Transcript - Commission meeting 14 December 2006, 5 pm

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

Moderator: SC Moderators

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

Transcript - Commission meeting 14 December 2006, 5 pm

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

Object-Name: notetaker 2.0.1
Region: Colonia Nova (246528, 250112)
Local-Position: (14, 165, 41)

Meeting on 2006-12-15
Those present:
Justice Soothsayer is in the chair.
Justice Soothsayer: checking
Justice Soothsayer: hmm. no incoming
Michel Manen: hi Dexter
Dexter Leopold: hello Michel : )
Michel Manen: May I join you?
Dexter Leopold: please
Justice Soothsayer: hi Ludo, Michel
Michel Manen: Hi Justice
Ludo Merit: Ave, Justice
Michel Manen: Hi Moon
Moon Adamant: hi Michel
Moon Adamant: oh
Moon Adamant: hmmm Justice
Ranma Tardis: hello
Justice Soothsayer: hi Ranma
Moon Adamant: let me see if i can copy it into a mail
Moon Adamant: and hi ranma
Ranma Tardis: tried out the baths today at great risk to myself
Justice Soothsayer: you look nice and clean, Ranma
Ranma Tardis: thanks :)
Ludo Merit: The baths are greatly risky?
Ranma Tardis: the consitution on the wiki is incorrect
Justice Soothsayer: i thought publius was updating it?
Ranma Tardis: someone has placed an unauthorized change in it
TOPGenosse Brouwer: Hi, is this a public/open hearing?
Justice Soothsayer: c;mon in Top.
TOPGenosse Brouwer: OK :)
Ranma Tardis: changing the consitition is a offensive, only the ra can change the consitution
Justice Soothsayer: moon, just got your email
Justice Soothsayer: not sure I understand it, though.
Moon Adamant: well, hmmm
Moon Adamant: i registered down teh votes, that's the first part
Justice Soothsayer: Let me ask a couple of questions:
Justice Soothsayer: first, it appears 14 members of the commission voted, right?
Moon Adamant: let me recheck
Justice Soothsayer: out of how many members?
Moon Adamant: 14, correct
Moon Adamant: our of 17
Moon Adamant: here, that is the list so far of members and the x marks a vote received
Moon Adamant: btw, i am asking gwyn to make us a ballot box
Justice Soothsayer: Option #1 was the "Do nothing" option
Justice Soothsayer: in other words, don't amend or repeal
Moon Adamant: i don't think we will have it on time for us, but maybe future commissions can use it
Moon Adamant: votes for Do Nothing:
Ranma Tardis has indicated consent to be recorded.
Justice Soothsayer: 4 people voted that as their first choice, 4 as their 2nd choice, 1 as the third choice, and 5 as the fourth choice, right?
Moon Adamant: hmmm
Ludo Merit has indicated consent to be recorded.
Moon Adamant: 4 people raanked it as 1st choice
Ludo Merit: There's a list of the vote somewhere?
Justice Soothsayer: Moon is compiling it
Moon Adamant: 1 as their 2nd choice
Moon Adamant: and 9 as their 4th choice
Moon Adamant: (nest time lets use ABCD for teh options, lol)
Justice Soothsayer: lol
Moon Adamant is not a mathematical person
Justice Soothsayer: hang on
Justice Soothsayer: let's start over again
Moon Adamant: lol, yes
Justice Soothsayer: OK, starting over.
Justice Soothsayer: Option 1: "No changes to Judiciary Act".
Justice Soothsayer: How many ranked that as their first choice?
Moon Adamant: 4 people
Justice Soothsayer: How many ranked that as their 2nd choice?
Moon Adamant: 1 person
Justice Soothsayer: How many ranked that as their 3d choice?
Moon Adamant: none
Justice Soothsayer: How many ranked it as their 4th choice?
Moon Adamant: 9
Moon Adamant: wait
Dexter Leopold has indicated consent to be recorded.
Moon Adamant: no correct
Moon Adamant: 4+1+9=14 :D
Dexter Leopold: bingo
Dexter Leopold: hehe
Moon Adamant: lol
Michel Manen: loll
Justice Soothsayer: ok
TOPGenosse Brouwer: :)
Justice Soothsayer: Now, Option #2
Moon Adamant: nods
Justice Soothsayer: "Amend the Judiciary Act"
Justice Soothsayer: How many had that as their first choice?
Moon Adamant: 4 people ranked it 1st
Justice Soothsayer: How many had it as their 2nd choice?
Moon Adamant: 6 people ranked it 2nd
Justice Soothsayer: How many had it for their 3d choice?
Moon Adamant: 4 people ranked it 3rd
Justice Soothsayer: how many had it as their 4th and last choice?
Moon Adamant: none did
Justice Soothsayer: OK, option 3
Moon Adamant: 4+6+4=14
Justice Soothsayer: Suspend the Judiciary Act while considering amendments
Justice Soothsayer: How many had that as their 1st choice?
Moon Adamant: 1 person did
Justice Soothsayer: How many had that as their 2nd choice?
Moon Adamant: 7 did
Justice Soothsayer: How many had that as their 3d choice?
Moon Adamant: 6 people
Justice Soothsayer: How many had that as their last choice?
Moon Adamant: and none as last choice
Justice Soothsayer: Option 4: Repeal
Moon Adamant: 1+7+6=14
Justice Soothsayer: How many had that as their first choice?
Moon Adamant: 5 people did
Justice Soothsayer: How many had that as their 2nd choice?
Moon Adamant: none
Justice Soothsayer: How many had that as their 3rd choice?
Moon Adamant: 4
Justice Soothsayer: How many had that as their last choice?
Moon Adamant: 4
Justice Soothsayer just loves data
Moon Adamant: on this point
Moon Adamant: one of the members specifically did not rank it
Justice Soothsayer: OK
Justice Soothsayer: so total is 13?
Moon Adamant: i checked if it had been an omission, but it was deliberate
Moon Adamant: yes, on this point we have 13 votes
Justice Soothsayer: no hanging chads here
Dexter Leopold: lol
Moon Adamant: let me try and upload a jpeg
Justice Soothsayer: wait, moon
Moon Adamant: /m ewaits .)
Justice Soothsayer: the table is most confusing
Moon Adamant: lol
Moon Adamant: mea culpa
Justice Soothsayer: we need to label the choices first
Justice Soothsayer: np
Justice Soothsayer: that's why I took it step by step for the transcript.
Justice Soothsayer: OK, all you data crunchers out there, what do you make of it?
Moon Adamant: ok, i can label them
Ludo Merit: Working on it
Justice Soothsayer: one things jumps out at me - a stark divide as to Repeal. 9 ranked it 1st, 4 ranked it last, no one in the middle.
Dexter Leopold: 9 ranked "repeal" first?
Michel Manen: 9 ?
Dexter Leopold does not follow that
Michel Manen: more like 5
Ludo Merit: Only five ranked repeal first.
Dexter Leopold: 4 + 4 + 1 + 5 = 14
Justice Soothsayer: oops, sorry, reading table upside down, lol
Moon Adamant: no lol
Dexter Leopold: that's how gov't officials get killed Justice!!
Dexter Leopold: lol, jk
Justice Soothsayer: 9 ranked "keep it" last
Ludo Merit: Taking a weighted vote, counting 4 for each first choice, 3 for each second, two for each third and one for each fourth, I get the following results.
Justice Soothsayer: ah, we do have a data cruncher out there!
Ludo Merit: Do nothing 28, amend 42, suspend 21, repeal 27.
Moon Adamant: ah let me tp Gwyn
Dexter Leopold: fascinating work Ludo : )
Ludo Merit: Somebody check my math.
TOPGenosse Brouwer: Hello Gwyn
Justice Soothsayer sees the Excel files being created
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hi all :)
Dexter Leopold: hello Gwyn
Justice Soothsayer: Hi Gwyn
Michel Manen: Hello ;)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hello Michel :)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I've heard that counting votes has been specially hard... :)
Moon Adamant: afk while i do the jpeg
Gwyneth Llewelyn: yay, we even get JPEGs
TOPGenosse Brouwer: woof
Nightwind Leonov: sorry for being perpetually late. ^^;;
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hi Nightwind!
TOPGenosse Brouwer: err welcome
Gwyneth Llewelyn: thank you Justice :)
Nightwind Leonov: hey Gwyneth. ^^
Gwyneth Llewelyn has indicated consent to be recorded.
Nightwind Leonov: So... umm... what's the topic of discussion for today, then?
Justice Soothsayer: Moon just read the vote tallys on the various possible recommendations to the RA
Justice Soothsayer: she is creating a chart while we wait anxiously
Nightwind Leonov: aah, fair enough.
Nightwind Leonov: heh. with my finals done, and me jobless, ya'll will be seeing more of me around than usual, so I should get some things done. >.>
