Moderator: SC Moderators
Well, one says no requirements should exist which affect the applicant's citizenship status (a matter of public, constitutional law).
The other recognizes the fact that diferent individuals have different abilities and talents (a self-evedent claim).
I do not see the contradiction. A different seet of skills does not imply a different citizenship status. One has nothing to do with the other.
Michel --
How is enculturation not a relevant personal characteristic? Shouldn't we take steps to ensure it? Just as qualified people might fail a qualification process -- without invalidating the process for that reason (depending on the frequency and reason for failure) -- surely a process that tries to ensure enculturation but does not always do so, or that sometimes disqualified an enculturated person, is better than no process at all.
Beathan
Beathan,
Enculturation is important- but unlike iRL, does not depend here on length of residency, but rather on quality of interactions. A person may join one day and be more enculturated in 5 days in CDS after reading our website, the forums, spending times in NFS and CN, and attending meetings, functions, and getting to know his/her fellow citizens than a person who's been a citizen for 3 months and has logged in 3 times to put up some posters in his house, without interacting with any CDS citizens.
Michel --
How is this responsive. Other than your complicated and easily manipulated scheme to accumulate culture points, other than a residency requirement, what can we do? Residency requirements are not perfect -- here or iRL -- but they are a quick and effective process for making rough and ready guesses about enculturation. That is better than nothing -- and it is better than too much (which is your proposed alternative).
Beathan
[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":qbtwnl5g]Intriguing. Could you flesh out your proposed system a bit more? Are you thinking classes? Internships? Tests?[/quote:qbtwnl5g]
We already have a School in Neufreistadt that is sadly underused. Those involved with the judicial system (the Chair of the JC is in charge of authorising legal qualifications, according to the constitution) would organise people to write materials, and hold seminars. There would be two kinds of legal education: that giving a basic understanding of the system for ordinary users (including specific education for people, such as the treasurer, or marshals of the peace, who have particular interactions with the legal system), and professional qualifications for those who want to appear in our courts on behalf of others. The latter, but not the former, would involve a test, administered by the Chair of the Judiciary Commission.
The ultimate aim would be that, instead of having judges qualified on the basis of a lengthy test, judges would be selected from the most skilled and proficient advocates (on the basis of a brief application procedure) who are qualified under the system. This would be a better means of judicial qualification than we now have, since it would enable the assessment of skills in practice better than a written test could. It was not possible to impliment that preferable system in our current round of judicial qualifications, because that system would take longer to set up, and there was an urgent need to increase the number of judges.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3riun5nm]The ultimate aim would be that, instead of having judges qualified on the basis of a lengthy test, judges would be selected from the most skilled and proficient advocates (on the basis of a brief application procedure) who are qualified under the system. This would be a better means of judicial qualification than we now have, since it would enable the assessment of skills in practice better than a written test could. It was not possible to impliment that preferable system in our current round of judicial qualifications, because that system would take longer to set up, and there was an urgent need to increase the number of judges.[/quote:3riun5nm]
Interesting idea. However, I am not sure that judges should be selected from among the "most skilled and proficient advocates", as different (albeit somewhat overlapping) skill sets are required. Some of the best RL lawyers I know would be horrible judges, and some of the best judges I know would be terrible advocates. (Old trial lawyer's joke: How do you greet a trial lawyer with an IQ of under 85? Good morning, your honor.)
Judges must possess judicial temperament, a certain sensitivitity, and have an agile and open mind. They must be able to see that manycoins have two and sometimes more sides. To paraphrase Learned Hand's view of the spirit of liberty, judges must have the certainty that they may not be quite right. Advocates, OTOH, must be able to be firmly confident of the righteousness of their position. Many lawyers can easily make the transition from bar to bench; many others cannot.
[quote="Justice Soothsayer":ut21ucgg]Interesting idea. However, I am not sure that judges should be selected from among the "most skilled and proficient advocates", as different (albeit somewhat overlapping) skill sets are required. Some of the best RL lawyers I know would be horrible judges, and some of the best judges I know would be terrible advocates. (Old trial lawyer's joke: How do you greet a trial lawyer with an IQ of under 85? Good morning, your honor.)
Judges must possess judicial temperament, a certain sensitivitity, and have an agile and open mind. They must be able to see that manycoins have two and sometimes more sides. To paraphrase Learned Hand's view of the spirit of liberty, judges must have the certainty that they may not be quite right. Advocates, OTOH, must be able to be firmly confident of the righteousness of their position. Many lawyers can easily make the transition from bar to bench; many others cannot.[/quote:ut21ucgg]
You make a reasonable point: something additional is required than ability to be an advocate. Additionally, the assessment of advocates to see which are the best potential judges would be conducted on a different basis to assessing the best advocate. What that something extra is will need to be partly determined by the additional part of the selection procedure, and partly by the PJSP.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":axry8ojj]You make a reasonable point: something additional is required than ability to be an advocate. Additionally, the assessment of advocates to see which are the best potential judges would be conducted on a different basis to assessing the best advocate. What that something extra is will need to be partly determined by the additional part of the selection procedure, and partly by the PJSP.[/quote:axry8ojj]
Thanks, good to see some common ground. But my point has a subtle distinction: there is something [i:axry8ojj]different[/i:axry8ojj] that makes a good judge than makes a good advocate, not something [i:axry8ojj]extra[/i:axry8ojj], although admittedly there is much overlap as well.
[quote="Justice Soothsayer":tptmufce]Thanks, good to see some common ground. But my point has a subtle distinction: there is something [i:tptmufce]different[/i:tptmufce] that makes a good judge than makes a good advocate, not something [i:tptmufce]extra[/i:tptmufce], although admittedly there is much overlap as well.[/quote:tptmufce]
I understood that point, although, at least part of abilty to be a judge can be assessed by looking at advocacy ability: one might be able to be a good judge without being a good advocate, for example, but one cannot be a competent judge without also being a competent advocate. Also, some of the individual skills of advocacy are also equally important skills of a judge, such as ability to analyse the law or a complex set of facts.