Discussion in 'Civ4 - Democracy Game II' started by ravensfire, Feb 19, 2007.
I see. But it seems that we have too many candidates running for a few particular officers
Question for the candidates: Do you favor a narrow or a broad reading of a law? In other words, are you more likely to stick to a strict literal meaning of the law or are you more inclined to look at policy reasons or spirit behind the law to make a ruling?
I'm not going to rush through something to save a day or two. Our rules are our rules - once you start ignoring them, it's hard to stop people. That means that when there is a legitimate question that needs to be answered, people need to let the system resolve that question.
If it's complicated, then I would let the discussion go until I see the same points being remade, and ask my fellow Justices to make their rulings. I would hope that they would post them quickly, but I'm not going to rush them with 2-3 hour timeframes. The last thing that is needed in with a critical question is a hasty and wrong response.
If it's a critical question, but one that I feel should best be handled by an Initiative, I would work to get a temporary ruling (following the normal process) to allow the game to continue, and then immediately work on a long-term initiative to resolve matters.
I personally would work to have my decision as quickly as I could. Work and personal life can, and does, interfere, but I believe all officials owe a duty to the DG to allow time to complete the duties of the office. We don't force citizens to serve, after all.
That's a really good question. I'm afraid that I can't give a single Yay/Nay response.
Some laws are absolute to me - citizen rights being core to that. Keeping things fair to everyone, following the instruction thread, the election process - all of those I consider absolute laws. You just don't play fast and loose with them.
Some of the smaller ones, you do need to consider the background and discussions around that law. Let's face it, none of us (that I know of, at least) make a leaving crafting laws or regulations. If we did, we'd probably have something that's 3 times as long! Sometimes, seeing the discussion can make it clear what was intended and understood by those crafting the rule.
We do the best we can to make the rules clear to everyone. That is, of course, impossible - different people will interpret the same phrase differently, causing problems. When two options are equally valid, I generally go with what's going to keep the game interesting and entertaining for most people.
That's not to say that I always take that into consideration, or that it's a major factor. Ssorry, but it's not and it shouldn't be. The Judiciary is there to interpret the law, to resolve questions about it. We're not there to make the laws. We already have a process to change the laws - amendments and initiatives. More than once I've made rulings that were unpopular, and been amazed that nobody bothered to try and change the law behind the ruling.
My apologies for seeming to "dance" around the question, I certainly wasn't intending to give that impression. I just don't feel that there is a single, simple answer to that question.
Yup! It's something that happens at times - one or two offices just get "popular", and have lot's of people wanting to hold that office.
I think it's nice that the Elder position is getting that much attention though. Our cities will only benefit from having so many people interested in running them. Hopefully, we'll keep that interest through the next few terms, and have some really well-developed and planned cities!
Sorry, I failed to define fast and slow. In my mind, fast=1-2 days, slow=weeks.
To Ravensfire and donsig:
Do you have a vision for how the Judiciary's decisions would be announced?
Do you anticipate posting "rulings" laying out your reasoning so that the decision can be used as precedent in the future?
Will you make all (or any part) of your deliberations public?
Will you require more than one Judiciary member to certify a matter for review before it is taken up by the Court?
Will amici curiae briefs be permitted under your judicial procedures?
I look forward to your replies.
Hopefully, the interest will sustain through the next few terms...
Yes, the game will benefit if there are more people as anyone can pitch in when needed
After the Judiciary has ruled, the Chief Justice will post a summary of the question, the final ruling, and links to the individual rulings.
[quoteDo you anticipate posting "rulings" laying out your reasoning so that the decision can be used as precedent in the future?[/quote]Always. I (and my esteemed opponent) can get fairly long-winded at times. I think it's useful for people to see my thought process. If you don't like the court's ruling, it's harder to change the law when you don't know why the ruled as they did.
I like to see an active discussion on the topic, especially if it's controversial. There aren't real deliberations any more, but sometimes there are PM's between the Justices. While I believe that any Justice can make their PM's public if they choose, I don't feel the need. As I mentioned above, my rulings (and you can look through the archives for some samples from both donsig and myself) fairly clearly lay out my thought process.
My procedures will allow any Justice to decide if a question should be docketed or not. If any one Justice says a question should be reviewed, then it will be. This keeps the process moving fast, yet makes sure that only the obvious requests are denied.
Always, always, always. This IS an interesting part of the game to me, and other citizens. Some of the most interesting discussions have been in threads about Judicial Reviews. No citizen should EVER have their views prevented from being aired by the court. I actively seek citizen comments, and at a minimum acknowledge them in my rulings.
Ah - THAT I can answer.
I cannot imagine something taking weeks, barring an absent Justice. My ideal timeline would be to respond to all requests within 24 hours, and resolve discussions within 3-4 days, and rulings up a day later. I think the easier question will be much faster than that. I will require Justices to wait 24 hours after the request is docketed, just to make sure there is a period for citizen comment.
My vision: When a case is accepted, it is discussed by all (citizens and justices), justices deliberate together privately, justices write up and post their own decisons in the judicial thread and the CJ posts the final decision summing up the individual decisions.
Definately. That's what we've always done in the past. Each member of the judiciary posts his or her own decison.
I see no reason to discontinue the tradition of a discussion thread for each case. I am also quite happy to post my opinions (both as a citizen and justice) in these threads. I do also believe that these public discussions should be supplemented with private deliberations amongst the judiciary members.
No. I believe it is important to let the majority (of justices) rule but when it comes to hearing cases I think a case should heard even if only one justice thinks the case has merit. This is probably due to the many minority opinions I've held.
Most certainly. It not only makes sense to allow these, it is part of the democracy game judicial tradition that anyone be allowed to post their views on any pending cases.
As long as what is written covers the question raised by the case I will favor a narrow interpretation. We will adhere to what is actually written and not what was meant to be written.
In cases where the written law is vague or ambiguous then (and only then) would I favor a broader reading and delve into things like the spirit behind the law. It would be quite interesting to interpret the constitution we have this game. It was proposed by me but is a revision of last game's coinstitution which was basically written by DaveShack (though it does have origins dating back to earlier democracy games). I would hesitate to interpret vague clauses according to current public opinion and would prefer such opinions to be clarified and solidified by actual citizen initiatives.
Only if we get an initiative passed giving the judiciary authority to make decisons and post game play instructions pertaining to cases. I have no problem giving a quick legal opinion but will not be pressured into making quick legal decisions that are expected to be correct and stand as law until (or if) an initiative is passed covering the situation.
If you are worried about the game stopping because some official doesn't know what to do then I suggest you either be prepared to write alot of initiatives or elect officials who are not afraid to make decisions. I've been proposing a simple and clear cut way for everyone to know when group decisions have been made so that elected officials and DPs will know when they can make decisions and when they have to follow forum poll results. Using my proposal there will never be any reason to stop play so I will have no patience at all for that sort of silliness. I will not let the judiciary bail out elected officials who are afraid to make decisons. I would also not let the citizenry off the hook for not making decisions when they have the power to do so. It is not the judiciary's job to make snap decisons about how to play the game.
Nominations are CLOSED!
Link to election poll
Separate names with a comma.