Transcript - Meeting on the 12th Dec, 1 PM SLT

To plan and discuss the meetings to take place under the auspices of the Comission

Moderator: SC Moderators

Locked
User avatar
Moon Adamant
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Everywhere

Transcript - Meeting on the 12th Dec, 1 PM SLT

Post by Moon Adamant »

[13:06] The Soapbox: Justice Soothsayer is on the soapbox now!
[13:06] Justice Soothsayer: The rules of this session are simple - we are here to listen to citizen views on the judiciary.
[13:06] Justice Soothsayer: The soapbox allows one person to speak at a time without interruption.
[13:07] Justice Soothsayer: Touch it to join the queue.
[13:07] Justice Soothsayer: It will call on speakers first come, first served.
[13:07] Ashcroft Burnham: I don't want to be first...
[13:07] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:07] Justice Soothsayer: Moon & I are keeping a trancript of these meetings.
[13:07] Justice Soothsayer: Would everyone please touch the recorder next to the beer keg to indicate your consent to recording.
[13:08] Justice Soothsayer: Once everyone has had a chance to speak, we'll have a second round, followed by open discussion.
[13:08] Justice Soothsayer: And of course, anyone is free to post to the forums at any time.
[13:08] Justice Soothsayer: Moon or I will repeat these rules at the 6pm session tonight, and again at 1 pm and 6pm tomorrow.
[13:09] Justice Soothsayer: So now I'll get off the soapbox; anyone have any questions?
[13:09] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[13:09] Ashcroft Burnham: No questions, but I love the soap box ;-)
[13:09] Ludo Merit: I still don't understand what happened at the last meetings.
[13:09] Ashcroft Burnham: Which ones, Ludo?
[13:10] Ashcroft Burnham: This is the first Special Commission meeting...
[13:10] Ludo Merit: The ones I fell asleep during.
[13:10] Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
[13:10] TOPGenosse Brouwer: :)
[13:10] Justice Soothsayer: the RA passed a bill establishing the commission and changing the rules of court; the SC found that bill was constitutional, so now this commission is working.
[13:10] Ashcroft Burnham: Since I've already said a great deal in many places about this topic, I think that somebody else should go first this evening.
[13:11] Ludo Merit: Not I.
[13:11] Justice Soothsayer: and I'm planning on just listening at these sessions
[13:11] Ashcroft Burnham: Moon? Top? :-)
[13:11] You: i will of course be just listening as well
[13:11] TOPGenosse Brouwer: I'm planning to listen + say a little "hear hear" or "boo"
[13:12] Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
[13:12] You: i can, if you want or need, remember the issues in discussion, though
[13:12] Ludo Merit: Am I the only just plain citizen here?
[13:12] Justice Soothsayer: OH yes, the agenda and announcement are on the posters on the walls
[13:12] Ashcroft Burnham: No, Top is a citizen now :-)
[13:12] Ashcroft Burnham: Ohh, nice outfit, Michel :-)
[13:12] Ashcroft Burnham: And welcome.
[13:12] TOPGenosse Brouwer: hi Michel
[13:12] Michel Manen: Thak you
[13:13] Justice Soothsayer: hi Michel
[13:13] Michel Manen: hello all
[13:13] You: hi Michel
[13:13] You: please touch teh notetaker near the beer barrel for permission to transcript
[13:13] Justice Soothsayer: Michel, nice to see you
[13:13] Michel Manen: same here justice
[13:13] TOPGenosse Brouwer: Can the best debater win bagpipes?
[13:13] Justice Soothsayer: touch the soapbox is you want to speak uninterruped for up to 5 minutes.
[13:13] Michel Manen: hha
[13:14] Michel Manen: i hope you alll appeciate i did not bring my Clayomre ;)
[13:14] Michel Manen: Claymore
[13:14] Michel Manen: sorry ido not see the recorder
[13:15] Ashcroft Burnham: A few minutes ago, Michel would have missed it, I said that I didn't want to go first because I've already had a lot to say on the forums on the matter :-)
[13:15] Ashcroft Burnham: It's well hidden...
[13:15] Ashcroft Burnham: I'm touching it now.
[13:15] Justice Soothsayer: behind you, next to the keg
[13:15] Michel Manen: thank you Ash
[13:15] Ashcroft Burnham: :-)
[13:16] Ludo Merit: So are we at point 1 of the agenda?
[13:16] Ashcroft Burnham: I think that we're at the part of the meeting where we're deciding who goes first... Neither I or Ludo want to, Top just wants to listen, and the legislators don't want to talk either...
[13:16] Michel Manen: how do we proceed today?
[13:16] Ashcroft Burnham: (See above ;-) )
[13:16] Michel Manen: haha
[13:16] Ashcroft Burnham: Which is why I was even more pleased than usual, Michel, to see you online ;-)
[13:16] Michel Manen: well i can volunteer to say a few words first
[13:16] Ashcroft Burnham: :-D
[13:16] You: Michel, by clicking the soapbox you join a queue to talk undisturbed
[13:16] Justice Soothsayer: since there's no rush to speak...
[13:17] Ashcroft Burnham: Justice, we should have that at our election hustings, too :-)
[13:17] You: 5 minutes on teh first round, 2 minutes on teh second, then an open debate
[13:17] Michel Manen: thnak you indeed..
[13:17] Michel Manen: I have been able to skim the discusions on the boards and will briefly address the points of interest
[13:18] You: ok, please sit on teh soapbox then :)
[13:18] Michel Manen: 1) Test of the Judiciary Act
[13:18] The Soapbox: Michel Manen is on the soapbox now!
[13:18] Michel Manen: haha
[13:18] Michel Manen: well, as i was saying
[13:19] Michel Manen: I cannot see how we can have a reasonable opinion of hte Judiciary Act's suitability
[13:19] Michel Manen: for CDS
[13:19] Michel Manen: without testing it fist in world.
[13:19] Michel Manen: I entrely support Pat and Ash's opinion that a minimum amount of time should be alloted for this
[13:20] Michel Manen: and that a minimum amount of trials should take place
[13:20] Michel Manen: before such an evaluation is made,
[13:20] Michel Manen: THe evaluation itself should ideally be done in accordance with clear rules
[13:20] Michel Manen: preferably by th PJSP.
[13:21] Michel Manen: i am not certain putside experts are required.
[13:21] Michel Manen: I think we have in-wolrd now the resources to do it ourselves.
[13:21] Michel Manen: 2. Complexity
[13:21] Patroklus Murakami: hi, back :)
[13:21] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:21] Michel Manen: i think this is a much misunderstood issue.
[13:22] Michel Manen: I am of the opinion that a detailed and carefully drafted Judiciary act
[13:22] Michel Manen: and Code of Procedure
[13:22] Michel Manen: will actually simplify the way our judiciary works
[13:22] Michel Manen: by not requirinf the constant re-invention
[13:22] Michel Manen: of standards at every new trials.
[13:23] Michel Manen: therefore i think that we should also test the rules of civil procedure as originally published by the Chief Justice
[13:23] Michel Manen: I realise the Soothsayer Rules are now in force.
[13:23] Michel Manen: To be fair to them and respect the democratically legitimated decision of thte RA
[13:24] Michel Manen: let us then used these and subject them to the same standard of evealuation
[13:24] Michel Manen: as the Judiciary Act.
[13:24] Bohdi Forager: ah, je peux eh... recontrer avec toi?
