Term 1 - Nominations for Chief Justice

[GenMarshall]

All members of the judiciary share several traditional rights and responsibilities:

Post polls and discussion on interpretations of the Constitution, Code of Laws, and Code of Standards.
Do not have Deputies but may appoint Pro-Tem officials (Pro-Tem Justice, Pro-Tem Defendant and Pro-Tem Advocate) if they are unable to fulfill their duties. Pro-Tem officials have all of the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for but are a temporary position and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official.
Participate in Judicial Review to determine the legality of proposed amendments, laws and standards.
Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and standards.
Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to dismiss investigations as having "No Merit".
Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

The following duties are assigned to the Chief Justice:

Perform as needed in the positions of Public Defender and Judge Advocate in the absence of either official.
Is responsible for posting the current census at the beginning of each term.
Is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.
Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on topic and accurate.

Please Accept or Decline any nominations you receive.

Yours,
The Election Office

 

[BCLG100]

i nominate donovan zoi

 

[ravensfire]

I nominate donsig for this position.

I also nominate myself, and accept.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

I second DZ, although I'm sure he'd rather fill other positions.

I also nominate myself, and accept.

 

[ybbor]

i second cyc

 

[Peri]

I second both donsig and RF.

 

[Bootstoots]

I'll nominate Peri.

 

[Plexus]

I'll nth Cyc.

 

[Octavian X]

I'll nth (That just can't be a word) donsig and Cyc.

I'll also nominate myself, but for some reason, decline...

 

[Octavian X]

And, as a last minute thought, I'll nominate Bill_in_PDX.

 

[ravensfire]

This thread is too quiet!

My name is Ravensfire - course you probably knew that already. I'm running for the Judiciary in the 4th demogame. Course, you probably knew that too.

Not all of our citizens know who I am, so I thought I would introduce myself to you all. I've been lurking since DG2, and participating since late in DG2. In term 4 of DG3, I was elected Judge Advocate. I followed that up with a highly successful term as President of Fanatica, then returned to the Judiciary as Public Defender for the last term of the game.

I've been highly involved in the creation of our ruleset for DG4, participating in nearly all discussions and leading quite a few of them. I've got a good knowledge of CivIII, usually playing at Regent or Monarch level as the mood takes me.

So why elect me to the Judiciary, and hopefully to the Chief Justice position?

First, I'm pretty neutral to most parties. I seperate friendship and the duties assigned to me. If I must step on the toes of someone I call a friend, it happens with no personal concern. I see the Judiciary as a tool that helps the game keep moving, even through controversy, and serves to remind everyone that we are here as friends to play a game. To help with that, I created a new Judicial Review and Citizen Complain process specificially with those goals in mind.

I also recognize and accept that sometimes my ideas do not agree with the stated will of the people. Unless that stated will goes against a previous law, I must, and have, accept that decision, support it and be prepared to defend it.

During the disussion on the ruleset, I have been one of the more active participants. I have created and led multiple discussions, trying to make sure that all ideas are brought forth and discussed. I review topics that we haven't voted on to keep things moving in a (mostly) timely manner. I have also created new threads as we keep moving to ensure that the discussions don't stop.

In short, I have a strong understanding of our ruleset, I'm great and communicating, good leadership, and I'm an all-around good guy!

Thank you for your time!

Vote Ravensfire for the Judiciary!
-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

I will take this opportunity to second the nomination of Bill_in_PDX. Bill, like myself, was in the first Demogame here. He started as Trade Leader, but finished he run in the Judiciary for DG2. As Judge Advocate and then Chief Justice Bill helped guide our nation with his interpretation of the Nation's laws and his adherence to procedure. Welcome back, Bill.

 

[Cyc]

Now a little about myself.

I have racked up my 4600+ posts in these Demogame forums. You won't find my posts in the Off-Topic threads or others like that, although I did play in a NES for a bit. I have always been involved in some way with all of the Demogames. I'm sure you're all aware I started DG1 as the first Cultural Minister. I've held many different positons in my career here, spanning most of those available. Besides Culture, I've been Domestic Leader twice, Science Leader, a Governor 4 times, a Mayor 4 times, and in DG2 I was Public Defender and Chief Justice Pro Tem.

I have proposed new laws and amendments to old laws in several Demogames as a Leader and Judicial member. I added extensively to the writings of the DG2 Constitution and its supporting books.

