Term 8: Censor's office

[DaveShack]

Censor : DaveShack

link to previous term coming soon

procedures coming soon

 

[DaveShack]

Interpretations of law.

• Official means the same thing as binding.
• Official polls "should" be marked public.
• The Censor is responsible for organizing polling and enforcing polling standards. This responsibility allows for judgement.
• Changes to the law require an amendment.
• The only legally valid way to require others to use a particular interpretation of a law is via the Judicial Review process.

Using these interpretations, the following procedures naturally result.

• The default for all binding polls is public except as prohibited by law, but binding polls will not be invalidated solely on the basis of being private.
• Only amendment polls may change a law. Attempted non-amendment binding polls seeking to change a law will be marked invalid.
• Only a Judicial Review may permanently change the interpretation of a law. Polls seeking to interpret a law will be marked invalid.
• Polls which are prematurely ended will be marked invalid.
• Polls that are biased or do not provide the citizens with enough information or time to make an informed decision will be marked invalid.
• Polls not marked invalid within 3 days of the end of the poll, or before the in-game action is played, are to be considered valid, unless a Judicial Review is accepted on the poll's validity.

 

[donsig]

Will your procedures allow for the validation of citizen initiatives that are private polls?

For the record I'd like to point out that the results of a recent opinion poll were almost split in this issue. 6 voted yes (allow private polls), 7 voted no and there was one abstention.

I would also like to point out that our laws, as they are currently written, do not forbid the use of private polling for citizen initiatives.

 

[DaveShack]

Perhaps I should preview some concepts to be included in the Censorial procedures, for comment.

The question of whether private binding polls should be validated is more complex than a simple yes or no can answer. Not all polls are created equal, nor are all pollsters. Not all subjects are equal, for example our laws already identify polls about individuals as being a special class. The long-term approach to this issue requires input from many people. Even the current law is interpreted differently by different people, to the point that a clear-cut decision could go one way one term, and the other way with a different court the next.

The law is clear on certain polls, which must be public and there doesn't seem to be any disagreement on these:

• Polls posted by an official, in the course of the duties of the office, which did not originate at the request of a citizen.
• Assembly votes concerning five things: War/Peace, Wonders, Taxes, Civics, and City locations
• Votes which seek to change the law, which must follow amendment procedures

Two memorable attempts at using private initiatives come to mind

• A poll asking if a justice should recuse himself from a case. The grounds used in trying to justify making this poll private was that the poll was "about an individual". That reasoning had two major flaws, first the topic was about an action of an individual where the underlying purpose of private polls "about an individual" are aimed at "making judgements about an individual" -- elections, confirmation polls, guilt/innocence, sentencing; and second the originator was essentially asking permission to disregard the position he himself had taken on a previous case, not to mention possibly also asking permission to break the rules with impunity.
• A private initiative to change the interpretation of the law to allow private initiatives. This fails on concept #3 above, polls to change the law are amendments and must follow the rules for amendments.

While we're waiting for the people to really decide a (semi) final disposition of private initiative polling, the following guidelines are proposed as a compromise.

Under the principle of acting as though the office holder's interpretation of a law is correct unless the Judiciary rules otherwise, the active interpretation is:

• Official means the same thing as binding.
• Official polls "should" be marked public.
• The Censor is responsible for organizing polling and enforcing polling standards. This responsibility allows for judgement.

Using these interpretations, the following guidelines naturally result.

• The default for all binding polls is public except as prohibited by law.
• At the request of any citizen, the Censor will preview the subject of polls which are desired to be private. If there is a reason for marking the poll private, then it will be allowed.
• If three or more citizens other than the Censor and the poll originator object to the public vs private status on other than obstructionary grounds (in the Censor's opinion) then a second poll will be opened with the opposite option selected and citizens will be encouraged to vote in both polls. Same results in both polls validate the result, different results the poll with the more decisive result prevails. (no other fair way to decide short of stopping everything for another 2 polls on whether the specific poll should be public or private, and the actual repoll)

As is my custom, I'm very open to comments, but that does not necessarily mean that they will be accepted.

 

[donsig]

In other words, NO, right Mr. Censor?

The law is clear on certain polls, which must be public and there doesn't seem to be any disagreement on these:
Votes which seek to change the law, which must follow amendment procedures

I do not agree that amendment polls should be public nor do I see anything in our laws that require public polls for the amendment process. The only possible argument is that amendment polls are official polls because they are posted by the judiciary. I would argue that is not the case since it is the citizen sponsoring the amendment that writes the poll.

I would also point out that initiative have the force of law so using the Censor's reasoning all initiatives would have to be public. This sort of reasoning (combined with official = binding and initiatives are really only meant to be used to ok exceptions to the law ) renders our constitutional section on decision making into so much gibberish.

I would appear the only recourse is to post a private poll initiative as a challenge to the Censor's procedures and let the judiciary sort it out.

 

[robboo]

Question to both of you..censor and donsig.

How important to the playing of the game is it if the poll is public or private? In case you havent noticed...we are gettign our butts kicked. SO instead of worrying about things which are not important in the game...come up with something constructive to help out, if not then all you are doing is causing more strife and disruption. If the game itself doesnt matter and your philosphical discussions are more important, why are you playing.... to up your post count or just be an arguing onrey old man.

