Consilium de Civitate Trial Records

[Gaius Baltar]

I would like to suggest that Consilium de Civitate trial records be released to the Civitate membership after completion of said trial. Effective retroactively to this date.

Please see post #33 for exact wording of this Bill. Your support is appreciated.

[Ragabash]

Yes, I agree.

It's hard to valuate Consilium de Civitate members and their work, if we are not allowed to see what are their decision in these matters.

[Sétanta]

Well there is nothing against it in the Syntagma currently, so it isn't that big of a deal. Makes sense though.

[Belisarius]

As far as I know, Legislation can never be retroactive

"Influencing or applying to a period prior to enactment: a retroactive pay increase."

Thats what I was told by tBP when proposing things in the past. If it is, oh god, what fun.

[Gaius Baltar]

As far as I know, Legislation can never be retroactively

"Influencing or applying to a period prior to enactment: a retroactive pay increase."

Thats what I was told by tBP when proposing things in the past. If it is, oh god, what fun.

Well, do you still have records from, oh say, two years ago?

The people have a right to know

[Belisarius]

There are things people never should and never will know, thats how most governments work. Though im not applying that to tBP's case.

[Hader]

Well I for one would like to see the records if it is ok, but if not I completely understand.

I stand by what i said a few minutes ago

[Oldgamer]

I would only wish to see the trial records if tBP were in agreement with its release. I don't think that there's anything that would prohibit such an act in the laws, but there is the notion of privacy.

As for the notion of application of law on a retroactive basis, that is something that should be taken to the full Curia. As for myself, I lean rather far to banning retroactivity.

[gigagaia]

As far as I know, Legislation can never be retroactive

"Influencing or applying to a period prior to enactment: a retroactive pay increase."

Thats what I was told by tBP when proposing things in the past. If it is, oh god, what fun.

Theoretically a law can do what it wills, depending on the jurisdiction that it applies in and the common-law precendents established in that system. This concept of retroactivity is far too specific an action to apply to lump-sum all common law areas, like priniciples of "good faith." That being said, it generally is something that isn't done...

If you guys really want to work around that, simply construct a law where the curia can subpeona records from the CdeC.

I don't hold any personal love or affection for tBP, perhaps the opposite, but just remember that this person's reputation is at stake and he might be very hurt if we jump onto this like vultures on a carcass. He has already been punished let that be enough and let the him reveal what he will.

[Ragabash]

I don't hold any personal love or affection for tBP, perhaps the opposite, but just remember that this person's reputation is at stake and he might be very hurt if we jump onto this like vultures on a carcass. He has already been punished let that be enough and let the him reveal what he will.

That is why I propose that trial records would be released to the rest of CVRIA only if person who had been in trial agrees with posting them to the public eyes. :hmmm:

[Belisarius]

Gig - On your first point I generally agree and am basing my statement more on when people shot down proposals because they were retroactive, tBP was one of them I remember. We'll see, it might open a pandoras box lol.

I don't hold any personal love or affection for tBP, perhaps the opposite, but just remember that this person's reputation is at stake and he might be very hurt if we jump onto this like vultures on a carcass. He has already been punished let that be enough and let the him reveal what he will.

Well said sir.

[gigagaia]

Gig - On your first point I generally agree and am basing my statement more on when people shot down proposals because they were retroactive, tBP was one of them I remember. We'll see, it might open a pandoras box lol.

Isn't that what the Curia is all about?

[Aemilianus]

As I've been saying in another thread-

If it's a Curial law being broken, the Curia in my opinion should see the proceeding no matter who it is. The problem is not who in my opinion, but what. Issues falling under staff nondisclosure should not even be a part of the CdC, which was created as a Curial body. If we're not talking about Curial law (and staff issues do not fall under Curial law- Archer and Mithras made that abundantly clear) then why is the CdC passing judgment? I fully support this proposal. All records should be released by the CdC, and "nondisclosure" cases dealing with internal staff things should not be a part of that anyway.

