View Topic

I'm going to pose this question to get an idea of the community's thoughts of this after the recent case where Doc sued himself. I'll be weighing in a bit later once a few people have responded.

Anyway, Moot mentioned that we can question the necessity of the courts given that we have only had two cases, and both have been kinda a joke.

Additionally, the panel found that the Storting should go about making a few much needed changes to the system.

I pose this question to try and make an informed decision about whether we should invest in updating our courts, or whether we should abolish them completely and replace them with something else. I've seen good arguments for both.

Please discuss away. I will also add a poll when a bit of a discussion has been had so we don't make any decisions too rashly.

If we are going to have laws, I do believe a court system is necessary, and eventually disputes about those laws will occur, disputes between people will occur, and the need to censure bad behavior will arise. While we have been able to do those without a court system, many of these actions were taken outside of the court system BECAUSE there was not, and is not an adequate court system in place.

When Pengu brought up the first Revocation against Gov that was considered, he initially wanted it to be done in the courts, but when it was clear that the courts were broken he went to the Storting in an attempt to ensure Gov would be treated fairly. Additionally, a court system additionally has a shield that the regular parts of our government do not have, in that the court exists only for a singular case, and as such it is harder to have a court prejudiced, unless the procedure itself is utterly broken, which leads to people to use other mechanisms in an attempt to replace it.  Our current system relies on the Storting (and the Monarch) to do the right thing, and because of the Separation between the two branches a Judicial is, in my eyes, necessary as the only area that one branch doing wrong can be resolved.

With this I've actually been in the process of drafting a new judicial code, which effectively creates separate courts for dealing with certain subject matter, each with procedure that would best work in that instance (at least from what I can tell.). I'll eventually reveal it, however it's not done yet.

The way I see it is that since the court is not a separate standalone position (as it's made up of selected OH and UH members for each case), does it really matter that it's not used? I mean, it's not taking up space or a position being run for, so who cares? Might as well have it in the incredibly rare case that it's needed.

What could we update or replace the current system with that would be better anyway? The only thing I can think of would be for Wintermoot to just decide all "criminal" cases since he's already the admin.

While I have served on and had the pleasure of being part of various judicial systems in the past, as a spectator to such proceedings I believe that traditional judicial systems on NS are fundamentally broken. Furthermore any judicial system that relies on regularly elected officials is in my opinion unreliable, corruptible, and not feasible. It has long been my belief that judicial matters should be left to citizens the community know they can trust without a doubt to do the right thing, citizens that would serve for as long as they can, as long as they are trustworthy and until the community knows they can no longer believe in them. That's why I admire TRRs model which relies on the Citizenship Council and forum administration. I'm not saying Wintreath should outright copy TRR in that regard however adopting a similar model would be my highest recommendation. I would be more than happy to leave judicial matters to a small panel of people whom are the pillars of our community. People such as Moot, Pengu and Wuufu because we know we can trust them to do what's right every time. In all my time here in Wintreath there are select people that I know have Wintreath's best interest at heart and have never given me reason to believe otherwise. Those are the people I want in charge of judicial matters.

I like the consistency of an idea like that, Satan, but I do wonder how the citizenry can exert some sort of control over it if someone on the panel does not conform to expected standards anymore. Do they have some method in place?

I like the consistency of an idea like that, Satan, but I do wonder how the citizenry can exert some sort of control over it if someone on the panel does not conform to expected standards anymore. Do they have some method in place?

I took a look at TRR's constitution and bolded the section that should answer your question.

Article 7: The Citizenship Council
A: The Citizenship Council shall be composed of three Councillors.
B: One Councillor shall be appointed by the Delegate and one by the Officer with the longest continuous tenure as citizen. The manner of selection of the third Councillor shall be prescribed by the Assembly. Each appointment shall be subject to a confirmation in the Assembly, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.
C: Any citizen may initiate a petition calling for the removal of a Councillor. Once such a petition is signed by five citizens, a vote shall be held in the Assembly to remove the Councillor. Removal requires a two-thirds vote.
D: Once appointed, a Councillor shall serve until their resignation, loss of citizenship, removal from office or failure of a reconfirmation vote. A vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as the outgoing Councillor was appointed.
E: Every 1 May, all current Councillors shall be subject to reconfirmation votes. Reconfirmation requires two-thirds majority. If a Councillor is not reconfirmed, the position shall became vacant.
F: The Citizenship Council shall be responsible for the approval of citizenship applications, the retraction of citizenship of individuals who are no longer eligible or pose a security risk, and the maintenance of an active list of citizens.

From what I've read, the Citizenship Council mostly approves and revokes Citizenship...is revocation of Citizenship the only judicial punishment in TRR or is it allowed to determine other punishments? Do they hold trials like most judiciaries? If someone has broken laws, how does the procedure work? I couldn't find a code of laws or judicial procedure.

