[quote:1qmxheau]However, we have already seen the excuse of "but so much time has gone into it already!" as being, in and of itself, a reason to keep the system indefinitely. [/quote:1qmxheau]
Of course, this cannot, in and of itself, be a reason to keep the system indefinitely. I only raised this argument to say: "Hey, someone with real expertise spent a lot of months and put into a huge amount of effort into this; we all decided he was qualified to do this job; should we not at least try out what he did before junking all that work because what he did has too many articles and pages and requires people who understand legal issues to make it work?"
[quote:1qmxheau]If proponents of the law agree to drop that argument and instead adopt a position of "Try it for 2 months (or whatever) and re-evaluate at that time, with the clear option to radically alter or totally repeal it," then that is a position I could accept.[/quote:1qmxheau]
We have at least two cases pending that could be decided under the new legal system. We will get some initial feedback right away from them. If the feedback is so negative, I am certain that we all will agree to make changes. Let's try it out first, as voted on by the RA, and then argue as to whether we should amend it, radically change it or replace the whole thing.
[quote:1qmxheau] Additionally WHO gets a voice in that process is important - if the system is packed out with newbies who came solely to work in the judiciary, it will clearly influence their perceptions of said system. In other words, if the system draws, say, 10 lawyers who benefit from the system, that makes a big dent in a community of 60 people.[/quote:1qmxheau]
Three issues here:
1. You talked about interests. Let's look at that for a second. In real life, lawyers are stuck in systems they had no contribution in creating. The game is there, the rules are set, all they can do is to learn how to play the game as well as possible. Here, in 2L, they have the chance to be creative. In CDS, they can be present at the very beginning of a legal system, and help shape it, change it, adapt it to 2L requirements - in other words, use their skills to contribute making CDS a fair and stable enviroment for its citizens to pursue all their activities. Now why is this such a bad thing that we must hold it against them? It is certainly not a worse motive than that of those who come in to create in-world merchandise to sell because they have the skills to do so, or those who come in to buy and sell land for profit. Each of these occupations requires a certain set of skills and attracts a certain crowd of people. Why are we picking on lawyers simply because they have the skills to make a legal system work?
2. I, for one, although I have a legal background in 2L, had no intention to be a judge. My interest in joining is entirely different. I head a non-profit organzation in real-life that tries to re-think what it means to be an active citizen in the 21st century in the US, Canada, and Western Europe. I want to establish its virtual headquarters in 2. L to see if my members will be interested to use this innovative environment to interact. I decided to apply simply because I was so appalled at the attempts of some to kill this democratically legitimated system before it even had the chance to prove itself, and were using any means available to ensure no one could be selected as a judge to justify the failure of the system. This is so totally undemocratic and unfair that it violates everything this community stands for. If CDS is to be democratic, and fair, and respect the rule of law, we cannot possibly let such attempts to gut the system before it is even tried out to succeed. That is the only reason I applied. Should I be disqualified to apply simply because I have a legal background? I personlly don't see why.
3. The issue of residency requirements is also important. We do not have at present such a requirement. One of us raised this issue last month, well after the RA ratified the Judicature Act, but it was not picked on for discussion and debate. It only became a hot potato when I applied for judgeship and Ashcroft said that he knows a few people who are ready to also apply, in order to make sure that we could not do so. So, those who support this would argue: "See? No one applied? The system doesn't work. Let's gut it!" Well, of course it doesn't if they come up with new tricks to avoid interested people to apply and make it work! How is that fair - to come up with new rules we all hadn't agreed on in the first place- with the express purpose to make the legal system fail?
Now, if we all think that we need residency requirements for voting, or being elected to public office, or be appointed to judgeships, let's talk about it in a reasoned and reasonable manner. Let the RA vote on it. Let's do this democratically, following the very rules we all gave ourselves. That's fair. Once we all agree on this, the rules will apply from then on - but not backwards, because retroactive legislation is also totally undemocratic and unfair. What's wrong with this -except that it's too time-consuming and involved for those who want to ignore the rules and start all over again right away because they weren't there when the rules were made and they want to play it differently?
[quote:1qmxheau]I might also add that we should say "a majority" opposing at that time rather than "a clear majority" since the latter phrase is open to too much interpretation for this group. Wink In any case, the force needed to alter or repeal it should not be greater than the force needed to enact it (a simple majority).[/quote:1qmxheau]
Even before starting this discussion, I drafted a Clarity Act, which was appreciated even by those opposing the current legal system. It's just a draft. Let's look at it, discuss it, change it, agree to the rules according to which changes to the legal system can be made, have the RA vote on it, and ratify it. If after a few cases go through the system, CDS citizens are so terribly unhappy with it that they want to gut it, they will have a democratically legitimated instrument allowing them to so do. It's just, it's fair, it's democratic, it's legitimate, it respects the rule of law. That's all I ask for: if we are a Confederation of Democratic Simulators, let's stick to doing things in a democratically legitimated way. Is that really so dogmatic, elitist and unreasonable?