[Tostig]

When the law was voted in we exchanged a lot of our curial rights in exchange for a minority having a say in things none of the curia did before - scared into doing so by prophesies of the quality of the civitates class plummeting.

Has anything been done about the supposed decline? Not to my knowledge. Roughly same number of new citizens is joining each month, with roughly the same percentage of failed applications. As far as I am aware (which is not a lot, because as an untercivitate I am not allowed to know about the internal workings of the Council which supposedly represents my interests), there hasn't been any great purge of poor quality citizens.

So what are we left with? One class of citizens who have a say in the majority of important affairs, but who seem to not being dealing with the reason it was set up. One class of citizens who are members of impotent and ineffectual councils of war and peace who effectively do the menial parts of staffing for the staff. And finally one class of untercitizens, who no longer are able to have a say in the day to day running of the curia.

To be fair it is partly my fault - at the time I restricted my opposition to the bill to the idea that there had been a decline in the quality of civitates. None the less, reap what you have sowed.

What are we left with? A sprawling mass of bureaucracy which makes Brussels look efficient, a body of citizens which feel separated from their own affairs and as always an omnipotent Emperor who can do as he pleases because he has the power. Occasionally I wish that we could drop all the constitutional tosh - that we could admit that those with power have power, and those who don't do not. I wish we could admit that admin act arbitrarily and unfairly according to their social prejudices (as someone with green text was once kind enough to explain to me). Even when fighting to defend the existence of the curia the fight was not one of equality or liberty or any of the other reasons for having a democracy that are usually cited - but rather one of utility. Having a body of citizens that could control itself meant that users would be sucked into the Role-Play and stay around in otherwise dead times. There was no mention of any of the lies we usually fool ourselves with about the existence of the Curia.

I am a Hobbesian at heart - Archer, the man with power, is thanks to his power the person who can save us from anarchy, from Bellum omnium contra omnes. Why? Because he has power, and thus would win any confrontation offhand. He rules as he sees fit as a sovereign, and can ignore anything which goes against him, as has been repeatedly proven (Yellow Rose's badge for instance). Let us throw off the shackles of this immature charade and admit the truth. We have no power, but so long as Archer allows us to play at being a state there damn well ought to be equality within the same rank.

I doubt the ubercitizens will see it this way, because of perspective. It is how I see it though, and as I have always seen it, from the day the bill was proposed.

Tostig,
Another destroyer of innocence.

PS. I ought to keep a running tally. That makes it twice I have suggested purging the curia, and once I have suggested abolishing the constitution. Aren't I a little anarchist?

[Aemilianus]

I don't know if I would go so far as to call the Curia basically useless, but....

Tostig does make a point here, and a good one. The staff have the power.

Thus, my point is, why? Why is it that the staff uses a Civitate body (the procedural arm of the Curia, really) to voice mod concerns (note- imb's concerns from the closed thread are also being addressed in this post). Imb, I am not asking for Blair's Cabinet minutes- I guess the British equivalent of what I'm asking for is more like the House of Commons. From an American perspective, we know what Congress talks about (well, theoretically anyway) even if it involves the President- if Bush has top-secret things he wants to talk about among high-level officials, he doesn't go into Congressional committees and broadcast it, he sits down at a table with high level officials (the forum equivalent would be Hex, I guess).

The CdC, and by extension, the Curia, doesn't have to know Staff policy- I certainly am not trying to disrespect nondisclosure. I just question the body in which nondisclosure elements are being placed, as I didn't think the CdC was a staff forum.

[Mímirswell]

The CdC, and by extension, the Curia, doesn't have to know Staff policy- I certainly am not trying to disrespect nondisclosure. I just question the body in which nondisclosure elements are being placed, as I didn't think the CdC was a staff forum.

