 |
| |
|
|
GodKing
|
 |
Detroit
Feb 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
Court Case #Almost-6
Current Judges
notyoueither
Sheik
Nimitz
Kring
GodKing
In the case of UnOrthOdOx calling for the impeachment of Thud, the court has found this case to resolve without our assistance. Unorthodox has withdrawn his impeachment call.
As the public should be made told of the sequence of events, I am posting them here for your use.
Unorthodox posted a thread calling for Thuds impeachment. Grounds for this impeachment are that as he has not been doing his job, he has caused delays to the game.
After this thread had been posted, he contacted justices nye and myself through PM. Nye received the message first, and distributed it to the other justices. Aggie, after discussing things with Sheik, locked the impeachment thread (later he added the message he received from me indicating that the court was looking into this case).
This was on Wednesday, December 4th IIRC.
Because of RL, we justices were not able to schedule an opportunity to discuss things until the weekend. Sheik indicated he would not be able to attend until approximately 1 ½ hours after the discussion started. He never did make it. Kring and Nimitz never acknowledged anything ever regarding this court case.
Nye and I discussed this issue. We came to the conclusion that Thud did not perform his duties, however valid his reasoning was. In truth, he was on a trip when his hard drive failed. This could happen to any one of us. We did understand and sympathized with his predicament. Additionally, there was in truth little for the SMC to do at this time. However, lack of action is lack of action
The game was never delayed however. Both Aggie (prez) and Togas (vp) proceeded within the game without Thud. Therefore, no delay ever took place in the playing of the game. Aggie nor Togas ever indicated in any official capacity dissatisfaction with the lack of effort made by SMC Thud in his office.
Therefore, it was resolved that because there was in fact no delay, because no officials ever expressed dissatisfaction, and that many of the issues that had caused Thud to in fact be absent were resolved, no action was to be taken at this time. However, if public sentiment indicated that we should, we would create an actual case.
Unfortunately, only nye and myself were able to make this decision. Sheik did eventually respond in communication with nye, and we now have three justices in agreement which is what the constitution calls for. I delayed 2 days (RL – Final exam for my night time grad school class) to write up this summery, which is 8 days after the initial complaint was made. This IMO is a sorry time frame for such an important decision to be brought to the publics’ attention. I wish to apologize for this. Some of this falls on my shoulders.
Nimitz nor Kreig ever responded to any of my communications regarding this case. And to the best of my knowledge, did they respond to any communication from any other justice or citizen in regards to this case. I may be new to the court, but I find this hard to accept.
Notyoueither and Sheik both acted well and in accordance with what I would consider proper procedure. And I agree that we need more than one person to handle such issues as using other people for sounding boards was quite important in this process.
Any suggestions on how this process can be improved. Please use this thread discusing whether or not
a) you think thud should have been impeached. Granted, he had RL reasons, and is a good person. This was not, not is this going to be, a personal attack agains him. Simply put, although he was unable to perform his duties, others within the government filled in for his and therefore the game was never delayed. I have seen thud in action, and have found him to be a true civ and poly persona. If people start to attack him personally, as thread starter and a current justice, I will call on MarkG, DanQ or Ming to erase this thread and punish the persons doing so. Same applies to Unortho who started this process - no personal attacks against unortho.
b) What should be done regarding non-responsive justices. I have my own strong opinions which I tried to leave out of this discussion, so I would like to see what you all have to think about this.
c) any and all ideas for streamlining this process in the future. It took about 8 days for me to report to you on what occured from when it started. The last two were entirely me. the first 6, well, that is an awful long time for someone who is only in office for a month total. If it takes a week to decide to impeach someone, then another week to actually do it, then chances are it is time for the new elections anyways. I hate to revisit this whole process, but if we are going to have the powers to impeach someone, we need to figure this out. There is always the option of removing the impeachment option...... lets discuss.
Thanks for reading this long thing.
GK
edit for clarity....... which it is still kinda vague, sorry.
Last edited by GodKing on 13-12-2002 at 04:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:24
|
|
I think a lot of us have been frustrated by the length of time it takes for The Court to make decisions and I thank GK for "going pubic" and explaining to us the process.
I am dissapointed to hear that some of our judges are inactive. Perhaps this is a matter for serious impeachment consideration, as it seems more trouble was caused by missing judges than was caused by Thud's absence.
What I would like to propose is that, in future impeachment proceedings, due to the time limits and national importance of these sorts of issues, that The Court do the following:
AS SOON AS a complaint/request for impeachment is received by The Court, a Judge posts a thread notifying the public of the request, posting the complaint, and giving the accused 24 hours to respond (and perhaps allowing others with evidence for or against to respond). The judges should EACH post to the thread that he either finds enough evidence to proceed to impeachment, or that he does not. If three or more say to proceed, then it goes forward. If three or more say no, then the matter is dismissed.
While it is very good that The Court meets to discuss important matters, that once a week meeting is not required for all matters, and certainly should be avoided or expedited for urgent matters.
As for Thud, impeachment was not necessary once it was learned that Thud's absence was due to an condition beyond his control. At that time the President should have appointed a temp or done the work himself. We were lucky to have Aggie as pres and handling the SMC duties was second nature to him.
However, we may want to make it a policy to "assume" that suddenly absent ministers are caught up in a personal emergency after a set period of time, and ask that the President appoint a temp until that person's emergency can be resolved.
... but back to the inactive Judges. I think this is the first that any of us in the public has heard about this problem. If GK and NYE feel this is a serious matter, I hope one of them could express so and, perhaps, we should hold an impeachment hearing so that the Judges can be replaced with active ones. Judicial terms are 3 months, and waiting for new appointments may be a burden on the court.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
jdjdjd
|
 |
of España
May 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
I think the Court members get more out of deciding an issue when they can discuss it in a chat, and often one chat can resolve an issue and is certainly as effective as dozens of PMs back and forth. That was my experience on the Court, when nye, Epistax and myself would meet regularly.
However, as the saying goes Justice delayed is Justice denied. So, in cases where at least three members of the Court can't meet within a day or two of the actual complaint, than Togas's idea is a good alternative. Especially in cases where timing is important. The Court should, however, monitor the case as they have in the past.
I am glad to see Nimitz is back, and his RL situation, as Thud's was, is understandable. I am also glad the Court felt there was no reason to impeach Thud, that is what I felt the whole time.
I would appreciate it if the topped Court thread were updated to show the Court decision and the fact the case was dropped by UnOrthOdOx.
Last edited by jdjdjd on 14-12-2002 at 01:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sheik
|
|
I was unable to make the meeting but as the thread said I did contact nye with my decision and comments. I am sorry that I was absent.
I want the public to know that The Court is not always this slow and that most of the time we have made fast decisions but have just been slow posting them. If anything needs to be changed it is the time it takes us to post a decision not the time it takes us to hear and decide the case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
It looks like I have to appoint a replacement for kring, no? (he was originally appointed in September, so his term is up anyhow... right?)
Last edited by Arnelos on 16-12-2002 at 09:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
|
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:24
|
|
*bump*
I really need to know about this (a solid answer on whether I need to appoint a replacement for kring, as I believe I do)
(I have PMed two justices about it, though)
Last edited by Arnelos on 16-12-2002 at 09:20
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-12-2002 04:38
(finding a VP pick is difficult enough...)
, maybe we should get like a couple reserve judges , who could replace a judge who is for one or the other reason not able to perform in his function , .....
, what about getting a couple spare ones at the same time , ...... afterall with the holidays and so , .....
|
|