Justice Soothsayer: so far it seems that Al Gore is slightly ahead
Dexter Leopold: lol
Ranma Tardis: need to fugure in ths swinging chads
Justice Soothsayer has bad memories of Decision 2000, dontcha know?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: :P
Dexter Leopold nods in agreement
Ranma Tardis: dimpled, hanging, etc
TOPGenosse Brouwer: That decision lasted for 8 years :)
Dexter Leopold: hehe
Michel Manen: even lynched chads :)
Ranma Tardis: so most citizens want the thing?
Michel Manen: yup
Justice Soothsayer: getting back to my [revised] instant commentary - 9 of 14 had keeping the Judiciary unamended (or unrepealed) as their last choice
Ranma Tardis: how horrible, I came to the cds to be free of the legal complex
Justice Soothsayer: yet only 4 of 13 had repeal as their first choice.
Ranma Tardis: rl is too complex
Nightwind Leonov: heh... I forgot to vote... ^^;;
Nightwind Leonov knew he missed something
Justice Soothsayer: sorry, i mean 5 of 13.
Justice Soothsayer: I am just 1 member of the RA, but I think the message is: keep it, but change it (in unspecified ways which we must discuss)
Ludo Merit: No, no one had repeal as their first choice.
Ludo Merit: Five had it as second choice. Let me scroll back and make sure of that.
Dexter Leopold: thought 5 did as first
Justice Soothsayer: You: How many had that as their first choice? [17:26] Moon Adamant: 5 people did
Ludo Merit: Woops, I was wrong, whic means my math was wrong.
Moon Adamant: there
Justice Soothsayer: can you rezz the tabulation of votes, Moon (and make it freely copyable)
Moon Adamant: hm?
Moon Adamant: thsi jpeg, you mean?
Justice Soothsayer: your jpeg
Justice Soothsayer: ah, there it is
Dexter Leopold: Certainly far from a strong mandate being sent to the RA
Nightwind Leonov: out of curiousity, what does the asterisk mean in the 4th column?
Justice Soothsayer: that person did not rank all 4
Nightwind Leonov: aah, alright.
Moon Adamant: i am trying to set it to anyone can copy
Moon Adamant: ok, even better
Moon Adamant: click to buy the texture for l$0
Moon Adamant: er... can someone test that, please?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes..
Moon Adamant: i am having lots of issue with asset server
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, I've got a copy
Dexter Leopold: worked for me
Moon Adamant: ok, cool
Dexter Leopold: thx MOon
Justice Soothsayer: looking at this from a slightly different perspective, 4 people ranked "keep it unaltered" as #1, while 5 people ranked "repeal" as #1
Michel Manen: and 5 to amend
Michel Manen: very nicely distributed ;)
Justice Soothsayer: while 9 people ranked "keep it unaltered" as #4, and 4 people ranked "Repeal" as #4.
Justice Soothsayer: with everyone else in the middle.
Moon Adamant: btw, it is legible, the table?
Dexter Leopold: yes
Nightwind Leonov: yesw
Moon Adamant: i hope it is easy to read...
Justice Soothsayer: suggesting that there are two polar extremes in this debate, with the rest in the middle (i.e. no clear consensus)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, typical result.
Dexter Leopold: that's our people!!!
Michel Manen: and they are all equal in 2st choices lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: ie. nothing else was really expected, was it? :)
Dexter Leopold: hehe
Michel Manen: sorry ast
Michel Manen: 1st
Ludo Merit: I'm seeing some interesting patterns.
Justice Soothsayer nominates Ludo to draft the report to RA
Dexter Leopold seconds
Dexter Leopold: : )
Ludo Merit: What, isn't anyone else a statistician?
Dexter Leopold looks into the air, whistles
Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe
Nightwind Leonov: marketing, here.
Justice Soothsayer: the table will soon become someone's master's thesis
Moon Adamant is not mathematical at all
Gwyneth Llewelyn knows how to spell "Excel"
Jon Seattle: Ah, I see
Ludo Merit: Nah, it's not that complicated.
Jon Seattle: which option is which?
Justice Soothsayer: yeah, moon, we need to label the options too
Dexter Leopold: 1 keep, 2 amend, 3 amend/suspend, 4 repeal
Moon Adamant: sighs
Justice Soothsayer: sorry
Nightwind Leonov: so, repeal and amend are our two real options...?
Justice Soothsayer: some of us are better with words than numbers
Moon Adamant: brb then, photoshopping
Justice Soothsayer: heh
Jon Seattle: Ah, I propose using small prime numbers as weights
Jon Seattle: and then summing
Jon Seattle: this preserves all information
Justice Soothsayer is lost at "small prime numbers"
Jon Seattle: 7, 5, and 3
Ludo Merit: Two is a prime, and I think one is as well
Jon Seattle: so for option 1, say 4 * 7 + 1 * 5 + 0 * 3
Justice Soothsayer: we need a "Prime Number Commission"
Jon Seattle: One is not prime.
Ludo Merit: It is only divisible by itself and one.
Jon Seattle: It turns out a great deal of number theory collapses if you allow 1 to be prime.
Jon Seattle: 2 is however.
Ludo Merit: Two is the only even prime
Jon Seattle: I like the odd primes.
Jon Seattle: thus 7, 5, 3
Justice Soothsayer: and we thought lawyer debates got complicated, wait til the mathematicians get going.
Dexter Leopold nods at Justice
Ludo Merit: I think there are some patterns in this data that won't be preserved and using a number as high as 7 for a weight could be misleading.
Ludo Merit: Hang on a minute and I should be able to say something.
Ranma Tardis: too compicate
Ranma Tardis: should be just a straight vote
Dexter Leopold: guess we'll have start attacking the mathematicians now along with the lawyers on the forum
Justice Soothsayer: I look at this chart and it says neither side is convincing - most of us are in the middle, leaning toward some sort of unspecified change, but dissatisfied with status quo.
Dexter Leopold: lol
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, there are some things worth noticing
Justice Soothsayer listens to Gwyn
Moon Adamant: ok, get the new version
Gwyneth Llewelyn: like hmm, 9 people (2/3) ranked option #1 as being the worst for them
Gwyneth Llewelyn: But the opposite is not true.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Also, no one ranked the two "compromising" things in the middle as the worst option.
Jon Seattle: The advantage of the weighting scheme is that it counts people' second choice.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes.
Dexter Leopold: true, but shouldn't the weights have been predetermined and the people told prior to voting?
Jon Seattle: otherwise you end up throwing out the additional informaiton about choices.
TOPGenosse Brouwer: I agree w/ Dexter
Moon Adamant: hmmm, i think it is easy to undertand that 1 will be higher than 2, tehn 3, etc, no?
Jon Seattle: Dexter, other schemes may end up throwing out information, In this case you can recover the origjnal counts. But we can use several weighting schemes if you like.
Dexter Leopold: yes Moon, that I get : )
Ludo Merit: May I point out some things?
Dexter Leopold: please
Justice Soothsayer: oh, i think we are all free to interpret (and weigh) the results as we like (or are convinced by our favourite mathematician)
Justice Soothsayer: btw, we have the soapbox, if anyone wants it
Nightwind Leonov: =D
Justice Soothsayer: and please click recorder on the table to indicate consent
Moon Adamant has indicated consent to be recorded.
Jon Seattle has indicated consent to be recorded.
Nightwind Leonov: consent of the facts you've just told us
Nightwind Leonov: ?
Justice Soothsayer: consent to recording
Nightwind Leonov: aah.
Nightwind Leonov has indicated consent to be recorded.
Dexter Leopold: good question though Night
Nightwind Leonov: bah. it's not a good question, it just proves I confuse easily. x3
Dexter Leopold: : )
Justice Soothsayer: Ludo? Analysis?
Dexter Leopold: yes
Ludo Merit: If I look at what the second choices were for each of the first choices, more polarity is evident.
Jon Seattle: Using prime number weights: (for info only)
Dexter Leopold: : )
Ludo Merit: Go ahead, Jon.
Jon Seattle: keep = 33
Jon Seattle: amend = 70
Jon Seattle: suspend = 60
Jon Seattle: repeal = 47
Jon Seattle: I assume that last column is repeal?
