SC Procedures

Forum to discuss issues pertaining to the organisation and operations of the judiciary.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

SC Procedures

Post by Beathan »

These are the Constitutional terms that are supposed to govern SC proceedings:

Art III:

Section 6 – Ratification of bills passed by the Representative Assembly

Chairs of the SC will ratify bills passed by the Representative Assembly by simple majority vote and may resubmit the bill with modifications for vote.
The SC shall act as the Court of Common Jurisdiction, with the Dean of the SC appointing Chairs of the SC to hear specific trials, under the Code of Procedure previously passed by the RA, with any appeals heard by the full SC.

Section 7 – Hearings and Trials

Hearings and trials not involving government officials will be overseen by a single Professor. All impeachment hearings will be performed in the Philosophic branch by the Chairs without a jury. If a Chair is accused, that Chair will be excused for the duration of the hearing. A member of the branch which is not calling for the impeachment hearing will serve as Leader of the Philosophic branch during the hearing.

Note -- I don't know why the second sentence in 6 is not the first sentence in 7, as it probably should be.

The upshot -- other than impeachment proceedings, trials and hearings on Petitions are supposed to be tried to a single member of the SC. Then an appeal is supposed to be provided by requesting all members of the SC to consider the matter. The SC has been failing to follow this procedure and has instead truncated the trial and appeal process, with the result of denying any right of appeal.

The exception here is to impeachment (although the Constitution says "trials ... involving government officials" -- I believe that should be limited to matters of impeachment not merely matters involving the testing of the Constitutionality of some government action). In such case, the SC acts as a body and there is no appeal.

I note that the current SC procedures are incompatible with these Constitutional provisions and I call on the SC to revise its procedures such that they comply with the Constitution.

If not, I note that the Constitution provides that trials are to be conducted by the "Code of Procedure Previously passed by the RA". I interpret that as giving the RA authority to pass legislation governing the SC procedure, by amending or reinstating the previous statutes if in no other way. If the SC does not act, I expect the RA to do so, and will make that a legislative priority this term.

The relevant statute is NL 5-15, which, at section 6, provides the following procedure:

The Code of Procedure issued on December 5, 2006 is hereby replaced with the following:

Rule 1 - Initiating notecard

A case is be initiated by submitting a notecard containing (1) name of the Complainant, (2) name of the Respondent(s), and (3) a short and simple statement of the facts of the case. The notecard shall be dropped into the inventory of the Chair of the Judiciary Commission, who shall within 24 hours send the notecard and IM notice of the submission of the notecard to each defendant(s), and the Chair shall maintain a record of having done so.

Rule 2 - Reply notecard

A Respondent shall reply to the initiating notecard within ten days by submitting a reply notecard containing a short and simple statement of the facts of the case. The reply notecard shall be dropped into the inventory of the Chair of the Judiciary Commission, who shall within 24 hours send the notecard and IM notice of the submission of the notecard to the Complainant, and the Chair shall maintain a record of having done so.

Rule 3 - Pretrial hearing

Within ten days of service of the Rule 2 notecard on the Complainant(s), the court shall convene a meeting of the parties (either at the same time in world, via IM, or via email) to discuss any procedures required for handling the case. The parties may agree on a pretrial order setting forth the procedures and timetable by which the case will be handled, including any trial procedures. In the event that no agreement is reached, the court may issue a pretrial order.

Rule 4 - No costs, attorneys fees or other expenses

There shall be no court costs or attorneys fees assessed against any party, and all parties shall bear their own expenses, unless a contract between the parties or an Act passed by the RA provides otherwise.

Rule 5 - Judgments

The court may enter judgment following trial, or upon motion by a party as long as all parties have been given an opportunity to be heard on the motion. The court may enter judgment by default if a party fails to participate at any stage, so long as the party is given notice via notecard providing for at least ten days to show cause why default judgment should not be entered.

I note that NL 5-19 anticipated that the RA, in consultation with the SC and citizens, would consider revising the Code of Procedure. However, I see no subsequent statute doing so. Therefore, I think that the RA has retained its authority to revise the procedure, even if it did not have that inherent authority as the lawmaking body of the CDS.

