Public Investigation: People vs. Chieftess, Part I

[Cyc]

OK, Bill and donsig. Here's a copy of the Turn Chat Instruction thread for the Feb. 1st t/c. As you can see there is posted in The North Province Instructions at least three worker requests that match the requets in the afore mentioned posts. If you look at the final request for kuhkaff, it could be construed as a request not to irrigate grasslands.

Turn Chat Instruction thread for Feb. 1st

 

[Shaitan]

If I were trying this case I would move for its immediate dismissal. The evidence Cyc presents actually clears CT of this particular charge. Whether or not the actions that were requested were carried out has nothing to do with the act of organization.

Additionally, launching 6 separate PI's is both ridiculous and counterproductive. As we have already seen it is causing confusion and disruption. The workable precedent for multiple charges for a single infraction is to try all of the charges in a single PI. The current situation is untenable and impossible to follow in any constructive manner. As such I will not be boycotting these PI's in their entirety after this post, including unsubscribing from this thread. It will be necessary for people to use the report post function to notify me of forum abuses if they happen as I will not see them through direct monitoring.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
If I were trying this case I would move for its immediate dismissal. The evidence Cyc presents actually clears CT of this particular charge. Whether or not the actions that were requested were carried out has nothing to do with the act of organization.

Additionally, launching 6 separate PI's is both ridiculous and counterproductive. As we have already seen it is causing confusion and disruption. The workable precedent for multiple charges for a single infraction is to try all of the charges in a single PI. The current situation is untenable and impossible to follow in any constructive manner. As such I will not be boycotting these PI's in their entirety after this post, including unsubscribing from this thread. It will be necessary for people to use the report post function to notify me of forum abuses if they happen as I will not see them through direct monitoring.

Well Shaitan we haven't had anyone pick up thier ball and go home since DG1. I am quite dismayed by your attitude. Wasn't it just last term that I asked for a public investigation into two diffferent incidents using one post for each incident only to be told (by you among others) that 1) seperate PI's are rquired and 2) it is the sole responsibility of the accuser to name the exact section of the rules being broken. Given the events of last term Cyc is entirely justified in filing seperate PIs in his attempt to have our rules followed.

The citizens of Fanatika showed last term that they are more interested in vilifying those who ask for public investigations than they are in seeing that Fanatika's laws are followed. If a citizen or government official was able to post in the judiciary thread that such and such happened contrary to our rules and then the judiciary opened a public investigation thread where the citizens could discuss the issue and decide which if any laws were broken then, yes, this could have been handled in a single public investigation. IIRC, the infamous PI#6 of DG1 was handled in this manner. We subsequently adopted the CoL and CoS which is in use in Fanatika. You helped to build this monster Shaitan and now that most can clearly see it for the monster it is you want to throw up your hands and pretend it doesn't exist rather than do the work of fixing the problems with our system.

As for the charges in this PI, The turn chat instructions for Feb. 1, 5 and 8 clearly show the governor's tile developement instructions. They were not followed. While it is true that the evidence shows that Chieftess did organize worker activity in the province (and is not guilty of violating the CoL clause specified in this PI) she did not do so according to the governor's instructions and is therefore guilty of violating article E of our constitution which is a much more serious violation.

 

[Octavian X]

I agree with most of donsig's last paragraph - there is clear evidence Chieftess has organized worker activity. The specific charge of NOT organizing such activity is false.

 

[Cyc]

If posting a thread in the citizen's sub-forum about a topic and the completely ignoring it afterwards is what we now call organizing decisions, then the Demogame is indeed in sorry shape.

 

[Chieftess]

I didn't ignore it, I continued to look at it, even though I haven't posted in it.

 

[FortyJ]

Despite Cyc's well structured request for this PI, I must also agree that his statement actually vindicates Chieftess of this very charge.

Even if you discount Chieftess' assertion that she monitored the discussion threads, there is no proof that she didn't monitor them. Furthermore, our legal definition of "organize" does not require the leader poll the topic or adopt any particular proposal or request.

It seems to me that Chieftess has met all the criteria spelled out within our legal definition of "organizing". Unless anyone can provide strong evidence to the contrary, I don't see any point in pursuing this particular charge.

 

[naervod]

This evidence clearly vindicates Chieftess. I move for the closing of this PI because it has no merit. (Note: This is when I would usually post a trial poll)

 

[Octavian X]

I agree with the Judge Advocate and find this charge has no merit. It is clear to me that Chieftess did in fact organize worker actions.