Reduction in Citizen Complaint Process Time

[Cyc]

In the first Term of this Demogame, Judicial Procedures were laid out by the Court to ensure consistancies in all Court matters. Our Judicial Review procedures were put to the test a dozen times and seemed to hold up. But the only time our Citizen Complaint procedures were really examined was when President DaveShack asked about the continuity of a case from Term to Term. It was then noted that a CC in its normal course could take up to 8 days. The only real possibility of it being shortened was if the defendant in the case pleaded guilty, as this would have eliminated the Trial poll.

In Term One, three threads were to be set up for a Citizen Complaint (CC). The investigation thread (48 hours), the Trial Poll (72 hours), and the Sentancing Poll (72 hours). Total minimum time - 8 days. This is with precision timing of polls and no complications, including a lengthy investigation.

Here in Term Two Judicial Procedures , I have taken the liberty of reducing the amount of time that the latter two polls are required to be open from 72 hours, down to 48 hours. This was done in an attempt to shorten the overall length of the CC process (found in Section 8).

My question to you is, what are your thoughts on this? Should try this shorten process? Does it seem to brief a time for everyone to vote? Or should we just wait to see when the first CC of DG5 comes along?

 

[Octavian X]

Perhaps the trial poll and sentencing poll could be combined into one, or at least one period of time. This eliminates at least three days from the process.

One option is that they could run parallel to one another. One poll asks citizens to decide guilt or innocence. At the same time, another poll asks citizens to decide the appropriate punishment, assuming the accused in found guilty.

Another option is to merge both polls into one. Options would be something like: Innocent, Guilty/Recommend Mod Action, Guilty/Impeachment, etc. The total number of innocent votes versus the total number of guilt votes is counted up. If the total number of guilt votes is greater than the innocent vote, the accused if found guilty, and is then simultaneously sentenced to the option with the most votes.
Of course, the flaw here is that those who believed the accused was innocent won't get to vote to sentence him. Though, if one believed another was innocent, the voter would be likely to vote for no punishment.

 

[Cyc]

Good point. I was thinking about that as an option. We considered this 3 or four games ago and the general feeling was 1.) the point you made about if one were to vote "innocent", they would be precluded from voting on a punishment if the defendant was found guilty, and 2.) it would not only look like we were saying "to save time prosecuting this low-life, we're combining the Trial Poll and the Sentancing Poll, so please vote for the appropriate sentance while telling us how you feel.", but 3.) it would make the process totally unfair to the defendant in the way of punishment. If the people who felt the Defendant was guilty wanted him impeached, but the people who felt he was innocent wanted no punishment, any middle ground would be lost. Which could be seen as the same as the first point, but if two polls were run at the same time, it could be seen as though the Court felt the Defendant was already guilty.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Octavian brought up a good point. Let's assume I think the defendent is innocent, so I vote innocent. It turns out the citizens consider the defendent guilty.
I can really iamgine that I, given that the defendent is guilty, want to decide on a punishment. The severeness of punishment is something different from deciding whether the defendent is guilty or innocent.

I prefer to keep them seperated. But they can be put up at the same time.
Poll 1: vote guilty or innocent
Poll 2: If poll1 says guilty, what punishment ?

BTW: I want to have those polls private, not public. This isn't some voting on city placement or what to research next; it's about judging fellow forum-members and we can't allow the citizens to be forced to publically speak out what they think of a fellow forum member.

 

[Gregski]

As an addition to Rik's comments here are my 2c:
The innocent/guilty and punishment polls should be kept separate.
The punishment poll should be posted 48 hours after the innocent/guilty poll if it appears that the vote is likely to be guilty, otherwise posted at the end (assuming a guilty vote). The level of overlapping can be further fine tuned.

 

[DaveShack]

I didn't read the entire process (note to self, visit the courthouse again). The safety valve of a "remedy" being reached during the initial discussion period has seemed to be the most useful way to shorten the time. Shortening the jury and sentencing polls to 2 days each would be OK with me. Another thing worth considering would be to close those polls early once it is apparent that it is mathematically impossible for the result to change, if voting is going very strongly one way or the other.

It would be nice if we could limit votes to people in the registry, however making these polls public would be even more inappropriate than having elections as public. I think that VB3 allows "groups" of people to be defined, though it's not enabled for this site. Maybe a poll can be restricted to memebers of a group? Another idea is we could have a citizens only subforum with an access list like the MSDG, and do elections, ratification polls, and judicial polls there, to ensure only citizens are involved.

