REPORT: ILLEGAL MPPs WERE SIGNED DURING CHAT :(

[Kloreep]

Good post, MWIA. (That should go in your sig.) You've convinced me.

I'm not 3A2C3 (or whatever the anarchist party was), but the more literally game-breaking things like this and the DM election I see, the more I lean in that direction.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by E_T


I personally think that you shouldn't Resign, but you should have some form of punishment for this.

If this does not become a case for the court, I suggest the following as punishment for this deed (I will need a member of the Senate to post a bill and ratify it):

1) that you will not be allowed to be a member of the Term 7 Government in any capacity (i.e. vice/deputy/RA), except as a Regular Senator.

2) that you be allowed to be a Deputy/Vice/RA for Term 8, but cannot run for Elected office in that term.

3) That you will have your full priveliges as a member of the Demo Game be restored to you after these next 2 terms.

I think that this is a fair and equitable punishment for what you have done. Especially with the fact that you have spoken up and made your statement about what you have done.

What say you, Senators?

E_T

This suggestion is, I believe, outside the Senate's power. If it is the Senate's desire to do such things (though it seems that it is NOT the Senate's desire to do so), they should go to the Court.

[ManicStarSeed]

- It was discovered that Rome had MPPs with Japan, Russia, and England. The suggestion was made that Apolytonia should match each of these MPPs in order to make these powers declare war on Rome (when Rome attacked us) rather than on us (when we later attacked Rome).
situation.

Uhh how do I say this...

I just looked over the saves and these countries have ROPs with Rome, not MMPs.

Rome does have a MMP with Japan though.

Looking at the 1230 AD save, prior to war, still only Japan has the only MMP with Rome.

It is the damn colors that make it so confusing...

This puts us in a better position than we thought.

Mss

[notyoueither]

Submitted by myself to other members of the court recently:

I have reviewed the thread. It is an interesting situation. The consensus seems to be that the right thing was done in the wrong way. I may disagree with MPPs personally, but the idea of using MPPs defensively or offensively had already been approved by the Senate.

Am I correct that we have not received a complaint from anyone yet?

At any rate, it would be my opinion at this point that the Laws and the Court should fascilitate the game, not hinder it. If no one has a serious problem with the decisions made in the chat then it would not be good for us to try to make an issue of them. It might be good for one of us to say something to that effect if one or two of you agree.

nye

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Submitted by myself to other members of the court recently:

I have reviewed the thread. It is an interesting situation. The consensus seems to be that the right thing was done in the wrong way. I may disagree with MPPs personally, but the idea of using MPPs defensively or offensively had already been approved by the Senate.

Am I correct that we have not received a complaint from anyone yet?

At any rate, it would be my opinion at this point that the Laws and the Court should fascilitate the game, not hinder it. If no one has a serious problem with the decisions made in the chat then it would not be good for us to try to make an issue of them. It might be good for one of us to say something to that effect if one or two of you agree.

nye

WOW

How would this opinion be reconciled with some of the text in the Reddawg opinion? Reddawg had just as much popular support as Aggie, Reddawg did not violate any part of the CoL (as Mr Orange's argument that he did was a laughable extention of the meanings of lines in the CoL, not a clear and uanimously agreed-upon breach). In this case, Aggie clearly DID violate the Constitution and did so (he now admits) intentionally. We all agree that we don't want to see Aggie go and we don't want to see Aggie punished harshly, but we all wanted the same thing in the Reddawg case.

Now, I will fully admit that I didn't have the guts to follow through with the letter of the law in this case and I said we shouldn't bring Aggie before the Court (though this was largely based on my belief at the time that his action was unintentional) and I honestly expected no better of the Senate. However, I would fully expect that the Court would look at the matter from a more legal standpoint.

Democratic institutions are notoriously fickle, which is precisely why they need reliable and impartial judicial systems to uphold the laws, even when it is unpopular to do so. If people don't like the results that their laws caused, they can change the laws. The Court's job is to uphold the laws that currently exist. If they fail to do so, there's a lack of incentive for anyone to get rid of stupid laws, because the laws no longer have any meaning.

The reason why this situation reminds me of the trial and execution of Socrates is that Socrates violated an unjust law, but allowed (in fact WANTED) himself to be executed (an outcome the people of Athens were against) because he wanted to force the issue and show that the people should not create laws they have no intention of enforcing. Aggie claims that he willfully violated our constitution to raise interest in the game and is now under much the same situation... a democratic populace has not the will to enforce its own laws (and I stand guilty of the crime of timidity as well... I don't want to see Aggie before the court either).