Justice Soothsayer: right
Moon Adamant: oops
Moon Adamant: sorry
Moon Adamant: photoshop again *sighs*
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "indefinitely suspend" :)
Jon Seattle smiles, np!
Jon Seattle: It sure looks like amend and / or ammend + suspend is the majority position to me.
Justice Soothsayer: so, having taken the pulse of the community our conclusion is that the community has a pulse.
Jon Seattle: thought my argument has to be informal.
Nightwind Leonov: hey, at least we're not dead.
Jon Seattle: ty Moon :)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: thanks, Moon :)
Dexter Leopold: I have a hard time ignoring that only 1 person voted for amend/suspend, but yet it carries that much weight in that analysis
Justice Soothsayer: thanks, moon
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm interesting observation, Dexter.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Also, quite correct :)
Jon Seattle: Ah, because it was the second choice for many many.
Dexter Leopold: I understand why,I'm just chirping here
Dexter Leopold: : )
Jon Seattle: We could do a contingency table, but that is much more complicated.
Jon Seattle: But it seems to me, the main conclusion that I draw from this, is that we really need the second round of baloting
Gwyneth Llewelyn: uh-huh
Michel Manen: thi s vote resolved nohing..... it only tells us what we new
Jon Seattle: Michel, no, this tells me quite a lot.
Ludo Merit: It's also a small sample of the population.
Jon Seattle: For example
Michel Manen: indedd
Gwyneth Llewelyn: It's not a referendum, mind you, just a *comission*
Michel Manen: 14 out of 65
Jon Seattle: Well, of the people who cared enough to show up
Moon Adamant: well, everyone was invited to attend
Nightwind Leonov: hey now, that's not fair, Jon.
Justice Soothsayer: or had the time, or had enough notice, etc.
Dexter Leopold: just the part of the population crazy enough to get involved in this, lol
Nightwind Leonov: I just finished finals for college, and I -was- working 13 hour shifts.
Michel Manen: and so little time to vote
Moon Adamant: justice, everyone was contacted
Jon Seattle: keep was first choice for 4 but there are not many who listed it for second choice.
Justice Soothsayer: but it is interesting that it's not just those who hold the most extreme views - a lot in the middle.
Jon Seattle: That is the good news
Nightwind Leonov: also note, that middle percentile is less that 1/4 of our population. I honestly think this data isnt' a good enough sample set.
Jon Seattle: It means we can move forward and ask how it should be amended.
Michel Manen: brecause we are in such a rush to finish it up after 4 months of work on the judiciary
Ranma Tardis: being against having a rl like justice system inflicted on you is not "extreme"
Moon Adamant: can someone please check if the panel is giving version 3 of teh notes?
Jon Seattle: Ah, nightwind. This is not a sample since it constitutes everyone who voted.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes it is, Moon. I just bought it.
Dexter Leopold: I think "inflicted" is a little strong
Nightwind Leonov: yes, but not every one who -could- vote.
Ranma Tardis: not at all
Jon Seattle: 1. There were the people who cared to vote.
TOPGenosse Brouwer: Moon > Why not put a "version 3" on the Jpeg?
Michel Manen: this poll can be used to support almost any position
Ludo Merit: The panel?
Nightwind Leonov: exactly my point, Michel.
Nightwind Leonov: the people who voted are what.
Ranma Tardis: that is my point
Nightwind Leonov: 14.
Nightwind Leonov: out of 65?
Nightwind Leonov: that's less than a quarter of our population there.
Jon Seattle: Michel, no, that is incorrect.
Michel Manen: it is open to manipuhahah
Ranma Tardis: well they could not be bothered
Nightwind Leonov: and then you have amajority of the minority helping us to move forward?
Michel Manen: becaue we had such a short voting time
TOPGenosse Brouwer: Moon > "Ballot-votes3", so yes
Moon Adamant: thanks everyone who checked :)
Moon Adamant is having a lot of asset lag
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sorry to chime in, but don't overestimate the "power" of the comission :)
Dexter Leopold: very true
Jon Seattle: It says to me very clearly, that those who insist on no change at all are tyring to impose their will on the majority, who are clearly in the middle on this.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Any group of citizens could simply have gotten together and presented a proposal to the RA.
Nightwind Leonov: but the people who voted aren't a majority of the population!
Michel Manen: Mark Twain once said : There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. " This is the perfect example. Only 14 citizens out of 65 had the chance to vote because of the unde haste of the Commission, the incredibly short window during which people could vote
Nightwind Leonov: if this was 20, or 30 people out of 65, sure.
Nightwind Leonov: that would be a wonderful sample of the population, and a good indicator.
Ranma Tardis: well the current system is too complex, I dont have money to waste on lawyers
Nightwind Leonov: but, at 14, I can't trust these numbers at all.
Ludo Merit: We are supposed to make a recommendation. We need not make it in accordance with this vote. This is a beginning.
Nightwind Leonov: I reccomend we vote again. :P
Dexter Leopold: #1, has any made a statement that damn lawyers are going to be expensive, or charge at all?
Michel Manen: IAnd now this will be used to invest the commission's report withlegitimacy, and the RA's decision will reply on the Commission's report. What a travesty of democracy!
Ludo Merit: I recommend that we talk.
Nightwind Leonov: I reccomend we order out for pizza. :3
Ranma Tardis: well I will never hire a lawyer
Ranma Tardis: beer
Justice Soothsayer: Michel, the commission could certainly recommend that more discussion is needed
Ranma Tardis: a clear vote is needed
Justice Soothsayer: though that begs the question of what we do while that discussion transpires
Ludo Merit: No one chose suspending first.
Dexter Leopold nods
Justice Soothsayer nods
Jon Seattle: yes, I think that most of the need for suspension was taken care of my Justice's simplified procedure.
Dexter Leopold: "A" system must move forward while more debate rages
TOPGenosse Brouwer: I agree w/ Michel that the time-window was short to produce a representative sample .. however if the RA only wants an "indication"...
Jon Seattle: *by
Nightwind Leonov: and an indication would be a decent sample set!
Michel Manen: In practical terms, what does the commission now that it didnt know before from the discussion already taking place? Virtually nothing.
Jon Seattle: Quite a lot
Nightwind Leonov: you don't look at a black toe and lob off the leg because it may have gangrene!
Michel Manen: hahaha
Jon Seattle: in fact I was surprised at some of the results.
Michel Manen: indeed
Soapbox: Jon Seattle is on the soapbox now!
Ranma Tardis: I think the judicial system is more like a cancer
Soapbox: Shhh...
Jon Seattle: Let me explain.
Jon Seattle: There were a number of people who said to me that there was no substantial group who disagreed with the system as it was set up.
Soapbox: It is Ranma Tardis's turn to speak, please take the floor
Justice Soothsayer: sorry, premature
Soapbox: Shhh...
Jon Seattle: that all we need do is stand by the existing system
Soapbox: Jon Seattle is on the soapbox now!
Soapbox: Jon Seattle is on the soapbox now!
Jon Seattle: this shows beyond a doubt that there is at least a substantial group who questions the system as it is
Jon Seattle: and wants to reform it in some way.
Michel Manen: sorry
Soapbox: Shhh...
Jon Seattle: and that is news to me.
Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
Justice Soothsayer: Ranma?
Soapbox: Ranma Tardis is on the soapbox now!
Justice Soothsayer: MIchel next
Soapbox: Shhh...
Ranma Tardis: I see the current justice system being imposed on the adverege citizen
Ranma Tardis: there is no check from the state being abusive with endless court battles in which it is not possible for us to use without a lawyer
