Judicial Discussion JR1 CoL Ratification Poll legality

[Blkbird]

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

Sorry, but given that it wasn't even worked out, the time and effect spent on Flex is in no comparision with the time and effort spent on working out and ratifying the Tri, electing officials and starting governmental business.

And the most important thing: The time and effort spent on Flex are not going to be wasted in any way. We will be merging out CoL to Flex, that is almost certain.

And seriously, please stop repeating the "Feb. 1" myth - yes, that's what it is. I can't even remember how often I've debunked the totally unfounded claim that the game will "have to wait till Feb. 1 anyway". Repeating it any time you can doesn't make it true.

 

[Black_Hole]

Sorry, but given that it wasn't even worked out, the time and effect spent on Flex is in no comparision with the time and effort spent on working out and ratifying the Tri, electing officials and starting governmental business.

And the most important thing: The time and effort spent on Flex are not going to be wasted in any way. We will be merging out CoL to Flex, that is almost certain.

And seriously, please stop repeating the "Feb. 1" myth - yes, that's what it is. I can't even remember how often I've debunked the totally unfounded claim that the game will "have to wait till Feb. 1 anyway".

1. Have you viewed this thread?
There are three flexible government drafts, so to say its not worked out is completely false

2. When have you debunked that claim? All I am claiming is we can have flexible up by Feb. 1, in time to have a full term... We already have flexible government proposals, so I think it would take no more than 10 days to fix up flexible and ratify it

 

[trundle]

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) No; I'm saying that the ratification of the Triumverate has not had a significant impact to date in terms of the game. We have elected officials, but those officials have not been able to exercise any powers.

b) Every decision comes with a cost. Certainly, reversing the ratification and/or adopting Flex would come with a cost as well. The question at hand is whether or not the citizenry had enough access to information to make an informed decision about whether or not said cost was worth it.

c) This point is very unclear. Could you please clarify? What do you mean by "progress made in it"?

 

[DaveShack]

Please note that the opinion poll on Triumvirate vs Flexible is closing just about now. The court might take note of the vote -- or it might not. In either case, we're well aware of the heavy burden of this decision given the cost to our society in terms of time lost, the potential for further delay, and potential for eroding long-standing demogame values.

 

[trundle]

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.

How is any of that effort lost?

If effort went into cleaning up the Triumverate CoL and making it a better system, all that effort would still be preserved if and when it faced another ratification vote. Any improvements are still intact. None of us hold the power to rewind time and undo them, even if I did advocate such a position.

I do acknowledge that most (not all) of the effort tied to the elections would be in vain, but I still do not believe that this is a significant impact.

The simple fact is that consent predicated on fraud is not consent. I will ultimately defer to the opinions of the Justices here, but I believe that there is plenty of precedent in modern legal systems to support this position whether or not there is specific mention of it in the DG Constitution.

 

[trundle]

Sorry, but given that it wasn't even worked out, the time and effect spent on Flex is in no comparision with the time and effort spent on working out and ratifying the Tri, electing officials and starting governmental business.

And the most important thing: The time and effort spent on Flex are not going to be wasted in any way. We will be merging out CoL to Flex, that is almost certain.

Blkbird, the exact same thing is true of any effort spent working out the Triumverate. None of that effort is lost is we are to repeat the ratification process.

The only effort that will be lost is any which occurred after the ratification process. While I do acknowledge that many participants put hard work into their election campaigns, I do not believe that their work is significant enough to warrant allowing poll results to stand that are the direct result of a defrauded citizenry.

 

[Blkbird]

1. Have you viewed this thread?
There are three flexible government drafts, so to say its not worked out is completely false

Have you? If you have, you should see that I'm the last one who posted a length comment to it. So I know what's going on there, and NO, it's not "worked out" - as "in ready to be ratified".

2. When have you debunked that claim? All I am claiming is we can have flexible up by Feb. 1, in time to have a full term... We already have flexible government proposals, so I think it would take no more than 10 days to fix up flexible and ratify it

For the last time: We don't have to wait until Feb. 1 to start the game. We can start right this weekend, if this JR request in decided to my favour. And I'd like to see the game start this weekend, not Feb. 1.

 

[Swissempire]

How is any of that effort lost?

If effort went into cleaning up the Triumverate CoL and making it a better system, all that effort would still be preserved if and when it faced another ratification vote. Any improvements are still intact. None of us hold the power to rewind time and undo them, even if I did advocate such a position.

I do acknowledge that most (not all) of the effort tied to the elections would be in vain, but I still do not believe that this is a significant impact.

The simple fact is that consent predicated on fraud is not consent. I will ultimately defer to the opinions of the Justices here, but I believe that there is plenty of precedent in modern legal systems to support this position whether or not there is specific mention of it in the DG Constitution.

So your saying the the countless days of campainging, voting, and then setting of threads and hard-coding of websites, thats not significant? ok then. Also the people knew they ratified the Tri, and if they really really didn't want it they would have voted no! or at least the majority. The people who voted yes either agreed with the tri, or didn't feel that the slight difference would be the be all, end all of the demogame.

 

[Blkbird]

We are getting more and more off-topic here, in my opinion. We're trying to find out what is legal and what not, not what is more or less beneficial.

 

[ravensfire]

I certainly know how much work I put into my version of the Flex system. The initial one didn't take much, but it's been tweaked quite a bit, and has gotten some work of late to post to that thread.

I also know how much work and effort that I put into what I thought was the choice of the people was actually wasted. That, more than anything else, has gotten me upset. I've got quite a few PM's from AW asking for advice, suggestions and comments. To find that was all the product of a fraud he was involved in is quite upsetting. I consider all of that time wasted.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Blkbird]

To find that was all the product of a fraud he was involved in is quite upsetting.

