DGVI Approval Poll - Citizen's Rights

[Furiey]

Going from memory (and I'm not far off you DaveShack so we know what that means) I think in effect the "seek" bit was added, the reasoning being without it all grievances would have to be redressed eg:

it if 2 citizens had grievances against each other only one would have them redressed to their satisfaction therefore the rights of the other would have been violated,

if someone had an unreasonable/invalid grievance - their rights would be violated if that was not redressed.​

The seek to bit was put in to allow everyone the right to get their greivances addressed, but not guarantee a favourable outcome.

 

[eyrei]

My point is really that the wording, while sounding good, has always reminded me of people throwing down a gauntlet to challenge someone to a duel, a very personal thing. The goal of the law (or right) is to make sure that the government does not run away with the game leaving the citizens in the dust, not to allow people to challenge each other to a rhetorical duel.

Change the wording to something less dramatic and personal, move it to another section with the wording changed, I don't care. Just heed the bolded text above. If it will make it easier, go ahead and ratify this article and then I'll change it, and post a simple poll regarding your acceptance of my change.

 

[ravensfire]

Okay, I understand what you're looking for, I'm just not sure of the best way to handle it.

For reference, DG 2 was "the right to demand satisfaction", so we've gotten a bit better than that.

How about "the right to request an investigation into possible violations of law"?

-- Ravensfire

 

[eyrei]

Okay, I understand what you're looking for, I'm just not sure of the best way to handle it.

For reference, DG 2 was "the right to demand satisfaction", so we've gotten a bit better than that.

How about "the right to request an investigation into possible violations of law"?

-- Ravensfire

That's probably why I have always gotten that impression...

Your suggestion for alternative wording is fine with me.

 

[DaveShack]

The "right to demand satisfaction" and "right to redress grievances" language was probably written that way to leave open the possibility of "civil" action vs. "criminal" action. Player A can infringe player B's rights without actually breaking a law, for example suppose player B is domestic leader, and player A repeatedly opens polls to try to overturn player B's instructions. There is nothing illegal here, but it's clearly something which needs to be stopped. Likewise, a leader can legally infringe a citizens rights by refusing to poll something with vocal opposition by saying "you're just one voice and I don't want to listen."

Unfortunately I have to agree that most DG legal action is started because it targets the player and not the action.