 

[DaveShack]

In other words, NO, right Mr. Censor?

In other words, ask and maybe the answer will be yes, except that polls on the subject of changing the law will definitely receive a no answer.

That's different than the flat NO that you got from past Censors, you should consider it an improvement.

 

[DaveShack]

Question to both of you..censor and donsig.

How important to the playing of the game is it if the poll is public or private?

Actually, it's only important for certain polls. Polls about the Civ4 game would get validated unless there is something seriously wrong with them. The ones which have nothing to do with the Civ4 game are the ones which could be dangerous, they get scrutiny.

I was the first one this term to post anything about an in-game issue.

 

[donsig]

Question to both of you..censor and donsig.

How important to the playing of the game is it if the poll is public or private? In case you havent noticed...we are gettign our butts kicked. SO instead of worrying about things which are not important in the game...come up with something constructive to help out, if not then all you are doing is causing more strife and disruption. If the game itself doesnt matter and your philosphical discussions are more important, why are you playing.... to up your post count or just be an arguing onrey old man.

Depends on which game you are talking about. The issues I've brought up this game relate to demogame stuff that will be relevant for many games to come.

I gave up trying to be constructive in the game back when our SoS totally disregarded legally posted instructions and did what she wanted to. I have also been turned off by the attitude that citizens should not interfere with elected officials and their decision making. For many terms I've been fighting to have the citizen's initiative recognized for what it was meant to be: a lever to be used against officials when needed. The ability to post private polls is a big part of making initiatives useful. Look at the opinion poll on allowing private polls. Despite the recent posting in great big red letters that no one cared, as many people voted yes in that poll as voted no. Would that vote have been the same had the poll been public?

If you want me involved in the game then give me a tool I can work with: private and binding citizen initiative polls. Without that lever my time is wasted discussing strategy with officials who want to make their own decisions.

 

[DaveShack]

If you want me involved in the game then give me a tool I can work with: private and binding citizen initiative polls.

I've already said twice in this thread that I interpret should be in the law as allowing private initiatives, as long as they don't cross certain lines. A poll being marked private won't be an automatic invalidation this term, but I reserve the right to make a judgement call.

Now, do you have anything to offer in the game? My comment in big red letters was that most people (other than you) don't really care about the non game issues, at least not to the point of feeling like they have to fight to the death over them. I don't really care that much myself, my fight is to stand up for the current law, until the people see fit to change it.

 

[donsig]

...my fight is to stand up for the current law, until the people see fit to change it.

We are fighting the same fight then. Trouble is, we have very different interpretations of what the law actually is. As Censor you have no authority whatsoever over intitiative polls, no right to impose your judgements on them (other than as a citizen to vote in them or post your own).

 

[robboo]

Don and Dave....Since neither of you are on the judiciary..just bring a JR on the subject OR write an amendment. This is the perfect opportunity for this, no conflict of interest.

Let the decision be the job of the offices thats is supposed to interpret the CoL... but remember if you lose could you not play the sour grapes games and just live with it. IF you cant...then you really dont care about the law you care about your own opinions over the written law.

 

[Eklektikos]

If you choose to go down that route I would recommend an amendment rather than a JR. I think that at this point we would be better off finding out what people want the law to be and rewriting it to better reflect that view.

 

[ravensfire]

If you choose to go down that route I would recommend an amendment rather than a JR. I think that at this point we would be better off finding out what people want the law to be and rewriting it to better reflect that view.

YES! This is a situation best suited for clarifition by an amendment, once and for all settling this. I would be disappointed to see it before the Judiciary as a JR, not as a review of a proposed amendment.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Donsig has declared his intent to post an initiative on private vs public polling. An initiative to change the law would not be valid. Two of the current Justices have already confirmed that the appropriate mechanism is an amendment.

 

[robboo]

Then I think now the ball is in Dons court. He will either write the amendment or delay with a poll. I hope this can be settled before it spills into yet another term.

 

[GeorgeOP]

Back to the work of the Censor, we currently have a city called "Red Dot". I don't remember having any discussions or polls about a city name. Does this fall under your job, or someone else?

 

[robboo]

Dave...I am not sure as to who should post this so I will ask here and if you dont respond in 12 hours I will post it.

I request a poll asking if we want to trade drama and philo for CS and mono and 20gold with Alex.

In addition I'd request that we reopen the poll on the GS useage...the trade would open up the GS to get paper instead of astro. This new info would surely change some votes(I have). I think a later poll would over ride an earlier one.

 

[ravensfire]

If is pleases the Censor,

KINDLY ALLOW CITIZENS POSTING AS A CITIZEN TO DO SO.

Thank you for your understanding.

EDIT: I would have been given some guidance from your procedures, but a quick review of your post labeled "reserved for procedures" is, oddly enough, empty.

So please, oh esteemed and all knowing Censor, post your procedures that I, and others, might be guided by them. You have a post with "concepts", but I would expect that such a demanding and precise person as yourself would have clearly and conspicuously used your placeholder, as you have done in the past.

-- Ravensfire

(note the lack of a "Chief Justice" after the name? That's a rather good clue that I post as a citizen)

 

[DaveShack]

Procedures post updated.