The Court

[Locutus]

One important thing we haven't discussed yet is the judicial branch: the Supreme Court (or whatever we want to call it). I've been reading the constitutions of other Democracy Games and studying cases that have come before their Courts and I'm beginning to realize how important this institute is (or at least can be). The Court is basically a neutral entity that can interfere in case of conflict. This neutrality is vital when it comes to organizing elections, determining the validity of polls, impeaching government members, interpreting the law, solving conflicts of law or conflicts between individuals, etc.

The bad thing about having a Court is that the government size will in our case probably about double in size (assuming 3-5 Ministers and 3-5 Judges). The good thing is that the function of Judges requires little to no knowledge of CtP2, so anyone (including our resident ACers) can hold such a position. So, do we want a Court? How large should it be (most other DGs have 5 Judges, in our case 3 might be better to keep the government small)? What rules should apply to it and what responsibilities should it have? Discuss! (I would be particularly interested in hearing the viewpoints of experienced DGers)

[Method]

if you're worried about not having enough people, let judges also have government posts. that's what we did, and it's working fine. i'm not sure if you'll need a court though. i'm not even sure why we have one

[J Bytheway]

I would say that it'sadvisable, but certainly allow them to be ministers too, and give them long terms of office so that we don't have to keep being distracted by their election.

[Method]

we have 2 month terms, and IIRC, C3 has 3 months.

[Locutus]

Sounds like a good idea, allowing judges to be ministers as well... Of course, in some cases the two jobs might clash but it doesn't necessarily require the entire court to make decisions...

I think 3 months would be a good term for a judge.

[Pedrunn]

Why judges at all!?!

organizing elections.

This can be by one person only. I thought it was in the president hands.

interpreting the law,

We just need to make simple, few and direct laws. Mostly for vality of polls, ellections, minister power (controlled by the citzens wishs) and citzens behavor.

Determining the validity of polls.

This can be solved by the laws.
The only valid citzen polls are the ones with a certain minimal votes and enough number of posts comfirming the votes (eg. about 1/3 of the votes).
Let the people have freedom of speech to start stupid threads . This is what makes Lemuria great!

Polls started by non-citzens gets deleted!

Of course all poll started by the ministers are valid.

impeaching government members.

This can be a started with a shy poll. And if it gets bigger and valid (as explained above) the president/minister is out.

solving conflicts of law or conflicts between individuals,

Come on... Do you really think this is needed!!!

So we just nee one judge that can be the president itself. To confirm the vality of a poll and make the elections.

[centrifuge]

A judge would help to keep the "President" from becoming a dictator. So IMHO they shouldn't be the same person.

[Locutus]

Exactly. Too much power to one person. Examples:

(Holding Elections) If the president liked being the president, he could simply decide not to hold new elections. And as he's the only one who can write out new elections, no elections would be held. Of course, eventually this would lead to his impeachment, but impeachment procedures take a long time. In the meantime, he is free to do with the game whatever he wants.

(Interpreting the law) What if someone else would simply decide to just start new elections and ignore the old president? This would basically be a coup d'estate. A new president would be chosen and ready to take office, but according to the constitution, this new president would not be a valid one. But the old president also didn't act legally. Conflict! An independent entity needs to intervene and obviously the president nor the general assembly qualify as such, since both are making a claim to the presidency and both have violated rules.

(Determining the validity of polls) It's not just who starts a poll, or for what reason, but also (mainly) outcome that can cause controversy. What about if there is suspicion that non-citizens have voted? (IIRC This actually happened in other DGs) Or if it is suspected that a mod tampered with the outcome (you never know how sneaky I might turn out to be ), or it's found out that people have been using DLs to influence their outcome? What if a poll was closed prematurely because the thread had turned into a flamewar or had been used for excessive spamming? There are many, mnay things that can go wrong and you can't possibly conceive all of them in advance. And if you can't conceive them in advance, you can't make proper rules about them.

