37
[Office of the AG] An Update on the Intangibles of eCanada
Social interactions and entertainment
"...people had been working for so many years to make the world a safe, organized place. Nobody realized how boring it would become..."
The Office of the Attorney General would like to update eCanadians on a variety of constitutional/legal discussions and court cases that are currently active on the eCanada forums.
A list of recently active "legal" topics:
-- Appeal of the MG/Maedoc/JohnShady/SAWC ban (re-opened)
Comment: The recent incarnation of Matthew Gallagher has requested that the old appeal of his case be re-opened. Judges have complied and the case is ongoing.
-- Discussion on a review of Rolo's ban (ongoing in Judges' Chambers)
Comment: Recently, a Congressman asked the court about its feelings on Rolo's ban and how he could regain forum access. Discussion began about whether or not an appeal of the case could be opened and Judges have convened privately to review the the topic.
-- Test case or discussion on vote buying and selling (ongoing in Judges' Chambers)
Comment: Last week, Jsboutin confessed he had sold his vote for a tidy profit of 4.7 Gold and asked that he be judged accordingly. The confession was triggered by a discussion in Congress about prohibiting the purchase and sale of votes. Judges have convened privately to discuss the possibility of providing a binding opinion and running a test case.
-- Presidential Pardon of Aeriala (both blocked by Congress and vetoed by CP)
Comment: Last week, a case was brought forward involving Aeriala. After the case was over, Aeriala was provided a three-week ban, for which he issued an executive order to pardon himself. Congress responded negatively to this and blocked the pardon. The new CP, Addy Lawrence, followed up by placing a veto on the pardon.
-- Proposal to amend the powers of Executive Orders in the Charter (discussion ongoing)
Comment: In response to Aeriala's attempt at presidential pardon, a discussion began about the limits and relevance of executive orders, including presidential pardons. It culminated in a proposal to amend the Charter to remove executive orders, yet there is ongoing discussion on how these powers can be modified in the Charter.
-- Nomination of TemujinBC to Supreme Court (soon to be voted on by Congress)
Comment: One of Aeriala's final acts as CP was the nomination of TemujinBC to the Supreme Court, as a replacement for Phillip Delle Palm (at least one more position still remains open). Response from Congressman has been favourable, yet the only complicating issues would be that third parties have been relaying the words of both Aeriala and TemujinBC on the nomination. Vote still to come.
-- The new Minister of Justice has started a brainstorm discussion in the Executive Branch about reforming the Judicial branch towards a tribunal sytem.
Comment: The discussion is not designed to address current perceived weaknesses in the court and begins from the position that the there is general agreement the current system is not working. Bunsen Honeydew has presented several questions to consider and provided a few suggestions on how a tribunal might be formed. While it may seem better to address current problems in the sytem and improve on them, perhaps there is benefit looking at a way of 'starting from scratch' (though not completely) and seeing what kind of ideas are generated in the brainstorm. It will be interesting to see what is generated and how the ideas will be implemented by the Executive. A must see for any forum-law afficionado.
"...the laws that keep us safe, these same laws condemn us to boredom.
Without access to true chaos, we’ll never have true peace.
Unless everything can get worse, it won’t get any better..."
Unlike most or even all other countries in eRepublik, eCanada has invested a great deal of player activity into developing and reforming its legal department. In fact, the Supreme Court of eCanada may be the only government-supported judicial body in the New World. Some feel that makes it an abomination or just a waste of time. Others feel pride in this unique achievement that has survived through a number of complications that have affected the court. Ironically, those that have called for a removal of the Supreme Court have been some of the more active forum users in the judicial folder, while some that have championed the system have acknowledged that the court is not a necessity that should continue to exist.
