[DG2] - Judiciary Discussion

[donsig]

I don't see how making a mockery of our rules maximizes fun, nor do I see how following our rules minimizes fun.

@DaveShack: I'm not really concerned with why you chose not to use an initiative last game. We're talking about how to play the next game so I'd like to hear what you think of the idea in general (besides the fact that you don't like the idea of a blanket provision). I don't recall you ever basing a judicial decision on the current WotP (which could be Will of the People or Whim of the People, your choice). So I'd like to hear more about your general thoughts on how interpreting laws according to the wishes of the people (yet another WotP) fits in with the nuts and bolts of making a judicial decision.

 

[DaveShack]

On limiting use of citizen polls to decide interpretations of laws, we need some kind of frivolous poll protection. Either require multiple people to request an interpretation poll, or put in some kind of penalty to the requestor if the people uphold the judiciary's decision.

 

[donsig]

On limiting use of citizen polls to decide interpretations of laws, we need some kind of frivolous poll protection. Either require multiple people to request an interpretation poll, or put in some kind of penalty to the requestor if the people uphold the judiciary's decision.

I agree we'd need something to prevent frivolous polls but I don't like the idea of requiring multiple requestors and I certainly don't think we should punish anyone for posting a poll. I think a process similar to the one we have for reviewing new laws and amendments would be called for. (Yes, I know that process needs work.) This is the kind of thing that would be good for a Censor type official to be responsible for.

 

[DaveShack]

Something like this?

1. Citizen requests a JR
2. Judiciary rules
3. Citizen doesn't like ruling, so posts a proposed initiative
4. Censor reviews initiative and approves
5. Poll is opened
6. If poll result differs from JR ruling, it overturns the ruling

I'm not sure I like the Censor review because if the Censor agrees with the Judiciary it would be very easy to disapprove the requested initiative, and thereby ensure the people don't get to vote on it.

I'm against a Judiciary which rules conflict/no-conflict on an amendment for the same reason. It gives them the perfect method for ensuring that a law they don't like never goes to the people for a vote.

This brings me to another concept I'd like to explore. there doesn't seem to be a good place to suggest it, and the legal types already hang around this thread so...

Instead of having the concept of a law conflicting with another law, especially during the amendment process, let's just have the last one that passes take precedence over what was already there. Instead of ruling that law #2 is void because it conflicts with existing law, the Judiciary would then rule it supercedes.

 

[Black_Hole]

I don't think we should have a censor... If a poll is horridly bad, the judiciary can invalidate it, but that should be a rare occurrence

 

[ravensfire]

Instead of having the concept of a law conflicting with another law, especially during the amendment process, let's just have the last one that passes take precedence over what was already there. Instead of ruling that law #2 is void because it conflicts with existing law, the Judiciary would then rule it supercedes.

Too many problems - including people trying to stick wording in to supercede rules, but trying to keep that hidden. Not to mention, you run into confusion about what is, and it not, an actual rule. If you want to strike down a rule, be explicit about it.

Also, if conflicts are found with a proposal, that is a good indication that the proposal wasn't thought all the way through. Which way should the conflict be resolved? That's something for the people to determine as they craft the laws.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

I don't think we should have a censor... If a poll is horridly bad, the judiciary can invalidate it, but that should be a rare occurrence

The reference to a censor in the preceeding posts was because the poll we're talking about is one to ask the citizens directly how a law should be interpreted. We can't have a poll to overrule the judiciary invalidated by that same judiciary. Some other review process for that particular kind of poll, instead of having a censor, would be acceptable -- do you have anything in mind?

 

[DaveShack]

Too many problems - including people trying to stick wording in to supercede rules, but trying to keep that hidden. Not to mention, you run into confusion about what is, and it not, an actual rule. If you want to strike down a rule, be explicit about it.

Here's how I'd like it to work.

Citizen discussion results in sufficient concensus that we want an amendment. We go through the normal amendment drafting process, resulting in a mock poll. The judiciary reviews the proposed amendment and produces a report on what effects it will have on existing law, which is appended to the mock poll. The requestor then has the option to submit the amendment for ratification along with its "side effects report", or rework the amendment to remove "side effects" and resubmit to the judiciary. Obviously a good amendment author could prepare the mock poll text to include the effects of the amendment on existing laws, reducing the judiciary's load.

There is no ambiguity in the resulting law, because the expert members of the judiciary have already identified all the related changes and provided that to the people as part of the amendment itself. The judiciary would be stipped of its current power to prevent an amendment from going to a ratification vote, and that legal energy which is so often devoted to saying NO would instead be dedicated to working with the citizens to get the laws they want.

 

[donsig]

The reference to a censor in the preceeding posts was because the poll we're talking about is one to ask the citizens directly how a law should be interpreted. We can't have a poll to overrule the judiciary invalidated by that same judiciary. Some other review process for that particular kind of poll, instead of having a censor, would be acceptable -- do you have anything in mind?

