Amendment: Integration of Minister of Economy

[Aggie]

In my opinion this could be called an invalid poll.
Here's why. From the constitution.
Poll Format:
Each official poll MUST include either a ‘yes/no’ format, or a ‘group’ format, where similar options are grouped together, where the winning option within the group with the most votes is the official winner. The only time these formats do not have to be followed is in true multiple-choice polls, i.e. ‘Which Civilization should we be: Egyptians, Persians. Etc.’ In these cases, a simple ‘yes/no’ or ‘grouping’ poll does not suffice.

Well a yes/no grouping is not a "yes/no/abstain grouping". So if the poll is invalid you could repoll it. Without the abstains it might pass. Perhaps this is why we said yes/no grouping. To avoid the very discussion of whether or not the abstains counts.(For the record we should have abstains in impeachment votes,but that is for a different reason )
Aggie

[Timeline]

Originally posted by Epistax
--- I suggest repolling with yes/no only, and explain the reasoning (without suggesting how to vote) in the first post.

AHHH!!!!

OH...........MY.....GAWD.

NOT ANOTHER FREAKIN' TIME

I am not repolling this again unless the court so orders me.

Epistax, you admitted yourself it's a clear issue. When you need to convince yourself something is right, when your mind is telling you it's wrong, then you already have your answer.

<-Mind: Abstains DONT COUNT
<-Heart: ooooo, yes sir, they do, they do
<-Heart and Mind: They dont count as votes, but they are figured into the percentage
<-Reason: Abstains don't count as a vote, and they don't effect the outcome of a poll

This is not a tough case, it's simple.

[Epistax]

Timeline, the amendment did not pass as polled. Yea did not get 2/3's needed... If someone brought this to the court, it might be rulable to disallow the the abstains.

arg convene an emergency counsel of the not yet court? heheh

[Timeline]

Are you making fun of me?

I have already asked the court to look into this when it is up and running.

[Kramerman]

Damn! The court has been in exsistance now for what... 12 hours? And it already has an issue! This is going to be quite thrilling, to see if the system we created in the Judicial amendment actually works efficiently.

[Captain]

Well, it'll be a few days yet before the Judges are confirmed. I suggest the nominees (who are all majority approved at this time) start looking into this issue already and familiarize themselves with this thread and the previous poll - as well as looking over the Polling section of the COL.

However, I would strongly encourage clearing up the Polling standards as given in the COL. They are vague and I am under no illusion that the Court will readily reach agreement. It may be wise to begin the discussion on the issue of ABSTAINING in polls. Does it count as no or neutral or yes? Then set up a poll without the ABSTAIN option in it. This might actually be faster than getting a Court ruling. But then, is the Court allowed to retroactively apply a NEW law to an issue that happened before such a law existed? I doubt it.

In any case, what might help is to ask people why they abstain. Looking at the posts (including other threads) it seems they don't wan their vote to swing the decision either way (neutral) but just want to indicate they are aware of the issue and would like to vote but aren't sure. Or they don't care (neutral). I am not sure why abstain should be considered in favour of the status quo. They aren't in favour of either.

Another reason might be to abstain when you think the poll is invalid. Abstain is a way to "vote without voting". It is a sort of "protest vote". Sufficient numbers of abstains indicate displeasure/protest against the options given. I'm not sure that's the way it's being used on these forums though.


In any case, it would help the Court a lot if the polling standards were clarified (even though it might mean another amendment, that might be preferable to the Court setting a precedent for whatever they decide).

[Aggie]

I still think a real case can be made that a yes/no grouping doesn't allow an abstain option. Thus this poll is invalid in my opinion. One thing captain, since you are now effectively a judge, you might be careful about commenting in a thread like this. Personally I have no problem with it, however there might be those who will say a judge had already made up his mind. Another danger is if you made a comment and a person in the hearing used it as evidence. Of course all people can speak as citizens and the reason the judges were selected was for their openmindedness. Now an announcement, I intend to challenge this poll as invalid due to the term abstain in a poll that should only contain yes/no. My main reason for doing this is to solve the abstain arguement and to bring an issue before the court, so the court can design and put into practice procedures for such things as hearings and/or trials. This way the court can "practice" on an issue that isn't too important and earth shattering, yet does have relevance. Also how the procedures work for this could help us troubleshoot impeachment hearings etc.
Aggie

[UnOrthOdOx]

Personally, I am confused here as well. We have a poll that asked whether we could even reword the constitution that ended in a tie, this one is unclear on which resuts to use, and a new 'official' structuring of the CoL that is asking the same basic thing.

