Court: Informal: Is the Blood Truce with the Hive constitutional?

AdamTG02 · March 1, 2003, 23:57

As of today's turnchat, we have signed a Blood Truce with the Hive. This action was taken by the administration, knowing there might be constitutional questions regarding it, and following the turnchat Commissioner GeneralTacticus and Alpha Talent Maniac have asked the Court for a decision.

Questions before the Court:

1) Was the Blood Truce signed with the Hive constitutionally obtained?

2) Would it be constitutional to restore from a prior save, when the Blood Truce had not yet been signed?

3) In the opinion of the Court, what is the action that ought to be taken to resolve this matter?

Deliberations will begin once a quorum (three) of the Court can be assembled, and a Senior Justice appointed. This thread

A brief summary of the arguments that have been raised in the turnchat:

Pro:
A November poll, the last poll posted on policy toward the Hive, endorses peace with the Hive if they are willing to agree without setting conditions. In Voltaire's orders for this turnchat, he instructed us to

Quote:

1) Always accept the incoming transmission from another faction;
2) If a faction that we are currently at war with demands technology, laugh in their face;
3) If a faction that we are currently at was with demands energy credits, laugh in their face, unless of course it is a reasonable amount (meaning anything below 100ec);

The spirit of these orders is to refuse enemy conditions for peace, which implies that a peace without conditions might be accepted. Alpha Talent Maniac, interpreting those orders in his constitutional role as fill-in for an absent Director, determined that we would accept the Hive offer of peace.

Con:
The Constitution specifically states that the Director of Foreign Affairs

Quote:

May NOT:
Declare blood truce, peace, pacts if there hasn’t been a poll saying it is ok.

The poll posted during Term III is no longer valid because it has been so long since it was posted. Furthermore, Voltaire never gave a specific order to make peace with the Hive if we could do it without giving in to demands. The decision to contact Yang, after which he offered peace without preconditions, was made by Alpha Talent Maniac after Voltaire had left the turnchat. Without the DFA on hand, Yang should not have been contacted in the first place. The decision to make peace with the Hive should have been delayed until the next turnchat, during which time a poll could be posted.

Thse are not the only arguments which could be raised, but they are the most salient ones raised during the turnchat. These arguments are summarized here to give the public an idea of the arguments that have been raised for and against the validity of the Truce.

Because deliberations have not formally begun, this thread is open for public comment.

Cedayon · March 2, 2003, 01:24

I think question 1 boils down to these:

a) Do the applicable DFA orders indeed imply that a no-demands peace be accepted under all circumstances? If not, under these circumstances?

b) Are the applicable DFA orders themselves constitutional? ie were they polled recently enough, or is that not an issue?

and to 2 I ask: how long ago is prior? is the *only* difference the communication and truce?

and 3... I'm listening, folks.

I'm (obviously) available for deliberation, and should be available for reading/posting almost all of tomorrow.

DeathByTheSword · March 2, 2003, 08:23

well I believe that a november poll is to old to be used as an argument. but because the DFA left Maniac as AT got that job. it was an emegercy and he acted upon it the best possible way. so if it was up to be the treaty if valid for now but needs to be polled as soon as possible

about the 2 saves. if we were going to use the first SAV (the one before the call) i believe that the not-playing-ahead part of our constitution has been compromised. each action as a reaction if we like it or not....this is why it is my believe that the second SAV must be used for the rest of the game...

DBTS

MrWhereItsAt · March 2, 2003, 08:37

The only difference in the saves is the state of affairs with Yang, yes? It is fair to say that if we went back to the old save where we are at war with Yang and contacted them, we would get the Truce? If so, then we are in a unique position - screw the Constitution and whether one part of it conflicts with another, let's determine the will of the people and then choose the save to match. That is what this game is about - what we decide, not what that outdated overbearing Constitution decides for us.

War or peace? That is the only issue, unless the saves are significantly different in other ways. We have no future knowledge anyway from having two saves, so it is as if we are taking the decision for a Truce before any truce is reached.