I like the consistency of an idea like that, Satan, but I do wonder how the citizenry can exert some sort of control over it if someone on the panel does not conform to expected standards anymore. Do they have some method in place?

As Moot pointed out there is a means of oversight. Personally, given the right persons (in TRRs case fratt, Guy & Catalyse) I believe that particular kind of oversight could do more than good specifically because it's citizen oversight but that's just me. It's still better than traditional NS judiciaries. I'm just more security-minded, like a Father Knows Best State. As far as the right persons here in Wintreath, I already know who I'd trust the security of this community because I trust them to do the right thing, to follow not just the letter of the law but the spirit of it as well which to me is more important. NS judiciaries have a bad tradition of being amoral at best and immoral at worst. If we were to adopt a model similar to TRRs I'm confident that it would be both just and moral.

From what I've read, the Citizenship Council mostly approves and revokes Citizenship...is revocation of Citizenship the only judicial punishment in TRR or is it allowed to determine other punishments? Do they hold trials like most judiciaries? If someone has broken laws, how does the procedure work? I couldn't find a code of laws or judicial procedure.

It does only handle citizenship. Forum administration handles criminal matters. Criminal matters and citizenship do mix however as criminal behavior reflects on a given person. For a serious enough crime (both IC & OOC) The Citizenship Council does sometimes open discussion for the citizenry to weigh in to gauge public opinion and/or to (I suspect) aid in their deliberations.

However the Citizenship Council model could be applied to judicial matters and be exactly as effective. In my opinion it would be better than traditional NS judiciaries. Not only because of how it would work but also because of who serves within it.

Delete this post because I mistook the little pencil and paper icon for the modify link. >_<

I honestly don't think we should model TRR's Citizenship Council for a number of reasons. First off all it creates an unnecessary body, TRR's Council fits a different need than what we need, and our system is the best for our circumstances.

First off is the fact that it creates an unnecessary body, that needs to be filled, that our current bodies and systems handles quite nicely. We don't need a citizenship council because the matters of Citizenship have been handled well enough by the Monarchy and the Storting, and I would be very hesitant to give an unchanging body, power over it. Additionally this allows for entrenchment of people and the usage of the position to push for certain policies regarding citizenship that would be harder to keep a check on. Do we really want to create a new body that does little, that we need to fill, and that we need to pass laws and procedure on? I honestly think it's a large amount of effort for little actual gain.

Next is the fact that the council fits a different need than what we need. The Citizenship Council in TRR is effectively a GCR Security Council, which we don't need as a UCR. We do not need a bureaucratic Security Council-esque body in this region as I fully trust our current setup to protect our region sufficiently. It does not really fill the body of a Judiciary, because it only matters over Citizenship and it merely exists to manage the Security of TRR, to an extent. Our needs differ as we need a council to manage issues between members of the community that Citizenship alteration is NOT generally an answer to. TRR is a heavily democratic GCR that needs to ensure it can not be subverted by others, we are a Constitutional Monarchy GCR that does not need to worry as much about that.

Finally, there is the fact honestly, our system is the best for our region. It fits nicely with Wintrean Values, and it's not necessarily the worst thing in the world. We don't have to worry about filling it BECAUSE it comes from bodies that have to be filled regardless, and the court only exists during a case. It can not be manipulated or gamed without taking control of the entirely of the Underhusen and the Overhusen - which would require such effort, that it would have to take at least a year to do, if not more, due to our regional structure. The Judiciary we have is a decent mid-way to decide conflicts between citizens and issues within our government, and it is somewhat accountable. If there is enough disdain for a ruling, those responsible can be removed and the Storting can fix it through legislation or through amendment.

Ultimately, the TRR system is not necessary here, does not fit our needs, and our system as it stands is good enough for most of our needs. The desire to import a system which is supposedly 'moral', but in reality mostly powerless in areas that we need and is overly bureaucratic for things that we don't need will not help us, it will only hurt us. Our system as it stands can be fixed, which it should, but TRR is honestly not the solution.

Now as to whether or not a Judiciary should be 'moral' or not, I personally think it should rather amoral in most cases, as morality has little room in a Judiciary, where the goal is to establish justness and to right wrongs. We should be weary of those pushing moralities on us, because other regions do it, even though the system has no place in our region due to it being ultimately unnecessary.

I honestly don't think we should model TRR's Citizenship Council for a number of reasons. First off all it creates an unnecessary body, TRR's Council fits a different need than what we need, and our system is the best for our circumstances.

I did say previously that we shouldn't outright copy it. I said we could utilize the model of it, not the original purpose. We can easily modify it to act as a judicial body. If our current system worked as well as you believe it to nobody would be questioning it's usefulness.

