Term 5 Judiciary

[donsig]

Suppose I already know who is going to be appointed, and the request for applicants is only a formality? Why then wait 3 days? The only way it's going to change who gets appointed is if I want to appoint someone who already has a position.

Let's go further and ask why you'd even put out a call for appplicants in that case?

It is not the job of the judiciary to decide if a given law makes sense. It is our job to interpret laws whose wording is questionable or to see if proposed laws conflict with the constitution or laws already in place. We do not have authority to strike down laws that are bad unless they are bad AND unconstitutional. Likewise it is our duty to strike down even good laws that are unconstitutional. The good part of all this is the judiciary does not have to be the last word on this or any other subject. Our citizens hold the power to change the laws to reflect the rules they want to play by.

I would like to thank the JA and PD and all interested citizens who participated in this judicial review. This case is closed and will be added to the judicial log.

 

[DaveShack]

I would like to thank the JA and PD and all interested citizens who participated in this judicial review. This case is closed and will be added to the judicial log.

I would like to thank the court for ruling incorrectly.

You decided 3 days applies because you want it to apply, not because that's what the law says.

I hereby file a CC against all three justices for violating Constitution Article F.3. Since none of the current justices can be expected to fairly decide whether this a CC against themselves has merit, it can sit there, unhandled, until the elections.

 

[StrategyDoRk]

Answered my own question...

 

[GenMarshall]

I hereby file a CC against all three justices for violating Constitution Article F.3. Since none of the current justices can be expected to fairly decide whether this a CC against themselves has merit, it can sit there, unhandled, until the elections.

Kind of going a bit extrime, but isint this a bit drastic. I mean I have done to the best of my abilities on how to interperate this law. I personaly felt that the 72 hour limit does not apply to seekers of second jobs because they would be considered to be on pair with appicants w/o a job.

However I felt that it is not fair to lump me along with the Vendetta between you and Donsig .

 

[donsig]

I hereby file a CC against all three justices for violating Constitution Article F.3. Since none of the current justices can be expected to fairly decide whether this a CC against themselves has merit, it can sit there, unhandled, until the elections.

Well, we've already had a CJ in this game decide whether his own appointment was valid. Everyone thought he was quite capable of deciding that fairly. Are you saying Cyc, CivGeneral and myself are not capable of deciding fairly? I guess we could have a poll and ask the citizens.

I don't see how this has merit. If you want to wait till next term to file a CC that's your perogative. I was quite willing to run for CJ against you in the last election and see no reason to run from that match up next term. While we wait a week or so for the contest you might want to step back and try reading the passage from the point of view of someone who didn't write it and can't read that person's mind. You just might see how reasonable the judiciary's interpretation is.

 

[DaveShack]

Kind of going a bit extrime, but isint this a bit drastic. I mean I have done to the best of my abilities on how to interperate this law. I personaly felt that the 72 hour limit does not apply to seekers of second jobs because they would be considered to be on pair with appicants w/o a job.

However I felt that it is not fair to lump me along with the Vendetta between you and Donsig .

Your ruling says that 72 hours must pass between the call for applicants and the appointment.

The language of the law says that the appointment must be delayed for 72 hours if and only if the only applicants are people who already have positions.

Now you say you didn't want the 72 hours to apply to people asking for a 2nd job, which would seem to me to mean that you're saying someone with a job could be appointed immediately but someone with no job has to wait 72 hours to be appointed??

For the record, my disagreement is with the interpretation. It does not matter in the slightest who makes that interpretation. Anyone who says the 72 hours applies to the case where someone without an office applies for the job is wrong -- there is absolutely no gramattically and semantically correct reading of this particular rule which can lead to that conclusion. I don't feel like posting a c.v. here as evidence that I know absolute English when I see it, if you would like to pledge secrecy via PM I might be persuaded to give you a web search. Cyc even said he thought I was right about how to analyze the law, and then ruled against that analysis, something that in my mind can only be explained if the motive was to ensure my interpretation doesn't "win".

The attitude that the Judiciary is infallible and the only set of people who can interpret the rules is the root of the problem. Donsig might even agree with me, but if he did he wouldn't be able to reverse a ruling because it would look like the Court caved in to a citizen. Curufinwe refused to step aside in the question of Nobody's appointment, and then Donsig refused to step aside in the JR that he initiatied, both incidents resulted from the same expectation that Justices have a mystical infallibility that can never be allowed to be challenged.

I want nothing more than to do my duty to the game without having my virtual hands tied by made up rules.

 

[DaveShack]

While we wait a week or so for the contest you might want to step back and try reading the passage from the point of view of someone who didn't write it and can't read that person's mind. You just might see how reasonable the judiciary's interpretation is.

You don't understand my previous post then.

I took off the "writer" hat and put on the "professor" hat for that post (not that I'm actually a professor, I just play one in the DG ). I did exactly what you suggested, reading the passage and applying the rules under which English is written. My degree is Comp Sci, but my undergrad studies included linguistics, and my name appears on a whole slew of legal documents, most of which I helped write. Part of my job is writing specifications for others to follow.

