Apolytonian Court: Everything Else

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Options 3 and 4. Hmmm. At least censure leading to a poll on impeachment (51% to impeach after censure?). Remove on their own? I don't know about that. I think we need to discuss it. No vote.

I agree, somehow it needs to be mixed in with the populace vote on it, such as populace votes to impeach, and then court decides if removal from office is warranted. Court shouldn't act, until case presented to them

Originally posted by notyoueither

Options 5 and 6. Yes, the court should go by both the constitution and by what has gone before (common law). Otherwise you give them little room to be sensical and in tune with the needs of the nation. For instance, the current history guys debate (of having 2 historians elected together) would be an automatic 'buzzz' sorry can't do that, because one person for one office is implicit in the constitution (I think). All it would take is one mischievous PM from a citizen.

If you allow them some commonsense and to listen to consensus (present and past) then they can make better decisions for more situations. Nobody can possibly dream up all the possible scenarios that may arise. Allow the court some latitude to do a good job.

Yes they do need to base there decisions on the constitution and precendent. Again, though you do mention it, I would like to...that there decisions should be re: interpretation of the constitution where it is ambiguous and a dispute arises or a request is made by someone for clarification. Then they need to consider all that NYE mentions above.

I also think they have the right to throw out a dispute and not hear it if they feel there is no merit to the complaint.

[Spiffor]

Captain :
I rarley disagree with you, but it happens on this topic. You're basically describing procedures of a true justice system, in an administrative logic. This system is probably great for RL, where judges are overloaded with work, but it's bad for the DemoGame, where the judges have almost nothing to do.
If we were to follow very precise procedure about how the case is brought, the judges would have much more work setting up things than actually listening and judging.
Such a method is needed in real life, because such loads of works need to be organized (and this method is a full time job for plenty of aides). But in the DemoGame, we don't need that much organization.

For example, to bring a case, a simple PM to a judge will be enough. The judge will be more than happy to do some job
About the prosecutor : someone who feels unable do make a solid accusation can ask help of anybody, no need to formally appoint someone to do this (most people will make their accusation themselves).
Again, prosecutors and lawyers are needed in the real world, because code of laws can fill several bookcases. In Apolytonia, the code of laws is ca. 2 typed pages.

(sorry if I missed some points, I couldn't read all the thread, because I have much less internet time than usual at this time)

My vote options :
- elected. I know this method is flawed, but appointment is worse (good ol' "democracy is the worse form of government, except all others"). NYE had a good idea, asking the agreement of everybody (President, Ministers and Citizens), but I always feel uncomfortable when the voice of one is as important as the voice of 12, which is as important as the voice of 200. Elected is the only way to make everybody equal in this matter. Don't forget we're building a great democracy, we're not imitating the flawed ones of the world, which are flawed because they're too big.

- shouldn't be able to impeach. As long as we don't precisely know what it's about, I'll cautious about it. IMO, impeachment should be brought by anybody (as already voted by the citizens), and the decision should belong to the citizens.
But, what the court can do, is to "sue" the person getting impeached. It would be a place (a chatroom) where some people attack the impeached one, and he replies. The role of the court would only be to say who talks. Such a "trial" would be useless, as it's unlikely to change the results of impeachment votes drastically, but it would be fun.
The court should not have any decision power in matters of impeachment. This important decision belongs entirely to the people, and giving some decision power to the court would take away this much power to the people. As I said, we're a Democracy, and I want us to come the closest to utopia... We're few enough not to take away this kind of power from the people.

- shouldn't be able to make decision outside the borders of constitution.
Interpeting the constitution is a power great enough. The court should have some material to work upon. If you let them work outside the boundaries of constitution, you let them create laws, you're giving the judicial power some legislative power.
Again (this must be my mantra ) this exists IRL because the legislative system is extremely slow. But in Apolytonia, making a law takes up to 2 weeks, for the very long procedures, from the very beginning of the project to the final vote. We can easily put a judgment on hold until the people decide a law about the matter.

That's all. I support a judicial system, but I'd like to see it limited. Having an extremely complete judicial system, similmar to RL would be absurd in our Democracy (esp. since we can't punish people). I'm in favor of a judicial system whose charge is to see if polls and executive decisions are legitimate or not, nothing less, nothing more.

[disorganizer]

Well, we can punish people. Expell from office, deny further nomination, exile to a far-out city, eating bananas till the end of your life.

[ThePlagueRat]

Ohmygawd, this looks awful! (watching the coloured bars)
Almost as awful as the antique "egypt poll" ...

Ok, sorry... I'm opposed, but that's just democracy in a nutshell!

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Spiffor
My vote options :
- elected. I know this method is flawed, but appointment is worse (good ol' "democracy is the worse form of government, except all others"). NYE had a good idea, asking the agreement of everybody (President, Ministers and Citizens), but I always feel uncomfortable when the voice of one is as important as the voice of 12, which is as important as the voice of 200. Elected is the only way to make everybody equal in this matter. Don't forget we're building a great democracy, we're not imitating the flawed ones of the world, which are flawed because they're too big.

Electing judges will be worse than electing ministers. They will be popularity contests even more so than anything else we could come up with. However, OTOH, if they're appointed and approved by a specific body, then it's less likely that will occur.

