Term 7 - Judiciary

[DaveShack]

Section C.4 of the Constitution says that Initiatives must be allowed, meaning that a lower form of law may not delete Initiative as a class of decision making or included provisions which disallow its use. It does not say that a lower form of law cannot restrict Initiative by placing procedures or standards on its use. For example, a law which requires three people to post in favor of an idea before it can be an initiative would be an allowable restriction, but a law which disallows initiatives in setting the next tech to research would not be allowable. This principle can obviously be used to prove that Assembly Floor Votes are indeed Initiatives, otherwise the CoL provision requiring AFV's to declare war, peace, etc. would be in conflict with the Constitution.

One restriction on all polls is anticipated by and explicitly stated in the Constitution. It does say that that no lower form of law may place a higher limit for passage on a poll than that requried to pass an amendment to the Constitution, thusly no poll may require more than 60% of those voting to pass. A previous court considered this provision when ruling that the Strider Amendment could not go to polling. I don't recall if this was the specific grounds cited, but it was definitely discussed.

 

[donsig]

Section C.4 of the Constitution says that Initiatives must be allowed, meaning that a lower form of law may not delete Initiative as a class of decision making or included provisions which disallow its use. It does not say that a lower form of law cannot restrict Initiative by placing procedures or standards on its use.

For example, a law which requires three people to post in favor of an idea before it can be an initiative would be an allowable restriction, but a law which disallows initiatives in setting the next tech to research would not be allowable.

Hogwash. I fought long ago for the right of citizens to be able to post polls that would force otherwise uncooperate officials to act as the citizens wanted. If even one citizen wants to post an initiative then he or she should be allowed to do so. Our constitution clearly states that Initiative must always be allowed (my emphasis). How much more clear does it have to be? The only grounds for disallowing an initiative would be if it were contrary to forum rules. It's funny how you left out the always DaveShack.

So a Referendum isn't the same as an Initiative, but both are listed as a binding poll. Only the Opinion Poll is listed as a non-binding poll.

Keep following your reasoning and decide what differentiates a referendum from an initiative. If you decide that the difference is that referendums are posted by officials and initiatives are posted by citizens then it is quite logocal and reasonable to conclude that section 3.A of the CoL refers to referendums since they are offical polls (or polls posted by officials). So while referendums must be public this does not apply to initiatives since initiatives are not official polls. (Remember, official and binding are different things. Official = posted by an official, binding = results must be followed by officials regardless of whether the poll is official or not.)

We could say the Constitution does not allow the "Public Vote" part of the CoL to influence a Citizen's Initiative. So if Citizen Smith creates an initiative that lasts for five days and is private, one could argue that the Constitution mandates that it is allowed and becomes a binding poll. However, using the same logic, Citizen Joens could then make an initiative that lasts for one day and is public and also claim that the constitution forces us to follow that poll. Invalidating one part of the CoL on initiatives invalidates all of it, and that is a dangerous slope to aproach.

I don'n understand the last sentence here. The CoL is mute on initiatives (since they are not official polls) so there is nothing in the CoL to invalidate regarding initiatives.

Yes, the constitution allows Citizen Smith to post an initiative as a five day private poll.

Yes, the constitution allows Citizen Jones to post an initiative as a one day public poll.

What is wrong with that? I would agree that Jones's poll of one day is not a good thing but it is nonetheless legal. DaveShack talked above about how our CoL could restrict initiatives. The constitution also says Lower forms of law may modify parts of this hierarchy, except for the provision regarding initiative which may not be modified. Right after that the constitutin says A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except Initiative must always be allowed So, the CoL could specify procedures for implementing initiatives but cannot restrict them (as they are clearly exempted.) Allowable procedural laws could include such things as a minimum poll length (though even that is debateable since it could possibly deny an initiative to prevent a last minute instruction) or a mandated poll type. Yes, the CoL could demand that initiatives be public. I have never argued that that would be unconstitutional, I've merely argued that our current laws have no restrictions on poll types for initiatives.