That said, I know that DAVOUT is pissed and he may not be alone. Should DAVOUT or anyone else bring the matter before the Court, this is where the justices earn their keep. Those of us in the non-judicial world have the priviledge of being as fickle and timid as we want to be, but the Court has no such luxury (as they demonstrated in the Reddawg Case even when no crime against the CoL had been committed).

I am willing to admit that this is a double-standard, expecting more from the justices than from the rest of us (myself included). My point is that such expectations come with the territory. It's the main reason why I haven't desired to be a justice thusfar. As a justice, I can't see how I could do anything other than vote in favor of impeachment (the senate gets to make the final vote on that anyhow - effectively resolving the issue). As a non-justice, I can oppose his impeachment w/o taking responsibility for just how cowardly that stance is (since I know that the conduct merits that result).

...........

Now I hadn't intended on publicly responding to that, but I just couldn't help myself. I had to eventually snap and realize that I needed to speak up on this, even if (in roadcage's words when he opposed the timing on the swich to democracy) I'm "puking into the wind here".

Ok, it's incredibly late and I really shouldn't have stayed up this late. I'm gonna go sleep on all this and post appointments and stuff tomorrow.

[MrWhereItsAt]

OK. So someone makes a formal complaint and everything swings from the judges' decision. No problem there. The Court rules that Aggie was clearly in the wrong and will therefore be punished. All squeaky clean and legal by that damn document.

WHO DOES THIS ADVANTAGE?

Aggie? No - he is punished for following what may ultimately have been the peoples' wishes anyway, as evidenced by the fact that so many have supported the decision, just not the way of its' implementation.

The game's progress? No - this slows this down whilst we have to worry about whether the President is fit to lead or whatever such BS.

Us? Certainly not - with a clearly highly skilled President in office with multiple terms of service, this disadvantages ALL of us. Tell me, what do we get out of penalising anyone. SH*T all.

You know, I always saw impeachment or in fact any punishment to be meted out to those who made enough ****-ups that it appeared they were inadequate for the job. It was a last resort rather than just part of the process; something the people (not the Bloody Senate) could do to replace an incompetent leader. Aggie is not incompetent, in fact I would certainly go so far as to say he is the most qualified and able leader we have ever had here.

We have a good indication of what anyone would be like before we vote them in, and in almost every case (certainly in every case for this admininistration) they are excellent Ministers. We shouldn't punish based on a single action, but on the overall fitness of the leader to play. If this same situation happens with the same Executive during this term I would be worried. BUT this is ONE incident in an otherwise spotless Presidency. Let's just accept an apology, say "don't do it again" and bloody well forget about it.

By all means you have the right to take this to a judge. But be very careful, as this could well lead (rather easily) to some form of punishment - and with that sort of disincentive around, isn't it going to be even harder to find candidates next month?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Aro


I hope you consider me one of those who just want to play the game...

Although you hide skilfully your dislike of the democracy part of the game No wonder from a (former) troskist ...

[Aro]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Although you hide skilfully your dislike of the democracy part of the game No wonder from a (former) troskist ...

I don't hide my dislike... In fact, I love the democracy part of the game.
What I don't like is the use of such great achievement to play politics, instead of play the game... Exactly like in RL.

[Panag]

hi ,

, maybe we should write a something down on paper somewhere for the next time

have a nice day & happy holidays

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Arnelos

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither Submitted by myself to other members of the court recently: I have reviewed the thread. It is an interesting situation. The consensus seems to be that the right thing was done in the wrong way. I may disagree with MPPs personally, but the idea of using MPPs defensively or offensively had already been approved by the Senate. Am I correct that we have not received a complaint from anyone yet? At any rate, it would be my opinion at this point that the Laws and the Court should fascilitate the game, not hinder it. If no one has a serious problem with the decisions made in the chat then it would not be good for us to try to make an issue of them. It might be good for one of us to say something to that effect if one or two of you agree. nye

WOW

How would this opinion be reconciled with some of the text in the Reddawg opinion? Reddawg had just as much popular support as Aggie, Reddawg did not violate any part of the CoL (as Mr Orange's argument that he did was a laughable extention of the meanings of lines in the CoL, not a clear and uanimously agreed-upon breach). In this case, Aggie clearly DID violate the Constitution and did so (he now admits) intentionally. We all agree that we don't want to see Aggie go and we don't want to see Aggie punished harshly, but we all wanted the same thing in the Reddawg case.

