Does the UDHR apply to the CDS?

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

Moderator: SC Moderators

Flyingroc Chung
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 2:55 pm
Contact:

Post by Flyingroc Chung »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2jqcx0a7]
Beathan, it is doubtful that anybody sane would ever attempt to contribute any effort to any such project.[/quote:2jqcx0a7]

Ash, would *you* contribute your effort to such a project?

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Flyingroc Chung":2mv0ojtm]Ash, would *you* contribute your effort to such a project?[/quote:2mv0ojtm]

No, of course not, not after the irrational contempt that people have shown for the enormous amount of work that I have put into the CDS so far, attracting more citizens than any other project except for Colonia Nova, and more media coverage than anything else at all, and still people make criticisms of both the system that I helped to design and of me personally that they are not willing to substantiate with real reasons or have fully scrutinised.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Gwyn --

Actually, while my "except the judiciary" speach was intended to be rhetorically incendiary (as is my idiom), it was also meant to also be constructive. If we just remove the refrain, "except the judiciary" -- I think we get close to a starting list of principles that can and should guide any attempt we make at reforming the Constitution or drafting a new Constitution. That said, I think it the idea of having a Constitutional convention will be a popular one.

However, I also note that the American founding father I most closely resemble, John Adams, was sent out of the country (as ambassador to England) before the U.S. Constitutional Convention finally got underway. Jefferson -- his most heated adversary at that stage in American politics -- was also sent abroad (as ambassador to France). The Constitutional Convention might have been a very different and (sadly) less productive affair if Adams and Jefferson -- with their penchant for incendiary rhetoric -- were involved. With this in mind, I will try to keep any role I have in a Constitutional discussion constructive.

I tend to attack and seek to destroy things I see as dangerous institutions or ideologies. However, I am not merely a litigator. I have a good transactional practice as well -- so I can negotiate and compromise. I look forward to the transformation of this debate to a constructive discussion based on sound and shared principles.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Pelanor Eldrich
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:07 am

It'll take me a while to digest this...

Post by Pelanor Eldrich »

Could we agree that a starting point would be Rudy Ruml's constitutional convention with non-binding amendments sent to the RA?

Gywn: I fully understand and respect what you're saying, but it's a lot to digest 15 days before an election. Are we also to understand that this is the current CSDF constitutional position? I recognize that something like this far transcends politics.

BTW I'm not exactly a newbie here myself, having served nearly a year in the RA. I don't (sometimes to the chagrin of my faction mates) like to alter the constitution, and I do *try* to accommodate.

A complete rewrite is an incredible leap of faith to take Gywn. Are you not worried that it might quash VW self-gov't once and for all if it fails or we fractionate again? Is our experiment's lack of success such that we're collectively ready to roll the dice on this?

Let's give this some real serious thought before we commit to it as a community. Thanks! -Pel

Pelanor Eldrich
Principal - Eldrich Financial
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Proposed Constitutional Amendments and Convention

Post by michelmanen »

Any fundamental change in the manner the CDS is governed cannot be decided upon by any one individual or institution. It is up to a clear majority of all CDS citizens entitled to vote that such a decision belongs.

Until and unless legislation regulating the manner in which such consultations are to be conducted is actually proposed, fully debated, and duly ratified in accordance with our exisiting constitution, any attempt to drastically modify and / or suspend our Constituti0n will be null and void and of no legal effect.

CARE will include, in its January 2007 platform, a commitment to adopt exactly such legislation and lead the way towards a more open, inclusive, accountable, effcient, participative and democratic system of government in which all citizens will have their voices heard and their priorities acted upon - and not just the 10 or 15 most vocal individuals who post regularly on the forums and participate in in-world meetings.

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

Post by Beathan »

Michel --

You write [quote:350e0g4e]Any fundamental change in the manner the CDS is governed cannot be decided upon by any one individual or institution. It is up to a clear majority of all CDS citizens entitled to vote that such a decision belongs.

Until and unless legislation regulating the manner in which such consultations are to be conducted is actually proposed, fully debated, and duly ratified in accordance with our exisiting constitution, any attempt to drastically modify and / or suspend our Constituti0n will be null and void and of no legal effect. [/quote:350e0g4e]

I will agree to your principles provided that we apply them to the Judiciary Act itself. In such case, the Judiciary Act would not have any effect until it has been submitted to the citizens in a referendum and approved by them. If you will join me in making this proposal, I will welcome your involvement.

After all, the Judiciary Act was iself a fundamental change in the manner in which the CDS is governed. (Even more than the change now proposed -- as the Judiciary Act has not actually been implemented, so it has no real effect on how the CDS is governed). It was passed by act of the RA -- not by referendum. If the RA cannot repeal the JA without referendum, because such repeal would be "null and void and of no legal effect" without popular endorsement by referendum -- then the JA itself, on your logic, should be null and void without such referendum endorsement.

