Transcript - Meeting on the 13th Dec, 1 PM SLT

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

Moderator: SC Moderators

Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Transcript - Meeting on the 13th Dec, 1 PM SLT

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

[i:2mp3xgz7][Editor note: posted from chat recorder that, thankfully, seemed to work]
[Editor note 2: to make discussion about possible voting options a bit more intelligble, I am posting my proposed Commission ballot as a reply to this thread, and invite Ashcroft to do the same][/i:2mp3xgz7]
Justice Soothsayer is in the chair.
Justice Soothsayer: with the update, lets give folks a chance to get here
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes :)
Oni Jiutai: Hi, Beathan.
Beathan Vale: I propose that we require all advocates to wear kilts -- and to wear them properly
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: tsk tsk
Ashcroft Burnham: I have to say, I have some doubts as to whether this special commission is getting us anywhere. The only people who are participating are those who participate on the forums, and they're all saying the same things as they said on the forums.
Beathan Vale: and if we require bowing, we must therefore excuse accidental mooning
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Alas.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That might be a conclusion as well :)
Justice Soothsayer: we had several new (non-forum) faces yesterday
Ashcroft Burnham has indicated consent to be recorded.
Beathan Vale: I think Dexters point about the different in tone and substance is real given the different media
Ashcroft Burnham: TOPGenosse just watched.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed we had.
Ashcroft Burnham: Ludo did say one or two interesting things.
Justice Soothsayer: and Rudy
Ashcroft Burnham: He's posted in the forums before.
Justice Soothsayer: and Ranma, though she has posted a bit
Ashcroft Burnham: She has posted a lot.
Oni Jiutai: Can't hurt to have as many ways of getting input as possible.
Beathan Vale: he has not attended a meeting -- and he said that he found the transcript of the meeting relevantly different than the postings
Beathan Vale: Agree Oni
Oni Jiutai: As long as we eventually reach a conclusion. ;-)
Ashcroft Burnham: That may be so, but it hasn't actually made ht positions any clearer.
Ashcroft Burnham: It might be good to remember that we reached a conclusion in October.
Beathan Vale: well -- Dexter said that he thought it made the positions clearer -- and I have no reason to doubt him on this
Beathan Vale: It also might be good to forget that
: Justice Soothsayer is on the soapbox now!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well it's a question of structure.
: Shhh...
Ashcroft Burnham: No, Beathan, that wuld be wholly inappropraite.
: Shhh...
Justice Soothsayer: Hah!
Justice Soothsayer: I have the soapbox
Justice Soothsayer: Prerogative of the chair, heh
Justice Soothsayer: I'm going to officially start the meeting. Moon will be along a bit later.
Justice Soothsayer: Since you are all the usual suspects, I don't need to remind you of the rules.
Justice Soothsayer: But then again, since you have all been at the other meetings, you've already had your 10 minutes of fame.
Justice Soothsayer: But I would proposed that we have another ten minute round, followed by open discussion.
Justice Soothsayer: So I'll get off the soapbox
Justice Soothsayer: Please click the recorder on the table to indicate consent, though the recorder may be iffy.
Oni Jiutai has indicated consent to be recorded.
Justice Soothsayer: If need be, I'll cut and paste from chat history.
: The soapbox is now free
Beathan Vale has indicated consent to be recorded.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Let the games begin, alea jacta est, ave justicia, morituri te salutant, etc and so on :)
Ashcroft Burnham: Perhaps Oni, as the only one who hasn't spoken at one of these meetings before, should go first?
Justice Soothsayer: anyeone who wants to speak uninterruped may click the sopa box to join the queue
Gwyneth Llewelyn has indicated consent to be recorded.
Michel Manen has indicated consent to be recorded.
Oni Jiutai: Actually, (and embarassingly this will now be recorded for all time) I'm eating and atteding the meeting. So if someone else would like to go, so I can finish and type interrupted in a bit?
Gwyneth Llewelyn hasn't even eaten yet hehe
Ashcroft Burnham: I ate earlier :-)
Justice Soothsayer: I am between meals
Ashcroft Burnham: Michel? Well-fed?
Beathan Vale: I don't eat -- being an avatar with no food requirements to speak of
Michel Manen: Always Aash,, always,,, haggus at will..
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: :)
Beathan Vale: but, if offered -- I might eat the haggis
Michel Manen: Sorry to be out of the loop today.. what is our agenda?
Beathan Vale: after all -- I'm not sure that it counts as edible by American standards
Ashcroft Burnham: Same as yesterday.
Justice Soothsayer: this is the third of 4 open forums
Oni Jiutai: Right. You lot have chatted for so long I have now finished - so I'll embarass myself by attempting to use the soap-box.
Justice Soothsayer: lol
: Oni Jiutai is on the soapbox now!
Oni Jiutai: Right. My message today is "DON'T PANIC!"
Oni Jiutai: We are all trying to do something that is very difficult.
Oni Jiutai: From a new comer's perspective I think it is going rather well.
Oni Jiutai: There are still a lot of issues to be finalised and arguments to have. But actually we all agree that we want a justice system and I think there is much more in common in the ideas than we generally think.
Oni Jiutai: I've had a lot of detailed stuff to say in the forums, so I won't repeat that here.
Oni Jiutai: Just focus on a few important things.
Oni Jiutai: 1. Selection of the judiciary.
Oni Jiutai: I have completed the form (maybe succesfully, maybe not).
Oni Jiutai: It was HARD.
Oni Jiutai: This might not be a bad thing.
Oni Jiutai: Certainly no harder than representing a case or judging one.
Oni Jiutai: I do have some view. Will post in forums. one how to improve.
Oni Jiutai: But basically we can tweak that / change it completely.
Oni Jiutai: An important issue, but not something to throw the baby out over.
Oni Jiutai: 2. Procedures.
Oni Jiutai: I understand why RA changed Ash's code.
Oni Jiutai: Ash's code looks scary.
Oni Jiutai: Actually I don't think it is.
Oni Jiutai: The procedure it describes is reasonably simply.
Oni Jiutai: Written description of case - some preliminary stuff - hearing - appeal.
Oni Jiutai: It's long because it is precise
Patroklus Murakami has indicated consent to be recorded.
Oni Jiutai: Precise is good - because we want as little to disagree on as possible.
Oni Jiutai: URGENTLY - we need to produce a guide to code (if it comes back)
Oni Jiutai: But this is no problem.
Oni Jiutai: My worry about the current code, apart from what I've said in the forums, is that it gives Judges too much power.
Oni Jiutai: Because nothing is explicity described, RA can't amend easily.. This reduced the democratic input.
Oni Jiutai: But basically I think we're doing well.
Oni Jiutai: Also, a brief word on lawyers.
Oni Jiutai: We're not that bad. I'm here principly because of the legal system - it's fascinating - but I intend to stick around come what may, because I think other things here are fascinating.
Oni Jiutai: As well.
Oni Jiutai: Thank you.
: The soapbox is now free
Ashcroft Burnham: :-D
Justice Soothsayer: thanks, oni
Gwyneth Llewelyn: thank you Oni :)
Justice Soothsayer: michel, did you want the soapbox?
Ashcroft Burnham: Pat, are you going to speak this evening? Jon spoke yesterday, so there's no excluding members of our government...
Patroklus Murakami: yes, i plan to
Ashcroft Burnham: Excellent! :-)
Ashcroft Burnham: Now might be a good time ;-)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Go Pat, go!
Justice Soothsayer: anyone may have the box for up to 10 mins uninterrupted time
Gwyneth Llewelyn: :)
: It is Patroklus Murakami's turn to speak, please take the floor
Michel Manen: Yes, justice, but after Pat..
: Patroklus Murakami is on the soapbox now!
Patroklus Murakami: This discussion has highlighted public concerns about the Judiciary Act in operation.
Patroklus Murakami: Some of these are valid concerns, in my opinion.
Patroklus Murakami: The qualifying procedures for prospective judges seem onerous.
Patroklus Murakami: The draft Code of Procedure of 5 December was difficult to take in all at once and probably too long.
Patroklus Murakami: But these problems are all fixable. The RA can decide on new procedures for qualifying judges,
Patroklus Murakami: the RA has already passed a revised Code of Procedure, and we'll see if the simpler code is workable.
Patroklus Murakami: But the contention that the Judiciary Act has 'already failed' is flawed.
Patroklus Murakami: The Judiciary Act has not been *allowed* to operate.
Patroklus Murakami: The key thing to do now is to get the system up and running and trying cases.
Patroklus Murakami: We need to make some changes to the system on the back of these discussions.
Patroklus Murakami: And chart a middle course between 'repeal' (which would be lunacy) and 'carrying on regardless' (which would mean ignoring legitimate public concern).
Patroklus Murakami: I want to address the argument that, because something is long it is inevitably bad, and that simple = good.
Patroklus Murakami: Yesterday, Rudy compared the length of the US constitution with ours and the Judiciary Act.
Patroklus Murakami: I have a better comparison,
Patroklus Murakami: The Ten Commandments are pretty short :)
Patroklus Murakami: And yet, despite "Thou shalt not kill" being pretty damn clear,
Patroklus Murakami: people still argue that a 'Just War', state-sanctioned execution and killing someone in self-defence are compatible with that injunction.
Patroklus Murakami: 'Short' does not equal 'clear', 'simple' does not equal 'fair'. I think we need to grow up a bit,
Patroklus Murakami: and accept that human behaviour is complex, and that adults are capable of reading and understanding text that would stretch a six year old
Patroklus Murakami: what we have here is a set of untested assumptions
Patroklus Murakami: 'it's too long' 'its' too complex' 'it won't work'
Patroklus Murakami: we cannot know *unless* we try
Patroklus Murakami: much of what has passed for analysis, from the critics of the system we designed and agreed on
Patroklus Murakami: has been conjecture
Patroklus Murakami: i agree we need to make some changes
Patroklus Murakami: we need to reassure people that the RA (the elected body) retains the power to make any changes *and to repeal the whole lot* at *any* time it chooses
Patroklus Murakami: and we need to deal with genuine concerns
Patroklus Murakami: but then,
Patroklus Murakami: we need to get on with it
Patroklus Murakami: and stop unpicking decisions democratically-arrived at and agreed by the RA
Patroklus Murakami: that's all :)
: The soapbox is now free
Ashcroft Burnham: :-D
Justice Soothsayer: thanks you pat
: It is Michel Manen's turn to speak, please take the floor
