Court of Apolytonia: Case 1, Official Thread

[Captain]

Court of Apolytonia: Case 1


DO NOT POST REPLIES!
before reading this opening post

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. He or she may then take as many posts as are required to present their case. The Complainant would be advised not to go on indefinitely and to be respectful of the court's time.
3. The Complainant will explicitly state when they are finished.
4. The Senior Justice will then invite the Respondent or their representative to post.
5. The Respondent may begin by asking the court to dismiss the case. If such motion is made, the Senior Justice will communicate with the other justices. Once 3 justices have agreed, the Senior Justice (or another appointed by him or her) will post that decision. Assuming the case continues...
6. The Respondent will be invited to post their defense. The Respondent will follow the same guidelines as the Complainant.
7. The Respondent will explicitly state when they are finished.
8. At the conclusion of the Respondents case, the Complainant will be invited to rebut their arguments. The Complainant will state when they are finished.
9. The Respondent will always be given the last word, so after the Complainant is finished rebuttal, the Respondent will be invited to reply to what the Complainant has said in rebuttal. The Respondent will state when they are finished.

10. The cases are finished.
11. Justices may now freely ask questions of the Complainant and the Respondent. 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.
12. 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 Respondent 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 his or her stead 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.

[Captain]

Plaintiff: Timeline, Togas
Respondent: UnOrthOdOx
Status: Open
Senior Justice: Captain

Issue:
On the validity and acceptance of the amendment 'Integration of Minister of the Economy' poll: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=56344

[Captain]

Plaintiff's Initial Argument for Apolytonian Court Case #1

The ammendment "Integration of Minister of Economy" was polled and passed by the required number of votes. It should, therefore, become the law.

The Constitution states, Amendments to this Constitution can be submitted by any member of our nation. An amendment is passed and made official by a 2/3 or greater vote on the amendment's inclusion.

Timeline posted the text of the proposed integration ammendment and a poll which asked voters to vote "yea" or "nay" for the text. The poll also allowed voters to "abstain."

When the poll closed the results were: Yea: 19, Nay: 8, Abstain: 2.
Of the 27 votes for or against passage, 19 votes = 70%.
This is more than enough to pass the ammendment.

Argument Against Passage: The total number of votes was 29, counting the 2 "abstains", and 19 is only 65.5% of 29, so the ammendment didn't pass.

Response: "Abstain" is not a vote for or against. The option to abstain is given to allow interested parties the chance to view the poll results without affecting the outcome in either way. Voters who choose "abstain" intend not to vote. They do not intend to vote "nay". Their "abstain" should not be counted as a "nay."

Everyone who does not vote is abstaining. The text of the Constitution does not state that an ammendment is made official by "a 2/3 or greater vote of the entire population of Apolytonia." It just requires a "2/3 or greater vote." Of those who vote for and against it, at least 2/3rds must vote on the ammendment's inclusion.

Voting to "abstain" is not an option we should be counting. It's not even a vote. The confusion lies in our site's polling software. The site sees that there are three possible boxes to check in this election and it acts as though there are three equally valid options for the poll and calculates its percentages accordingly. In truth, there are two valid options, and the option for anyone to "abstain" and not vote on this issue. Unfortunately, confusion results when the program counts people who choose to abstain. The Court must determine what the outcome of the election was using only the valid options of "yea" and "nay".

Possible additional issue: This proposed ammendment would edit the text of the Constitution.

Response: That is not illegal. That is exactly what ammendments are supposed to do. The fact of the matter is any ammendment changes the law, and so long as the people approve of that change it is valid. This ammendment clearly stated what it would do -- that it would replace outdated text with new text -- and the people voted to allow that change to be made. There is no law specifically forbidding this kind of ammendment procedure, so no legal objection can be made.

Conclusion: When The Court views the records and results of the poll and sees that the "yea"s have 70% of the votes, compared to the 30% of those who voted "nay", it must find that the ammendment is valid . It is clearly known by all that "abstain" is not a vote for or against, and those who choose to "abstain" do not intend to vote. The Court must follow the law and follow the will of the voters who chose to abstain and not effect the outcome of this poll. The Court must find this ammendment valid.


Submitted on behalf of those in favor of the Passage of the Integration of Minister of Ecomony Ammendment, and in support of Timeline, the original Plaintiff.

