A question.

Cthul Murgos

Cthul Murgos

TNPer
Why is it that we have Admins/Mods and a Judiciary? What exactly stops us from making our Administration and Moderation our judiciary and law enforcement, answerable to the cabinet?
 
Cthul Murgos:
Why is it that we have Admins/Mods and a Judiciary? What exactly stops us from making our Administration and Moderation our judiciary and law enforcement, answerable to the cabinet?
Click to expand...
If I may...

Your proposal rips out the division between the IC government and the OOC administration of the forum. It would effictiveley make the forum administration become an IC body and subject to whatever crazy rules the RA and Cabinet decide to pass (Don't worry Hersfold, your polka dot suspenders are safe for the time being). If anything I would rather have the strengthening of the barier between the positions. There's been a few incidents where the line has been smudged and lost amongst the "I'm wearing my ______ hat" shenanigans.
 
It would effictiveley make the forum administration become an IC body and subject to whatever crazy rules the RA and Cabinet decide to pass (Don't worry Hersfold, your polka dot suspenders are safe for the time being).
Click to expand...

*Hersfold is unaware of any polka-dot suspenders... :blink:

That is the reason we cannot do this. By merging the forum administration with the in-character game, we greatly run the risk of losing this forum. TNP debates tend to run a little hot-headed at times, and if the mod team can't act as they need to, when they need to, without the region going up in arms, Invisionfree - or those who are strongly against our region - could very well take notice and we would end up losing the forum. We have already encountered some problems with this - the Constitution prevents us from banning any Regional Assembly member without a trial. When we banned Insane Power, we were not able to ban his IP addresses as that would have affected Cathyy's access - who was a member of the RA at the time. If she were still an RA member now, some other members of our forum may well have left out of grief caused by her posts.

While this is a good idea in theory, the practicality of it does not exist. We cannot implement such a system, simply for the security of the forum.
 
I still do not understand. Our admins and moderators are the literal voice of the law that governs the forum itself. What I'd propose only seeks to make them the voice of TNP law as well, and if anything, makes any action they make under the law of TNP open to discussion within the Cabinet. On IF matters, they are still absolute, that's not up for discussion. What is would be their word on TNP law. If it is possible for an admin to be PM, it is more than possible for them to be an authority on TNP law.

The so-called hats would be in effect, but would be more more along the lines of OOC/IC, and have a unified theme that makes more sense. In all honesty, if we couldn't trust our admins to the extent that we do, I wouldn't even consider proposing such ideas. We place absolute trust in our admins and this is no different.

It makes little sense to fail to integrate what is essentially our IF police force and what comes to be our regional police. Mind that some limits as to what an admin can be would have to be established, which only asserts the position that Admin is essentially a voluntary position. If an admin didn't want to enforce the laws of the land, they wouldn't be doing what they're doing. If a mod didn't want to do the same, they would similarly not be doing what they're doing.

This would eliminate the persistant problem of what admins can be. It only makes sense. A justice in the US, for instance, is elected for life. I feel that by popular support, we have essentially, though unofficially elected Hersfold as our chief Admin. What would be made so dramatically different by referring to him as our chief justice? He holds the ability to immediately enforce laws. He stands immenently able and qualified to preside over judicial cases. Not only would it expedite judicial proceedings (a feature lacking in general within our little society), but it would assure to a degree a specific level of impartiality. Especially if we limit admins to this sort of position.

The admin crew as it were as a whole would preside as the 'Supreme Court' of TNP. There's no reason for us to have a normal court system.

I suppose it's feasable only if the admin team were so inclined, and didn't really feel it appropriate to hold government positions past this point.
 
sure lets do it, and wipe out a good portion of the law making section of the government and the appeals process, and move even closer to democracy!






:rofl:
 
Fulhead Land:
sure lets do it, and wipe out a good portion of the law making section of the government and the appeals process, and move even closer to democracy!

:rofl:
Click to expand...
Stop flamebaiting. Now.

Hm. Draft something up, and I'll take a look at it. I'm still quite iffy on the whole idea.
 
First Draft:

Note: Fully aware this needs work, and the intent of the first draft is to convey the general intent.

ARTICLE V. The Judicial and Administrative System.

Section 1. The Court of The North Pacific.

A - The judicial and law enforcement authority of the Regional Government and official regional forum is vested in a court, to be known as "The Court of The North Pacific." The Court is composed of a number of judicial officers, that is, a Chief Justice and at least two Associate Justices, with such an additional number as may be ascertained by law.
B - Trials and Hearings in civil, criminal and impeachment cases shall be before a single judicial officer.
C - Appeals of final judgments of trials and hearings shall be to the Court en banc before the Chief Justice and all of the Associate Justices.
D - The Court has power to adopt rules and regulations for the procedure of trials, hearings, and its internal operations, including rules of evidence and the random selection of trial and grand juries, not inconsistent with this Constitution or The North Pacific Legal Code.

Section 2. Chief Justice and Associate Justices.

