Does the UDHR apply to the CDS?

Forum to discuss issues pertaining to the organisation and operations of the judiciary.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Oni Jiutai
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Oni Jiutai »

Gwyn,

And presumably one can go up to someone and say "There are elections coming up and I'm supporting the Simplicity Party. Can I talk to you about why you should vote for us?" which I think is what Diderot thought might be banned?

Flyingroc Chung
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 2:55 pm
Contact:

Post by Flyingroc Chung »

[quote="Oni Jiutai":3h48s7ga]And presumably one can go up to someone and say "There are elections coming up and I'm supporting the Simplicity Party. Can I talk to you about why you should vote for us?" which I think is what Diderot thought might be banned?[/quote:3h48s7ga]

I think that is expressly allowed by the constitution: "Campaigning for factions can be done in-world ... by discourse between two avatars directly."

User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

I think so as well, Flyinroc, it's explicitly allowed.

And BTW, lest someone gets me wrong again, I'm the last possible person to propose a "major Constitution rewrite". However, I also think that if the assumptions behind the reasoning that provided that Constitution have changed so much, that the Constitution does not represent the will of the people any more, one should think very carefully about what should be changed — in the [i:38r18ajx]assumptions[/i:38r18ajx]! — and then see how that reflects back into the text in it.

So far, I have been assuming a lot of things about the Constitution. It's clear that once everybody assumed the [i:38r18ajx]same[/i:38r18ajx] things about it, but this is not the case any more. A good example — but a crucial one! — is the legislative exclusivity of the RA. While it is not written anywhere that the RA has this exclusivity, it was [i:38r18ajx]assumed[/i:38r18ajx] it has. This was often raised in the past ("does the SC have co-legislative powers?") but stamped down, because of the ultimate assumption that nobody and no one could change the legislation — but the RA.

This assumption has been heavily questioned lately. Depending on the assumption you work from, the Constitution's statement on the role of the RA can be read in two ways — ie. that the RA is the sole legislative body, or that it is [i:38r18ajx]a[/i:38r18ajx] legislative body, but there could be others. It all really depends about anopther unwritten thing which is the "spirit of the Constitution". Since we have so many unwritten and traditional things, it's hard to say which ones do apply and which don't.

Thus, I'm mostly questioning the assumptions behind the Constitution, and not the Constitution itself. One could reason (as Ashcroft is prone to do, for instance :) ) that the Constitution does not rely upon any assumptions whatsover, but it's just a written text [i:38r18ajx]per se[/i:38r18ajx]. Well, it is a [i:38r18ajx]possible[/i:38r18ajx] way of viewing things. It just happens that it is not my own :)

In any case, proposing anything dramatic right now would be folly and irresponsibility; we're during a campaign phase, and this should only be seriously addressed (if at all) after the elections. Also, many might remember that I voted "no" on Rudy's call for a Constitutional Convention, because at that time I didn't saw any problem with the Constitution — as long as it followed the basic assumptions that everybody wanted to live under, there would be no reason to change and replace it. But I've changed my mind. I now think that we can't say, at this time, what the assumptions are for [i:38r18ajx]everybody[/i:38r18ajx] — there are several conflicting ones (most are fortunately overlapping). And I guess that we should work to find these out.

It'll be long process, during which probably people will take a sentence out of the Constitution and ask: "What does that mean for [i:38r18ajx]you[/i:38r18ajx]?". If everybody can agree with the meaning of that sentence, it certainly still reflects common assumptions, and it should be kept. But once we stumble upon conflicting assumptions, we have to work out to understand what exactly people [i:38r18ajx]want[/i:38r18ajx] that to mean :)

A long process indeed.