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That was extraordinarily good, Pat :)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Congrats!
Redaktisto Noble has indicated consent to be recorded.
Justice Soothsayer: michel, you are up
Justice Soothsayer: please sit on the box
: Michel Manen is on the soapbox now!
Michel Manen: Well good morning everyone. Thank you for listening to me again.
Michel Manen: . I already spoke yesterday, addressing the main discussion points as posted in the forums, so I will not repeat myself here, since a transcription of that meeting has been already posted there
Michel Manen: . I would like to go back to what I see to be the main underlying issue behind the rhetoric and disagreements. And that is, what is the CDS all about? What is our vision? What are our long-term goals?
Michel Manen: If these premises are not cleared up, we will never resolve disputes whose arguments are premised on very different assumptions about these fundamental questions. Because the answers we seek will be very different depending on what we see our purpose and future to be
Michel Manen: Are we now attempting to create a judiciary for about 100 people- or, at any rate, something in this order of magnitude? If yes, then creating on overly detailed and far-sighted Judiciary must be tempered by ease of use, so that individual citizens may be as comfortable as possible with both its contents and the way it looks.
Michel Manen: Are we attempting to model a system that, we hope, will expand both organically ? by our building new sims ? and by expansion to other sims who will see the benefits of our 2L legal system and want to join us in this unprecedented and exciting experiment?
Michel Manen: In that case, we cannot develop our legal system step by step, starting with what amounts to nothing more than a vage Aternate Dispute Mechanism and refining and expanding it as we go along.
Michel Manen: Not only would our judicial system lose its attraction for other, existing sims, but as Gwyn so well explained to us, it will most likely hurt us directly ? by making the Ulrika trial fiasco not only a possibility, but indeed a probability.
Michel Manen: So this is where we are today.
Michel Manen: And I deeply regret that the manner of discourse on the forums
Michel Manen: continues to focus on personalities
Michel Manen: rather than on issues.
Michel Manen: I agree with Oni.
Michel Manen: I think we're doing rather well so far.
Michel Manen: Let us focus on our vision and goals.
Michel Manen: Let us derive from that hte best arguments,
Michel Manen: Let us leave asidepersona l attcks.
Michel Manen: And we will succed in what we want to achieve - and have fun doing so!
Michel Manen: Thank you.
: The soapbox is now free
Ashcroft Burnham: :-D
: It is Beathan Vale's turn to speak, please take the floor
Justice Soothsayer: thank you , michel
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hopefully, hopefully!
Justice Soothsayer: nicely said
: Beathan Vale is on the soapbox now!
Beathan Vale: Pat argued " 'Short' does not equal 'clear', 'simple' does not equal 'fair'. I think we need to grow up a bit," I don't think that anyone is saying this. Rather, we are saying something different -- the more complicated something is, the more likely it is to go wrong or to have unintended consequences. Surely this is true. Surely this is even true of the Judiciary Act itself.
Beathan Vale: Further, just because something is long and precise does not mean it gets things right. Something can be precisely wrong. Further, if we try to be precise before we know what we are doing, we probably will get things precisely wrong, if only because we are doing a narrow thing.
Michel Manen: Beathan, as you see, I did not bring my Clay more with me today ;)
: Shhh...
Beathan Vale: When shooting flying birds, you use a shotgun and shoot broadly ? just because if you try to be precise, you will miss. Justice, at the moment, is a flying bird.
Beathan Vale: Once we try things out, wee what works, then we can be precise and implement what works. However, it is premature to make that judgment now. We are guessing ? and if we guess precisely, we will probably guess wrong.
Beathan Vale: We should be like good fortune tellers ? be imprecise to be right, avoid precision because if we do our customers will call bullshit on our bullshit.
Beathan Vale: We also need to make sure that we don?t exclude anyone at the outset. We need to be inclusive. That means that we should not rule out any ideas from the start ? but should give each their due, and hearing, and test.
Beathan Vale: Finally, I don?t understand why we need judges to be legal professionals rather than smart, wise people of common sense. We could make it the advocates job to explain the law such that the judge understands it enough to make common sense calls, even if the judge is not a lawyer.
Beathan Vale: In fact, there are benefits in doing this. It would mean that common folks ? not just lawyers ? could follow what is happening in our courts. RL courts get this wrong. We don?t have to.
Beathan Vale: I think it is good to have a judiciary. I think we had a good judiciary before the Judiciary Act. I think we were unwise and overhasty to get rid of it. I think that the effort that went into the Judiciary Act does not justify its continuing to bind us.
Beathan Vale: Those are sunk costs ? we should write them up to ?lessons learned? and move on.
Beathan Vale: Finally, on personalities. Personalities matter when we have people holding offices. People don?t lose their personalities ? good and bad ? when they take office. We need a system we can trust regardless of the personalities of the officers. We don?t have that system now.
Beathan Vale: Thank you
: The soapbox is now free
: It is Ashcroft Burnham's turn to speak, please take the floor
: Ashcroft Burnham is on the soapbox now!
Ashcroft Burnham: I spoke yesterday about the importance of a proper procedure and about our function - I will to-day talk about something else important: judicial independence.
Ashcroft Burnham: There are many people who have advocated popular or political methods of appointing judges.
Ashcroft Burnham: What it is important to undersrstand is that the mechanism for deciding *who* is a judge has an important and influential impact on *what* is decided.
Ashcroft Burnham: Different people tend to decide things in different ways.
Ashcroft Burnham: Anybody with the power to appoint judges, who also has a vested interest in judges tending to decide cases in particular ways, will tend to appoint judges who tend to decide cases in those ways.
Ashcroft Burnham: Any politiical office will tend to appoint pro-government judges.
Ashcroft Burnham: A popular election will tend to appoint populist judges.
Ashcroft Burnham: The principle of judicial independence is that judges are picked for their skill in dispassionately and impartially applying abtract rules created by the legislature (or by judicial precedent if the legislature has created no rules) to individual cases.
Ashcroft Burnham: That is essential for the rule of law: that is, governance by the application of abstract rules rather than by the imposing of anybody's will on anybody else directly.
Ashcroft Burnham: A judge who faces not being elected next time around will have a strong incentive to decide cases in a populist way.
Ashcroft Burnham: The whole point of haveing a judiciary at all, rather than having everyone voting on what to do with people, or leaving it to the executive to decide, is that the judges apply the rules in a detached way.
Ashcroft Burnham: This is an important principle: democracy may be an important check on the power of government, but there need to be checks on democracy, too.
Ashcroft Burnham: The rule of law is one such check.
Ashcroft Burnham: We cannot have the rule of law where decisions in individual cases are influenced, whether directly or indirectly, by any sort of social pressure applied to judges, whether it be in the initial selection process, or in re-selection.
Ashcroft Burnham: That is why we have security of tenure.
Ashcroft Burnham: That is also why it is important that the constitution be entrenched, so that the legislature can't say "If you don't decide this case in a pro-government way, we'll abolish the judiciary to-morrow".
Ashcroft Burnham: The procedure that we developed for appointing judges was arrived at after a debate of a level and intensity never before seen in the CDS, with detailed, intellectual arguments being made by a large number of people at great length.
Ashcroft Burnham: Those who were not around at the time will, if I recall correctly, find many of them on the "Expediting the development of our judicial system" thread from a while ago.
Ashcroft Burnham: After all of that detailed debate and discussion, a principled compromise was reached.
Ashcroft Burnham: To ensure judicial skill, judges who know what they're doing (which was the whole point of having the Judiciary Act in the first place; the SC had no expertise, little interest, and a poor record in deciding individual cases)...
Ashcroft Burnham: ...the Board of the Judiciary Commission (a collective of existing judges) determined which applicants were qualified, and a special new, unique, body, called the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel appointed the judges.
Ashcroft Burnham: The PJSP is a popularly elected body that has no governmental function: it is therefore the only kind of organisation, in any governmental system on earth, as far as I am aware, that is both popular and non-partizan.
Ashcroft Burnham: It is the perfect way, combined by board qualification, of ensuring that judges have the right "temprement" as Beathan puts it, withotu the RA, for example, being able systematically to select pro-government judges to give itself excessive power.
Ashcroft Burnham: The Board of the Judiciary Commission, in turn, qualifies according to objectively published criteria and as many applicants as meet those criteria.
Ashcroft Burnham: As I said yesterday, if we're going to have a judiciary, we'd jolly well better get it right.
Ashcroft Burnham: Having second rate judges with no judicial skill, especially in a fledling system where we have to *develop* our common law, would be utter insanity.
Ashcroft Burnham: That's why a qualification requirement is important.
Justice Soothsayer: ash, your time has expired.
: Shhh...
Ashcroft Burnham: Eventually, when our system is running, we...
Ashcroft Burnham: Ah.
Ashcroft Burnham: Thank you for listening...
Ashcroft Burnham: :-)
: The soapbox is now free
: It is Justice Soothsayer's turn to speak, please take the floor
Justice Soothsayer: I am yielding to the gentlelady Dean of the SC
: It is Gwyneth Llewelyn's turn to speak, please take the floor
Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh thank you Justice :)
: Gwyneth Llewelyn is on the soapbox now!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: well, i don't want to repeat things over and over again
Gwyneth Llewelyn: One thing I have learned, though
Gwyneth Llewelyn: not only these past few weeks