It was a rare circumstance in that the individual undergoing trial was very recently a member of staff and thus the discussion of the trial had internal staff matters. I realize that it was also the first case of the CdC and thus the confusion but it will be a rarity that such measures as this are taken again.

[Niles Crane]

I too am interested to see the records of the previous trial. TBN said that, in theory, it was over a couple of weeks ago but I never received the results despite being a crucial part of the investigation.

[Tostig]

I don't know if I would go so far as to call the Curia basically useless, but....

I didn't say it was useless - in fact I agreed with the points made in the past that it is actually quite useful. It keeps us, the citizens of supposed quality, entertained and active during periods that would otherwise be filled with boredom.

What I am saying is that the curia is a delusion. It has no power, it has no control. It is not equal and it is not fair. We ought to at least admit that. If we did away with the folly of our social contracts then I would have absolutely no problem with being a second class member of my caste, but as it is I find it aggravating and against the spirit of our artificial game. Without the game there is no spirit for it to break.

Keep the constitution and remove the CdeC, or keep the CdeC and remove the constitution. I don't really mind which is done, but the two are incompatible.

[Aemilianus]

Or, you could keep the constitution and the CdC, just make it so that we know what is going on in there. In my mind, not just trial records, but every Curial bit of business passed by that body should be viewable by the Curia (note, this should be everything it ever does, because it's a Curial body...).

Now, I can see Mim's point, and I understand it as this- What happened was, tBP was accused of breaking Curial law somehow (placing him under the jurisdiction of the CdC) then nondisclosure had to be applied because part of the evidence involved in this proceeding against him for breaking this Curial law had non-Curial elements. This, I would assume, is conversation with staff about staff issues that had to be brought to light as evidence (but not to the general Curia, only to the CdC, as the "lesser of evils").

In a way, I paused when I wrote that- the non-staff members of the CdC thus had to see staff nondisclosure elements, which basically makes them "disclosed", and inherently gives the CdC more power and position than the constitution technically allows them, and more power over the Curia it represents than many of us are willing to really give them....

However, not knowing the information, I have to accept Mim's explanation for this particular case. I'd certainly hope this does not set precedent, though- in principle I am against this wholeheartedly, and I only concede this particular point because I do not really have a viable alternative to try someone accused of an offense against Curia law in that way. In future, though, the separation between Staff law and Curia law should be made more clear. I will always want to see the work of the CdC, and I would never ask for staff work. We have to make sure the CdC stays Curial, though- making it subject to staff non-disclosure defeats one of the reasons it even exists, and I would have voted against it if I had known it would be used in that manner.

[Kagemusha]

As a member of CdeC,i dont understand what is this fuss about. We have to remember that the case against the Black Prince was the first diciplinary case for CdeC and the proceedings were still under developed. About the actual result. If this case would have turned into Ostrakon, it would have been handed to Curia.Which was in matter of fact the only ever used Curial diciplinary method before CdeC. Now thanks to the current legistlation CdeC has variety of means lighter then Ostrakon,to guide those who have acted unbecoming back to the straight path. So basicly during the older legistlation,we would have seen Ostrakon against tBP,with only two option as you all know.
About the releasing of the Trial records.Like Mimirswell sayed.The charge that resulted in Punishment happened between staff and tBP.And staff affairs wont be published to Curia.Nonetheless my personal wiew was that the staff understood that while the situation was between staff and tBP,they should try to involve the CdeC and also test it,if it really can handle diciplinary matters.Becouse in the end the staff is also Civitates and when One Civitates acts the way unbecoming Civitates,the council should act upon it.
Curia by passing the legistlation and electing CdeC have given some of its power to few Patricians and Senatorii,who will rotate.Its up to you to decide if its better to scrap the CdeC in order to get more drama in the Curia.After all the CdeC was created so the members of Curia would have more to say on the new Civitates and the diciplinary element that Curia posses.
So i ask which one is more important,more influence or more information? :hmmm:

-Kage