Constitutional Law Review: Court Jurisdiction over enforcing site rules

[Gilgamensch]

Mapfi,

So you would be happy to see somebody disturbing a threat, which might be very impoprtant to you and because it doesn't violated apoly's rules you would just 'tolerate' it?

[mapfi]

Maybe I wouldn't be happy about it and also say so, but if Locutus said it wasn't a violation of poly rules than that's the way it is. As I said - it's not me to judge, I'm not ACS staff

[Gilgamensch]

But it is regarding our DG, so why shouldn't we set rules by ourselves and ensure/take actions to make sure they are obeyed?

We are already doing so, for the rest of the game? So where is your problem? It is no difference there.........

[mapfi]

Well then go ahead and propose an amendment that allows the court to do so because I'm convinced that the current con doesn't. Nevertheless I'm against more and new restrictions in this game/forum - can we just play the game please?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

mapfi

[Gilgamensch]

As already quoted by H Tower:

(d)Punishments the Court may hand out include but are not limited to: warnings, impeachment procedures, barring Citizens from specific or any government offices in future elections, banning Citizens from the Democracy Game, declaring resolutions void, closing threads or polls, deleting or editing posts or threads, declaring polls invalid. Punishments which require action from the CtP2-Democracy Game forum moderator must be approved by this moderator, who shall offer an explanation to the Court if approval is not given.

This means the court can already act upon. But you don't want to act upon?

[mapfi]

Those are punishments that can be handed out but in order to punish somebody he must have violated the constitution and since thread-jacking or whatever isn't covered by the con the court can't act (and that's how it should stay as I said earlier).

[Gilgamensch]

Sorry, quoted the wrong one:

(c) If the Court rules that the actions of certain Citizens are in violation with the Constitution or other rules of Lemuria, it may hand out punishments to these Citizens if it deems this appropriate. The Court will determine for itself what kind of punishment is applied, the punishment must fit the crime. However, no punishments may permanently affect a Citizens participation in the Democracy Game, the Court may not dismiss active members of government (although it may start up impeachment procedures as described in Article V) and the Court may not alter the Constitution (although it may start an Amendment poll, as described in Article IV Subsection 3-IV).

other rule's of Lemuria, would include normal behaviour, so the court could already act upon!!!!!!!!!

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

well, actually there aren't any other rules defined yet. not even civilized behaviour

[Gilgamensch]

Yes and no, the court could interpret it as it wishes

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

well, as there are no other rules, there is nothing to interpret

[Gilgamensch]

The are always rules. maybe not directly visible and as the court could make it's own rule's for offical threads, they could be applied on a later case........

SO again no need to change the connie

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

well, i don't think the court has the right to make up rules of its own. of course there could be passed laws, which would need a less number of votes than a change in the con. but before the con had to be changed, to allow this

[Gilgamensch]

As mentioned by someone:

What isn't mentioned isn't forbidden, so the court could set some rules, espacially as it is concerning OFFICIAL matters and could be extended for the rest...........

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

well, but it could only set rules that forbid nothing, because that would need for a change in the con