Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game III: Government' started by Peri, Jun 30, 2003.
According to procedure the JA must now start the PI discussion thread.
I have been out of touch for quite a bit, and just finished reading the five pages of this stuff.
I just have to say that the consequences of throwing out all the laws from the past have come home to roost, and the game is in chaos. I hope that the structure that was developed over multiple games previously is brought back.
I have to agree with you, Bill. I even started a discussion on reviving the old CoL and CoS, but it failed miserably and wasn't even brought to poll. I do wish we had kept our previous CoL and CoS, and wish we could have done what Oct suggested at the end of the last demogame, to keep our laws and standards until we could write new, better ones. Then again, we voted to do this, so I guess that's what we do.
BTW, Civanator has started a PI discussion here.
I have not heard from the Public Defendant. Am I not entitled to his help with this public investigation? A PI discussion thread is already up which states the PD and I have only 24 hours to post our defense. If the PD is not around am I to be hung out to dry while this kangaroo court continues? Also, (and here is the problem with setting time limits) RL does get in the way of even PIs. I've been on vacation this past week and tomorrow I go home. It's a 14 hour drive from North Carolina back to New York so I will not be able to post till late tomorrow night. I may also not want to deal with a silly PI after driving all day. Is it too much to ask that the defense be given more time under these circumstances?
I'm afraid that you are by law allowed only 24 hours to post a reply once the discussion thread is up. You can post a reply to the discussoin thread after this, but this will be after the citizens have had a chance to reply. I suggest that you reply now, so that this will not conflict with your travel plans, and Vander will be given the rest of the time to check back and make a defense.
Perhaps Donsig you might ask the Judiciary as a whole to consider allowing you extra time. I understand that RL gets in the way and there is nothing to be gained from rushing this through. If the Judiciary unanimously grant you extra time then I cannot see any reason why this should not be allowed. Perhaps you should request a Judicial Review on this.
There is no question of constitutional or legal interpretation here, therefore, a Judicial Review would not be able to carry weight. Though RL can certainly get in the way, I think we need to follow the law on this issue. Donsig can either post in his defense now or he can wait and post later after the thread has been opened to the citizens.
I would like a Judicial Review of section A.2.e of the CoL.
Article B of our constitution gives citizens (among other things) the right to a fair trial, (and) the right to representation. By giving only 24 hours for the Public Defendant and accused to post a defense, the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial is compromised. Also, the same time limit compromises the accused's right to representation should the PD not be available during the 24 hour period.
The constitutional rights of our citizens should outweigh the desire by some for the speedy resolution of public investigations, especially when minor infractions are involved. Swift justice is needed only when our country is placed in grave danger by an official in power. In those cases where immediate removal from office is required to avert said danger then our moderators should be appealed to since they have power above and beyond even our constitution. Since we have moderators that can act as a safety valve when need be there is no need for us to rush to judgement in our public investigations especially when doing so is unconstituional!
I therefore ask that the Judiciary find that section A.2.e of the CoL is not consistent with our constitution and said section be stricken from the CoL.
I also humbly request that while said Judicial Review is in progress, the Judiciary issue a stay of the current public investigation so that the defence be allowed to post first after having adequate time to formulate the defense.
How long should the trial be open before the citizens can post, then? I see the need for a stay of charges, but at what point do we allow the citizenry to post a response? There comes a time where a fair trial would be compromised by indecisive action by the defendant and/or the PD. I would not be opposed to allowing an extra 24 hours to conduct the PI (so that the thread would be open until 3 PM EDT Tuesday, giving donsig ample time to post a reply after his trip), but we must set a limit.
what about this:
24hours for the public defendant, then additional 24hours for the accused.
this will give the accused 48 hours to work out defence
on that, we should also define a "emergency clause" where the judicacy can demand a stop to all game actions (=turnchats) before the pi is finished (for example if cheating happened or someone urgently needs to be removed)
If we are to assure the best possibile defense for the accused, I would advocate that the thread be closed ENTIRELY to public comment until the either the public defender or the accused parties have posted their own adequate defense.
Of course, this assumes an active PD, or at least an active CJ to fill in.
From the Chief Justice
Until this Review is Complete this PI and the 'timeclock' is suspended from the moment the Review was requested. It will resume when all members of the Judiciary have posted. However I think it is proper that this review be complete within 36 hours of this post to avoid tactical delays.
Regarding the subject of the review, my ruling applies to this case alone. My ruling is based on the circumstances of this request for Review.
The law is very clear in this matter. Any attempts to delay proceedings may not always be genuine which is why there is a time limit. However during the summer months people do go on holiday and RL gets in the way.
I am inclined to show leniency here for this reason and grant an additional 24 hours for the defence to prepare its case starting from completion of this Review. A fair trial is more important to me than a fast one.
While everyone else is getting hyped up over this PI, another matter has been glossed over that I would like to be resolved. From earlier in this thread:
I would greatly appreciate it if someone would at least reply to this. Thank you.
I am sorry for not posting on this earlier.
There is nothing in either body of law which regulates the conduct of elections so it would be difficult to rule. Therefore I suggest a law is drafted to regulate this matter. Then if there is still a need for clarity the Judiciary can rule on this.
However since the problem won't be resolved in time for this election, perhaps one of the Moderators would consider acting on behalf of those who wish to stand in absentia.
I would like the JA to make it clear whether he will allow the discussion thread, once re-opened, to continue until there is nothing left to be said or will he close it at a set time.
I have posted the discussion thread, and it has been open for about 20 hours now, unless you want it to be reposted. It is open for 48 hours.
The timer on the discussion thread is suspended until the Review is complete.
Please can you post your findings on the Judicial Review requested by donsig.
As a citizen, I request the Civanator edit his post in the PI thread to include the following:
-- A definitive charge at the top of the post
-- Evidence supporting the charges
I also request that he remove the charge that was invalidated and the evidence supporting it.
Does this mean for 48 hours after donsig and Vander post? I would at least want it open for 24 hours after they make their posts.
Also, ravensfire, he included evidence that I provided when filing the PI. What other evidence should he include?
If you wish to have me accept a nomination on your behalf, please send me a PM.
Separate names with a comma.