The Supreme Court is in Session - Case 1

[Darkness' Edge]

DO NOT POST REPLIES BEFORE READING OPENING POST

Note that before we begin, as this is our first case, we're still finding out way here. Some things are likely to change as we go along. Think of this as a test case.

These rules are again taken from the C3DG, but changed to remove some of the worst legalese and tried to chop it down a bit. But it's likely to be informalised a bit as we go.

Rules of the Court

1. No one will post any message within this thread until invited explicitly by the Senior Justice, or as allowed by these rules.
2. The case will begin with the Complainant or their representative being invited to post. They may then take as many posts as are required to present their case, but are advised not to waste the Court's time.
3. The Complainant will explicitly state when they are finished.
4. The Senior Justice will then invite the Defendant or their representative to post, with the opportunity to request a dismissal of the case.
5. The Defendant will be invited to post their defense. The Defendant will follow the same guidelines as the Complainant.
6. The Defendant will explicitly state when they are finished.
7. At the conclusion of the defense case, the Complainant will be invited to rebut their arguments. The Complainant will state when they are finished.
8. The Defendant will always be given the last word, so after the Complainant is finished rebuttal, the Defendant will be invited to reply to what the Complainant has said in rebuttal. The Respondent will state when they are finished.
9. The cases are finished.
10. Justices may now freely ask questions of the Complainant and the Defendant. Members of the public may request to be heard. Any such hearing granted to the public must be invited by the Senior Justice or by a direct question addressed to them by any justice.
11. Any member of the public may request being heard by PM to the Senior Justice, or by a simple statement of 'May I be heard?' within the thread. Do not be surprised if the Senior Justice requires you to PM him with your concern before allowing you to post in the thread.

* No one will post in the thread prior to being invited by the Senior Justice or as explicitly allowed within these rules. In other words, other justices and those directly addressed by them may respond without invitation at appropriate times.
* The Senior Justice may interrupt at any time to make a point of order. All persons with no exceptions will respect his or her orders.
* The Complainant and the Defendant may ask permission to make motions during any point of the proceedings after the Senior Justice establishes the thread. Such motions will be preceded by the moving party posting 'Motion'. At that point others will stop posting. The Senior Justice will recognize the party and the motion will be made. The Senior Justice will rule and will invite any parties interrupted to resume.
* The Senior Justice may appoint any other justice to stand in their place if an absence requires it. That justice will be the Senior Justice from that point until the original Senior Justice returns.
* The Senior Justice is the law and the only law within this thread and under the gOdz. He or she may make any relevant decision at any time in accord with our established rules and laws. All people without exception will respect his or her decisions and the order of this court.

This court will be in session until declared closed by the Senior Justice.

[Darkness' Edge]

Complainant: Hercules
Defendant: Makahlua
Senior Justice: Darkness' Edge

Issues (direct from the Complainant's statement):

What authority to poll 'what to name' instead of 'how to name'

Even by her own interpretation, there is the failure to poll for bases beyond 6-8.
The unconstitutiional naming of the cities beyond base 8

A lesser charge of failing to respond within a reasonable period to the charges levelled directly in that name thread.

[Darkness' Edge]

The Complainant may now speak. Let us know when you're done.

[Hercules]

I call on Groucho (and thereby the Supreme Court) to post the exact wording of the complaints sent to him by me via PM (as per guidance). The issues as set out above are not an accurate presentation of the complaints.
If Makahlua has based a defence case on those issues as worded she will need to prepare differently for the correct complaints.
I also ask for an injunction to stop the naming of bases forthwith until this case is finalised. This includes bases founded from Pandemonium onwards as it is patently prejudicial to the case. Bases can be given UN numbers until this case is resolved.

[Darkness' Edge]

Request granted. (in future though, you might want to word the original charges more clearly )

[- Groucho -]

Here is the first PM I received from the Complainant:

My complaint is that Makahlua (Past Director of Base Production and looks likely to be re-elected) is failing in a part of her constitutional duty. And arising from this failure has in recent times acted unconstitutionally.( as may indeed others)

The core charge relates to naming bases: see below. I notice that a new base has been named Pandedmonium. I tried to check the turnchat thread when this was decided but can't find it. (Though it may be there)

Most of the evidence is set out in the poll thread naming bases 6-8 (and is set out below). I checked also the name submission thread and noted that my suggestion(s) have not been included though the first was submitted 18 -09 -02.

In summary three charges:

What authority to poll 'what to name' instead of 'how to name'
Even by her own interpretation, there is the failure to poll for bases beyond 6-8
The unconstitutiional naming of the cities beyond base 8

And a lesser charge of failing to respond within a reasonable period to the charges levelled directly in that name thread.

[- Groucho -]

And here is the evidence the Complainant provided the court:

Evidence

Posts in the Name Thread

Offical : Base names 6-8 (this time with multiple
choice!) 3 10 02

Hercules

05-10-2002 12:26 | quote
Is it worth considering that each regular faction citizen have a city named in their honour. Each citizen to submit a name (as at top) and as the empire expands the cities are named accordingly until the 18 to 24 cities are named then start again. Random number could determine order. Or was this appraoch tried elsewhere and didn't work. My submission for a city name is Cyclops


Hercules

05-10-2002 15:41


I went back to the constitution and this is what I found

quote:

Base Names:

The alpha talent or the commissioner will pick 5 names from the name thread and will put them in a poll where a name for a new city can be chosen. This poll has to be open for at least 2 days. The name with the most votes will be chosen for the base and will be scraped from the list. The same counts for landmarks. If someone wants to name a place without a landmark a poll has started about giving it a name or not. This poll will also have minimum of 2 days.