Ranma Tardis: from my rl experience lawers coust hunderds of amercian dollars for the sinmplest thing
Ranma Tardis: I view this as rp
Ranma Tardis: nothing more, it will not add to our quality of life
TOPGenosse Brouwer: Let's propose a bill to expell all lawyers from the CDS ;-D
Soapbox: Shhh...
Ranma Tardis: also no relief from alts sending in lots of cases, the alt just needs to be able to use the system
Ranma Tardis: good thought
Ranma Tardis: I will not pay hundreds of dollars for my 6 dollar lot, this encourges me to keep my "investment" as small as possible
Ranma Tardis: thank you
Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
Justice Soothsayer: Michel, then Nightwind, Ludo, Gwyneth.
Dexter Leopold: wow, I got a long time to wait
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Patience, patience :)
Michel Manen: sorry im lagging
Soapbox: Michel Manen is on the soapbox now!
Michel Manen: Thank you.
Michel Manen: Well, I think the results of this poll are telling indeed.
Michel Manen: When the Commission was proposed, I was hopeful
Michel Manen: THat we would do this in accordance with well established principles
Michel Manen: of thoroughness and fairness.
Michel Manen: This Commision will be finished in one week or less
Michel Manen: the voting window was less than one day
Michel Manen: the recommendations will be issued in 24 hours
Michel Manen: based on 14 cvitizens viotes
Michel Manen: out of 54
Michel Manen: 65
Michel Manen: . THe RA will rely on this report to make
Michel Manen: one the most critical decisions
Michel Manen: in the history of the CDS.
TOPGenosse Brouwer: hear hear
Soapbox: Shhh...
Michel Manen: What does this tell us about the manner we practice democracy and delberation?
Michel Manen: Especially afterwe took 4 months to try to devise a new legal system?
Michel Manen: Not much.
Michel Manen: In my oipi\inion, this poll
Michel Manen: is fatally flawed
Michel Manen: it will confer no legitimacy
Michel Manen: to wahtever recommendation the commission will make
Michel Manen: and to whatever decisin the RA will take,
Michel Manen: I feell very sad about this.
Michel Manen: Thank you.
Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
Justice Soothsayer: Ludo next
Soapbox: It is Nightwind Leonov's turn to speak, please take the floor
Soapbox: Ludo Merit is on the soapbox now!
Nightwind Leonov: [18:32] Justice Soothsayer: Michel, then Nightwind, Ludo, Gwyneth.
Soapbox: Shhh...
Justice Soothsayer: then Nightwind
Soapbox: Shhh...
Nightwind Leonov: you reversed it, Justice. :P
Soapbox: Shhh...
Justice Soothsayer: sorry
Soapbox: Shhh...
Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
Nightwind Leonov: oh, bah, I won't be such an ass.
Nightwind Leonov: go ahead, Ludo. :P
Ludo Merit: If nightwind is supposed to be next let him be next.
Nightwind Leonov: no, lazy.
Nightwind Leonov: you're already up. x3
Soapbox: Ludo Merit is on the soapbox now!
Nightwind Leonov: I just... like I said, I confuse easily, so I was lik e"wtf?!"
Soapbox: Shhh...
Ludo Merit: What is important is not this confusion of numbers.
Ludo Merit: What is important is that we make a wise recommendation.
Ludo Merit: It is evident that more of us, use being the commission, did not choose keep as their first choice than did.
Ludo Merit: It is equally evident that 9 thought keep was fourth choice and eight thought repeal was third or fourth choice.
Ludo Merit: So there is substantial dissatisfaction with Ashcroft's design but also substantial satisfaction with parts of it.
Ludo Merit: It seems we must recommend change and must recommend that something be instituted while the change is being debated, but we don't concur on what changes are needed.
Ludo Merit: So a vote to change is not a vote agreeeing with anyone, it's a vote disagreeing with the status quo.
Ludo Merit: We dono't have an alternative.
Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
Justice Soothsayer: Nightwind?
Soapbox: Nightwind Leonov is on the soapbox now!
Nightwind Leonov: pyeh. that's my first thought at this.
Nightwind Leonov: we've got a small sample, that is almost irrelevant.
Nightwind Leonov: I mean, I only took statistics for a few years..
Nightwind Leonov: .but from what I can remember, you need a decent sample set to pull out any decent conclusions. and by decent, I mean concrete.
Nightwind Leonov: Sure, you can say "well, the majority are dissatisfied with the status quo". that's actually true, if you consider a majority of voters to equal 14.
Ludo Merit: Ten
Soapbox: Shhh...
Nightwind Leonov: I, for one, was never notified about this vote, and I actually don't even have the information on what this was -about-.
Michel Manen: hear hear
Soapbox: Shhh...
Nightwind Leonov: and as such, I am extremley frightened.
Jon Seattle: Nightwind. that applies only if this is a sample. We are not trying to sample but to determine the recomendations of the comission. Everyone in the comission had an oppertunity to vote.
Soapbox: Shhh...
Nightwind Leonov: why? because, even though I work -for- you guys, and even though I work with you, I have no idea what this is about, and it seems to be insanely important.
Nightwind Leonov: to answer you, Jon, this couldn't even determine a reccomendation. Do me a favor. go into a city, and talk to 3 businessmen, and then 3 hobos. about, oh, say anything.
Nightwind Leonov: you'll get three decent answers, 2 "illuminati" answers, and one "DEAR GOD THERE'S GLASS IN MAH TEEF" answer.
TOPGenosse Brouwer: hahah !?!?! huh?
Soapbox: Shhh...
Nightwind Leonov: according to that small set, like what we're dealing with here, 1/3 of all people believe in the illuminati.
Nightwind Leonov: do you follow my analogy?
Nightwind Leonov: the 6 people you talked to on the street are -useless- compared to everyone else in the city.
Nightwind Leonov: all this proves is that you went and grabbed -literally- whoever was close to you and polled them. if I remember correctly, you said this vote was within 24 hours.
Nightwind Leonov: that's an insane time window.
Michel Manen: hear hear
Soapbox: Shhh...
Nightwind Leonov: in conclusion, for the love of god, please just discount all findings in this survey. it's not a good sample set, it doesn't gague the feelings of the people, and I would honestly fight this thing from ever appearing again.
Justice Soothsayer: time
Soapbox: Shhh...
Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
Soapbox: It is Ludo Merit's turn to speak, please take the floor
Justice Soothsayer: Gwyn
Soapbox: Gwyneth Llewelyn is on the soapbox now!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: thank you
Soapbox: It is Gwyneth Llewelyn's turn to speak, please take the floor
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well hmm
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think I'll echo Jon's words a bit.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: I'm not sure if everybody understood exactly why we did vote at all,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: or why we thought that voting on a conclusion was a good idea.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyway.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We have a representative democracy, and just 5 peole
Gwyneth Llewelyn: debating over a period of 2 months and a bit, if I recall correctly
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and posting half a billion posts
Gwyneth Llewelyn: reached the conclusion, unanimously, voting three times on it
Gwyneth Llewelyn: that the JA was good enough to be approved.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now, our duly elected representatives,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: know what they're doing :)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: And they also know something else ?
Gwyneth Llewelyn: "there is nothing written on stone"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Everything gets changed, amended, tweaked