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but at the very least ? in the past two years.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "Why is democracy so difficult?"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We're a good case study.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Democracy is many things,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: for each of us something different
Gwyneth Llewelyn: for Ash, for instance, it's the "rule of law"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: for others it's teh ability for citizens to participate
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and have a saying ine verything
Gwyneth Llewelyn: for Rudy, it's mostly freedom
Gwyneth Llewelyn: a vast field ? freedom
Gwyneth Llewelyn: for me, well, I'm siding with the group that goes for "The Art of Compromise"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And this is hard.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I've learned, for instance, why there is no "SL-wide Government" and will never be one,
: It is Redaktisto Noble's turn to speak, please take the floor
Gwyneth Llewelyn: as well as learning why very likely we won't ever have a RL Government
Justice Soothsayer: sorry premature
: Shhh...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: RL *world* goverment I mean.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: There is just a limit to the point people are willing to compromise.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: What happens next?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: In some cases, all you have left is to "tweak the rules"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and plant a fist on teh table and yell "Enough!"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "No more compromises!"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think taht a few of us
Gwyneth Llewelyn: have reached this point.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And to insist that tehy compromise,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: when there is no more will to do so...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ... well, I'm afraid that won't work.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Nobody that I might say,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: will "change the world"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or even change the way every one of you thinks
Gwyneth Llewelyn: One thing that I've learned, though,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: is that I can disagree in private
Gwyneth Llewelyn: keep my opinion
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but publicly, be willing to compromise.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That sounds always a bit condescending when I say that :)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So I won't insist
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, we should not have a 6-rule JA
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and not a 128-page Code of Procedures.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: What is the middle term?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We should not have one single Judge,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but it's obvious we cannot all be Judges.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: What is the middle term again?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We obviosuly shouldn't take one hour to write a whole legal system,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but after 4 months ? should we still go on?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: These are for me the questions ?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: where will be compromise?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: What will be teh "middle term"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the one where people will say: "well, this is the best of all worse systems"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Which is also, as so many used to say,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the best definition for democracy :)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: thanks :)
: The soapbox is now free
Justice Soothsayer: thank you very much, gwyn.
Patroklus Murakami: well said gwyn
Justice Soothsayer: Redak's turn.
Moon Adamant: hello everyone, sorry for being so late
Michel Manen: Thank you Gwyn... ;)
Redaktisto Noble: May I pass for now? Phone call.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hi Moonie :)
Justice Soothsayer: np
: It is Justice Soothsayer's turn to speak, please take the floor
: Justice Soothsayer is on the soapbox now!
Justice Soothsayer: I just want to take a couple minutes to talk about how I thought we might bring this discussion to closure
Justice Soothsayer: and will repeat this at the 6 pm session, which many of you may not be able to attend.
Justice Soothsayer: The commission's job is to make recommendations to the RA about what if anything to do next.
Justice Soothsayer: I thought we could move tomorrow to a vote on some simple propositions
Justice Soothsayer: Since much of this had been discussed at length inthe forums
Justice Soothsayer: PROPOSITION 1
Justice Soothsayer: We recommend that the Judiciary Act should not be changed at this time
Justice Soothsayer: PROPOSITION 2
Justice Soothsayer: We recommend that the Judiciary Act should be repealed
Justice Soothsayer: PROPOSITION 3
Justice Soothsayer: We recommend that the Judiciary Act be suspended by constitutional amendment while discussion continues on further changes.
Justice Soothsayer: PROPOSITION 4
Justice Soothsayer: We recommend that the Judiciary Act be amended (commission discussion on content of amendments will continue).
Justice Soothsayer sees fingers itching to cast ballots already
Justice Soothsayer: If #1 gets a majority, the Commission's work is done.
Justice Soothsayer: If #2 gets a majority, the Comission's work is done.
Justice Soothsayer: If #3 or #4 gets a majority, I think our work continues.
Justice Soothsayer: I have no illusions that we will achieve a consensus with which all agree
Justice Soothsayer: But I thought a vote via notecard to Moon on these propositions might clarify where we are, and where we are going.
Justice Soothsayer: I'll now open the floor for discussion.
: The soapbox is now free
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Seems a good idea, Justice!
Ashcroft Burnham: Why hasn't there been an opportuity to discuss what we are voting on?
Justice Soothsayer: the soapbox queue is empty
Redaktisto Noble: OK?
Justice Soothsayer: this is that opportunity, Ash.
Beathan Vale: Will voting continue on the props -- dropping the lowest vote getter -- until a majority is reached?
Redaktisto Noble: I'm ready to go now
Ashcroft Burnham: No, I mean, to discuss whether those should be the options or not.
Redaktisto Noble: Should we submit our straw poll votes to Moon first.
Justice Soothsayer: Sorry, lets let Redak go next
: Redaktisto Noble is on the soapbox now!
Justice Soothsayer: then we'll talk about what we will or wil not vote on.
: Shhh...
Ashcroft Burnham: As long as we get to that straight afterwards: it's extremely important.
: Shhh...
Redaktisto Noble: I share Michel's vision of a wonderful, large, effective judiciary overseeing a wonderful, large, effective CDS.
Redaktisto Noble: So how do we get there?
Redaktisto Noble: We must remember in deciding every piece of this puzzle, be it juries or judicial independence or complexity or whatever, that we have no real power over those who would use this system.
Redaktisto Noble: We have even less power than Linden Lab has. The, at least, can keep people off their platform to a certain extent, or dock their accounts.
Redaktisto Noble: What can we do? All the power we have is quite literally derived from the consent of the governed.
Redaktisto Noble: It's the social contract laid bare, and played out in hyperspeed. Any of us could leave the CDS at any moment, with little consequence.
Redaktisto Noble: So to build our wondrous system and to attract people to it, we must provide more value than cost to everyone we want to keep in said system.
Redaktisto Noble: The JA provides more value than cost to only a small set of people, while for others it is far more costly than valuable.
Redaktisto Noble: Several citizens have said they would rather leave than be tried under this system.
Redaktisto Noble: It is no shining light on a hill. Perhaps it could be worked out, but at what expense?
Redaktisto Noble: Why force this system on the public rather than make it totally voluntary?
Redaktisto Noble: Ash, why not set up your system as a business, and see how many people actually choose to use it?
Redaktisto Noble: Any system we try to force on the unwilling will fail, not because the system is bad but because it is not plausible in SL.
Redaktisto Noble: We need a shining light on a hill.
Redaktisto Noble: So I say, back to the drawing board!
Redaktisto Noble: I would vote for repeal of the JA.
Redaktisto Noble: Thank you.
: The soapbox is now free
Justice Soothsayer: thanks, redak.
Moon Adamant: thanks Redak
Justice Soothsayer: Anyone else want a turn on the soapbox who hasnt had a chance?
Justice Soothsayer: ooops, no one else falls into that category.
Ashcroft Burnham: Umm... every last person but Moon has :-)
Justice Soothsayer: Ash, you have the floor.
: Ashcroft Burnham is on the soapbox now!
: It is Ashcroft Burnham's turn to speak, please take the floor
Ashcroft Burnham: We need to turn to the subject of testing.
Ashcroft Burnham: Redakisto said that there were "several" (unspecified) people who would rather leave than be tried by this system, and so, for that reason, we should "go back to the drawing board".
Ashcroft Burnham: As far as I can see, there is no prospect whatsoever of there being *any* system of which it is not true that people claim that, at least.
Ashcroft Burnham: I would rather leave than have a system of the sort proposed by Beathan, or be tried by elected or politically appointed judges.
Redaktisto Noble: Beathan, myself, and Flyinroc said it last night on the record.
: Shhh...
Ashcroft Burnham: The reality is that any judicial system will be unpopular with anyone who loses a case.
Ashcroft Burnham: Nobody will *ever* agree on a judiciary, come what may.
Moon Adamant has indicated consent to be recorded.
Ashcroft Burnham: As Gwyn said, we need to strike principled compromises, based on absolutely nothing otehr than an intellectual analysis of the substance of the matter.
Ashcroft Burnham: That is exactly what we did in October.
Ashcroft Burnham: We had an extremely detailed discussion about all these issues, and the RA *thrice* decided to pass the Judiciary Act.
Ashcroft Burnham: Now, critics claim that it will cause problems.
Ashcroft Burnham: Why should those who voted for the Act take them at their word?
Ashcroft Burnham: Why should they not be put to proof?
Ashcroft Burnham: Those who claim that it is meaningful to "test" the system by looking at how it has performed wtihout trying cases are either deluded or dishonest. The whole function of the judiciary is to try cases. How it tries cases is the *only* measure of how well that it works. Taking any other measure is mere speculation about how it will try cases.