(Impeaching government members) If a simple poll is sufficient for impeachment, ministers could be impeached in a whim, without good reason. A neutral court could analyse if someone actually misbehaved and if that malconduct is grave enough to be grounds for impeachment. That would make for a much more stable and reliable functioning of the entire government.

(Solving conflicts) Laws can conflict quite easily. In this case, laws are not just the laws of the Democracy Game, but also laws made by the general assembly that have to be executed by ministers. Hypothetical example: The Romans are massing on our borders and at the same time the Greeks threaten to finish the Appian Way before us. The general assembly tells the Minister of Infrastructure to start saving PW to build Fortresses ASAP while at the same time telling the Domestic Minister to maximize production to finish the Wonder in time. These laws conflict: The latter implies that the PW percentage should be decreased but that would conflict with the former. Assuming no other laws/guidelines/motions/etc are available, there is a conflict. Which law should take precedence? The one that was enforced first? The one that was intended for the Domestic Minister (as he's higher in the hierarchy)? Should the President decide? Should both laws be declared void? Is a new poll needed to decide on this issue? Although perhaps not strictly necessary, it would be helpful to have a Court have a look at this - in such cases the action that should be taken might depend on the situation and the interpretation of the law.

As far as conflichts between individuals go, you never know... People might start political parties (I hope so!) and start fighting with each other on ideological grounds, something which might get out of hands... Or what if Rasbelin starts a newspaper and posts an article in which he calls Immortal Wombat's financial policy irresponsible. IW might be having a bad day and consider this slander. Then what? Is it freedom of speech or should Rasbelin edit his article and apologize? Both these guys can be quite stubborn, you know One last example from the C3DG: there a President didn't follow express orders from a minister. In the C3DG case, the President immediately admitted his mistake and the case was dismissed, but what if the President felt otherwise and gives a reason for his action. Here President nor ministers are neutral to decide who is in violation of the rules. If the general assembly is to decide, odds are it will turn into a popularity contest (especially if political parties are involved) and some facts or rules might be ignored. A Court would thoroughly analyse the case and publish this analysis and a ruling based upon it, which should normally be more objective.



I don't expect to be needing the Court very often, but it would be good to have around when we do need it... And it would be good if this didn't give one person more power than is healthy...

[Turambar]

Courts are a good idea as long as it doesn't get too complicated.

Or what if Rasbelin starts a newspaper and posts an article in which he calls Immortal Wombat's financial policy irresponsible

It is irresponsible and I demand his resignation!

[Immortal Wombat]

Or what if Rasbelin starts a newspaper and posts an article in which he calls Immortal Wombat's financial policy irresponsible. IW might be having a bad day and consider this slander. Then what? Is it freedom of speech or should Rasbelin edit his article and apologize? Both these guys can be quite stubborn, you know

He's probably right. I'd get my own back when he's a minister

[Locutus]

Agreed! Simplicity above all (well, almost all)...

[Devil of Truth]

Originally posted by centrifuge
A judge would help to keep the "President" from becoming a dictator. So IMHO they shouldn't be the same person.

More than that – nobody in office should be a judge. A clear separation between the state and the judiciary. It would make the government bigger, but less corrupt (in theory anyway).

[mapfi]

Judges shouldn't be ministers - that'd make all decisions biased. Anyway - judges won't have to do much work anyway, especially if we don't make the procedure tedious with statement after statement, rebuttal after rebuttal.
I think after a case has been filed to the court via PM to the Senior Justice - he would then open a thread if he accepts the case where everyone could post, have it closed after a certain to be determined time and then just have the court rule.
In essence, any citizen could file a case via PM - a public hearing will take place - then the court rules with an iron fist. Keep it simple and require the court to meet (PM or chat) only once, for the ruling.

[Locutus]

Ideally I agree that judges and ministers should be seperate. Perhaps we should first try to do this and only resort to allowing people to carry both titles when we can't find enough....

Sounds good to me, mapfi. Keeping things simple can't be a bad thing...

[Turambar]

I agree that Ministers and Judges shouldn't be the same therefore the term lengths of both should be the same so people can change roles.

Perhaps we should worry about judges more when we have a constitution up and Ministers elected?