Gwyneth Llewelyn: over time, and as the citizenry changes.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That's all right.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: We have also a good experience:
Gwyneth Llewelyn: the newer citizens are the most active ones,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and the ones very likely to sit in the RA next.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: That's good.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: So,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: after the vote was passed
Gwyneth Llewelyn: we increased our population by 50%.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Lots of new people came in,
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and found that the JA was not to their taste.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well...
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Democracy and democratically approved rules are not "imposed"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: on anyone.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thus I think it was appropriate to review things.
Gwyneth Llewelyn: With whomever was willing to discuss
Gwyneth Llewelyn: this "vote" here
Gwyneth Llewelyn: does not represent "a minority" or "majority"
Gwyneth Llewelyn: only the *RA* represent the people :)
Gwyneth Llewelyn: This is just to make *recommendations*
Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
Gwyneth Llewelyn: and my time is up!
Gwyneth Llewelyn: :)
Soapbox: It is Michel Manen's turn to speak, please take the floor
Justice Soothsayer: Michel?
TOPGenosse Brouwer: But this vote respresents the opinions of "those who are actively involved' ? <only>
Soapbox: Michel Manen is on the soapbox now!
Michel Manen: I'd like to briefly address just one point
Michel Manen: made by Gwyn.: Democracy is not imposed on anyone
Michel Manen: That is true.
Michel Manen: However, does that necessarily mean
Michel Manen: that with each wave
Michel Manen: of new citizens
Michel Manen: we will radically review and change
Michel Manen: our most basic institutions
Michel Manen: simply because
Michel Manen: they new majority
Michel Manen: was not there at the Point of Origin?
Michel Manen: Certainly not.
Michel Manen: If newxt week, a\our poupulation triples
Michel Manen: and we are faced with requests
Michel Manen: of a legal system
Michel Manen: based on rpinciples
Michel Manen: radically differnt
Michel Manen: from the Values of the CDS
Michel Manen: will be change again?
Michel Manen: No.
Michel Manen: So i thtink
Michel Manen: that democracy and stability
Michel Manen: must work together
Michel Manen: not to have one privileged at hte expense of the other
Michel Manen: What we aree doing now
Michel Manen: will provide a precedent
Michel Manen: fror many futuredisasters
Michel Manen: it is simply wrong.
Michel Manen: Thsnk you
Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
Soapbox: It is Justice Soothsayer's turn to speak, please take the floor
Justice Soothsayer: ooh, me!
Soapbox: Justice Soothsayer is on the soapbox now!
Justice Soothsayer: This Commission, and this vote, was never intended to be a representative sample of the population.
Justice Soothsayer: We have one of those,
Justice Soothsayer: every six months or so,
Justice Soothsayer: it's called the election.
Justice Soothsayer: What this process was intended to do was to see if the forum discontent about the judiciary was real, and called for action.
Justice Soothsayer: I hoped, and I think the other RA members hoped, we would expand the conversation beyond the "usual suspects" of the forums.
Justice Soothsayer: And to a limited extent, we did, as some people who only occacionally write on the forums have participated here
Justice Soothsayer: But this has been the group of the people who "care the most" about the judiciary (pro or con)
Justice Soothsayer: and some in the middle
Justice Soothsayer: Certainly the group of people who have written about it the most,
Justice Soothsayer: probably those who have thought about it the most, and certainly have listened to it the most.
Justice Soothsayer: So they (we) are entitled to some respect, and cannot be easily dismissed as unrepresentative
Justice Soothsayer: This vote, messy as it is, can hardly be viewed as a vote of confidence inthe judiciary as it stands today
Justice Soothsayer: It does not tell the RA what to do, though,
Justice Soothsayer: and I think we will need quite a bit more time to identify the alternatives.
Justice Soothsayer: Ash proposed on yesterday (Ash 3), I proposed one before this commission even started.
Justice Soothsayer: And I am sure other suggestions will be forthcoming.
Justice Soothsayer: I also dont think there can at this juncture be any consensus "report" from the commission.
Justice Soothsayer: Other than to provid ethe RA saturday with these numbers, our transcripts, and anything else anyone wants to contribute.
Justice Soothsayer: But I am also willing to listen to suggestions of how to proceed,
Justice Soothsayer: so I will leave the soapbox now.
Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
TOPGenosse Brouwer: Good speech, Justice!
Justice Soothsayer: ty, Top.
Soapbox: Dexter Leopold is on the soapbox now!
Justice Soothsayer: Dexter.
Soapbox: Shhh...
Dexter Leopold: Thank you, just a few points
Dexter Leopold: I will not rehash the arguments I have previously made, nor those that I have heard that I support tonight
Jon Seattle: I have to run home. Thanks everyone.
Soapbox: Shhh...
TOPGenosse Brouwer: Bye jon
Soapbox: Shhh...
Dexter Leopold: The fact is that I do not agree about this being a representative sample, but that being said
Dexter Leopold: we cannot force those to participate who may not care one way or the other
Dexter Leopold: There are obviously a good many who believe in some sort of change
Dexter Leopold: I do not, but I am one citizen
Dexter Leopold: I want to stress my belief that amendments, and especially any real consensus on amendments, will be a lenghty process
Dexter Leopold: and that some system must move forward while that debate goes on
Dexter Leopold: I feel doing that, arguing amendments if that's what the RA chooses, while putting into practice the system that is in place now
Dexter Leopold: can both shed light on what needs to be done
Dexter Leopold: I also want to state that the JA was not forced on anyone
Dexter Leopold: it was agreed upon by the RA, like so many other things
Dexter Leopold: The JA is not a product of those "nasty lawyers" in here necessarily
Dexter Leopold: we must remember that lawyers are also responsible for advocating and drafting the current simple system
Dexter Leopold: we must be open to ideas, but me must also start putting something to the test, for I believe that will reveal much
Dexter Leopold: Thank you
Soapbox: The soapbox is now free
Justice Soothsayer: thank you
Justice Soothsayer: it is now getting late
Justice Soothsayer: this meeting has been going for over 2 hours
Justice Soothsayer: and everyone has had a turn at the soapbox
Justice Soothsayer: and we have aslo scheduled a session at 1 pm tomorrow
Justice Soothsayer: so unless anyone has any burning comments they feel they must make
Justice Soothsayer: going once.....
Ranma Tardis: a question of Dexter san
Justice Soothsayer: Ranma?
Ranma Tardis: dexter san, who is going to pay for the lawyers?
Dexter Leopold: If you want free representation, I'll give it to you Ranma
Dexter Leopold: problem solved
Justice Soothsayer: not if she's liable for the other side's costs
Ranma Tardis: they are expensive and the most people will not be able to use the system
Dexter Leopold: I cannot control that Justice
Dexter Leopold: But I think we cannot talk about this great expense when none has ever been laid out there
Ranma Tardis: thus our "investments" here are not safe
Ranma Tardis: yet
Dexter Leopold: so no system at all?
Ranma Tardis: the egg has not hatched yet
Justice Soothsayer: OK, with that exchange, we are now adjourned.
The meeting closed at 19:15 Linden time.
Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