Ashcroft Burnham: All those who say "don't try it because it won't work" are assuming the very thing that they set out to establish: *that* it won't work, and the only way of finding that out is by trying it. And not trying it under ultra-vague rules that are guaruteed to cause problems, but trying it with the full code, as it was always designed to have, that is based very closely indeed on the original proopsals that I made in a great deal of detail on the forums in August.
Ashcroft Burnham: It is quite abusrd to prejudice the outcome by saying "this is not the kind of judiciary that *I* want, so let's not even give it any sort of chance".
Ashcroft Burnham: In the early days of the discussion of the judiciary, there was a suggestion to test it for a period of time. After we introduced the PJSP idea to judicial recruitment, the idea became that the PJSP would write a report on the judiciary after a period of time to see how it was functioning, and make recommendations as to what, if any, changes to make.
Ashcroft Burnham: That is the process that we should use.
Ashcroft Burnham: Justice's several options don't adequately encompass that.
Ashcroft Burnham: One of the options should be "let it work as it was always intended, and let the PJSP monitor it and write a report and recommend cahnge"
Ashcroft Burnham: If change is needed, we'll have *better* change if we know in practice how the system works.
Justice Soothsayer: Ash, you time has expired.
: Shhh...
Ashcroft Burnham: It is quite absurd to base changes to a system on mere speculation about how a system that has not yet heard any cases will function. Real practical experience is what is needed - needed even to verify the so far wholly groundless claims of those who blandly assert that it won't work.
Ashcroft Burnham: Thank you for listening.
: The soapbox is now free
: It is Beathan Vale's turn to speak, please take the floor
: Beathan Vale is on the soapbox now!
Beathan Vale: Hell
Justice Soothsayer: 5 minutes
: Shhh...
Beathan Vale: Hello I mean
Beathan Vale: Freudian slip
Redaktisto Noble: haha
: Shhh...
Beathan Vale: I would like to respond briefly to Ash's claim that we cannot test the JA without trying a case or three under it
Beathan Vale: I think that human beings can predict things withour trying them -- we do so all the time
Beathan Vale: If I jump from a zepplin in flight without a parachute, i predict that I will not get a chance to fly again
Beathan Vale: On that note -- I have called the JA a lead zepplin
Beathan Vale: We don't need to test a lead zepplin to know that it won't fly
Aliasi Stonebender has indicated consent to be recorded.
Beathan Vale: In fact, if we try to test it -- by trying to use it to fly something important acrossed the Atlantic -- we are just being silly
Beathan Vale: Further, history aside, I don't think that we need to test a zepplin filled with hydrogen to know that it is a bad idea
Beathan Vale: Anyone who does is making a mistake -- and a costly one -- as has been proven by history.
Beathan Vale: The JA needs to be amended before it can be tested
Beathan Vale: To be fair to the JA -- it needs to be fixed first
Beathan Vale: Otherwise, the JA will not get a fair hearing --
Beathan Vale: It's like testing a helmet without eyeholes -- why bother?
Beathan Vale: Drill some eyeholes and then test it if you need to test it
Beathan Vale: Although I favor repeal -- I am certainly willing to discuss ways to make the JA work
Beathan Vale: But the ostrich way will not work -- and relying on the author to interpret it will not let any of the rest of us know anything or have any faith in it
Justice Soothsayer: Beathan, your time has expired.
: Shhh...
Beathan Vale: It needs to live and die on its own terms
Beathan Vale: Thank you
: The soapbox is now free
Moon Adamant: thanks beathan
: It is Michel Manen's turn to speak, please take the floor
Justice Soothsayer: Pat you have 5 minutes
Patroklus Murakami: michel's turn? surely?
Justice Soothsayer: oop,s sorry, Michel, then Pat
: Michel Manen is on the soapbox now!
Justice Soothsayer: the box tells me who is next, then next again.
: Shhh...
Michel Manen: I would like, with your permission, to address Gwyn?s key question: Where is the middle term?? between competing positions, Now, there are a various possible answers to this question.
Michel Manen: Some will say the middle term is situated at a point equidistant between the opposing points if view. Others will argue that what he have is in fact a ?broken middle? - an impossible compromise because such compromise would only represent what is expedient, and not what is just and right and appropriate in these circumstances.
Michel Manen: I argue that the middle point should be looked at dialectically ? neither as the middle point between two positions, nor as an undesirable broken middle, but as what the Germans call a ?Steigerung? ? a lifting up of the argument born out of the very tension between the clash of opposing points of view.
Michel Manen: . Thesis ? anti-thesis ? synthesis: the middle term emerges out of competing conceptions of the right ? incorporating elements of both yet by its very nature different, ?other? than each, valid in its own right and not as a simple mathematical averaging between two separate points. That, for me, is the middle term.
Michel Manen: I addressed this question in philosophical terms out of deference for attempting to answer a key question posed by the most senior member of the Philosophic Branch.
Michel Manen: Now what does this mean to us in practice? A wholesale suspension of what we have? Of course not. A rigid implementation of the Juficiary Act? Again, no
Michel Manen: This is where we all must become adepts of a hermeneutical approach: in simple terms, not try to pre-determine outcomes, but let them ?emerge? as they are discovered through practical experience
Michel Manen: This is where I am most in agreement with Pat. It is by trying out our Judicial system and its instruments that the middle term will emerge- organically and practically, not pre-judged and pre-determined.
Michel Manen: Gwyn has asked: After 4 months, how much longer should we go on?
Michel Manen: I say, with Pat, let us respect the democratically arrived at decisions of the Representative Assembly. Let our judicial system be implemented and tested.
Michel Manen: Let the middle term emerge out of our common experience in-world experience
Michel Manen: This is by far the best outcome we can hope for.
Michel Manen: For me, in any case, it is the only outcome worth striving for.
Michel Manen: In conclusion, for those who wish to find out more about this motion of ?Steigerung? - I wholeheartedly recommend Thomas Mann?s Magic Mountain. It is a wonderful book written just before the First World War which puts into amazing perspective the debates and discussions we are having today ?as well as their possible implications and consequences.
Michel Manen: Thank you.
: The soapbox is now free
Ashcroft Burnham: :-D
: It is Patroklus Murakami's turn to speak, please take the floor
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Excellent, Michel, very good indeed!
: Patroklus Murakami is on the soapbox now!
Michel Manen: smiles at Gwyn
: Shhh...
Patroklus Murakami: The response to the reasonable demand that we try out the Judicial system before junking or reforming it is 'I know it won't work, so there's no point in you trying.'
Patroklus Murakami: It is disrespectful and offensive to all the work that has been put into the system so far to describe it in these terms.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hear hear!
: Shhh...
: The soapbox is now free
Ashcroft Burnham: :-(
: It is Michel Manen's turn to speak, please take the floor
Michel Manen: No i dont think so.. ;)
Ashcroft Burnham: Pat evidently crashed...
: It is Oni Jiutai's turn to speak, please take the floor
Beathan Vale: I didn't do it
Beathan Vale: ;-)
: Oni Jiutai is on the soapbox now!
Oni Jiutai: I don't think we can sensibly move on by repeal or substantial amendment at this point.
Oni Jiutai: It's reasonably clear, I suspect, that we're not going to resolve some of the vital questions in the forums.
Oni Jiutai: What we need is more data.
Ashcroft Burnham: :-D
: Shhh...
Oni Jiutai: It's not a question of lead zepplins or helmets without holes in - where we'd either all agree or a substantial majority would ignore the crazy people.
Oni Jiutai: We have substantial disagreement between people who can make lots of argument on each side.
Oni Jiutai: So we need some evidence to cut the knot.
Oni Jiutai: Now unless anybody knows of anyone else trying to do this. That means we need to get some evidence.
Oni Jiutai: That means implementing something and seeing how it goes.
Oni Jiutai: It seems to me that the JA - since it's here and it's been ratified by the democractic system - is the best 'something'.
Oni Jiutai: Once we try it we'll either (a) be astonished that peace, light and happiness has filled the CDS, (b) have a better idea of what needs fixing or (c) realise that it's all gone horribly wrong and we need to start again.
Oni Jiutai: Without evidence, it's all castles in the air and we don't have any way of resolving things.
Oni Jiutai: I still say, this is hard, we're doing well. And it's pretty darn impressive we're trying to do it at all.
Oni Jiutai: Thanks
: The soapbox is now free
Ashcroft Burnham: :-D
Justice Soothsayer: thank you
Justice Soothsayer: Pat, do you want to jump in?
Patroklus Murakami: hurrah!
Moon Adamant: thanks Oni
Justice Soothsayer: I think we passed you by when you were out briefly
Patroklus Murakami: i don't know, how much of what i said came thru?
Moon Adamant: just teh two first sentences
Justice Soothsayer: go ahead
: Patroklus Murakami is on the soapbox now!
Patroklus Murakami: ok, at the risk of repeating myself :)
Patroklus Murakami: I'm getting fed up with some aspects of this debate.
Patroklus Murakami: The opponents of the Judiciary Act are using some specious arguments to obstruct a democratically-arrived at decision.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hear hear!
: Shhh...
Patroklus Murakami: 'Lead zeppelin'? What is the basis for describing the Judiciary Act in this fashion?
Patroklus Murakami: The response to the reasonable demand that we try out the Judicial system before junking or reforming it is 'I know it won't work, so there's no point in you trying.'
Patroklus Murakami: It is disrespectful and offensive to all the work that has been put into the system so far to describe it in these terms.
Patroklus Murakami: I favour making 'some' changes before we proceed but, what's the worst that could happen if we carry on with the system planned?
Patroklus Murakami: as Oni pointed out.. we learn something. and then we change things
Patroklus Murakami: i don't understand why some ppl want to kill this thing stone dead
Patroklus Murakami: it's like seeing a baby giraffe take it's first steps after birth
Patroklus Murakami: think, 'oh the poor guy seems to be struggling'
Patroklus Murakami: and then shoot it in the head before it can get to its feet
Patroklus Murakami: actually, it's worse than that
Patroklus Murakami: it's like shooting a baby deer before it can get to it's feet