We don't need the judiciary to invalidate any polls. All we'd need the judiciary to do is decide if the interpretation to be polled conflicts with existing laws (not with exisiting interpretations). We could have the Censor responsible for posting interpretation polls and make any such polls go through the JR process before being posted. We could exclude previously interpreted laws from this new process and mandate actual amendments be passed to overrule existing judicial interpretations.

This would give citizens two options for getting interpretations: 1) the traditional JR and 2) a Censorial posted citizen interpretation poll. Once either route was taken it would require a full amendment to overturn a decision.

Just thinking out loud here but this might help us to restructure JRs. An interpretation case could be handled sort of like a CC, with the JA taking one interpretation and the PD another and then we have a poll to determine the outcome.

@DaveShack: I would certainly be disinclined to run for a judicial postion that was expected to draft legislation. Writing laws should be strictly left up to citizens and the judiciary should confine itself to stating whether or not a conflict exists. It is too much to expect the judiciary to find every conflict in a bad proposal - especially when every game starts with a ruleset that has pre-existing conflicts built into it.

I will say it one more time:

If you want to reduce conflicts in the rules then minimize the rules. Go back to the CIV III DG III constitution and use that as a basis for the next game's rules.

 

[DaveShack]

We don't need the judiciary to invalidate any polls. All we'd need the judiciary to do is decide if the interpretation to be polled conflicts with existing laws (not with exisiting interpretations).

You forget that there are two kinds of interpretations needed:

1. It is unclear what a rule means.
2. Multiple rules say conflicting things about the same area

I want the citizen poll to resolve both kinds of interpretations, regardless of whether the "ruling" introduces a "new" conflict or not. A poll should be able to make the law mean exactly what the majority wants it to mean, quickly. This makes me think that we want just one layer of laws to eliminate the trump card aspect of multiple layers.

You're going to say something like "just use an amendment if that's what you want!" Yeah, but amendments take time. Usually they cannot be completed before the next game session, or whatever decision the interpretation is needed for. To that you'll say something about it being good for it to take a long time to change things, that people can't get it through their thick heads that the game can proceed anyway. Not if proceeding violates the rule as incorrectly interpreted by an obstinate judiciary.

Just thinking out loud here but this might help us to restructure JRs. An interpretation case could be handled sort of like a CC, with the JA taking one interpretation and the PD another and then we have a poll to determine the outcome.

No, this setup would effectively eliminate the judiciary, and we don't want to go that far. We want a judiciary which functions normally, but which is required to rule correctly instead of being totally unchecked, all-knowing and all-powerful, like we have had at times in recent games.

The proposal for using an ititiative to overrule the judiciary is strictly that. I don't think we should replace the existing system, we should just add a way to fix a bad decision.

 

[ravensfire]

No, this setup would effectively eliminate the judiciary, and we don't want to go that far. We want a judiciary which functions normally, but which is required to rule correctly instead of being totally unchecked, all-knowing and all-powerful, like we have had at times in recent games.

Sorry - but your proposal isn't significantly different from donsig's and would do exactly the same thing.

It's also a blatant appeal to mob rule. Why create an amendment, when you can just create your own ruling!

Fun for all! (except the minority)

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Sorry - but your proposal isn't significantly different from donsig's and would do exactly the same thing.

Why do you think that? Donsig's has a vote for every JR, mine doesn't.

It's also a blatant appeal to mob rule.

Officials must plan and act according to the will of the people. The Judiciary should not be an exception, but they've had a free pass for 8 games in the Civ3/Civ4 series. We don't even have impeachment, which does exist in RL for judges.

Why create an amendment, when you can just create your own ruling!

Amendments are for changing the law. "Rulings by poll" are for when the law is correct and justice is blind.

Fun for all! (except the minority)

Well, we have ample evidence from this game that if the minority monopolizes the fun, the majority just pack their things and leave. Even then we don't end up with "fun for all", when the ones who are left don't have anyone to practice their brand of fun on.

 

[Black_Hole]

Why do you think that? Donsig's has a vote for every JR, mine doesn't.


Officials must plan and act according to the will of the people. The Judiciary should not be an exception, but they've had a free pass for 8 games in the Civ3/Civ4 series. We don't even have impeachment, which does exist in RL for judges.



Amendments are for changing the law. "Rulings by poll" are for when the law is correct and justice is blind.



Well, we have ample evidence from this game that if the minority monopolizes the fun, the majority just pack their things and leave. Even then we don't end up with "fun for all", when the ones who are left don't have anyone to practice their brand of fun on.

Real life impeachment for judges is phrased where they are only removed for high crimes, not because their rulings are disagreed with. Judges would still be subject to CCs, which is all we need for judges.

 

[donsig]

No, this setup would effectively eliminate the judiciary, and we don't want to go that far. We want a judiciary which functions normally, but which is required to rule correctly instead of being totally unchecked, all-knowing and all-powerful, like we have had at times in recent games.

The proposal for using an ititiative to overrule the judiciary is strictly that. I don't think we should replace the existing system, we should just add a way to fix a bad decision.

