The Court: Form of Proceedings

Darkness' Edge · October 23, 2002, 05:10

I think it's time we got the court up and running, now we have the five justices.

But we are yet to decide what form this court will take.

Do we go for formal proceedings, like the C3DG?
See http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=58274 for an example.

Or do we go for informal proceedings, where we don't have something to go by? This could work by...
1. Person raises complaint with justice
2. Both sides state case in a post
3. Justices debate among selves
4. Come back with a result

Or another suggestion?

IMHO, the formal court would be better for roleplay, and also more likely to be fair.

DeathByTheSword · October 23, 2002, 05:53

i like a formal court as well but not as formal as de DGc3 court

Pandemoniak · October 23, 2002, 06:15

Quote:

1. Purpose:

The Court is constituted to rule upon: contested disputes involving legal interpretation, validity of polls, violations of the Constitution, or any other legal dispute involving the game.

2. Construct of the Court:

a. Size of Court:
The Court is composed of five Justices. Each Justice is to to be elected by the people, with a poll lasting three days.

b. Terms in office:
There is no limit to the number of terms a Justice may serve.
Each Justice serves a term of two months. All appointments and re-appointments must be approved by a majority vote of the public.

c. Senior Justice:
At the beginning of each case, the Court is to select a 'Senior Justice', who will be responsible for ensuring that a report is published for each decision made by the court, showing the rationale behind the decision. If the report is not provided, this may be grounds for an appeal. The Senior Justice will also preside over any hearings before The Court.

d. Other Governmental Posts:
A Justice may serve in other governmental posts, but may not serve as Commissioner or Alpha Talent while a serving Justice.

3. Case Structure:

a. Quorum:
At least three Justices must be involved in any ruling that is made. If only three justices are involved and they cannot agree, a non-voting justice must step in to break the deadlock.

b. Rulings:
All rulings are immediately official and final except where appeals are granted.

c. Appeals:
Appeals may be granted if there are grounds to believe that the constitution has not been applied properly. Any citizen directly involved in the case may make an application for an appeal. If 3 of the 5 judges decide to grant the appeal, a new trial will be created to examine the case. In that case, the current verdict is placed on hold until after the appeal process.

d. Injunctions:
The Court cannot stop the game to make a decision without a 2/3 vote amongst the people. In case of an emergency due to timing of a turnchat and poll of the populace, the Court may halt the game for 24 hours, but only by unanimous vote of the Court and only if a specific case has been presented to them that must be decided prior to the turnchat. In the emergency case, the Court would immediately have to present a 24 hour poll to the people for their approval of the Injunction. If not approved by the time of the poll's closure, the game immediately resumes where it was before.

e. Case Presentation:
The Court cannot act on any issue until a citizen of the nation brings forth an Issue to The Court. Issues to The Court should be posted publicly and must involve a dispute that the court is empowered to rule upon.

Cant be cleare than that. DE, do you want to change the constitution ?

Mr. President · October 23, 2002, 06:34

Formal is fine, as long as you don't expect me to wade through too much text.

GeneralTacticus · October 23, 2002, 06:46

I'd prefer the formal option, but I'd also prefer it if we kept the whole thing to the point, rather than cluttering things up with page after page of legalese.

Darkness' Edge · October 23, 2002, 07:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Pandemoniak Cant be cleare than that. DE, do you want to change the constitution ?

Pande, sometimes it might not hurt to think before you post.

Actually read that amendment. It sets out a whole heap of rules setting up a court, but there is no mention in there of how the proceedings are actually to be run.

I think we could adapt the C3DG proceedings, and make them a little bit simpler. Their first courtcase went for about 5 weeks...no need for that here.

Pandemoniak · October 23, 2002, 09:08

Quote:

The Court cannot act on any issue until a citizen of the nation brings forth an Issue to The Court. Issues to The Court should be posted publicly and must involve a dispute that the court is empowered to rule upon.[...] At the beginning of each case, the Court is to select a 'Senior Justice', who will be responsible for ensuring that a report is published for each decision made by the court, showing the rationale behind the decision.

