Judicial Review - Term 1 - Request 1

[ravensfire]

I would still like to see a representative from the Election Office post here. I do understand that one of the reps is on the Judiciary, and thus severly limited in the scope of his remarks. However, there are others and their input could be useful.

-- Ravensfire, Associate Justice

 

[ravensfire]

As a further note to above, I am aware that various conversations were had with some of the parties involved. Much of this discussion can be found in the initial poll thread.

I would ask of those participating to review those discussions and point out any items of relevance, supporting all sides of this discussion, they might find. I have reviewed this myself, but would like to get the impressions of others.

-- Ravensfire, Associate Justice

 

[Cyc]

@ donsig - I will reiterate what I posted in the first post of this discussion thread. It primarily answers your question about laws restricting the involvement of the Justices in this discussion.

"As stated in CoS Section X.1.II.D, "Justices are to post questions, but not conclusions." This would be fact finding questions, such as how, why, when type questions. I ask the Associate Justices not to ask questions that draw conclusions in there very asking."

This passage is from the CoS, therefore it is fairly straight-forward in its message. The Justices are to post questions about the subject matter, but not write anything that would indicate a conclusion on the approval or denial of the issue in the Judicial Review. These discussion threads were primarily set up for the citizens and of course the person requesting the JR (you). They are not setup for the Judiciary to give a predetermination or a premature decision on the matter.

This is a little tricky, as this sets a precedent for the rest of the game (unless the Standard is changed). I'm doing my best to stay within those guidelines as I'm sure the Associate Justices are. Ravensfire has even mentioned the restriction on Bootstoots comments as Election Office Manager. Being Associate Justice outweighs being an Election Office offical in Judicial procedure. Therefore, the above legislation applies to anything he might say about the election.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc

This is a little tricky, as this sets a precedent for the rest of the game (unless the Standard is changed). I'm doing my best to stay within those guidelines as I'm sure the Associate Justices are. Ravensfire has even mentioned the restriction on Bootstoots comments as Election Office Manager. Being Associate Justice outweighs being an Election Office offical in Judicial procedure. Therefore, the above legislation applies to anything he might say about the election.

A little tricky? Is that like being a little pregnant, Cyc?

Let me get this straight. You and ravensfire were not elected to the judicary in the original term one elections since your election for CJ ended in a tie. Then you and Ravensfire came up with a compromise special election which ended up placing both of you on the judiciary at Peri's expense. Then when a citizen tries to go through channels and show that the special election was illegal, not only is it up to the two who made the *compromise* to pass judgement on the legality of their own election, they can't participate in the judicial review discussion? We can only sit and wait and wonder which way they will vote on the legality of their own creation?

Come on you two, look at this situation for what it is. It certainly is not democracy or justice. The conflict of interest here is apalling. You two should do the right thing and resign now. Then there would be no question of the two offices being vacant and our President could fill the vacancies with constitutionally approved appointments.

EDIT: Here is the compromise post from the original CJ election thread

 

[Cyc]

I have to refer you to the post above your last post, donsig. Procedure must be followed here in order to give you a fair shake, so to speak. I will resign from my efforts in not bringing up the effectiveness of donsigism on our rule making process, although I will refrain from any lengthy comments at this time.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc
donsigism

Smiley or not, Cyc, the specific comment/phrase above has both no bearing on this discussion and is somewhat prejudicial.

donsig, your comment about the two parties invovled being unable to speak because they are on the Judiciary is correct. I honestly didn't envision such a situation when crafting the procedure. I tried to create a process where the citizens and the Judiciary could participate without the Justices discussing their eventual ruling in the midst.

With Cyc's and Boots' permission, I would like to post my thoughts *at that point in time*, no more, no less. These may, or may not, be my opinion at the moment. As one of the principals involved in the eventual decision, I feel that must post my viewpoint at that point in time, and be availble to answer specific, direct questions about that point in time. Such statements will not violate the proscription above as they are statements of fact.

-- Ravensfire, Associate Justice

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

To me, this is all a exercise in circular logic.

If donsig considers the sitting CJ, and by definition, the associate justices to be holding office illegally, then why are we turning to those same offices to rule on the matter? In theory, if they rule that they are qualified to hold office, donsig can still say they hold office illegally, and that is implied with the comment saying that he reserves the right to bring other laws into this. If, on the other hand, the Judiciary rules that indeed they do hold office illegally, then their ruling itself is not valid.

This is a massive waste of time, and only promises to throw this game into judicial chaos yet again.

This was a problem generated due to the start of a game, and not having rules in place. Those who know me, know that I would not normally ask for this, as I am a big advocate of the Judiciary, however, I now call upon the forum moderators to validate, or invalidate this election so we can more forward either way.

