Apolyton Court Case 1: civman2000 vs jdd2007

civman2000 · July 26, 2002, 09:14

I will be leaving early sunday, so I will not be able to argue my case after tomorrow night, though if anyone who agrees with me wants to take over for me after I leave they may.

Request to the Apolyton Court: That this poll be declared invalid.

Argument 1: Lack of clarity.
Article III of the constitution says:

Quote:

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.

The poll's first post:

Quote:

The Question: would you agree to having sign-ups that replace current censuses and the lifetime signups, described in this thread

Options:

Yes, signups every month
Yes, signups every other month
Yes, signups every [insert your idea here]
No, keep the current system
No, I propose a different system
Abstain/Banana/Other

The thread that is linked to, however, only presents a discussion and does not clearly say what importance these signups would have.

Argument 2: Violation of Clause 2, Amendment IV (Bill of Rights).
CLause 2 of the Bill of Rights reads:

Quote:

Clause 2: No citizen shall ever be denied the right to vote in any poll.

After I posted in the poll:

Quote:

No. It's not clear exactly how significant the results of the signups will be, but since there is a chance that people who don't sign up monthly will not be considered citizens, I vote no.

jdd2007 replied:

Quote:

we could keep our memberlist and make everyone on it citizens, but to vote you have to sign up. it would be flexible.

Note: this is not an amendment

Although this clarification of the poll is not in the first post, I believe it still may be enough of an explanation to invalidate my first argument. However, this clarification clearly violates Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights. Because the poll is not an amendment, it cannot restrict the right of anyone considered a citizen to vote.

Timeline · July 26, 2002, 09:21

Not to be rude, but, does it even matter?

This can't be case #1 because I have already placed a case on the queue for the court to look into.

BTW civman, I just KNEW you would use the Bill of Rights to stirr up something

.

LOL, oh well.

jdd2007 · July 26, 2002, 09:33

am i being charged with something? because i have no idea why im in court. i shouldnt have voted for the bill of rights. please inform me what laws i have broken.

GodKing · July 26, 2002, 09:34

Bill of Rights......
Did that even pass?

Heck, I thought that acceptance of it was even up for debate because of the small number of votes.

MrWhereItsAt · July 26, 2002, 09:34

I don't think this should be considered provided it is an unofficial poll, leading to no amendments.

As far as I see it, this poll is well intentioned, yet not valid for anything. Ignore it and it will go away. And if not, THEN there may be a case.

Aro · July 26, 2002, 09:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Timeline
Not to be rude, but, does it even matter?

This can't be case #1 because I have already placed a case on the queue for the court to look into.

LOL, oh well.

case #1 ??
It's public? Where is it? Some people like westerns, some people like comedies...I just love trial movies!

civman2000 · July 26, 2002, 09:35

Edited to be case 2. IT does matter. First, I want to use this case to hopefully establish a standard for the proceedings of teh court. Second, I will not allow the Bill of Rights to EVER be violated

.

civman2000 · July 26, 2002, 09:39

jdd2007: No, I'm actually attacking the poll you made but since you made it I put your name up there.
Godking: Yes, just a few minutes ago. It had 47 votes, which should be enough.
MrWIA: BUt it is official. THe title says "Do you accept this new method of Censuses? ---OFFICIAL---"

MrWhereItsAt · July 26, 2002, 09:43

Mmm. In that case it SHOULDN'T be official.

Who made it official?

If it masquerades as such, then I support your case, civman.

EDIT: I think we can convince jdd of the invalidity of this poll, in which case we need not put anyone on trial, as it were. I have every confidence in this, but if, IF not, THEN I support the prosecution.

GodKing · July 26, 2002, 09:57

47 votes.... hmm

considering the turnout we have had lately, that is probably more that 50% voting.

OK. SOunds reasonable that it passed.