Perhaps more concerning has been the more recent application of the Supreme Court as a tool to gain leverage in the sphere of politics and vendettas. The majority of eCanadians will have no reason to visit the Judicial folder or even consider the significance of Charter amendments. eRepublik does not require any understanding of the paper regulations that subtly influence the warmongering, military funding, tax policies, and political jockeying. To end off this update, I would like to provide two comments made by well-respected citizens whose influence has notably shaped how eCanada has developed as a forum community and in-game nation.
Multi-term President, Congressman and all-around Pillar of the Community:
"The court should deal with grey areas, arcane disputes and situations where things aren't clear cut.
For clear cut matters, we don't need a complex set of rules and procedures to do a situation justice.
Sometimes we just need to give someone the boot and be done with it and not allow them the option of trying to game the system.
You know, sometimes I think our communities committment to legal roleplay actually increases our problems and motivates anarchic folks to try to break a system few understand and little respect."
~~Jacobi, August 10th, Re: Motion to Dissolve the Supreme Court
“...the only frontier you have left is the world of intangibles. Everything else is sewn up too tight...”
Former Attorney General and multi-term Chief Justice, and current steward of eCanadian law:
"The game is now all and entirely about fighting wars, organizing MUs and their funding, and adjusting tax rates. Citizens, and their interests, are really quite irrelevant except as political considerations.
We are now litigating insults. I don't say this is without merit. I do say:
1. The easy way to abolish the court is to take no cases there;
2. The easy way to take no cases to the court is to deal with our problems calmly, respectfully and decisively.
3. The easy way to deal with our problems is to actually insist on honesty and good faith.
Do we need a special "congress court" or "tribunal" or "popular tribal council"? No. What we need is to recognize bulloney for what it is, to call out bad behaviour, to collectively behave as if we cared for each other and this community, and to have a continuing dialogue about just what that entails. Concretely that means: stop the insults, use the power of the purse to discourage dishonesty, accept that decisions by a speaker/judge or an admin are made in good faith, accomodate to resolve disputes, use congressional power to ban players through attainder in the most eggregious situations - or use the court only for these instances-, and don't encourage the dishonest just because they cause entertaining drama."
~~olivermellors, Sept 18th, Re: The Judicial System
As we move ahead with defining how we apply the Charter and its related acts, it will be worth considering why we find it necessary to fall back upon the Supreme Court to resolve our disputes and misunderstandings. Does an active Supreme Court entail a necessary system of dispute resolution or do unnecessary disputes mean that the Supreme Court should not be necessity either. We can work at amending the laws the govern the forum and reform the insitutions that enforce them...or we can find a way to improve our own behavior:
"...because it’s only intangible ideas, concepts, beliefs, fantasies that last. Stone crumbles. Wood rots. People, well, they die.
But things as fragile as a thought, a dream, a legend, they can go on and on. If you can change the way people think, she said. The way they see themselves. The way they see the world. If you do that, you can change the way people live their lives. And that’s the only lasting thing you can create."
~~Palanhiuk, "The World of Intangibles" from Choke
Let's see if there is a way we can see ourselves differently and worry less about making this "a safe, organized place...caged inside too many laws."
The Office of the Attorney General would like to update eCanadians on a variety of constitutional/legal discussions and court cases that are currently active on the eCanada forums.
A list of recently active "legal" topics:
-- Appeal of the MG/Maedoc/JohnShady/SAWC ban (re-opened)
Comment: The recent incarnation of Matthew Gallagher has requested that the old appeal of his case be re-opened. Judges have complied and the case is ongoing.
-- Discussion on a review of Rolo's ban (ongoing in Judges' Chambers)
Comment: Recently, a Congressman asked the court about its feelings on Rolo's ban and how he could regain forum access. Discussion began about whether or not an appeal of the case could be opened and Judges have convened privately to review the the topic.
-- Test case or discussion on vote buying and selling (ongoing in Judges' Chambers)
Comment: Last week, Jsboutin confessed he had sold his vote for a tidy profit of 4.7 Gold and asked that he be judged accordingly. The confession was triggered by a discussion in Congress about prohibiting the purchase and sale of votes. Judges have convened privately to discuss the possibility of providing a binding opinion and running a test case.
