CDC Investigations

[imb39]

Upon looking at the way the investigation of tBP went and the fact that many within the Curia are, with good reason, curious about the way the trial was conducted.Also we have the issue of intent etc when the CDC was voted on (as in the vision each of us had when voting). as we repesent the curia it is important that this proposal is our proposal, as in everyones. We want constructive criticism and, if an alterntive is proposed, we shall look at that too. Bare in mind that other cases have been proposed and the sooner we sort out the investigation procdures the better for all concerned.

Anyway, here is our proposal:

The overall procedure is as follows:

CdC Case Procedure

Procedures the CdC suggests the Curia ratify in the Civitates Behavior Act

1. Charges Filed
   A given member submits concerns to the CdC.
2. Preliminary Hearing
   The Panel determines based on the initial discovery process (e.g. Charges filed, Examples of Posts, etc.) whether any charges are valid and need to be pursued by the CdC.
3. investigation Begins
   For each charge, the following procedure is implemented:
   
   1. Direct Examination
      Members with information deemed relevant to the Trial are questioned by the Council.
   2. Cross Examination and Secondary Discovery
      Cross Examination and secondary interviews based on the information gathered in the Direct Examination is conducted.
   3. Deliberation
      The council determines if the defendent is innocent or guilty of the charge.
4. Sentencing
   If charges are found substantiated, what penalties shall be applied. Also consider suspending part of the sentence.

The blue sections are the ones that are to be published/open to viewing. This is where evidence is presented and the witnesses are interviewed. If any part is to be hidden (see below) then editing will take place and the threads with this can be moved after the trial, at the time that the announcement is made. These are then linked to (see below) in the Sentencing Statement (see below)

The deliberation threads should not be published – it is a place where frankness needs to be encouraged and expected. Having the thread viewed publicly will undermine this.

When a trial is started ( before point 3, above), an announcement is posted in a stickied announcement thread:

Investigation Announcement

Investigation <insert number>,
The Consilium de Civitate,
<insert date>

CDC v. <name of accused>

<name of the accuser>
<name of the accused>

Complaint that is being investigated

<paste accusers complaint here, the specific charges if possible to keep it brief and to the point>

After the trial has been concluded, this announcement will be made in the announcement thread (examples in place):

Recommended Format for Public Submissions to the Curia]

Case [#]: [Defendent]

Charge 1 – That [Defendent] acted in a manner unbefitting of a Civitate by means of flaming.
Verdict – Upheld

• Voted for -
• Voted Against –

Charge 2 – That [Defendent] constantly broke the ToS by spamming.
Verdict – Not Upheld

• Voted for –
• Voted Against –

The following members of the CDC withdrew due to conflict of interests -

The Sentence of the CDC is as follows:
[Defendent] will be barred from the Curia for 2 weeks. In addition, [Defendent] will also be on probation for three months and any warning related to flaming will automatically result in Ostrakon proceedings during this period.

The transcripts of the trial can be found here.

We propose that the actual trial to take place within the Quaestio Perpetua. By default the trial will be open to viewing, but clearly those who can post is restricted. This will be waived (in part) if Staff matters are involved or the defendent wishes for the trial to remain anonymous. Each Councillor can ask questions to those called as part of the investigation. Also, people can be called back to answer more questions (hence the round 2) if discrepencies arise, or other avenues for quesioning become apparent. There will be con compulsion for individual Councillors to reveal how they voted.

We shall also do away with the idea of a Prosecutor/Defender. The adversarial system is not preferred and the CDC shall investigate for itself and draw its own conclusions. There is no set time limit for any part of the procedure. Justice is the main aim of this, not speed.

Each charge shall be dealt with independently, though multiple charges can be brought together as part of sentencing.

Finally, a discussion thread will be opened in the Suggestus. This decision has been made because, if someone has been denied access to the Curia, they can still have a say. It was very difficult for tBP to find out what was being said about his case - it was felt that this was not appropriate. However, the Curia might not view this as acceptable. opinions are welcome. some certainly offered the opinion that if you have been found guilty then you forfeit this rite. however, we do have an appeals procedure and this does not help that. I accept the wisdom of the Curia in this matter.

After discussion has taken place, I shall firm this up and take out some of the options...

Edit - This is a group proposal from the CDC. Spiff should also be mentioned as we drew from his work whilst he was part of the CDC.

[Ragabash]

I agree and support most of the changes in this bill, it's definetly move towards better direction.

In addition I would like to propose this.

In the case of [Defendent] confession regarding accusations, CdeC have right to carry out slighter judgement then otherwise in the case of normal trial, lowering the method or time of the punishment in the case of [Defendent] confession it would be up CdeC to decide lowering punishment or not.