Meaning :
1. Person raises complaint with justice
2. Both side explain the problem.
3. The Court select a Senior Justice, who will be the person responsible of administrative things about the trial (posts, logs, results, etc...)

Quote:

At least three Justices must be involved in any ruling that is made. If only three justices are involved and they cannot agree, a non-voting justice must step in to break the deadlock.

4. Justices debate among selves, they have to be at least three to rule, a non voting justice must step in to break the deadlock.

Quote:

the report is not provided, this may be grounds for an appeal. The Senior Justice will also preside over any hearings before The Court.

5. Come back with a result

Its clear enough for me, what do you think should be clarified ?
1. Person raises complaint with justice
2. Both side explain the problem.
3. The Court select a Senior Justice, who will be the person responsible of administrative things about the trial (posts, logs, results, etc...)
4. Justices debate among selves, they have to be at least three to rule, a non voting justice must step in to break the deadlock.
5. Come back with a result

Quote:

Pande, sometimes it might not hurt to think before you post.

And stop copycating Archaic, you're getting pathetic.

Darkness' Edge · October 23, 2002, 17:48

Pande, you've figured out that a complaint must be brought to us, that they must have their say, that we must actually debate, then come back with a result. Very clever.

The question is how we proceed with this. Either formally, like the example I provided above from the C3DG, or informally, or another way, if anyone else has any suggestions.

And yes, someone still raises a complaint, and yes, both sides still have to explain the problem, and yes, the court still has to select a Senior Justice, and yes, the Justices still have to debate among themselves, and yes, the justices still have to come back with a result.

The question is how we carry out these proceedings within that framework.

Maniac · October 23, 2002, 17:55

Is there some Pacific Anti-Pandemoniak alliance shaping up or what? Archaic, DE...

Pandemoniak · October 23, 2002, 17:57

Should I pack my stuff and make my way to Deirdre's Palace ?

Pandemoniak,
in Lady Deirdre's Lover

Method · October 23, 2002, 18:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Maniac
Is there some Pacific Anti-Pandemoniak alliance shaping up or what?

or is DE archaic's DL?

Pandemoniak · October 23, 2002, 18:06

Quote:

or is DE archaic's DL?

Its illegal ! Mark, ban'em both !

:stalinian:

GeneralTacticus · October 24, 2002, 03:19

Quote:

Is there some Pacific Anti-Pandemoniak alliance shaping up or what? Archaic, DE...

No. It's just that the stuff he's been spouting recently has been rubbish. Build 4 bases in the Freshawater Sea instead of going FM, claiming something is in the constitution when it isn't, etc...

Darkness' Edge · October 24, 2002, 03:31

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
No. It's just that the stuff he's been spouting recently has been rubbish. Build 4 bases in the Freshawater Sea instead of going FM, claiming something is in the constitution when it isn't, etc...

Well said.

I don't have any personal issues with Pande - it's just the stuff he's been spouting lately.

- Groucho - · October 28, 2002, 14:38

Since it is up to the court to decide what procedure to follow we might as well go with what is in this thread and then change it as we see fit. As long as we give clear notice of changes to the citizenry, we can change it until we get it right.

Hercules · October 28, 2002, 15:06

Excuse me 'cough' I have a small complaint 'cough' when can I and to whom should I raise it. And it's not the cough.

- Groucho - · October 28, 2002, 15:12

We haven't quite worked out the specifics yet, but post a thread called "Complaint to Court: (description of complaint)" and lay out your complaint in the first post. When a justice notices it, we will pm each other and sort out a panel. The senior judge on the panel will probably post in your thread and let you know what to do from there.

Yay - a case!

Darkness' Edge · October 29, 2002, 01:39

Okay, formal proceedings won the poll, so I guess we're able to be up and running.

Also...it may be better to PM a justice if you have a complaint, and let us deal with it from there. The C3DG does that, and they have basically the same amendment behind them.

Hercules · October 29, 2002, 15:50

I have followed DE 's guide on this and a complaint has been lodged with a justice. It will be interesting to see how the court deal with their first complaint.

DeathByTheSword · October 30, 2002, 11:19

when do we here about the complaint? i want to know what is going on.....it wasnt filed confidention right? the people want to know what this case is about?