-- Presidential Pardon of Aeriala (both blocked by Congress and vetoed by CP)
Comment: Last week, a case was brought forward involving Aeriala. After the case was over, Aeriala was provided a three-week ban, for which he issued an executive order to pardon himself. Congress responded negatively to this and blocked the pardon. The new CP, Addy Lawrence, followed up by placing a veto on the pardon.
-- Proposal to amend the powers of Executive Orders in the Charter (discussion ongoing)
Comment: In response to Aeriala's attempt at presidential pardon, a discussion began about the limits and relevance of executive orders, including presidential pardons. It culminated in a proposal to amend the Charter to remove executive orders, yet there is ongoing discussion on how these powers can be modified in the Charter.
-- Nomination of TemujinBC to Supreme Court (soon to be voted on by Congress)
Comment: One of Aeriala's final acts as CP was the nomination of TemujinBC to the Supreme Court, as a replacement for Phillip Delle Palm (at least one more position still remains open). Response from Congressman has been favourable, yet the only complicating issues would be that third parties have been relaying the words of both Aeriala and TemujinBC on the nomination. Vote still to come.
-- The new Minister of Justice has started a brainstorm discussion in the Executive Branch about reforming the Judicial branch towards a tribunal sytem.
Comment: The discussion is not designed to address current perceived weaknesses in the court and begins from the position that the there is general agreement the current system is not working. Bunsen Honeydew has presented several questions to consider and provided a few suggestions on how a tribunal might be formed. While it may seem better to address current problems in the sytem and improve on them, perhaps there is benefit looking at a way of 'starting from scratch' (though not completely) and seeing what kind of ideas are generated in the brainstorm. It will be interesting to see what is generated and how the ideas will be implemented by the Executive. A must see for any forum-law afficionado.
"...the laws that keep us safe, these same laws condemn us to boredom.
Without access to true chaos, we’ll never have true peace.
Unless everything can get worse, it won’t get any better..."
Unlike most or even all other countries in eRepublik, eCanada has invested a great deal of player activity into developing and reforming its legal department. In fact, the Supreme Court of eCanada may be the only government-supported judicial body in the New World. Some feel that makes it an abomination or just a waste of time. Others feel pride in this unique achievement that has survived through a number of complications that have affected the court. Ironically, those that have called for a removal of the Supreme Court have been some of the more active forum users in the judicial folder, while some that have championed the system have acknowledged that the court is not a necessity that should continue to exist.
Perhaps more concerning has been the more recent application of the Supreme Court as a tool to gain leverage in the sphere of politics and vendettas. The majority of eCanadians will have no reason to visit the Judicial folder or even consider the significance of Charter amendments. eRepublik does not require any understanding of the paper regulations that subtly influence the warmongering, military funding, tax policies, and political jockeying. To end off this update, I would like to provide two comments made by well-respected citizens whose influence has notably shaped how eCanada has developed as a forum community and in-game nation.
Multi-term President, Congressman and all-around Pillar of the Community:
"The court should deal with grey areas, arcane disputes and situations where things aren't clear cut.
For clear cut matters, we don't need a complex set of rules and procedures to do a situation justice.
Sometimes we just need to give someone the boot and be done with it and not allow them the option of trying to game the system.
You know, sometimes I think our communities committment to legal roleplay actually increases our problems and motivates anarchic folks to try to break a system few understand and little respect."
~~Jacobi, August 10th, Re: Motion to Dissolve the Supreme Court
“...the only frontier you have left is the world of intangibles. Everything else is sewn up too tight...”
Former Attorney General and multi-term Chief Justice, and current steward of eCanadian law:
"The game is now all and entirely about fighting wars, organizing MUs and their funding, and adjusting tax rates. Citizens, and their interests, are really quite irrelevant except as political considerations.