[imb39]

A very good point. I would have thought that would have been a standard thing anyway, but there is no harm in mentioning it

[Ragabash]

Perhaps something simiar to this could be used when [Defendent] confess his actions and actual trial never occurs. :hmmm:

Recommended Format for Public Submissions to the Curia]

Case [#]: [Defendent]

Charge 1 – That [Defendent] acted in a manner unbefitting of a Civitate by means of flaming.
Verdict – Upheld

• Confessed.

Charge 2 – That [Defendent] constantly broke the ToS by spamming.
Verdict – Not Upheld

• Confessed.

The following members of the CDC withdrew due to conflict of interests - None

The Sentence of the CDC is as follows:
[Defendent] will be barred from the Curia for 1 weeks. In addition, [Defendent] will also be on probation for three months and any warning related to flaming will automatically result in Ostrakon proceedings during this period.

The transcripts of the trial can be found here.

[imb39]

I like. What about the other apsects, eg - where do we have the discussion thread, for example...

[Ragabash]

I would also like to propose this addition.

[COLOR=Blue][Defendent] have right to confess one or more accusations that have been brought to CdeC, there would not be actual trial for those accusations, discussion would be held in the [Quaestio Perpetua] forum for time of a week before CdeC decides and carries out punishment of the [Defendent]. During this time [Defendent] have right to relieve confession and require actual trial to take in place.

[imb39]

But if the defendent loses, then he will not be able to see that discussion. I only raise it as a point, not as a disagreement.

[Ragabash]

But if the defendent loses, then he will not be able to see that discussion. I only raise it as a point, not as a disagreement.

Perhaps another sub forum simliar to Quaestio Perpetua could be used in the cases of confessions. :hmmm:

[imb39]

Well, the Suggestus would be the most obvious. What about those who lose their case? We need to be able to facilitate an appeal.

[Ragabash]

Perhaps Quaestio Perpetua could be used for discussion before CdeC punishment, and create a thread in a new subforum inside The Tribunal for appeals. :hmmm:

EDIT:

I edited my posts before to better form and posted complete version of the changes below, green text is my addition to the bill.

Please edit my text additions to the bill for better and easier form in the case my additions are needed and wanted.

CdC Case Procedure

Procedures the CdC suggests the Curia ratify in the Civitates Behavior Act

1. Charges Filed
   A given member submits concerns to the CdC.
2. Preliminary Hearing
   The Panel determines based on the initial discovery process (e.g. Charges filed, Examples of Posts, etc.) whether any charges are valid and need to be pursued by the CdC.
3. Defendent reply for accusations brought by CdeC
   Before the trial takes place defendent have right to confess or deny any accusations brought by CdeC.
   
   1. CdeC actions regarding one or more confessions
      In the case of defedent confessing one or more accusations actual trial won't take in place and CdeC have right to change or lower punishment method as it sees the best.
   2. Actions before punishment
      If defendant confess one or more accusations, CdeC opens forum Quaestio Perpetua for further discussion for the time of seven days before ordering punishment of the defedent. During this week defedent have right to relieve past confessions in current trial and demand actual trial to take in place.
4. investigation Begins
   For each charge, the following procedure is implemented:
   
   1. Direct Examination
      Members with information deemed relevant to the Trial are questioned by the Council.
   2. Cross Examination and Secondary Discovery
      Cross Examination and secondary interviews based on the information gathered in the Direct Examination is conducted.
   3. Deliberation
      The council determines if the defendent is innocent or guilty of the charge.
5. Sentencing
   If charges are found substantiated, what penalties shall be applied. Also consider suspending part of the sentence.

The blue sections are the ones that are to be published/open to viewing. This is where evidence is presented and the witnesses are interviewed. If any part is to be hidden (see below) then editing will take place and the threads with this can be moved after the trial, at the time that the announcement is made. These are then linked to (see below) in the Sentencing Statement (see below)

The deliberation threads should not be published – it is a place where frankness needs to be encouraged and expected. Having the thread viewed publicly will undermine this.

In the case of defedent loosing or confessing accusations in trial, new thread will be created inside the forum[New subforum name inside The Tribunal here] where defedent may appeal to CdeC decision.

Possible template used in cases when defendent confess one or more accusations brought before him/her.

Recommended Format for Public Submissions to the Curia in case of defendent confession in one or more accusations

Case [#]: [Defendent]

Charge 1 – That defendent acted in a manner unbefitting of a Civitate by means of flaming.
Verdict – Upheld

• Confessed.

Charge 2 – That [Defendent] constantly broke the ToS by spamming.
Verdict – Not Upheld

• Confessed.