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

[quote="Gwyneth Llewelyn":115y4u9s]BTW, for the record, Michel talked to me before all of this, to get an idea of what was allowed and what wasn't. I think that these things are clear:[list:115y4u9s]
[*:115y4u9s]touch-to-give-information is allowed (even if technically it's a scripted item). Source: tradition[/*:m:115y4u9s]
[*:115y4u9s]the Chancellor can approve public areas to be set up for campaigning signs. In Neufreistadt that is usually the Marktplatz near the Rathaus. In Colonia Nova, there is no tradition yet. Source: Constitution delegating that power to whomever is enforcing the covenants (formerly the Guild, now the Chancellor)[/*:m:115y4u9s]
[*:115y4u9s]further signage is allowed on the following conditions:
a) If it's on "restricted covenant areas" (ie. strongly-themed, like both the NFS and CN "inside walls" areas), they require the Chancellor's explicit permission;
b) if it's on "less restricted areas" (ie. residential areas, non-themed or with relaxed enforcement), they can be placed anywhere, if they don't violate the covenants about height, particle emission, rotating signs, etc.
Source: Covenants[/*:m:115y4u9s]
[*:115y4u9s]The two-email rule is to be assumed to imply two emails to people having given consent to get their emails in a mailing list of some sort (ie. the RL laws of opt-in mailing lists apply first), even if this sounds somewhat silly and inconsistent :)
Source: none whatsoever. This never happened in our short history, to the best of my recollection.[/*:m:115y4u9s][/list:u:115y4u9s][/quote:115y4u9s]
Thank you for this comprehensive guide to what is allowed and what is not allowed. I am comforted by the fact that Michel sought the counsel of the Dean before sending out what I presume must have been unsolicited IM's to all or a large part of the politically unafiliated citizenry with the aim of offering them membership of the CARE faction.

I assume that the Simplicity Party can proceed to do the same should we desire to do so.

Personally, I would have preferred for our PIO, whom I understand is Nightwind Leonov, to send out an email announcing the start of the elections and offering brief information as to who are representing the different factions, when they hold meetings and possibly also what their platform was. This would allow us to focus on political issues rather than devote resources to engage in a race of "who has the most time to engage in sending IM's to everyone."

User avatar
Pelanor Eldrich
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:07 am

Thanks Gwyn...

Post by Pelanor Eldrich »

That puts my mind at considerable ease. Sorry for the misunderstanding. -Pel

Pelanor Eldrich
Principal - Eldrich Financial
Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Post by Jon Seattle »

Salzie wrote a nice guide in the last election. I found the old copy and passed it on to Aliasi. I hope we will have an update.

User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

I've posted it on our home page, too :D

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Gwyneth Llewelyn":3t6w0cl8]In any case, proposing anything dramatic right now would be folly and irresponsibility; we're during a campaign phase, and this should only be seriously addressed (if at all) after the elections. [/quote:3t6w0cl8]

This, of course, is equally applicable to the present moves to abolish the judiciary immediately before an election.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":2p7xacm7]I fail to see why first Ash, and now you, think that you can come into the CDS and radically transform the community and Constitutional structure. [/quote:2p7xacm7]

Is a radical transformation of the constitutional structure not precisely what is proposed by the faction of which you are a member?

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":99qn3dd2]I will agree to your principles provided that we apply them to the Judiciary Act itself. In such case, the Judiciary Act would not have any effect until it has been submitted to the citizens in a referendum and approved by them. If you will join me in making this proposal, I will welcome your involvement.

After all, the Judiciary Act was iself a fundamental change in the manner in which the CDS is governed. (Even more than the change now proposed -- as the Judiciary Act has not actually been implemented, so it has no real effect on how the CDS is governed). It was passed by act of the RA -- not by referendum. If the RA cannot repeal the JA without referendum, because such repeal would be "null and void and of no legal effect" without popular endorsement by referendum -- then the JA itself, on your logic, should be null and void without such referendum endorsement.[/quote:99qn3dd2]

Do you support the same being done in respect of the position of the Chancellor, a constitutional amendment to establish which was passed shortly before the Judiciary Act, and which has had a substantial effect on how the CDS has been governed? Would you also have it apply to the 28-day time-limit on when people may vote, and, indeed, every other constitutional amendment passed since what was once Neualtenburg and is now the CDS came into being? Or do you reserve it only for those things that you personally disfavour, thinking that everything else should get special treatment?

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

To Gwyneth, I will ask simply this: if there are assumptions that must be shared in order to make the constitution or legal system of this virtual nation work, how will those who enter the community after those assumptions are first created get to know about them and come to share them unless they are written down in a place where somebody trying to find out how our constitution or legal system works would expect to find that sort of information? Since the turnover rate of citizens is necessarily high in a virtual world, that is a question of no small importance.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”