We are now litigating insults. I don't say this is without merit. I do say:
1. The easy way to abolish the court is to take no cases there;
2. The easy way to take no cases to the court is to deal with our problems calmly, respectfully and decisively.
3. The easy way to deal with our problems is to actually insist on honesty and good faith.
Do we need a special "congress court" or "tribunal" or "popular tribal council"? No. What we need is to recognize bulloney for what it is, to call out bad behaviour, to collectively behave as if we cared for each other and this community, and to have a continuing dialogue about just what that entails. Concretely that means: stop the insults, use the power of the purse to discourage dishonesty, accept that decisions by a speaker/judge or an admin are made in good faith, accomodate to resolve disputes, use congressional power to ban players through attainder in the most eggregious situations - or use the court only for these instances-, and don't encourage the dishonest just because they cause entertaining drama."
~~olivermellors, Sept 18th, Re: The Judicial System
As we move ahead with defining how we apply the Charter and its related acts, it will be worth considering why we find it necessary to fall back upon the Supreme Court to resolve our disputes and misunderstandings. Does an active Supreme Court entail a necessary system of dispute resolution or do unnecessary disputes mean that the Supreme Court should not be necessity either. We can work at amending the laws the govern the forum and reform the insitutions that enforce them...or we can find a way to improve our own behavior:
"...because it’s only intangible ideas, concepts, beliefs, fantasies that last. Stone crumbles. Wood rots. People, well, they die.
But things as fragile as a thought, a dream, a legend, they can go on and on. If you can change the way people think, she said. The way they see themselves. The way they see the world. If you do that, you can change the way people live their lives. And that’s the only lasting thing you can create."
~~Palanhiuk, "The World of Intangibles" from Choke
Let's see if there is a way we can see ourselves differently and worry less about making this "a safe, organized place...caged inside too many laws."
Facebook
Twitter
Steve
TemujinBC for Supreme Justice! Thanks for the update, Plugson!
What the court need to do is stop taking what olivermellors says as gospel
He wows people who can't think for themselves with fancy language and unnecessarily long posts, showing his bias and inconsistency in almost every one of them, depending on his personal flavour of the case
Keep it as a "court" - but dumb down the "legal-ease". That way it isn't such an embarrassment when you have to "interpret" arcane laws to justify what should be a clear cut decision
^^^^
agreed. We should have just said Rolo stole tons of our stuff; banned for ever. And left it at that.
Would have been a lot faster. It's just that you kept insisting on a long trial, and that you hadn't done anything wrong. I suggest the present Court take your advice and ignore invitations to give you another crack at it.
^^
Thats what they did mellors - Don't pretend your Kangaroo Court would have changed a thing..
Oh, and I'm not the one asking - I have all the access I need
You're just butthurt because I sniffed out your "sentencing" scam, and refused to bite on it - If you weren't such a disgrace as a so-called "unbiased" judge you might not be quite as pathetic..
agreed. We should have just said Rolo stole tons of our stuff; banned for ever. And left it at that.
x2
Whats biased about a flaunting thief being prosecuted btw?
Those that matter in eCanada got what they wanted and hopefully it stays that way forever.
Maybe eventually your little minions will get bored of screen shotting crap for ya.
^^^^^
true about the pathetic part.
Still, I think we should try to avoid going to court, in favour of improving our behaviour.
a theif is a theif...a moralizer is a divider
guilt or innocence can be decided by morals and values,
sentences should be fixed and consistant.
Great update Plugson, thoroughly enjoyed it.
Does the AG find it weird that congress is a self governing body that the court has no right interfering in, unless they feel like it and ignore everything entirely including their own rules?
@only atoms: You say "Sentences should be fixed and consistent".
I assume you mean sentences should not be arbitrary and should play no favourites. Fair enough. I hasten to say that I am not defending any sentence or lack thereof of the SCC.