Now, I will fully admit that I didn't have the guts to follow through with the letter of the law in this case and I said we shouldn't bring Aggie before the Court (though this was largely based on my belief at the time that his action was unintentional) and I honestly expected no better of the Senate. However, I would fully expect that the Court would look at the matter from a more legal standpoint.

Democratic institutions are notoriously fickle, which is precisely why they need reliable and impartial judicial systems to uphold the laws, even when it is unpopular to do so. If people don't like the results that their laws caused, they can change the laws. The Court's job is to uphold the laws that currently exist. If they fail to do so, there's a lack of incentive for anyone to get rid of stupid laws, because the laws no longer have any meaning.

The reason why this situation reminds me of the trial and execution of Socrates is that Socrates violated an unjust law, but allowed (in fact WANTED) himself to be executed (an outcome the people of Athens were against) because he wanted to force the issue and show that the people should not create laws they have no intention of enforcing. Aggie claims that he willfully violated our constitution to raise interest in the game and is now under much the same situation... a democratic populace has not the will to enforce its own laws (and I stand guilty of the crime of timidity as well... I don't want to see Aggie before the court either).

That said, I know that DAVOUT is pissed and he may not be alone. Should DAVOUT or anyone else bring the matter before the Court, this is where the justices earn their keep. Those of us in the non-judicial world have the priviledge of being as fickle and timid as we want to be, but the Court has no such luxury (as they demonstrated in the Reddawg Case even when no crime against the CoL had been committed).

I am willing to admit that this is a double-standard, expecting more from the justices than from the rest of us (myself included). My point is that such expectations come with the territory. It's the main reason why I haven't desired to be a justice thusfar. As a justice, I can't see how I could do anything other than vote in favor of impeachment (the senate gets to make the final vote on that anyhow - effectively resolving the issue). As a non-justice, I can oppose his impeachment w/o taking responsibility for just how cowardly that stance is (since I know that the conduct merits that result).

...........

Now I hadn't intended on publicly responding to that, but I just couldn't help myself. I had to eventually snap and realize that I needed to speak up on this, even if (in roadcage's words when he opposed the timing on the swich to democracy) I'm "puking into the wind here".

Ok, it's incredibly late and I really shouldn't have stayed up this late. I'm gonna go sleep on all this and post appointments and stuff tomorrow.

This issue and the Reddawg case are completely unrelated. The Reddawg case dealt with a citizen's and a minister's conduct outside the playing of the game towards another citizen. This issue deals with the actions of the President in game and involve no one personally (except himself).

Furthermore, in the Reddawg case we had a complaint, and there were at least a few citizens who thought that Reddawg's conduct toward Mr. Orange deserved some judicial notice. In this issue, no one has seen fit to complain to the court yet. I would take that as evidence that no one feels it deserves a judicial hearing.

Lastly, my words were to the effect that the court should not seek to enlarge this issue (or make it a case); they were not that the court should ignore it if some citizen felt strongly enough to file a complaint on their own.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by notyoueither
This issue and the Reddawg case are completely unrelated. The Reddawg case dealt with a citizen's and a minister's conduct outside the playing of the game towards another citizen. This issue deals with the actions of the President in game and involve no one personally (except himself).

Furthermore, in the Reddawg case we had a complaint, and there were at least a few citizens who thought that Reddawg's conduct toward Mr. Orange deserved some judicial notice. In this issue, no one has seen fit to complain to the court yet. I would take that as evidence that no one feels it deserves a judicial hearing.

Lastly, my words were to the effect that the court should not seek to enlarge this issue (or make it a case); they were not that the court should ignore it if some citizen felt strongly enough to file a complaint on their own.

Fair enough. I've had my rant and I'm content to let this die.

[MrWhereItsAt]

And I am glad you did have your rant, Arn. It was great to get myself all riled up about something here again, and I got to find out something about what's happening in the game without the save, so thanks.

And THAT, my friends, is what the "Democracy" in our Democracy game is all about. Not the NewCon, but speaking your mind, being heard and having your views seriously discussed.