I say again, it is legally impossible to answer donsig's question in a way that is not going to lead to weeks of pointless arguing.

 

[Cyc]

The original elections for the Judiciary were already declared invalid by a Moderator. This took place after the elections, obviously but prior to the start of actual game play.

This Judicial review is taking place within the actual game. If we allow the Moderators to step in now and abort Judicial procedure, we would not only be disallowing donsig's rights to a Judicial Review on subject matter he feels strongly about, but we would also send a strong signal to the ciizens of Fanatica that their Constitution has no bearing in legal matters. We have one Moderator that strongly suggested to the public who deserved to be in the Judicial Branch and one Moderator that claimed the original elections invalid. At this point I feel it would be a travesty of Justice to allow either one of them (or someone outside the Demogame) to come in and trash Judicial procedure here. If the majority of citizens fell that continuing this process is pointless, I can call arguements over, at which point the Judiciaries can retire to a discussion for determining a decision.

And Ravensfire, as far as my comment about donsigism, the court feels it did have bearing on the subject matter as dogsig continually discusses the rule making process. If you read back (although I'm sure it's not necessary) you will find that intentional roadblocks and side issues were a major factor in the rule making process. It matters not if they were beneficial to the rulemaking process or not. They were still a major part. As far as prejudicial, that phrase was used extensively through the rulemaking process. True, it was coined by me to represent a short cut of expressing the same idea over and over again, but it was not meant to be prejudicial.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by ravensfire


With Cyc's and Boots' permission, I would like to post my thoughts *at that point in time*, no more, no less. These may, or may not, be my opinion at the moment. As one of the principals involved in the eventual decision, I feel that must post my viewpoint at that point in time, and be availble to answer specific, direct questions about that point in time. Such statements will not violate the proscription above as they are statements of fact.

-- Ravensfire, Associate Justice

I will not give my permission Ravensfire, as even though it would help console donsig with his problems about the Judicial Review process, it would also have you posting illegally in the JR. There is no way really, for you to express your initial intent in writing the law without stating what may look like a pre-determination on your part. Let's just stick to the program and hope other citizens post their feelings on the subject matter. Otherwise, we may just declare arguements are over.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Let me think about this for a few hours. I have read this entire discussion thread and plan to take everything into account from the moment the nominations threads were posted to today.

Thank you to Bill_in_PDX for so deftly illustrating the enigmatic situation we find ourselves in at this point in the most objective way possible. Your skills here are missed.

I will return with 4 hours with my decision. You can continue to post here, but I may have already made up my mind by the time I read it.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
To me, this is all a exercise in circular logic.

...

I say again, it is legally impossible to answer donsig's question in a way that is not going to lead to weeks of pointless arguing.

Which is why I called for both Cyc and ravensfire to resign. By doing so the President could make appointments to refill the CJ office and we could have a judiciary whose legitimacy would be unquestioned.

The biggest travesty in all this is that a duly elected associated justice has been deprived of his rightful office. I am loath to involve mods in this dispute. We must learn to settle our disputes on our own without looking to some sort of divine intervention. While it does not make sense to petition the judiciary to (in effect) dissolve itself, it would make even less sense to encourage Peri and bootstoots to stake their claim as associate justices and work to get the president to appoint a CJ while we have a de facto judiciary in place.

The solution to the mess is clear. Cyc and ravensfire should resign. Peri and bootstoots should be recognized as associate justices and the appointment process used to fill the CJ spot. If that had been done in the first place the president would have surely looked to either Cyc or ravensfire for the appointee. Whether he would do so now is entirely up to him.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Cyc
The original elections for the Judiciary were already declared invalid by a Moderator. This took place after the elections, obviously but prior to the start of actual game play.

This Judicial review is taking place within the actual game. If we allow the Moderators to step in now and abort Judicial procedure, we would not only be disallowing donsig's rights to a Judicial Review on subject matter he feels strongly about, but we would also send a strong signal to the ciizens of Fanatica that their Constitution has no bearing in legal matters. We have one Moderator that strongly suggested to the public who deserved to be in the Judicial Branch and one Moderator that claimed the original elections invalid. At this point I feel it would be a travesty of Justice to allow either one of them (or someone outside the Demogame) to come in and trash Judicial procedure here. If the majority of citizens fell that continuing this process is pointless, I can call arguements over, at which point the Judiciaries can retire to a discussion for determining a decision.

And Ravensfire, as far as my comment about donsigism, the court feels it did have bearing on the subject matter as dogsig continually discusses the rule making process. If you read back (although I'm sure it's not necessary) you will find that intentional roadblocks and side issues were a major factor in the rule making process. It matters not if they were beneficial to the rulemaking process or not. They were still a major part. As far as prejudicial, that phrase was used extensively through the rulemaking process. True, it was coined by me to represent a short cut of expressing the same idea over and over again, but it was not meant to be prejudicial.