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
josjoha
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:03 pm
Contact:

Re: SC Procedures

Post by josjoha »

Hi Beathan,

Besides harmonizing section 6 & 7, I propose that it is not the whole SC that judges an appeal, but that the judges that sat on the case the appeal is about are not part of the appeal court. This is an obvious issue of not having the power to judge your own case. Speaking of which: the Dean can not have a role in the elections because later the SC is judging over the elections, another problem of judging your own case.
-> Dean must be removed from role in elections.
-> The "whole SC" in appeal cases should read "the remainder of the SC" (for example).

Is it necessary that there is so complex a code for trials outside the Constitution ? I'm reading a bit about this notecard business rules. I think this is more complicated then it needs to be ? Might it be possible, for example, to reduce all the petition/notecard stuff to "go to the court, click on prim XYZ to get the notecard form, fill it out as best you can, and if you do not hear back from the court that your notecard has been received within X days, then you should ask assistence from someone, for example someone in the RA, the Chancelor, approach the court judges personally." ? Then you can do the rest in the form, keeps the law simple and makes it easier for ppl to file as they see what they are to put in at the form already. One entry could read "your name: ................ about whom is the complaigned, or which body: ............. category or problem in 10 words: .................. summary of issue in 300 words: .................. evidence you wish to submit: ......................... otherwise to be added: ..........................."

A key thing is how easy the Courts are to reach by the people. I think I could fill in such a form, but I didn't even know there was a judiciary commission, much less who is its chair. I guess I could ask, but if the CDS has a court-house and a clear sign "click here to get a form to file a case" that would be more apparent. By the way the fact that the chair has to respond in 24 hours seems to be a big question on them, lots of people don't even log in that often. Maybe it would be more ideal if a court case filed immediately reaches several people out of the submission box-prim, preventing it from being lost (people go on vacation for example).

best regards,
josjoha

P.S. In http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... =15#p18776 the problem of section 6 & 7 is also mentioned, with some other problems in that area of the Constitution. It seems we agree on this too Beathan, like on the issue that only the People can change the Constitution and that the SC must be elected somehow by the people. Maybe we can get together sometime in the CDS and debate how the Constitution could be improved in detail on these points that we agree ?

Last edited by josjoha on Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
www.law4.org Constitution & Revolution, live happy ever after ...
User avatar
Delia Lake
Dean of the SC
Dean of the SC
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:12 pm
Contact:

Re: SC Proccedures

Post by Delia Lake »

jos, I like your idea of having a standard form that people can fill out, a simple standard form. It would be easier for everyone, imo. I'd also add the request that people who are petitioning the SC copy this form onto a new notecard, fill out their information including the date and location of any incident if applicable, and make their own petition notecard "no modify" before passing it to a member of the SC.

We could even have an "official" deposit box where people could drop in their completed notecard petitions. This is just a thought.

Any suggestions from other citizens as to a petition form and what it should include?

If other people like this as well, we can try it out. I'd put out the form for people to use along side other SC documents in the chamber behind the hearing room on the ground floor of the Praetorium.

Delia

Callipygian
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: SC Proccedures

Post by Callipygian »

Delia Lake wrote:

jos, I like your idea of having a standard form that people can fill out, a simple standard form. It would be easier for everyone, imo. I'd also add the request that people who are petitioning the SC copy this form onto a new notecard, fill out their information including the date and location of any incident if applicable, and make their own petition notecard "no modify" before passing it to a member of the SC.

We could even have an "official" deposit box where people could drop in their completed notecard petitions. This is just a thought.

Any suggestions from other citizens as to a petition form and what it should include?

If other people like this as well, we can try it out. I'd put out the form for people to use along side other SC documents in the chamber behind the hearing room on the ground floor of the Praetorium.

Delia

Jos, I agree with your suggestion and with Delia's also. I'd even suggest expanding it out to include other branches, which may not need a standard form, but could still have a 'mailbox' set up a in the Platz - easy, visible channel of communication to all areas of government and administration, original 'files' to assist those in public service to keep track of what they have on their plate, and probably scriptable to keep a log of time and date of submissions. It might address a number of concerns that have surfaced and resurfaced in the last few months.

Calli

People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote -- a very different thing.

