent) I'm disappointed that you did not comment on my idea about citizen initiative poll acting as interpretaive tools. Could it be that you really don't have the faith in citizen inititatives that was hinted at in the constitution?

I have accepted and respected many rulings which I disagreed with. Agreement with my interpretation is not the point, the point is agreement with reality. There are rules for scanning and decoding languages, and the ruling did not follow the rules of English -- the message decoded by the Judiciary did not equal the message encoded by the people when they wrote the law.

I'm not so sure what all the rules are for decoding English. I'm not a trained linguist nor computer programmer nor poet. But I do know that English is not like a structured computer language. I do know that English can very easily be ambiguous. This ambiguity comes not only from a distinct lack of structural rules (ala computer languages) but from ambiguity in the very meanings of words (as evidenced by our continued disagreement over the meaning of official). If English was as structured as you claim it to be we would not need interpretions of rules. We could just feed a proposed rule into a compiler and have it tell us if any errors exist.

Because of this ambiguity in the English language it is not always possible to find concrete factual proof of how a given rule should be interpreted. Many times one or more interpretation is reasonable and logical.

 

[DaveShack]

Since you claim that laws should be interpreted according to how the people want them interpreted (a view I agree with to a certain extent) I'm disappointed that you did not comment on my idea about citizen initiative poll acting as interpretaive tools. Could it be that you really don't have the faith in citizen inititatives that was hinted at in the constitution?

I considered using an initiative for the appointment issue, but decided that there would be a conflict between taking that action and my previous arguement against another similar initiative attempt. I could not in good conscience argue that a justice could not use initiative as a way to get approval for not recusing himself from a case, and then myself use an initiative to effectively force recusal of the entire judiciary. It was less impactful to the game to disregard the ruling while appearing to follow it.

A blanket provision to allow initiatives for interpreting the law might go too far. I'd want to hear comments from other people on possible controls. The goal is still to balance and maximize fun, and we want to avoid extremes where possible.