Term 9 - Censor's Office

[DaveShack]

Censor - DaveShack

Procedures in post 2

Link to previous term?

 

[DaveShack]

Interpretations of law.

1. Official means the same thing as binding.
2. Official polls "should" be marked public.
3. The Censor is responsible for organizing polling and enforcing polling standards. This responsibility allows for judgement.
4. Changes to the law require an amendment.
5. 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]

So now you've decided that only the judiciary can interpret laws and you are forcing that on the rest of us via your procedures. What a crock. Especially since you begin the post by interpreting the law.

 

[DaveShack]

So now you've decided that only the judiciary can interpret laws and you are forcing that on the rest of us via your procedures. What a crock. Especially since you begin the post by interpreting the law.

Read the post more closely, grasshopper.

Only a Judicial Review may permanently change the interpretation of a law. Polls seeking to interpret a law will be marked invalid.

Individual officials can and must interpret the law pertaining to their office. Doing so is the only rational way to understand what they need to do for their duties. Whether they put those interpretations into writing or not is a matter of personal choice.

Citizens can interpret the law -- how else can they decide if the official's interpretation should be challenged in a JR? How else can they decide if someone's actions violate the law to the point that they should file a CC?

What you can't do is usurp the Judiciary's authority by having a poll which forces them to rule a particular way, or trying to bind us to a particular interpretation. If it were so simple as that, I would have merely polled the 72 hour wait period thing. I exercized restraint by not using a poll to overrule the Judiciary, and I expect everyone else to show that same restraint.

It would have been rather comical if I had tried to use a poll then, because the Judiciary would probably have to rule on whether the poll can overrule them (ignoring the obvious conflict of interest), or let the poll take effect.

Besides, isn't the root argument pretty much over anyway? You got your coveted private polls, why not just count your winnings?

 

[donsig]

Read the post more closely, grasshopper.

What you can't do is usurp the Judiciary's authority by having a poll which forces them to rule a particular way, or trying to bind us to a particular interpretation. If it were so simple as that, I would have merely polled the 72 hour wait period thing. I exercized restraint by not using a poll to overrule the Judiciary, and I expect everyone else to show that same restraint.

It would have been rather comical if I had tried to use a poll then, because the Judiciary would probably have to rule on whether the poll can overrule them (ignoring the obvious conflict of interest), or let the poll take effect.

Besides, isn't the root argument pretty much over anyway? You got your coveted private polls, why not just count your winnings?

I'm not suggesting that a simple poll can reverse or undo a judicial ruling. I am suggesting that where interpretations are needed we have two choices: file a JR or discuss and poll the situation. I'm all for having a strong judiciary but not to the point of denying ourselves as a group the right to discuss and poll (i.e., decide) how we want this game to be played. Your insistance that only the judiciary can officialy and formally interpret the laws goes against the very core values of this game and goes to show that no, the root argument is not over at all.

Private polls were summarily and illegally banned by one office holder for three or four terms. The current holder of that same office is now trying to dictate what decisions citizen's are allowed to make. That's not democracy. Taking away our citizens' right to make formal interpretive decisions via discussion and polling is not the proper way to handle this. If you think the results of a given poll interprets the law incorrectly then the proper course to be taken is to have the poll and it's result reviewed by the judiciary.

Why don't you quit trying to dictate to us and remove the following clause from your procedures:

Only a Judicial Review may permanently change the interpretation of a law. Polls seeking to interpret a law will be marked invalid.

 

[Oldbus]

The Science rate poll has closed. 40% has the most votes. Please check it out and validate it if it meets the standard. Also, please consider this for the Turnchat (in case someone forgets to post an instruction).