The People vs. Joe Harker

[MOTH]

In my opinion this is the key questions:

• When did the Defense play his TC?
• Did the Defense state he was playing 24 hours prior to his TC?

According to our laws he has to state the notice prior to playing and state the time. He did not do that. The initial statement was for a different time that got held up due to legal wrangling. Therefore his TC changed and a new declaration of intent (date/time) needed to be stated. He failed to do that.

Simple Summary: By law you have to state your intent to play 24 hours prior to that intent. If that date/time changes, you must therefore declare a new date/time in order to follow our laws. The Defense did not do that.

It seems to me that Joe properly followed the laws when he posted his TCIT including a date and Time.

Can anyone show me where in the law where the law requires "new declaration of intent (date/time) needed to be stated"?

IMHO, Joe could of started the play sesssion as soon as the stay was lifted.

 

[Provolution]

This case is stealing focus from game research and strategy talks.

 

[HUSch]

This case is stealing focus from game research and strategy talks.

You are right, this case has nothing to do with playing civ, but some with democracy. And this is also part/reason of this game.

I think, this case is about the interaction of our group and therefore it is stealing nothing.

 

[ordinaryguy]

It seems to me that Joe properly followed the laws when he posted his TCIT including a date and Time.

Can anyone show me where in the law where the law requires "new declaration of intent (date/time) needed to be stated"?

IMHO, Joe could of started the play sesssion as soon as the stay was lifted.

Echo your view. That's the point I'm trying to make. This determines my decision to vote not guilty currently, unless there is any evidence which proves otherwise.

 

[Methos]

Can anyone show me where in the law where the law requires "new declaration of intent (date/time) needed to be stated"?

The law states that the DP must declare the date/time when they plan on playing. He planned on playing Monday night, therefore he should have declared a date/time. It doesn't matter about the original statement, what matters is about Monday night. Whether it was rescheduled or not, the law still requires he specificy a date/time.

I believe many of you who are defending Joe's actions are doing so because it's Joe, rather than what the law does or doesn't say. Forget its Joe and just discuss this as a case of what and how the law should be read. Besides, from those of us who are calling for a guilty verdict, I believe we all also prefer a 'No punishment' sentencing.

This is like one of those landmark cases, where this will set precedent (probably spelled that wrong).

 

[HUSch]

The law states that the DP must declare the date/time, when they plan of playing ...

Why, because if he doesn't, you can make big noise.
No, that is not the reason behind the law. The reason is we civilans get a chance to make plans to join the turnchat and more important all officials get a chance to make last minute orders.

Nobody in this trial has said, it was a surprise that Joe make the turn on monday. Everybody who wants could join him, if the time was not clear; i think he could have question about. All officials has made their instruction, no offical has said he was surprised about the shortness of time, he needs more time to change his instruction.

The question is:
Is the law for us or are we for the law?
I think the first, but i'm German.

 

[fed1943]

I shall vote Not Guilt, and not because is Joe Harker, but by the reasons I
posted.

If tomorrow the same event arises with any other person, my vote will not
change.

Best regards,

 

[Methos]

It's not the law itself that is in question, but whether the actions taken followed it. It doesn't matter if everyone here thought it was the stupidist law there was, we must still obey it as it is a law.

If people don't like the law they can seek its removal later, but that doesn't change the fact that the law must still be upheld now and for as long as it is a law.

 

[dutchfire]

If people don't like the law they can seek its removal later, but that doesn't change the fact that the law must still be upheld now and for as long as it is a law.

This is a point often made, and of course I could point out some WWII references (orders are orders etc.), but that just feels cheap. However I do think that prosecuting people based on a law, just because it's a law is at least discussable. ("gedoogbeleid" anyone?)

 

[DaveShack]

The crucial question is whether it's the same play session or a new one. The law is essentially null on how reschedules should be handled. Returning back to one of my earlier questions, what if the DP needs to play 6 hours late? Is this a new session requiring 24 hours notice, or is it the same session requiring no further notice? Yes, I know the current instance wasn't 6 hours, but if, as Methos suggests, we're creating precedent we should take care not to establish the wrong one. We can't create the law via this proceeding.

