1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

OFFICIAL DISCUSSION: DG VI Judiciary

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game V: Citizens' started by ravensfire, Feb 3, 2005.

  1. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    DG VI Judiciary Discussion

    Discussion points:
    -- Structure of Judiciary
    -- Same as DG V?
    -- Judicial Procedures (JR and CC)
    -- Same as DG V?

    -- Ravensfire
     
  2. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    In DG V, the Judiciary worked, and worked well. Cases were handled in a timely manner.

    I would have like to have seen more participation from citizens in JR processes.

    I was quite pleased at how the processes were done. Cyc started the ball off by being the only office that actually posted their procedures - no other office did that for quite some time. His procedures upheld all rights of the people. Each following CJ would make slight changes, but continued the concepts of fairness.

    Our Constitution outlines the rights of all citizens in Article A, and the duties of the Judiciary in Article F. So long as the procedures uphold those rights, I don't care if I have to post using blue text and in Pig Latin!

    -- Ravensfire
     
  3. Ashburnham

    Ashburnham King

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    827
    I think that's all that needs to be said. Let's stick with that works.
     
  4. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    The only question I'd have is should the judicial procedures that worked so well with minor edits the entire game, be elevated to the status of a law?
     
  5. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Then you'd have to consider which Term's wording to use in the Law. Is that what you want?
     
  6. Black_Hole

    Black_Hole Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,424
    the only main change was the CC voting outcome. Earlier(before CC1) it was whichever option had the most votes, afterwards it was based on the highest punishment someone wanted to be imposed
     
  7. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    DS, that's a valid point, and a good one.

    Over time, better (or sometimes just different) ways of doing things are suggested. Take, for example, the comment of BH. Which way is better - using independant options, or weighted options?

    These procedures, though, are a good way to spark debate on Judicial elections. A new CJ might have some interesting thoughts that people like. I plan to ask every CJ candidate what their procedures will be.

    Each position has the same right to create procedures they plan to follow. It's a way for each person to bring a slightly different slant to an office. New ideas, new concepts.

    -- Ravensfire
     
  8. mhcarver

    mhcarver Newspaper Mogul

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    768
    Location:
    In the Press room
    despite my earlier position that the procedures need to be codified I would like to do a kerry-esque flip. The procedures should not be codified. This allows for changes to be easily made when a problem arises . Not codifying the procedures makes debates for the judiciary more interesting and as RF said allows for each person to bring a slightly different slant to an office. My only suggestion about the judiciary now is that we might want to consider lowering the amount of time needed for a justice to be declared absent(3 days is to long especially when a important matter is at hand) .
     
  9. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    When were looking at the Judiciary were not looking for "interesting." The Judiciary itself is already not that democratic, and is a thorn in the side of a democratic government. We must codify the precedures, which is why I propose the following:

    The Judiciary SHOULD NOT have the power to change the way a trial is ran. It must be a choice of the people, not those who will be conducting the trial. Our current way screams fraud at every possible second.
     
  10. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    How? Show me an example during DG V.

    -- Ravensfire
     
  11. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    I suggest you look back into the archives alittle bit, because if I tell you, I'll likely be banned.
     
  12. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Then PM it too me. I don't think you will, because it's not there.

    -- Ravensfire
     
  13. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    We should codify some aspects (like requirements for a CC vote, etc.) but let the judiciary handle how it operates for the most part.
     
  14. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    Whoa, thanks for reminding me about that. I forgot to add the simple majority requirement for the innocent/guilty poll. Making an edit now.
     
  15. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Sorry, Strider. I can't accept your Judicial proposal. It just isn't right.

    I say no codifying. The DG5 system worked fine.
     
  16. Ashburnham

    Ashburnham King

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    827
    I'm not sure what you're talking about here. You've shown yourself to be anti-Judiciary at several points during DG5, for reasons that aren't entirely clear. I would be interesting in learning why exactly you feel this way, without using empty phrases like "thorn in the side of a democratic government".

    Anyway, there's no reason to codify the procedures of the Judiciary when we allow all the other departments of the government to conduct themselves however they wish. To be thoroughly democratic (which you seem to be very worried about), we would have to codify the operating procedures of the President, every Ministr, and the Governors. Clearly that's not necessary. Every elected official has the right to operate their office how they choose, that power is given to them by the people when they are elected. It's a natural part of the election process to vote for the person you feel is most qualified for the job; in the case of the Judiciary you would also be basing your vote on the Judicial procedures proposed by the candidates, thereby determining how the candidate would run the office. Codifying the procedures would infringe upon the rights of the elected official because of paranoid, unfounded qualms with the office.
     
  17. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Got the PM - thanks!

    -- Ravensfire
     
  18. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    You miss one big point, the leaders have to follow the will of the people. For efficiency purposes, the Judiciary does not. Don't even start comparing the Ministers to the Judiciary, because there is about half a dozen ways that I can think of.

    No, codifying the procedures will make sure that the Judiciary member can not change them mid-term. Tell me, is it fair for the Judiciary to change how a Citizen Complaint is handled, during a Citizen Complaint? No its not, and even worst, we'd have cases of the Judiciary themselves having Citizen Complaints lodged against them.
     
  19. Ashburnham

    Ashburnham King

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    827
    You seem to be assuming that the members of the Judiciary are scheming sabatours who want to derail the game. That's simply not true. Judges and candidates for the Judiciary are citizens of the Demogame just like everyone else. They want to do the best job possible when they're elected. Except for a select few people on the forums, no one I've seen is partizen enough to blatently change the format of a trial just to punish a rival. Also, remember that the Justices all need to agree on the Judicial procedures. A rogue CJ wouldn't be able to change the procedures without the consent of the other Justices, something extremely unlikey to happen if the CJ were in fact mounting a partizen attack on a rival.

    You seem to be against the idea of Judges having power. But, the simple fact is that they have to. Someone has to act as a judge whenever there are disagreements or accusations of foul play. That's the reason we elect them. If you disagree with the policies of a certain judge, don't vote for them. But don't impose constraints on the Judiciary as a whole just because you worry about the possibility of corruption in the system.
     
  20. Provolution

    Provolution Sage of Quatronia

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    10,102
    Location:
    London
    Just add the quick trial timer, and no deadline on rectifying historical mistakes.
     

Share This Page