Personally, I say that if the structring of the CoL wins it's poll, it could be used to RETROACTIVELY reword the MoE ammendment into the CoL, therefore avoiding more of this tedium. Why make a new ammendment that means the same thing as one that already passed? We need to get back to the GAME!!! Too much time is being spent on the CoL and Government.

[Epistax]

coming from someone sitting behind a desk..

Agreed none the less

[Aggie]

I also want to have more play UnOrthOdOx, which is why I called for ninot to set up a turnthread for thurs. Still no reply I guess ninot has rl to worry about. But since we have nothing do until then, we are entertaining ourselves. Also this gives us a chance to work out some kinks before the game really gets going. Personally I want us to do as the military advisor in civ2 said "lets go bonk some heads". I do miss those advisors. Maybe everybody in this group who has a similar minister position should take the avatars from that game.
Aggie

[Captain]

All comments posted by me are those of a private citizen and are in no way, shape or form representative of a Justice of the Court.

Should I be approved and become a Justice, the above statement will still apply. Judicial opinions will be clearly stated as such and posted in Judicial threads. All other opinions should be considered that of a private citizen.

However, if I am sitting on a current case, I will not offer my personal opinion on the subject/issues involved as that would be unprofessional. Actually, extend that. If there is any open case, even if not sitting on it myself, I will not comment on it except in a professional judicial manner.

Otherwise, I believe I can still participate as a citizen in the rest of the game. If you disagree, let me know. Or reject me. Being a Justice is an honour, but I won't fight tooth and nail for it.

[Aggie]

No offense was intended captain. and in no way was I challenging your honesty. I reread my earlier post and saw how it could be misinterpreted. Perhaps all court members should put your initial statement in their signature. I was justing giving a heads up to every judge(present and future). I just don't want a judge to accidentally say something that could be misconstrewed and lead to problems. For example if a judge said "I hope somebody brings this before us" this could be seen as a judge trying to get a citizen to bring a case before the court, and thus effectively the judge would be bringing the issue before the court. This is illegal. This could be seen as a impeachable offense. Though I think a reprimand would be a better solution(of course this depends on the case).
Regards
Aggie

[Captain]

No worries Aggie, I do appreciate the heads up. Considering this issue may be before the Court soon, I'll keep my big mouth shut on it.

Aggie, you have had nothing but good advice in all the judicial threads and the rest of the C3DG stuff too. I hope you continue to keep giving that good advice. The Court will be making the final rulings but I see no reason why we can't get "expert" opinions from such excellent folks such as yourself and Togas.

I won't comment on whether or not this should be a Court matter, but I do think the Court should have practice. We are tyring to set up communications and timezone problems, so the first case will likely be a bit bumpy as we sort out how we're going to communicate privately and publicly. (assuming "we" includes me being approved).

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Aggie
I also want to have more play UnOrthOdOx, which is why I called for ninot to set up a turnthread for thurs. Still no reply I guess ninot has rl to worry about. But since we have nothing do until then, we are entertaining ourselves. Also this gives us a chance to work out some kinks before the game really gets going. Personally I want us to do as the military advisor in civ2 said "lets go bonk some heads". I do miss those advisors. Maybe everybody in this group who has a similar minister position should take the avatars from that game.
Aggie

while this is a great chance to get kinks out, i agree, we need some turns, and soon

im seeing how easy it will be to have turns played tommorow. I dont know what kinda difficulties will arise tho, cuz this would be really short notice.

[Timeline]

I already stated twice earier in this thread that this WILL be an issue taken before the court, probably their first ever case.

So start cracking.