Judiciary

[Myroria]

In light of the new constitution vote, I think we should discuss the powers that the Ecclesia shall see fit to delegate to the judiciary. In the event that Eluvatar's minimalist proposal no one objected to fails, we can always use this discussion to base a new Constitution off of.

A popular proposal I saw floated was the principle of ostracism - that the Ecclesia can vote to expel nuisances from Taijitu. I think this has definite advantages. Someone like our good friend Govindia can be gotten rid of in a matter of days rather than in a long, drawn-out trial. On the other hand, this can definitely lead to tyranny by majority.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

[Delfos]

I don't think, atm, that rattling the bones of our skeletons is the good way to discuss our judicial system, autocritic is great but we should leave it to the concept of justice and not the faults of our past. (I guess you wouldn't guess this)

I like the Citizen-Mediator proposal, it's not perfect, butttss...

This "Mediator" is also a proposal: Citizen-Mediator will be our fat-free diet skimmed judiciary, he'd serve as a community moderator, avoid disputes between Citizens, explain the direct appliance of the law and negotiating with disputing Citizens. If Citizens cannot agree on the dispute, it will be brought to the Ecclesia so the Ecclesia can create a precedent and formulate new laws or define the ones that exist. I'm sure you guys can write this proposal better than me and together we might build this concept further, but I'd prefer we didn't have someone with the power to judge by interpretation. This is also a defense of Ecclesia as the main open and direct body of action involving all participating citizens, yet avoiding minnow disputes to encumber the Ecclesia.

[Myroria]

Discussing this in IRC, Allama brought up a good point; what if we were to appoint a Mediator for each independent dispute rather than have a permanent position, and if things absolutely could not be resolved, the dispute would go before the Ecclesia to arbitrate as it sees fit?

[Gulliver]

Would these only be disputes between citizens? What about a dispute between the government and someone, i.e. a criminal case?

[Myroria]

I suppose in that case the Citizen-Mediator would act more as a Citizen-Ombud, representing the defendant against the government and attempting to work out a compromise.

[Delfos]

I'd rather have someone appointed "all the time" so the Mediator can actually function as a moderator that can actively intervene in letting our people's rights be secured, even if he is not a forum admin, he can request modifications to benefit the participation of citizens. An example would be when someone wants to form a party, this way the Mediator can assure the citizens that they can do it and, if he cannot accommodate their rights, he'd advise admins to do so. Being there "all the time" would also allow people to question the mediator as legal counsel or legislative counsel if necessary.

[Gulliver]

The problem with an all time appointment, I've found in the past, is that 99% of the time they have nothing to do, and it becomes difficult to find people who want to fill the position.

[Wast]

I like the idea of having a mediator appointed on a case-by-case basis. Avoiding formal trials (and formal condemnations) as much as possible would be best.

A popular proposal I saw floated was the principle of ostracism - that the Ecclesia can vote to expel nuisances from Taijitu. I think this has definite advantages.

Some kind of mechanism to do this would be good to have, but be careful with the language you use.

[Stone Shark]

I like the idea of having a mediator appointed on a case-by-case basis. Avoiding formal trials (and formal condemnations) as much as possible would be best.

A popular proposal I saw floated was the principle of ostracism - that the Ecclesia can vote to expel nuisances from Taijitu. I think this has definite advantages.

Some kind of mechanism to do this would be good to have, but be careful with the language you use.

Agreed.

[Delfos]

I like the idea of having a mediator appointed on a case-by-case basis. Avoiding formal trials (and formal condemnations) as much as possible would be best.

A popular proposal I saw floated was the principle of ostracism - that the Ecclesia can vote to expel nuisances from Taijitu. I think this has definite advantages.

Some kind of mechanism to do this would be good to have, but be careful with the language you use.

ok, but what if you have a doubt about something being legal, of course anybody should read the law and understand it, but there might be iffy cases, who do you ask? The Delegate? What if it's something the Delegate has done? This is my problem without having someone available to counsel. Don't think of yourselves the users of this tool, think of the new people who haven't been here before.

Other than that, the recommendations from Gulliver and Wast are suitable.

[Allama]

ok, but what if you have a doubt about something being legal, of course anybody should read the law and understand it, but there might be iffy cases, who do you ask? The Delegate? What if it's something the Delegate has done? This is my problem without having someone available to counsel. Don't think of yourselves the users of this tool, think of the new people who haven't been here before.

The Ecclesia votes on everything else: why not have the legislative body discuss and vote on any disputes over legal interpretation*?

Then if the citizenry decides a legal wrong was indeed committed or at least that the law can be interpreted in such a way that it may have been violated, we can move on to appointing a mediator.

* I doubt these will be frequent, if they ever happen at all.

[Gulliver]

I can't recall any situation in which a person had doubt over the legality of an executive officer's actions, and as a result had to appoint a state appointed official to resolve the issue. And if there was doubt, they could always ask anyone else in the region or have the Ecclesia discuss as it as Allama said.

[Delfos]

I can't recall any situation in which a person had doubt over the legality of an executive officer's actions, and as a result had to appoint a state appointed official to resolve the issue. And if there was doubt, they could always ask anyone else in the region or have the Ecclesia discuss as it as Allama said.

You both make a valid point. Either way I feel about having someone , the general proposal is good.

[Gulliver]

It hasn't been mentioned yet, but I think if we do allow ostracism it should require a 2/3's majority.

[Allama]

It hasn't been mentioned yet, but I think if we do allow ostracism it should require a 2/3's majority.

That sounds reasonable. A simple majority isn't quite enough to ostracize someone, IMHO.