Ruleset and "making the game fun" discussions for DG5

[Bill_in_PDX]

Bill,

I'm always a bit leery about strict time limits, especially with some parts being out of the control of the participants. For example, what if one of the citizens involved wants another citizen to represent them (say, lack of familiarity with either language or system), but nobody steps forward?

Well I prefer the JA/PD judiciary so that if they don't produce their defense council, then the PD conducts the defense.

We cannot allow someone to avoid prosecution, or the conclusion of a JR, simply because they use the tactic of not having people in place.

The JA/PD system worked pretty well, and yes, sometimes it is ackward. I, as JA, was forced to prosecute a player for something I actually agreed with him on, during perhaps the most contentious PI I have seen. But I presented the case, and he was found guilty. I think the system works.

 

[Epimethius]

I figure prosecuting players at all is bad. In my experiance, players will behave themselves, and if not they can simply be thrown out. I've proposed this be done by the Judicial with maybe a warning and then action being taken, with time for the defendent to present a defence, in private (for less humiliation). I propose the judicial be more of a police force than a bunch of judges.

 

[Sarevok]

I figure prosecuting players at all is bad. In my experiance, players will behave themselves, and if not they can simply be thrown out. I've proposed this be done by the Judicial with maybe a warning and then action being taken, with time for the defendent to present a defence, in private (for less humiliation). I propose the judicial be more of a police force than a bunch of judges.

Private however may also to the defendant make it seem more like a inquisition than an actuall fair trial. Ive experienced something like that first hand here.

 

[ravensfire]

Well I prefer the JA/PD judiciary so that if they don't produce their defense council, then the PD conducts the defense.

We cannot allow someone to avoid prosecution, or the conclusion of a JR, simply because they use the tactic of not having people in place.

The JA/PD system worked pretty well, and yes, sometimes it is ackward. I, as JA, was forced to prosecute a player for something I actually agreed with him on, during perhaps the most contentious PI I have seen. But I presented the case, and he was found guilty. I think the system works.

Although I hate to bring it up - DG3, Term3 - multiple resignations, mass chaos, etc. That you were willing to press a case you didn't like reflects highly upon you. More people need to consider that the demands of an office may require them to act contrary to their preferences.

We have also have some people as either JA or PD that are, ummm, somewhat lacking in skill. Both sides need to be argued vigorously by citizens with both good debate skills and good understanding of the events - that's critical to the concept of a "fair" trial.

Any system will work if people participate in it. DG4 had a problem with partipation in the CC's - and to some extent, I understand why. After all, I didn't help out after term 3. While the above point (incompetant or unwilling JA/PD) is the weakness in the JA/PD system, the participation issue is the problem with the citizen representation system.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

I figure prosecuting players at all is bad. In my experiance, players will behave themselves, and if not they can simply be thrown out. I've proposed this be done by the Judicial with maybe a warning and then action being taken, with time for the defendent to present a defence, in private (for less humiliation). I propose the judicial be more of a police force than a bunch of judges.

Remember that there are three main purposes for the Judiciary.

1. Review questions of law/interpretations of the law to determine how to act. Nothing wrong has been done - a citizen is asking how a certain situation should be handled.

2. Review questions of fact - something wrong may have been done. The Judiciary has to determine if wrong was done, and if so, any punishment.

3. Review potential new laws - a proposal is made, is it in line with existing law?

I am always in favor of an open Judicial system (although Cyc disagrees with my definition of an open system ). On any matter brought forward, the public as a whole must be able to comment and make their opinion known. Why - a feeling of ownership, of participation, and because the more possible viewpoints that are expressed, the better. We have had cases where the accused said they did it, only to have facts come to light in the trial that demonstrated their innocence.

In an ideal world, the Judiciary should be the most boring job out there. The silence and dust disturbed only when a new law is proposed, or a new court elected. Hopefully we'll see that someday!

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Although I hate to bring it up - DG3, Term3 - multiple resignations, mass chaos, etc.

-- Ravensfire

Well, all I can say is, "Thank heavens no one remembers DG1 PI#6!"

 

[ravensfire]

Well, all I can say is, "Thank heavens no one remembers DG1 PI#6!"

I think I'm glad I missed that one ....

*reads archives*

Oh yeah ... that one. I'm glad I missed in.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Sarevok]

Well, all I can say is, "Thank heavens no one remembers DG1 PI#6!"