[13:24] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:24] Michel Manen: Should they prove wanting
[13:24] Bohdi Forager: what is 'rencontrer'?
[13:24] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:24] Bohdi Forager: oui merci
[13:24] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:24] Michel Manen: we can then test out the Code as published by the Cghief Justice
[13:24] Michel Manen: #. Judiciary an other branches
[13:25] Michel Manen: Judicial independece is ccritical for CDS
[13:25] Michel Manen: The judiciary should set its own rules of procedure and selection of judges.
[13:25] Michel Manen: Any interference of hte RA in this violates judicial independence and opens up prospects of partisanship
[13:26] Michel Manen: in the judiciary we dare not open the door to.
[13:26] Michel Manen: 4. Judges
[13:26] Michel Manen: As mentioned before, judges must be chosen
[13:26] Michel Manen: in accordance with hteir abilities and skills
[13:26] Michel Manen: at understanding and applying our legal system
[13:27] Michel Manen: This by no means iimplies
[13:27] Michel Manen: that only RL lawyers should be appointed;
[13:27] Michel Manen: but a lack of skill and understanding of the rules
[13:27] Michel Manen: will devalue our entire judiciary
[13:27] Michel Manen: and be a grave disservice to CDS
[13:27] Michel Manen: i therefore support strict standards established by the judiciary only
[13:28] Michel Manen: althought it remains to be discussed weithinf hte judiciary
[13:28] Michel Manen: whether the existing procedures
[13:28] Michel Manen: are too strict or not
[13:28] Michel Manen: 5. The scientific Council
[13:28] Michel Manen: IMy main point here
[13:29] Michel Manen: after participating in a lengthy meeting of the SC
[13:29] Michel Manen: is that the SC
[13:29] Michel Manen: besides its judicial rolee
[13:29] Michel Manen: also must play an extra-judicial one
[13:29] Michel Manen: law has its time and role;
[13:29] Michel Manen: but the values, ideals and aims of our community
[13:29] Michel Manen: must find a voice
[13:29] Michel Manen: that is also the role of the SC
[13:30] Michel Manen: i therefore support in hte stongest terms
[13:30] Michel Manen: that its role as DCS's conscience be preserved
[13:30] Justice Soothsayer: michel, you can have the soapbox again if no one else wants it, but woul dhave to stand up and sit down again, i think
[13:30] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:30] Michel Manen: one last comment as i see my time is running out on juries
[13:31] Michel Manen: I support the opinion
[13:31] Michel Manen: that juries should be reserved
[13:31] Michel Manen: for particularly important cases, such as banishment,\
[13:31] Michel Manen: In no case should they be eliminated; but nor should they be abused
[13:31] Michel Manen: finally, fees for the judiciary
[13:32] Michel Manen: i do not think that, in the long term
[13:32] Michel Manen: it is ay all possiblee to charge no fees
[13:32] Michel Manen: either by courts or lawyers
[13:32] Michel Manen: 2l works on a real economy
[13:32] Michel Manen: thi cannot possibly be a free service if it is to function properly and at a high level of quality
[13:33] Michel Manen: as to hte specific fees
[13:33] Michel Manen: these can be open for debate
[13:33] Michel Manen: so as th keep them at reeasonaable levels
[13:33] Michel Manen: and be accepted by our citizens.
[13:33] Michel Manen: Thank you for your attention
[13:33] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[13:33] Ashcroft Burnham: :-)
[13:33] Justice Soothsayer: Thank you, MIchel
[13:33] You: thank you Michel :)
[13:33] You: next speaker?
[13:33] Ludo Merit: Hear hear.
[13:34] TOPGenosse Brouwer: thanks Michel
[13:34] Ashcroft Burnham: Ludo? Pat? Redakisto?
[13:34] Redaktisto Noble: Is there a specific topic today?
[13:34] Ashcroft Burnham: Yes...
[13:34] Ashcroft Burnham: :-)
[13:34] You: Redak, let em give you teh agenda
[13:34] Patroklus Murakami: i'm hear to listen rather than speak :)
[13:34] Justice Soothsayer: The various agenda points are on notecars on the walls
[13:34] Ashcroft Burnham: Pat, your contribution would be valued...
[13:34] Justice Soothsayer: notecards, even
[13:34] Redaktisto Noble accepted your inventory offer.
[13:34] Redaktisto Noble accepted your inventory offer.
[13:35] Ashcroft Burnham: I'll wait and see whether Ludo or Redakisto want to speak before I ask for my turn :-)
[13:35] Redaktisto Noble: I would love to briefly address the commission, as I have some other work to do unfortunately.
[13:35] You: Redak, please sit on the soapbox then :)
[13:36] The Soapbox: Redaktisto Noble is on the soapbox now!
[13:36] You: everyone, if you want to speak after the current speaker, click the soapbox to be added to the queue
[13:36] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:36] Redaktisto Noble: Eep. Please don't take my back towards you as meaningful. :)
[13:37] Redaktisto Noble: For those who don't know, I am Gxeremio Dimsum and through that alt have citizenship in the CDS. I use this alt for my work as a reporter with SL News Network, and am changing what was the store in the Platz to become an SLNN bureau.
[13:37] Redaktisto Noble: What is happening here is important, and has wide implications. That is why I am so concerned as a citizen about the implementation of the judiciary.
[13:38] Redaktisto Noble: It will come as no surprise to you from my forum posts that I am extremely concerned about the present situation.
[13:38] Redaktisto Noble: My main question is, who is this system designed to serve? If the citizens, it needs some serious reconsideration.
[13:39] Redaktisto Noble: Cost, time, complexity, and the (un)democratic nature of the system need to be reevaluated if this system is to be used by normal citizens.
[13:40] Redaktisto Noble: As far as the question of whether this needs time to be tested before criticism is welcome, I reject the reasoning that says let's put in place a dangerous, complex system that will not only entrench said system further than it already is, but will also make our community a laughingstock in the wider SL world.
[13:41] Redaktisto Noble: If this system is put in place, we will have trials, and the results of those trials will be widely known.
[13:42] Redaktisto Noble: I have had plenty more to say about this on the forums, and would welcome any questions, but for now I think I'll stop monologuing and step off the soapbox. I will say I appreciate the attention that is being given on a wide basis to doing this thing well.
[13:42] Redaktisto Noble: Thank you.
[13:42] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[13:42] Justice Soothsayer: Thanks, Redak.
[13:43] You: thank you Redak
[13:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Can we boo, hiss, catcalls? .... :)
[13:43] TOPGenosse Brouwer: Thx nobel
[13:43] Justice Soothsayer: anyone else want a turn, especially now that the soapbox is now facing the right direction?
[13:43] You: :)
[13:43] Ashcroft Burnham: Ludo, do you want to go next, or shall I?
[13:43] Ludo Merit: I will go next.
[13:43] Ashcroft Burnham: :-)
[13:43] Ludo Merit: Unless someone else wants to.
[13:44] TOPGenosse Brouwer: noooo
[13:44] TOPGenosse Brouwer: :)
[13:44] Patroklus Murakami: go for it
[13:44] You: go ahead, ludo :)
[13:44] The Soapbox: Ludo Merit is on the soapbox now!
[13:44] Justice Soothsayer: ash, you can go next if you click the box
[13:44] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:45] Ludo Merit: I've been reading the forums, but not recently, and attending meetings, and arguing with Ashcroft and discussing with other people.
