ELECTION: Junior Judge (3 months)

Frozzy · March 15, 2003, 04:55

We have TWO nominated candidates for this election of a judge.

The victorious citizen will be inaugerated into the Lemurian Supreme Court, serving for a total of three months. At the cession of these months, his position will become up for re-election. The last month of his tenure will be as the Senior Justice

The nominees are

Gilgamench (Judge in Term I, II, and III. Impeached and re-elected in Term II)
mapfi (Judge in Term I and II, lost the presidential election in Term III)

There will be a total of five (5) days for your vote to be cast.

This election will be considered finished on [b]Thursday, 22:00 New Zealand Daylight Savings Time (09:00 Greenwich Meridian Time)

mapfi · March 17, 2003, 05:35

Fellow Lemurians

I see it as my duty to present you with an alternative to Gilgamensch. Those following the talk on the forums closely know that I clearly did not agree with Gilgamensch on important matters. I also didn't like the way he represented his position. here and here

Beside that I'm convinced I can be a excellent judge for you. I know the constitution inside out from partly writing it and working with it. I also know court procedures. I believe our court can be wise and powerful if its members are moderate and if it succeeds in delivering fast rulings.

Thanks

Gilgamensch · March 17, 2003, 05:38

The reasons why I want to continue to be a judge are:

I do like good discussions.
I want our empire to be based on legal rights and to protect it from bad influence.
I trust in our constitution and in our Grand Lemur.

Just some points from Mapfi during the Nomination thread:

I could not leave them standing alone in the air:

Quote:

I'd feel like going for judge because I didn't agree with Gilgamensch's way of exercising that position at all, nor his opinions, but I don't want to lock myself 3 months in a judge position again. I hope someone else runs for this one. What happened to all the contestants from past elections - DoT? John?

Do you really want to vote for a person who is not even willing to care about his duty?
Do you really want to have such a person as a judge who just spits out some not justified comments?

I trust in you, dear Lemurians to vote for the better !!!!

mapfi · March 17, 2003, 07:26

I do care about my duty and the court, that's why I feel obliged to run.

Gilgamensch · March 17, 2003, 07:32

Why are you then saying that you don't want to lock yourself away?

That doesn't really sound like you DO care

You publicly anounced this! That shouldn't be what a judge is supposed to do.

And what you didn't like about my positioning?

Quote:

I also didn't like the way he represented his position.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · March 17, 2003, 14:22

well, i definitely want no one in the court, who wants to restrict the freedom of speech! VOTE MAPFI!

Gilgamensch · March 18, 2003, 03:46

There we go again

This is not thread-related.

Zaphod Beeblebrox · March 18, 2003, 07:25

of course its thread related, its an argument against you and in favor of mapfi

Gilgamensch · March 18, 2003, 07:59

You are doing the same again as last time.

H Tower · March 18, 2003, 08:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
There we go again

This is not thread-related.

i disagree, this IS related, it is a discussion of what actions you have taken in the past, which is a good topic for an election.

Gilgamensch · March 18, 2003, 08:41

But it shouldn't come from a supporter it should come from Mapfi. And he is the one who doesn't care about his job............

And having people putting up arguments, which are not true, is what isn't correct here. And again Mapfi, doesn't feel like debating, how could he, he doesn't care.

Locutus · March 18, 2003, 09:55

It *was* brought up by mapfi: he posted a link to MrBaggins' case thread in his first post in this thread. I can only assume Zaphod's post was merely a response to that...

And rather than addressing the issue, you call it off-topic and accuse mapfi of unwillingness to run/debate (which might be a good point but soon looses it's value if it's your only one and you keep hammering on it). So one *could* argue that YOU are in fact the one who's not willing to debate...

Zaphod Beeblebrox · March 18, 2003, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
You are doing the same again as last time.

i'm doing what again?
as what last time?

Gilgamensch · March 18, 2003, 10:23

I said: non-thread related......

And I don't want go into the same discussion as all I hear from the other side is, you can't do that............ That is no discussion at all.

I am hammering on it? I am trying to get a response of him, but there isn't, only the same stuff from Zaphod.............

How are you supposed to discuss something with an attitude like that?

Mapfi doesn't seem to care at all............

And having a third party person throwing some 'stuff' at me, which they didn't defend in the first place doesn't make me change my mind............

OK, to continue some debating:

Mapfi actually asked me to violate our connie, does this sound like a judge? (He send a PM to me, asking for Tamerlin to be inlcuded to the election). His 'last' demand as leaving judge........

Yes, I still got a copy from this incident........