Remember, the original reason the accuser was upset was not the lack of notice, it was because play started while a poll was open. That is also a null area in the law. It was a bad idea to start playing before that particular poll closed. The right way to handle the question of open polls when a session starts is a new law for that condition.

Edit: Don't let my opinion on how the law should be used cloud your judgement on the case. One of the most important DG traditions is that anyone can raise a complaint about any alledged violation of the law. It is entirely proper to have this discussion, and vote on its outcome. The existence of a better way does not affect that.

 

[donsig]

The crucial question is whether it's the same play session or a new one.
...
Remember, the original reason the accuser was upset was not the lack of notice, it was because play started while a poll was open. That is also a null area in the law. It was a bad idea to start playing before that particular poll closed. The right way to handle the question of open polls when a session starts is a new law for that condition.

The crucial question is not whether it was the same session or a new one.
The crucial question is was adequate notice given of when the save was to be played.

Also, DaveShack, please let me speak for myself when it comes to what I'm upset about. Through all our DG debates you should realize by now that you do not think like me and therefore do not understand my feelings. The only thing I've been upset about in this whole situation is the fact that you posted a poll in an effort to subvert the one I had posted a few hours earlier. As unwarranted and unethical as that was it was not against the DG rules we now have.

I was not upset that the save was played before the polls closed. I've played this game long enough to know we have a culture of not allowing open polls to stop play. I do feel my rights as a DG citizen were infringed upon because I was not given adequate notice of when the save was to be played. I was well aware that Joe Harker had declared his intent to play on Monday night and I honestly thought either that was enough time for the polls to close or that if it was close (either the poll votes or the timing of their closing) that Joe would wait till they closed. For me the stay was unknown territory as to how it's lifting affected game play. As I said earlier I had to dig through polls just to find the applicable laws. The point is, if Joe Harker had given 24 hour notice of the time the save was to be played then I would have been in a position to ask him to delay until the polls closed. I didn't even get that chance because he did not specify the time he was going to play - and that is contrary to the game play initiative which we agreed on as a group.

It is true we have no laws on the books concerning what happens if a DP can't play the save as announced. When we drafted the game play initiative we all realized that DP's may not always be able to play exactly when they state. We all agreed then that a reasonable delay was ok. We did not go into what was reasonable but IIRC we were thinking along the lines of an hour or so and we all certainly agreed that the save was not to be played before the announced time. We never made a law about this because we allow DPs to schedule their own sessions and so there is little chance for big delays - unless, as in this case, citizen action is brought resulting in a judicial stay. Since we are setting a precedent in this case we should ensure that when a stay is put in place and then lifted, a new announcement should be made.

 

[DaveShack]

The crucial question is not whether it was the same session or a new one.
The crucial question is was adequate notice given of when the save was to be played.

Also, DaveShack, please let me speak for myself when it comes to what I'm upset about.

OK, I stand corrected. My impression of the reason ...

Since we are setting a precedent in this case we should ensure that when a stay is put in place and then lifted, a new announcement should be made.

My opinion is that we should not make that new law via this case. What you're suggesting is that lifting a stay should require a further 24 hours notice. I don't think that should be mandatory, for the reason I've always been against mandatory delays.

 

[fed1943]

If Chieftain or Governor or Warlord or Head Scientist or the people himself

commands a losing play and DP obeys and then loses the game, do you say

that DP is guilty of the defeat?

Here DP just followed the voice of the Court about a legal question:

How can he be guilty?

Best regards,

 

[grant2004]

Joe's question about if the court would have it's stay lifted by Monday night was posted on the 6th, a full 3 days before the session was played on Monday at the DP's night-time. However this post is not a definitive scheduling of the play session, it is rather a question of if the session can be scheduled then. I believe that no definitive scheduling of the event occurred and that is certainly a violation of the law. A delay of 3 days, is certainly a major delay, and certainly requires a clear rescheduling so that citizens and officials may act as needed.