If there were a mistake in that rule, where it did mean what you said it means, then I would admit that. If you carefully look at my previous posting record you will see that I freely admit mistakes, when they actually are mistakes. I even let others have their way, sometimes, when a gray area is present, especially in an area which doesn't actually matter. This time I'm not wrong, and it is an area which actually does matter.

I would have run against you, but we wouldn't have had a President and there were no likely candidates even for an appointment. I had to choose between eliminating a known problem and creating an even bigger unknown, or avoiding the unknown and hoping the known problem wouldn't be too big.

 

[ice2k4]

I haven't read much, and I can't say much on this. But why must we interperet the law? The reason we interpret the law in RL is because we don't have the guys standing next to us, alive, who wrote the law. In the demogame however, the people who wrote the law, are still here, and if they meant something, and we written slightly unclearly, shouldn't we just ask them???

 

[dutchfire]

why don't we change the law if the law is wrong?
Donsig will be happy, and Dave will be happy

 

[GenMarshall]

Your ruling says that 72 hours must pass between the call for applicants and the appointment.

The language of the law says that the appointment must be delayed for 72 hours if and only if the only applicants are people who already have positions.

Now you say you didn't want the 72 hours to apply to people asking for a 2nd job, which would seem to me to mean that you're saying someone with a job could be appointed immediately but someone with no job has to wait 72 hours to be appointed??

My gut instincts for the ruleing is that the 72 hour would still apply to people who are seeking a second job. But then I thought, if the person resigns from that post, would the same person also be placed back into the pool of potential applicants. At first I did not thought that the 72 hour would not apply to the seeker seeking a second job, but then I came to a realization after much thought that the 72 hour will still apply to the applicant seeking a second job because that applicant had resigned his previous post and thus is placed back into the pool of potential applicants.

After this much realization, yesterday I had a chance to change my ruleing on that but I was already quoted by Donsig so I had leave the post alone. DaveShack, I do sincearly apologise for not making a swift change in my ruleing and do wished that you dont hold it against me. Were all humans, were not machines.

I do now wish to change my ruleing that "yes, the 72 hour still applys to the applicant for a second job".

 

[Cyc]

Let's take an example and work it through. The same logic applies to every place this 72 hours appears in the relevant law.

IIIB. If there is no deputy, the President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.

The sentence in blue filters the people who can apply for a vacant position to include only those people who do not have an office. This is the independent condition, defining what happens if no other modifiers are applied.

Exactly, this is absolutely correct. The President must put out a request for interested citizens who do not hold offfice.

The portion in red defines a 1st dependent condition, that no person who does not hold a position contacts the President. The magenta portion further restricts the red portion, by placing a time delimiter. Together, the red and magenta parts modify the blue part, setting the conditions under which the restriction of "do not currently hold office" is lifted.

Exactly, this is absolutely correct. The red and magenta modify the blue, setting the conditions under which the restriction is lifted.

The black part is the condition which results if the red + magenta conditions become effective, overriding the blue restriction.

Now, I have just broken down the law as written, using the semantic rules of English, in this case the canonical method of dividing paragraphs, sentences, and phrases into independent and dependent parts. Once the law is parsed correctly, it is clear that the 72 hours is a time modifier on (who can apply), and not on when the appointment can be made. In fact, the law itself does not specify either a minimum or a maximum time for an appointment to be made.

Exactly, this is absolutely correct. Now let's ask the important question. During this 72 hour period that the President must initiate and monitor, Joe Newbie finally works up the nerve to apply for the position. Joe Newbie has been a participant in many discussions and Turn Chats, but has never held a position. Our wonderous President has decided to break the law, and appoint his favored friend to the position on day one (1) of the 72 hour waiting period. Joe Newbie, not seeing this announcement applies on day two (2).
Our wonderous President says "Too late! I've already got it covered, go away!". Well Joe Newbie files a CC against the President, and someone else files a JR about this mishap. Guess who the Judiciary is going to side with. Not the guy who thinks he knows what the law says, but with the law.

If you try to break down the example using this method to isolate the 72 hours and thereby to show that it applies to the last part in black, you will find that extraneous bits remain which are not part of any other construct.

Give it up, DS

Oh, and by the way, this childish thing you have going about who is against you and who is not is total rubbish. I was agreeing with your explanation. It is correct. It's you who don't understand. I was supporting you unbeknownst in your misguided interpretation.

 

[donsig]

The language of the law says that the appointment must be delayed for 72 hours if and only if the only applicants are people who already have positions.

If the law actually said that we never would have had a JR on the issue. I'm not going to quote the law again (don't have time) but the words if and only if are not in the law.

The attitude that the Judiciary is infallible and the only set of people who can interpret the rules is the root of the problem. Donsig might even agree with me, but if he did he wouldn't be able to reverse a ruling because it would look like the Court caved in to a citizen.

I would not change this ruling. I believe it to be correct. I do not think the judiciary is infallible (especially when I'm on it) any more than I think the President is infallible. But within our system we have decidied to give the judiciary authority to hand down a legally binding decision on matters of controversy. As I said earlier, it is not the only means available for resolving such issues nor does it have to be the final word. Our citizens hold the power to change the law. Whether they choose to do so or not is not up to the judiciary.