 

[DaveShack]

Have you noticed how quiet it's gotton around here?

If we had a rule requiring more than one person to want a thing done before it could be posted as an initiative, it would be a very good thing. See, my philosophy to this game has always been to let the majority have their fun without interference. As it sits right now, just one individual can and does effectively tie everyone's hands chasing after issues which don't matter in the slightest. Now don't go on a rant about how the people are so stupid to be tied up about these issues. It's a group psychology thing that I will call "conflict paralysis" (probably not its real name), which I won't go into here other than to say that someone makes noise about a non-issue and the effect is people can't do their regular work. I see this syndrome at work all the time.

So, that's the long part of the message, here's a short part.

Everyone is sick of it and many are just leaving instead of staying around listening to someone blathering on about stuff that doesn't really matter for the Civ game.

There, got that off my chest. I can't say what I really want to say, because all it might get me is a short vacation from the forum.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Read, understand, do. Please...

 

[robboo]

Everyone is sick of it and many are just leaving instead of staying around listening to someone blathering on about stuff that doesn't really matter for the Civ game.

Hit the nail on the head...I am sticking around to see if we can pull out a win.

 

[Black_Hole]

Don't generalize Everyone DaveShack, I left (well I don't post much anymore) for precisely the opposite reason
The judiciary always decides to toss laws aside to make the game funner or more enjoyable to the majority, using the argument that the constitution "is a living document" so the judiciary can change it to make the game funner. The judiciary should rule on what the law says, not what "makes morse sense for the game" or "makes the game funner'

The laws says intiatives must always be allowed, meaning a citizen can post an initiative whenever it wants, without any pre requisistes, however the CoL could mandate certain requirements for the poll, such as it must last x days, or must be public, or must state it is an intiative, etc, as long as a citizen can always post one

 

[DaveShack]

Don't generalize Everyone DaveShack, I left (well I don't post much anymore) for precisely the opposite reason.

You're right, there are other reasons people have bugged out.

I do stand by characterizing it that extremism is a major cause. What we need is happy people.

 

[Black_Hole]

You're right, there are other reasons people have bugged out.

I do stand by characterizing it that extremism is a major cause. What we need is happy people.

But what I am trying to say is we shouldn't base our ruling on what will give us happy people

 

[DaveShack]

But what I am trying to say is we shouldn't base our ruling on what will give us happy people

If the objective is to be the last 3 people standing, the Judiciary can decide cases without regard to what makes the people happy.

If the objective is to keep the game alive, then every one of us who is still here need to focus more on keeping our neighbors happy. One way to accomplish that is to quit bringing up issues that cause unrest by their very existence.

• Making an issue of judicial recusals was far more damaging than a biased ruling would have been.
• Making an issue of requiring a delay before making an appointment was more damaging than any "fast" appointment could ever be.
• Making an issue of private polling when nobody seems to really want to use a private poll (other than a poll to allow other polls to be private) is more damaging than having polls be public.
• Fighting against the idea of an amendment to remove an office (on the grounds that having an amendment is a bad idea) is more damaging than just removing the office.
• Fighting over the definitions of official, binding, referendum, and initiative is more damaging than letting people sometimes get the kind of poll wrong but having the game continue.

Have I made errors in this regard? Possibly, but mostly as the majority target defending against a minority attack.

What do we need?

1. Justices who just rule on what is true according to a majority of the people, instead of looking for a justification to rule they way they want to. The 72 hour thing was a perfect example. The old law quite clearly said an appointment had to wait if and only if there were no applicants who didn't already have a position, but at least one of the Justices was hell-bent on finding a reason to say a wait was always required as though it would destroy the game to make an appointment any faster. That incident is also why I detest "back door deals" via PM.
2. A Censor who can find the balance between invalidating every poll which misses a dotted i or a crossed t, and ignoring blatant violations of the law. Assuming the vote holds up you'll be getting one. If elected, I'm only expecting to have to invalidate one specific kind of poll -- any initiative which tries to change the law or force an interpretation of a law without going through the amendment process or the JR process respectively, will be invalidated. (Expecting to see that poll, and a private one at that, because it fits the M.O. of the resident malcontent).
3. Enough people to play the actual game