The following members of the CDC withdrew due to conflict of interests - None

The Sentence of the CDC is as follows:
[Defendent] will be barred from the Curia for 1 weeks. In addition, [Defendent] will also be on probation for three months and any warning related to flaming will automatically result in Ostrakon proceedings during this period.

The transcripts of the trial can be found here.

[Muizer]

Imb, for clarity's sake, if the Quaestio Perpetua is by default open to viewing, I think it's the elements of the trial that are not publicly viewable that should be highlighted in the proposal.

Another thing is the difference between censure and ostrakon cases. The Curia do the sentencing in Ostrakon cases, but the CdeC was brought in to prevent free for all lynch party style deliberations. I don't think we want to go back to that but on the other hand there is no point in having the CdeC discuss the evidence behind closed doors. Does that come down to scrapping deliberations alltogether in Ostrakon cases?

[imb39]

Ragabash, I can accept those changes :original:

Imb, for clarity's sake, if the Quaestio Perpetua is by default open to viewing, I think it's the elements of the trial that are not publicly viewable that should be highlighted in the proposal.

Thank you - as I have access to virutally everything, I am never sure what is viewable and what is not... The intention is that the 'blue sections' are open and the black closed. I have posted the rationale behind it and I still hold to that.

Another thing is the difference between censure and ostrakon cases. The Curia do the sentencing in Ostrakon cases, but the CdeC was brought in to prevent free for all lynch party style deliberations. I don't think we want to go back to that but on the other hand there is no point in having the CdeC discuss the evidence behind closed doors. Does that come down to scrapping deliberations alltogether in Ostrakon cases?

The idea of preventing a lynching is at the front of my mind. I hadn't considered the implications of Censure/Ostrakon - my suggestion would be that we simply have ratification votes. Don't forget that during the trial, there is nothing to stop people PMing a Councillor if there is something that concerns them, so input is potentially there for all - though can Civs not accept that as an open invitation to fill our inboxes, serious points only!

I have deliberately wanted to confine this debate to the overall investigation process, rather than get too involved in punishments - that can be developed next.

Aspects that need to be focussed on in paticular are (if we are to produce a concrete proposal) -

1) Is the format of the announcements to everyone's agreement?
2) Where do we post the discussion thread -

a) Suggestus
b) Prothalamos
c) Curia

[Muizer]

my suggestion would be that we simply have ratification votes.

According to the current procedure in Ostrakon cases there is nothing to ratify by the time it goes to the Curia vote.

[imb39]

That can be altered within this framework.

[Muizer]

That can be altered within this framework.

At present the role of the CdeC in Ostrakon cases is to advise the accuser whether to proceed with a case or not. The CdeC cannot dismiss Ostrakon charges and does not play a role in conducting the trial and sentencing. I don't see any reason to change that.

[Lord Rahl]

It looks good...and I hope it doesn't get anymore complicated than that or I won't know what the hell is going on.

[imb39]

Fair enough. So what's the issue? The CDC cannot recommend an Ostrakon? If so, then we can keep it as is.

[Fabolous]

We cannot leave the Ostrakon system untouched. The current one is virtually identical until is comes to voting, where the entire Curia does it instead of the CDC. We have already found the current system to be poor, so we cannot leave Ostrakons to have that system. I think we should bring it to our current idea. I can see no harm.

[Muizer]

We cannot leave the Ostrakon system untouched. The current one is virtually identical until is comes to voting, where the entire Curia does it instead of the CDC.

The difference in the role of the CdeC between censure and Ostrakon cases:

• In Censure cases the CdeC can dismiss the charge. In Ostrakon cases it cannot
• In Censure cases the CdeC appoints one of their own as prosecutor to conduct hearings. In Ostrakon cases the accuser is the prosecutor
• In Censure cases the CdeC deliberates on the verdict and sentence. In Ostrakon cases sentencing falls to the Curia.

Hardly trivial IMHO. In fact the two procedures have little in common.

[Fabolous]

The difference in the role of the CdeC between censure and Ostrakon cases:

In Censure cases the CdeC can dismiss the charge. In Ostrakon cases it cannot

Thats pretty minor. Most cases don't need to be dimissed. And if there is a bad Ostrakon, it will be voted down easily, so it hardly matters.

In Censure cases the CdeC appoints one of their own as prosecutor to conduct hearings. In Ostrakon cases the accuser is the prosecutor

Meh, perhaps in the current version, but in the version the orginal cases were started under the old one, the prosecutor was the accuser. I don't agree with the current version anyways (did this get changed in your reform? gah must have not been paying attention), and would support the changing of it.

In Censure cases the CdeC deliberates on the verdict and sentence. In Ostrakon cases sentencing falls to the Curia.

Did you read my post?

The current one is virtually identical until is comes to voting, where the entire Curia does it instead of the CDC.

I say right there "until it comes to voting"