Well, DaveShack, you still don't get the point. You are so fixated on right versus wrong decisions that you forget there could very well be more than one reasonable interpretation of a law. Stop thinking like a hard-wired computer and think like a human being who has a brain that can make connections where none existed before. If there truly was always a right and wrong interpretation we wouldn't need a judiciary cause we'd all see the light in the same way and we'd all make the same interpretations.

While we might want a way to overturn an interpretation (short of an amendment) we also have to be sure we don't end up with a system of mob rule. This is a democracy game and by definition the majority should rule - but we have to be sure decisions are arrived at in such a way that the minority at least gets to speak and vote. And of course the problem is not when there is a small minority - the problems come when we are split 50-50 on a topic and each vote has the potential to tip the scales. Our whole ruleset (including the judiciary) is all about ensuring we make decisions in a fair way. If any of you really care about the drop off in participation I suggest you examine the decison making process and see just how unfair it has been. The more unfair it becomes, the more people we lose.

 

[DaveShack]

Well, DaveShack, you still don't get the point. You are so fixated on right versus wrong decisions that you forget there could very well be more than one reasonable interpretation of a law.

Hmm, thought I'd said I agree there can be more than one reasonable interpretation.

I've also said, a reasonable interpretation can also be wrong. If there are two (or more) reasonable interpretations, the right one is the one which the majority agrees with.

If any of you really care about the drop off in participation I suggest you examine the decison making process and see just how unfair it has been. The more unfair it becomes, the more people we lose.

Examples please? I know which things I consider unfair, but not what others might think.

 

[Black_Hole]

If what ever the majority agrees with is the correct interpretation, why do we need a court? We could just post a poll and ask what the majority thinks is correct. Of course this will anger the minority that likes to discuss legal matters, but who cares, they aren't the majority right?

 

[ravensfire]

Sweet! All I need, then, is to get a majority that thinks anything, say, Black Hole, does is illegal, and he's gone!

After all, the majority counts. Only the minority would be angered, but who cares, they aren't the majority, right?

Right?

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Examples please? I know which things I consider unfair, but not what others might think.

How about decisions made in the chat that run counter to decisons made inthe forum?

How about invalidating polls for various reasons (like it was a private poll)?

How about posting a poll with a short open time?

How about elected officials that think they can make whatever decision they want irregardless of what we want as a group?

What about elected officials that think only they can post polls about topics within their sphere?

Should I go on?

 

[DaveShack]

How about decisions made in the chat that run counter to decisons made inthe forum?

Simple to fix, if you see one, prosecute it. I'm not aware of any problems in the rules in this area, which is what we're discussing.

How about invalidating polls for various reasons (like it was a private poll)?

Invalidating polls was an individual's behavior, not a group decision. The people who were present at the time we decided to require public polls wanted all binding polls to be public that didn't have a reason to be private, i.e. about an individual. The use of the word "official' where "binding" was intended caused controversy, and hopefully that will be fixed in this game's rules.

How about posting a poll with a short open time?

I've said many times that I don't buy into the "intermittent citizen" model in the slightest. We each play at the activity level that we are capable of handling and willing to invest. You want the event horizon beyond your own personal activity level, but what's to say that someone like DZ who appears once every two months shouldn't have that right too? Should we leave all polls open for 14 days so that every single citizen can vote in them? Hint: we'd lose all of the short attention span folks if we ran things that way.

How about elected officials that think they can make whatever decision they want irregardless of what we want as a group?

The rules have never said they can do that. If we let them do it, then we're giving them permission to act that way. If we don't like it, then run a poll and CC if the official disregards the result.

Ironic coming from you, when "the JR" was all about what the group wanted vs. what the judiciary wanted (to prove to me that the other interpretation was "reasonable"). If you had bothered to read the discussion which led to the amendment in question, you would have known that the people wanted it to mean exactly the same interpretation that I was arguing for. 1st 3 days, can appoint only someone without an office, after 3 days can appoint someone who does have an office.

What about elected officials that think only they can post polls about topics within their sphere?

Some of us want to be polite to other officials and let them run their own department. Others of us want the lazy bums to get off their duff and do some work. Still others are afraid that if they do step outside their job description, legal action is sure to follow.

The cure for this is education and support. A little leadership by example would do wonders too.

Should I go on?

To be completely honest with you, I'd take anything which might help us get more people and keep them. Strider made the same sweeping generalization (figure it out and fix it) at the beginning of the last 3 games, but refused to pony up on examples. I'm very happy you're willing to discuss specifics. And please do counter if you don't agree with my assessment of these areas -- I can be convinced to change my mind, when the counter argument is rational.

 

[DaveShack]

If what ever the majority agrees with is the correct interpretation, why do we need a court? We could just post a poll and ask what the majority thinks is correct. Of course this will anger the minority that likes to discuss legal matters, but who cares, they aren't the majority right?

That's why my proposal is to keep the judiciary as is, and only use a poll as a last resort when the ruling is obviously inconsistent with what the people want the law to mean.