DeathByTheSword · March 2, 2003, 08:39

HE that constitution isnt outdated...

it has just been revised!

...but anyways....I kinda agree with you and kinda disagree with you...it is up to the court

MrWhereItsAt · March 2, 2003, 09:09

Some consider the chance to revert to the earlier save as playing ahead, something that is inadmissible. However, I will try here to explain why I do not believe this is playing ahead.

Playing ahead is where we alter something like build queues, troop movements etc, and an irreversible result occurs that tells us something about what consequences that action has. For example, if we attacked a certain Hive base with a Helicopter before ground troops and found we lost the Helicopter, playing ahead would be to reload the save and change the order of the attacks in order to see if the same result would be accomplished. With this advance knowledge of the consequences of the attack order, we have just played ahead.

With our current situation, we do not know what the truce will bring us. All we know is that we are at blood truce. As long as the turn is not ended and we have not seen how Yang reacts to this decision of ours, we have no advance knowledge. We know we can reach a truce or stay at war, but we knew this anyway. It is as if we went into a base production screen and changed from a newly started Tree Farm to a Network Node - we do not affect anything by changing freely between these two until we end the turn or rush one of them. Is this playing ahead? If the Commish misclicks and adds the wrong build to the queue, is he then disallowed from changing to the real one on the grounds that this is playing ahead? No, that's lunacy, as there is no difference except in the one decision. We do not know anything about the consequences of such an action, until one, probably many turns away.

This allegory (that word is for you, DBTS

) is reflected in the decision between the two saves, which is essentially the same as choosing between war and peace with the Hive. We don't know what will happen if we stay at war, nor do we know what happens with a truce. We have gained no knowledge over where we were before contacting Yang, and this is why we can have a poll on war or peace, and then choose which save to use based on that. There is no effective difference between having the poll earlier and having it now.

The crucial point is that the consequences of our actions define advance knowledge of the outcomes of our decisions and thus define playing ahead. We have no advance knowledge, merely a choice between two options, for which the future is uncertain. Thus we are not playing ahead, and we can avoid any messy changes to the Constitution or long Court proceedings.

Maniac · March 2, 2003, 09:30

Great speech MWIA.

I'd like to clarify something for correctness' sake. This isn't right:

Quote:

The decision to contact Yang, after which he offered peace without preconditions, was made by Alpha Talent Maniac after Voltaire had left the turnchat.

This is what happened in the chat:

Quote:

[13:53] herc2> but before you go check our foreign relations or is tha ttoo risky ?
[13:53] GT^Commish> What's to check?
[13:54] Maniac> How much 100s of ec's Yang asks???

[13:54] herc2> Well maybe some of those in Vendetta want to make peace.
[13:55] GT^Commish> I suppose we might as well check.

It was Hercules who wanted to check all of our foreign relations, because he was to become DFA after this turnchat (but he wasn't yet at that moment). I was actually against it, as can be seen by my comment, because I didn't believe he would do a reasonable offer and thus it would be an unnecessary call to Yang.
So one could argue that the call in the first place was unconstitutional, because it wasn't ordered by the DFA nor his replacement the AT, and so we have to return to the first save, prior to the call. The other side is of course using the first save can be seen as having played ahead.
So really, technically we will be performing an illegal action no matter which save we use in the end. Therefore I think a court decision is in place here, as they have to decide over legal disputes.

MrWhereItsAt · March 2, 2003, 09:40

Can we have one last addition to the Constitution:

"The Court's number one priority is to ensure the smooth resolution of any disputes in the minimum amount of time necessary for all sides to be heard, and to above all make sure the game progresses according to the will of the Democracy game members."

The only sensible decision for the Court is to agree on posting a poll immediately on what the wishes of the citizens are - war or blood truce with Yang. There is no need to examine anything further. Choose one or the other based on what the least vague part of the Constitution says and we defy the will of the people, which is what this is all about - all of us making decisions.