I would accept this proposal of submitting the alternatives to the citizenry by referendum, suspending the JA in the meantime. If we can find common ground on this process proposal, we can go a long way towards healing the wounds inflicted in the current debate. However, if we can't, I am sure that the readers of these forums will see through your claim, realizing that it is what I think it probably is -- a cynical attempt to strip legislative power from the RA after the RA has enacted legislation you favor in an effort to forever protect that legislation from change or repeal.

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:56 am, edited 4 times in total.
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Proposed Constitutional Amendments and Convention

Post by michelmanen »

Beathan,

Should the Bill we will propose on this subject be debated, voted upon and adopted, we will have in place the necessary legislation allowing us to modify, amend, suspend or redraft our Constitution or any CDS law (including the Judiciary Act) in accordance with specific procedures, democratic principles and the rule of law.

MM

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

Post by Beathan »

Michel --

You write [quote:2za2c3yk]Should the Bill we will propose on this subject be debated, voted upon and adopted, we will have in place the necessary legislation allowing us to modify, amend, suspend or redraft our Constitution or any CDS law (including the Judiciary Act) in accordance with specific procedures, democratic principles and the rule of law. [/quote:2za2c3yk]

We already have such procedures, and longstanding procedures, in place. The RA has done this job, and done this job admirably, for several years. I fail to see why first Ash, and now you, think that you can come into the CDS and radically transform the community and Constitutional structure. I, as a fellow newcomer, believe that I must come to know this community, and see it work or fail to work, before I feel qualified to propose the kind of substantive changes you and Ash advocate so strongly.

I note that the "changes" I propose are not at all radical. Rather, reading over the debate concerning Ash's proposal and the Constitutional language creating the institutions that pre-existed it, and watching the judiciary come into being, I realized that in giving up the devil we knew (in the SC) we were taking on an even worse devil we didn't (in the Judiciary Act). I added my voice to the opposition to the Act -- an opposition that had largely been yelled into submission (mostly unfairly) by Ash's claims of professional insight (claims I could meet and refute) and the overwhelming volume of his posts (which I could not approximate, except in substance, which was fortunately sufficient).

Even working for the Simplicity Party, I have been circumspect and well-aware of my limitations as a relatively recent immigrant. I truly believe that if Ash had shown such restraint, we would not be in the crisis we are in -- and both he and the community would not feel set upon as we do. I request that, rather than proposing radical and unnecessary reform of the way legislation is passed in the CDS (which is perhaps the part of the CDS Constitutional structure that is the least in need of attention and reform), you give the CDS a chance to work as it has worked before your arrival, and pass judgment on it only after seeing it in action.

The track record of the RA -- which is an exceptional track record -- should count for something. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Proposed Constitutional Amendments and Convention

Post by michelmanen »

Beathan,

I wrote:

[quote:16sxcbzl]CARE will include, in its January 2007 platform, a commitment to adopt exactly such legislation and lead the way towards a more open, inclusive, accountable, effcient, participative and democratic system of government in which all citizens will have their voices heard and their priorities acted upon - and not just the 10 or 15 most vocal individuals who post regularly on the forums and participate in in-world meetings.[/quote:16sxcbzl]

Exactly which part of this statement do you object to?

MM

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

Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendments and Convention

Post by Beathan »

[quote="michelmanen":2df4l5jj]Beathan,

I wrote:

[quote:2df4l5jj]CARE will include, in its January 2007 platform, a commitment to adopt exactly such legislation and lead the way towards a more open, inclusive, accountable, effcient, participative and democratic system of government in which all citizens will have their voices heard and their priorities acted upon - and not just the 10 or 15 most vocal individuals who post regularly on the forums and participate in in-world meetings.[/quote:2df4l5jj]

Exactly which part of this statement do you object to?

MM[/quote:2df4l5jj]

The need. Again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We have seen in the Judiciary Act just what mess we can get in by "fixing" things that don't need fixing.

I also object to the empty platitudes of CARE. CARE is a single issue party -- based on an agenda limited to "Save the Judiciary Act" -- but tries to pretend to a broader purpose. Like most such pretenders, you fall back on empty rhetoric about "Rights" and Equality" and "Open, accountable, and inclusive government." These are critically important issues of substance, but treating them as vacuous soundbites undermines them and show you and CARE to be opportunistic and hypocritical.

