Constitutional Law Review: Court Jurisdiction over enforcing site rules - Page 3

Gilgamensch · February 19, 2003, 16:52

OK, so again:

the court can make it's own rules.
Official threads can be seen as being taken place in front of the court.

Can the court decide on those? Yes it can.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 19, 2003, 16:56

it can't . iirc there's no line in the con saying the court can make rules. feel free to prove me wrong

Gilgamensch · February 19, 2003, 17:16

(a) The Court may make its own rules of procedure and enforce them upon citizens who are before it, so long as such rules are in accordance with the constitution.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 19, 2003, 17:22

well, but the citizens aren't before the court, unless they are trialed

Gilgamensch · February 19, 2003, 17:29

That's what I said: OFFICIAL polls (resolution/amendment/election) could be seen as being in front of the court, as being overseen by court.

SO the court could rule upon those rules on it's own.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 19, 2003, 17:33

for which it will have to check what the con (since there are no laws) says about the matter and then act accordingly. but the con says nothing. and i should have added an

in the above post. citizens can't be trialed, since we have no state attorney

Gilgamensch · February 19, 2003, 17:39

Still don't see your point.

As you said there are no rules, so if the court would say:

No off-topic in OFFICIAL-polls, it is not against the connie. If somebody violates it, it would be breaking court rules and could be 'punished'.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · February 19, 2003, 17:48

it would be a restriction of the right of freedom of speech, which is mentioned in the con, but there isn't mentioned any right to restrict it in the con

Gilgamensch · February 19, 2003, 17:50

read beginning of this thread, there are limits........

H Tower · February 20, 2003, 18:31

Gilg:

This is one of the first times I've ever seen you come out and really debate a point of the CON.

As for your interpretation.... well, that's an interesting view.

And the court CAN make rulings without a case being filed, see case 007.

Gilgamensch · February 21, 2003, 04:11

H Tower,

I DO like to debate, but certain things where so clear, that there wasn't really a need for.

For case number 007:

That is the exception of the rules. But otherwise..............

For my interesting point of view:

Some people might see it as stretching the con..... for me:

As the election has to be started by the court (3Ia) and can make it's own rules (III4a) and can rule upon those (III4c) and we have (III1a) and as the main point (V1a):

Quote:

(a) The Court is empowered to oversee all elections and is empowered to resolve any election disputes according to the rules in this Constitution.

I don't see any reason, why people are saying it is not in the constitution. For me, it looks more like, that those who don't agree with should come back with an Amendment-poll.

And as I said before, I do not want to punish the citizens, I just want to have 'better' behaviour. It is normal to be sometimes off-topic, but what happened in the election-poll, wasn't what we should have had in there.......

And some people said: Let's leave it only to the our MOD, but why? It is us playing (within the rules of 'poly), so we should try to rule ourselves, without the need of a MOD. I see the MOD more as an (BORG

) interface between the server hosting us and ourselves, not as a 'real'-function (and the need) to control us.

Still would like to see more opinions, it seems to be just us discussing here

H Tower · February 21, 2003, 16:17

Quote:

Still would like to see more opinions, it seems to be just us discussing here

I think all the legal mumbo jumbo we were throwing around scared off everyone

MrBaggins · February 21, 2003, 16:32

Quote:

(a) The Court is empowered to oversee all elections and is empowered to resolve any election disputes according to the rules in this Constitution.

Ahh... but what about nomination disputes

H Tower · February 22, 2003, 02:04

I always thought you might have won if you filed a case, but you didn't, so now we'll never know.

Gilgamensch · February 22, 2003, 03:16

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower

I think all the legal mumbo jumbo we were throwing around scared off everyone

As it is a discussion about our constitution, what do people expect, that we just use words? It has to be based on facts.....

Devil of Truth · February 25, 2003, 06:45

Ok. So call me stupid.

But if the connie says that “The Court may make its own rules of procedure and enforce them upon citizens who are before it, so long as such rules are in accordance with the constitution” and the connie also says “Freedom of speech … shall not be denied unless it violates Apolyton rules” then how can the court be so belligerent and arrogant to assume it can make decisions on behalf of Apolyton?

Gilgamensch · February 25, 2003, 06:48

DoT I really don't want to be to sarcastic, but did you follow the discussion and did you read the connie?

The whole idea of the connie are rules within rules. We 'all' agreed on. But suddenly people don't like it anymore and they want to break the rules and just because of easyness go back to the other rules...........

So like small kids............

That annoying......................

mapfi · February 25, 2003, 13:40

Thank you DoT - you got it.

H Tower · February 25, 2003, 15:27

by saying freedom of speech cannot be denied unless you break forum rules, the reverse must be true. you break forum rules and the court can limit your freedom of speech.

mapfi · February 25, 2003, 16:49

yes, but the sentence doesn't give the court the right to rule on forum rules, it only allows it to restrict the freedom of speech with its rulings if the rules have been violated - to decide that we have ACS staff.
E.g. If someone created DL's to vote multiple times, our moderator would probably ban that person for some time but additionally the court could punish that citizen. Including ways that a moderator can't, e.g. not allowing them to be candidate in a election.

H Tower · February 25, 2003, 20:46

Quote:

Originally posted by mapfi
yes, but the sentence doesn't give the court the right to rule on forum rules

and that is where we disagree

mapfi · February 25, 2003, 22:37

yep, and no discussion is going to change my mind on that

H Tower · February 26, 2003, 12:51

/me goes to look for another way to spark a discussion...