[13:46] Ludo Merit: So the questions on the agenda are very familiar to me, though the answers are not obvious to me.
[13:46] Ludo Merit: I may be the closest thing to an ordinary citizen that we have heree, and I am far from ordinary.
[13:47] Ludo Merit: In fact, the CDS does not have any ordinary citizens. Because we buy land we are in a minority to start with.
[13:47] Ludo Merit: Because we put considerable effort into governing ourselves democratically, we are again unusual.
[13:48] Ludo Merit: I want to go backwards and start with point ten.
[13:49] Ludo Merit: If this court is used only to solve conflicts between the sixty or so citizens we have, it will be serving an elite.
[13:50] Ludo Merit: If we want to take advantage of the possibilities afforded by the franchulate idea and allow businesses to buy into the support structure of the judicial system, it will have to serve non-citizens as well.
[13:50] Ludo Merit: And I deal with a lot of non-citizens.
[13:51] Ludo Merit: I am in some ways just as lazy as they are and just as devoted to fun.
[13:51] Ludo Merit: I don't want a judicial system that would scare them off.
[13:52] Ludo Merit: On the other hand, as Redas?ko says, I don't want one that will be laughed at either.
[13:53] Ludo Merit: Or abused by people that get fun out of abuse. I was at a trial in which an abuser actually took a seat on the jury. Luckily that mistake was detected.
[13:53] Ludo Merit: I don't know which of the two proposed systems will work best. I'm not completely clear about what the changes are. I do know the system needs to be scalable.
[13:54] Ludo Merit: And to be able to handle the authority and lack of authority, paradoxically, that is granted it.
[13:54] Ludo Merit: So my question is, if we, the elite and wise, think a system might just be too complex, what will others think?
[13:55] TOPGenosse Brouwer: hear hear
[13:55] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:55] Ludo Merit: And if that complexity is necessary for scalability as it very well might be, how do we sell it?
[13:56] Ludo Merit: I do think that the act, whichever act we start with, will change as we gain experience in doing this.
[13:56] You: Ludo, past 10 minutes... (btw, we are allowing 10 minutes instead of 5)
[13:56] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:56] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[13:56] Justice Soothsayer: thanks, ludo
[13:56] You: Thank you Ludo :)
[13:56] TOPGenosse Brouwer: thx Ludo
[13:57] The Soapbox: It is Ludo Merit's turn to speak, please take the floor
[13:57] Redaktisto Noble: Thanks Ludo.
[13:57] The Soapbox: It is Ashcroft Burnham's turn to speak, please take the floor
[13:57] Ashcroft Burnham: Oops...?
[13:57] Ludo Merit: Funny how eloquent I get sitting on that thing.
[13:57] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
[13:57] You: sorry everyone... we will give you all 10 minutes
[13:57] The Soapbox: Ashcroft Burnham is on the soapbox now!
[13:57] Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol Ludo
[13:57] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:57] Gwyneth Llewelyn: oops sorry, Ash!
[13:57] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[13:57] Ashcroft Burnham: A number of issues have been raised by all of this, many of them important.
[13:57] Ashcroft Burnham: The most fundamental of which is: what is our judiciary for?
[13:58] Ashcroft Burnham: Redakisto, I think, wrote in the forums that he wanted it to be such that people would *want* to participate in it.
[13:58] Ashcroft Burnham: Superficially attractive as that sounds, that somewhat misses the point: the judiciary is there to be used when things go wrong.
[13:58] Ashcroft Burnham: Nobody wants to have to sue somebody, or be the subject of a charge of misconduct that could result in banishment.
[13:58] Ashcroft Burnham: But, by goodness, when they do they want things to be done properly.
[13:59] Ashcroft Burnham: It's no good having a system that's gentle and fun to use if it doesn't actually work when it is needed most: when people have a serious problem, a conflict that needs resolving.
[13:59] Ashcroft Burnham: The old adage, I think, about people disliking lawyers until they actually need one holds true for judicial systems in general.
[14:00] Ashcroft Burnham: It's often said that the only time one will ever be at court, unless one is a lawyer, is if something has gone badly wrong.
[14:00] Ashcroft Burnham: That is true of our courts, too.
[14:00] Ashcroft Burnham: They are there to resolve a particular kind of disputes (individual, specific disputes about law) that, but for being resolved, would lead to serious tension, injustice, and potentially even fracture.
[14:01] Ashcroft Burnham: Our courts are not a game, like Imperium or our gladatorial tournaments, there for the amusement of citizens: they are deadly serious, and need to be taken seriously.
[14:02] Ashcroft Burnham: The things that people need to know when they're going to court is "Do I have a good case?" "How do I start a claim?" "What do I do if somebody brings a claim against me"? "What happens when I go to court?" "The other side is concealing some evidence - what do I do to get it"? "The other side is bringing a deliberately hopeless claim against me to harass me - what should I do?" and so forth.
[14:03] Ashcroft Burnham: Questions like that cannot be answered with a vague, fuzzy, feel-good, holding-hands and dancing under a rainbow make-it-up-as-we-go-along system.
[14:03] Ashcroft Burnham: They can be answered by clear rules, written down in advance, available to alll.
[14:03] TOPGenosse Brouwer: hahah
[14:03] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:03] Ludo Merit: Is anyone proposing that
[14:03] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:03] Ashcroft Burnham: We need our system to work effectively, because when it has to work it has to do very important things. It is important that we get things right.
[14:04] Ashcroft Burnham: As I have written elsewhere, the problems that it will be solving are ultimately complex problems.
[14:04] Ashcroft Burnham: The question that we need to ask is not, "How simple should the text of the sources of law be"?, but "How easy will it be for people to understand what the law means for them when it comes to the crunch"?
[14:05] Ashcroft Burnham: A set of vague rules (and Ludo, the make-it-up-as-you-go-along system is, unfortunately, what we have now to a large extent: see the rules passed by the RA)...
[14:05] Ashcroft Burnham: ...just don't answer those questions well enough.
[14:05] notetaker 2.0.1: Script run-time error
[14:05] notetaker 2.0.1: Stack-Heap Collision
[14:05] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:05] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:06] Ashcroft Burnham: Our system has to be efficient, which means that (1) people must know where they stand; (2) cases must be heard and disposed of as quickly as justice allows; and (3) effort should not be wasted in doing needless things.
[14:06] Ashcroft Burnham: (1) is not served by vagueness; (2) is not served by having to devote hours at the beginning of each case on "agreeing" every procedural rule that the parties think might arise (and then finding out later that lots of important things have been missed).
[14:07] Ashcroft Burnham: The current rules, I am afraid, are a disaster: they require *in every case, whether contested or not* a discussion about *all* the procedures to be adopted in the case before anyone starts.
[14:07] Ashcroft Burnham: The code that I had written enabled uncontested cases to be solved without any hearing at all, and requiring hearings to be confined to only those areas in which hearings are needed.
[14:07] Ashcroft Burnham: The present system does not do that, and will be a disaster as a result.
[14:08] Ashcroft Burnham: IF people think that what works in arbitration, or in old common law systems, or in any other context where all the parties have strong shared cultural assumptions about how legal procedure works...
[14:08] Ashcroft Burnham: ...will work here where everybody has divergent ideas about such things, is seriously deluded.
[14:08] You: Ash, 10 minutes past...
[14:08] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:08] Ashcroft Burnham: Ah.
[14:08] Ashcroft Burnham: And I'm still on point 1 of 9...
