The Court of Apolytonia is in Session: Case 5

[notyoueither]

Sheik will be more active in assisting me for the balance of the hearing. His directions (or that of any other justice) should be respected.

You may ask a question UnOrthOdOx.

[Mr. Orange]

Togas,

No. Elected officals do have the right to free speech, but they have a boundary to be informed as well as they can. If the information is available and they are not informed, and make false statements, I believe this goes against the rules. That is unless they explicitly state they are not acting as a minister.

No. As informed as the information allows. As in this case, the information was there to make an informed decision.

Maybe. That is duty in being an elected offical. You choose to run. You won the election. Once of the clauses when elected, is to be accurate to your knowledge. Especially if the information is available. If someone retorted to your quote with, "Why is it a waste of time?" and you say "Because." I think a citizen has a right to a better and more detailed explanation from a elected offical then that. If none is forthcomming, what gives you the right to make those statements, as an elected offical who job it is to know these things, without an explanation?

That is not my decision. It is the courts.

Edit in italics

[adaMada]

Thank you your Honors. I have addressed comments to each party, though they should feel free to respond to anything addressed to their opponent should they wish.

--------------------------

Mr. Orange,

1)

As an elected member of government, Reddawg, unless he explicitly states it within his post, is acting as an elected official every time he participates within a thread, no more acutely presented then with his signature: “Minister of the Economy: Term IV, V / Ministre d'Économie: Session IV, V”.

Do you not agree, however, that such a signature is a common practice amoung government official? I myself have one and believe it to be understood that if I post a transaction in the $-minigame, I am not acting for the Foreign Ministry.

2) Do you believe that Elected Officials are legally bound to research and have an informed stance, or morally/socially bound? Furthermore, how does one define 'informed stance'? If the public agrees that a minister has neglected his or her duties, then the public may impeach him or her, but unless the CoL requires a minister to perform an action, I have trouble seeing how the courts are an appropriate venue for your complaint, with the possible exception of an impeachment hearing.

3) Should you win, what would you consider an appropriate response? (I understand that you consider it the court's final decision, but I'd still like to hear your thoughts on how the court can legally respond.) Would a court ordered apology be satisfactory? Keeping in mind that this is not an impeachment, I’d like to know what you hope to accomplish in this case, if anything besides a general resolution on the issue.

--------------------------

jdjdjd,
1) Do you believe that the current CoL's provision on polling, stating that all unofficial polls must be declared as such, has any bearing on this case? Though it is an extreme stretch, it could be seen as setting a precedent that unofficial decisions must be marked as such, and I'm curious if you have any thoughts/responses to this (admittedly far-fetched) idea.
2) Though I understand your statement that Reddawg has committed no crime, does he believe he may have been hasty in criticizing Mr. Orange's stats?

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by adaMada
--------------------------

jdjdjd,
1) Do you believe that the current CoL's provision on polling, stating that all unofficial polls must be declared as such, has any bearing on this case? Though it is an extreme stretch, it could be seen as setting a precedent that unofficial decisions must be marked as such, and I'm curious if you have any thoughts/responses to this (admittedly far-fetched) idea.
2) Though I understand your statement that Reddawg has committed no crime, does he believe he may have been hasty in criticizing Mr. Orange's stats?

adaMada,

Thank you for your concern and interest in this case.

1. No, I do not believe the polling clause has any weight here because it is specific to polls, and clearly stated as such. To extend it to other areas would be beyond the intent of that section of the Code of Laws.

2. Reddawg and myself have not discussed this. We merely have addressed the merits of this case. He, of course, can interject and give you his answer as to any remorse he may feel.

I hope this answers your questions. Please feel free to post any follow ups, assuming the Court will allow.

Thank you again for your concern and interest in this case.

/Edited for grammar & spelling.

[jdjdjd]

My apologies to the Court, adaMada, Mr. Orange, Reddawg and all others interested in this case.

adaMada,

Regarding your question #2, please, I would now state that whether Reddawg feels remorse or not is not important right now. And I ask he not state his feelings on that issue to the Court so that they are not biased by it either way.

After the case is over, he may wish to speak to you or others from the Gazzette about that, but for now it does not matter. I would like to keep this about whether or not Reddawg violated the Code of Laws or acted outside the bounds of a civil society, which we believe quite strongly that he did not.

Please accept my apologies and do not take offense at my response.

Thank you again.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Thank you, your honors. I apologize for the delay, but news travels slow here in Zululand.

I actually have a few questions that come down to one in the end, but first I would like to address a few things abut this case.

I have seen it argued by the defense that Reddawg never claimed that Mr Orange was cheating. Perhaps not in so many words, but the fact remains, Reddawg did claim so on at least three occasions:

But I have to say that it is impossible for you to have these figures.

You may be able to extract this data from the game, but that is no more legitimate than re-loading a save when a battle doesn't go your way. I really don't feel that this information is permissible in the spirit of the game.

It's 100% impossible to gather some of this data, especially without using an Embassy/Spy to collect data.