 

[Sir Donald III]

I would rather not shorten the Trial Poll (Sentencing shortening is OK), let the full time flow.

I do like the idea of combining the Trial and Sentencing polls, though. But if that doesn't fly, then I say we should remove the "No Punishment" option, so that each guilty mandate has some teeth. Of, if you don't remove it, at least change it to "Censure", i.e. a mild form of Warning.

 

[ravensfire]

I'm biased, but I agree with DS about including a "remedy" in the process, perhaps in the initial discussion phase.

Remedies were used twice (if I recall correctly) in DG4, and both times did exactly what they were supposed to - handled the situation quickly and appropriately. The individuals were made aware of the problem they were causing and consequences of future violations, and the matter was dropped.

Cyc, I would suggest adding (btw - use

to preserve formatted!) something to 8.E that the Judiciary may, at their discretion, offer an alternate solution to the accuser and the accused. If both accept, the problem is considered resolved so long as the accused lives up to the terms of the solution.

This ought to handle minor issues and the straight-forward issues that crop up, leaving the full process for larger concerns.

-- Warmaster

 

[Civman2004]

Hmmm Interesting idea Ravensfier about an 'agreed' solution. The difficulty is, in a lot of CC cases, it would well be "The People of Fanatica v Civman2004" not "Ravensfier Civman2004." In this case, an agreed solution would not be appropriate, as the original complainant is complaining on behalf of a wide range of people, not all of whom may be happy with the proposed solution.

Fine with reducing trial and sentencing polls

 

[ravensfire]

Hmmm Interesting idea Ravensfier about an 'agreed' solution. The difficulty is, in a lot of CC cases, it would well be "The People of Fanatica v Civman2004" not "Ravensfier Civman2004." In this case, an agreed solution would not be appropriate, as the original complainant is complaining on behalf of a wide range of people, not all of whom may be happy with the proposed solution.

Fine with reducing trial and sentencing polls

That's only true when the case is accepted and goes to trial. Up to that point, it's basically one person (the accuser) having an issue with another person (accused). The court represents the interests of the people when working out a solution.

The two times that this has been used resulted in warnings for both citizens, who subsequently fulfilled their agreements. It's a process that has proven to work, I'd like to see it return. It should be able to handle any minor complaint, and most complaints in general.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

At this point I'm strongly considering making all polls public, thinking that if you don't believe strongly enough in your accusation (or claim of innocense), then you probably shouldn't be voting. If you can only point from the darkness of a private poll, you may be too unsure to cast your opinion on punishing another citizen.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

At this point I'm strongly considering making all polls public, thinking that if you don't believe strongly enough in your accusation (or claim of innocense), then you probably shouldn't be voting. If you can only point from the darkness of a private poll, you may be too unsure to cast your opinion on punishing another citizen.

I respectfully disagree, Cyc. I actually prefer that we stay the course with the 5-P model we already have unofficially in place:

Polls: Public for Policy, Private for People

 

[ravensfire]

Time to insert again my reasoning on private polls, which most especially applies on elections, ratifications and justicial polls.

We guarantee our citizens the right to free speech, part of which is the right to vote. We should be able to vote free from pressure, abuse, derisement and ridicule. There have already been several circumstances where a citizen has critized another over their vote, without that citizen revealing their vote in a post.

That's a travesty, and makes a mockery of democracy. Any citizen should be able to vote their mind without facing criticism for that choice. We want our citizens to vote how they feel, and try to lobby and influence that decision after the vote. Introducing pressure on a person AFTER they vote destroys democracy, and introduces fraud and kickbacks into the system.

Private polls are the truest form of free speech. It allows citizens to express themselves without fear of reprisal or punishment. Anything else reduces that core individual right. Anything else makes you, the citizen, less free.

-- Warmaster

 

[Cyc]

Well, I can see and understand both of your points of view and I will take them into consideration. Please keep in mind that, as always our elections, which are private, have 60 votes in them. We have at a max 30 people playing here. Our "Democratic" elections are rifled with corruption. We have even seen "Ghost Votes".