Note: This tabulation includes one additional vote received at the meeting (not reflected in the totals announced in the above transcript).

[img:1sjwzsud]http://www.vandervelde.org/votes.jpg[/img:1sjwzsud]
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

I think that we have to count the nonvote as if it were a "4" cast against repeal. This nonvote indicates that repeal is not an acceptable or rankable option for the voter. However, in order to run good numbers on these results, we need to count it as a "4" because counting at a "0" would have the opposite of the intended effect.

That said, I calculate the totals as follows (lowest total is preferred):

Stay the Course: 43 -- with 5 people saying this is their first choice.
Amend: 28 -- with 4 people saying this is their first choice.
Suspend: 36 -- with 1 person saying this is their first choice.
Repeal: 41 -- with 5 people saying this is their first choice.

These results show clearly fractured factions, with hardline pro-JA partisans arrayed against hardline pro-repeal partisans. On a straight first place vote -- the extreme options are both tied for first. However, over all, these two options are the least liked. The most liked option, amend without suspending, is also the next most popular as a first choice. Amend with a suspension, while second in terms of acceptability, is also last in terms of solid preference.

Further, given the voting pattern that emerged at the fringes, I think that the overall ranking would remain unchanged even if the two votes of commissioners who did not cast votes were solidly partison in the pro-JA or pro-repeal Camp. With no exceptions, proponents of the Act had "amend" as their second choice -- so stay the course would have only picked up two points against amend. With one exception, opponents of the Act have suspend as their second choice, and amend as their third, so repeal would have only picked up four points, and suspend only two, against amend. This seems like a fairly clear expression of general preference, even given the extremism of the disagreement.

Therefore, on this basis, I think that we have solid support for amending the JA, while allowing it to continue to operate, under its current rules and with its current judicial personal, during the amendment process. However, I don't think that we see any support for either suspending or repealing the current procedural rules, or for appointing more judges until the system is amended, or for applying the Ashcroft rules, either directly or by imposition of a judge at pretrial. I think this is underscored by the poor showing of the pro-Act position in the top two/bottom two pairing, where it lost 6 to 9, with a full 9 (of 15) commissioners ranking it as their least acceptable option. (To be fair, the pro-repeal position also faired poorly in the top two/bottom two pairing -- where it lost 5 to 10, but with less solid opposition, as only 6 (of 15) commissioners ranked it last.)


I think : 1. The Commission should continue its work, focussing on finding which areas of the Act need to be amended and then determining how. 2. We should prioritize our next steps, as suggested by Jon Seattle, by having an additional vote to determine which of the remaining action items we should focus on. 3. We should do this vote by open, not secret, ballot -- and assign Commission members to subcommittees based on the member's priorities.

