Investigation Thread ~ The People vs Chieftess

[Provolution]

Yeah, I really do not understand the motivation of Strider, such overzealous defense backfires. I think the best CT can get is a little reprimande and go on.

 

[KCCrusader]

With little contact with CT and little presence here, I will admit I have been able to put together only a weak defence. Quite frankly, I feel that no defense is needed. Does the evidence presented (the same logs I have searched and searched through for any other words regarding this topic) suggest that the President indeed violated the wishes of the noble Advisor in her actions? It would appear so. But I must point out that fact that there were also several other citizens, mostly government officials present in the chat as well. Where were there voices? I'm almost certain at least one had to have read and had some idea of the wishes of the advisors. Why did they remain silent?

If you have visited a turn chat thread created since this mishap, you will notice Chieftess puts a new disclaimer requesting all instructions be CLEARLY posted. This is obviously so that she does not make this mistake again!

In all does Chieftess admit she made a mistake? Yes. But take a careful observation of the situation, the repercussions and the obvious attempt to prevent a further mistake from happening.
Finally, take a second to reconsider the responsibility of each advisor. How can one be truly in connection and in control of their respective departments when they fail to show up in a timely fashion, or at least have a representative available in the turnchat to followup on their wishes?

While I still advocate a Not Guilty verdict based on the lack of severity of this crime, I recognize the ovewhelming odds in this sentencing and the preliminary results of the sentencing poll. I would strongly reccomend a "No punishment" ruling in the case of a misjudgement of Guilty. Chieftess does not have some kid of agenda to accomplish. She made a mistake in not recognizing the instruction. She admits. But can "guilt" be subscribed to a human error? In real world courts it may, but i suggest rethinking the philosophy in the case of this game, in which we are all trying to work together.

P.S: The blatant ways in which this case has violated the posted judicial proceedings is also overwhelming. I almost want to advocate passing these into law so that this travesty (lack of defence in my part on the first or second post due to the fact that the trial post was locked when i arrived to post opening defense and open to the public only 24 hours later). I will save this for a later discussion.

 

[donsig]

Does the evidence presented (the same logs I have searched and searched through ... But I must point out that fact that there were also several other citizens, mostly government officials present in the chat as well. Where were there voices? I'm almost certain at least one had to have read and had some idea of the wishes of the advisors. Why did they remain silent?

If you have visited a turn chat thread created since this mishap, you will notice Chieftess puts a new disclaimer requesting all instructions be CLEARLY posted. This is obviously so that she does not make this mistake again!

... Finally, take a second to reconsider the responsibility of each advisor. How can one be truly in connection and in control of their respective departments when they fail to show up in a timely fashion, or at least have a representative available in the turnchat to followup on their wishes?

Nothing that happened (or did not happen) at the chat is relevant to the case. Leaders post game play instructions and the DP follows them. Once the DP starts disregarding legally posted instructions (with or without the consent of those at the chat) then we have a despogame instead of a demogame. We, the people, can only hope to retain our control if we demand the DP follows posted instructions and demand that those leaders we elected to post said instructions follow our will as best they can when doing so. These are two of the pillars the demogame rests on (along with free, fair elections and an equal distribution of power). All four of these pillars have been threatened for a long time.

If the demogame series is to remain viable (i.e., if anyone wants to keep enough people interested in this type of game) then these four pillars have to be recognised and re-strengthed. The time to do so is now by looking at what happened here and focusing on those pillars and not the personaliities involved. Look at what happened in order to find the weaknesses in the system and ways to improve it.

Do not be afraid to stand up and say, "Ms. President, we love you but what you did was wrong. We sympathize with your desire to lead our country to greatness but you must do so within the framework of our constitution. No matter how much it goes against your personal judgement you must follow the instructions posted by our elected leaders. You cannot continue to change build queues at your whim. There are better ways to achieve your goals. Tells us which leaders or governors are posting build queues that are not up to your standards. Tell us when instructions are not posted early enough for you to check on them and point out problems you see. Tell us and we will go to them and demand things be set right. If they then refuse it will be them and not you under investigation. And always remember you have the ultimate power as President to halt play. Use it. Stop play if you come across a bad instruction. Halt play and bring the problem to the attention of the forum. In doing so you will not be over stepping your authority as you do when you unilaterally change build queues."