Patroklus Murakami: do u wnat to kill Bambi ???????????
Patroklus Murakami: (how's that for hyperbole?)
Patroklus Murakami: the end :)
: The soapbox is now free
Ashcroft Burnham: :-D
Justice Soothsayer: thanks pat
: It is Michel Manen's turn to speak, please take the floor
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *slight* exaggeration, but ok!
Justice Soothsayer: michel?
Michel Manen: This is the first time I hear our judiciary described as "Bambi"... ;)
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Moon Adamant: :D
Oni Jiutai: But with SL judges of any species are possible...
Justice Soothsayer: michel, you had your second turn, right?
Patroklus Murakami: hehe, i got carried away, whta can i say?
Michel Manen: I have said what i needed to say, yes..
: It is Justice Soothsayer's turn to speak, please take the floor
: It is Moon Adamant's turn to speak, please take the floor
Moon Adamant: ok?
Justice Soothsayer: Moon has the soapbox
: Moon Adamant is on the soapbox now!
Moon Adamant: hello everyone, thak you for stopping by and contributing input to the comission
Moon Adamant: we will now do another round of timed comments
Moon Adamant: specifically on this ballot we are proposing
Moon Adamant: as you know
Moon Adamant: this commission will draft a document to be delivered to the rA
Moon Adamant: RA*
Moon Adamant: therefore
Moon Adamant: we need to work with the most precise input as we can
Moon Adamant: i will ask then input on this
Moon Adamant: thank you
: The soapbox is now free
Justice Soothsayer: 2 mins each, please
Redaktisto Noble: I'm confused by the ballot.
Justice Soothsayer: I need to leave @ 3:15 or so
Ashcroft Burnham: As to the ballot, I'm drafting an altenative version as we speak.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Justice Soothsayer: glad to entertain one
Moon Adamant: do click teh soapbox for teh queue
Justice Soothsayer: my thought was that we could vote on each proposition, and would give us a clearer picture of where this commission is in giving input to the RA
: It is Aliasi Stonebender's turn to speak, please take the floor
Justice Soothsayer: Ali?
Moon Adamant: go on Aliasi
Moon Adamant: and i got it Ash, thanks :)
Redaktisto Noble imiagines Ash's ballot - "We are idiots and to change the greatest thing since sliced bread." Yes or No
: Aliasi Stonebender is on the soapbox now!
Aliasi Stonebender: heh, sorry 'bout that
Aliasi Stonebender: Anyway, it's no secret I'm not fond of the JA at this point, I imagine. And I regret not drafting an alternative at the time. However, Pat does have a point - it should be tested.
Aliasi Stonebender: I don't agree that "let's wait for six months" is a good option, however. We have several pending cases already, after all, and Ashcroft's comments about how we're moving at lightning speed for a RL judiciary seems to miss the point
Aliasi Stonebender: This isn't RL. We aren't even a village in size.
Aliasi Stonebender: We should be able to clear many cases very rapidly in comparison.
Aliasi Stonebender: So, I agree that we should see how things work - the argument might be which codes of procedure, although I think (while inevitably flawed) the new code is more suited to our environment.
Aliasi Stonebender: However, I think the nature of the debate is such the flaws will either show themselves very rapidly, or they won't show at all.
Aliasi Stonebender: So, I have to disagree - for the moment - at repealing the JA, even if I think it will need repealing down the line. Instead, I'd like to see us get to the point of actual use as rapidly as possible.
Aliasi Stonebender: One of the upsides to our specific variety of government is rapid change is possible. So I don't believe any decision is a permanently binding one, here.
Aliasi Stonebender: And to test the JA was specifically the reason I did not veto it as Chancellor. I feel the delay in trying any cases can be legitimately be counted as one point of failure, but I should like to see how it works out in practice.
Justice Soothsayer: Ali, I am afraid your time is up.
: Shhh...
: The soapbox is now free
Aliasi Stonebender: I'm done now anyway. :)
Moon Adamant: thanks Ali
Moon Adamant: btw, sorry
: It is Patroklus Murakami's turn to speak, please take the floor
Justice Soothsayer: Pat?
Moon Adamant: we will proceed to vote debate now
Ashcroft Burnham: For reference, we're ready to try cases now, if only somebody would file them, although we may have serious delays in the pre-trial stage due to trying to work out the procedures on a case-by-case basis under the new rules.
Justice Soothsayer: Pat going once?
Justice Soothsayer: twice?
: It is Gwyneth Llewelyn's turn to speak, please take the floor
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Justice Soothsayer: Gwyn?
Michel Manen: I would like to say a few words
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh, I guess that the others have made my point already,
Justice Soothsayer: click on soapbox to join the quue
: It is Michel Manen's turn to speak, please take the floor
Justice Soothsayer: Michel, your turn
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or I can go after Michel. It was only related to the procedures in voting.
: Michel Manen is on the soapbox now!
Ashcroft Burnham: I have much to say on voting proceduers.
: Shhh...
Justice Soothsayer: ok, gwyn, right after michel
: Shhh...
Michel Manen: Thank you. I have looked at both ballots. I agree with Red that Justice?s ballot is confusing. It presents 4 questions. So we will not have a clear majority for any alternative.
Michel Manen: The first two choices will be seen as too radical by most of those who did not actively participate in these discussions. They will gravitate to questions 3 and 4. This means more discussions and debates.
Michel Manen: I ha ve also looked at Ash's ballot.
Justice Soothsayer: You get to vote on all 4 questions
: Shhh...
Michel Manen: The first two questions are red herrings.
Michel Manen: No one will go for either.
Michel Manen: Question 3 is a very detailed and rfeasonable plan of action\
Michel Manen: I think thtis Commission should take leadership.
Michel Manen: It should discuss this program
Michel Manen: and come up with a simple YES NO question
Michel Manen: on this program of action.
Michel Manen: THank you.
: The soapbox is now free
Moon Adamant: thanks Michel
: It is Oni Jiutai's turn to speak, please take the floor
Justice Soothsayer: Oni?
: Oni Jiutai is on the soapbox now!
: It is Michel Manen's turn to speak, please take the floor
Michel Manen: hahaha
: Shhh...
Oni Jiutai: Basically I agree with Michel.
Oni Jiutai: Ash 3 responds to what we've learnt so far, and allows us to move forward to the all important evidence gathering step.
Oni Jiutai: If we have to test something, which we do, we should give it a fair test.
Oni Jiutai: Which in respect of the JA is using it with the sort of procedure is was designed for.
Oni Jiutai: Then we'll really know if it works or not.
Oni Jiutai: And if it doesn't it can be put out of its misery cleanly.
Oni Jiutai: Without everybody who supported it complaining that it never got a fair trial.
Oni Jiutai: As i said, I dont think other redrafting will work at this point. Since as soon as we try to decide what to redraft *to*, all the unknowable arguments will come up again.
Oni Jiutai: Thank you.
: It is Oni Jiutai's turn to speak, please take the floor
Oni Jiutai: I *still* think we're doing well.
Moon Adamant: thanks Oni
: The soapbox is now free
: Shhh...
: It is Gwyneth Llewelyn's turn to speak, please take the floor
Justice Soothsayer: Gwyn?
: Gwyneth Llewelyn is on the soapbox now!
Gwyneth Llewelyn really needs to fix the soapbox hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, basically, again, stating the obvious:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: we're not redrafting the *whole* JA (or anything like that) in just 4 sessions hehe
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the whole purpose is just to advise the RA on what they should do.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Very likely, depending on the outcome,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: this might mean that the RA eithr will discuss things again
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or set up new comissions, etc
Gwyneth Llewelyn: but I think that the focus was set by the two co-chairs
Gwyneth Llewelyn: to at least grab the whole input and say: "this is what we want to do"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: For that I'm afraid we have two choices ?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: talk for another 15 years and still disagree
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or well ? submit it to the ballot,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: adding obviously comments from everyone who feels their opinion was not fairly and adequately stated to the document sent to the RA.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I guess that's all. I might have some issues on the voting procedures.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'll let that for the open debate...
: The soapbox is now free
Gwyneth Llewelyn: thank you :)
Ashcroft Burnham: :-)
: It is Justice Soothsayer's turn to speak, please take the floor
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *leave
: Justice Soothsayer is on the soapbox now!
Justice Soothsayer: I'll be brief
Justice Soothsayer: Ash's #3 is worthy of our ballot, and I would add that as Proposition 5.
Justice Soothsayer: Moon and I would intend that we vote on all of these propositions, to give the RA a clear view of what our collective advice is.
Justice Soothsayer: We have until Friday, I think, to give our advice.
Justice Soothsayer: And anyone may submit a dissenting view, individually or in concert with others.
Justice Soothsayer: And each also has the right to "revise and extend" their remarks via the forums.
Justice Soothsayer: Now, I have to be AFK for a while, so will ask Moon to take over.
Justice Soothsayer: Thanks
: The soapbox is now free
Moon Adamant: thanks Justice :)
Moon Adamant: as Justice said
Moon Adamant: we will need to provide teh RA with a clear summing up of the commission
Moon Adamant: that means we need a clear input
Moon Adamant: the commission won't say 'A said this, and B said that, and C, D, E, F, G...
Moon Adamant: for that, we are allowing forum space, and the debate, which is transcripted publically
Moon Adamant: the commission will say. 'the opinion of the majority is this (though we have recorded opinions also on X and Y)
Moon Adamant: see what i mean?
Ashcroft Burnham: May I make some comments on the votes?
Moon Adamant: of course, take the soapbox
: Ashcroft Burnham is on the soapbox now!
Ashcroft Burnham: Thank you :-0
Ashcroft Burnham: :-)
Ashcroft Burnham: Now, we should decide very carefully what set of options that we're voting for.
Ashcroft Burnham: I set out my three points because I was concerned that Justice's were problematic.
Ashcroft Burnham: The problems were: (1) the first two options were too radical for almost everybody to vote for; and (2) the second two options were options of indicision.