[14:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: LOL
[14:09] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:09] TOPGenosse Brouwer: :)
[14:09] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:09] You: well, you can copy paste from a notecard :)
[14:09] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:09] Redaktisto Noble: hehe
[14:09] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:09] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[14:09] You: Thank you Ash .)
[14:09] Ashcroft Burnham: I'll leave the floor to others who wish to speak, but if there's time, I'd like to finish at some point...
[14:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: thank you that was most excellent argumentation!
[14:10] You: we will do another round next, and tehre is another meeting tomorrow, at same hour, euro friendly
[14:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods*
[14:10] You: plus two other meetings at american-friendly hours
[14:10] You: anyone next?
[14:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm apparently me...
[14:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Justice has toc heck with the soapbox, though
[14:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *to check
[14:11] Ashcroft Burnham: Go for it ;-)
[14:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh lol — ok :)
[14:11] You: i am keeping time manually now as well
[14:11] The Soapbox: Gwyneth Llewelyn is on the soapbox now!
[14:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, as most you have noticed,
[14:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I've restricted myself voluntarily in the forums
[14:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and trying NOT to comment on the philosophy behind the Judiciary
[14:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I won't go through the 10 points
[14:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'd feel very bad doing so — since the Dean of teh SC should not meddle in these
[14:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and worse than that — having had the burden (but also the honour) of working out what the Judiciary was supposed to mean
[14:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: when this whole city was still young
[14:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: it would sound weird making comments :)
[14:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: However,
[14:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I guess that as a citizen I can comment
[14:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: on what happened
[14:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: with your first and only case so far.
[14:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: As expected,
[14:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: rules were made "on the spur of the moment"
[14:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: deliberations took, oh, about 20 hours
[14:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: of in-world meetings
[14:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: just to gather a conclusion
[14:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: plus several tons of emails
[14:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: most of tehm, trying to decide on the rules
[14:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *them
[14:14] Redaktisto Noble: Which case is this?
[14:14] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The case of Ulrika.
[14:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now, for some of you this is just a game, a cool role-playing game
[14:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: or something to spend the time with and experiment a little
[14:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: it's true that we're not exactly sitting on a multi-billionaire country :)
[14:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: but a humble one, with 60 or so people
[14:15] Ashcroft Burnham: Yet ;-)
[14:15] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (yes)
[14:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and our country's income is just, aah around US$400 or so per month, I think.
[14:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: This case in our distant past
[14:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: involved settling agreements
[14:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: of around US$1000
[14:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: iRL
[14:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now.
[14:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Imagine that the whole of the US
[14:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: would need to settle agreements with terrorists
[14:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: on the amount of 1/4 of their yearly income :)
[14:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: whew
[14:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I sure hope that tehy'd had some rules :)(
[14:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: We weren't so lucky ourselves.
[14:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, to people who are NOt willing to have a complex system one
[14:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: think about what it meant for us in the past with a "simple" one
[14:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we almost — very nearly! — "wasted" three times the income of our "nation"
[14:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: not to say about the uncountless hours spent
[14:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: discussing, arguing, inventing rules
[14:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and what was the result?
[14:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we were indeed the laughing stock
[14:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and called a kangaroo court in public
[14:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Is it worth going back to that? Well, I don't think so,
[14:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and I wish good luck and a lot of patience with sleepless nights,
[14:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: if you wish to try it on your own,
[14:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: not knowing, if you log in the next time,
[14:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: that nothing exists any more — everything deleted —
[14:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: .... and all that because you had no procedures to start with.
[14:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: thank you :)
[14:19] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[14:19] Ashcroft Burnham: :-D
[14:19] Ashcroft Burnham: :-D
[14:19] Patroklus Murakami: hear! hear!
[14:19] The Soapbox: It is Gwyneth Llewelyn's turn to speak, please take the floor
[14:19] You: Thnak you Gwyneth :)
[14:19] The Soapbox: It is Publius Crabgrass's turn to speak, please take the floor
[14:19] TOPGenosse Brouwer: Intersting :) THanks Gwyneth!
[14:19] Publius Crabgrass: thanks
[14:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The only think that saddens me more is that it was also true...
[14:19] Justice Soothsayer: thanks gwyn
[14:20] Redaktisto Noble: Thanks Gwyn.
[14:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would have preferred if I were talking hypothetically hehe
[14:20] The Soapbox: Publius Crabgrass is on the soapbox now!
[14:20] Redaktisto Noble: How many more speakers before the rebuttal round? :)
[14:20] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:20] Publius Crabgrass: I am posting on the forums my longer thoughts about the judiciary, but it would probably take me over my five minute limit to read it here, so let me summarize.
[14:20] Michel Manen: there is no rebuttal here Red..
[14:20] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:20] Publius Crabgrass: As an initial matter, the judiciary has had a test run, and has not passed that test in three ways.
[14:20] Publius Crabgrass: 1) It’s pretty clear that letting just one person write the rules, ranging from the important to the trivial, was a mistake.
[14:21] Publius Crabgrass: 2) the system has failed the important test of establishing a simple and usable set of Code of Procedure, though the RA is trying to correct this imbalance by passing a much more user-friendly set of Rules.
[14:21] Publius Crabgrass: In constructing those 125 plus pages of procedures, when a choice was to be made in nearly every instance Ashcroft chose the UK model as the “better” one.
[14:21] Publius Crabgrass: I am sure our multinational citizenry can provide other options, and WORKING TOGETHER, we can build a better mousetrap. Why walk when you can fly? Why have witnesses stand in a box when they can fly? Let us be more creative.
[14:21] Publius Crabgrass: 3) Judicial qualification process is way to complicated. It tries to impose purportedly objective standards on the subjective question of whether someone is qualified to be a judge.
[14:21] Publius Crabgrass: The result has been that only those with RL legal training have any interest, and I think we would be better served if we had some citizen judges who have common sense but no legal training.
[14:22] Publius Crabgrass: So what do we do about this?
[14:22] Publius Crabgrass: I suggest that when it is time for the Commission to make recommendations, it consider the following in order:
[14:22] Publius Crabgrass: first, whether to do nothing. If a majority votes for that option, then your work is done (except for any dissenting opinions to be submitted).
[14:22] Publius Crabgrass: Second, vote on whether to recommend repeal, because again, if a majority votes for that option, the commission’s work is done (except for dissents). But neither of those extremes will gather a majority.
[14:22] Publius Crabgrass: So I will suggest some alternatives that are in the middle, and see my forum post for details.
[14:23] Publius Crabgrass: 1. KISS - keep it simple, stupid. This means that the constitutional provisions should be short, establishing the judiciary. Make the rest simple legislation, so it is easier to change if we find that this experiment needs modification.
[14:23] Publius Crabgrass: 2. Change the judicial qualification process. SC appointment and RA confirmation would be a fine alternative to electing judges, but I support either method over the current scheme, especially if we eliminate lifetime appointment.
[14:23] Publius Crabgrass: 3. Change the terms of judges. Six months is a lifetime in SecondLife.
[14:23] Publius Crabgrass: 4. Establish an intermediate appellate court between the trial judge and the SC. Ashcroft has said that I have the power to do this myself by increasing the number of courts to two, but I’d like to hear public input before I do so.
[14:24] Publius Crabgrass: 5. Let the judges suggest the rules, but make them subject to RA approval
[14:24] Publius Crabgrass: 6. Wait before introducing jury trials
[14:24] Publius Crabgrass: 7. Keep the judicial system free and easy to use. Let us have a judicial system that anyone can navigate without the assistance of a lawyer, and at no cost to themselves.
