DG4 Discussion: Reforming the Judiciary

[Peri]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
What happens if somebody shows contempt for certain laws and standards, but is not blatantly trashing the game? Shouldn't it be up to the citizens to determine what happens to people like that? ...However, we need a method for dealing with people that violate laws without causing a blatant trashing of the game, and the citizens are the best enforcers of these rules. ...

Well if someone breaks the law, people are very quick to point this out. However if the poster is a habitual cheater then the mods will step in as that is what they are for. For example there were times when people actually broke the rules in the last game. However people posted that this was the case and in every circumstance I can remember the situation was sorted out without resorting to PI. In fact people said I dont want a PI but......
The real reason for calling a PI last game was to punish someone. That is a distraction from the game itself and should be avoided in our next DG.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Originally posted by Peri
Well if someone is just blatantly trashing the game then they are highly likely to get moderated. In the last game there were no PIs. This shows that for the most part we all just want to get on, play the game and have fun. I just want to put an end to the feeding frenzy that occurs everytime those two letters are mentioned.

There actually we two PIs(I believe), but the nothing could stick is because there were no laws in place.

So, we can either have a high-risk utopia(as we had in DG3) or a much safer game of check and balances. I opt for number two, and we are running out of time. I predict a very eventful Term 1 in the Judiciary.

As far as moderation goes, my philosophy is we let the game run its course based on its own laws. I have no desire to step in and alter a game because we refuse to write accountability into our ruleset. As far as I am concerned, the PI system stays, though maybe slightly altered.

Once again, it seems we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Since this has evolved into the Article F discussion, all we need to do at this time is determine who comprises our Judiciary. Do we keep the current roster, or do we do something different?

From the discussions to this point, it seems that a majority of us are content with the status quo(CJ, JA, PD). Therefore I suggest we go right to the ratification poll, if there very few objections.

Here is the Current Article F. I suggest leaving it unchanged.

F. The Judicial Branch will be formed of three leaders, one who is tasked with upholding
the laws (Judge Advocate), one who is tasked with defending the citizenry (Public
Defendant) and headed by the Chief Justice, who will have the power and authority of
both lower offices.

Proponents of a new judiciary system, please formulate and post a proposed Article that suits your needs. If there is no proposal, or an adequate discussion in progress, I will poll for ratification of the above in 48 hours.

 

[Cyc]

Status quo works for me. If we want to discuss changing the Judiciary system, we can do that during DGIV. I believe I said that very same thing at the begining of this thread.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I support the existing system.

To the issue of PI's being punative. As others have stated, that is a necessary event in some cases, though we have gone that route rarely. In a perfect world, PI's ask a question that needs to be solved in regards to a leader's actions compared to the laws. They are the people's check on their government.

In too many times though, PI's have been used as a instrument of attacking a leader, or between leaders, when there is a disagreement. Thus I am a big supporter of JA's who evaluate a situation and aren't afraid to say that nothing wrong occured.

 

[DaveShack]

I would support a trimmed-down version of this proposed poll posted by ravensfire, keeping the items in black and having the possibility of dropping the ones in blue.

Originally posted by ravensfire

• 3 Justices (Chief Justice, Judge Advocate, Public Defender) elected.
• 3 Justices (Chief Justice, 2 Associate Justices), 1 JA and 1 PD elected.
• 3 Justices (Chief Justice, 2 Associate Justices) elected. JA and PD appointed as needed from non-office holding citizens, process to be defined in CoL/CoS
• 3 Justices (Chief Justice, 2 Associate Justices) elected. JA appointed as needed from non-office holding citizens, process to be defined in CoL/CoS. Citizens may retain their own attorney as needed.
• Other (please specify)

Edit to add proposed alternative:

F. The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice and two Associate Justices. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.

 

[zorven]

posted by DaveShack
F. The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice and two Associate Justices. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.

I like the way this one is worded. And this wording would allow for us to specify in the CoL that the 2 Associate Justices fulfill the JA and PD functions or that seperate JA and PD are appointed.

 

[ravensfire]

As another option:

The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice and two Associate Justices. The Judiciary is responsible for resolving Questions of Law, Questions of Fact, ensuring fair elections and maintaining an accurate census. The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judiciary absent a legislated procedure.

It's pretty much the same as DaveShacks, just defines the duties a bit more. The final clause is also phrased to allow for a lower court to determine a procedure. Under the earlier wording, as the Chief Justice I would toss out any procedure legislated in the CoL as unconstitutional. This allows the CJ to handle any unforeseen situation, but allows the Legislature to pass procedures as needed.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

On the subject of PI's - we are far too often concerned with Justice, defined as punishment for the guilty. We need to refocus our intent on Justice, defined as the mitigation of harm.