Ashcroft Burnham: One thing that this commission has made abundently clear is that people are *never* going to agree about the judiciary just by talking about it.
Ashcroft Burnham: As Oni said, the only way to get anywhere is by testing *something*.
Moon Adamant: 2 minutes past
: Shhh...
Ashcroft Burnham: This commission will have been a total failure if we do not make a recommendation to the RA for specific action.
Ashcroft Burnham: So, the votes in my notecard are designed to do that.
Ashcroft Burnham: (1) is what I think Beathan and some others want: a return to the old ways.
Ashcroft Burnham: (2) is what Justice proposed, although there may be other versions, too.
Ashcroft Burnham: (3) is what I and some other people here evidently think sensible: proceed with minor changes and let the system be evaluated.
Ashcroft Burnham: Realistically, those are our only options.
Ashcroft Burnham: It doesn't help to put that third question alongside all the other questions in the original ballot because the main reason for me drafting that ballot was to get rid of the problem questions in taht ballot.
Ashcroft Burnham: My ballot also makes things clearer because it's not so much about the Judiciary Act, but the judiciary in general.
Ashcroft Burnham: That is, after all, what this commission is for.
Moon Adamant: sorry ash, more than 2 minutes have passed indeed
: Shhh...
Ashcroft Burnham: We need to ahve a vote on which notecard to vote on.
Ashcroft Burnham: Thank you.
: The soapbox is now free
Moon Adamant: anyone else to comment?
Michel Manen: I have a brief comment to make if possibe
Ashcroft Burnham: :-)
Moon Adamant: do take the soapbox
Patroklus Murakami: i'm afraid i need to leave
: Michel Manen is on the soapbox now!
Patroklus Murakami: pls drop a notecard with what u finally decide on it on me
: Shhh...
Ashcroft Burnham: Not before you vote..,? -(
: Shhh...
Michel Manen: I think having 5 questions on the ballot -or even 3 - is confusing and unclear. If the Commission believes, with Justice, that ash 3 is worthy of the ballot, let us put this most clear an detailed question to vote first. A simple and clear Yes or No. If Yes wins, it will givethe Commission the outline for its submissions to the RA. If not, a second ballot can be taken based on Justice's original 4 questions -which , altough admittedly confusing, will provide some kind of democratic input to the Commission's final recommendations to the RA.
Patroklus Murakami: and i'll respond
: Shhh...
Michel Manen: Thank you.
: The soapbox is now free
Ashcroft Burnham: So, we now have a three option ballot about how many options to have on our ballot?
Patroklus Murakami: well, i'll hang on if we're about to take a vote :)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: *sigh*
Moon Adamant: who is next to speak?
Oni Jiutai: I agree with Michel - but we can't just vote with us here. It'll need to be open so everyone can vote.
Moon Adamant: of course
Gwyneth Llewelyn flags the "direct democracy" Godwin's argument on this ;)
Moon Adamant: the voting isn't to take place now anyway
Ashcroft Burnham: Should we vote on who should vote on what to vote on?
: Moon Adamant is on the soapbox now!
Moon Adamant: i am sorry everyone
Moon Adamant: perhaps we should vote then in another fashion
Moon Adamant: with a tree of questions?
Ashcroft Burnham: Should we vote on whether to have a tree?
: Shhh...
Moon Adamant: because, honestly, this is going confusing
Michel Manen: WE must keep it simple and clear.
: Shhh...
Moon Adamant: yes, i agree with you Michel
Moon Adamant: so let's consider what we CAN in fact do to keep it simple and clear
: The soapbox is now free
Ashcroft Burnham: Mine is simple and clear :-) Just three options.
Moon Adamant: discussion
Michel Manen: This Commission must take leadesrip, not just bow to polling techniques, If you think Ash 3 is reasonable, put it to a vote on its own. If it is rejected, go back to blan B.
Patroklus Murakami: goodnight all, i really must cut and run
Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, does everyone agree, first of all, tha the Soothsayer questions are problematic in their scope?
Ashcroft Burnham: Cheerio!
Oni Jiutai: If we don't suggest Ash 3 aren't we either going to have to say (a) do nothing (which nobody seems to want) or (b) repeal the JA and begin taking ideas for what instead?
Oni Jiutai: We should, however, think of a better name than Ash 3
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Ashcroft Burnham: "Revise and test"?
Michel Manen: Lets focus here on what really needs to be said
Ashcroft Burnham: Do we all agree that we should eliminate any questions that involve "let's discuss this some more without testing anything"?
Michel Manen: Called them Draft Commision Recommendations
Michel Manen: that is leadership.
Oni Jiutai: I'm not saying, however, we shouldn't seriously consider whether the majority view is "Nuke the JA".
Ashcroft Burnham: Because, if we haven't agreed yet after four months, then by goodness another four months isn't going to make any difference.
Moon Adamant: may i have your attention?
Ashcroft Burnham: You have my attention :-)
Michel Manen: :)
Moon Adamant: you must consider that this commission is an extraordinary effort to try and recommend a course of action to the RA
Michel Manen: hear hear
Moon Adamant: by hearing all citizens that may have not had the chance so far to speak
Moon Adamant: or giving them that chance
Moon Adamant: therefore, this commission has - from its very inception - a constructive attitude
Moon Adamant: so shall we discuss this constructively?
Moon Adamant: it seems to me that, for a question of intellectual honesty
Moon Adamant: all eventual results should be possibly voted
Moon Adamant: i can't honestly dismiss the notion that some member of this comission will vote Justice 1, or Justice 2 - or even by that matter ash 1, 2 or 3
Moon Adamant: if it reflects their opinion
Ashcroft Burnham: I undertsand where you're coming from, Moon, but I see a problem with doing that here.
Moon Adamant: so, perhaps the way to go is for inclusion of options
Ashcroft Burnham: Well, two problems.
Michel Manen: Well, out of hte 5 questions 2 are extreme and two circular since we come back to more talk - there is only 1 clear and detailed proposal. Lets wote on that - a simple up-down vote- and see what the result is. This is the only intellectually honest option.
Ashcroft Burnham: Firstly, the function of this commission is to decide what to do.
Moon Adamant: the function of this comissiojn, ashcroft
Moon Adamant: is to report to the RA on the popular feeling
Ashcroft Burnham: If anybody is faced with a difficult series of choices, and an option "think about it some more", people will automatically go for "think about it some more" unless they are already totally convinced of one or other of the options.
Moon Adamant: the RA will decide what do
Moon Adamant: as the democratically elect body of representatives
Ashcroft Burnham: Also, some of my qusetions overlap with Justice's questions, so it doesn't make much sense to have both.
Moon Adamant: to reply to your points
Ashcroft Burnham: It's a question of looking at all the things that we could sensibly recommend, and having as few as possible questions to cover those eventualities.
Michel Manen: The purpose of this commission is to come out with clear recommendations reached after reasoned debate and expressing public support.
Moon Adamant: exactly Michel
Moon Adamant: but teh ultimate decision is the RA's
Ashcroft Burnham: In outline, our options are (1) abolish the judiciary now; (2) change the judiciary now in a big way; or (3) let the judiciary run as it presently is, perhaps with some minor amendments, and think about it again later.
Ashcroft Burnham: Those are my three options, in essence :-)
Michel Manen: You need to take leadership and put to the public a simple question reflecting your preferences after these debates are over.
Moon Adamant: my preferences?
Ashcroft Burnham: Representing three options in more than three questions does not make for a clear or useful poll...
Michel Manen: If you believe Ash 3 is reasonable and the other 4 are not, put Ash 3 only to a vote
Ashcroft Burnham: I would strongly urge the commission to use only the three quesitons that I have drafted.
Michel Manen: And let the chips fall where they may.
Moon Adamant: ok, so let's vote
Ashcroft Burnham: I'm not sure that I quite agree with Michel...
Ashcroft Burnham: It's clearer if we have all three options :-)
Ashcroft Burnham: But no more than three.
Michel Manen: Gwyn? What do you think?
Gwyneth Llewelyn apologies for not being really here but mostly afk
Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyn, Michel is asking you which of the voting arrangements that you preferred... :-)
Moon Adamant waits
Ashcroft Burnham: We have at least two alternatives... the "Justice" and the "Ashcroft" :-)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: well I need to read back about 4 pages of logs, sorry
Gwyneth Llewelyn needs RL alts
Ashcroft Burnham: I, predictably, vote for the Ashcroft.
Ashcroft Burnham: :-)
Ashcroft Burnham: LOL!
Michel Manen: I vote for 1 simple up-down vote on Ash 3
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Whew
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hard choices.
Oni Jiutai: I know I'm not Gwyn, but I think that no action at all is unlikely to gain any support (even Ash now supports the "Ashcroft" with modest change), so we're either say, the general view is modest change, here it is, or we're saying that the systems broke, go back to square 1.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'd say, basically, there is really just one, as Michel points out
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok
Gwyneth Llewelyn: two-step voting :)
Oni Jiutai: If it's back to square 1, we probably don't need to say more.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly.
Moon Adamant: yes, my tree-voting option
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, I'll follow Moon's suggestion.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Or at least, I'll *suggest* it.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, but the question is, Moon, is it a Rowan tree, a beech tree, or a mokey-puzzle tree? ;-)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: slight difference :)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: pfft Ash ? hush :)
Moon Adamant: you see that my point is
Moon Adamant: your point 3 is a subconjunct of Justice's 4
Moon Adamant: because it is only one possible solution
Moon Adamant: to an universe of possible ammendments on teh Judiciary Act
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes.
Michel Manen: Then out it in a simple question to a clear up dowen vote
Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, but, Moon, it's the only *slight* amendment on the table :-)
Ashcroft Burnham: All the others are *radical* amendments.
Ashcroft Burnham: They need a whole different category.
Ashcroft Burnham: Hence my question 2 :-)
Moon Adamant: then vote first on Justice's
Oni Jiutai: I'm not sure that we can vote "major amendments" vs "minor amendments" nobody will know what we mean, least of all the RA.
Ashcroft Burnham: L
Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