[14:24] Publius Crabgrass: More on the forums, but I will also anxiously await the suggestions of my fellow citizens.
[14:24] Publius Crabgrass: Thank you for taking the time to listen, I’ll get off the soapbox now.
[14:24] Publius Crabgrass: And will post on the forums soon.
[14:24] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[14:25] Justice Soothsayer: thank you, publius
[14:25] You: thnak you Publius :)
[14:25] TOPGenosse Brouwer: Thx Publius
[14:25] You: anyone in queue for speaking?
[14:25] Ashcroft Burnham: If there's no-one else interested in spoeaking for a first time, I wouldn't mind a second run :-)
[14:25] Justice Soothsayer: no one else inthe quue
[14:25] Redaktisto Noble: Me too.
[14:25] Michel Manen: Ash
[14:26] Michel Manen: if i can say two eords
[14:26] Redaktisto Noble: Thank you Publius.
[14:26] You: ok. everyone
[14:27] You: ok, we will give 5 minutes to speak now, please click teh soapbox for getting on the queue
[14:27] The Soapbox: It is Redaktisto Noble's turn to speak, please take the floor
[14:27] The Soapbox: Redaktisto Noble is on the soapbox now!
[14:28] Redaktisto Noble: This is what I was referring to as the "rebuttal round", Mich. :)
[14:28] Redaktisto Noble: I meant to go do some other work but this is very interesting so I've stayed. I have some remarks on a notecard.
[14:28] Redaktisto Noble: In response to Gwyn's concerns, I wonder if the situation would have been better under the JA than it was under the make-it-up-as-you-go system that was in place before. I will leave the answer to that question to others for now.
[14:28] Redaktisto Noble: I find it odd that Ash has proclaimed the Soothsayer rules as a disaster waiting to happen, even though it has broader support and input has come from far more minds than in Ash's proposed code.
[14:28] Redaktisto Noble: However, the Soothsayer rules may be a bandaid on a mortal wound and in my opinion aren't enough to salvage the JA.
[14:29] Redaktisto Noble: It seems to me that proponents of the JA tend to compare it to RL systems. But they seem to be overlooking something very important:
[14:29] Redaktisto Noble: people in SL have many choices on how to handle their grievances. They are not geographically bound to submit themselves to our court. Even their financial ties to this community are relatively small.
[14:29] Redaktisto Noble: in most cases, anyhow.
[14:29] Redaktisto Noble: The strongest motivator to submit to a trial against one's will is the social aspect. However, even the relational ties to this community are easily maintained by those who might be banned, via IM and meeting elsewhere on the grid.
[14:29] Redaktisto Noble: That is, unless part of this system is for all citizens to agree to shunning those who are banned. :)
[14:29] Redaktisto Noble: People must WANT to be part of this sytem, or to put it another way the benefit of taking part must outweigh the potential consequences, for BOTH parties in EVERY case, or else people will simply not take part in it.
[14:29] Redaktisto Noble: That is an incredibly difficult standard to meet, and the JA falls far short of it.
[14:30] Redaktisto Noble: So far the most common response to conflict with others in SL has been to handle things on one's own, or to petition LL for intervention.
[14:30] Redaktisto Noble: Another possibility it to create a separate resident-run dispute resolution system. There is a strong likelihood that many will crop up soon, since LL has announced their intention to get out of handling abuse reports as much as possible.
[14:30] Redaktisto Noble: Will CDS be at the vanguard of creating a usable system, or will ours be tossed aside for more usable ones, or worse yet found to be no better than the status quo of anarchy?
[14:30] Redaktisto Noble: Thanks for another opportunity to address the Commission.
[14:30] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[14:30] You: Thanks redak :)
[14:30] Ashcroft Burnham: How do I tell who's next?
[14:31] The Soapbox: It is Ashcroft Burnham's turn to speak, please take the floor
[14:31] Michel Manen: hahaha
[14:31] The Soapbox: Ashcroft Burnham is on the soapbox now!
[14:31] You: :)
[14:31] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:31] Ashcroft Burnham: First of all, I have to say that I'm very disappointed by the form of argumentation that some are using, Publius especially, who seems to start from the premise that the system is flawed, and work from there.
[14:32] Ashcroft Burnham: The purpose of what we are doing here at this commission is analysing carefully, clearly and cogently, and with all the intellectual resources that our collective brains can muster, the right answer in principle to the issues in debate.
[14:33] Ashcroft Burnham: There are important philosophical differences to be resolved, and they must be resolved on principle by intellectual debate, not merely by testing a system against one set of ideas and assuming from the start that the others are flawed.
[14:33] Ashcroft Burnham: So a bald assertion that the system is flawed is not enough: we need *reasoning* to back it up. I urge all those involved in this debate to ignore anything that is not substantiated with reason.
[14:34] Ashcroft Burnham: Incidentally, one of the most powerful reasons in favour of the point that I have been making all along is Gwyn's experience of doing it the "simple" way: vast, unmanagable complexity with which everyone is deeply dissatisfied.
[14:34] Ashcroft Burnham: To suggest, as Redakisto does, that the system that we have in place (with the original code of procedures) is so "dangerous" as should not even be tested by being applied to real cases is, given the result of having tested the alternative, quite absurd.
[14:35] Ashcroft Burnham: We have, as many will know, a bill before the RA on arbitration.
[14:35] Redaktisto Noble: I object to my propositions being called absurd.
[14:35] Char Linden: Find Places under Search, and Events display on the Map have been temporarily disabled causing searches to come up “service unavailable”. Please keep an eye on blog for further info. http://blog.secondlife.com/
[14:35] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:35] Ashcroft Burnham: That will, if passed, permit both the fully-comprehensive rules, and the make-it-up-a-you-go-along models to bee tested alongside each otehr.
[14:36] Ashcroft Burnham: That will also address anybody's concern that, if he or she has a dispute that he or she would prefer the judiciary not to resolve, for one reason or another, then there is an alternative.
[14:36] You: 5 minutes past....
[14:36] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:36] Ashcroft Burnham: It seems to me reckless in the extreme to discard hundreds of hours of work that I have put into drafting, and we have all put into discussing and debating, to favour a system that has failed in the past over one that is very similar to systems that work in real life and nothing but speculation to say against it.
[14:37] Ashcroft Burnham: I have responses on legal skill, lawyers and the economy, judicial independence and democracy, and attraction of citizens, too, but I'm told that my time is over...
[14:37] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[14:37] Gwyneth Llewelyn: :)
[14:37] You: thanks Ash :)
[14:37] Redaktisto Noble: Thanks Ash.
[14:37] You: i think Michel has crashed, btw...
[14:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: oops
[14:38] Ashcroft Burnham: :-(((
[14:38] Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, no :-)
[14:38] The Soapbox: Michel Manen is on the soapbox now!
[14:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Wait, he still walks!
[14:38] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:38] The Soapbox: It is Michel Manen's turn to speak, please take the floor
[14:38] Michel Manen: Thank you. Fiat justitia ruat caelum is a Latin legal phrase, literally translating to "let justice be done should the sky fall." It signifies that equity and justice must be carried out by courts even if their decisions have adverse effects. The corrolary to this statement is that a justice system is not a popularity contest. It is a serious and complex matter. Now, the basic, m ost fundamental question, one on which we should benefit from the guidance of the SC, a question even more fundamental than: "What is our Justice system for?" is "What is the nature and purpose of our community - of CDS? AS gwyn aptly stated, for some it is just a cool game. For many of us, it goes well beyond this. Perhaps, to paraphrase another "game', we are here going where no virtual community has gone before.