--Togas

[Captain]

Respondent's Initial Argument for Apolytonian Court Case #1

Members of the Court,

We gather here today not only to find judgment on the amendment in question, but also to set a precedence for polling in the future. The CoL states that

An amendment is passed and made official by a 2/3 or greater vote on the amendment's inclusion.

The simple fact is that the amendment in question does not.

I understand that the Plaintiff's will be claiming that the abstain votes should not be counted towards the official %. That in fact, they are the same as not voting.

The original poll, itself, intended to take them into consideration.

Each official poll should have its rules laid out,

from the CoL. The very inclusion of the abstain option in the poll shows that it was intended to be taken into consideration. Now that the law didn't pass, albeit very closely, Timeline intends to throw them out. There is no law REQUIRING the abstain option, why else would it have been placed unless to provide people with that option.

It is true that in a normal (RL) government body that an abstain is simply not voting. However, those bodies also have a set number of members so the abstains DO affect the final %. Here, we have no way of determining active membership, and therefore abstain options must be taken into consideration lest we intend to pass laws that actually garner no support from the public.

- UnOrthOdOx

[Captain]

The Plaintiff may now present further arguments. When he is finished, the Respondent may present further arguments.

Once that is finished, we will automatically RECESS to give time for the participants to develop rebuttals. The Court will resume at a time mutually agreed upon by Togas and UnOrthOdOx and myself (or any Judge who is willing to assume temporary SJ duties).

[UnOrthOdOx]

First,

I would like to ask forgiveness of this breach of protocol, but I have waited for 1 hour. I must assume then, that Togas is either not around, or is happy with his firt argument. I can no longer wait as it is my wife and I's 7th anniversary and we hve plans.

I would like the first statement of mine stricken from the record, and replaced by this one.

We are not here to debate the use of abstain votes. We are here on the question of the validity of the poll in question.

This poll shold be rendered invalid on two counts. First, as stated in the CoL :

Each official poll should have its rules laid out, as well as a form of expiration, either when a certain event takes place (i.e. ‘when the game starts’), or a time limit (i.e. ‘5 days’). This is to prevent the occurrence of an incident such as if doesn’t include an expiration, and says 3 weeks later "well this poll said this" kind of thing, and use its results officially. Each poll should lay out the potential options, as well as the question in a clear format. The required inclusions for the post are: an expiration date/event, a fair, clear and concise, unbaised question which addressed the issue of the poll, and a general description of what your poll entails. Instead of a description if you wish to post a link to another thread to give a description, that is acceptable as well.

This poll did not set up rules for how the abstains were to be counted in it's post. This led to cofusion among the voters. Some believed that abstains were to be counted. The evidence is the need for this very trial.

Second point, this poll is a repoll of the current Minister of Economy Ammendment. The rules governing repoll's are a follows:

If someone wants to conduct a repoll, then it must be created at least 3 weeks following the initial poll. If a repoll is created before 3 weeks has passed, then that poll is immediately invalid. If a poll is an alternative poll, offering alternatives to decisions made in a previous poll, then it also must be conducted at least 3 weeks following the first poll, or be immediately deemed invalid. Any poll that's general purpose is the same or similar as another poll will be considered a repoll.

The original ammendment poll was posted on 7/03/02 while the poll in question was posted on 7/20/02. 17 days later, not 21. The two ammendments have virtually the same intent, therefore this poll violates the repolling rules.

Thank yo for your time, your honors

- UnOrthOdOx

[Captain]

UnOrthOdox, the breach of protocol is acceptable in this case. No problem. Your initial argument has been superseded by this one so there is no need to erase the former.

The Court will automatically RECESS after Togas presents his arguments.

Real-life "intrudes" on us all. The Court recognizes that and does not hold it against anyone. I, myself, must return to work now so that is the reason for the automatic closure after Togas is finished. Any of the others Justices is authorized to reopen, as indicated in the above posts.

After rebuttals by both Togas and UnOrthodOx (which will be once the Court resumes session), procedure indicates we will open the Court to a Q&A session. All others, please be patient. Thank you.

[Togas]

My appologies to the court but I just got back from lunch with my signifigant other. This is my first opportunity to sit down and make this rebuttal.