 

[Sir Donald III]

... But I must point out that fact that there were also several other citizens, mostly government officials present in the chat as well. Where were there voices? I'm almost certain at least one had to have read and had some idea of the wishes of the advisors. Why did they remain silent?

Because Chieftess made her decisions in almost split-second timing. It appears to me, that she thinks that the DP has ultimate authority in grey areas, such as tied polls. However, it also seems to me that she does this by presumption of the extent of her authority, rather then malice against her Ministers. (Note that I chose my wording avoiding charging her with an outright denial of Ministerial Preogative, as established in DG5JR9.)

Finally, take a second to reconsider the responsibility of each advisor. How can one be truly in connection and in control of their respective departments when they fail to show up in a timely fashion, or at least have a representative available in the turnchat to followup on their wishes?

I would like to ask the Public Defender, therefore, "What is the purpose of the TurnChat Instruction Thread?"

If it really is necessary to have the Ministers or represenatives thereof at the TC, then could they not then present their instructions at the Chat itself, rather than having to post instructions in a thread, which could be changed up to probably 1/2 hour before "Go" time?

As I understood it, the TCIT was the "official record", and not merely a "formality" or a "failsafe". (In fact, Ministerial Presence at the TC seems more to me the "failsafe".)

And I also ask this in response: "How can one be truly in connection and in control of their respective departments when the President makes snap decisions without even an apparetn thought to contact the relevant Minister/Governor?"

(Now, if a Minister is not present at a TC nor has a represenative there, then the President, as DP, does indeed have preogative. But the proper "Chain of Command" must be folowed. Minister/Governor whose Domain is covered first, then the DP.)

While I still advocate a Not Guilty verdict based on the lack of severity of this crime, I recognize the ovewhelming odds in this sentencing and the preliminary results of the sentencing poll. I would strongly reccomend a "No punishment" ruling in the case of a misjudgement of Guilty. Chieftess does not have some kid of agenda to accomplish. She made a mistake in not recognizing the instruction. She admits. But can "guilt" be subscribed to a human error? In real world courts it may, but i suggest rethinking the philosophy in the case of this game, in which we are all trying to work together.

I would like at this point to say that I voted Guilty in the original Poll. But this was not because she built a Swordsman rather than a Collesium. For that particular, I do have Reasonable Doubt. (Which is why I didn't file my own CC for not following the "Sea Lane".)

What is beyond a reasonable doubt to me is that (in my opinion) she didn't allow Snipelfritz (who was at the chat) a chance to break a tie in a poll under his jurisduiction (i.e. whether to stop the Pre-Builds at all.)

But, again, I do not believe that she acted in Malice at all. Thus, I would've thought that a censure would've been appropriate, but not at a level of an ultimatium. More like a "Please kindly remove your forces from my 3rd level expanded territories," rather than a "You're getting close to my cities. Leave now."

And if the PD feels that a separate Charge would have to be presented before the Judiciary for what I voted Guilty on, rather than what the PD seems to be Defending, then I will do it. (Probably Sunday, since I see myself at work all of tommorow...) Article D covered both items, in my opinion.

P.S: The blatant ways in which this case has violated the posted judicial proceedings is also overwhelming. I almost want to advocate passing these into law so that this travesty (lack of defence in my part on the first or second post due to the fact that the trial post was locked when i arrived to post opening defense and open to the public only 24 hours later). I will save this for a later discussion.

Now here, I am in total agreement with you. In fact, I attempted to file a blanket CC against anyone who preempted you and Chieftess in that First Thread. This potential CC would have included 1 Moderator. The Chief Justice at the time dismissed the CC request since the "Guide" did not have the weight of law. I join you in asking "What good are unenforcible procedures?"