Justice Soothsayer proposed ballot:

SPECIAL COMMISSION ON THE JUDICIARY - B A L L O T

Please vote on all four Propositions by placing an X next to your choice on each Proposition, then saving the notecard. Return your ballot by dropping into the inventory of Moon Adamant, Co-chair by 5:00 pm SLT, Thursday, December 14, 2006. (Note that if a majority votes for either 1 or 2, the Commission work will end; if a majority votes for 3 or 4, further work will be needed to determine what changes should be made in the Judiciary Act.)

PROPOSITION 1
We recommend that the Judiciary Act should not be changed at this time.
__ Yes
__ No

PROPOSITION 2
We recommend that the Judiciary Act should be repealed.
__ Yes
__ No

PROPOSITION 3
We recommend that the Judiciary Act be suspended by constitutional amendment while discussion continues on further changes.
__ Yes
__ No

PROPOSITION 4
We recommend that the Judiciary Act be amended (commission discussion on content of amendments will continue).
__ Yes
__ No


Please vote on all four Propositions by placing an X next to your choice on each Proposition, then saving the notecard. Return your ballot by dropping into the inventory of Moon Adamant, Co-chair by 5:00 pm SLT, Thursday, December 14, 2006.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

My suggestion for voting options

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

Possible votes for Special Commission on the Judiciary

1. Revert entirely to the exact position that we had before the Judiciary Act was passed.

2. Make some radical alterations to the Judiciary Act immediately, without testing its operation at all, then let it function (please specify exactly what the alterations should be).

3. Permit the judiciary to function as planned (with arbitration running alongside it), with the following changes/steps:

(a) impliment the Special Commissioners proposal to ensure that there is never a time when one person controls the Board of the Judiciary Commission;

(b) appoint two more judges by next week;

(c) revert to the original code of procedure (as revised after some input on the forums), but *only* after:
(i) the code has been broken down into chapters in a Wiki format to make it easier to read; and
(ii) a clear, user-friendly guide to them has been written, to enable litigants-in-person to use the system,

until which time the Soothsayer rules prevail; and

(d) amend the constitution so that the whole Board of the Judiciary Commission, rather than just the Chief Judge, sets the procedural rules (still subject to legislative over-ride);

and set the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel the task of compiling a report over a period of 3-6 months on the operations of the judiciary, suggesting changes where necessary.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Neufreistadt, Colonia Nova and Locus Amoenus and Locus Amoenus

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

I've read through both of the transcripts from yesterday and I'm still not clear what we're voting on!

Justice has posted his four propositions to vote on in this thread. I assume that is what the Commission is meant to be voting on. With respect Ash, I think that posting your alternative propositions is a bit cheeky since these were rejected in the meeting (weren't they?)**Ash has since corrected me on this**

Could Moon or Justice please clarify matters? Could you also post a list of the members of the Commission i.e. who is entitled to vote? There was some confusion over this at both of the meetings that took place yesterday.
Last edited by Patroklus Murakami on Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

Pat, Justice asked me to post it to make it clear what we were discussing about.

However, the two meetings both seemed to come to very different conclusions about what to vote about. It is unclear which, if any, will prevail. That is the problem of having no defined procedures.