Beathan
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
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="Beathan":382q60eo]I think that we have to count the nonvote as if it were a "4" cast against repeal. This nonvote indicates that repeal is not an acceptable or rankable option for the voter. However, in order to run good numbers on these results, we need to count it as a "4" because counting at a "0" would have the opposite of the intended effect.[/quote:382q60eo]Beware trying to interpret my vote (it was mine). I deliberately did not cast my fourth choice for repeal because I did not want my vote to count (whatever system you use) in favour of repeal. So it cannot be ranked as '4' as you suggest because that would count towards the total of votes for repeal. I do not want my vote to count towards that option.
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="Justice Soothsayer":l3uwa1gi]...There are two polar extremes in this debate, with the rest in the middle (i.e. no clear consensus)[/quote:l3uwa1gi]

I think that we all could have told you this [i:l3uwa1gi]without[/i:l3uwa1gi] having a commission.

[quote="Jon Seattle":l3uwa1gi][The statistics] say to me very clearly, that those who insist on no change at all are tyring to impose their will on the majority, who are clearly in the middle on this[/quote:l3uwa1gi]

It no less says the opposite, of course, that those who insist on repeal or suspension are trying to impose their will on the majority.

It is also worth noting that "amend" votes are not necessarily votes showing any substantial dissatisfaction with the system: those who favour a minor amendment (such as the proposal that I made that I notice has gathered a great deal of support) may well also be in the "amend" camp. Therefore, only a minority are clearly substantially dissatisfied.

Note also that I have not even voted yet, nor other members of the commission (the vote was held in what was for me the small hours of the morning), and even if we had, as Nightwind pointed out, it would not be a representative sample of the population. Indeed, it is not just the commission's size that makes it unrepresentative: it is the means of determining its compositition. Not only is its composition drawn exclusively from those who have been active in the last two weeks (as that is the only notice that it has had), but it is drawn exclusively from those who have a strong enough interest in the judiciary to want to dedicate their time to it. That will inevitably attract only people with strong views either way, which is likely to be a singularly unrepresentative slice of the population. Although the commission's function was to garner input other than from the forums, it has merely attracted the same people who always posted in the forums, confirming that those are the only people sufficiently interested in this whole debate to spend their time on it. If, for example, a substantial majority of the population thought, "I really don't see what all the fuss is about: either way is fine by me", that would be grossly misrepresented by the commission's findings.

The only truly representative measure of the population is a national ballot: like the one that was held at the last general election that voted for the current legislature, who, in turn, unanimously voted in favour of our current judicial arrangements thrice. This commission cannot hope, for the reasons outlined above, to have democratic legitimacy anywhere approaching that level. All that it has told us is that, out of our population of somewhere near 65, only 6 (5 repeal plus one suspend and amend) are so dissatisfied with the current system that they want it to go away immediately, and are concerned enough to vote on the topic. That is less than a tenth of our population, and less, incidentally, than the total number of citizens attracted by the judiciary in the first place.

As to Beathan's comments,

[quote="Beathan Vale":l3uwa1gi]However, I don't think that we see any support for either suspending or repealing the current procedural rules, or for appointing more judges until the system is amended, or for applying the Ashcroft rules, either directly or by imposition of a judge at pretrial. I think this is underscored by the poor showing of the pro-Act position in the top two/bottom two pairing, where it lost 6 to 9, with a full 9 (of 15) commissioners ranking it as their least acceptable option. (To be fair, the pro-repeal position also faired poorly in the top two/bottom two pairing -- where it lost 5 to 10, but with less solid opposition, as only 6 (of 15) commissioners ranked it last.) [/quote:l3uwa1gi]

The reason that Beathan "sees no support" for these things in the results of the poll was that nobody was asked about these things: the poll is neutral on that topic. Any attempt to garner useful data from the poll about any of those questions is absurd. What is above is just Beathan's personal opinions on the matter which, as the poll has shown, are in the minority.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Oni Jiutai
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Oni Jiutai »

[quote:1o87l4as]It is also worth noting that "amend" votes are not necessarily votes showing any substantial dissatisfaction with the system: those who favour a minor amendment (such as the proposal that I made that I notice has gathered a great deal of support) may well also be in the "amend" camp. [/quote:1o87l4as]

That is exactly where I find myself. I think the system is basically sound, but I think there are a few things we've learned and a few ways we can address people's concerns.

Actually I'd form the whole thing slightly differently. It seems to me that the real question is "Do we want the sort of justice system envisaged by the JA?".

If the answer is "Yes" - then we need to talk about the details and whether we want to make some adjustments at this stage. I think we do and I think Ash's proposal is an excellent starting place for this.

If the answer is "No" - then we need to decide what we want instead and how best to implement it. Which depending on what the chosen alternative is, may mean repeal, suspend or amend.

The point is, there is for certain decisions, no practical middle ground. If I have a choice between coffee and tea, 50% of each is not a sensible decision. I think part of the difficult we're having is that we're trying to decide whether to have coffee or tea (with a substantial group who yearn for the impossibility of teaoffe) while also trying to decide what sort of coffee machine will make the best coffee.

[I hereby accept full liability for any grievous harm I have done to that metaphor and any damage anyone does to themselves attempting to drink teaoffe.]

If the answer is "There is no consensus" - then we need to decide what the best response to that is. I think it's to move forward with the current system (which has the benefits of being the one democratically selected, having had a lot of work done on it and being pretty much ready to go), to test it, so that some of the theoretical arguments can be made more concrete.

Ultimately, we may have to accept that this is a sufficiently important and difficult question that we'll never achieve complete consensus. That makes it a hard decision for the RA, but that's what they signed up for I guess. :wink:
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="Oni Jiutai":3s2ek7ch]If the answer is "There is no consensus" - then we need to decide what the best response to that is. I think it's to move forward with the current system (which has the benefits of being the one democratically selected, having had a lot of work done on it and being pretty much ready to go), to test it, so that some of the theoretical arguments can be made more concrete.

Ultimately, we may have to accept that this is a sufficiently important and difficult question that we'll never achieve complete consensus. That makes it a hard decision for the RA, but that's what they signed up for I guess. :wink:[/quote:3s2ek7ch]

To that I should add that the elected legislature has already made a principled decision about what sort of justice system that we should have. The only remaining question is, "does it work?" and "if not, what do we do to make it work?".
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3oshubh8][quote="Oni Jiutai":3oshubh8]If the answer is "There is no consensus" - then we need to decide what the best response to that is. I think it's to move forward with the current system (which has the benefits of being the one democratically selected, having had a lot of work done on it and being pretty much ready to go), to test it, so that some of the theoretical arguments can be made more concrete.