Rebuttal,

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
First,

This poll shold be rendered invalid on two counts. First, as stated in the CoL :

Each official poll should have its rules laid out, as well as a form of expiration, either when a certain event takes place (i.e. ‘when the game starts’), or a time limit (i.e. ‘5 days’). This is to prevent the occurrence of an incident such as if doesn’t include an expiration, and says 3 weeks later "well this poll said this" kind of thing, and use its results officially. Each poll should lay out the potential options, as well as the question in a clear format. The required inclusions for the post are: an expiration date/event, a fair, clear and concise, unbaised question which addressed the issue of the poll, and a general description of what your poll entails. Instead of a description if you wish to post a link to another thread to give a description, that is acceptable as well.

This poll did not set up rules for how the abstains were to be counted in it's post. This led to cofusion among the voters. Some believed that abstains were to be counted. The evidence is the need for this very trial.

NO poll to date has set up rules for how abstains are to be counted. If The Court is to follow this logic, then every poll we have previously had should be found invalid.

Defense needs to cite specific instances of confusion amongst the voters. Since only two voters chose to "abstain" I fail to see how there is any evidence that the voters in general were confused. None of the voters who chose to "abstain" posted a message in thread that they were confused, or that they felt their abstain would count as a "nay".

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Second point, this poll is a repoll of the current Minister of Economy Ammendment. The rules governing repoll's are a follows:

If someone wants to conduct a repoll, then it must be created at least 3 weeks following the initial poll. If a repoll is created before 3 weeks has passed, then that poll is immediately invalid. If a poll is an alternative poll, offering alternatives to decisions made in a previous poll, then it also must be conducted at least 3 weeks following the first poll, or be immediately deemed invalid. Any poll that's general purpose is the same or similar as another poll will be considered a repoll.

The original ammendment poll was posted on 7/03/02 while the poll in question was posted on 7/20/02. 17 days later, not 21. The two ammendments have virtually the same intent, therefore this poll violates the repolling rules.

Incorrect.

Justice Captain correctly explains repolls when he states in the thread "pre poll discussion: should abstain option be required in official polls"

Originally posted by Captain
Repolls are copies of old polls in which it is hoped that changed circumstances and opinions over time (and not rewording of the poll) will change the results.

This "poll's" general purpose was NOT the same or similar as the previous poll, it's purpose was to correct mistakes in our CoL. The previous poll's purpose was to join the two offices together.

If this "repoll" interpretation was correct, then NO ONE could change a mistake in the law more than three weeks after it was made, or within three weeks depending on the misinterpretation you choose to abuse. The defense's interpretation is a clear abuse of the intent of this law. We should not block valid laws that have been passed by the voters on technicalities that are based on a misapplication of the law.

An ammendment which tries to clarify mistakes in our CoL is not a repoll of the law which joined two offices together.

Bottom line, 70% of the voters voted for this change in the laws and if the court follow the twisted logic of the defense then this overwhelming majority will be silenced by a decision which defies the intent of the Code of Laws and stiffles democracy. Furthermore, the defense has not and cannot allege that this poll was biased or unclear, it is a model poll that conforms to every previous valid poll and every one since. We have depended on this format and will continue to depend on it.

Rebuttal concluded.

[Captain]

Just got back from work (yes, I know, 10pm on a Saturday).

Next post is reserved for UnOrthOdox's rebuttal, which will conclude the first part of the thread.

AFTER his reply, we will then open the case to any relevant questions from any citizen (including ministers, judges, and other officials). Use enough detail to clarify the question, but please keep them brief and specific. Questions should be numbered to assist the plaintiff and respondent (and myself) in keeping track. You do not need to request permission to speak if you follow these instructions.

Note that the next section is reserved for questions. Your comments should wait until the Q&A session is complete.

Thank you.

(oh, and happy anniversary UnOrthO )

[Captain]

Note:

originally posted by Togas

Justice Captain correctly explains repolls when he states in the thread "pre poll discussion: should abstain option be required in official polls"

quote:

Originally posted by Captain
Repolls are copies of old polls in which it is hoped that changed circumstances and opinions over time (and not rewording of the poll) will change the results.

That was my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Court. Just to keep in mind.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Confsion hereing is evident when skywalker, one of the ones to abstain replied

Originally posted by skywalker
They AREN'T?????

Yes they are!

To Timeline's statement that abstains were not going to be counted. To the purpose of whether past polls have set up a way to count abstains, this is the first case where it has led to confusion, or has even been needed.