Furthermore, Reddawg admitted the accusation later:

It certainly is a clever and inventive way to go about it, but I do not feel it gives an accurate estimate, so much so that it could be highly misleading. So while it's well done, interesting, and clever, and I apologize for thinking you were cheating when you were in fact guestimating, it's certainly inaccurate and misleading.

Here he also accuses MrOragne of providing false information.

It is obvious that Reddawg did not think that the MilCal, or the stats derived from it were either illegal, OR they were misleading.

We have spoken an awful lot on freedom of speech. It is one thing to post an opinion, it is quite another to make an accusation. Calling things "100% impossible" or "certainly misleading" are accusations. It is true that elected officials are entitled to their opinion, and that they also make mistakes, errors, and sometimes are a bit hasty, Banana knows I sure as hell was as VP, but they also hold something of a responsibility to stand for their actions as representatives of the government. This is an unfortunate situation between a governmental official and a citizen that could have been prevented through any number of means.

My question is, why were the accusations, serious as they were (first cheating, THEN providing misleading info), why were they not handled in a more appropriate manner? Was it neccessary to continue in public with several accusations and insistance upon the wrongness of the information? Could this have been solved in private, saving some of the public bashing and/or embarrassment of a new member? And why did Reddawg not take these accusations to the court in the first place where, IMO, they should have gone to begin with?

The greatest threat to the demo game is lack of membership. It is truly unfortunate that we potentally lost a citizen due to a situation that may have been avoided.

[notyoueither]

Veering a little towards making an argument, UnOrthOdOx. However, well constructed and pertinent.

I would like to allow a little leeway for the litigents to answer. They may wish to answer and then rebut each other on your question. That would be acceptable if it is accomplished in reasonable time.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Veering a little towards making an argument, UnOrthOdOx. However, well constructed and pertinent.

Sorry about that, I would have handled it quite differently, but my requests both publicly and privately to be informed of the starting of this trial were ignored, causing me to nearly miss the entire trial all together. Had it not been on the top page yesterday...

[jdjdjd]

I would say this leans more than just a little towards making an argument, but since the Court has already accepted it, I will respond.

But first I would like to address the arguments made by UnOrthOdOx before the actual question.

It is irrelevant to these proceedings as to whether Reddawg accused Mr. Orange of cheating, there is no violation of the Code of Laws against saying such a thing, nor is it outside the bounds of a civil society significant enough to overcome Reddawg's right to free speech, nor is it against the rules of Apolyton.

Reddawg has stated several times that he never specifically accused Mr. Orange of cheating but that he was pointing out that a certain way of getting applicable data would have been cheating, not that Mr. Orange cheated. And that was his intent in his posts, regardless of how others may have interpreted it. Furthermore, whether or not Reddawg agrees with the MiCalc, its validity, its reliability or not, is also not important to this case. He is allowed to disagree or feel the MiCalc is misleading.

Again, such statements by Reddawg are not a violation of the Code of Laws, nor of any standard that would override his right to free speech. He is entitled to his opinion.

****************************

UnOrthOdOx points out that an accusation is not just an opinion, implying accusations are not permissable free speech. I disagree, allegedly making accusations is certainly within Reddawg's right of free speech. Free speech comes in many forms, accusations certainly fall within that. Whether or not Reddawg made such accusations is certainly up for debate as well, taking several quotes from the thread to make a point certainly takes them out of their context; but I contend that it is not pertinent to this case as Reddawg was within his right to free speech even if he made statements to the extremes alleged.

*****************************

Now to UnOrthOdOx's question:

First, let me state this. The statements made by Reddawg were handled as they were handled. Reddawg does not have the ability to go back and change the facts or handle things differently. It is easy to sit back in Zululand and look back on what was done and critique it, however, Reddawg does not have that luxury, Mr. Orange does not have that luxury, I do not have that luxury, and The Court does not have that luxury.

Whether Reddawg would go back and do this differently is not an issue, he can not go back and do it differently. My addressing that would be prejudicial, no matter what the answer is.

If I say Reddawg regrets what he did, some may say he admits he did wrong.

If I say Reddawg has no remorse for what he said, then some may say, "oh, how could he be so indignant".

So, I can not address that.

Second, what UnOrthOdOx feels is appropriate action, perhaps others do not. So, perhaps some of us would say Reddawg handled this the way it should have been handled. And that UnOrthOdOx's several suggestions are, while well intentioned, inappropriate.

UnOrthOdOx points out that Reddawg should have taken his accusations to Court. I say, on what grounds? What laws did Mr. Orange break?

Just as in this case, any case brought by Reddawg would have to be dismissed by the Court in favor of the Respondent. Both men were within their right to free speech, and both are entitled to their opinions.

And perhaps the reason more cases like this have not gone to the Court is because many people do not believe the Court is the proper forum for such disagreements. How many lawsuits were filed after the so called "revolution" attempted by UberKrux? Just one, and that only had to do with the validity of the poll. No one in that thread, despite the accusations, insults, and damning statements that flew back and forth, filed a lawsuit with the Court. In the famous Sir Ralph/Spiffor thread debating builder v. conqueror philosophy; neither man filed a claim with the Court depiste the accusations and insults that were exchanged there.

