The People vs. Joe Harker

[Nobody]

I think its silly to vote guilty and say no punishment, if he is guilty then he should be punished if not then he is not guilty. I think it makes a joke of the courts to vote guilty just to vote no punishment. This isn't a judicial review to clarify the law, donsig thought he broke the law and needed to be punished.

Anyway i think its clear he is innocent, The laws are there to make sure fair notice is given. He gave quite a few days notice, not just 24 hours, more like 60 hours+. It was a off line game session so the time difference is such a tiny breach of the law it dosent warrant a conviction. A black mark against his name, forever.

Everyone else manged to get there instructions in on time, it his fault the post wasn't in by then.

 

[Hyronymus]

So this is still lingering! Maybe it's time to propose a time frame in which the Supreme Court has to rule on cases like this. It's totally out of proportion to have this discussion much longer, get on with the ruling!!!

 

[DaveShack]

Actually, it's get on with the jury poll.

 

[donsig]

I think its silly to vote guilty and say no punishment, if he is guilty then he should be punished if not then he is not guilty. I think it makes a joke of the courts to vote guilty just to vote no punishment. This isn't a judicial review to clarify the law, donsig thought he broke the law and needed to be punished.

Yes, I do think he broke the law and should be punished. I haven't changed my mind. You are the one saying he shouldn't be punished and therefore he is not guilty. Others have used the same reasoning in this thread. It does not make a mockery of our laws to hand down a guilty verdict without punishment. That is done everyday in real life. Sentences are suspended and commuted every day. The finding of guilt or innocence is a separate and distinct process from handing out punishment. The former depends solely on the laws as written and the actions taken (or not taken), The latter takes into consideration such things as intent and whether or not the guilty party has friends in high places (Scooter) or the culture of the court and jury is such that blatantly illegal acts are condoned by them (think deep south USA and racism).

As I said before, my ruling on this case depends mostly on whether we consider the session played on Monday to be a reschedule of the session previously scheduled for Friday, or as a new session.

If it is a reschedule, then the law does not place any requirement on advance notice of the new time. The only possible verdict if we think it's a rescheduled session is innocent, based on a lack of a law which requires a new notice to be given.

OK, DaveShack, let's talk about intent of the law, one of your favorite subjects (at least when you were the one who wrote the law). The intent of the game play scheduling initiative was not merely to give us advance notice of when the save was to be played. Nor was it meant to be a tool to ensure everyone who wanted to be at the chat could arrange their lives to attend. It was meant to be a tool to allow citizens and officials time to give fair input to the DP and also to restrain the DP from rushing through a game play session to do what he or she wanted without giving the rest of us time to give input. That's the reason the initiative specifies the time and date when the save is to be played must be announced in the forums 24 hours prior to the save being played.

If you accept the above as the basis of the initiative there is no logical way you can argue that rescheduling a session exempts it from the requirements of the initiative. Your reasoning effectively destroys the game play initiative by allowing a DP to merely reschedule a play session to get get out from under it's jurisdiction. If anything makes a mockery of our laws that reasoning does.

 

[DaveShack]

The finding of guilt or innocence is a separate and distinct process from handing out punishment. The former depends solely on the laws as written and the actions taken (or not taken).

I agree. We have differences on what the laws mean, but agreement on the standard by which the case must be judged.

 

[Provolution]

I must say I stand Neutral in all this. I have my views on what have taken place, and I think it is best to keep them to myself. That said, I would like to focus on the positive aspects of this demogame team, which is much better than the team I saw at DG5 in Civ3, except for a few I missed from that time.

The level in this demogame is overall much better, and my initial flaming was more a result of the environmental damage incurred from DG5 in Civ3.

People here are less obnoxious and crazy, we do not see individuals bragging about publicly using drugs and in general having less social deviants in the extreme sense. That is a good thing, since it allows us to focus on the game.

This case, as I see it, is principally an important one, nevertheless, a storm in a waterglass compared to other demogames I witnessed.

Yet, I would like the citizens to further reflect on the increased need for reflection and strategizing in Civ4, as compared to Civ3, and not to bring too many obsolete demogame conventions into this set.

 

[dutchfire]

@ dutchfire: The judiciary can add other options (see the last line of the procedures you quoted). If the three members of the judiciary agree to add a no punishment option then it gets added. I've pointed this out before and I've also said before that whatever punishment is or isn't decided upon should not have a bearing on whether the law was followed or not. It simply was followed or it wasn't and our votes in the verdict thread should reflect that. If you think the rule wasn't adhered to properly then you should vote guilty. You can do that and still campaign for no punishment.

I'm not voting until the judiciary has this issued cleared. I don't want Joe Harker to be punished, and I want to know for sure how that can be achieved.

 

[Methos]

the one saying he shouldn't be punished and therefore he is not guilty.

I'm hoping that citizens aren't using this reason to vote not guilty. You don't decides someones guilt on whether they should be punished or not.

 

[donsig]

I'm not voting until the judiciary has this issued cleared. I don't want Joe Harker to be punished, and I want to know for sure how that can be achieved.

I have formally asked the judiciary to agree to add a no punishment option to any sentencing poll that arises from this investigation. I have asked them to make this arrangement before the jury poll is posted. I think if enough citizens make their wishes known that this option should be added then the judiciary will agree. This isn't really a question of law. Our rules are structured so that punishment is decided by citizens (if no agreement is reached between accuser, accused and judiciary) so if citizens want a no punishment option then it should be included.

 

[Nobody]

It seems the discussion has ended. We will need to move on to the jury poll soon if we want to end things before the end of term.

I'm hoping that citizens aren't using this reason to vote not guilty. You don't decides someones guilt on whether they should be punished or not.

I agree.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I'm posting the poll.