[14:39] Redaktisto Noble: Hear hear.
[14:39] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:40] Michel Manen: If we decide this is more than a game, we must treat it with the seriousness itt deserves. Those who want to run a simplified game for their own amusement may do so. This is not what, in my opinion, the CDS is all about. Thank you.
[14:40] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[14:40] You: thanks Michel :)
[14:40] You: anyone else for second round?
[14:40] Redaktisto Noble: Thanks Michel!
[14:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn cheers and notices the nice costume of Michel ;)
[14:40] The Soapbox: It is Ludo Merit's turn to speak, please take the floor
[14:40] The Soapbox: Ludo Merit is on the soapbox now!
[14:40] Michel Manen: smiles at Gwyn
[14:40] The Soapbox: Shhh...
[14:41] Ludo Merit: I have been trying to find the wording of what just got passed to see if it is as 'make it up as you go along' as folks have been saying.
[14:42] Ludo Merit: I haven't found it yet.
[14:43] Ludo Merit: My gut feeling is that it's easier to go from something complex enough to something simpler than to start with something simple and disagree about how to complicate it.
[14:43] Ludo Merit: And it is that feeling that keeps me from going with my other gut feeling that anything I'm incapable of understanding is too complicated.
[14:44] Ludo Merit: I think it is important how we start, but more important how we end. I'
[14:44] Ludo Merit: I'm glad that we seem to be willing to try things and change them if necessary.
[14:44] Ludo Merit: And because I don't know what I'm talking about, that's about all I can say. Thank you.
[14:44] The Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
[14:44] Redaktisto Noble: :)
[14:45] TOPGenosse Brouwer: thank you :)
[14:45] You: thank you Ludo :)
[14:45] The Soapbox: It is Ashcroft Burnham's turn to speak, please take the floor
[14:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh lol — still a good point, Ludo, thanks!
[14:45] You: hmmm
[14:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: the soapbox is broken? ;)
[14:45] Justice Soothsayer: no one left in queue
[14:45] TOPGenosse Brouwer: Ashcroft broke it! :)
[14:45] Ashcroft Burnham: No, I clicked twice not knowing how it worked.
[14:45] TOPGenosse Brouwer: speeches too long :)
[14:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe perhaps, TOP :)
[14:45] You: ah ok
[14:45] Ashcroft Burnham: I don't think that one's allowed a third round, alas ;-)
[14:45] You: ah btw everyone
[14:45] You: before we go into open debate
[14:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: We have still the free-for-all bit!
[14:46] You: our notetaker gave an error
[14:46] Ashcroft Burnham: Yes... >:-)
[14:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn humbly waits for Moon to finish
[14:46] You: so, unless you do not consent, i will be taking teh transcript manually
[14:46] Ashcroft Burnham: Fine by me :-)
[14:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Fine here as well.
[14:46] Michel Manen: Aye
[14:46] Justice Soothsayer: ok with me, moon
[14:46] Ludo Merit nods
[14:46] Justice Soothsayer: I have parts 1-5 from the machine
[14:46] TOPGenosse Brouwer: sure
[14:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Tsk. technology!
[14:46] Redaktisto Noble: OK with me.
[14:47] You: we will then start the open debate, which will last 30 minutes
[14:47] You: ending at 3.15
[14:47] Justice Soothsayer: apologies in advance, but ihave to leave promptly at 3
[14:47] Justice Soothsayer: and will be a bit late for the 6 pm session
[14:47] Redaktisto Noble: I may be quickly leaving too, when my wife gets home we're going to dinner.
[14:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well — enjoy these minutes, then :)
[14:48] Justice Soothsayer: one thing iv'e learned is that I shall ask Claude for a soapbox for RA meetings
[14:48] Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, a number of points have been raised by other people.
[14:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha justice!
[14:48] Ashcroft Burnham: Justice: good idea :-)
[14:48] Ashcroft Burnham: And I'd like to come back on them, because htey're important.
[14:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: And I promise to tweak this one between the two meetings, to see if I can make it give warnings at different intervals...
[14:49] Ashcroft Burnham: I'll start with one that Publius raised about democracy.
[14:49] Ashcroft Burnham: And our codes of procedures.
[14:49] Ashcroft Burnham: Ohh, Gwyn, our master coder!
[14:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: naah
[14:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: that's FR I'm afraid.
[14:49] Ashcroft Burnham: It's not true that the interim rules passed by the RA (I used to call them the "Soothsayer rules", but Justice didn't want to have rules named after him - it never heard Lord Cairns, I say, but that's another matter)...
[14:50] Ashcroft Burnham: ...have had more feedback than my code of procedure - in fact, they've had less.
[14:50] Ashcroft Burnham: My code of procedure was based very heavily on my forum posts in August where I outlined the system.
[14:50] Ashcroft Burnham: They were available for all to comment on.
[14:50] Ashcroft Burnham: Many did.
[14:50] Redaktisto Noble: More feedback that resulted in tweaks. :)
[14:50] Ashcroft Burnham: There was debate about many things.
[14:50] Ashcroft Burnham: The current code of procedure is different to what it would have been because of that.
[14:50] Ashcroft Burnham: Jury trials not being mandatory, for instance.
[14:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, I'm afraid that people only saw the judiciary Act, completely forgetting that it was a +resumed* version of Ash's initial posts ... :)
[14:51] Ashcroft Burnham: The issue about the ToS and transcripts had its impact, too: it's not as I'd have liked it to have been on that.
[14:51] Ashcroft Burnham: Now, Justice's rules were presented for the first time at the RA meeting that passed them.
[14:51] Ashcroft Burnham: There was no discussion at all of the contents, apart from the debate about the constitutionality of appeals to the SC, which part was vetoed by the SC.
[14:52] Justice Soothsayer: they certainly can be modified
[14:52] Redaktisto Noble: Because the response to the criticism of the Code wasn't satisfactory, something had to be put in place so we didn't default to the Code.
[14:52] Ashcroft Burnham: The point that I made all along was that we can't wait for everybody to agree to have judiciarl procedure: the idea was always that I had been engaged as a person with legal skill and experience to set up a legal sysetm here, and set everything in place, and, as far as procedure is concerned, details could be adjusted later.
[14:53] Ashcroft Burnham: Redakisto, we haven't had any real analysis of the claims that some have made that it's "inadequate": just bald assertions.
[14:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: May I say something in Ash's defense?
[14:53] Redaktisto Noble: But a cavalier attitude to public opinion wins no love in a democracy.
[14:53] Ashcroft Burnham: The reality is that the code is exactly what everyone who read my initial forum posts should have expected.
[14:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I might be responsible of uh "encouraging" him to post his suggestions
[14:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Since at that timne hmm
[14:53] Redaktisto Noble: But you criticized us for calling it complex and large before we had seen it.
[14:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: the SC was entrusted to provide a Code of procedures,
[14:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: so that we had *something* to work from.
[14:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well. The SC, so to speak, suggested that people (like Ash here) came up with a proposal
[14:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: At that time (July or so) it was felt that "no procedures" was a *bad* thing.
[14:55] Justice Soothsayer is certain the RA would entertain further modifications of the rules proposed by the judiciary.
