Judicial System

[Rye Coal]

Instead of taking up 306's thread heres what I have so far.


Purpose: To establish a more comprehensive Judicial System.

                                      Election Process

Definition: Round
A Round refers to a complete sequence of turns. For all intensive purposes a round will be considered ended upon the completion of the final stage of the last players turn on the turn list currently located in thread Nomic under the sub-forum Game Discussion of the forum Nomic.

When to begin:

Before the first player begins phase one of their turn of round 4n where
n= current round number-3.

(On the completion of every three rounds beginning with the completion of Round 3)

                                        Sequence

1) Nominations: Any individual player with the ability to vote may nominate a player other than themselves to the position of Judge. Nominations will be posted in their own individual threads contained in a specifically designated Judicial sub-Forum of the general forum, Nomic. After a nomination has been made the nominee has 24 hours to accept. After the first nomination is posted, nominations may continue to be posted for 24 hours.

2) Acceptance: After a player has been nominated said player must accept the nomination to continue in the election process by posting in their nomination thread. If a nomination is left unaccepted 24 hours after nomination the nomination is considered rejected. At any time during the election process prior to taking office a nominated player may choose to step out of the election process.

3) Debate: After all nominations have been accepted or rejected debate on each nominee will commence in their respective threads for 24 hours. The 24 hour time limit may be expanded to include an additional 24 hours by a majority vote amongst debaters. The nominee may only post 1 personal statement regarding themselves only.

4) Voting: Voting will take place over a twenty four hour period immediately following the close of all nominee debates in a specifically designated thread contained in a specifically designated Judicial sub-Forum of the general forum, Nomic.

5) Taking Office and Leaving Office: The Elected will consent to the Terms of Office before the acting Judge leaves office. Upon the Elected's consent to the Terms of Office the elected is considered the Judge and the acting Judge is removed from office and compensated for the time served in office.


Definition: Compensation
Compensation is awarded to the Judge in points calculated by awarding the total number of points earned through legislative proceedings during the Judge's time in office divided by the average number of players during the Judge's time in office to the former Judge. Compensation =  Avg Pts Earned / Avg Num players { from the time of accepting the Terms of Office to Leaving Office. }

                                Terms of Office

1) A Judge retains their turn but cannot propose legislation, vote on legislation, or participate in the debate of proposed legislation.

2) A Judge has the sole right to settle disputes regarding a rule's interpretation only after the dispute has been appealed to the Judge for judgment by a player with the right to vote.

3) A Judge has the sole right to determine the validity of a rule only after the rule has been appealed to the Judge for judgment by a player with the right to vote.

4) A Judge will preside over cases appealed to the Judge in which a rule has been clearly violated and punishment is to be administered. In such and instance there will be a trial by Jury consisting of the perpetrators peers.

5) A Judge is responsible for maintaining the current rule list thread for public general reference.

6) A Judge is responsible for maintaining a public historical record of all rules passed into being for public general reference.

7) A Judge may resign from office at any time. At which point the first runner up in the last Judge election will become Judge if they accept the terms of office. Should the first runner up not accept the terms of office the second runner up will become Judge if they accept the Terms of Office and so fourth. If no debated nominee of the previous election process will accept the Terms of Office the previous acting judge will take office. If there are no previous acting Judges to take office a special election may be held to nominate, debate, and vote in a new Judge to complete the term.

8) A Judge may be removed from office only if they are found to be guilty of violating the Terms of Office in a Trial by Jury where the previous elected Judge presides over the proceedings.

9) All decisions by the Judge shall be in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. from 212

This is the first draft of the idea. I haven't even written the trial by jury definition and proceedings. This would definitely modify 212, 202, and 105 (should it become mutable). How I will word the amendments I haven't started yet. Proof reading, continuity checking and even criticism are welcome.

-Char Coal

[CasualSax]

I'm going to have to read over it and think about it.  I surely think that a large enough vote should be able to remove the judge from office.

Its better to make him cater to the will of majority, and then make him stronger over time then to start him off all-powerful.

4) A Judge will preside over cases appealed to the Judge in which a rule has been clearly violated and punishment is to be administered. In such and instance there will be a trial by Jury consisting of the perpetrators peers.

Thats *way* too...I don't know.  Punishment?  We don't need a judge to "preside"..theres no definition of violating the rules - as of now, you simply *can't* because the rules say they must be followed.  How can we determine whats violating a rule?  Do we vote?..

3) A Judge has the sole right to determine the validity of a rule only after the rule has been appealed to the Judge for judgment by a player with the right to vote.

We need to determine a way to kick him out of office.

I know we need clarification of the judgement rules, but I personally think that all of this would just be easier if we moved the overthrowing of a judgement to 2/3rds.  I wouldn't want to have to sit back away from proposing legislation.  And what about side-games?  Would he get to participate?

[Rye Coal]

I'm going to have to read over it and think about it.  I surely think that a large enough vote should be able to remove the judge from office.

Its better to make him cater to the will of majority, and then make him stronger over time then to start him off all-powerful.

If the Marjory can over rule a Judge why have a judge? The Judge is there because they are a single shrewd mind. The majority can be easily manipulated and swayed - a Judge who is removed from the legislative process is a lot harder to corrupt.