An inclusive and egalitaritian government avoids elitistic institutions like Ash's judiciary. A government that respects rights does not reject or undermine the UDHR as the Judiciary Act has done. An open and accountable government recognizes its mistakes and acts to fix them -- as this government has done by recognizing the mistake it made when passing the Judiciary Act and by acting to solve that problem.

I object to your misappropriating the principles and moral commitments of those who oppose your project, claiming them, dishonestly and cynically, as your own. I trust that the CDS -- starting with those citizens you have misled into CARE with your empty rhetoric -- will see through your tactics. Such rhetoric -- and the political tactics that employ it -- is specious and hypocritical. There is nothing about CARE that supports either "Rights" or "Equality".

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:01 am, edited 8 times in total.
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Proposed Constitutional Amendments and Convention

Post by michelmanen »

Beathan,

I will only address the substance of your post.

We stand for greater citizen participation in the democratic political process. We stand for openness, efficiency, professionalism- and above all, on-going accountability from our institutions on a regular basis, and not just only every six months, at election time. Would you say there is no need for this for the CDS, given the following statistics?

Diderot wrote:

[quote:3aq3jzhj]This week's statistics look like this:
1) Ashcroft Burnham - 1030 posts = 21.61% = 6.78 per day
2) Beathan - 416 posts = 8.73% = 6.40 per day
3) Claude Desmoulins - 318 posts = 6.67% = 1.43 per day
4) Patroklus Murakami - 310 posts = 6.50% = 1.45 per day
5) Aliasi Stonebender - 289 posts = 6.06% = 1.31 per day
6) Diderot Mirabeau - 274 posts = 5.75% = 1.27 per day
7) Gwyneth Llewelyn - 238 posts = 4.99% = 1.07 per day
Cool Pelanor Eldrich - 159 posts - 3.34% = 0.72 per day
9) Justice Soothsayer - 154 posts = 3.23% = 0.73 per day
10) Gxeremio Dimsum - 143 posts = 3% = 0.77 per day

The distribution of posts between posters maintain the pattern that we have seen in the last handful of updates: Over 21% of all posts by the top-1; 50% of all posts by the top-5; and almost 70% of all posts written by the top-10. [/quote:3aq3jzhj]

I also find it very interesting that you can label 25 per cent of the CDS population in the manner you do above.

But your tactics aren't important... we'll let the citizens decide.

MM

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Proposed Constitutional Amendments and Convention

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

[quote="michelmanen":2imn4f0j]I also find it very interesting that you can label 25 per cent of the CDS population in the manner you do above.[/quote:2imn4f0j]
Actually I have spoken to a few of the people that are in the CARE group which gave me the impression they had no idea that by being a member of the group they were also implicitly joining the faction. Was there maybe something you neglected to tell them during your canvassing?
[quote="The Constitution, Article IV, Section 2":2imn4f0j]
All faction members must be Neualtenburg citizens and must join a special SL group created for the sole purpose of running for seats in the RA. No citizen is required to be part of a faction and cannot be a member of more than one faction at the same time.[/quote:2imn4f0j]

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

CARE Recruitment Drive

Post by michelmanen »

I have spent anywhere between 30 minutes and two hours with each individual who joined, explaining to each of them that:

1. we will have elections to the RA in the CDS this month (many did not know that);

2. CARE is a new faction formed recently to put forth a new, dynamic, citizen-oriented view of our community and field candidates for the RA;

3. we would soon hold our inaugural meeting to discuss and approve our election manifesto and policy program;

4. we would like him/her to join our group and helps us shape our program with their insights and experience;

5. offered them a membership in our faction, which they were free to accept or not (maybe said they were interested but preferred to wait until they saw our draft Manifesto and Policy Platform and attended our inaugurl meeting), and specified that if they decided later on to change their minds they could leave at any time and vote for whichever faction they wished;

6. told them I would let them know when and where our meeting would be held.

The goal here was to start a proactive information and recruitment drive and get as a many citizens as possible involved from the very beginning in shaping and developing our Manifesto and Policies rather than having 5 individuals coming up with a blueprint of what their vision was and then trying to sell it to the electorate.

If you think i should have spent more time with each person or neglected to tell them something, I'd appreciate your input.

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Re: CARE Recruitment Drive

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

[quote="michelmanen":17o1e69y]The goal here was to start a proactive information and recruitment drive and get as a many citizens as possible involved from the very beginning in shaping and developing our Manifesto and Policies rather than having 5 individuals coming up with a blueprint of what their vision was and then trying to sell it to the electorate.[/quote:17o1e69y]
Good footwork. I would have liked to do the same but was deterred from it by reading the following passage of the Constitution, which you have clearly interpreted differently:
[quote="The Constitution, Article IV, Section 4 - Campaigning (my emphasis added)":17o1e69y]Campaigning for factions can be done in-world only by means of unscripted items that are placed in a predetermined central location or by discourse between two avatars directly. [b:17o1e69y]No spamming of any kind is allowed[/b:17o1e69y], including the dropping of items on avatars without permission, sending messages by group IM, or by shouting messages to large groups. Only two emails are allowed in a given election by any faction or representative of a faction.[/quote:17o1e69y]
Perhaps it would be appropriate to seek some clarification from the Scientific Council regarding the interpretation of that particular phrase so that we can all campaign from a level base.

