Judicial Discussion JR1 CoL Ratification Poll legality

[DaveShack]

If an initiative supercedes *any other decision type* and a binding poll has precedence over *any other decision type* then I'm at a loss to tell which is higher in the hierarchy.

Read this as an if-then-else, top down. The first condition that a given decision matches places it in the hierarchy.

• An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier initiative on the same subject) except another later initiative which repeals it.
• Binding polls of any type have precedence over any other decision type.
• Non-binding polls have precedence over non-polling decision types.
• Citizen input has precedence over mandate.
• If two or more polls or discussions occur on a matter, the last one to complete shall prevail.

So if poll A is an initiative and poll B is a referendum, then poll A wins. Furthermore, the decision of poll A has the force of law and persists, even in the face of other decisions on the same subject, until another initiative supercedes it.

If decision S is made by a binding poll, while decision T is made by an official exercizing her mandate from the people, then S wins and T is discarded. S can be further superceded by another binding poll. Once conditions change, the next decision is no longer on the same topic, and an official is now free to exercize her mandate over an area.

If an official makes a decision, and gets citizen input which clearly favors another single course of action, the official must allow that citizen input to supercede the decision. However if there is citizen input on both sides of a question and the official merely chooses one side based on an impression of which side is stronger, they drop into a gray area where a poll should be taken. If the official decides not to have a poll, they open themselves to complaints from the citizens whose input is not heard.

Since analogies have been popular in this thread I'd say asking which is *higher* is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. As I said before, conflict within the constitution allows us to delve into the intent behind what is written. Did the framers intend for initiatives to win in conflicts with binding polls? Are initiatives assumed to always be binding polls? In other words, all initiatives are binding polls but all binding polls are not initiatives?

Yes, yes, yes.

Donovan_Zoi did some good research on binding polls in the Constitutional debates and came up with this:
...

SO, now that we're delving into the murky world of intent we have a can of worms opened. This quote has greatly impacted my thinking on this JR. The informed majority phrase sheds a whole new light on this problem. Given the fraudulent nature of the first polls can we say the majority of those voting in the ratification poll was informed? If not, then how does that affect the *bindingness* (to coin a phrase) of the ratification poll? Were the terms *binding* and *non-binding* meant to be applied only to things pertaining to game play or to demogame gameplay as well?

Here are some clarifying questions to ask yourself. Don't forget to think about timeframe.

• Did the people know what effect the ratification vote would have?
• Did those who disagreed with the content which was being ratified have a chance to register their disagreement?
• Was the thing which was ratified the same thing which was previously polled, or was it changed? Who participated in those changes?
• Was the information presented to the people by the person who opened the poll correct, at that time, in the eyes of the person who opened the poll and in the eyes of the people?

 

[DaveShack]

Here are some clarifying questions to ask yourself. Don't forget to think about timeframe.

• Did the people know what effect the ratification vote would have?
• Did those who disagreed with the content which was being ratified have a chance to register their disagreement?
• Was the thing which was ratified the same thing which was previously polled, or was it changed? Who participated in those changes?
• Was the information presented to the people by the person who opened the poll correct, at that time, in the eyes of the person who opened the poll and in the eyes of the people?

I shall now answer my own homework. This post is evidence, not an opinion on the case.

• Darn right they did. I don't think there is any way to challenge the idea that most of the people who vote in a ratification poll know that what they are ratifying will become the laws of the game.
• Many of them had already registered their disagreement, by voting for another option, and by making comments in the seemingly dozens of threads on the subject. (We can have someone count if necessary) Anyone could vote no in the poll. I was actually expecting as many as 25% or more no votes.
• The flex vs tri runoff poll had tri 5.x as its base. Tri 6.2 was polled in the ratification, therefore it obviously changed. There were a lot of comments in the Tri 6.0 thread. At least two members of this court commented on those changes, and for the most part everthing we asked to be changed was changed.
• I opened the ratification poll. At that time, I had absolutely no clue that anything was amiss, and neither did the people voting in the poll, except for the votes which were excluded during the DL analysis. What we knew at that time was that the ruleset we were ratifying had been chosen.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

DZ, thanks for digging up that quote. I was planning to go look for it after getting the kids into bed, but you beat me to it.

Did you add the bold on informed majority or was that in the original thread? If you bolded it, you picked exactly what words I was planning to use for the answer to Donsig's question in this thread.

Dave, the bolding was yours ( I know I lean on that tactic a bit, but I always try to avoid doing so to other peoples' work. )

With a long workday ahead, I feel that this will be the last contribution I will be able to make to all discussions before they close. I would like to thank the Judiciary for their time and dedication during this historic period.