4) A Judge will preside over cases appealed to the Judge in which a rule has been clearly violated and punishment is to be administered. In such and instance there will be a trial by Jury consisting of the perpetrators peers.

Thats *way* too...I don't know.  Punishment?  We don't need a judge to "preside"..theres no definition of violating the rules - as of now, you simply *can't* because the rules say they must be followed.  How can we determine whats violating a rule?  Do we vote?..

I kind of figured that wouldn't need to define it on that one but I'll define 'violating the rules' .

As we currently have it, no legislation that provides for its own violation nor do we have legislation that deals with appropriate punishment for various offences. It is pretty unclear what we do in that case.

At this point I am counting on the event that someone will cheat, the others will find out and a law addressing that violation will come into being. For now criminal activity is limited to acting in a manner which is specifically prohibited in the rules or acting counter to the 'spirit of the game'. I would expect a criminal code to crop up eventually.

              I am not writing that code into this proposal.

For now 'because the rules say so' suffices to limit player behavior. That does not mean that a Judicial system should not account for the idea that players might cheat. My idea is that the first jury would be deciding the perpetrator's punishment.  The Judge would be there to act a legal advisor, make sure the punishment was in accordance with the rules in place, and make sure the process itself adhered to the rules.  

We need to determine a way to kick him out of office.

I know we need clarification of the judgement rules, but I personally think that all of this would just be easier if we moved the overthrowing of a judgement to 2/3rds.

That is an option, it is simpler. In my eye's that's just handing more power to a majority - they have enough. The rules don't really have an arbiter in this game, I think they need one.  

I wouldn't want to have to sit back away from proposing legislation.  And what about side-games?  Would he get to participate?

Ahh side games, this is where 105 comes into play; along with the separation of proposals from the notion that is a 'turn'.  1) the judge cant make proposals, vote, or discuss them while they are up for debate 2) the judge aught to be able to play side games as part of his normal turn, with the stipulation that earnings which directly influence the Judge's score (in terms of overall game standing) are set aside for collection after the Judge leaves office. If the Judge is forcibly removed from office due to a violation of the Terms of Office, then those earnings would be forfeit.

ahh more to add - thanks, knew that needed some clarification.


As far of not wanting the Job because you can't propose legislation - that is the personal price of the office demands and a part of the honor of the position. If you don't want to do it you don't have to. I guess I'll have to nominate some one else, oh well.

[tinuviel]

Its better to make him cater to the will of majority, and then make him stronger over time then to start him off all-powerful.

If the Marjory can over rule a Judge why have a judge? The Judge is there because they are a single shrewd mind. The majority can be easily manipulated and swayed - a Judge who is removed from the legislative process is a lot harder to corrupt.

I agree with Charr Coal on this one, what's the point of removing the Judge from normal play and debate if he's going to ultimately be ruled by the majority anyway?  A majority overrule of judgement defeats the purpose, any such decisions need to be unanimous.

For now criminal activity is limited to acting in a manner which is specifically prohibited in the rules or acting counter to the 'spirit of the game'. I would expect a criminal code to crop up eventually.

This brings back the whole question of what exactly the 'spirit of the game' is.  Are you planning on defining that?


There's more, but I don't have time to think it through and type it before class change.  (:

[CasualSax]

As long as we keep it a vast majority like 2/3rds, I think it works fine.  I really hate to think that two individuals could get what they want as long as they scheduled their objection during the right turn.

[SuperusSophia]

You can never make a judge completely unbiased unless you remove them entirely from the game, at which point they have no motivation to return to the game and be judge.  Therefore, by making one person judge for an extended period of time, you do take away the immediate stake in the game, but not entirely, and you've taken them out of the game long enough to potentially cripple them, points wise.  The entire purpose of the judge rule is to provide a means of solving disagreement concerning the nature of a rule.  By making a permenant, or semi-permanent, judge, you are violating the spirit of the judge as it pertains to the game.

As such I will never vote for any proposal that seeks to make the judge position permenant or semi-permanent.  That is merely my philosophy on how the judge should work according to the spirit of the game as i see it, and I will not deviate from that.

[SuperusSophia]

I would like to furthur comment that I see nothing wrong with leaving the judge as merely the person before who's turn it is, granted I'd like to see a line added that prevents a person from calling judgement when they will become the judge.  Yes, this system is very abusable, but then again it's abusable for EVERYBODY.  While someone else can manipulatethe system to get what they want, it is only temporary, and as things stand, no one can do any lasting damage.  Heck, if someone can successfully manipulate the system into doing something serious, I'd almost consider congratulating them and giving them an added bonus.

What everyone needs to remember is this is a game about utilizing loopholes and stategically manipulate the system, as well as simply passing new legislation and aquiring points through the more "virtuous" methods.  I personally wouldn't be playing this game if it wasn't.  What I DON'T want to see is a system that can be easily brought down or over-abused by a single person, such as somebody manipulating the judicial strings for 30 turns (or three rounds).  Even if for only one round, two people in that system can manipulate the rules to the point of being indistinguishable from what they actually say.  

Remeber, since anything not forbidden is allowed, there is a hell of a lot of elbow room, and it's going to come down to the judges that determine on a case by case method what is legal and what is not.