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. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    I don't necessarily agree with all the details of where Strider is going, but there is a lot to be said for having at least part of the judicial code in the rules. The problem is, the Judiciary may not be scheming saboteurs, but could still fold under pressure from the citizenry and refrain from pursuing an unpopular course of action. Failure to act against the guilty could have as much potential to damage the game as prosecuting the innocent might.
     
  2. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    Your counter-reply does help you.... it harms you.

    You obviously have not been around here that long, that or your far to blinded to be of any worth.

    Tell me, where does it say that all of the Judiciary must agree on he procedures? Last demogame it gave the Chief Justice the sole power to run the Judiciary. Check the facts.

    You seem to be defending a loophole in our const. I wonder why? May it be for personal gain? :lol:

    Actually, most of the time you don't have a choice in who the Judiciary is. And I'm not constraining them in the least bit. I am just allowing our citizens there right to a fair trial, you seem to be against that.
     
  3. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Strider, you bring up a good point about the Judiciary not having to confirm those procedures. It was done in some terms, so let's include that.

    Add a clause the the Judicial section that a majority of the Judiciary must approve the procedures at the start of the term, and that all changes must be unanimously agreed to.

    -- Ravensfire
     
  4. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    As I said in the PM I sent to you just seconds ago, I think another good alterntive would be to allow the Judiciary to create there procedures, but then require the Will of the People to change them afterwards.
     
  5. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Basically, are you wanting to codify the people's right to try and sentance? How about "right to a fair and speedy trial by their peers"?

    -- Ravensfire
     
  6. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    I think either would work. Hmmm, changes to the Judicial Procedures are subject to a confirmation poll? So, if the change is obvious, no poll gets posted and life goes on. If the change is iffy, a simple, pre-defined confirmation poll is run. We know how they work, it keeps the section simple and gives everyone a chance to shoot down a bad change.

    -- Ravensfire
     
  7. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    Yeah, I'll make the modifications to my above proposal after I get done taking a shower. Expect it within the hour.
     
  8. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    WTF is that Strider? Insulting Ashburnham's intelligence or the fact that he is new isn't going to help anyone.

    Just have a law regarding CC polls and the right to a fair and speedy trial, we don't need to micromanage the judiciary branch.
     
  9. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    Okay, here's the new proposal per agreement:

     
  10. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    Why should Judicial procedures be managed by the WOTP when no other department's are?
     
  11. mhcarver

    mhcarver Newspaper Mogul

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    768
    Location:
    In the Press room
    I don't have any major problems with the proposed article F as I was considering polling the procedures for any future terms as CJ, howerver I would like to know why the procedures must be in the first post, In my memory(no I'm not checking so I could be wrong) they were usually in the second post as the first was used to make an intro statement and set Quorom and then the procedures and a docket would go up.

    oh and BTW, this is just a clarification but would the judiciary adopt new procedures each term(as I prefer) or would any changes made after the term 1 judiciary require polling?

    finally shouldn't it be "The elected Judiciary shall create there procedures once elected" instead of elect it, sorry hypocritical grammer police
     
  12. mhcarver

    mhcarver Newspaper Mogul

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    768
    Location:
    In the Press room
    sorry double post, please delete me
     
  13. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    Scroll up some and read. Daveshack, Ravensfire, and myself have all said good reasons why the Judiciary should be watched atleast alittle bit.
     
  14. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    My orginal plan was that when a new judiciary is put in place, they do not have to poll there procedures, but if they were to want to make a change mid-term, they'd have to poll it.

    Also, I said the first post, mainly because they should be easy to find and read, but the second post would be fine also. As long as there not far down in the thread.

    How is this?:

     
  15. mhcarver

    mhcarver Newspaper Mogul

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    768
    Location:
    In the Press room
    excellent I give this plan my full support :goodjob:
     
  16. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    One final point. I don't disagree with having the judiciary set their detailed procedures, but would like to see some guidelines at least. We need to set minimums or maximums on various steps in the process, and guarantee that those steps are contained in the process. Some examples would be the amount of time allotted to the accused to post a defense before a CC discussion is open to all (24 hours), minimum duration of the guilt/innocence poll, minimum duration of sentencing polls, CC and JR requests must be responded to within 2 days, etc. These should go somewhere in the law, or we'll be forced to leave them up to vague definitions of speedy and fair.
     
  17. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    Now you see where I stand, inorder to make a trial fair, you have to codify alot of the Judicial Procedures. However, as you see, when I tried to do this, it was called restricting and was frowned down upon.

    I've tried my best in making the trials more fair, by setting up the Judicial Standards inside of my Proposed Constitution. However, I could not do much, for the same reasons as above.

    If you think you can have any more luck beating the idea of a fair trial into these peoples minds, then have a go at it. You have my full support.
     
  18. Donovan Zoi

    Donovan Zoi The Return

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,960
    Location:
    Chicago
    Maybe if you didn't insult those with legitimate points in the process, you would get more support. But after reading through all this, I agree that several judicial procedures should be codified. Kudos to DaveShack and Ravensfire for lending credibility to your unpersonable approach .
     
  19. Chieftess

    Chieftess Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Messages:
    24,160
    Location:
    Baltimore
    I will also post the process of the CC/PIs here for discussion. I'll let this thread be discussed a bit longer.

    Someone posts in the judiciary thread.
    Phase One - 24 hours
    The judiciary (any member) has 24 hours to respond to it. "Respond to it" means that the justices acknowledge the CC/PI. BTW, I don't like the concept of "out of court settlements" now, since there's not much you can do except say "Sorry", and with personal vandettas running around, you're bound to get biased arguments and fighting. All the judiciary has to do is write, "CC/PI acknowledged. PM's will be sent).

    Phase Two - 48 hours
    The Public Defender defaults to being the defense of the accused. The Judge Advocate defaults to being the prosecuter of the person bringing the CC/PI charge.

    The acuser and acusee will read and respond to their pm's. If they do so before 48 hours, then the next phase can begin.

    If the justices wish, they can discuss together and determine if the case has merit. If it does, the PM's get sent. If not, they write in the judiciary thread.

    Phase Three - 48 hours

    The Chief Justice will post a CC/PI Thread, and list the charges. One they have done that, the people representing the clients will post their argument. Then, the thread will be 'opened' to discussion by the citizentry. The 72 hour timeframe starts when the discussion is opened.

    Phase Four - 48 hours

    This phase is the Guily/Innocent poll. The Chief Justice will post a poll with these options, and abstain.

    Phase Five - 48 hours

    This phase is only done if the accused is found guilty. The punishments are as follows:

    1 - 1st Warning
    2 - 2nd Warning
    3 - 3rd Warning
    4 - Resignation from office (or if they're a citizen, barred from nominations/appointments for the next term).
    5 - Impeachment.
    6 - Moderator Intervention of the accused.

    Total Time Elapsed: 7-9 days.
     
  20. Donovan Zoi

    Donovan Zoi The Return

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,960
    Location:
    Chicago
    3rd Warning? You wish! :lol: That pretty much tells me that certain behavior can be tolerated for half the game if the citizenry is lenient enough.....

    Other than that, it looks good to me. Phase Three should be 72 hours, right?
     

Share This Page