 

[donsig]

Questions from the bench:

If an initiative has force of law then how specific must an initiative poll be in order for it to be considered a true initiative? How does the wording of a poll affect its stature as an initiative or opinion poll? If I'm a warmonger and I post a poll asking Should we attack someone? can that be considered an initiative? (Note the someone is intentional - I'm a warmonger I just want war, I don't care who the victim is.) Or do I have to specify a target and a date for implementation (such as Should we declare war on Ceasar and the Romans on 1000 BC?) in order for my poll to be considered an initiative? What if my poll asked Do you want to attack someone? Initiative or opinion poll?

 

[Black_Hole]

I don't think you can say the people voting in the ratifacation poll were informed, since the last two polls contained fraud! The people were informed that triumvirate was the what the citizenry wanted and that information was wrong.

 

[ravensfire]

I don't think you can say the people voting in the ratifacation poll were informed, since the last two polls contained fraud! The people were informed that triumvirate was the what the citizenry wanted and that information was wrong.

I'll use a phrase that's currently in my working papers on this.

Does it matter that the citizens acted in "good faith" in all three polls, without knowing that the first two were fraudulent?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[ravensfire]

Under normal circumstances, I'd just give an answer and move on, but it's necessary in this case to try to convince the Judge Advocate and Public Defender that a particular kind of ruling is the right answer (in my opinion), without coming right out and telling them what that answer should be. Of course we're each quite capable of deciding for ourselves but we don't want to have three different opinions, so we're cautiously feeling each other out.

And of course, it's really all three of us are trying to influence each other. There's several right ways to rule, and quite a few wrong ways to rule, when looking at what precedents can be set from this ruling. There's some ugly things that can be set from this.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[Blkbird]

Questions from the bench:

If an initiative has force of law then how specific must an initiative poll be in order for it to be considered a true initiative? How does the wording of a poll affect its stature as an initiative or opinion poll? If I'm a warmonger and I post a poll asking Should we attack someone? can that be considered an initiative? (Note the someone is intentional - I'm a warmonger I just want war, I don't care who the victim is.) Or do I have to specify a target and a date for implementation (such as Should we declare war on Ceasar and the Romans on 1000 BC?) in order for my poll to be considered an initiative? What if my poll asked Do you want to attack someone? Initiative or opinion poll?

I'm not the Bench. But I'd like to answer anyway. Your example cannot be an Initiative as an Initiative doesn't deal with one-time matters. It "has force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type". Obviously we aren't going to war forever just because we go to war now - that'd be extreme even for a warmonger.

 

[ravensfire]

I almost think we could have an entire thread on the various types of polls. Respectfully, I'm beginning to feel that there are a few too many gray area in that section of the Constitution.

My question - what is the difference between a Referendum, and an Initiative? What langauge should be present to distinguish between the two?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[ravensfire]

On a more general note, the tradition is clearly that polls are binding unless there is some attribute of the poll which makes it non-binding. Being explicitly marked unofficial, informational, or non-binding, having no significant discussion, being posted as a flagrant means of challenging a previous decision, and obvious attemts by one official to undermine another official's agenda are things which might cause a poll to be considered non-binding.

(Please focus on the bolded section - full quote given for context)

This is explicitly allowed by the Constitution, with no further restrictions on it. Neither ruleset proposed (Tri or Flex) limits this either. With perfect hindsight, the Ratification poll for the Triumverate does exactly that - it's a flagrant means of challenging the true and correct results of the Ruleset selection poll. Taking your statement at face value would yield strong consideration that make the Ratification poll non-binding.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[Blkbird]

Even if the ratification poll is non-binding (which might well be the case, I feel), it still has legal significance (and is therefore effective) until it is overridden by a binding poll. And from the point on when the ratification is done, an override is no longer that easy as the legal frame has been extended by the CoL. In other words, the very fact that the poll was a CoL ratification makes it pretty much irrelevant if it was technically binding or not.

 

[Black_Hole]

Even if the ratification poll is non-binding (which might well be the case, I feel), it still has legal significance (and is therefore effective) until it is overridden by a binding poll. And from the point on when the ratification is done, an override is no longer that easy as the legal frame has been extended by the CoL. In other words, the very fact that the poll was a CoL ratification makes it pretty much irrelevant if it was technically binding or not.

but, if the ratifacation poll isn't binding, but the other polls (ruleset selection polls) are binding, then the ratifacation poll cannot override the other polls

 

[ravensfire]

Thus, we're getting to where one of my major questions lies - are decisions, made in good faith but corrupted by a deliberate misdeed or accidental error, still enforceable?

If not, how far back should one go to correct that error? Does it matter if a subsequent decisions, dependant on the bad decision, is made?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[trundle]

[*]Darn right they did. I don't think there is any way to challenge the idea that most of the people who vote in a ratification poll know that what they are ratifying will become the laws of the game.

As a citizen, I must respectfully disagree with this opinion.

While those of us who participated in the ratification were aware of the potential impact of a "Yes" vote, we were also deliberately misled as to the circumstances leading up to that vote. Many of us wanted the Demo Game to begin, and as such were willing to submit to the will of the majority. Even a CoL we disagree with in part is better than no CoL at all. Only it turns out that the will of the majority was not, in fact, what we believed.