What we should be voting for is a specific ultimate outcome, not something that includes talking about it more, since talking about it more will not get anyone anywhere: most of what needs to be said has already been said many times over.

We either need to realise that the system needs to be tested, or discard it straight away without testing it, in favour of something else. Those are, in practice, the only two options.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Neufreistadt, Colonia Nova and Locus Amoenus and Locus Amoenus

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":pm7waxms]Pat, Justice asked me to post it to make it clear what we were discussing about.[/quote:pm7waxms]Apologies, I didn't know that was the case.

In which case, we really need a clear statement from the Commission co-Chairs. I've PMd Moon and Justice.
Last edited by Patroklus Murakami on Thu Dec 14, 2006 6:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":mozr5nuz]In which case, we really need a clear statement from the Commission co-Chairs. I've PMd Moon and Justice.[/quote:mozr5nuz]

I would be very concerned if we had a vote on the basis set out in the fourth meeting. That would not represent an accurate statement of the views of all but a few. The commission will be worthless unless the things on which it is voting are fair and take us forward.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Re: My suggestion for voting options

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2rhsnl86]3. Permit the judiciary to function as planned (with arbitration running alongside it), with the following changes/steps:

(a) impliment the Special Commissioners proposal to ensure that there is never a time when one person controls the Board of the Judiciary Commission;

(b) appoint two more judges by next week;

(c) revert to the original code of procedure (as revised after some input on the forums), but *only* after:
(i) the code has been broken down into chapters in a Wiki format to make it easier to read; and
(ii) a clear, user-friendly guide to them has been written, to enable litigants-in-person to use the system,

until which time the Soothsayer rules prevail; and

(d) amend the constitution so that the whole Board of the Judiciary Commission, rather than just the Chief Judge, sets the procedural rules (still subject to legislative over-ride);

and set the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel the task of compiling a report over a period of 3-6 months on the operations of the judiciary, suggesting changes where necessary.[/quote:2rhsnl86]

Option 3 here seems to me a reasonable compromise, which is coincidentally in large part compatible with [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 6:2rhsnl86]The Simplicity Party's common position[/url:2rhsnl86] on what needs to be done about the judiciary.

I would point out however that there are still many minor points about the code of procedure and the Judiciary Act which I personally feel could be amended but I have high hopes for being able to achieve such minor reform by working through the institutional framework as proposed in the above.

Among these issues are:
- The need for jurisdictional competence outside CDS for citizen cases
- Needing to wear costumes, bow and similar before the court
- The legalese wording of the code of procedure
- Jurors are not needed and if used it should be through opt-in

I also concur with Patroklus that it would be nice if Justice or Moon could provide some additional clarity as to the procedure by posting the specified information.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

Diderot,

it is good that you are willing to work on a compromise. I, too, have been considering some of the issues that you raise of late. In relation to some of your concerns (such as jurisdiction), I suspect that at least some of the problem comes from me not being clear as to what the position is on the point. In respect of other concerns (juries), I have been considering alternative options, and will post in the appropriate thread. I do not agree with you on everything (such as the importance of formality, or on whether arbitration is appropraite for penal cases), but I hope that sensible progress can be made without causing political termoil lasting into the distant future and subsuming all our resources for ever.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Voting process

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

Moon & I have discussed this with our RA colleagues, and are sending the following notecard ballot to the Commission members:

[quote:2ox551sl]SPECIAL COMMISSION ON THE JUDICIARY - B A L L O T

After consulting with the RA members seeking your input, the following will be our first ballot.

Please RANK all four Propositions by indicating #1 as your first choice through #4 for your last choice, then saving the notecard. Return your ballot by dropping into the inventory of Moon Adamant, Co-chair by 5:00 pm SLT, Thursday, December 14, 2006.


___ No changes to the Judiciary Act
___ Amend the Judiciary Act
___ Suspend the Judiciary Act while considering amendments
___ Repeal the Judiciary Act.


A second ballot will be prepared listing possible amendments, following a meeting of the Commision at 5:00 pm SLT on Thursday, December 14th.[/quote:2ox551sl]
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

This is unsatisfactory. Why was there no vote on what to adopt? What was the basis that this particular version was adopted? Why does it focus on the Judiciary Act in particular, rather than the judiciary in general? Why is that version superior to the version that I suggested? Why was this version not discussed at the first of yesterday's meetings? Why did you accept at the first of yesterday's meetings that my option no. 3 could be included as an express option, then omit it from the ballot?
Ashcroft Burnham

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

Satirical Push Poll for Special Commission

Post by Beathan »

Well --

Ash posted his push poll. I figured I should post mine.

Possible votes for Special Commission on the Judiciary:

1. Revert entirely to the exact position that we had before the Judiciary Act was passed after all the hard work of the divinely inspired Ashcroft, who deserves more respect that that, Dammit.

2. Make some radical alterations to the Judiciary Act immediately, without testing its operation at all, then let it function or fail to function, as the case may be, given that we have abandoned the vision and guidance of Ashcroft. (please specify exactly what the alterations should be)

3. Permit the judiciary to function as inspired (with arbitration running alongside it for those foolish enough to want Beathan to decide cases), with the following changes/steps:

(a) implement the Special Commissioners proposal to ensure that there is never a time when one person controls the Board of the Judiciary Commission and banish Publius for having done so;

(b) appoint two more judges by next week (A Copybot is available to clone Ashcroft for said purpose);

(c) revert to the original code of procedure (as revised after some input on the forums, that posted by Oni and Michel to be precise), but *only* after:
(i) the code has been broken down into chapters in a Wiki format to make it easier to read, with an analytical concordance added, showing its parallels with scripture to even the dimmest intellect; and
(ii) a clear, user-friendly guide to them has been written, to enable litigants-in-person to use the system (Ashcroft will write this in his inimitable style),

until which time the Soothsayer rules prevail (God help us); and

(d) amend the constitution so that the whole Board of the Judiciary Commission, rather than just the Chief Judge, sets the procedural rules (still subject to legislative over-ride provided they have a really, really good reason for doing so);

and set the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel the task of compiling a report over a period of 3-6 months on the operations of the judiciary, suggesting changes where necessary. They should submit their final proposal in a document with no more than 500 words, and should define "Justice" when doing so.


I trust that this rewrite shows, better than any fine textual criticism I could post would, that Ash's proposal was wholly deficient as a fair proposal -- being the most blatant (or, second most blatant, after my rewrite) push poll we could have on this subject.

As for the superiority of the final ballot, we need to keep in mind that the purpose the Special Commission is not to pass legislation on the Judiciary Act, but to inform the RA of what we think should happen so that the RA can consider that advice when it makes up its own mind, as it must as the final legislative power in the CDS. Therefore, because our job is to communicate meaningful information to the RA, we should do so in the manner and form suggested by the RA. This is that manner and form.

Further, with regard to the lack of detail in this poll, we should note that the Commission's work is not done. It is nowhere near done. What we are doing now is setting our direction and focussing our inquiry, rather than coming to detailed conclusions. Those will come, in the form of a formal recommendation, and dissents. However, we need to see where we are going before we can discuss the issues with the proper focus. This is like a Court of Appeals polling its members on the general issues -- such as the outcome of the case -- before getting down to the business of developing a detailed, formal opinion. I also believe that, as a preliminary, focussing tool, the Commission is not necessarily bound by this poll. If one option proves most acceptable now, but further review and discussion change peoples' minds, I think the final recommendations will and should reflect that change of mind.

Beathan
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

Beathan, your posts are becoming inceasingly personal. Was it not you who cited an old American legal expression:

"When the law is on your side, bang on about the law; when the facts are on your side, bang on about the facts; when neither is on your side, bang on about opposing counsel"?
Ashcroft Burnham

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

Post by Beathan »

Ash --

Perhaps, but to quote an old English expression, "turnabout's fair play."

This is satire. It is even satire about a person in public office. Such things have a long and storied history in all free societies. Further, I have not resorted to name-calling in any of my posts (although some folks have claimed that my descriptions of flaws in argument and character come precariously close to that; some even assert that I crossed the line in other posts; I am endeavoring to show restraint in this regard, and have done so in my satirical push poll).

Beathan
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Satirical Push Poll for Special Commission

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

[quote="Beathan":bahcyka4]Ash posted his push poll. I figured I should post mine.[/quote:bahcyka4]
I have to admit I found this a bit funny - I guess going through lengthy debates you find your mind desperately looking for some valve through which to let out some steam. Humor is a better way of doing so than putting the other party down.

Having said that I must say I think you're not giving the proposal sufficient credit for reaching out to the other side Beathan. Do you not think it will be possible to work constructively with further reform on the basis of the framework as outlined in proposal #3?
Locked

Return to “Special Comission on the Judiciary Forum”