Join the new world

~unnecessary article music~


So, I found myself unable to sleep, which was typical for me. I used my phone to log onto erep to check things out, maybe find a nice article to help read myself to sleep, and this caught my eye. (I really enjoy having the top 5 on the front page back)
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/charter-amendment-proposal-judicial-reform-2014894/1/20
Upon reading, I felt compelled to respond. I’ve been forming my own opinions about the Supreme Court, for a very long time, and more recently I wrote those ideas down, but never bothered to publish them. I held US citizenship at the time, so it felt awkward releasing my rant in foreign media, but I had no particular reason to post it either.

≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈

So without further adieu, I’d like to share my thoughts on the ancient debate that has evolved in eCanada for approximately 2 years now, should the Supreme Court even exist? My short answer would be yes, but I feel we’re going about it the wrong way. My long answer is about 700 words long.

On one hand, they’ve provided eCanada with a fair amount of entertainment. Whether it be lulzy court cases, or the occasional serious debate, I genuinely enjoy reading through the old court case archives. Then there’s those who actually get involved with the court, which simply provides people with an alternative to the fight and work buttons. More importantly, most of us like to know that if somebody does something wrong, they will be punished for it, and I’d personally prefer to be judged by a court as opposed to the congress. eCanadian criminal law is basically 2 very simple rules:

1~Every eRepublik player owes, to every other, a duty of honesty and good faith.
2~Breach of the duty of honesty and good faith attract sanctions, determined by the Supreme Court of Canada.

This leaves most up to interpretation, which is the duty of the court. What tends to happen is that older court cases are referenced to determine the precedent that was set. We usually act according to that precedent; even though there’s no legal obligation to do so. Now the precedent for “sanctions” has been to ban the person found guilty from the forums and IRC for a set period of time; though congress eventually allowed for those found guilty by the SC to be allowed on eCanada’s IRC channel.

Personally, I really dislike the idea of exclusion; I’d much rather work on including as many people who are interested in participating in the erepublik experience as possible. There’s certainly a line, but I think Dominik is the only person I’ve seen come close to crossing it. My personal moral compass aside, with the diminishing influence of the forums, coupled with the fact that it’s impossible to completely ban somebody from the group, the ban-hammer just isn’t as effective as people may like to believe. This leaves the SC with symbolic power alone with which to condemn the wicked for their injustices, and as I implied, people don’t typically take the court seriously.

In the early days (I’m talking 2008 here), this appeared to be a fairly decent method of enforcement, people took the court’s authority seriously and in general people behaved appropriately. The first serious legal incident I can recall is that of Dean22, who ended up being banned from http://ecanada.forumotion.com/ . (There’s actually a very long and interesting story behind that, but I won’t get into it here) Then as time went on, people slowly begin to realize that the court doesn’t have any real power. From then on the court has been faced with near constant mockery. That’s basically 3 years of eCan legal history in a nutshell; please understand that there really is much more to it than my puny paragraph.

I said earlier that as my short response to wether or not I think we should even bother with the Supreme Court or not, was simply yes. That really depends on how eCanadians feel about my next question. If we cannot adequately enforce the rules, should we continue trying? We could very easily abandon our attempts at justice, and submit ourselves solely to the laws of erepublik, which theoretically are the only rules that can truly be enforced. Is that naive notion that every eRepublik player owes, to every other, a duty of honesty and good faith worth pursuing? I do believe it is, which is why I also believe that we should have a Supreme Court. That’s a decision I made because it’s just what I feel is right; I don’t think I could explain it rationally. If most people feel otherwise, then by all means, abolish the court.

That being said I also believe that the only court that has the power to enforce any rule which the admins do not, is the court of public opinion. The Supreme Court itself merely provides a great environment in which discussions about justice can take place. My suggestion is simply to rebuild the Supreme Court as something eCanadians can respect. Allow them only the symbolic power of a guilty verdict with which to condemn the wicked for their injustices, and publicize it so that the world will know. In the end, it will ultimately be the collective opinion of the community that determines the consequences of our actions here in erepublik. For something like that to work, the courts would certainly need to be more accessible however, and their presence made stronger.

≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈≠≈

This is about as far as I’ve gotten with tackling the issue, and the most important part, my thoughts on how we ought to proceed, are far from concrete. But I’m tired, and not ready to tackle it right now. With any luck I’ve contributed to the discussion, and perhaps prompted other people to join. I’ll end this with a Jacobi quote. It’s only semi relevant, but the words have always stuck with me for some reason, and just as I finally felt I had some small excuse to publish this article, I also feel I have some justification in reprinting these words from a long forgotten past:

The government I led had a virtue not seen before or since: I made myself public domain. I put my real name and details of my life out there for everyone to see, while being only one of two people with the lion's share of eCanada's cash (the other being my roommate). If there had been a cockup, I wouldn't be able to disappear into the Romanian night, or flee into the internet wilderness. It forced me to be honest with vast sums of money, because John Carpenter had a public reputation to keep, not Jacobi.

We must remember that this is the internet. People do not play by real life rules, and otherwise good human beings (Of which I am sure in real life 1ronman is one) do not necessarily feel compelled to play by the rules. Because it is fake. Because it does not mean as much as it does in the real world. We say this when Addy Lawrence (an otherwise stellar player) hijacked the Ministry of Information in December...or when former Prime Minister JBDivinus did the same less than a month ago. We must proceed critically (not cynically) when it comes to matters and positions of trust. We must not let ourselves be collectively swindled into thinking that every person on here is, and will always be, pinnacles of virtue when they hide behind a pseudonym.