Constitutional Law Review: Court Jurisdiction over enforcing site rules

[Gilgamensch]

And I think, as we are trying to be reasonable and not a lot of flame going on (unlike other forums ), I don't really expect that you will have a lot of work with us

But, there directly a question:

As you might have seen the posting in the election-poll: If the court would ask you, too take some actions there, what would be your response? Don't want to say, it is needed, but for me, it is close too the limit..............

[Tamerlin]

Your points are very interesting H Tower. I have already expressed elsewhere that I am a bit disappointed by the lack of commitment of many citizens and by the weakness of the arguments that are exposed in the DG forum. I can't agree more on the insults, flaming, etc., issue. There is no place for them here and elsewhere in Apolyton as a whole.

About the weakness of some arguments I can only say that we are already confronted every day with this problem in real life and that though we should encourage the DG posters to develop their arguments some can't or don't want. They should nonetheless remain free to express their opinion, be it simply "no, I don't like that", as they are known citizens of the community and their opinion can thus be important for other members of the DG. We are free to ask a member to develop its argumentation.

Spamming is even more difficult to treat. As long as it is good spirited and limited (which means it does not disrupt a thread to the point it becomes a spamming area) the rules should not be too strictly enforced. The DG is after all a game and we play it because we want to have fun. IMO, the success of the DG must not be evaluated in term of victory against the AI (though it must be our goal) but in term of the fun we have playing it. I might be wrong but part of the fun is also to joke (as long as it is good natured) with people we like even if it is sometimes off-topic.

The word Moderator is itself interesting to analyse, it comes from the verb "To Moderate" which implies the Moderator should only act when things are going too far. IMO, spams should not be punished as long as they are within given limits and are limited in number. The Moderator and the Judge decide in this matter.

In my opinion, a strict enforcement of the rule is thus dangerous as far as spams are concerned and a poster should never be courted before he has been warned by the judge that he should stop spamming or that he is pushing the limit too far.

About Apolyton CS rules and the CtP2 DG rules I see them as the European Community Law and the National Law of each Member Country:
The EC Law (Apolyton CS rules) takes precedence over the National Laws of its members (the various DG rules) and the National Laws (DG rules) can not contradict the EC Law (ACS rules).

As a representant of the ACS, Locutus is in charge of enforcing the ACS rules (like a European Judge) and the CtP2 DG Judge is in charge of enforcing the CtP2 DG rules (like a National Judge).

About the Court himself, I think the Lemurian court should actually be made of three judges which would have to give their opinion on every case submitted (no possibility to abstain). The elected Judge would be the President of the Court and would be asked to nominate two other judges that would have to accept personnally ( ) the position in order to be appointed for the duration of the running term. The President of the Court would have the possibility to revoke a Judge through a motivated public announcement.
IMO, three Judges would allow for a better interpretation of the law as it would guarantee the issue would be debated and settled by several DG members with possibly different opinions.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
About the weakness of some argument I can only say that we are already confronted every day with this problem in real life and that though we should encourage the DG posters to develop their arguments some can't or don't want. They should nonetheless remain free to express their opinion, be it simply "no, I don't like that", as they are known citizens of the community and their opinion can thus be important for other members of the DG. We are free to ask a member to develop its argumentation.

I wanted to avoid spamming of this thread, and while i can't force people to not post one line answers, I can still encourage them to develop their arguement.

Spamming is even more difficult to treat. As long as it is good spirited and limited (which means it does not disrupt a thread to the point it becomes a spamming area) the rules should not be too strictly enforced.

I agree completely, the court punishment was mearly a theoretical example of what could be done with my interpretation of the parts of the CON I quoted in my first post. However I do feel that some members of this game have reached a point where the should be prosecuted for spamming because it is very much so out of hand.

IMO, the success of the DG must not be evaluated in term of victory against the AI (though it must be our goal) but in term of the fun we have playing it. I might be wrong but part of the fun is also to joke (as long as it is good natured) with people we like even if it is sometimes off-topic.

i really suprised no one has quoted in their sig, but i have gone on record in the past that I couldn't care less how well we do in the game as long as I can have fun roleplaying and participating actively in the court and constitutional discussion. (like this one )

[quote]About the Court himself, I think the Lemurian court should actually be made of three judges which would have to give their opinion on every case submitted (no possibility to abstain).
[quote]
The court is made up of 3 judges, Gilg as Senior Justice, Frozzy who is entering his second month in office and mapfi who is about to finish out his term and be replaced by yours truly unless 14 people vote no before the election ends.