Ultimately, we may have to accept that this is a sufficiently important and difficult question that we'll never achieve complete consensus. That makes it a hard decision for the RA, but that's what they signed up for I guess. :wink:[/quote:3oshubh8]

To that I should add that the elected legislature has already made a principled decision about what sort of justice system that we should have. The only remaining question is, "does it work?" and "if not, what do we do to make it work?".[/quote:3oshubh8]

It seems to me that the path is obvious, then. If a substantial minority (33% in this poll) are fervently opposed to the system, they should not be FORCED to live under it. Set it up as a private, non-coercive system, see how it works, and that will give us the data you need, Ash, to prove how effective or ineffective it is.

Another possibility: direct referendum on the issue during the next election. Because although it was passed, some members of the RA have now expressed grave concerns. I hope your position isn't, "Sorry, you already voted for it so now I own this process by myself."

I wonder if your "analysis" of the situation might have been different if the commission voting results hadn't made it clear that just as many oppose as support your plans.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

I remain disturbed that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the pro-JA faction still appeals to a "silent majority" for support of the JA, but also stifles people who speak up in opposition from that "silent majority" by claiming that these matters had already been fully debated and the pro-JA arguments had already been made, and accepted, once and for all. What makes the current participants in the process (who are an undeniable minority of the population) less worthy, or their views less important, than were the participants in the previous debates, or the views expressed in that debate, which was conducted among an even smaller minority of citizens?

If the current vote of disapproval of the JA is not meaningful enough for the RA to consider when setting judicial policy, then the previous debate and indications of approval of the JA, before we had an opportunity to see what a mess it is in its implementation, means even less. I don't see how the pro-JA faction have have things both ways without applying a double-standard.

I want to address the argument that given a population of 65, a commission of 17 is too small to give us statistical confidence that it is a representive sample for polling purposes. Further trouble comes from this commission being self-selected, rather than selected at random, which also defeats faith in its representativeness. This is true -- and would be fatal if the commission were a stand in for a referendum. It isn't. It is a commission -- and the people who serve on commissions are typically stakeholders in the outcome of the commission's review. We should not be offended by either the self-selection of commissioners or the relative extremism of the positions held by many commissioners. Further, this poll was not supposed to tell us what the population as a whole thinks -- but what the commission thinks -- so that the commission could set its own direction. As a poll of a commission with 17 members, 15 votes is enough to give us a very high confidence factor.

It has also been argued that the poll has not given us a clear indication of what the Commission thinks -- has not shown a consensus. I disagree. Amend was prefered 11 to 4 -- almost 3 to 1. If Ash had voted, it would have been preferred 3 to 1. It is a mistake to read this kind of ranked preference poll by only looking at the top and bottom selections on any given ballot. The data we get is richer than that -- allowing us to group, as "yes" votes the 1 and 2 choices and as "no" votes the 3 and 4 choices. This is just how this kind of poll is read.

This poll cannot tell us anything about the "silent majority". First, it is probable that that majority is not just "silent" -- but is not interested in or, at least, is not thinking about these issues. The commission is 17 people who are thinking about these issues. What does the way the commissioners think about the issues tell us about how the "silent majority" would think about them? Either a great deal, or nothing at all. If the commissioners are a representative sample, we can conclude that the general population would think about the issues in the same way and same proportions as the commissioners. If the commission is not a representative sample -- it tells us nothing about how the general population thinks about these issues (or would think about the issues, if these issues are not of present concern to them), although it does tell us about what interested people in the population think. Because I think that the commission is not a representative sample, I think it tells us next to nothing about the thoughts or preferences of the other forty or so people in the community. However, in any case, it is improper to conclude that the general population thinks differently than the Commission. Either the general population thinks the same way as the Commission, or we have no basis to conclude one way or the other about how the general population thinks, or even if the general population is thinking, about these issues.

With regard to Pat's explanation of his vote -- on this vote, a vote of "4" is a vote against, not a vote for. In fact, a vote of "3" is a vote against. If the vote is not counted, a nonvote in fact favors the nonvoted position even more than a "1" vote. (Zero is less than 1 -- and lowest total wins.) However, as an opponent of the Act, I would be more than happy to reduce the pro-repeal vote by 4, which would make it roughly comparable to the suspend vote and would mean that only the "keep the Act" position was clearly disfavored.

Again, I think that this vote shows a clear consensus. It does so mathematically, at least. On the 1 to 4 ranking system, a "neutral" vote would be a 2.5. (This is why a 1 or 2 are votes for the proposition voted, and and 3 and 4 are votes against the proposition voted.) With fifteen people voting, the neutral score would be 37.5. Any score less than 37.5 indicates a general preference for the position. Any score above a 37.5 indicates a general preference against the position. The more the score varies from this mean, the greater the expression of preference. Given that the minimum score is fifteen, the score for the "amend" position appears to have achieved a strong and real consensus.

With regard to Ash's not voting, I don't understand why he didn't. I too couldn't attend the meeting, but I made sure that I voted. The voting instructions told us to give our votes to Moon, not to vote at the hearing. Most of the commissioners obviously did so -- because 15 commissioners voted even though it appears that far fewer than 15 commissioners attended the meeting.

That said, my analysis of the results took into account the possibility that both nonvoting commissioners would hold the pro-Act position. In such case, the results do not change.

I think the vote clearly calls for progress to be made with a change of direction. The Commissioners voted against the status quo -- which, as the JA is in an implementation process, must indicate a vote against the way things are going and not just a vote against where we are right now. However, the votes against repeal and suspension indicate an unwillingness to halt progress while we make changes. I think my proposal, to run the judiciary with the resources, rules and personnel we have now, while working out the needed changes, is the clearly expressed preference of the Commission on this vote.

I also can't help but think that the criticism of the vote, or the claims that the vote does not tell us anything, are examples of post-election spin by one of the losing sides. I note in passing that my side lost, too. Both the pro-Act faction and the pro-repeal faction had their positions rejected on the mathematical analysis I provide (both score more than 37.5, indicating a general preference against the position). That said, I and the rest of the pro-repeal faction seem to have accepted the vote and are prepared to move onto constructive actions in the direction pointed out by the vote. The pro-Act faction is not. This seems unreasonable to me.

This position is doubly ironic when we consider that the position the voting indicates we should go is the second-best option from the perspective of the pro-Act faction, but the third-best option from the perspective of repeal. Therefore, even if it could be asserted, from these data (as it cannot), that there is not consensus to move on with amendment without suspension, that lack of consensus would arise from the opposition of the pro-repeal faction, and would be removed by the willingness of the supporters of repeal to move forward based on amendment. The only other interpretation of these data is that any vote against the status quo is a vote against the Act, which would explain the willingness of the repeal forces to accept amendment as a partial victory, while the pro-Act forces see it as a defeat. However, this would mean that the Pro-Act forces lost the vote 5 to 10 -- which is itself a consensus against the Pro-Act position.

The Commission has a job to do. It was given that job by the RA. Therefore, that job is democratically legitimate. Let's do our job.

Beathan
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Locked

Return to “Special Comission on the Judiciary Forum”