- shouldn't be able to impeach. As long as we don't precisely know what it's about, I'll cautious about it. IMO, impeachment should be brought by anybody (as already voted by the citizens), and the decision should belong to the citizens.
But, what the court can do, is to "sue" the person getting impeached. It would be a place (a chatroom) where some people attack the impeached one, and he replies. The role of the court would only be to say who talks. Such a "trial" would be useless, as it's unlikely to change the results of impeachment votes drastically, but it would be fun.
The court should not have any decision power in matters of impeachment. This important decision belongs entirely to the people, and giving some decision power to the court would take away this much power to the people. As I said, we're a Democracy, and I want us to come the closest to utopia... We're few enough not to take away this kind of power from the people.

Half the people seem to want it, and half don't. Therefore, I'm going to come up with a system that will combine both (and eliminate the old meathod) for the amendment, and see if people like it.

- shouldn't be able to make decision outside the borders of constitution.
Interpeting the constitution is a power great enough. The court should have some material to work upon. If you let them work outside the boundaries of constitution, you let them create laws, you're giving the judicial power some legislative power.
Again (this must be my mantra ) this exists IRL because the legislative system is extremely slow. But in Apolytonia, making a law takes up to 2 weeks, for the very long procedures, from the very beginning of the project to the final vote. We can easily put a judgment on hold until the people decide a law about the matter.

Our Constitution deals with very few things. Right now, all it deals with are polls, and minister positions. The court would never have any cases. If the people disagree with their decision, they can pass a law the next day and make it legal again, and then the court couldn't do anything about it.

That's all. I support a judicial system, but I'd like to see it limited. Having an extremely complete judicial system, similmar to RL would be absurd in our Democracy (esp. since we can't punish people). I'm in favor of a judicial system whose charge is to see if polls and executive decisions are legitimate or not, nothing less, nothing more.

We can't make it so limited that it's powerless in our game. Issues concerning polls and decisions have come up, what, once or twice in nearly two months? The point of the court would be for it to help make the game go more smoothly. This involves all areas, not just what is defined in the Constitution.... since very little is.

[Spiffor]

We can't make it so limited that it's powerless in our game. Issues concerning polls and decisions have come up, what, once or twice in nearly two months? The point of the court would be for it to help make the game go more smoothly. This involves all areas, not just what is defined in the Constitution.... since very little is.

Well, except legitimacy of polls and minister decisions, what should the court do, to make the game smoother ? In fact, except spam and excessive threads, (about which we can't do anything), what makes the game rough ?

Let's face it : a court will be useful only for polls and minister decisions. In our DemoGame, you can't be a problem to the others, except by spamming or not obeying the constitution.
All the things a primitive justice had to deal with doesn't exist by us : violence, theft, sexual immorality etc.
Justice is intended to let the law be respected. That's its work. Its work is not to invent law, that's the role of the senate (eg. all of us).

If we allow the court to go outside the boundaries of the constitution, we'll have tremendous problems to give it precise competences, to tell what it can and can't do.
For example, imagine I go to the court and say "UberKrux sent me a virus in an email !" (don't worry, he didn't ). Who will decide if the court has right to judge this matter, and if it judges, what should it decide ?

Please give me ONE valid example of a case which could be brought to the court which doesn't concern constitution / polls / minister decisions. I'm curious if you can think of one, because I can't.

[Spiffor]

To sum up my views :
Even if we give the court big powers, it won't have anything to do except judging validity of polls and ministers' decisions.
Should an unexpected problem arise, I don't see why a small group of people who are unprepared to this perticular matter should decide what to do, instead of the people.

Like I said elsewhere, the more power we take from the people, the less "normal people" will be interested in the game, and we'll end up being 25 to play.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Polls take time, and there's the question of how many must vote for something to be legit. If we have a recognised apolitical authority, there is no such delay, nor is there any question of legitimacy.

In many cases it may be possible to run things by poll, but sometimes, with the need to keep things going, it may be necessary to make a snap decision.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Timeline
GOD, we really HAVE made it farther than the civ2 game . This is stuff they only dreamed of .

LOL, we did dream of it, but decided against it!

I agree with timeline on this issue. They should be elected by the people! No impeachment powers!

[jdjdjd]

Obviously, this thing has been hashed around, and many good ideas have made there way in.

I suggest that once the polls close, that the amendment be compiled based on same with certain other matters that need hashing out, and we can,

A. hash them
B. Trip review the hashing and propose an amendment for vote
C. Trip appoint someone/panel to review the hashing and propose an amendment for vote
D. Leave the hashing to the new court (with exception of impeachment which probably needs a separate amendment to include the court in the original consititution, i.e. an court roles and/or ability to impeach a judge).

There is nothing wrong with the court making many of its own rules and set precedent on them. Maybe the its better to leave things flexible, this idea is a baby and needs room to grow.

I will post this same message in the related threads.

[Jon Shafer]

As I stated in the 'other' more official thread, I want a summary of ideas presented, so I can start compiling the ideas into a more cohesive amendment. So far, things here are either: 1 way or the other, so that'll be what's in the amendment, or 2: tied or close to it, so a mix will be implimented.