Drogue · March 2, 2003, 10:21

Looking at the options Adam gave, I don't think we can use the poll as it is too old, as others have said. Thus we must say that the truce signed is unconstitutional. However, I think it would be playing ahead if we were to take it from the old save, not to mention frustrating. Furthermore, if we were role-playing, we can not go back in time, therefore would have to make the best of the situation, whatever had gone wrong. Therefore, I would suggest having a poll now, a plebiscite, to see if the people agree with the decision. If they do not ratify it, then we declare war on the Hive. If they ratify it, then we can accept it and play on.

DeathByTheSword · March 2, 2003, 14:42

to drogue

Cedayon · March 2, 2003, 15:03

There would be somewhat nasty inter-factional political consequences if we immediately broke the truce, no?

Drogue · March 2, 2003, 18:16

Yes, but not major, it's only a truce. Also, imagine in real-life, if a a member of the elected delegation went and declared peace without a mandate. Either the people agree post-event, or war is declared again. Of course, the judges must deliberate, but it is my belief that the best course of action is for GT (or Maniac) to post a poll, to see if the people agree with the decision. Then carry out whatever the peoples wishes are (with a stern slap-on-the-wrist to whomever's mistake it was

)

Hercules · March 2, 2003, 19:57

Things to consider. (sorry for delay)

Regular playing of the game means regular contact with factions. We hadn't been in contact for some time. As incoming DFA I wanted an up to date perspective on our foreign relations. How do you do that without contact?
And you can only contact in game.
I had hoped we would contact all factions to see what latest position was. Usually you can conclude discussion, if you want, without commitment on either side (outrageous demand for ecs or vague threat about tolerance). But at least in discussing foreign affairs we would have their latest views.

My early comment at 13.25 proposed contacting friends and neighbours (Voltaire had left 11.53). We are friends with Deirdre, she might have need help. At one stage there were 6 or more Hive needlejets eyeing Morgan shores, so he might have asked for or offered some deal beneficial to us. We are in vendetta with Miriam too but maybe she could have offered us something. ( whatever turns you on).

At the later request I did ask was it too risky.

But there is another point.

We are the UN peacekeepers. Are we not obliged to pursue peace where possible. Is it too easy to let vendettas just continue?

I recall a position not long ago when the faction generally was unsure about taking war to the Hive.

Interestingly I think if we had contacted Yang some turns earlier, he would have refused our transmissions as he was in the course of attacking us. It was a result of his defeat that perhaps led him to think differently. Personally I think he will use the truce (if accepted) to gain time before another attack.

Re: Foreign Affairs. Maybe we need to agree as to how frequently we contact other factions either via the Comm channel or in the field.

In my view in the absence of later polls the November Poll stands. After all those present in a recent turnchat gave the go ahead to researching Fusion in the absence of the Dir. of Science and after a on the spot poll. Was that unconstitutional?

Secondly it was Yang who declared war on us so polls on war or peace were not entirely relevant But by us initiating contact and this offer to us, we need to poll for war or peace.

Thirdly, is it constitutional to contact other factions during a turnchat. Yes I think it is.
Had we the sufficient authority? Yes we had in my view, the At and other Directors were present. Was there sufficient guidance from official polls to guide our response? Yes I think there was. Even if the Nov poll is a bit old it still is the current position. The official secrets act in UK is years old and many claim to want to change it but it still stands and there was a recent trial concerning its breach.

Is this a disaster? No but it will help us clarify are current foreign relation policy.

A further point. If the court decides that the action was constitutional then there are additional issues to decide:
* To accept the offer or not.
* To advise whether the turn be completed by contacting the other factions or end after the Hive contact.
· who ( to conduct ) and when to poll.

For discussion

Hercules · March 2, 2003, 20:11

A further point: we were in sunspots for 20 years. So first there was no point ( in practice) in holding a further poll until the spots cleared, so for most of the DFA 's time it was wine and cheese functions and liaisons (lucky him).