I keep thinking we are supposed to be a group of friends, gathering to play a game in a unique format. We don't always agree with each other, and sometimes get downright unhappy. But friends work problems out, and not by starting at the most severe punishment.

Once it has been determined that an action has been done that violates a law, the first thing that ought to happen to determine if there is a way to mitigate the harm. If there is, do that action and drop the case!

Now, some will say that this means the guilty get off without punishment! Yeah - so? That person is theoretically my friend. Last time I checked, I make mistakes. My first session in fact I managed to screw up more than one build queue. This was pointed out to me in a (mostly) polite manner, and I fixed the problem.

Not all problems can be totally undone, true. Most can, and many of the ones that cannot be totally undone can be mitigated to a large extent. ANY complaint the Judiciary has needs to be evaluated with that in mind.

Some will also say, well, but what about the repeat offenders! What about people that just don't care! Fire 'em! Ban 'em!

Ahh, so you want to get rid of the person that the People elected, eh? Surely a mistake was made to elect such a person, right? Or maybe, just maybe, the People didn't do their job in the election. They voted for a person because they liked that person, and felt they were "due" the position. Such a lovely reason - really. What about ability? Skill in the game? Knowledge of the position? Organizational ability? Communication skills?

Ah, but that doesn't matter - we're talking about that repeat offender that just won't learn their lesson!

And you are right, it's a genuine potential problem. And I fully expect the Judiciary, if the same person keeps doing the same, or similar action, to takes steps towards handling that. What steps - probably taking the case to a full trial and going for larger sanctions.

The past PI's have been nothing more than a disruptive mess that causes discord, resentment and anger. It should be means to point out a problem that a leader will not correct on their own. It should not be the first place to air issues.

Okay, off the soapbox - sorry for the vent.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Peri]

We need a new PI system which focuses on mitigating the harm done rather than lynching the accused. I completely agree with Ravensfire's position on this matter.

 

[Cyc]

I'm all for it too. But in the case of Chieftess ignoring posts and pleas from Mayors and Governors through two consecutive DG's (and no one having the guts to do anything about it), a PI was the only way to go about seeking any recourse. Her playing skills were very adequate (especially with her Chieftain RNG), and her t/c manner was fine, so Chieftess was very popular. But ignoring officials under her was a disgrace to the Office of the President.

If the concerns of the lower officials had been taken care of because of the PI, that would have been fine. But she claimed she had done nothing wrong and still did not address the problems. THIS is what caused the major rukus back in DG2. This type of situation needs to be addressed. If a person with major political power is hurting the nation by ignoring the citizens, then there has to be some way of leveling the playing field. If mitigation of harm does not have the effect it should, then more forceful tactics are required.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
I'm all for it too. But in the case of Chieftess ignoring posts and pleas from Mayors and Governors through two consecutive DG's (and no one having the guts to do anything about it), a PI was the only way to go about seeking any recourse. Her playing skills were very adequate (especially with her Chieftain RNG), and her t/c manner was fine, so Chieftess was very popular. But ignoring officials under her was a disgrace to the Office of the President.

That is the very situation that would have been helped if the judiciary had the ability to post game play instructions. If the mayors and governors had a solid case they could have gone to the judiciary and if the judiciary found for the mayors and governors then the judiciary could have posted specific instructions. If the judicial instructions were ignored then there is a clear case that the law is broken, right? This case also illustrates why I think the judiciary should be given the authority (in very specific instances) to post actual game play instructions rather than just directing a recalcitrant official to post the *correct* order. Anyone who ignores those in another office may well ignore the judiciary as well!

Status qou is goo for me and I like DaveShack's wording for the article.

 

[ravensfire]

donsig,

You know, I'm starting to actually come around to your viewpoint. Under certain, specific circumstances, the Judiciary ought to be able to post legal instructions that override any contradictory instructions. I would even go so far to say that the DP ignoring those instructions should do so at the risk not of a Complaint, but a more severe sanction, perhaps a suspension from DP duties for the next turn, or even that game session being ignored and replayed with a new DP.

With any luck, Judicial Instructions will be rare at most (hopefully unseen!), so the DP should be absolutely aware of them, and ignore them at great risk. Let's actually create a immediate, automatic, and specific penalty for such an action. Ignorance should NOT be an excuse for failing to carry out these instructions.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Donovan Zoi]

My apologies to Ravensfire, but I have posted DaveShack's recent version of Article F for ratification as it seemed to have the most support:

Ratification Poll for Constitutional Article F