[quote] The elected Judge would be the President of the Court and would be asked to nominate two other judges that would have to accept personnally ( ) the position in order to be appointed for the duration of the running term. The President of the Court would have the possibility to revoke a Judge through a motivated public announcement.
[quote]
I like our current system of judge selection better as it is more democratic and less likely to end up with political parties appointing each other to judge positions.

IMO, three Judges would allow for a better interpretation of the law as it would guarantee the issue would be debated and settled by several DG members with possibly different opinions.

As I've mentioned above, the court does have 3 judges. If mapfi agrees, I can post a log of all of our private debates over interpreting cases and the CON. But it will take more than 10 posts to their maximum size limit. In fact we were debating the very topic I raised in this thread but we were deadlocked disagreeing which is why I opened this thread since it doesn't involve an actual case like our usual debates do. Deliberations of the court are done behind closed doors via pm's and instant messenger.

Speaking of mapfi, where is he? I want to see him tear my arguements apart so we can find the loopholes.


Locutus

If a ruling by the Court is reasonable and well thought-out, I will carry it out

What do you mean IF???

[Locutus]

I do agree that we need a pro-active Court: the Judges are usually those posters who care most of enforcing the rules but they are at the same time not allowed to file cases. As mod I've had a lot of contact with the Judges so I know most of them are very frustrated by the fact they have to sit by as a lot of good potential cases don't make it to the Courtroom. Either we need to give the Judges permission to file cases themselves or we should (let the Court) appoint someone who actively pursues cases (like a DA/cop).

Originally posted by MrBaggins
On another matter. We should get a personal resolution from a moderator that he would enforce the will of the court, should it be so necessary to do so, regardless of personal feeling, with the exception of severity, to which, they have some discretion in.

When you're a mod you're always in a position where you're dealing with both personal feelings and the knowledge of what's best for the site/community. These things conflict all the time. Ming has banned/PCRed personal friends plenty of times and I myself have had to face my share of dilemmas as well (though fortunately not as publicly as Ming).

You're not appointed a mod if the owners of this site feel you won't be able to handle the responsibility. (In fact, though I don't know the details and could be wrong, I think several people who couldn't handle this have been 'fired' over this in the past.) So although I understand where you're coming from, I don't feel it's really necessary for me (or any other mod for that matter) to account for myself towards you guys. If you feel I don't do my job right, you can always take it up with Markos or Dan (in fact, I would encourage you to do so - provided you discuss the issue with me first).

Gilg,
Clean your PM box!

[Locutus]

Locutus
What do you mean IF???

I don't trust you Court-lot one minute!

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by H Tower
I agree completely, the court punishment was mearly a theoretical example of what could be done with my interpretation of the parts of the CON I quoted in my first post. However I do feel that some members of this game have reached a point where the should be prosecuted for spamming because it is very much so out of hand.

If you warn them and if they don't stop in spite of your requests our constitution gives you the right to act against them, there is no problem as far as I am concerned. Being a Judge is not an easy job and acting against spams is even more tricky.

As I've mentioned above, the court does have 3 judges. If mapfi agrees, I can post a log of all of our private debates over interpreting cases and the CON.

I think you should not. I was about to suggest in my previous post that the debates of the judges should not be public, it would lengthen the whole process and could end in petty quarrels between the DG members.

Deliberations of the court are done behind closed doors via pm's and instant messenger.

And they should remain private IMHO.

[mapfi]

I've already discussed HT's initial idea with him at length as he told you. I'm only going to give a quick summary of my opinion and I won't discuss this any further - there's a court case coming up.
I say, our constitution doesn't include the Apolyton rules, it only provides the needed phrases so that actions decided by ACS staff don't come into conflict with it. Therefore the court can't rule on spamming, threadjacking, whatever. That's the way it should be too in my opinion, the court is for the game, not for the site. ( a special case would be a DL to rig an election - there the court could rule)

The second discussion here that is going on here is about a proactive court. Though it is true that a few judges would have liked to file cases, including myself - I'm strongly opposing any change here. If a matter is not considered to be important enough to file a case by at least one non-juidicial citizen then it simply doesn't need to be decided. Do you want someone to follow you all day and each action you do that violates the law would be fined, punished? The whole world would be paying like crazy or sit in prison. In RL law specifically names all law violations that have to be prosecuted by the state even though nobody asks for it (e.g. like murder) but we don't need that. People, we're here to play a game and not to occupy us with jurisprudence. We made our law so we'd have guidelines on how to play and so noone could spoil the fun for us, but not in order to make it as important as the game itself.
Law is there to serve the community and not to serve itself!