Finally, yes it is a shame that a new member did decide to quit his citizenship. But, how committed was he, if he did not survive one thread? I remember my famous Treatise Against Case Pink thread where I was ripped apart by Sir Ralph and others for disagreeing with that plan. Despite that, I continued on in the game.

Here's a thought, maybe had UnOrthOdOx, as a long time member of the game with a great deal of experience, could have interjected between the two men via PM and made his suggestions before the discussion got to where it did and he could have saved "some of the public bashing and/or embarrassment of a new member" like Mr. Orange, as well as "the public bashing and/or embarrassment" a member of less experience than he, like Reddawg.

Or is it unfair for me to look back and critique what UnOrthOdOx did at the time, and suggest he should have done it another way?

*******************************

Thank you UnOrthOdOx for joining in on the debate, and allowing me to address these questions. Also, please know, that as always, I mean no offense in the heat of debate.

[E_T]

If it will please the court, I have a question.

E_T

[Mr. Orange]

adaMada,

1) Yes, it is common. IIRC, the $-minigame has nothing to do with the Demo game, other then for map purposes. But if inside the game parameters (such as taliking about making a transaction for a tech), I think any reference to your position (sig or in the post) puts you in that postion's authority.

2a)Elected officals are legally bound. If the information is available, I think a minister should review it. If the minister is in question, they should ask if there is information and where they can find it. I think that is part of the job of being a minister, being informed. If they want to make questionable statements, make a disclaimer to the fact that you don't know or be explict about posting as a citizen.

2b) As a venue for complaint, I ask the court first to see if I had one. They said yes and agreed to have this proceding. What comes out of this proceding is their decision.

3) It is good to think a little before making a statement. If this makes someone think twice before spouting off at the text, all the better.

[Sheik]

Thank you for asking E_T.
Feel free to ask your question.

[Mr. Orange]

UnOrthOdOx,

By jdjdjd:

Reddawg has stated several times that he never specifically accused Mr. Orange of cheating...

By Redawg:

But I have to say that it is impossible for you to have these figures. Especially without an Intelligence agency, you cannot possibly obtain these figures. If you did some sort of hack into the data to get it, that's against the rules of the democracy games. You couldn't know how many units all the other civs have unless you spied on each city, which wasn't authorized by the government. Same with the upkeep. And as for some of the demographics, I don't see how it's possible to know the MFG capacity and GNP of the other civs.

I'm only saying this because I think it's very very important to only supply data that is actually attainable within the rules of the game. Otherwise it's just like playing ahead and acting upon the information; it's cheating.

My question since then has always been if Reddawg did not think I cheating (as proven not to be) why would he post those statements in the first place?

By jdjdjd:

And that was his intent in his posts, regardless of how others may have interpreted it.

"I intended to wound him, but killed him instead". As this quote expresses, his actions differed. That's why I eventually submitted this to the Court.

By jdjdjd

And perhaps the reason more cases like this have not gone to the Court is because many people do not believe the Court is the proper forum for such disagreements.

If the Court didn't think this case had any merit, they would have never accepted it. The merits of what case the Court decides to bring forward is not for us to decide. That is why we have a Court in the first place. As a forum for redress in the community.

With the above, I can now answer your question. When this first began, I went to the Court immediately. I also gave Reddawg the benefit of the doubt by posting how I got said information. When he was still insistant about his accusations, I stopped posting in the thread. When the court accepted my case, I continued my argument here. I felt that this was the best place to settle this matter and not have a "flame war" on the ARD thread. And while other memebers in the past might felt justified to continue such action, I felt as a new member, with no previous experience in this situation and in deference to the integrity of the community, I would not.

[Mr. Orange]

Mr. jdjdjd,

Byjdjdjd

Finally, yes it is a shame that a new member did decide to quit his citizenship. But, how committed was he, if he did not survive one thread?

I remind you, I never quit as a citizen, I stopped paticipating. A very important difference the Court upheld previously in this thread.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Mr. Orange
I remind you, I never quit as a citizen, I stopped paticipating. A very important difference the Court upheld previously in this thread.

You stated on 10/16/2002...

But instead of going around the mulberry bush, why don't I make it easy. I came here to have a little fun and bring something to the community. After this, it's not worth it. Why spend my time fustrated?

and UnOrthOdOx stated on 10/23/2002...

Guys, Mr Orange has decided to withdraw from the demo game. He has informed me that he will have the MilCalc on his website should anyone want to see it, and how it works, but he will no longer supply the numbers. To look at the MilCalc, go to http://www.luckyorange.com/

and then again my response was to what UnOrthOdOx said ealier in this thread:

It is truly unfortunate that we potentally lost a citizen due to a situation that may have been avoided.

So, my mistake if I mispoke but it has not been clear to me.

Please Change my quote to be:

Finally, yes it is a shame that a new member did decide to quit participating, but not quit his citizenship. But, how committed was he, if he did not survive one thread?