 

[donsig]

• Making an issue of judicial recusals was far more damaging than a biased ruling would have been.
• Making an issue of requiring a delay before making an appointment was more damaging than any "fast" appointment could ever be.
• Making an issue of private polling when nobody seems to really want to use a private poll (other than a poll to allow other polls to be private) is more damaging than having polls be public.
• Fighting against the idea of an amendment to remove an office (on the grounds that having an amendment is a bad idea) is more damaging than just removing the office.
• Fighting over the definitions of official, binding, referendum, and initiative is more damaging than letting people sometimes get the kind of poll wrong but having the game continue.

We have very different values DaveShack:

• I don't believe that asking a sitting CJ not to rule on whether his own appointment was valid was worse than the mockery of justice we got when he did just that.
• I don't think giving citizens four days instead of two to apply for a vacant office is worse than slapping a title on the first guy who comes down the pike, just because he gets there first.
• I don't think that allowing citizens to vote how they want to without fear of ridicule is worse than throwing up polls where those who vote later side with the initial majority so they can appear to be on the 'winning' side.
• I don't think pointing out flaws in our laws is worse than automatically rubber stamping every amendment brought before the judiciary.
• You know, this one has got me stumped. I think it is more important to adhere to the rules we have decided upon. Yet, I''m walking away from this one scratching my head because way back when I posted a poll of the wrong kind (according to DaveShack anyway) and I don't recall him ever saying we should accept the poll anyway.

Anyway, I was just wondering if you've looked at the results of your 'should private polls be allowed' poll? There are seven 'yes' votes, seven 'no' votes and one abstention. I've got news for you - I only voted once.

 

[Nobody]

There was a time when the demogame was a bunch of people working together to play a game of civ, the rules were in place so people would play the game fairly, not cheat and make sure everyones ideas were followed. The courts were to punish people who broke the rules and explain to people what the rules meant.

A normal question would be "who controls worker movements, The domestic leader or the governor" the judges would all answer "section 3. says the domestic leader may control workers during a time of war, any other time the governor may. That means the governor controls the workers unless we are at war."*

Now it seems the questions are "Who controls the workers, the governor or the domestic leader." Then the judicary will try and answer it but the current procedures which have not been ratifyed says, "during a judical review, the judges must allow a 72 hour waiting period before answering." Now this period would go by and the judicary would start ruling BUT wait someone would say "The 72 hour starts after the judical review is found to have merit, not when its first filled. Now instead of just carrying on... or even starting a new 72 period now, we will have to have the Judical Review process began again with the original aplicant, filling again"..... the judges will argue for a while, then someone will make a citizens poll to decide the issue, Where 90% of the people will vote the commonsense way just to have the poll invalidated because it was public when everyone knows that a citizen poll is meant to be private. Of course before the next poll can be issued, we must wait the mandatory 144 hour waiting period. By the time the poll is invalidated for a second time (because the 144hour period ran out at midnight gmt not midnight pst) and the case somehow becomes a judical review again, But this time because the public defender was the person who posted the second poll he will be asked to recuse himself, and if he dosent then we will have to spend a futher 20763 hour period worth of polls, threads, cc's to decide if he was in recussable, but even if all these things say he wasnt some citizens will simply moan until the public defender has had enough and resigns. During this time nobody will have decided when ever a governor or the domestic leader controls workers they will just decide between themselves. During the same time the President hasnt shown up all month and nobody has launched a CC into that criminal act. God forbid the Judicary should get something done.

By the way whens the new thread getting opened, Im a judge now

...............
All the laws i spoke of were made up.

 

[dutchfire]

(That's the reason why I voted for him in the presidential election)

 

[robboo]

(me too..... )