Walter H. Judd
User avatar
Delia Lake
Dean of the SC
Dean of the SC
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:12 pm
Contact:

Re: SC Proccedures

Post by Delia Lake »

Regarding CDS elections, I also would like for the SC not to be managers of any part of the election. The SC is properly the body to address disputes and challenges regarding elections but not to manage them. When the rules regarding campaigning were changed, the proposed amendment and law assigned the management of campaigning to the SC as well. The SC challenged that campaign management was not by any stretch within the purview of this body and the SC was removed that part of the law. Changing the Constitution to remove election management from the SC and assign the management elsewhere is something for the RA to do though as the SC cannot and should not legislate.

If the SC is not to have any function in managing the elections, and I personally believe that it should not, then who should do it? Imo, whatever group should consist of people who are not themselves running for any office in that election. Perhaps an election commission made up of citizens pledged to neutrality during the election cycle when they serve, and set up not later than half way through the RA term of office so that election processes are not pulled together or publicized at the last minute?

Delia

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: SC Proccedures

Post by Beathan »

Yes!

These are very good ideas moving the discussion in the right direction. This gives me real hope that we can actually work together to resolve and improve our current Petition process and the functioning of the SC in general.

Standardized forms are a good idea, but they have to allow for idiosyncratic variation of the case. Having the trial professor sit out the appeal is also a good idea.

I'm less warm on having an even less defined procedure than we have now. The five part procedure set out in the statute is already very simple and clear. Less than that would, I think, be less clear and therefore would be likely to be less simple and probably less fair. (I think that the procedure the SC is current following has this defect.) The key is that the SC has to implement and follow the procedure.

I also agree that the SC's role in elections should be judicial oversight as needed, not management. If the SC manages the election, then it would be placed in the impossible position of having to give itself judicial oversight. I would propose making the setting up and management of elections a pure and defined Chancellor function, which would allow the Chancellor to delegate that task to one or more people through the Chancellor's delegation power.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Delia Lake
Dean of the SC
Dean of the SC
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:12 pm
Contact:

Re: SC Procedures

Post by Delia Lake »

If the management of elections is given to the Chancellor, would that be appropriate and in the best interests of the citizenry if that Chancellor is running for re-election in a hotly contested race?

User avatar
Trebor Warcliffe
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:26 am

Re: SC Procedures

Post by Trebor Warcliffe »

Delia and Beathan,

I am not one to usually contribute to judiciary discussions but since we’re talking about elections I feel I can make a legitimate contribution to the discussion. Here are my thoughts on why I feel the task of managing the elections should reside with the Scientific Council.

Management of the elections needs to be performed by a neutral party. Considering that SC members can’t stand for election for RA or Chancellor I feel that they truly are the only neutral party that can perform this duty in an unbiased manner.

Election management should include an official forum and group notice announcement one month before the deadline for citizenship. This announcement makes note of the dates for citizenship, declaration of candidates, start of the campaign season and opening and closing of the polls. This post can only be made by a member of the SC, preferably the Dean.

The SC is responsible for obtaining the citizen list from the Treasurer along with verifying all is correct. A suggestion would be to post the citizen list on the forums that way if a citizen notices a problem it can be brought to the SC’s attention.

Even though campaigning is a two week event, most of the campaigning is done the first week because the opening of the polls starts on the second week. The SC would be responsible for setting up campaign signage in-world, the scheduling of debates for the RA and the Chancellor, and the Meet the Candidate events.

A suggestion for the debate would be for each candidate to have one to three standard questions that are the same for each candidate. These questions would be given to the candidate in advance. Also citizens would be encouraged to submit to the SC one or two questions to be asked of any of the candidates specifically. These questions wouldn’t be revealed until they were asked at the debate.

The debates and the Meet the Candidate events should be held in publicly owned areas and put on by the SC. These are question and answer sessions for the candidates and the citizens.

The SC would also be responsible for setting up the voting booths and all administrative duties that go with it. I understand that the SC is properly the body to address disputes and challenges regarding elections but I have to ask wouldn’t these disputes and challenges not exist if the management of the elections went with the addressing?

Leaving the management of the elections to the RA or the Chancellor is a recipe for disaster in my opinion. Either of these could be running for office in the same election they’re in charge of, clearly a conflict of interest. Even if you task RA members who are ineligible to stand for re-election you still have a conflict of interest in they’ve worked directly with other RA members who may be standing for office again. Having the Chancellor assign a group of citizens can also lead to accusations of conflict of interest due to ideas of the good ole’ boy network. I truly feel that the SC is the only neutral party that can be tasked with this duty.