Because of that I think the Nov Poll is valid. And I think the implied interpretation ('if no conditions then accept peace' is valid).

These are arguments for the constitutional legality of the action taken.

The decision on ratifying the Truce (or declining) is another issue. Do not compound the two.

GeneralTacticus · March 3, 2003, 01:42

Quote:

Furthermore, if we were role-playing, we can not go back in time,

If you want to think about it that way, we haven't actually gone back in time; we've merely told Yang that we're putting a preliminary truce in place, and we'll get back to him once we've figured out whether or not to accept it. If we decide we can't, we end negotiations (go back to the previous save), and nothing more ahppens; if we decide we want the truce, we keep going with the later save.

btw, I don't really see why it would be 'frustrating' to go back to the earlier save, as the only thing I did between saving the earlier game and the later one was contact Yang.

Archaic · March 3, 2003, 06:58

Why not just the simple way that satisfies all requirements?

ie. The Truce was unconstitutional. We goad him into declaring war again through various threats (Maybe getting some bases of his from those in the bargain if we're lucky), and then he'll finally get pissed enough to declare war again. We got some concessions out of him via strong arm diplomacy, and the war back in the bargain. The DLP then shouts everyone to P4PSI. Yay.

Drogue · March 3, 2003, 08:23

Did Yang offer peace to us, or did we ask for it? If it is the former, then it is constitutional, since you cannot poll for something you did not intend to do, therefore a quick poll at the time is the usual way of doing it. However, a plebiscite to ratify it would be appreciated. If however, it is the latter, then it is unconsitutional. To answer Herc's question, you do not need to poll to contact someone (however it has been done before) but you do need to poll if you intend to offer anything. I had always taken it that if offered something unexpected in turnchat, it is up to those present how to respond. Should the constitution be amended, so that a post-event poll is acceptable, for unforseen circumstances?

GeneralTacticus · March 3, 2003, 08:24

We contacted the Hive, at Herc's suggestion, and he offered the deal, but he didn't come to us.

Drogue · March 3, 2003, 08:30

In that case it is an unforseen circumstance. Since (unless I've missed something) it is constitutional to contact a faction, with the intention of purely information gathering, without polling, nobody did anything unconstitutional. He offered it, thus you reacted as best you could. I would still like a plebiscite to ratify it, but what else were you meant to do at the time?

Maniac · March 3, 2003, 08:32

I think the judges should only judge about the following issue: which save file to use.
If it is the pre-contact save, the DFA should post a poll asking what our diplomatic stance with the Hive (and others) should be.
If we used the after-contact save, we just continue, but perhaps the DFA could organize a poll asking if we should surprise-attack the Hive after sixteen years.

GeneralTacticus · March 3, 2003, 08:33

Is that how long it takes for Blood Truces to expire?

Cedayon · March 3, 2003, 08:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Maniac
I think the judges should only judge about the following issue: which save file to use.

That's easy, the most recent one.

I don't think this is serious enough a fubar to consider breaking the no-playing aheard rules in an official capacity.

In the meantime, the DFA should post new policy polls so we don't have this "valid or no?" question popping up everytime we have to go by DFA orders.

Maniac · March 3, 2003, 08:42

Yes, but as several people have argued, using the pre-contact save and thus ignoring the after-contact doesn't have to be seen as having played ahead. We are just deliberating whether to accept the truce or not.
Also, using the after-contact save would be unconstitutional as well, because Hercules asked to contact Yang. However he wasn't yet DFA, so that request was granted unconstitutionally.
So there aren't any conclusive legal arguments for each side. Instead we have to look what's best for our democracy. I think that would be using the pre-contact save and let the DFA poll whether to ask Yang a truce or not.

Kassiopeia · March 3, 2003, 09:18

I concur with MWIA's position that returning to the earlier save would not be playing ahead.

Also I agree with GeneralTacticus; reverting to the old save file would not be against any role playing principle.