[14:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: A few months afterwards, we are discussing if we haven't "too many" procedures :)
[14:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: We went from "zero" to "a million" in a few months ;)
[14:56] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyway, I'll try to comment as little as possible, but I would like to point out that 8. Financial issues should not be in a code of procedures,
[14:56] Gwyneth Llewelyn: but be set by the RA
[14:56] Redaktisto Noble: Ash, is it your position that the public should just entrust the creation and establishment of the judicial system (which you will work in and which we will be accountable to) to you part and parcel?
[14:56] Gwyneth Llewelyn: since it's the RA that approves the budget, always
[14:56] Ashcroft Burnham: Returning to my point, I take great exception to those who call our Code of Procedure undemocratic. In short, I came here offering to design a judiciary: I was encouraged in doing so: I posted in detail on the forms outlining my design: after some debate, the proposal was adopted: I put into effect *exactly* what I had proposed all along, and people now call that undemocratic.
[14:56] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and this would be income or expenses by the state
[14:56] Justice Soothsayer: sorry, but i have to go
[14:57] Justice Soothsayer: Moon, preserve order, please ;)
[14:57] Ashcroft Burnham: I have never claimed that I should have absolute power over procedures.
[14:57] Gwyneth Llewelyn: bye for now, Justice :)
[14:57] Redaktisto Noble: Hmm...claim and action ARE different, I suppose.
[14:57] You: bye Justice, see you later at 6 PM
[14:57] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe Redak
[14:57] You: :)
[14:58] Ashcroft Burnham: However, since the procedures that I had written were based entirely on the detailed outline of procedures that I had posted when I initially proposed my system, which proposal was sanctioned, and given democratic mandate by the RA when they passed the Judiciary Act, I think it wholly unfair to consider that I have acted undemocratically by bringing about those very procedures.
[14:58] Gwyneth Llewelyn: also, remember that *nobody* wanted to be a Judge at first...
[14:58] Ashcroft Burnham: The point about the procedures always was that we would *never* have a functioning judiciary if everybody, even all the legislature, as Publius misgudedly suggests, had to agree on *all* the procedures before we start.
[14:59] Redaktisto Noble: I have absolutely no complaint about you bringing something to the table that you were asked to do and spent a lot of time on. My problem is that you seem to say it's our only choice, and shouldn't be changed, and must be accepted as the new status quo.
[14:59] Gwyneth Llewelyn remembers the 10-week discussion on the first Constitution :)
[14:59] Ashcroft Burnham: The idea was that I have the power, just like in real-life courts, as the outside expert brought in to design our legal system, to set the procedures, but that that be made subject to the power of the RA to adjust it.
[14:59] Ashcroft Burnham: Redakisto, I'm not saying that.
[14:59] Redaktisto Noble: But you're not an outside expert if you take a job in that system, as leader of it.
[15:00] Ashcroft Burnham: What I'm saying is that it was rash and reckless to replace something on which I had been working for months, which was the very basis of my original proposal that had democratic mandate when the Judiciary Act was passed...
[15:00] Ashcroft Burnham: ...with something that was cobbled together in an afternoon.
[15:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: One cannot question the RA's willingness to make more changes, it required...
[15:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *if
[15:00] Ashcroft Burnham: The idea was for our procedures to be tested thoroughly, and not changed without serious debate and experience in practice.
[15:00] Redaktisto Noble: Reckless is doing something that is dangerous. You can say preserving things as they are until you prove your Code is not reckless is "negligent", but not "reckless".
[15:01] Ashcroft Burnham: The legislature has acted very rashly in changing the procedures with hardly any concerted debate on the individual points, and even more rashly by replacing them with something so vague that it's almost like having no procedures at all.
[15:01] Redaktisto Noble: Ash, so you are sayng your procedures, unchanged, should be the status quo until they are tested.
[15:01] Gwyneth Llewelyn: btw, the *current* code allows the parties to pick up whatever set of procedures they wish...
[15:01] You: indeed Gwyn, and that is the purpose of this comission - to pinpoint areas where there may be dispute, and hopefully to clarify those points
[15:01] Ashcroft Burnham: Redakisto, reverting us to almost where we were, in procedural terms, at the time of the Ulrika trial is *extremely* dangerous.
[15:02] You: the ones in agenda, if i may remind :)
[15:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes Moon :)
[15:02] Redaktisto Noble: Again, I appeal to the meanign of the word reckless.
[15:02] Ashcroft Burnham: Redakisto, yes, I am saying that the procedures that had democratic mandate when the Act was passed based on my original forum posts should be tested and not changed without great care.
[15:02] Ashcroft Burnham: If one entrusts an expert to design a system, and that expert spends hundreds of hours doing so, it is wholly wrong to throw it away with hardly a thought because people balk at its *length*
[15:03] Ashcroft Burnham: The idea is that there would be detailed feedback on aspects of the code at the same time as the code was put into practice.
[15:03] Ashcroft Burnham: It is far, far better to have a first draft than to have no code at all (or the virtual equivalent of no code that we have now).
[15:03] Ashcroft Burnham: The point about detail and complexity in general is that people confuse the two.
[15:03] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well — it would be the equivalent from throwing away the whole constitution and the whole code of law we have and say "oh. let's start from scratch, there is simply too many laws to read" (50 or so pages)
[15:04] Redaktisto Noble: It is absolutely undemocratic to say, we hand over all authority on this matter to an individual expert who has plenty to gain by designing the system for his own advantage and ease of use, without regard to the end users (the citizens).
[15:04] Ashcroft Burnham: Our current system is most certainly not less complex to operate than my original code, as Gwyn perfectly illustrated with the Ulrika trial, and as Ludo knows with the STarfleet trial.
[15:04] Jon Seattle: Ashcroft, I have a question. How many people live in a county were you reside (approximatly?) And how many judges are there in that county?
[15:04] Ashcroft Burnham: It is more *detailed*, but that is fundamentally different.
[15:05] Michel Manen: Since parties can agree om procedures, those of us who wish to try out th e Code of Procedure could use its rules, and see how these trials proceed in parallel with those woh wish to adopt other rules
[15:05] Ashcroft Burnham: With my original code, when guides are written (as they undoubtedly would be - Oni is keen to work on them), one could say: "Look *here* if you want a brief outline of how it works; look *here* if you want the details". With our present system, one is forced to say, "Look *here* if you want a brief outline; if you want the details... tough. You'll have to guess".
[15:05] You: 10 minutes to go
[15:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods* @ Michel
[15:05] Redaktisto Noble: If you were designing a system for others to implement as a truly "outside expert", I doubt you would have put together what you have.
[15:05] Michel Manen: smiles at gwyn
[15:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: It would be far longer, Redak.
[15:06] Redaktisto Noble: What if one wants to arbitrate and one wants the court?
[15:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Under the current system, I think that there is not even an appeal :)
[15:06] Jon Seattle: I asked a question, I wonder if Ashcroft will answer.
[15:06] Ashcroft Burnham: Redakisto, you're not handing over all your authority to the person whom you brought in to design the system, but, if you hired an architect (who was prepared to work for free) to design a public building for you, would you not think that there would be something horribly wrong if, after the architect had spent months on the blueprints, you suddenly said "No, that's far too complex! Le'ts just have this big shed from the DIY shop..."
[15:06] Ashcroft Burnham: ?
[15:07] Ashcroft Burnham: Jon, going back to your question, there are about sixty million people. I don't know how many judges that there are.
