The Court - General Issues

Darkness' Edge · November 13, 2002, 20:45

I'm getting a bit concerned by the slowness of the proceedings.

Maki still hasn't replied to the thread, which has so far brought the proceedings to a stop, and we seem to have two active justices, in myself and -Groucho-, which isn't making the process any faster. Of the other three, one only checks in every few days, one doesn't seem to respond to email, and the other hasn't had anything to do with the case whatsoever.

Any ideas as to what we can do about this?

H Tower · November 14, 2002, 01:09

add another judge (me

)

Nubclear · November 14, 2002, 02:37

Remove me.

Why the fish does it seem when everything clears in my life....I get sick?!

Darkness' Edge · November 14, 2002, 03:27

I didn't mean -that-, Tass.

You're the one who's otherwise perfect, but doesn't respond to email.

Pandemoniak · November 14, 2002, 04:24

I already said I refuse the case cause I'm too concerned, thats why I dont respond the emails.

Darkness' Edge · November 14, 2002, 05:19

Thanks for clearing that up...I must have missed that.

It's still making things really hard, though. It's not really that big an involvement. Hell, even if the naming is unconstitutional, it still polled well, and will most likely be voted in eventually. Would you consider being involved in this case anyway? We really need the extra active hand.

Drogue · November 14, 2002, 06:38

Is it possible to elect another couple of Judges? If we need 3 per trial and only have a pool of 5 to choose from this couldm become a common problem.

Pandemoniak · November 14, 2002, 07:25

DE, my opinion to this case is that indeed the constitution hasnt been followed by the book. This is not the first time, and I recall you did worst yourself.

About this case, maybe we could simply discuss an amendment to clarify and simplify the constitution about this, while we sentence Makhi to some minor punishment.
About the bases already named, we could keep them this way, cause it would be far too boring to repoll for every base.

About the case being to long to be dealt with, I personnaly hink that one judge is enough to deal with a case. We therefore keep our five justices as they are, and appoint only one of them per case.

Drogue · November 14, 2002, 08:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
About the case being to long to be dealt with, I personnaly hink that one judge is enough to deal with a case. We therefore keep our five justices as they are, and appoint only one of them per case.

I disagree with this. We need more than one judge to prevent the sentancing and verdict to be all the work of one person. People have different opinions and so we need to have debate between judges on each case. I don't know a court on Old Earth when the verdict was given by a singular judge. I think the right to have more than one judge discuss your case is vital to our court procedure, especially on contitutional issues.

I agree with Pande's other ideas though.

Pandemoniak · November 14, 2002, 08:13

Quote:

We need more than one judge to prevent the sentancing and verdict to be all the work of one person.

You forgot theres a jury.

Drogue · November 14, 2002, 08:19

Is there? I thought they were using the model of a UN or USA constitutional court whereby the verdict is given by an enlightened judge, since the common public were deemed to not be able to understand all the complexities. If not then sorry... my mistake.

Do we have a jury for this case yet?

Pandemoniak · November 14, 2002, 08:48

The jury is the whole population appealed to vote. Like in the Lemmy's case, which males jurispudence.

Darkness' Edge · November 14, 2002, 21:30

A rewrite of the Court amendment could be a good idea, but really, if a justice isn't/can't going to regularly serve, they should resign.

Pande - where has the Constitution not been followed? AFAIK, I've done this exactly by the book. FFS, I wrote the bloody amendment - you don't think I know what's in it?

Also, I don't know where the idea of a jury came from. It isn't in the amendment, it wasn't in the formal proposal voted on, and while it could be polled to clear it up, as far as I'm concerned, there isn't one. People voted for the same form of proceedings as the C3DG. In the C3DG, there is no jury.

Leave the jury for the roleplay cases, and let us get on with our job. Otherwise we don't even need justices.

Pandemoniak · November 15, 2002, 05:15

You didnt followed the constitution at the very beginning, where you played the game without polling, etc.. IIRC. Its ok though.

Darkness' Edge · November 15, 2002, 06:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
DE, my opinion to this case is that indeed the constitution hasnt been followed by the book. This is not the first time, and I recall you did worst yourself.

Pande, you implied that I had broken the Constitution in this case. [edit] Hell, you went beyond implying - you said that in this case, I broke the Constitution. [/edit] Everyone knows I had problems in the first week of the game, while we were getting started, and its old news. I'm getting really sick of these accusations of unconstitutional behaviour - where it's either ancient news or I haven't done anything wrong.

If you have a problem with me, take it up with the Court and we can both step aside. Otherwise, leave me the hell alone, and quit the accusations.

I'm really concerned about this idea of a jury. As far as I knew, this was never on the agenda, as there's been no mention of it. If a jury does happen, then we've wasted our time electing Justices in the first place, because there's no need.

As such, if there is going to be a jury, then I will resign.

Drogue · November 15, 2002, 07:33

DE, i think Pandes statement: "DE, my opinion to this case is that indeed the constitution hasnt been followed by the book" is talking about the case, ie. the naming of Pandemonium. Thats how I read it. The "I recall you did worst yourself" seems to be merely asking if a case against the naming is needed, since it's such a small breach of the constitution. "You said that in this case, I broke the Constitution" - actually he didn't. At the risk of talking for Pande, I don't think he meant any offence by it.

Pandemoniak · November 15, 2002, 08:25

Please read all the posts before replying in an angry way.

Quote:

Its ok though.

What i meant is that if we forgave you we cant charge Mahki.
Drogue is right, i didnt meant any offence. But the thing is that in my honest opinion, even if Makhi didnt followed the consitution, thats not a reason to sentence her to anything. She made a mistake which is totally unimportant. Its not like a "crime". So we'd better close that case quickly : Mahki's base naming was unlawful, we sentence her to a minor thing, we re-discuss and re-write the base naming amendment and end of the story.

Joeno · November 15, 2002, 09:25

First of all, because of the current case, I would like to ask the court how to proceed with base naming.

Second, I haven't seen a post from Makhi in the last week, nor any polls, etc. I'm going to try PMing her as well, but I think it might also be related to the whole court deal.

Darkness' Edge · November 15, 2002, 16:46

Pande: We don't sentence her to anything. That's not our role. Our role is to decide whether the naming was constitutional, and if it needs to be overriden.

After all, what punishment could we sentence anyone to?

And Pande, FFS. One thing happened in the first week of the game, before we had everything worked out, and long before we had a Court. This is completely different.

And Joeno, thanks.

bRr · November 15, 2002, 16:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge
After all, what punishment could we sentence anyone to?

We could name the next base Mahki's Shame or MahkiPooPooHead.

Hercules · November 25, 2002, 06:38

Excuse me. How long have I got to wait in the court room for this case to be decided. If the defendant fails to appear or send a representative by a certain time period, does the complainant's case succeed.
Meanwhile the whole naming procedure for bases, landmarks, regions. Is it on hold ? or what? Citizens are already making suggestions for regions and then someone will hold an unofficial poll and then.....