A - The Chief Justice shall be the head of the Judiciary of The North Pacific Regional Government as well as primary forum Administrator of the official forum. The Chief Justice is responsible for oversight of all judiciary activities in the Region, civil, criminal, or otherwise, including hearings on Regional security issues and ejections from the Region.
B - The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices shall serve a term of six months a life term, ended by death, successful impeachment or abdication. The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices shall be Members of the Regional Assembly and forum administrators who shall hold no other office during their tenure as judges.
C - The term of office of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices shall only begin on the first day of the months of August and February month following sucessful confirmation. Nominations and referendums for the full term if a vacancy exists shall take place during the months of July and January exactly seven days after the creation of the vacancy. The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices Any vacant judiciary positions shall be nominated by the Prime Minister with the advice and consent unanimous support of the full Cabinet. and during the interim period between the creation of a vacancy in the office of Chief Justice or an Associate Justice and the confirmation and installation of a successor to that office, the nominee shall serve as an acting judicial officer on the Court of The North Pacific and have the authority to exercise the duties and responsibilities of the office.
D - The appointment must thereafter be approved at a referendum, which shall extend for seven days, of the Regional Assembly, with the participation of a quorum, by at least a 50 75 per cent vote in favor of a motion for confirmation. The nomination and referendum election shall be conducted as expeditiously as practicable. If the motion for confirmation fails to receive such approval, then the appointee is not confirmed to serve as a judicial officer, and the Prime Minister shall promptly propose another nominee, with the advice and consent unanimous support of the full Cabinet, who shall act as a judicial officer, subject to approval of to be approved of by a motion for confirmation in a referendum by the Regional Assembly as outlined earlier in this section.
Click to expand...
 
Ok. So how would regular forum administration factor into this?

Would it be possible for someone to be an Admin without being a Justice?

Would this require us to add a third (or more) Admin?

What would be legitimate grounds for impeachment of a Justice, and would it be run differently than other impeachment trials?

*Hersfold will probably have more questions later...
 
Hersfold:
Ok. So how would regular forum administration factor into this?

Would it be possible for someone to be an Admin without being a Justice?

Would this require us to add a third (or more) Admin?

What would be legitimate grounds for impeachment of a Justice, and would it be run differently than other impeachment trials?

*Hersfold will probably have more questions later...
Click to expand...
1) No. I believe that the title of forum administrator is a position of extreme trust. So is the position of Chief Justice. We as a region must be completely confident in the abilities of those who uphold the law here. What is proposed is to merge those who uphold what is essentially the two laws of the land.

2) Yes, I actually saw that as I was drafting it. As you would be chief justice by default (and seriously, how much does anyone doubt you wouldn't be confirmed?) you would need to aquire a third admin. There's no point whatsoever in having more than three justices, and similarly no point in having more than three admins. It would also free up a color. We could make Admin/Justices the Purple, and the PM/Cabinet Ministers blue... etc.

3) Now that's something I need input on. A petition would be submitted to the cabinet by any RA member. A unanimus vote of the full Cabinet (the PM, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Delegate and Vice Delegate) would bring a Justice/Admin into question, most notably for abuse of power. Since any such a charge, serious enough to warrant impeachment, is extreme in implication, thus the unanimity.

I also got the idea of something I like to call "A Grand Jury of All Assembled" Basically the charges would be presented in a brief hearing no longer than 3 days. Each side would present a brief arguement within a short period of time, and the RA would act as a grand jury, voting whether or not there is suffecient evidence for an indictment.
 
Draft, Article V Section 7.

Section 7. Impeachment.

A - Any Regional Assembly Member may bring charges against a Cabinet-level position if they believe the officeholder has violated this Constitution or partaken in other gross misconduct. The Nation must provide enough evidence to a Grand Jury to warrant a trial.
B - Any Regional Assembly Member may petition the Cabinet for redress of grievence if they believe a member of the Judiciary has violated the Constitution or partaken in other gross misconduct.  The Nation must provide sufficient evidence for either a unanimous vote of the Full Cabinet (to wit, the Prime Minister, all Cabinet Ministers, Deputy Ministers, and the Delegate and Vice Delegate), or a vote of a Grand Jury of All Assembled (the full Regional Assembly and Cabinet) to which not less than 3/4ths of the total number vote in favor.
C - A panel of five Regional Assembly members who are not holding a Cabinet-level position and who are randomly selected from a jury pool shall be selected by the Chief Justice to review the evidence given. If the Chief any Justice is being impeached, the Prime Minister will randomly select the whole of the Regional Assembly will serve as Grand Jury. If any jury member expresses a clear bias, they shall be excluded from the Grand Jury and replaced with another juror for the exception of Judicial Impeachment proceedings. The Grand Jury shall have not more than 96 hours to review and weigh the evidence cited in the complaint, and determine whether a trial is warranted.
D - All proceedings shall be recorded and sealed by the Chief Justice, or his/her designees, where applicable (including the Prime Minister if the Chief any Justice is being impeached), until that officeholder is either exonerated or removed from office. Thereafter, the proceedings shall be published.
E - If the Grand Jury, by majority vote, decides that the given information provides a reasonable basis to warrant a trial for removal from office, the Chief Justice (or the Prime Minister if the Chief any Justice is being impeached) shall call a trial. This trial shall be conducted under the same rules as a criminal trial, except that the Prime Minister shall preside if the Chief any Justice is being impeached, and all remaining Cabinet Ministers and their Deputies shall serve as the Jury. Should the defendant be found guilty, they will be immediately removed from office. After removal, the removed officeholder may be subject to expulsion from the Region following a separate criminal trial.
Click to expand...