As for the two polls and their similarty:

The poll in question:

This Amendment will remove the Minister of Trade and Minister of Finance sections of our Code of Laws, and replace it with this:

The original ammendment:

The positions of Minister of Trade and Minister of Finance are hereby dissolved by this amendment. In their place is the creation of a new office, the Ministry of the Economy.

The original ammendment already replaced any reference in the CoL to the former two positions. The new ammendment is looking to do the same, just in a different manner.

Finished, and sorry for the delay.

[Togas]

MOTION.

I move that if no private citizen posts any questions on this thread in the next 24 hours that the Plaintiff and Respondent be allowed further debate on this issue.

--Togas

[UnOrthOdOx]

While I am up for more debating, it is definately against the laid out structure of the court. If one of the judges lets it go, I'm for it.

[notyoueither]

Questions of interest to myself for both Togas and UnOrthOdOx. Please do not directly address each other. Feel free to answer each and every one of my questions. Captain will return and allow for rebuttal if you wish to address the reply of the other advocate, or PM me.

1. The Abstain Issue. Where is the status of Abstain explained in law or practice? Can any given voter define the meaning of his Abstain vote on a case by case basis and does that attempt at definition have any legal standing?

2. The Editing Issue. Article II: Amendments points to 'inclusion' of new material, but does not mention allowing editing. Do you feel it is wise to allow for the Constitution (or Code of Laws) to be edited? How will we keep track of versions?

3. The Repoll Issue. Are you aware of Spiffor's poll of June 26 (which closed on July 1)? It can be found here

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54106

The results of that poll were proclaimed by Trip on July 1

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54573

and added to the Constitution.

What effect do you think Any poll that's general purpose is the same or similar as another poll will be considered a repoll would have on Timeline's poll of July 20?

Which mistakes in Spiffor's poll and Trip's enactment of the original Minister of Economy Amendment were addressed by Timeline's poll?

/Edit. Last question. Who decides that any given mistake was in fact a mistake and whether it warrants the application or the over-riding the repoll provisions of the Constitution?

[UnOrthOdOx]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by notyoueither
1. The Abstain Issue. Where is the status of Abstain explained in law or practice? Can any given voter define the meaning of his Abstain vote on a case by case basis and does that attempt at definition have any legal standing?[\quote]

Abstains do not have a standard of practice at this time, legally, or in practice. That debate is what led to this court case. If there were a standard to not count them, as the plaintiff's suggest, there would have been no need for the trial.

2. The Editing Issue. Article II: Amendments points to 'inclusion' of new material, but does not mention allowing editing. Do you feel it is wise to allow for the Constitution (or Code of Laws) to be edited? How will we keep track of versions?

This was the subject of some debate. Personally, as long as the original is kept somewhere whithin the CoL, there is no reason not to make the actual body condensed and easy to read. Nothing should be permanently deleted, however.

3. The Repoll Issue. Are you aware of Spiffor's poll of June 26 (which closed on July 1)? It can be found here

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54106

The results of that poll were proclaimed by Trip on July 1

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54573

and added to the Constitution.

I don't know how this one was missed when I did my search. Ho many times have we polled on this ammendment? The poll I refer to, however, includes the changes that Timeline wanted to make to the FAM in the poll in question. It is therefore still a repoll. The one I point to may even be a repoll, but includes these 'mistakes' that are referred to, and apparently it passed, why then, was the repoll needed?

What effect do you think Any poll that's general purpose is the same or similar as another poll will be considered a repoll would have on Timeline's poll of July 20?

Timelines poll refers to fixing the FAM and other sections to say the new minister rather than the outdated ones. The poll I linked to above does the same thing. The original ammendment, even, states that those positions are dissolved, and that they are now replaced with the MoE.

Which mistakes in Spiffor's poll and Trip's enactment of the original Minister of Economy Amendment were addressed by Timeline's poll?

Got me. This is merely a desire to reword the ammendment to something that pleases some people more. Timeline did not accept the original terminology. I think there were other intentions as well, which have no berrings on this case, so I will leave them alone.

/Edit. Last question. Who decides that any given mistake was in fact a mistake and whether it warrants the application or the over-riding the repoll provisions of the Constitution?

No system is set up at this time to override any part of the CoL AFAIK. Perhaps an official poll asking if the people WANTED a repoll would suffice. I would like to point out that NO discussion was ever presented before the posting of Timeline's poll. While not officially required, it is 'strongly recommended', and would have likely avoided much of the debate herin.