So Is this naming procedure and poll, unconstitutional. or did I miss something? I looked at Andemagne's initial suggestion in the City Names thread regarding naming bases after citzens (not too different from my own view above, and many others I noted) and while there was discussion, the issue seemed unresolved.

Makahlua:

Oh and as footnote I did put forward 'Bloomsville' as base name suggestion in the name thread but it didn't appear above. I'm not too upset it didn't appear as I 've changed my proposed name to Cyclops anyhow.

Makahlua 07-10-2002 06:25

Well since they tied for 3rd I figured we'd just use em both, so no polling for #9

Hercules: Under the most recent set of changes, the DoBP was given the duty of running naming polls (look up the director's duties section)

Hercules 9 10 02

Makahlua: I did look it up; this is what it says:

DoBP duties
quote:

[quote Posting polls on how our bases should be named[/quote]

What you have done and it's ok for now obviously, is 'Posting polls on what our bases should be named not how our bases should be named. There is a difference.

Anyhow whatever the interpretation, the constitution needs updating to delete that part of the constitution in part 11, that I referred to earlier about ' Alpha talent ...5 base names'. The two parts could be viewed as in conflict.

Secondly you might finalise the discussion on how to name bases by a poll: You will recall the thread started by Andemagne. There were a number ways proposed:
1. (As you organised above) all names listed and all citizens have the opportunity to vote
2. Every regular and active citizen to have a base name of their choice.
3. Variations of 2

[Hercules]

Thank you Groucho for that full posting.

Charge one focuses on (in my view) a conflict in the constitution at that time about where responsibility lies between Alpha Talent and DoBP on the process of naming bases.

As DoBP, Makahlua, I contend, unintentionally mis-interpreted the constitution (easily done) and proceeded to organise a poll on WHAT bases should be called rather than organise a poll on HOW bases should be named, as per the constitution.

Constitution states duties of BOBP:

Posting polls on how(my emphasis) our bases should be named

.

Is this important. well yes. As I submitted above, there had been a healthy debate with different views on the method of naming bases (and landmarks).
In essence it divided into two broad views, with modifications)

Name bases after citizens choice, so that each citizen has a base named after their submitted suggestion, to which base s/he can feel an affinity. Or name bases following a popularity poll. Both methods have their pluses and minuses and were hotly debated in the thread.

The issue was unresolved. There was no democratic poll on the method of naming bases ( I checked past threads I couldn't find the issue resolved).

On her successful election and eager to get on with things. Makahlua organised the multi-poll thread for base names 6-8 ( note not 5 names as might have been an option taking the Alpha Talent role as a guide).

Makahlua interpreted

Posting polls on how our bases should be named

to

Hercules: Under the most recent set of changes, the DoBP was given the duty of running naming polls (look up the director's duties section)

.

There is a clear difference in that, this is not what it says in the constitution.

In my view this is still in conflict with the Alpha Talent duties but beyond that, because in her first poll Makahlua failed to resolve the naming method, she acted unconstitutionally (unwittingly no doubt, but nevertheless, unconstitutionally).

Having determined the method of how bases (through polling) should be named, she could have then sought confirmation of delegated authority to move to the next poll. What to name bases.

Why this issue is important is that citizens have a strong desire to live in bases they feel affinity with, usually places named after their suggestions. This sentiment was sufficiently articulated by many as to represent a strong alternatve opinion to the pop chart method.

So important that it (the method) deserved ( had the right) to a poll of its own.

Once the method had been decided democratically, then what to call bases could be polled.

End of Charge One submission of evidence.

[Hercules]

Charge two: Naming of bases beyond Base 8.

The charge here is that Makahlua failed in her constitutional duty: in that game turns had reached the position of needing democratically chosen base names for new bases beyond base 8.

It was unconstitutionally assumed that it was simply a matter of choosing the next highest polled name down the list from those names submitted away at the start.

Because there was in existence a thread entitled 'Base names 6-8', citizens would expect a thread in good time called something like base names '8 to 18'.

This didn't happen. The charge here, is 'failing to do her constitutional duty', regardless of the interpretation.

I have not quoted it here but look at the thread, where DE questions Makahlua on the circumstances surrounding the naming of the base Pandemonium.

Again please differentiate between the actor (Makahlua) and the action. Makahlua I think thought she was doing her duties quite well if a bit tardy but nothing serious as she thought, (I assume) that new base names could just be selected from the first list so there was no urgency.

The second charge simply says that regardless of her reasoning. note the time delay.

she acted unconstitutionally, by not doing her duty.

[Hercules]

The third charge concerns the circumstances relating to the naming of the base, Pandemonium.

From the relevant threads (see DE's preliminary investigation) it is clear that there was no poll or clear mandate for the base to be so named.

I can understand why DBTS in the absense of clear guidance (because there was not any from Makahlua) looked to the earlier flawed poll for suggestions.

Even if 99% of citizens loved the base name Pandemonium it does not take away from the fact that it was originally chosen unconstitutionally.

(by the way I am happy with Pandemonium as a base name).

[Hercules]

The fourth charge refers to the fact that when there is a charge under the constitution, it is usual to suspend all activities, related, directly or indirectly, that could have a bearing on the case, be put on hold.

So I was surprised and appalled that the base naming method was continuing as before, seemingly regardless.

This charge is not leveled at Makahlua but at changing the law in this area to avoid unfair play.

[Hercules]

This simply suggests that the law needs tightening up.

[Hercules]

The complainant asks that the court distinguish between the act and the person performing the act.

*Hercules sits down, acknowledges colleagues in the public gallery and sips exclusive mineral water

A buzz runs round the court awaiting developments

[Darkness' Edge]

The Defendant may now speak. Let us know when you are done.

(just a note...we haven't forgotten about the injunction...we'll get back to you on that one)

[Hercules]

cough