Seems a little weighty. Possibly I should split it up.
 
My primary concern is that, in examining and discussing the indictment evidence, there is a possibility of juror prejudice, as the defense counsel doesn't really have any opportunity to rebut, which they would when the evidence was being shown to the trial jury.

Also, do we really want every RA, including the aggrieved party(ies) and the accused, to be in the jury room debating? The purpose of the Grand Jury is to remove the personal allegience and emotion of the government from the trials - this is pretty much ensuring that an indictment will result in no eligible jurors, as an argument could be made that a yes or nay indictment vote is a symbol of bias, due to the ensuing arguments.

Finally, the ability of the Executive to vote to indict without the input of the people doesn't sit well. The whole thing drifts away from separation of powers, which I guess is my main problem with it.

Heft - pbbbbbbbbbbbt.
 
Cthul Murgos:
(to wit, the Prime Minister, all Cabinet Ministers, Deputy Ministers, and the Delegate and Vice Delegate),
Click to expand...
Deputies, the Delegate, and Vice Delegate aren't a part of the cabinet, and have no vote in cabinet affairs.

Byard has a bit of a point. Maybe if this happens, we should switch the roles - make the Grand Jury only the five people or whatever, then have the whole RA serve as the trial jury.

But then we have the whole issue of what happens when someone does get impeached - we had this problem with the Mod Act. It's not that easy to simply kick out an Administrator. Particularly me, simply because this is the root account. What would we end up doing if I were to get impeached for whatever reason?

And I'm still not too sure if I would like the idea of merging out of character forum rules with in character regional laws. That streches the game to where the game doesn't really belong. Alhoma's post at the beginning basically says it all.
 
Byardkuria:
Heft - pbbbbbbbbbbbt.
Click to expand...
:unsure:

It's a serious suggestion. I don't like trials like how we have tried to have, or how I've seen in, say, TWP. They just don't work. And, besides, everyone is biased and/or somehow involved here in pretty much all cases, just by the nature of things. To use a RL analogy, it would be like if everyone had either been in the gas station or at the gas station across the street when the gas station was robbed, or was just a close friend of the robber or owner of the gas station.

These trials drag on for weeks until someone just says "screw it, dismissed". If it's actually a divisive case, then the entire region would be polarized and arguing for the duration of the trial, and the bad feelings developed would continue to exist long after the trial ends.

I would like to simplify the justice system a great deal. Give most of the powers to the three Justices to decide guilt/innocence and punishment, and make sure everything flows quickly.
 
While I don't like the idea of merging the OOC forum administration with the IC judiciary, I am warming to the suggestion Heft has just made.

Let the three appointed (and duly confirmed) justices decide legal matters and conduct trials. Sort of a TNP Supreme Court. It would streamline the process and put some actual teeth into our legal system.
 
In all honesty, that's why I brought this up. The judicial system is pathetically weak compared to the legislative and executive branches. There is no balance of powers, and I felt that by giving admins court powers that it would give said system the teeth it needs.

I also feel that IF is something we all have to deal with. It's a fact. We may have to give up a tad of separation between IC and OOC but not to the point that it causes problems like it has been.

I still feel this is more than a viable and good idea, but it needs to be done right.
 
A combination of these would be a good idea, and might help prevent the admin OOC/IC overlap in government which has happened occassionally.
 
I definately like the ingenuity of this idea. From my perspective and experience in NS, however, the security risks associated with destroying the barrier between IC and OOC, particularly with regard to IP addresses, are significant. To become a justice entails immense IC trust, but access to IP addresses are a whole other ballgame. I don't think opening the can of worms that is the issue of IP access, and the slew of privacy debates it entails, is something we should do unless we absolutely have to, and at this point, we don't have to. AlHoma's early comment seems dead-on, in my opinion.

I do, however, like the idea of streamlining the Judicial system, as Heft suggested, so that it becomes actually viable, rather than a bloated waste of time.
 
I would point out that as a general practice I would prefer that most if not all of the Admins/Global Mods not hold IC offices within the region.

For that reason, I have stayed away from holding anything more than a seat on the SC since becoming a global mod; should I ever decide to seek an office I would want to make sure that most if not all of the other admins and global mods would not stand for election to an office in that election cycle.

I believe this is the best way to proceed. Forum moderation with IC judicial powers is a bad idea and leads to all sorts of trouble that the region has seen in its [ast.

Let's not travel down that path again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top