User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Aye, well, that passage of the Constitution always bothered many, since it tends to limit the freedom to campaign... which is also slightly against basic human rights, if it's read in a certain light.

The trouble with SL is that it evolves constantly, and there was a specific aim for that passage. First, spamming (unsolicited sending of items or notecards or chats...) is effectively unallowed by the LL ToS, so the Constitution has no choice but to follow that rule. However, what is important here is the word [i:2lnv6mpu]unsolicited[/i:2lnv6mpu]. A touch-here-to-get-spammed-by-badges-and-T-shirts-and-notecards button can be construed as a opt-in system, where people are indeed willing to receive more information. Thus, from that moment on, the sending of items/notecards/chats is [i:2lnv6mpu]not[/i:2lnv6mpu] unsolicited, but something one has [i:2lnv6mpu]given consent to[/i:2lnv6mpu].

A similar issue is joining a group, and than complaining that you're being "spammed" in the group; unless the group charter states otherwise, by joining a group of your own free will, you're giving permission to "get spammed" on Group IM chat. The old Neufreistadt had, indeed, a group, and it was disallowed to use it for "spamming". Currently, we have no such group where [i:2lnv6mpu]all[/i:2lnv6mpu] members are listed.

Where is the borderline? Well, when that paragraph was written, we would like to avoid a situation where you could write an invisible collision detector that would give people notecards, since one could assume that "if you did collide with the item, you'd be giving automatic permission to get spammed" (even if, in effect, the item was invisible). Thus the concept of "no scripted items are allowed".

In fact, in all past elections, all factions have always set up "scripted items" to give information about their faction — they were the sort of "touch-to-receive-information" type of scripts. They were also usually quite low-profile, although people also used other types of signage (most of them also of the "touch-to-get-notecard-inside" type).

There is also some inconsistency on Art IV, Sec. 4. For instance, how to reconcile "No spamming of any kind is allowed" but then say "only two emails are allowed..."? One could effectively assume that people could get two spams per election :) ... or, interpreting it the other way round, even if you give [i:2lnv6mpu]consent[/i:2lnv6mpu] to be part of a mailing list for a faction, you can only get two mails on that list.

I think that at every election this paragraph gets questioned during the campaigning, and then forgotten for the duration of the term... until it pops up again.

BTW, for the record, Michel talked to me before all of this, to get an idea of what was allowed and what wasn't. I think that these things are clear:[list:2lnv6mpu]
[*:2lnv6mpu]touch-to-give-information is allowed (even if technically it's a scripted item). Source: tradition[/*:m:2lnv6mpu]
[*:2lnv6mpu]the Chancellor can approve public areas to be set up for campaigning signs. In Neufreistadt that is usually the Marktplatz near the Rathaus. In Colonia Nova, there is no tradition yet. Source: Constitution delegating that power to whomever is enforcing the covenants (formerly the Guild, now the Chancellor)[/*:m:2lnv6mpu]
[*:2lnv6mpu]further signage is allowed on the following conditions:
a) If it's on "restricted covenant areas" (ie. strongly-themed, like both the NFS and CN "inside walls" areas), they require the Chancellor's explicit permission;
b) if it's on "less restricted areas" (ie. residential areas, non-themed or with relaxed enforcement), they can be placed anywhere, if they don't violate the covenants about height, particle emission, rotating signs, etc.
Source: Covenants[/*:m:2lnv6mpu]
[*:2lnv6mpu]The two-email rule is to be assumed to imply two emails to people having given consent to get their emails in a mailing list of some sort (ie. the RL laws of opt-in mailing lists apply first), even if this sounds somewhat silly and inconsistent :)
Source: none whatsoever. This never happened in our short history, to the best of my recollection.[/*:m:2lnv6mpu][/list:u:2lnv6mpu]
However, I'd prefer to have these "unwritten" rules reviewed and re-approved by the SC as a body unless the RA legislates further to change and clarify them. Actually, if I remember correctly, this section of the Constitution was never formally approved by an elected body — it was "thrown in" sneakishly at that time :) But, then again, not everything in our slate is clean, pure, and innocent...

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”