Supposedly involved in. Don't forget you are the Public Defender and evtl. will be tasked defending him. This line of yours would have prettey devastating effect then.

 

[ravensfire]

Supposedly involved in. Don't forget you are the Public Defender and evtl. will be tasked defending him. This line of yours would have prettey devastating effect then.

Seperate personal beliefs from elected duties - it's pretty easy to do.

I'm somewhat expecting a case to happen, and have already prepared a few things.

Sheesh - relax, will ya?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[Swissempire]

I personally beleive we should avoid a trial, as this "scandal" has caused enough problems. I beleive that the other 11(or is it 10?) accounts should be banned, and Alphawolf (the login and the man) should be granted a presidential pardon. He is a valuable member, though his actions were "corrupt". If he comes back he would be an asset to the community once again, and this could be a lesson for all, not just a black mark on our fledgling history.

 

[Blkbird]

If he comes back he would be an asset to the community once again, and this could be a lesson for all, not just a black mark on our fledgling history.

I'm afraid that position of yours won't get majority support among the people.

But, we're getting OT again.

 

[GeorgeOP]

Supposedly involved in. Don't forget you are the Public Defender and evtl. will be tasked defending him. This line of yours would be prettey bad evidance then.

Won't there be a conflict of interest in having the estemed Public Defender defend AlphaWolf? Ravensfire was the prime leader for the side opposite AlphaWolf. If Ravensfire doesn't want to defend him, does he have the right to ask for someone to step up and volunteer to defend AlphaWolf? Article F, Section 4, subsection b. of the Constitution reads, "The Public Defender will act as council to an accused citizen, if the accused citizen wishes." My humble oppinion is that anyone can defend him in court, but Ravensfire has to do it if no one else will. I'm sure if the court asked, someone would be willing to step up and do it to avoid a conflict of interest. (wink, wink)

edit: I don't see anything in the Constitution granting the power of pardon to the President. Of course, the courts don't have to charge AW with anything. Also, being the current President, can he be tried in court at all?

 

[ravensfire]

Won't there be a conflict of interest in having the estemed Public Defender defend AlphaWolf? Ravensfire was the prime leader for the side opposite AlphaWolf. If Ravensfire doesn't want to defend him, does he have the right to ask for someone to step up and volunteer to defend AlphaWolf? Article F, Section 4, subsection b. of the Constitution reads, "The Public Defender will act as council to an accused citizen, if the accused citizen wishes." My humble oppinion is that anyone can defend him in court, but Ravensfire has to do it if no one else will. I'm sure if the court asked, someone would be willing to step up and do it to avoid a conflict of interest. (wink, wink)

Couple of points - first, I'm not allowed to *NOT* want to defend him. That's my job - to defend all citizens in a trial unless they ask me not to. My personal beliefs and feelings are of no importance - I'm there to safeguard their rights and present a vigorous defense.

Any Public Defender that refuses to defend someone should be removed from office, except, of course, we can't do that.

And I assure you, I've done it before, and have no qualms about doing it again.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[ravensfire]

edit: I don't see anything in the Constitution granting the power of pardon to the President. Of course, the courts don't have to charge AW with anything. Also, being the current President, can he be tried in court at all?

That's because there is no such power.

Please though, take these questions to the Judiciary thread. We'll be more than happy to answer them there.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[trundle]

We are getting more and more off-topic here, in my opinion. We're trying to find out what is legal and what not, not what is more or less beneficial.

You're right, and I apologize for my part in this.

The intention of my original comment here is probably best summed up by the following:

1) I believe that citizens voting to ratify the Triumverate were doing so under fraudulent pretenses (i.e. that it had been chosen by a majority of the membership over other systems).
2) Agreements made under fraud or duress are not, in fact, binding.
3) Therefore, the ratification poll should not be binding.

I added my clause about "significant impact," because I also recognize that sometimes the damage from fraud may be undoable. For instance, if this had all been uncovered, say, 50 turns into the game, the impact of undoing the ratification and all subsequent decisions would be too substantial for the system (and players) to bare. I do not believe, however, that we are at such a point.

 

[GeorgeOP]

I'm not saying refused because of person bias, but stepped aside because of conflict of interest. I know judges and other public attorneys have done that before just to remove any doubt about the trial. I wasn't trying to imply you wouldn't or couldn't do your job. The "wishes" part of the Constitution is a little vauge.

Sorry, back to topic.

Another point I though about. If the CoL is struck down, does that not strike down all elections that happened? Let's assume that you rule that there was fraud in the original Tri vs. Flex pole, and that trickles down and nulifies the CoL vote. Some say that the CoL votes were based on fraudulant information. Should it not also trickle down and nulify all election results? Those results were based on votes with the same information. The problem is that if the results of elections are overturned, this court has no right to rule on the validity of the CoL. I'm not sure whose side I helped more, but I thought that was an important point to think about when deciding this case.

 

[trundle]

Couple of points - first, I'm not allowed to *NOT* want to defend him. That's my job - to defend all citizens in a trial unless they ask me not to. My personal beliefs and feelings are of no importance - I'm there to safeguard their rights and present a vigorous defense.

Any Public Defender that refuses to defend someone should be removed from office, except, of course, we can't do that.

And I assure you, I've done it before, and have no qualms about doing it again.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

I think this is veering off topic quickly and should be moved to a couple of threads:

1) A thread under the judiciary to deal with a trial (to be created only if one should occur)
2) A more open thread about clarifying whether or not a citizen may choose someone other than the Public Defender to advocate on their behalf or possibly amending the CoL or Constitution to make this allowance

Please note, Ravensfire, that point 2 by no means suggests that I think you may be unable to perform your job. Rather, it is more about a general philosophy I hold that people should be allowed to choose their own counsel.