But the issue of sentencing is complex. It is made complex by the fact that a) one purpose of the entire process of dispute resolution is to try and lay out a path to bring the player who has by their action left the team back into the team b) unlike in real life, the law-enforcement authorities cannot compel compliance.
This has led to a number of "take it or leave it" discussions in which, rather than face up to the nature of their acts, the "defendants " have chosen instead to simply argue the court's legitimacy. Basically the equivalent of "I don't accept the jurisdiction of this court". That discussion has been couched in attacks on the court's procedures, impartiality, and on its members personally, and people at the sidelines have been taken in by the flame wars and their personal like of certain criminals to portray them as some sort of noble outlaws.
At the end of the day, if large portions of the team are prepared to say "Hey, it's OK that he stole from team resources", nothing in a court structure will prevent that, and the team will experience the decay in morale and co-operation which naturally results.
Much false attacks have been made against the court's attempt to follow real-life examples as role-play. Those attacks, when genuine (and they aren't always), show a misunderstanding of why courts do certain things the way they do. The reason almost always has to do with trying to protect the rights of the accused and ensure that focus remains on the facts of the case, not the personalities.
~hyuu~
subscribed, voted and found to be of interest.
Better it was a good place than a safe place. Its a virtual world for Plato's sake. Stone crumbles best with a few sticks of dynamite.
...and by dynamite I mean the kind of guys the court tends to prosecute.
Any court that'll give me an 8 week ban can't be bad.
An 8 week ban for betraying your country and getting us wiped off the map VS a lifetime ban for stealing. We have a justice system?
@Rigour6- If the sentence for theft for instance was a flat 2 week ban, no matter what was stolen, the accused would be more willing participate knowing that they weren't potentially going to get a 10 zillion year ban.
Subjectivity in sentencing leaves the convicted exposed to personalities, politics and patriotism. 3 things that at the best of times are unpredictable.
Well we could just give a life sentence for stealing money from the country. Would that be any better?
In either case, there will ALWAYS be people who will not be happy, disagree or argue the court usefullness. But in the end, there is a mechanism for some reason. We need a control mechanism. I'm not saying it's perfect, but nothing ever is!
On another note, I'd like to thank the dedicated members of the court for putting tons of hours into this thing that is so underappreciated. It's a wonder they stick there after all the pain they get and get absolutely no gain out of it. There is no medal, there is no paycheck at the end of the line, no shiny little power you can play with, no status that makes some people want to shit on everyone else because they are in a ''virtual'' party.
Kudos to you judges!
I didn't get us wiped off the map. I helped to get us wiped off the wipe. Big diffrence and my ego isn't that big Janny.
Why do you specify 'country" Chucky?
Do think that a theft from the country is differnet than a theft from an MU or Militia, a friend...or the CAF?
It<s just as worst actually my dear atoms
only atoms writes, quite correctly:
"If the sentence for theft ..... was a flat 2 week ban, no matter what was stolen, the accused would be more willing participate ....."
Absolutely. Many accused would be willing to participate in many thefts, and big ones too. The bigger the theft the better.
"Subjectivity in sentencing leaves the convicted exposed to personalities, politics and patriotism. 3 things that at the best of times are unpredictable."
True. Also exposes him to: reason, charity, humanity, clemency, mercy, balance, desert, mitigation, etc. Also unpredictable.
Sentencing is tricky.
Chucky, mon petite cabbage, so you think a fixed sentence would be good for all of those crimes eh?
oliver, the 2 weeks was a 'for instance'
If the judiciary chooses 2 or 3 months 'for instance'' I would support that as well,, as long as every conviceted theif won the same sentence..
^^^^
i understand. The difficulty arises in choosing the one-size which will fit all. It risks being too small to fit many, and too large for many more. Fixed sentence for a "class" of crime (i.e. theft) doesn't do it for me, but I do understand the point you make.
^^^^^^^
It should be large enough to deter. The people who find themselves convicted have no excuse, no matter the monetary value or emotional mileage.
Like I mispelled before, a thief is a thief.