I think that Joe Harker did an excellent job with a very difficult TC, and I believe that he has been unfairly targeted because he is the easiest target for retribution after all of the bad blood around his TC. The cases that have been brought against him are almost entirely cases of nit picking and I do not support the way his opponents have done this. However in this case they've picked the right thing to attack him on, there is a violation here and therefore I am compelled to vote guilty, however if this comes to sentencing I would vote for no punishment, and possibly a commendation to Joe Harker for acting in an almost perfect manner in a very hostile situation, allowing our game to continue and preventing our civil war from continuing.

 

[dutchfire]

If an arrangement cannot be made, or the citizen was found Guilty in a trial poll, the sentence will be determined by the citizens through a poll. The Chief Justice will post the poll, marked as private with a duration of 48 hours. The options for the poll will include:

Suspension from Demogame
Removal from Office (if applicable)
Final Warning
Warning
Abstain
Other options may be included through unanimous consent of the Judiciary.

Note that there is no "no punishment" option there. Because I don't want Joe to be punished, I don't see another option than voting not guilty.

 

[DaveShack]

I think the Judiciary should determine what "other options may be included" first, then the citizens will not have to change their vote on account of uncertainty.

 

[Joe Harker]

From the Judicary Thread by Lockesdonkey

the only thing that remains is no punishment. I would argue that a simple warning is equivalent, since the conviction clearly implies that something wrong was done and includes, implicitly, a warning not to do it again, so issuing a warning would merely be formal recognition of this fact. From this, it would follow that the addition of a "No Punishment" option is therefore unnecessary

 

[donsig]

My opinion is that we should not make that new law via this case. What you're suggesting is that lifting a stay should require a further 24 hours notice. I don't think that should be mandatory, for the reason I've always been against mandatory delays.

We need a balance between delays and giving people (who live all over the world) a chance to participate in this forum based game. I did not bring this case to have new law spring forth from it. YOU are the one who brought up the fact that the case will make precedent. Now all you're doing is trying to subvert the game play scheduling initiative by insinuating that a guilty vote is a vote for an automatic 24 hour delay after a stay. You seem to be arguing that ignoring an initiative is ok. And I don't recall reading a firm statement from you about whether or not that initiative was followed or not. I'm just dying to hear your opinion. Take off your I want the save played fast hat and put on your I enforce the rules hat, look at the rule and what was done and tell me if you think the rule was followed. I'll accept a confidential pm from you if you don't have the guts to admit what your ruling would be in public.

@ 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.

@ Joe Harker: I don't believe the judiciary has officially ruled on the sentencing options. There really is no point in doing that until such time as a guilty verdict is actually rendered. The judiciary is handling this one step at a time as they should.

 

[DaveShack]

And I don't recall reading a firm statement from you about whether or not that initiative was followed or not. I'm just dying to hear your opinion. Take off your I want the save played fast hat and put on your I enforce the rules hat, look at the rule and what was done and tell me if you think the rule was followed. I'll accept a confidential pm from you if you don't have the guts to admit what your ruling would be in public.

I've got plenty of guts, but as you point out yourself that badge carries a lot of authority and my style in this thread has been to lay out the questions and let people find their own conclusions. However since you request a definitive analysis of my opinion, I'll post one -- with a note to all the citizens that this is DaveShack the citizen posting.

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.

If it's a new session then the advance notice requirement applies, but then we get into a question of, for an offline session, how accurate the time needs to be, since "Monday night" was stated more than 24 hours in advance of the actual play. If we think a definite time is required, then a guilty verdict is appropriate. If we think an offline session doesn't require a definite time, merely a reasonable deadline for posting instructions, then
an innocent verdict is possible because it is possible to infer "Monday at noon" as a deadline.

I believe it's the same session, under the evidence that the same instruction thread was used and that all the officials thought it was the same session as evidenced by general lack of changes to the instructions. Under that assumption, the law does not provide a basis for guilt, therefore my position is that the verdict must be innocent.

 

[DaveShack]

I should add that in a similar situation, my choice would be to wait for the poll, but I wouldn't wait 24 hours.