Thank you,
Trebor Warcliffe

Let us move away from all of the "us" and "them" and turn our attention to "we."
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: SC Procedures

Post by Beathan »

Delia Lake wrote:

If the management of elections is given to the Chancellor, would that be appropriate and in the best interests of the citizenry if that Chancellor is running for re-election in a hotly contested race?

Yes, if we have full and proper SC oversight. In real life elections, election management is given to elected officials who are running for re-election in almost all cases. There are rarely problems because of the reality of legal action to check and reverse any manipulation of the election by the responsible officer.

I also don't like the idea of having elections managed by unelected individuals who are therefore not accountable to or selected by the voters. The voters are the primary interested parties in an election -- and I think they should have the choice about who will guide the elections and protect their interest. I think that the real danger of manipulation is not by an elected officer, standing for re-election or not, but by an unelected self-selected group of people who step in to "manage the election" but actually "guide the result." That is the normal pattern of oligarchic governments that hide behind fictitious democratic processes.

If people are too concerned about involvement in election, I would propose two fixes: 1. have the Chancellor run the election, but limit the Chancellor to one term and prohibit the Chancellor from running for any elected office in the term following their Chancellorship (if that seems onerous, we can create the position of "vice-chancellor" and have that position filled by the previous term's Chancellor rather than by delegation -- I have seen that work well in rl nonprofits); 2. create a new position -- I'd call it "Secretary of State" or "Chamberlain" -- which has the above restrictions on terms and subsequent election but which is specifically charged with running the election (perhaps along with some other duties), creating something like a split executive.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Sudane Erato
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: SC Proccedures

Post by Sudane Erato »

Callipygian wrote:

I'd even suggest expanding it out to include other branches, which may not need a standard form, but could still have a 'mailbox' set up a in the Platz - easy, visible channel of communication to all areas of government and administration, original 'files' to assist those in public service to keep track of what they have on their plate, and probably scriptable to keep a log of time and date of submissions. It might address a number of concerns that have surfaced and resurfaced in the last few months.

Yes... very good idea. It should definitely be scripted to create a log indicating time and date submitted.

In the recent run-up to the elections, several claims were made that I was sent notecards relating to parcel-related requests. To my knowledge, I did not receive these, and even if I had, I would have no idea when they were sent, since our clean and efficient SL servers often take days to deliver things... again... with no record. Since some of these requests dealt with matters having legal significance (over qualifying voters for the election), having no such log effectively rendered the administration of these rules useless.

If we are going to continue to rely on the transfer of notecards to administer various aspects of our legal system, the installation of such a device is essential.

Sudane.....................................

*** Confirmed Grump ***
Profile: http://bit.ly/p9ASqg
Rose Springvale
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1074
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:29 am

Re: SC Procedures

Post by Rose Springvale »

In my term as LRA, we discussed an Election Council, (as opposed to a commission which is a group appointed by the RA from term to term) but there were other matters that were more pressing so this one was set aside. Things that did become clear were the need for independence, and the desire of the SC to separate itself from the process of direct involvement of the election process.

Independence is necessary to keep the appearance of impropriety in check. It won't ever look right for people actually running for office to govern elections. Voting for this commission also seems wrong... they need to be out of the fray of public opinion.

So what we need are trusted members of the community who are not sitting in current political roles and who are not being "elected" for anything.

Historically, many of our hightest officers who term out, retire or are not re elected either fade away or are bumped on to the SC. What if instead we move our retired LRA's and Chancellors to an Election commission? I'd recommend three people, as this seems to be the most who can effectively work together on the short deadlines an election requires. The composition would be the three most recent LRA/Chancellor combination as are available. Available would be defined as 1. not running for office, 2. Not sitting in another elected or appointed governmental capacity ... and i'd disqualify the exec team of treasurer, pio, and assistants here... the point being no outward appearance of favoritism, and 3. Willingness to serve.

This gives those retiring people a transitional role that values both their time and service, carries with it the choice of the citizens as each of these positions would have been elected at one point or another, and stabilizes elections by using people who are actually involved and care about the community.

For this term, had we had such a council, the potential members for this election would have been Arria, as retiring LRA, Tor, as retiring chancellor, and Lilith, retired LRA from the prior term. Since Tor was running for office, he would be disqualified, and the next potential member would then have been Sonja, as prior chancellor. Arria was not running for elected office, and would have been eligible, at least until her Chancellor candidate was elected and she took an appointed Deputy Chancellorship (which means for this election she could have served, but not for the next election).