As the poll states "would you agree...." I don't think it is an official poll. As long as it is not being acted on as such (in other words - is used for informational purposes only in order to determine how/if to change the sign-up process) I have no particular problem with it. If, as supposed, it is acting as if an "official" lets change everything poll, then I agree in that it shouldn't be allowed to do so.

civman2000 · July 26, 2002, 09:59

It explicitly says it is official, so it is. IMHO, declaring it invalid isthe same as making it unofficial

jdd2007 · July 26, 2002, 10:01

before i made the poll, i asked a minister to post it, so it would be official. however, i was assured that it was in my rights to make an official poll

here is what captain told me

Quote:

You can post a regular official poll too, and that would only require "the most votes" wins (or 50% according to tradition).

MrWhereItsAt · July 26, 2002, 10:06

jdd - I think civman's points are that the poll constitutes, if added, a way in that ppl could be excluded from the game unfairly (especially with the amount of tripe you can see on the forum at the moment), and that it misses several key details that need to be specified before the Constitution recognises it as "official" (IMO the less imprtant issue), such as expiry date and consequences if passed.

jdd2007 · July 26, 2002, 10:17

i think this is what civman means

"we could keep our memberlist and make everyone on it citizens, but to vote you have to sign up. it would be flexible"

yes, i said that, but it was not part of the poll or anything official. i was conjecturing about how it could work. now i realize that that -wont- work, then it wont be part of the final product.

NO ONE HAS BEEN, IS BEING, OR SHALL BE "EXCLUDED FROM THE GAME UNFAIRLY" BECAUSE OF ME, MY POLL OR THE IDEA BEING VOTED ON IN THE POLL

MrWhereItsAt · July 26, 2002, 10:23

In that case I owe you an apology jdd. But it did look like that could be a use for the poll (if passed).

I guess this is just a reminder to all of us that we must flesh out official polls THOROUGHLY in a discussion thread before posting them, so that everyone can be clear on exactly what they entail.

jdd2007 · July 26, 2002, 10:23

another thing: you cannot declare this issue an official court case any more than i can. we have to decide if the issue is worth being heard in the highest (and lowest

)court of the nation. you can ask that -I- be charged with this b***s***, but you cant make it happen without the justices agreeing to see the case.

UnOrthOdOx · July 26, 2002, 10:31

civman, in all fairness, the Bill of Rights may have passed, but it is not officially added to the CoL yet. Therefore, any case based on such could be called invalid. Also, is it your position that the BoR is to be made RETROACTIVE? jdd's poll was made BEFORE the BoR was passed, therefore should not be bound by said BoR. Unless, of course, you claim jdd should have known the future?

And jdd, I will gladly represent your defense, for a trivial fee...

MrWhereItsAt · July 26, 2002, 10:33

Well, ah, despite the thread being labelled the 1st court case, civman DID request in his post that the justices look at it (although that request was some way into his post).

Let's not let our emotional accusations get the better of us here people, for that is what I see happening here. I am as guilty of this now as anyone, and I believe jdd is fully understanding of the problems here, and I know that civman is just as level-headed.

Let's thrash this idea out in debate where it becomes fully clear BEFORE an official poll is put up. Call the thread a "Prescursor to official poll", or something so we know it is not just another thread to ignore (which I did

).

/me wipes his eyes

Can't we all just get along?

jdd2007 · July 26, 2002, 10:36

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
civman, in all fairness, the Bill of Rights may have passed, but it is not officially added to the CoL yet. Therefore, any case based on such could be called invalid. Also, is it your position that the BoR is to be made RETROACTIVE? jdd's poll was made BEFORE the BoR was passed, therefore should not be bound by said BoR. Unless, of course, you claim jdd should have known the future?

And jdd, I will gladly represent your defense, for a trivial fee...

i was thinking about defending myself, but i would be glad for your help. your hired at 5 bananas a day

UnOrthOdOx · July 26, 2002, 10:37

Well, jdd acted in the same fashion as many of our officials have, he was just following tradition. Many of the prepoll discussions are ignored just as much and the debate is only begun once the poll is made.

GodKing · July 26, 2002, 10:41

The court must agree to hear a case. By my understanding, they have not yet, so this isn't a case yet, just a debate.