And another thing about hammering: Where is he? Why doesn't he 'defend' himself? I thinh, because he can't........

mapfi · March 18, 2003, 10:30

I don't see a point in posting again but I don't want to be accused of avoiding debate. I've posted the links to the threads were I made my disagreement with Gilgamensch's opinion clear and also voiced my dissappointment in the way he handled his position - not at all moderate and not seeking consensus but radical.
As posted in the café I'm on vacation till next Tuesday, so you won't hear from me here anymore.

Gilgamensch · March 18, 2003, 10:44

OK, we disagreed about something. Nothing wrong there, but did you ever came up with anything and posted clearly you pro's about it? Did you ever read really replies posted to yours?

Same here:

Trying to evade, but nothing...........Just throwing in peaces, leaving it standing in the air and turn away......

And you call me radical? I am trying to debate and I get as a response: nothing or hot air.........

Zaphod Beeblebrox · March 18, 2003, 10:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
... I am trying to debate and I get as a response: nothing or hot air.........

calling everything you don't like not thread related and crying for the court is not debating

Gilgamensch · March 18, 2003, 10:50

Thanks Zaphod for this negative image you are drawing, but correct me, if I am wrong (it is mainly you):

1.) Where did I cry for the court?
2.) Where did I call everything not thread-related?

It is just ,sorry I have to say it like this, glibberish like yours which I would consider non-thread related.

DEBATE and not get a lot of hot air out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mapfi · March 18, 2003, 10:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
Mapfi actually asked me to violate our connie, does this sound like a judge? (He send a PM to me, asking for Tamerlin to be inlcuded to the election). His 'last' demand as leaving judge........

Yes, I still got a copy from this incident........

Yep, and I still stand for that comment. In my opinion the constitution always provides leeway. As it was totally clear to me that Tamerlin intended to run for that position I'd have included him in the election if I had been senior justice. That would have been in the best interest of the game. After all, we play for fun here and not in order to obey a strict interpretation of a text we've written ourselves.

Gilgamensch · March 18, 2003, 11:06

We set up the connie to have rules to be followed. Agreed?

Why do you suddenly want to change/bend the rules we agreed upon? The position of the judge is to follow those rules and not to change them. The court/judges might need to append (meaning=clarify) something, but they, in no way, have to violate it!!!!!!!!!!!

And Yes, I would have liked to see him in as well, but the connie is clear in this. So for me, that was it. No doubt, no nothing.

What we are doing here (you and me) is what I would like to see in the election, a fight till with tooth and nails

, but just between the candidates and not for the mass (unless they want to throw in valid arguements

for Locutus and a

for H Tower for his one, my point of view)

I guess that's why you wanted to violate the connie, but again that's not our job!

Zaphod Beeblebrox · March 18, 2003, 11:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
... The position of the judge is to follow those rules and not to change them. ...

you don't need a judge for that, a machine could do as well, you need a judge to interpret and rule in cases where the con is unclear or contradictory. and sorry, but i don't think your the right man for that given your straight "what is written is written" attitude.

Gilgamensch · March 18, 2003, 11:45

Quote:

con is unclear or contradictory

For the nomination: It was clear for me, so need for discussion. Also people could have opened a case with the court.

A judge should first consider the connie and then in case their isn't anything consider his point of view.

If there isn't a loopwhole you want to create one? That doesn't make sense to me at all!

H Tower · March 18, 2003, 15:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
What we are doing here (you and me) is what I would like to see in the election, a fight till with tooth and nails

, but just between the candidates and not for the mass (unless they want to throw in valid arguements

for Locutus and a

for H Tower for his one, my point of view)

The day you silence free speech is the day that this game dies. I will not be silent, and neither will all others around you.

It appears that Gilg is strict on constitutional interpretation and mapfi is willing to interpret a document that we have proved again and again to be less than perfect

Gilgamensch · March 19, 2003, 04:19

H Tower,

where did I ever wanted to silence the freedom of speech? I even argued/discussed with Zaphod (I hope we continue). Maybe bad frasing of the sentence, no insult meant.

And Yes:

Quote:

It appears that Gilg is strict on constitutional interpretation and mapfi is willing to interpret a document that we have proved again and again to be less than perfect

I prefer to go with what is written and not twist what is clear.

If it needs to be changed citizens concerned should put up discussions about and make an AMENDMENT. For this the connie is clear. For me a judge has to rule above what is written by US and not decide upon his own wish, making him master of the connie.

And by the way: What happened after the 'inital' posting, was what I wanted to see, but mainly from Mapfi.
But again he puts his priorities, where a judges priorities shouldn't be.

H Tower · March 20, 2003, 12:03

welcome back mapfi

Locutus · March 20, 2003, 16:22

Congrats, mapfi

Tough luck, better luck next time... But now you lost here, you might as well sign up for MoDST

Gilgamensch · March 21, 2003, 05:01

Congrat's Mapfi.

Although I would have liked to see more discussion here

Has anyone heard anything from Frozzy?