Also, since many of these people have now been nominated for SC positions, it woudl make sense if the SC didn't make appointments until after the election, so as not to disqualify members. Members could then choose if they'd rather stay on the Election Council, or move into SC or whatever. The Council would rotate as new members become eligible: when a new LRA or Chancellor "retires" from that job, the rotate onto the Election council, and the oldest termed member rotates off.

By defining the roles rather than "choosing" the personalities, we can de-politicize election processes, add important responsibilities to proven volunteers and have a clear route for the conduct of debates, information sessions, date setting and vote counting.

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: SC Procedures

Post by Beathan »

Rose Springvale wrote:

In my term as LRA, we discussed an Election Council, (as opposed to a commission which is a group appointed by the RA from term to term) but there were other matters that were more pressing so this one was set aside. Things that did become clear were the need for independence, and the desire of the SC to separate itself from the process of direct involvement of the election process.

Independence is necessary to keep the appearance of impropriety in check. It won't ever look right for people actually running for office to govern elections. Voting for this commission also seems wrong... they need to be out of the fray of public opinion.

So what we need are trusted members of the community who are not sitting in current political roles and who are not being "elected" for anything.

Historically, many of our hightest officers who term out, retire or are not re elected either fade away or are bumped on to the SC. What if instead we move our retired LRA's and Chancellors to an Election commission? I'd recommend three people, as this seems to be the most who can effectively work together on the short deadlines an election requires. The composition would be the three most recent LRA/Chancellor combination as are available. Available would be defined as 1. not running for office, 2. Not sitting in another elected or appointed governmental capacity ... and i'd disqualify the exec team of treasurer, pio, and assistants here... the point being no outward appearance of favoritism, and 3. Willingness to serve.

This gives those retiring people a transitional role that values both their time and service, carries with it the choice of the citizens as each of these positions would have been elected at one point or another, and stabilizes elections by using people who are actually involved and care about the community.

For this term, had we had such a council, the potential members for this election would have been Arria, as retiring LRA, Tor, as retiring chancellor, and Lilith, retired LRA from the prior term. Since Tor was running for office, he would be disqualified, and the next potential member would then have been Sonja, as prior chancellor. Arria was not running for elected office, and would have been eligible, at least until her Chancellor candidate was elected and she took an appointed Deputy Chancellorship (which means for this election she could have served, but not for the next election).

Also, since many of these people have now been nominated for SC positions, it woudl make sense if the SC didn't make appointments until after the election, so as not to disqualify members. Members could then choose if they'd rather stay on the Election Council, or move into SC or whatever. The Council would rotate as new members become eligible: when a new LRA or Chancellor "retires" from that job, the rotate onto the Election council, and the oldest termed member rotates off.

By defining the roles rather than "choosing" the personalities, we can de-politicize election processes, add important responsibilities to proven volunteers and have a clear route for the conduct of debates, information sessions, date setting and vote counting.

Rose,

I think this is an excellent idea and is probably the best starting point plan for substantive discussion on the election management reform issue (at least of all the issues raised so far, including mine).

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
josjoha
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:03 pm
Contact:

Re: SC Procedures

Post by josjoha »

Hi,

Rose' idea with the 'retired guard' to be a choice for the election process seems to be the best one, better then using the Chancelor. This law should have a fall-back committee in case there is nobody (maybe if there is one who fits the bill, he/she is allowed to choose the others, and/or appointed by the RA ?). Making a new body for this (although I suggested one elsewhere: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 611#p18812 down at article Z) is too much work ? It's election is then another issue, it might be a fun event with hand-raising though (if that is the least ambiguous for & by the people way to get a mandate.) Combination: retired people welcomed to go stand for such election but others too, and then the people vote by raising hands, establishing the next election committee of 3 ?