Do I want to know?

 

[Rik Meleet]

Let's stay focussed on DG5, using DG 1,2,3 & 4 only as reference.

I am still waiting trial for my crimes in DG4 term 1. I'm not saying this trial should take place, but we really could do with a faster spinning wheel of justice. If you won't get a trial and a punishment the reason for not doing crime is gone. I do not want a PI / CC / whatever we're going to name it for details, but if we do have one, it has to be resolved quickly.
First step: Citizen files a request to the Judiciary to investigate if a crime took place. this can be done in a matter of days. (policing).
Second step: A Prosecutor and a Lawyer are requested, it is possible to have the citizen who requested to be prosecutor and the alleged criminal to be lawyer. If those 2 positions aren't filled within X days; the 2 AJ's do this.
Third step: Prosecution + Lawyer battle it out in a special thread for a max of X days.
Fourth step: A poll is posted by the Judiciary: guilty or not ? Open for X days.
Fifth step (if guilty): A poll is posted by the Judiciary: punishment. Open for X days.
Sixth step: Carry out punishment.

What about it and if you like it what must all the X-es be ?

 

[Curufinwe]

I like it, initially that is. Of course, the idea of voting on a punishment etc. is both good and bad. Good in that it is democratic and that democracy is a good way to enforce our laws, bad in that it is unlikely to promote justice. With tweaking I will support it.

 

[Epimethius]

Hmm, maybe its because every game I ran except one was more or less on a decree system with no court at all (one had a court, but only to appeal a law made), but that seems like a far too bureaucratic. In my experiance people are fine with simply being told privately not to do something. Of course, in my experiance the closest we've ever gotten to a "crime" was someone making a false account to horde stock, but I really don't see why there is enough crime that we not only need a branch of the government to deal with it, but also a full court. I believe that these things can easily be done in private, and possibly with a trial if the person contests it. One way to stop that from happening would be to have leniant laws: give the people a warning or two before you do anything. I've run a very large number of games, and have never once had to actually fulfill my threat and ravage someone's city. Perhaps I'm being naive, but a court system seems completely unecessary. If you want to trim the fat somewhere, trim it there. I do, however, think that the Judicial could be like Roman censors, meaning that they oversee the elections, break ties, etc.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Epimethius: I hope I'd seen the reality of the games being as you pictured. History has shown it isn't here. A private conversation with the person usually won't do the trick. Perhaps we are more stubborn here. Several courtcases have happened which prove that simple chats do not suffice, unfortunately.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Well, all I can say is, "Thank heavens no one remembers DG1 PI#6!"

Sadly, I remember it all too well

 

[Sarevok]

Let's stay focussed on DG5, using DG 1,2,3 & 4 only as reference.

I am still waiting trial for my crimes in DG4 term 1. I'm not saying this trial should take place, but we really could do with a faster spinning wheel of justice. If you won't get a trial and a punishment the reason for not doing crime is gone. I do not want a PI / CC / whatever we're going to name it for details, but if we do have one, it has to be resolved quickly.
First step: Citizen files a request to the Judiciary to investigate if a crime took place. this can be done in a matter of days. (policing).
Second step: A Prosecutor and a Lawyer are requested, it is possible to have the citizen who requested to be prosecutor and the alleged criminal to be lawyer. If those 2 positions aren't filled within X days; the 2 AJ's do this.
Third step: Prosecution + Lawyer battle it out in a special thread for a max of X days.
Fourth step: A poll is posted by the Judiciary: guilty or not ? Open for X days.
Fifth step (if guilty): A poll is posted by the Judiciary: punishment. Open for X days.
Sixth step: Carry out punishment.

What about it and if you like it what must all the X-es be ?

I like it RM, it sounds more efficient that the one for DG4. Yiur CC never was worked on...

 

[DaveShack]

Let's stay focussed on DG5, using DG 1,2,3 & 4 only as reference.

I am still waiting trial for my crimes in DG4 term 1. I'm not saying this trial should take place, but we really could do with a faster spinning wheel of justice. If you won't get a trial and a punishment the reason for not doing crime is gone. I do not want a PI / CC / whatever we're going to name it for details, but if we do have one, it has to be resolved quickly.
First step: Citizen files a request to the Judiciary to investigate if a crime took place. this can be done in a matter of days. (policing).
Second step: A Prosecutor and a Lawyer are requested, it is possible to have the citizen who requested to be prosecutor and the alleged criminal to be lawyer. If those 2 positions aren't filled within X days; the 2 AJ's do this.
Third step: Prosecution + Lawyer battle it out in a special thread for a max of X days.
Fourth step: A poll is posted by the Judiciary: guilty or not ? Open for X days.
Fifth step (if guilty): A poll is posted by the Judiciary: punishment. Open for X days.
Sixth step: Carry out punishment.