 

[DaveShack]

In fact, the law itself does not specify either a minimum or a maximum time for an appointment to be made.

DaveShack's explanation of the situation was spot on. No bout adoubt it. This passage is not only a lightweight law, but it is also easily understood. A 72 hour period is required to allow any qualified citizen to apply for the position. This 72 hours is a safety buffer, allowing even the slowest of us an attempt at getting appointed to a position we desire. It also allows the President or Governor (whoever) time to mull over their decision prior to appointing someone. It's a needed and useful time period that's intent is obvious. The wording in this passage clearly states it's purpose.

Exactly, this is absolutely correct.

These quotes do not add up.

Now let's ask the important question. During this 72 hour period that the President must initiate and monitor, Joe Newbie finally works up the nerve to apply for the position. Joe Newbie has been a participant in many discussions and Turn Chats, but has never held a position. Our wonderous President has decided to break the law, and appoint his favored friend to the position on day one (1) of the 72 hour waiting period. Joe Newbie, not seeing this announcement applies on day two (2).
Our wonderous President says "Too late! I've already got it covered, go away!".

A good President will have picked Joe anyway. That's what I would do.

A bad President, the one we need protection from, won't care. He'll wait 3 days and then appoint the favorite friend anyway, if that friend doesn't have a position. If the friend does have a position already, and the President appoints before waiting for someone without a position to apply for, I'll CC him myself, we won't need to wait for Joe to do it.

Take a more realistic example for our situation. There is a vacancy right now, and two complete newbies apply within the first 10 minutes of the vacancy. The President wants to give a newbie a chance and already knows one of the two is good material for the job, so wants to appoint one. We need that office filled, there are things that only that individual can do which need to be done right now. With this unreasonable restriction we're stuck for 3 days.

We are protected from having existing office holders favored against those without. This is what the law was written for, it's what the law says, and it's exactly what the game needs.

 

[donsig]

Take a more realistic example for our situation. There is a vacancy right now, and two complete newbies apply within the first 10 minutes of the vacancy. The President wants to give a newbie a chance and already knows one of the two is good material for the job, so wants to appoint one. We need that office filled, there are things that only that individual can do which need to be done right now. With this unreasonable restriction we're stuck for 3 days.

What needs to be done in this game that only one person, one office holder can do? We certainly don't need an official to start a discussion or post a poll. Granted, we need officials to post game play instructions. Does the DP ever have to stop a game play session because an instruction is not posted? Or is the DP free to make any needed decisions as they arise? I find it difficult to believe we cannot conduct business (play the save) if we are missing an officer or three.

 

[robboo]

donsig....that depends...Does the DP have the authority to post a referedum, like I did which you then said was illegal? Otherwise the DP can declare war or peace without considering the citizens if we follow your premise that they can make decisions without orders. I find this distrubing since you preach about the power belonging to the citizens and then you say this.

Consider this example...I am SoW and DP, there is no SoS or censor. So I start the save and declare War or Peace whihc according to your post I am entitled to do since there are no instructions posted. The DP should stop play if somethign comes up thats needs citizen input..I am shocked you would say otherwise. So much for you being a citizen rights advocate, you just ALWAYS chose the minority opinion to start trouble.

 

[Black_Hole]

If I had filed a CC against the Judiciary for every ruling I didn't agree with, the judiciary would be backed up for monthes.
Just because the judiciary doesn't rule to your liking, doesn't mean the judiciary is not impartial.

 

[DaveShack]

If I had filed a CC against the Judiciary for every ruling I didn't agree with, the judiciary would be backed up for monthes.
Just because the judiciary doesn't rule to your liking, doesn't mean the judiciary is not impartial.

Let me be completely honest here.

I have disagreed with many rulings. In every other case that comes quickly to mind, it has been a matter of the law saying nothing on an issue, or having multiple sections in conflict with each other. Most of the time it has been sufficient to shoot the offender down in the next election, or write a new law which makes the ruling obsolete. In extremely rare circumstances, the justice was actually willing to admit that the ruling was incorrect, after being questioned on what the ruling meant. To be fair to CivGeneral, I can't really expect him to change without at least one of the others changing first because he has to avoid appearing indecisive.

As I have already explained, this is an extremely rare circumstance where there is only one possible correct reading of a law, and these three misguided souls think they must read it a different way just to prove that it's possible to read it a different way. They are breaking rules of the English language to interpret the law that way. If we allow people to ignore the language's rules, then we might as well not have a ruleset for the game at all because without the language's rules you can make up your own language rules, and a given statement means anything you want.

 

[Cyc]

DS, grow up. Take the ruling in your right hand, open your mouth, insert the ruling into your open mouth, and chew briskly. Swallow occaisionally until fully digested. There. Better?

Robboo your last post is as absurd as DS's.

Good point, Black_Hole.

 

[robboo]

Cyc..why so...Using what Don said that is a very pausible outcome if someone wanted to play by Donsig's rules of the DP making decisions.

 

[Cyc]

No, robboo. You're just donsig - bashing. The logic used is just comparing oranges to apples. Read what donsig says. Don't just blindly slash at it with your sword.....