Procedure idea:
- The existing election committee sets the date for its own re-election (can be appealed in the SC, also in case of non-action, the SC could even go as far as order the date by court ruling if the EC is faulty.)
- The existing election committee maintains the list of who all is retired as Rose suggested (in the area mentioned for candidates/voters mentioned below for example) and has not asked to be removed from this list.
- The existing election committee sends invitations to these retired people (who are not candidates), asking them to help with the elections.
- The election committee election event could be in NFS, considering the RA building is in the Roman area.
- Each retired person is proposed to the people who are there first, and the crowd (if any) their votes (including those of the EC candidates + old election committee, are counted (in case nobody shows up, at least some votes to count).
- Then it is asked who else wants to stand for this election committee ... and anyone else except the RA and Chancelor candidates can put themselves forward.
- Everyone who gets more then half of the votes of the people there is automatically in the committee (hence it can become a large committee, but of willing people so this should be good no ?). Every person there can vote yes or no/abstain for every EC candidate again.
- If there are less then 3 persons who get more then half of the votes, the committee is filled in with the people who got the most votes. When there are 2 or more persons who have the same amount of votes they all get in (example: 10 people show up, only one person gets 6 votes, then there is three persons with 3 votes, and two with 2 votes: the EC will then be that person with 6 votes, and all three with 3 votes, a four person committee - eeks then there is the trouble of a tied vote.) If there is still fewer then 3, they will have to make due with fewer members; naturally they could still ask people to help them.
- The EC rules by its majority vote, the vote and deliberations are always public and held on the NFS square out in the open (yay !).
- If the EC has a tied vote, we organize a horse race down Alpine meadow to the RA, the Chancelor will referee the race ;). (lol) The refereeing can then be appealed in the SC ! (hehe)

There is another source that can be used to run the elections: the people themselves (as suggested before). You set up 'something' in SL where people who want to run for office can do so in the face of the public. You can also set up 'something' in public where is stated who is on the voter-rolls. Example: there is a small parcel set aside where everyone who decides they want to run can rezz a cube on, with a sign saying "who rezzes a cube here declares that he/she would like to run for RA". Then that becomes a public matter, is transparent. There can then be an event where "tatataaaa ! trumpets blazing, drums rolling ...." everyone has the last chance to rezz the cube. After that the committee Rose mentioned can set to work using that public data. Court cases can have been completed about who is on these lists before the election starts.

For the voters you could make a hover-text cube somewhere which lists the names of all voters eligible for the next election all the time. The voters themselves then get a measure of responsibility in making sure their name is where it should be. Technical problem is that it is tied to the tier payments ... maybe the law can be reworked so that people who are 2 tiers behind drop from the roll, rather then only 1 tier ? That would make the system more robust, you don't drop from the rolls that easily, you can see it coming (by being behind one month), and it reduces the stress on the maintenance. It may be a good system logically, but if it means a lot of maintenance then it's not good.

Mailbox: A related thing of pulling information towards the general public: the mail-box of the SC also pings back something in the hover-text like "message received from John Resident" so that who has made a message to the SC also becomes public ? I doubt this is an infringement of privacy as the court case won't be private either ? To make it stronger you could make it so that all the filings to the court can be gotten out of the mailbox by anyone, or alternatively that there is one private mailbox and one public mailbox ? People can then march to the court, drop a petition in the court public mailbox, and triumphantly challenge those gathered to verify by emptying the public court mailbox in their inventory :). People who want to file more private cases (maybe citizen vs citizen disputes that are not for all to see ??), use the private mailbox ? (Is the simplification system now becoming pretty complex again ... hehe).

Location of the (high) court: Is it an idea to relocate the (high) court somewhere central in Alpine Meadow ? Currently it is directly under the political struggle of the RA. Maybe it can add to the calm & collected atmosphere that perhaps should surround a (high) court, that it is in a more neutral place (between the two villages?), and is a building of some grandeur ? Big pillars, designed to make people feel meek & humble ?

Secondly I propose that if the SC location is reworked, that there would be several chambers in it, with the appropriate number of seats and arrangement. For example a citizen vs citizen case could have two pleading benches with 2 chairs (one for an "attorney" or direct helper), three seats or one seat central and higher for the judge(s) (this is like a throne isn't it), and a public sitting area. Then there could be another chamber that is for an appeal, and it could have a wide bench that can accommodate all judges, and one pleading stand (i guess). The idea is that if all that's needed to have a correct case is to find the right door in the court house (SC), then by way of the available seats and arrangement it will go right automatically ! Maybe this already exists, then I'm sorry for wasting your time.

The SC could also post their next court sitting to hear cases and which ones would be heard, in-world (maybe by hover text), near/on the court house.

best regards,
josjoha

www.law4.org Constitution & Revolution, live happy ever after ...
Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”