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Tamerlin

originally posted by H Tower.
Deliberations of the court are done behind closed doors via pm's and instant messenger.

And they should remain private IMHO.

me too, maybe when i get back home i'll give the size of the file though. But just to spark a little debate, have you looked at Article I section 5?

FROM the CON
The government may not knowingly hide information or give false information to the people. Therefore all citizens shall have access to the saved games. However, no Citizen shall ever 'play ahead'.

Couldn't that be taken to mean that the citizenry have a right to see the debate between the judges?

mapfi:

I'm only going to give a quick summary of my opinion

But I was looking forward to continuing our debate!

there's a court case coming up.

There is?

Though it is true that a few judges would have liked to file cases

Judges themselves aren't allowed to file cases, true, but what about asking others to file for you?


Locutus:

I don't trust you Court-lot one minute!

Good thing I'm not a member fo the court. I don't trust them either.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by H Tower
Me too, maybe when i get back home i'll give the size of the file though. But just to spark a little debate, have you looked at Article I section 5?

IMO the Court can not be considered a part of the government.

Furthermore, the interpretation of the text is limited by the following sentence: therefore all citizens shall have access to the saved games which would mean the informations that can not be hidden or false are related to the game as it is played through the chats. The log of each chat being published the government is fulfilling its obligations as far as this matter is concerned.

[H Tower]

The CON mentions a very specific case of when information cannot be hidden, it doesn't say that other information can be hidden. otherwise turn chat logs would not have to be produced, just the save files.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

judges aren't part of the government, at least not in any rl-democracy. if our con states otherwise, that really should be altered

[Gilgamensch]

Locutus,

I cleaned my PM.

bacl to the topic:

The government is the 'law-giving' part of the state, whereas the court is the 'law-interpreting' part of the state and actually Locutus is our police, the execituve force

Therefore the court is not part of the government, so the discussion should be hold behind closed doors and not revealed to the public.

H Tower,

asking somebody to open the case is not the same. This person might not be of the same opinion as yourself, so in my eyes not a good idea. I still would like that judges are not restricted from filing cases (unless there would be a DA/cop, looking for violations).

And Mapfi,

Yes, the connie is there to serve the game, but having citizens 'breaking' the law and nothing the judge can do about, takes a lot of fun out of it (the DG and the roleplaying part).

It is not about giving the judges more to do, but that they/we could also act faster. Some citizens here sometimes don't care so much, but other's do. I am not saying that I am the best citizen (way not), but I try to stick to the rules. It would take at least 24 hours before anything could happen, maybe even longer. This I don't like so much.............

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
judges aren't part of the government, at least not in any rl-democracy.

How about the US?

We call it the system of checks and balances between the three branches of government. Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Do other people feel the same way?

[MrBaggins]

The Anglo-Saxon system of law that evolved in England consisted of two greater jurisdictions.

Government law or the law of the King evolved from the Roman system. The common law or the law of the people was a unique system that probably evolved from church law. The history of the evolution can be found in Blackstones Commentaries. The two systems work together using the following legal principals:

1. Two different courts, judges, clerks, etc. existed.

2. The common law system used a specific writ for each type of litigation.

3. The writ to claim a right to a trial in a court of common pleas was a "Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum".

4. The writ was actually two separate legal actions.

5. The first writ was filed in the Kings superior courts.

6. The Kings court then transferred to common plea.

7. The second writ was filed in common plea.

The first writ filed in the Kings court evoked the police power of the central government for the following purposes:

1. To stop any other proceeding in a Kings court that violated the right to common law relief.

2. To used the police power of the Kings courts to enforce the common law judgment.

This dual jurisdiction system was brought to the American colonies by the English settlers.

The problem in the colonies was that the King of England suspended the Great Writ by either refusing to transfer or not enforcing the judgments issuing out of common plea. The suspension of this writ was the major cause of the war of revolution.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

well, perhaps in english the word government has a slightly different meaning than the word "regierung" in german

to me the executive branch is the government. the legislative branch (parliament(s)) and the judicial (courts) branch aren't part of it. all three combined form the institutions of the state / the nation.