I will repost this for you DZ as you were probably writing your above statement while I was posting this one. I feel thiat the Moderators coming in at this point would be a huge mistake. It would also be the Moderator's blanket statement that they didn't care what the citizens wanted, only what actions they felt they could exercise at any point in the gme.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc
And Ravensfire, as far as my comment about donsigism, the court feels it did have bearing on the subject matter as dogsig continually discusses the rule making process. If you read back (although I'm sure it's not necessary) you will find that intentional roadblocks and side issues were a major factor in the rule making process. It matters not if they were beneficial to the rulemaking process or not. They were still a major part. As far as prejudicial, that phrase was used extensively through the rulemaking process. True, it was coined by me to represent a short cut of expressing the same idea over and over again, but it was not meant to be prejudicial.

Cyc, the taking of a person's name, their identity, and using it a derogatory sense is wrong. Period. It's a reason I have lost respect for you. For you to use it as the Chief Justice in this matter is both disrespectful and rude.

Please consider this the next time you are inclined to do this to another person's name.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Peri]

Although I am loathed to post in this thread for obvious reasons, I must agree that Mod action now is not in keeping with our ruleset. However there is absolutely no way that this is going to be resolved by 'us' satisfactorily. Whatever decision 'we' make there will be appeals and further discontent. No one will be happy with it and it will sour the game. If the Mod makes the decision it is final and there can be no appeals and no discontent. We may not like it but we have to accept it. The focus of resentment becomes the Mod and not each other. This is a brave decision by DZ and we should support him because he knows that this will make himself 'unpopular' with some citizens yet he still pursues this course of action. Falling on your sword for the sake of the game is highly commendable.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by ravensfire


Cyc, the taking of a person's name, their identity, and using it a derogatory sense is wrong. Period. It's a reason I have lost respect for you. For you to use it as the Chief Justice in this matter is both disrespectful and rude.

Please consider this the next time you are inclined to do this to another person's name.

-- Ravensfire

You see? Now we have been led astray once again, discussing issues that do not pertain to the issue at hand.

We have left the purpose of the Judicial Review to discuss matters of little importance in this regard. Simple bickering among the proponents here will not get this issue solved.
Because even the Justices can not seem to remain on course, I am really tempted to end this dicussion.

The Judicial process is still in control of this situation and will continue until the final resolution. I must insist that everyone adhere to the rules setup at the begining of this thread and stick to the subject matter.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Peri
Although I am loathed to post in this thread for obvious reasons, I must agree that Mod action now is not in keeping with our ruleset. However there is absolutely no way that this is going to be resolved by 'us' satisfactorily. Whatever decision 'we' make there will be appeals and further discontent. No one will be happy with it and it will sour the game. If the Mod makes the decision it is final and there can be no appeals and no discontent. We may not like it but we have to accept it. The focus of resentment becomes the Mod and not each other. This is a brave decision by DZ and we should support him because he knows that this will make himself 'unpopular' with some citizens yet he still pursues this course of action. Falling on your sword for the sake of the game is highly commendable.

DZ will not be falling on his sword, Peri. He will be making a decision based on his personal view of who deserves to be in the Judiciary. We already know what his personal views are, and they include you. I can see why you'd support his actions as you would clearly benefit from them.

Regardless whether you loath to post in this discussion or not, your last post is dripping of self-interest.

 

[eyrei]

Why don't we just restart the judiciary elections from the beginning. We can go without a judiciary for 4 days, I think...

 

[Peri]

I do agree with you Cyc but since the Judiciary itself is under scrutiny, the intervention of a Mod will produce a result which cannot be disputed. I think we should all just accept his eventual decision and move on.
The rules are there to help us enjoy the game. They are not the game itself.

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by Cyc


DZ will not be falling on his sword, Peri. He will be making a decision based on his personal view of who deserves to be in the Judiciary. We already know what his personal views are, and they include you. I can see why you'd support his actions as you would clearly benefit from them.

Regardless whether you loath to post in this discussion or not, your last post is dripping of self-interest.

Sorry Cyc. That is not my take on the situation. It is my opinion that DZ will rule that we stay as we are with me not being in the Judiciary. DZ is only worried about the game not individuals. I really think you misjudge him if you feel he will give me special consideration. You also misjudge me if you think I am so obsessed with Office that I would corrupt the game. Shame on you Sir. If I could call you out I could.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by eyrei
Why don't we just restart the judiciary elections from the beginning. We can go without a judiciary for 4 days, I think...

Funny you should mention that, eyrei. That was my entire approach to this fiasco in the very begining, but everyone else had a different idea. But now we have the election process complete and rules in place to justify the end result. I see no reason to duplicate this whole process over again. The people have spoken.