What about it and if you like it what must all the X-es be ?

I think the ills of the DG4 system can be cured and it would end up looking mostly like your system after a few changes. To fix the DG4 system we would need to:

• Set a time limit for each step of the process.
• Introduce a fall back plan if the roles can't be filled. Maybe the accuser has to prosecute the case if nobody can be found, and the defendant has to represent him/her self. Maybe the AJ's alternate being prosecution and defense.
• Get rid of the nonsense about justices can't be involved in the case.

I also think we need to revisit an idea I tossed out during DG3 and again when we were discussing the rules during DG4 pregame. Most if not all of the CC's filed were for trivial matters. We should adopt two new rules:

• No Harm, No Foul: If it doesn't cause an in-game problem, then why do we spend so much energy on a complaint? We see complaints because a governor queues a wonder which is available, we'll lose it if we don't build it, but the MIA didn't bless the change. Is this going to hurt us in-game? Sure, it takes away from the other governors by denying them the honor of building a wonder, but if they really care about it then be proactive -- you snooze, you lose.
• Penalties for false accusations. Yes, citizens have the right to seek redress of grievances, but if a charge is dismissed as without merit the accuser should be sanctioned somehow. There are far too many personal attacks disguised as CC's / PI's.
• Withdraw cases which are ancient history, especially if the accused has already changed his/her ways, or if it is clear that the action taken was the right thing to do. If we didn't have such a vendetta based focus the game would be more fun.

 

[Epimethius]

What crimes are we talking about, anyway? In the games I did the crimes were few and ill-defined. Things like disagreeing with the Governor or bulldozing neighbor connections. I suppose if we're a lot tougher, we'll have a lot more to enforce.

 

[donsig]

Let's stay focussed on DG5, using DG 1,2,3 & 4 only as reference.

I am still waiting trial for my crimes in DG4 term 1. I'm not saying this trial should take place, but we really could do with a faster spinning wheel of justice. If you won't get a trial and a punishment the reason for not doing crime is gone. I do not want a PI / CC / whatever we're going to name it for details, but if we do have one, it has to be resolved quickly.
First step: Citizen files a request to the Judiciary to investigate if a crime took place. this can be done in a matter of days. (policing).
Second step: A Prosecutor and a Lawyer are requested, it is possible to have the citizen who requested to be prosecutor and the alleged criminal to be lawyer. If those 2 positions aren't filled within X days; the 2 AJ's do this.
Third step: Prosecution + Lawyer battle it out in a special thread for a max of X days.
Fourth step: A poll is posted by the Judiciary: guilty or not ? Open for X days.
Fifth step (if guilty): A poll is posted by the Judiciary: punishment. Open for X days.
Sixth step: Carry out punishment.

What about it and if you like it what must all the X-es be ?

Step three should be open to all citizens, not just the *lawyers*. Also, there should be a mechanism to resolve the complaint if possible. Trials should be reserved for irreversable actions. (Like disregarding posted instructions and changing the slider instructions or changing a governor's build queues. )

 

[donsig]

Let's stay focussed on DG5, using DG 1,2,3 & 4 only as reference.

I am still waiting trial for my crimes in DG4 term 1.

Glad to hear you are admitting they were crimes. We can have the trial any time now. The prosecution has been ready since term three.

 

[Chieftess]

Speaking of dangling PIs/CCs, perhaps there should be a rule that, if a PI/CC doesn't get started after 1 term, a mod can create a thread starting the PI/CC.

 

[Falcon02]

Well, all I can say is, "Thank heavens no one remembers DG1 PI#6!"

I tended to Ignore PI's, (except for my own.... I was NOT trying to overrule a governor's queue, it was just a suggestion of changing a spear to a sword or what not)... anyway... I do remember all the chaos, and I think I remember the charge, I don't think I have yet seen a PI which was actually for a crime worthy of a full fledged investigation and trial....


CT, yes I agree a PI should probobly have a limited time (ie. a few weeks to a month) till verdict.