17-01-2003 04:15									#61
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Isn't this degenerating to "citizens rapt with court case #9"

	18-01-2003 11:19									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

MSS,
True , and sorry to Mes for threadjacking, but I think there should be some place to discuss the case -- if not here, then some other discussion thread. It is a fairly emotional issue, if nothing else.

civman,
Good guesses .

Everyone else,
Any thoughts about the court opinion? Too late for me to be coherent, but I'll post my own tomorrow if there's any interest, now that there can be no effect upon the case...

-- adaMada

	18-01-2003 11:39									#63
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Don't mind discussion on the case here at all.

in fact, being a meeting of Senators, there must always be a discussion following such decisions....might as well be here..

Meshelic

	18-01-2003 21:49									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Wow.... It seems like some boundaries have been blurred with this court decision. While it may not have voided a 72 hour veto deadline, it has definitely opened the door for future disputes. While I sympathize with events that take priority over a game, it would seem that by definition (game - a sport or other competitive activity governed by specific rules ) it would be understood that a missed deadline is just that.... a missed deadline. We're not competing with real life here, this is merely an activity that is a subset of it. Does this mean if I miss a poll because I get called out of town that I can come back and expect to be able to vote? While that's an extreme example, since the court has for all practical purposes extended a deadline without providing any concrete guidelines for that extension, what do we use as a ruler going forward?

	18-01-2003 21:51									#65
	Suffering from ads?

Some thoughts, yes, and several subjects are worth a discussion.

The frivolous nature of the case.
I am not sure that I understand what means frivolous here. If it means that whatever is the issue, it will change nothing to the prevailing situation, I think that the Court has (or should have) the power to reject the case when raised. If it means that the motives of the citizen raising the case are futile, it is more difficult; motives are impossible to assess. I cant tell if Skywalker raised case #9 because he enjoys making cases or because, as a citizen, he feels necessary to act in the interest of the community, or for both reasons. This raised the problem of the legitimacy of cases raised by an individual alone in the general interest; we can imagine that the right to go to Court would be limited to the defence of personal interests, and that collective interest required that a citizen be seconded by several peers, but presently it is not so.

A Court or a referee.
The role of the Court is defined as resolving issues occurring in the game. This is clearly improper, the Court does not exist for the game which needs no Court, but for the demo-game only, and has neither existence nor meaning outside of the demo-game. Therefore, the multiple reference to the game creates many ambiguities. The main ambiguity is that we no longer know if the Court is inside the demo-game, which we expect, or outside, but then it is no longer a Court, it is a referee whose work is much simpler and easier.

Examining if excuses for not meeting deadlines are valid.
Apparently the Court does not like that; it is however common belief that it is exactly what a Court is made for; if all problems resulting from deadlines could be solved in reading what the deadline is in the law, we would not need judges at all. Fortunately, there are not so many deadlines in our constitution that it should be a real problem, it is all the more surprising to see it used as an argument.

Good faith.
During the trial, I don’t remember that any reference to the good faith of the defendant was made; it is therefore surprising that it appears in the decision as if there was some doubt about it. This bad feeling is reinforced by the accusation that Arnelos did not prove that he was prevented from meet ing the deadline, as if any proof can be brought more than declaring what happens. Who can bring the proof that he has not played ahead (among those who download the save) ?

Ability of the other Cabinet members from meeting the deadline
This is an interesting argument, but questionable. As per the Constitution, any three of five members of the cabinet can veto a law; this is substantially different from any three of four. The capacity to use the veto recognized to the Cabinet is much easier to exercise in three of five than in three of four. And why would it become three of four ? Because of RL again, and if RL is recognized as the cause of the absence of Arnelos, it must also be recognized in its incidental effect on the exercise of the veto.

	19-01-2003 00:56									#66
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Excellent points DAVOUT. Very thoughtful.

I only have on comment regarding the court at this point.

I am considering an amendment to the constitution that requires the plantiff of any case to be directly wronged befor bringing a case to court... You know.. in the case of the veto, the senate was wronged so the senate must (as a body) vote to take it to court. Or Aggie, the direct author of the bill. In the case of the MPPS, only the Senate or Arnelos (tThe FAM at the time) were wronnged, only they had the right to seek justice.

Now that I wrote this, I think I will start a pre-amendment discussion regarding this...

Mss