To continue with the analogies, suppose that we are 50 turns into the game and a DP fakes a screenshot of Napoleon insulting our nation. As a result, the Secretary of War posts a poll and we decide to declare war. But prior to that decision having any significant impact on the game, the fraud is discovered. Shouldn't the citizenry be allowed a chance to revisit their decision?

In my opinion, it is only partially relevant that we think we know the potential impact of a poll. We may know a war with Napoleon will be costly, but we have been misled as to the motivating factors for accepting that burden. A decision is based at least as much on the circumstances leading up to it as it based on what we expect as a result.

At this point, the only impact caused by the vote is lost time. This, in my mind, is not significant enough to warrant ignoring that it was founded on fraud.

 

[Blkbird]

At this point, the only impact caused by the vote is lost time. This, in my mind, is not significant enough to warrant ignoring that it was founded on fraud.

Time AND effort. A lot of effort. By many people.

Time is not equal time, the time you speak of has not been idled away. We lose not just time, but a lot of valueable work that has already been done which does not have to be wasted.

 

[Black_Hole]

Time AND effort. A lot of effort. By many people.

Time is not equal time, the time you speak of has not been idled away. We lose not just time, but a lot of valueable work that has already been done which does not have to be wasted.

this argument can go both ways
because of the fraud, people working on the flexible government have lost lots of time and effort

 

[Swissempire]

To continue with the analogies, suppose that we are 50 turns into the game and a DP fakes a screenshot of Napoleon insulting our nation. As a result, the Secretary of War posts a poll and we decide to declare war. But prior to that decision having any significant impact on the game, the fraud is discovered. Shouldn't the citizenry be allowed a chance to revisit their decision?

In my opinion, it is only partially relevant that we think we know the potential impact of a poll. We may know a war with Napoleon will be costly, but we have been misled as to the motivating factors for accepting that burden. A decision is based at least as much on the circumstances leading up to it as it based on what we expect as a result.

At this point, the only impact caused by the vote is lost time. This, in my mind, is not significant enough to warrant ignoring that it was founded on fraud.

Wow, ok.

a) Are you saying that throwing out our code of laws, the elections, and conquently make many people vacate offices that they have lobbied for and set up is not a significant impact?!!!

b) How has the Triumvirate been costly?

c) Are you saying that time and progress made in it are not significant impacts?!

An ok analogy, but doesn't apply well to this situation. I also feel you overlook a ton!

 

[Black_Hole]

Wow, ok.

a) Are you saying that throwing out our code of laws, the elections, and conquently make many people vacate offices that they have lobbied for and set up is not a significant impact?!!!

b) How has the Triumvirate been costly?

c) Are you saying that time and progress made in it are not significant impacts?!

An ok analogy, but doesn't apply well to this situation. I also feel you overlook a ton!

a) In all reality, we won't get the new CoL up until about Feb.1, and new offices would be in anways

b) The people didn't want it

c) How about time and progress spent on the Flexible, wasted because of fraud?

 

[Swissempire]

a) In all reality, we won't get the new CoL up until about Feb.1, and new offices would be in anways
b) The people didn't want it

c) How about time and progress spent on the Flexible, wasted because of fraud?

a) Doesn't really answer the question, but there is more time and effort, and work, wasted again by throwing out the old and then waiting ANOTHER MONTH at least to being to discuss starting the demogame!.

b) The majority didn't want it but after ratifing it, they flourished and set up the foundations of a good demogaame. Now we are letting this scandal tear all our work down. I think the costs of a redo out weigh the costs of people orgiannly not likeing, but then adaoting themselves and it!

c) Much more time and work went into they tri, before and after, then the Tri was instated, set up, and had begun functioning, so again this is much more significant.

 

[Black_Hole]

a) Doesn't really answer the question, but there is more time and effort, and work, wasted again by throwing out the old and then waiting ANOTHER MONTH at least to being to discuss starting the demogame!.

b) The majority didn't want it but after ratifing it, they flourished and set up the foundations of a good demogaame. Now we are letting this scandal tear all our work down. I think the costs of a redo out weigh the costs of people orgiannly not likeing, but then adaoting themselves and it!

c) Much more time and work went into they tri, before and after, then the Tri was instated, set up, and had begun functioning, so again this is much more significant.

First off "and had begun functioning" & "they flourished and set up the foundations of a good demogaame", we haven't even played the game, so I don't think you can saw the Triumvirate has been functioning or flourishing

a) if we went with Flexible we could start by Feb. 1...

b) This is being discussed in this thread, but all of your posts idolize the Triumbirate and don't give any legal arguments

c) Maybe, maybe not, we don't know how much time authors have spent on Constitutions, just because the Triumvirate had more revisions doesn't mean less time or effort was spent on it