The high council had a force majeure situation in which they really had no other option but to make the two saves; I think that the HC handled the situation well. However, we should take a closer look at turnchat protocol and create a good, covering rule of any future instances where we make contact with other factions.

I'm a bit ambivalent, since I am leaning towards using the old save and posting a "war or no" poll, but on the other hand, this is indeed not a too big situation. A truce would allow us a little breather, and besides, I'm fairly sure Yang will break it anytime soon. In that sense, this truce could help us in bringing Yang's global reputation down (if that is possible any longer). Archaic's proposition of making Yang declare himself on us is slightly to the side of subterfuge, but a thought worth considering nonetheless. After all, we would be just demanding necessary reparations from Yang after such a sordid vendetta.

On the other hand, if we dismiss this situation as "not too important", we might in the future have similar situations with the same principle, except the ramifications might be much, much more wide in scale. In that sense, it would help if we set a sturdy applicable precedent here and now.

All in all, I think the best option would be to post a poll to ask the people if we should use the first save, and continue the war, or use the newer save, and have the truce. Edit - Maniac's proposal, "I think that would be using the pre-contact save and let the DFA poll whether to ask Yang a truce or not" is equally good. After all, the situation in the saves is similar only in the sense that there is and isn't a truce.

By the way, would it have been possible to check our relations to the Hive through the datalinks, or was it absolutely necessary to contact Yang? Also, I do think checking his relationship to us was a bit useless, since there were no late polls to decide on a possible policy change towards him, and we were in vendetta after all.

Cedayon · March 3, 2003, 11:37

Yes, I see the point about it not being playing ahead, despite the foreknowledge of the diplomatic proceedings... we had no choice, as we could not safely save in the middle of the communication.

Clearly the democratic thing to do is have the DFA post a poll as to whether or not the people want this truce with Yang.

Whether this is the constitutional thing to do... well, I'm not sure if it's properly covered in the constitution... so I'll just be reading this large book that blocks my vision while the poll is posted

...

Someone let me know if there is a deciding provision in the constitution that I missed, though. Otherwise, it's time to consider an amendment regarding the validity of "old" polls and the proper course of action when something like this pops up in a turnchat.

Hercules · March 3, 2003, 13:29

Right, there seems a consensus that a poll be posted by the DFA on this particular matter more or less forthwith.

Method · March 3, 2003, 17:27

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamTG02
The poll posted during Term III is no longer valid because it has been so long since it was posted.

just a question: how long ago does a poll have to have ended before it is considered "no longer valid"?

Cedayon · March 3, 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by TKG
just a question: how long ago does a poll have to have ended before it is considered "no longer valid"?

An excellent question. I don't see the answer in the constitution. Did I miss it, anyone?

MrWhereItsAt · March 3, 2003, 18:26

No, I don't think you missed it. This is clearly a failing of the Constitution, thus we should go by our own decisions and feelings here and patch the thing later. This is not an issue addressed adequately by the Constitution and I hope the judges decide it is not covered well enough in the Con to be ruled upon.

In this situation we have to say "OK, we missed a circumstance. Let's decide on a course of action and keep the game moving, and when we are continuing, we can address an amendment proposal at our leisure."

Cedayon · March 3, 2003, 18:46

I'm inclined to agree with MWIA: the constitution doesn't say whether the orders were "outdated" or not, since it has no provision to consider orders "outdated".

Had people been clamoring for a new poll on DFA orders over the past couple months, I might consider the polled-in-november-or-so orders invalid from the democratic point of view (which isn't really my job, but still)... but there hasn't really been such a demand (or did I miss it?).

It seems, thus, that there aren't really grounds to invalidate the orders which effectively mandate the acceptance of the blood truce offer from Yang.

Whether we should have initiated contact, well, that's a somewhat different matter. I'm not sure if the Con mentions who can/cannot call for initation of contact with another faction. And if it doesn't say, why are you bugging us?