AMENDMENT: Judges as delegates and ministers

mapfi · May 12, 2003, 17:37

While I'm at it - putting this up again, for the simple reason that last time 2 out of 5 voting days were lost because Settler was gone and secondly because I still believe it could help us solve some problems in the future.
In my opinion this poroposal is well balanced, because it considers the speciality of the two positions president and senior justice, regulates the delegate problem and also solves the conflict of interest matter, that is not mentioned in our current con at all.
Of course, there's always the issue of not mixing the two branches of our government. So make you own decision what is best for the game.

I propose the following changes to the con:

Quote:

Article III, 2.(e) A Judge may not serve in other governmental posts.

to:
The senior judge may not serve in any other governmental post including delegate positions. Judges may also hold an executive position excluding President. They may not be delegate of the President.

and

Quote:

Article V, 1.(f) No citizen may be a candidate for an elected office if such candidacy might cause this citizen to be in more than one elected office simultaneously.

to:
No citizen may be a candidate for an elected office if such candidacy might cause this citizen to be in more than two executive or two judicial offices simultaneously, or if such candidacy violates other articles of the constitution.

and new:
Article V, 3. (after c) If a judge's actions or an office he is holding are part of a case he is replaced by the President for the ruling on that case.

This poll expires on May 17th, ~2100GMT

Tamerlin · May 12, 2003, 19:19

Now that Article V, 3 has been added I am no more against this amendment... my main fear was that a Judge could be required to rule a case he would be involved in.

Frozzy · May 13, 2003, 02:28

Quite two-faced aren't you mapfi. Around 4 months ago I saw this problem coming and you said "no it's a terrible idea etc. etc. etc."

And now this?! I vote yes in any case despite it means nothing.

mapfi · May 13, 2003, 04:17

4 months ago we had enough people seeking gov positions and when I played delegate of the president at the same time I mentioned the fact that the constitution doesn't cover that more than once.

And Tamerlin if you compare to the last vote, V)3. was already in there, I only reworded it to be more specific.

Anyway thanks for voting yes.

Gilgamensch · May 13, 2003, 04:19

I am still against mixing two branches!

So I voted NO.

However, I do not see any problem of a judge being a delegate. He is then only executing orders and not making them.

But I still see it as a major problem, mixing legislation and jurisdiction. Those two should not be mixed at all.........

J Bytheway · May 13, 2003, 05:22

I think this could easily cause problems if two judges simultaneously suffer from conflict of interest on a case, which is made more likely, but nevertheless I'll vote yes, because we have too few people.

mapfi · May 13, 2003, 08:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
However, I do not see any problem of a judge being a delegate. He is then only executing orders and not making them.

That's not how it usually works in the chats...
It doesn't help to say they should have minister orders because they usually don't and then decide themselves what to do. So there you have your conflict of interest. Since we allow this, we can allow them to be ministers as well. The presidents job is more important - that's why that one (and only that one) can't be delegated to judges. The senior justice also has important job, that's why he shouldn't be minister or even delegate of one.

Read the wording again - I'm not proposing to forbid judges to be delegates (except the president's one) but to forbid the senior justice to be delegate.

Gilgamensch · May 13, 2003, 09:04

Let's better say, that's not how it was.

Minister's have improved and normally left orders for the delegate to be followed. And again the main difference is: It is the responsability of the Minister to ensure orders are given, not of the delegate. And if we mix Judges and Minister, we might have a serious problem. Imagine we have two M/J not placing orders and somebody opens a case against them, they would rule that it wasn't a problem, so case dismissed (shortened it a bit.....)

Then we could also say, who needs Judges at all......

For the Pres.:

Actually he is the person, who has got least to decide on his own......he has to follow the orders of the minister and not visa versa (viva la Democracy

). So, I think there would be least conflict........

The point about senior justice is a good one, I did read it, didn't comment about, as for this I agree.......

Acutally forgotten one thing:

two executive or two judicial offices simultaneously

I am not sure about this one. Do you want to allow people to run in maximum 4 offices, xor 2 judge xor 2 Minister........

It isn't clear for me anymore

Maybe read it now to often...........

Martin Gühmann · May 13, 2003, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
Acutally forgotten one thing:

two executive or two judicial offices simultaneously

I am not sure about this one. Do you want to allow people to run in maximum 4 offices, xor 2 judge xor 2 Minister........

It isn't clear for me anymore

Maybe read it now to often...........

This is clear, it means that noone can be Senior Judge and Judge at the same time, he can only hold one of the three Judge positions. Additional it means noone can be President and hold one of the Ministerial positions, or two Ministerial positions at the same time, it only allow you to hold two postions in this game if one of them is executive and other one is a judical position.

I think we discussed the issure enough, so that I don't have to repeat me, the proposal is in my opinion fine and I vote Yes.

-Martin

Pedrunn · May 17, 2003, 16:59

We need this! unfortunetly