Term 6 JR 1, reviwing the Game Session Scheduling Initiative

[DaveShack]

This thread is for citizen discussion of the following JR.

I would like a full judicial review of the ruling handed down by last term's judiciary regarding the game play scheduling initiative. While the judiciary found Joe Harker not guilty and that cannot be undone, I do think the present judiciary (if so inclined) can reverse or overturn the reasoning the prior judiciary used. Again, I do not seek to change the verdict. I merely seek to have the present court (with input from citizens) re-examine last term's ruling concerning the game play scheduling initiative.

Relevant law will be posted here.

Questions before the Court:

1. What legal positions were used to create the ruling in the subject case?
2. Does the ruling apply to any game session in general, or only to the specific session which was the subject of that case?
3. Reviewing the law itself, outside of the circumstances of any given game session, what interpretation should be placed on the meaning of any unclear provisions in the law.

All those with information for the court are invited to comment. This is not a confrontational proceeding, and proper decorum is expected of all.

 

[fed1943]

I shall try... with the English I still remember.
While a Court is not a Legislative Body, the two principles of Justice and Safety demand the same decision for the same situation.
But what was asked to the Jury and Judges? Beyond any doubts, if Mr.X was
guilty or not. That was the question, and so the decision, and no other.
There was no decision, and it was not supposed to be, if a Law was broken,
or not.
" A Law to be broken" and "to be guilty" are not the same things, because more requisites are needed to be guilty, than just a Law broken.
A thunder, ordinary electric power, an animal, a slave, a little child, a totally
mental insane person, a person under the effect of unwanted or accidental
drugs, an ordinary person under some given circumstances can be the efficient cause of a Law to be broken, but can never be guilty.
So, the trial's decision said nothing about the interpretation of the Law.
We cannot even know what reasons the group, as such, have to deem the
defendant not guilty, other than something was missing for him to be guilty.
But the Wiser, will say better.

 

[dutchfire]

I'd have to say that I voted not guity in Joe's case although I do agree that the law was not followed entirely (thus broken).

 

[donsig]

Does the ruling apply to any game session in general, or only to the specific session which was the subject of that case?

Not sure if I'm interpreting your question correctly though I think I see what you're aiming for. Democracy game judicial rulings apply in the future (of the same DG) unless a new law is passed over-riding the ruling. So the answer is that the ruling applies to game sessions in general.

Reviewing the law itself, outside of the circumstances of any given game session, what interpretation should be placed on the meaning of any unclear provisions in the law.

Can you be more specific about any unclear provisions in the law. The law itself seems very clear to me. That's to be expected becasue I wrote it. I'd really have to hear what others see as unclear before I could comment further.

 

[DaveShack]

Not sure if I'm interpreting your question correctly though I think I see what you're aiming for. Democracy game judicial rulings apply in the future (of the same DG) unless a new law is passed over-riding the ruling. So the answer is that the ruling applies to game sessions in general.

No, that wasn't what I was aiming about. The "ruling" in question was on innocence vs guilt on the scheduling of a specific play session. Does that ruling act as a general interpretation of the meaning of the law, or merely as an application of the law to that specific situation?

I think it was about a specific situation, and therefore did not result in a general interpretation of the law in question. To be more direct, the circumstances of the incident were not anticipated by the law, and the law did not apply to those circumstances. There was no provision in the law allowing the Court to issue a "stay" of the play session, nor was there anything in the law saying what should be done if a stay was (illegally IMO) enforced. That term's Court created a new concept by telling the DP not to play, and then created yet another new concept by telling the DP to play. Neither new concept can be treated as law.

Can you be more specific about any unclear provisions in the law. The law itself seems very clear to me. That's to be expected becasue I wrote it. I'd really have to hear what others see as unclear before I could comment further.

I don't question that the law about normal scheduling of play sessions was clear. I did find the imposition of a stay to be very questionable, as there was no provision in the law for such a stay to be put into place. Given a choice of ruling on validity of a poll or not ruling, the court chose a 3rd option of making the DP wait. I refrained from bringing yet another JR on that aspect of the event because it would have just introduced even more unrest and delay at a time when we needed closure. However, failure to question the procedure then didn't create a law for the procedure any more than performing the procedure did.