Question: How many times have you seen a jury of peers hidden from a Defendant? If you believe that our citizens are so shallow that they would strike out against someone because that person spoke their mind, I will calm your fears by saying I will prosecute anyone that stoops to this level. Keep in mind also, Ravensfire that you views on Public Polls are political in nature, as shown by your stance in ANY Public Poll Abstention and your signature. Also DZ, we all know who Ravensfire is refering to when he describes his being attack for his vote. I would think you would have changed your tactics of trying to tell people who they should act as far as polls go.

But as I said, I will take this into consideration.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Gentlemen,

In policy polls, the voting contingent has always been treated as a Congress, and should therefore be held accountable for their voting record. After all, some of these people will try to move on to higher office, and this information can prove essential during an election campaign.

And, yes Cyc, I realize that my actions are the impetus of Ravensfire's crusade to banish public polls. However, I do not see how that isn't my right as a Congressman, especially during a Constitutional crisis. Yet besides this one instance, please name for me one time that I have called out another member of congress that did not already post his opinion in the thread. While I am a bit vocal in regards to certain policy decisions, for you to imply that this is a constant problem seems a bit unfair.

Based on my above statement, I am starting to warm up to the idea of public CC polls, although I am still not entirely convinced. Elections should always remain private, however.

 

[ravensfire]

Actually, DZ, although I think you were the first, there have been comments on private polls that make me very, very glad they were private (something along the lines of: wow- - what kind of idiot would vote for that option!) Those are the comments that truly push me away from public polls - that a citizen would be ridiculed for voting their preference is distressing. My crusade has actually been from the beginning - sparked not by anyones action, but by the fears I had (and have) about public polls. And for the record, DZ, it doesn't bother me when someone (especially a buddy) calls me out - my skin is thick! Personally, I consider the matter in the past and closed.

Policy-wise, I prefer to see what they say in response to questions and during discussions. That, to me, is the true window into their soul, not their voting record. I would hope that those seeking office would actively participate (note that I haven't even considered running for office - I wouldn't vote for me!), letting us know who they are.

Back to the topic, on the privacy of judicial polls. Cyc, I'm pretty sure that the practice of placing names to votes can vary from location to location. Some juries are kept "secret", out of fear of reprisal or pressure. Generally, I think juries are kept nameless, except when the media ferets out that information. Not being a lawyer, I can't say this with any certainty, however. In this setting, however, CC's that go to a trial will usually be emotionally charged events, with hostility and outrage dominating. There are a few citizens that can be vindictive, I would prefer to see that for a judicial action, citizens may speak their minds anonymously, without fear of reprisal. Remember, citizenship is granted by registration, not by participation. While we may have less than 30 active participants, we do have many, many more citizens. We cannot trample upon their rights, simply because they choose to participate in a more passive manner, though reading and voting in polls.

-- Ravensfire

 

[KCCrusader]

I wouldn't see a problem with merging the trial and sentencing poll into one time slot except that it would have to be made very clear in the trial poll that EVERYONe needed to vote for a sentence. Otherwise only those that vote guilty will enter an opinion.

Also, It should be made clear on the sentencing poll that the accused is not actually convicted of anything yet, and encourage everyone to vote on the trial poll.

 

[Cyc]

I wouldn't see a problem with merging the trial and sentencing poll into one time slot except that it would have to be made very clear in the trial poll that EVERYONe needed to vote for a sentence. Otherwise only those that vote guilty will enter an opinion.

Also, It should be made clear on the sentencing poll that the accused is not actually convicted of anything yet, and encourage everyone to vote on the trial poll.

I believe your last sentance, the complexity of combining the polls, and extra detail the voters must wade through to vote for Guilt or Innocence are the main reasons this should not be done. Separate polls have shown to work best, all the way around.

 

[Ashburnham]

Private polls are the truest form of free speech. It allows citizens to express themselves without fear of reprisal or punishment. Anything else reduces that core individual right. Anything else makes you, the citizen, less free.

Hear, hear! I strongly agree with the above statement. Public polling for issues such as elections or sentencing invite possible reprisals from the sentenced, or even unofficial voting blocs based on past voting ("oh, well he voted for me last term so I'll vote for him now"). Fear of these kinds of consequences does indeed make us, the citizens, less free and is contrary to the very idea of a free democracy.

 

[Cyc]

Let it be stated in this thread that the Trial Poll for DG5CC1 was posted as a Private Poll.