The issue IMO jdd2007 was getting at is an important one. I agree with him that the system as it currently stands is screwey. It needs some sort of revisions. Judging by the voting in this poll, 9 said no, 9 abstianed, and only 5 or 6 voted for changing. Obviously, the majority either doesn't like these proposed changes, or doesn't care. Fine. jdd2007 obviously doesn't want to exclude anyone unfairly. And by his statements, he is sorry for having this turn out this way.

civman2000. You are right in the technicalities of this issue. However, the way you have gone about this is poorly thought out. It appears, unintentionally I do believe, that you are attacking jdd2007 personally. I know that this is not what you intended.

So both you, please, look at what is going on here. Sit down, recognize each of you is both right and wrong, in different regards. Appologize to eachother. Offer to buy each other a beer (or coca-cola, or coffee, or whatever) the next time you are in eachothers home town. Peace.

Thanks.

jdd2007 · July 26, 2002, 10:47

right on, brother. except one thing: 5 or 6 people did not vote yes, 5 and 6 people voted yes...

UnOrthOdOx · July 26, 2002, 11:15

Quote:

The thread that is linked to, however, only presents a discussion and does not clearly say what importance these signups would have.

Actually, the poll specifically states that these signups would REPLACE THE CURRENT CENSUS. That is their importance.

Quote:

Clause 2: No citizen shall ever be denied the right to vote in any poll.

The poll does not claim to deny anyone a right to vote. While some favor comming up with such a plan, that is entirely out of the hands of us and in the hands of the mods and gods. Such a plan should also be voted upon before implimentation. The poll here was specifically for censuses and determining ACTIVE citizens.

Sheik · July 26, 2002, 11:46

jdd2007 you did nothing wrong and I feel that your poll was clear and is not invalid. The question you posted in the poll was fine and I think it is somethig that must be discussed. I am glad you posted it.

Harovan · July 26, 2002, 12:04

Welcome to the Bureaucracy game of Apolyton

. You have my support, jdd2007.

jdd2007 · July 26, 2002, 12:05

thank you sheik for the support, but even if i win this case, civman will have damaged my reputation considerably.

Aro · July 26, 2002, 12:13

Sheik,
Even if he did ( I'm not saying that), we are in the very beginning of our Constitutional system. I'm confused with all this legal stuff. The real goal of a court is make justice. IMHO, Mr. Jdd2007 was well intentioned and don't deserves any punition.

Edit: BTW, I voted "No, keep the current system".

FrustratedPoet · July 26, 2002, 12:37

What good does this do the game?

Even if jdd2007 broke some technical part of the rules, he clearly didn't mean to cause any harm and nor, in fact, did he cause harm.

Quote:

Originally posted by civman2000
Second, I will not allow the Bill of Rights to EVER be violated

.

civman2000: if you want to be a lawyer then there a plenty of college courses that you could apply to.

Togas · July 26, 2002, 12:52

My hope is that someone from The Court will drop in and post to this thread that they have declined to hear "Civman2000 vs jdd2007" and end this speculation and misuse of the court. This issue is moot.

jdd2007's poll, while saying "official" does not actually change the laws, it just gages the opinion of the people into one "official" poll.

If jdd2007 had created a law that violated the Bill of Rights and Constitution, then we'd have an issue. There'd be a conflict of laws and one would have to be invalid. At THAT point The Court would have to step in to determine which law was, in fact, the will of the people.

Since there clearly is no conflict right now as to the state of the law, no one's rights are currently being violated, and nothing illegal is being done, this isn't a viable case.

--Togas

p.s. I would prefer, in the future, that The Court itself post case threads and that citizens PM possible cases to The Court for submission.

Aggie · July 26, 2002, 12:59

Togas I agree with you. As we all know it is tradition not to here moot cases and this is definitely moot, since it changed nothing in our nation(it even failed to pass). Also civman and jdd2007, it is also traditional that courts try to get people who have such a disagreement to work it out privately and peacefully. One more thing( I know I go on and on) jdd2007, this challenge to your poll in no way lowers mine or anybody elses opinion of you, even civman still has a good opinion of you I believe. I hope he says so to sooth any hurt feelings. Know lets go bonk some american heads.
Aggie