We don't need a citizenship council because the matters of Citizenship have been handled well enough by the Monarchy and the Storting, and I would be very hesitant to give an unchanging body, power over it. Additionally this allows for entrenchment of people and the usage of the position to push for certain policies regarding citizenship that would be harder to keep a check on. Do we really want to create a new body that does little, that we need to fill, and that we need to pass laws and procedure on? I honestly think it's a large amount of effort for little actual gain.

Again, my suggestion was not that such a body would be charged with overseeing the matter of citizenship. Modified to act as a judicial body it has the potential to minimize strain on the Storting.

Next is the fact that the council fits a different need than what we need. The Citizenship Council in TRR is effectively a GCR Security Council, which we don't need as a UCR. We do not need a bureaucratic Security Council-esque body in this region as I fully trust our current setup to protect our region sufficiently. It does not really fill the body of a Judiciary, because it only matters over Citizenship and it merely exists to manage the Security of TRR, to an extent. Our needs differ as we need a council to manage issues between members of the community that Citizenship alteration is NOT generally an answer to. TRR is a heavily democratic GCR that needs to ensure it can not be subverted by others, we are a Constitutional Monarchy GCR that does not need to worry as much about that.

Once more it can be modified to act as a judicial body. Wintreath may not have to worry about subversion but like any region it is susceptible to manipulation. That's why the pillars of our community would be the best choices for a judicial body. They'd be less susceptible to be manipulated into doing what they know is wrong.

Finally, there is the fact honestly, our system is the best for our region. It fits nicely with Wintrean Values, and it's not necessarily the worst thing in the world. We don't have to worry about filling it BECAUSE it comes from bodies that have to be filled regardless, and the court only exists during a case. It can not be manipulated or gamed without taking control of the entirely of the Underhusen and the Overhusen - which would require such effort, that it would have to take at least a year to do, if not more, due to our regional structure. The Judiciary we have is a decent mid-way to decide conflicts between citizens and issues within our government, and it is somewhat accountable. If there is enough disdain for a ruling, those responsible can be removed and the Storting can fix it through legislation or through amendment.

Any one person can worm their way into the Underhusen or Overhusen and begin corrupting it from the inside. Plus it's open to anyone that gains citizenship and can put on a good enough show. That's why I believe leaving judicial matters to a body that's less democratic is better. I feel the proposed judicial body would be better with each member being appointed by Moot himself.

Ultimately, the TRR system is not necessary here, does not fit our needs, and our system as it stands is good enough for most of our needs. The desire to import a system which is supposedly 'moral', but in reality mostly powerless in areas that we need and is overly bureaucratic for things that we don't need will not help us, it will only hurt us. Our system as it stands can be fixed, which it should, but TRR is honestly not the solution.

Since you've failed to grasp the meaning of my suggestion I kinda have to disregard a lot of your comments on the subject. I'm sure our current system could be fixed. That doesn't mean we can't do better though. I'm merely making a suggestion.

Now as to whether or not a Judiciary should be 'moral' or not, I personally think it should rather amoral in most cases, as morality has little room in a Judiciary, where the goal is to establish justness and to right wrongs. We should be weary of those pushing moralities on us, because other regions do it, even though the system has no place in our region due to it being ultimately unnecessary.

That's part of my problem with traditional NS judiciaries. They're so amoral that they forget their judges and the people they pass judgement on actually are people. It's dehumanizing. NS courts need a human touch in conjunction with their rulings.

I want to state that I'm not against this proposal, but just want to point out that the OH is already appointed by Wintermoot, so if anything, the judicial process could be altered to just use OH members rather than OH and UH.

Now this is a well-rounded debate.

It seems rather square to me. 

In all seriousness, I do like keeping it balanced as far as judicials go with UH and OH members go.  That being said, I also like the idea of barring members that are currently on trial from being part of the judicial aspect as well, preventing another Chanku vs. Myself scenario.

It seems rather square to me. 

In all seriousness, I do like keeping it balanced as far as judicials go with UH and OH members go.  That being said, I also like the idea of barring members that are currently on trial from being part of the judicial aspect as well, preventing another Chanku vs. Myself scenario.

That was actually fixed after our trial Pengu

In any case, to be honest I think our current system works fine for our likings. First off using the court to try and change things would be very difficult, unless you get 100% of all seats in the Underhusen, because each Justice is selected from the Storting at random. Additionally, most of our disputes in Wintreath involve laws and the interpretation of them, therefore a Judiciary has marginally more use here, and we don't need a system that would be a glorified security council that just sits around and does little.

In any case, I do intend to introduce a Judicial Code to fix our procedures, and perhaps try some new things in Wintreath (and in NS in general), I'm just working to make sure I get the basics right.

I recall as much, that was just me trying to say more than "I like keeping a balanced system" and leaving it at that.

But I do remember that case being basically a test to find and fix a majority of problems including that specific one.