I've also done a lot of extra curricular work in all three DG's to include founder and Curator of the Fanatica National Art Museum, a major poster in both of the previous RPG's, and the keeper of the Gorina City thread. I'm now working with FortyJ (a former President and Chief Justice) in the Creative History Department for DGIV. So I've been pretty busy DG-wise.

I've always tried to look out for the well-being of the citizens in my work here. I've tried to solidify the rights of Mayors and Governors and have lead the Senate in discussions concerning this.

I'm well aware of our current Constitution and its supporting books as I am very involved in its writings. I promise that if I'm elected, in my interpretation of the Constitution and laws of the nation, I will continue to work hard in seeking justice and enjoyment for all.

 

[Sarevok]

Ravensfire and Cyc sound good.

 

[ravensfire]

What two qualities do you feel you best bring to the bench?

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by ravensfire
What two qualities do you feel you best bring to the bench?

Great question RF!

I bring two qualities to the bench. First is neutrality. I care about the game and how people experience it. I have no problem stepping on anyone's toes when making a ruling, nor a problem shattering "traditions" that aren't part of, nor supported by our ruleset. The judiciary is here to make sure everyone works within the rules, and has a little fun.

The second quality is my analytical skills. No, I'm not a lawyer, or even a wanna-be. I have a background in business, and had more classes/lectures/experience with business law than I ever want. I am currently a web developer/system analyst, experienced in working with people to isolate wants from needs, and expressing those wants and needs in a written form. I write clear opinions and explanations with the goal of enabling everyone to understand what the Judiciary has ruled, and why.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by ravensfire
What two qualities do you feel you best bring to the bench?

Hmmm...

1. Honesty. When a situation arises in the game, you can be sure that I'll tell you what I believe is at the core of that situation. I always try to be as articulate as possible without flowering up the words or addressing side issues in an attempt to bolster my stance. If you want the lowdown, vote for me.

2. Experience. As I've seen most of the situations that can arise in a Demogame, as well as dive right into as many of them as possible, I'd say my experience level far exceeds my current opponent. I'm well aware of the different strategies involved with Government reform, the pass/fail rate of those strategies, the terms that are used in this process, and the different ways that they effect the citizens. On the other hand, I also do my homework. As I have in the past and will continue to do in the future, I base my opinions on researching the facts. Experience has taught me that the Constitution is the guiding light of the Demogame.

 

[ybbor]

what is your definition of a guilty verdict, resonable dought, beyond aresonable dought, or just what case was probably right

also, if you could change one thing about the powers/duties of the chief justice, what would it be

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by ybbor
what is your definition of a guilty verdict, resonable dought, beyond aresonable dought, or just what case was probably right

also, if you could change one thing about the powers/duties of the chief justice, what would it be

Well, ybbor, I would say the "guilty verdict" encapsulates "beyond a reasonable doubt". That "guilty verdict" phrase can be based on a presentation of facts which bring the charges to a point of being beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of the jury or the judges. The people that fill those positions are deemed to be resaonably intelligent, therefore if the burden of proof brings them to a conclusion the accused is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, this is justification for a guilty verdict.

Reasonable doubt on the other hand is a justification for a "not guilty" verdict. The burden of proof actually lead them to a conclusion that there was reasonable doubt the accused was guilty. The same goes for a case that was "probably right". Close only counts with horseshoes and atom bombs.

So your four phrases can be divided up equally between those two verdicts.

As far as what I would change in the Judiciary if I had the chance, I'd have to say that we have just changed the entire structure and process of the Judicial Branch, and I would like to see how it works now before I made any judgements.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by ybbor
what is your definition of a guilty verdict, resonable dought, beyond aresonable dought, or just what case was probably right

also, if you could change one thing about the powers/duties of the chief justice, what would it be

A case that has gotten to trial is one where the harm caused cannot be undone to any significant degree. At this point, the People are conducting an action that might lead to a fellow citizen being punished.

Our laws state that a citizen is innocent unless proven guilty. Key part for answering your question is proven. The Prosecutor must demostrate beyond a reasonable doubt that an illegal act was committed. Only then should any punishment be considered.

If even one reasonable doubt exists, the accused citizen must be found innocent.

As to what I would change about the Chief Justice - well, nothing! I am responsible for a significant portion of the changes made to the Judiciary. These changes have been significant and will have some unexpected consequences, hopefully all good! Until we see some of the new processes in action, I wouldn't change anything.

-- Ravensfire