[15:07] Michel Manen: Thats is a red herring anyway
[15:07] Redaktisto Noble: If you don't see the difference between a UK lawyer building a legal system and an architect designing a building, I would be surprised.
[15:07] Jon Seattle: Ah, how many people are there for each judge would you say?
[15:07] Ashcroft Burnham: Why?
[15:08] Ashcroft Burnham: I've no idea, Jon :-)
[15:08] Michel Manen: Jon that is irrelevant.
[15:08] Ashcroft Burnham: I'm not a numbers person.
[15:08] You: hmmm, architects are experts too...
[15:08] Ashcroft Burnham: But probably far more people per judge than here :-)
[15:08] Michel Manen: We are not building a justice system for 65 people
[15:08] Ashcroft Burnham: Even with one judge.
[15:08] Jon Seattle: Okay, say it were 1 for every 40,000
[15:08] Jon Seattle: that would be about right, would it not?
[15:08] Ashcroft Burnham: Jon, the same goes for our legislature :-)
[15:08] Redaktisto Noble: And as I recall the JA occurred largely from your clamor to create a Judiciary, not an outcry by citizens for such.
[15:08] Ashcroft Burnham: There are *far* fewer legislators than judges in the UK :-)
[15:08] Ashcroft Burnham: And in most countries.
[15:08] Ashcroft Burnham: So, the point applies far more so to legislators.
[15:09] Ashcroft Burnham: Redakisto, it was created to fulfill a very real need.
[15:09] Michel Manen: we are building a justive system that could potentially be used by more people that 70 per cent of the countries in the real world have people
[15:09] Ashcroft Burnham: One can't have a government without a juiciary that works properly.
[15:09] Jon Seattle: Well, the RA is not a legislature in the sense that, say a city cousal is.
[15:09] Michel Manen: so your numbers question is just a red herring
[15:09] Ashcroft Burnham: Jon, it's a legislature in every sense. The *constitution* calls it a legislature.
[15:10] Redaktisto Noble: I was looking at a site about the micronations of Europe, and many appeal to systems outside their own for difficult cases, even though their populations are many tmes larger than ours.
[15:10] Jon Seattle: But I have a question Ashcroft. How much are you willling to have each of us pay for this system of yours?
[15:10] Michel Manen: Well, mayFor now Red.
[15:10] You: 5 minutes to go.
[15:10] Ashcroft Burnham: I don't know the answer to that: I was hoping that somebody else could do the numbers :-)
[15:10] Jon Seattle: I am talking about human labor.
[15:10] Redaktisto Noble: For the foreseeable future, we will be smaller than Andorra or Monaco, I'm sure.
[15:10] Ashcroft Burnham: Well, I have put in a huge amount of labour so far.
[15:10] Michel Manen: I disagree
[15:10] Ashcroft Burnham: For free.
[15:10] Ashcroft Burnham: Because I think that this is fascinating.
[15:11] Michel Manen: Hea hrear
[15:11] Redaktisto Noble: So if we don't take your "gift", that's wrong?
[15:11] Ashcroft Burnham: It seems through experience in the past few months that *a lot* of other people are also willing to do the same.
[15:11] Jon Seattle: How man hours will each of us be required to pay to make this work? I just want to know the cost before I buy in.
[15:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So the argument is that if we're too small, we're not entitled to a fair and impartial system, with proper procedures?
[15:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I find that very irregular.
[15:11] Jon Seattle: Ashcroft, ten hours per weel for each and every citizen?
[15:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sounds like LL reasoning :)
[15:11] Michel Manen: Hear vhear
[15:11] Redaktisto Noble: Gwyn, that's a strawman.
[15:11] Ashcroft Burnham: Jon, I don't think that you'll need to spend any time with it unless you have a case... unless you, as legislator, keep trying to change it, of course.
[15:11] Moon Adamant smiles at gwyn
[15:11] Ludo Merit: Why is it so relevant that Ash came up with the proposal. Isn't the important thing whether it is a good one.
[15:11] Jon Seattle: Twenty?
[15:11] Michel Manen: Another red herring Jon
[15:12] You: indeed Ludo! That is what we should be discussing here
[15:12] Ashcroft Burnham: Jon - no, goodness, no... what is taking almost all the time at the moment is all the debate caused by all the people who want to change what we already agreed on.
[15:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, redak — it might be, and you should see the types of discussions I have with LL about it :)
[15:12] Redaktisto Noble: First, the JA isn't proven to be fair and impartial, any moreso than our current system. And "proper" procedures differ with the context.
[15:12] Jon Seattle: Are we going to spend fourty hours a week on it? I want those who back this proposal to tell me how much it will cost!
[15:12] You: I do not want to conduct the debate on the very least, but we will need to present a document to RA
[15:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I agree it's unproven — we have not tested it, so it's unproven by default.
[15:13] Michel Manen: You can spend 0 hours on it Jon.
[15:13] Michel Manen: It;s your choice
[15:13] Ashcroft Burnham: And Gwyn makes an excellent point on scale: the number of people are almost wholly irrelevant (if there are more than ten or so) to the design of the system.
[15:13] Ashcroft Burnham: Complexity does not scale with number of people, but with the nature and number of functions.
[15:13] Michel Manen: hear hear
[15:13] Redaktisto Noble: I have pretty much decided I myself won't use the system. My main concern is being sued under it.
[15:13] Jon Seattle: Ah, Michel, I can do so only at my own peril apparently? And that goes for us all!
[15:13] Michel Manen: its a choice you are entiled to make
[15:14] Michel Manen: if you feel the burden falls to harshly on you
[15:14] Ashcroft Burnham: Redakisto, I think it wholly unfair and unfounded that you claim that the current system is not "fair and impartial". What possible basis do you have for such an extremely serious accusation of impropriety, when there has not even been a case heard yet?
[15:14] Michel Manen: especially since it is untested in practice
[15:14] Jon Seattle: Michel, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that I should be willing to have a bad system if I do not put in 20 hours a week?
[15:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn *scratches head*
[15:15] Ashcroft Burnham: Jon, I have no idea where you get these numbers from.
[15:15] You: ok everyone
[15:15] Michel Manen: No; but that you yourself can determine the cost t oyou of your participation
[15:15] Ashcroft Burnham: The thing that is taking the time is dealing with all the people who suddenly want to change what we alla greed on only recently.
[15:15] Jon Seattle: I am asking you how much human labor this will take. This community has a very limited amount.
[15:15] TOPGenosse Brouwer: sh** up and listen to Moon :)
[15:15] Michel Manen: and that the numbers game - how many hours- is a red herring
[15:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I don't understand that argument. As said, just to have a *hearing* on one case, 4 people spent 20 hours in-world in meetings, and I don't know how many more off-world in emails.
[15:15] You: the 30 minutes are past
[15:15] Ashcroft Burnham: Only those who want to be involved, or who have a problem that htey need the judiciary to solve, will need to spend any time on it at all.
[15:15] You: lol, thanks TOP
[15:15] TOPGenosse Brouwer: Or she will sue you
[15:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: If there were a core of procedures, even a tiny one, I think we could have managed with 3-4 hours.
[15:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *code
[15:16] Jon Seattle: No, aparently if we do not participate, we cannot have faith that the system will be just.
[15:16] You: nah, i'll just leave you all here debating... i have work to do :)
[15:16] Redak
Locked

Return to “Special Comission on the Judiciary Forum”