Judicial Procedures Discusison

[ravensfire]

this would be good for JRs, but would it also apply for CCs?

Probably not - I'd want to see the investigation, then the 2/3 majority up front before any CC proceedings started.

-- Ravesnfire

 

[ravensfire]

the second part I thought up for 2 reasons:
1. To lessen CCs required
2. We are moving to a completely new government, and it is very possible someone will cross the line.

Basically if 2/3 justices agree that instruction becomes invalid, thus the DP doesnt need to follow it.
This will also make it easier for the DP if he/she gets conflicting instructions from different leaders.
And if this wasnt in place a mad leader could file a CC against another leader that crossed into his/her area, so this would eliminate that type of CC, plus this could be done faster than a CC not holding the game up

That thought was running in my head as well. The game sessions in the second half of the month (as more areas begin to get active) will require some give and take. I think a note from the Judiciary, posted in the official thread for that office that instruction XYZ is crossing the line, please don't do it again, should be enough. If the official thinks they are right, call for a JR and open the discussion.

I'm leery about the Judiciary declaring something illegal without that official having the chance to speak about it. Generally, if the DP follows an instruction, they are in the clear, even if the instruction is illegal. The person who posted that instruction is at risk. If the DP ignores an instruction, they are at risk if that instruction is deemed legal.

Honestly, I don't want to see the Judiciary being an active watchdog - I want the people to do that. I hope to see people saying "Hey - that's not in your area, you know that?" or "That's too specific for a Consul" I hope that I, acting as a member of the Judiciary, don't have to do that. Now, as a citizen, I probably will watch for that.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Provolution]

We elect judiciary members to be judges and to administer, interpret, and uphold the law. It isn't the average citizen's job to publically chastise someone else for their mistakes. Why would moderators need to be called in? Moderators only handle actions regarding forum rules, the judiciary handles actions regarding game rules. The two sometimes rarely cross paths.

So you would never chastise anyone publically for mistakes Blackheart?

 

[Black_Hole]

i was hoping you would stay true to word provo, and forget what happened last game

 

[Provolution]

I am Blackhole, but I need to get the laws straight. But I am not gonna argue more over this, just pointing out that Warnings are not really needed, in general.

 

[ravensfire]

Provo - warnings are a good, and useful thing to have.

It's a way for the people to tell someone that they think they did wrong, and are watching. If they do it again, that warning will get brought up, and take things to a different level.

Warning is an option for a punishment that isn't as severe as an impeachment, but is more than "No Punishment".

Warning needs to remain as an option for punishment.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Provolution]

In that case, we need stricter criteria for what a warning should be like.
And a second trespass would lead to no further warnings, but escalate the punishment level to the next level. Compare this to a yellow and red card in soccer.

 

[ravensfire]

In that case, we need stricter criteria for what a warning should be like.
And a second trespass would lead to no further warnings, but escalate the punishment level to the next level. Compare this to a yellow and red card in soccer.

Such as .... Details, give us details.

I might have to start calling posts like this undescribed mandates!

-- Ravensfire

 

[Provolution]

We will get to the details, but now we are discussing broader issues.

 

[DaveShack]

I liked the "remedy" approach we used in a previous game (don't remember which one). Basically it's very much like a plea bargain or out of court settlement.

On separate threads for JRs, they can be useful if there are several cases at once, to make it easier to view just one case's commentary at a time.

On "merit", I would like us to avoid any requirement of the requestor to cite a law. That policy resulted in more than a few childish exchanges between the justices and citizens -- not valid, is too, is not, etc. It's really a problem when there is no law for an item.

I must agree with Provolution on one point, the concept of a punishment of "warning" is ludricous. The original idea was probably that once you've been warned once, another offense would result in a real punishment, but there is no way to make sure it happens that way. One sample hierarchy of punishments (Chieftess posted it I think) showed 3 warning levels -- we're supposed to only care about a violation on the 4th and greater offense?

When there is a guilty verdict near the end of the term where removal from office would be ineffective, we need an option for making the offender ineligible for office the next term.

The "guilty but no punishment" option when it's not at the end of a term is also a bit flaky, though it could be used for places the people decide they would rather change the law to match events than punish the offender for doing what is "right".

 

[DaveShack]

Honestly, I don't want to see the Judiciary being an active watchdog - I want the people to do that. I hope to see people saying "Hey - that's not in your area, you know that?" or "That's too specific for a Consul" I hope that I, acting as a member of the Judiciary, don't have to do that. Now, as a citizen, I probably will watch for that.

-- Ravensfire

I view coaching all the officials as a Presidential duty. While I hope not to intervene directly, I do plan to keep an active watch on pretty much everything, and give a gentle nudge here and there.

 

[Provolution]

I think citizens would rather make a hard campaign against the mistake in the forums, which is way way more effective than a warning for laying the ground for stricter punishments at a later stage.

I also agree that The President is the leader and should mitigate all inter-office conflicts. However, a weak president would not do that. Last game had a president that acknowledged he never read the Ministry threads, and would never intervene when two ministers conflicted. We saw what came out of such an apathetic and neglecting stance. I believe that the President should mediate as much as possible and keep entities intact and relations smooth.

Judiciary should not boss around and police in the game, but merely draft laws, make legal processes, and handle legal disputes. However, the JA should handle the polling standards IMHO. Several uncontested offices means we need more people to handle the same jobs.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I don't think an anonymous CC should be allowed.

I always like the idea of allowing the judiciary to do a preliminary investigation and vote themselves as to if the claim has merit.

One of the good ways to use warnings is when someone is guilty of violating a law, but because of whatever circumstance the issue is minor. One thing we used to do is say you can only get a warning once, so any future convictions in that game had to be the next higher punishment or more.

 

[Provolution]

Detail for you Ravensfire, there is only one warning, if the convict is lucky.
Then in the following case, regardless of which term, the penalty should become barred from offices, including mayorships, for 1-3 terms, and in Force Majeur cases, even include
Moderator Intervention. Minor bans could also be used, 3-5 days and so on.

I wholeheartedly agree with Bill and DS here.

Anonymous CCs should not be allowed. This allows the accusing side to stand forwards
and make JA and accuser publicly distinct entities. This will make it evident if the accuser has a poor case or the JA is doing a poor job.

 

[YNCS]

I'm not happy with the idea of anonymous CCs.

I realize that there are people who prefer to remain anonymous when making accusations, because they don't want to get into a flame war. However, I suspect for some people making CCs is just another aspect of flame wars. Anonymous CCs would, IMO, encourage that. Also, an accused should be able to know who their accuser is.

 

[Black_Hole]

anymore discussion?