Ratification: Tribunal Judge Justinian

[Justinian]

Members of the House, throughout my term as Tribunal Judge which began on March 18, 2007, I was too preoccupied with enforcing the rules of TWC in a fair and just manner in the Tribunal to worry about how I got there. As many, such as Belisarius, have pointed out, me and my fellow judges were appointed by default because we were the only members to stand for the position. Now that I think on it, it was the obvious decision to be made at the time, but I always expected a Curial ratification and it has not yet come.

I feel that, in order for me to truly represent the Curia and the community in enforcing fair and just punishment, I need to be approved by the Curia. I do not wish to be a judge who makes decisions without the support of the very people for whom he is supposed to be judging. If the Curia is to lead our community and take charge, the Curia must also hold itself accountable for who represents it. With this in mind, I request that my post as Tribunal Judge be put before a Curial Ratification.

Thank you.

[Belisarius]

Well done in doing this, I hope the other judges follow suit!

The fact you took the initiative speaks volumes and I personally will vote for you.

[Garbarsardar]

Good call Justy, I hope the other Judges will submit themselves to the will of the Curia.

[Erich von Manstein]

Let me add my voice to the chorus. An admirable move on your part.

[Garbarsardar]

I've been going through the constitution. The only way is to resign (all the judges to resign) and have a new vote.

[Erich von Manstein]

I've been going through the constitution. The only way is to resign (all the judges to resign) and have a new vote.

Surely there's nothing preventing him from opening a poll somewhere (anywhere) and resigning of his own accord if he doesn't achieve a majority of "yay" votes?

[Garbarsardar]

Surely there's nothing preventing him from opening a poll somewhere (anywhere) and resigning of his own accord if he doesn't achieve a majority of "yay" votes?

Indeed.

[Belisarius]

He can do it if he likes, lets look at it like staff ratification but more like an "election" thats held late. The constitution doesnt say we cant.

[Hotspur]

So long as we all recognize that the poll is non-binding. If Justinian were to fail to get a majority, the only thing that would force him to resign is his own sense of personal honor.

Not that I think he would fail, or wouldn't resign if he did - just playing devils advocate...

[Spiff]

Patricians who gained their rank by simply being on staff at the right time sumbitted themselves for ratification, i dont see why Judges cant do the same now. Hotspur is right though, it would not necesarily be a binding vote, and in that regard it cant be held in the votes forum since it is for binding votes only..

A generic ratification section would have been preferable to one tied to staff ranks i think.

[Garbarsardar]

So long as we all recognize that the poll is non-binding. If Justinian were to fail to get a majority, the only thing that would force him to resign is his own sense of personal honor.

Exactly. The same sense of personal honour that made him post this thread.

[Ragabash]

Even though I often take quite strickt approach towards the Curial matters, this time I would just wait for the current Tribunal Judges terms end and have a vote next time.

[Belisarius]

Justinian wants to know if the Curia supports him as Judge, its not an election.

[Tom Paine]

I tend to disagree that a ratification at this point in time would be a logical course of action. In general, when such situations occur, ratifications or outright elections should be held; but this is not an "in general" case, given the... interesting times, that form a background. Remember, Justinian is a candidate for Speaker of the House; while such a role does not explicitly prevent one holding a position as Tribunal member I would argue it would be better if another, independent (of the moderating staff and of Hex) person held such a position; Justinian therefore should have waited, in my mind, until the election was over before (were he not to win) posting this thread.

[Belisarius]

I hardly see the relevance seeing as the issues and debates regarding ratification of the appointed judges has been ongoing and has nothing to do with the resignation of Asterix and application of Justinian. They are two totally unrelated events and one position has no influence on the other. Support in one position does not garantee support in the other. Any implications you may make on the nature of Justinian accepting the arguments that have been posted for the past month and submitting himself for ratification can also be applied to you, being the only one opposing this and also being his probable main contender.

I dont want to make implications and accusations, I just question why you would link the two votes.

[Perikles]

Any implications you may make on the nature of Justinian accepting the arguments that have been posted for the past month and submitting himself for ratification can also be applied to you, being the only one opposing this and also being his probable main contender.

I dont want to make implications and accusations, I just question why you would link the two votes.

I believe Ozy is pointing out that if Justinian wins the Speaker elections as a member of Hexagon he should technically not be a Tribunal Judge, as he will not be independent of the Administrative staff, which is the sole reason for having an independent tribunal. That is why he is advising this is delayed until after. In this way the votes are linked and your implications, however concealed, are unfounded.

[Tom Paine]

I am not linking support in them or saying expression of support in one would relate to support in the other. I am saying that to hold both positions would be, I feel, while not technically unconstitutional, somewhat problematic; and that, therefore, the (admittedly deplorable) situation of Justinian as an unratified and actually unmandated judge would be better perpetuated until the end of the Speaker election, to see if such an election should be held, rather than fixed now with the possible (probable?) need for another vote on judges to replace him within a week of the end of such a remedy.

[Belisarius]

Ah, now I understand. But The Speaker is not a member of moderating staff and has no moderating powers over any part of the forum barring the Curia. Thus there is no cause for him to resign as Judge both constitutionally and morally. The Speaker is the voice of the Curia and the Judge is someone who defends the rights of the Curia. There is no cause for Justinian to resign any position as access to Hex and the information there might actually be benefitial in clarifying his perception on any given issue. I continue to emphasize how the two votes are totally unrelated and point to the constitution divinding the administration into different Branches.

Speaker of the House is -not- in the moderation branch.

[Tom Paine]

The Speaker defends and informs the Curia, as a member of the executive branch, with an overseeing function over all Curial bodies, including the judiciary. Now, in this role he is effectively both overseer of and member of the judiciary, no? This tends to conflict of interest. In addition, any information he gains under the role of Speaker would have to be separated from knowledge as judge - it would be flawed otherwise, since it is not information the other judges should or would have access to; as such he would have to temporarily forget it, and this is an impossible task.
The role of the Judiciary has also been misunderstood. It has no role as defender of the Curia, it has a role only in ensuring that site rules are enforced fairly, equally, and well; the defence of Curial power is entirely unrelated to their role, and any belief that it has some bearing on it is mistaken; read the Constitution itself if you disbelieve me, the judiciary is more an oversight-arm of the moderation team than of the Curial body, though it is itself a Curial body. The argument that the roles coincide and reinforce each other is flawed thereby.

Thereby I would argue you were under a variety of misapprehensions about the roles that I have hopefully aided in the dispelling of.

[Belisarius]

It has no role as defender of the Curia, it has a role only in ensuring that site rules are enforced fairly, equally, and well; the defence of Curial power is entirely unrelated to their role

Obviously ensuring that site rules are enforced fairly, equally, and well are what all members are entitled to, thus they are the rights. Since we are talking within a Curial perspective and since you admit that the Speaker does defend the collective voice of the Curia then it still indicates that the roles are different. Yes, the Judges defend the rights of members too but in a Curial perspective, they defend the "Rights" of the Civitates. What is the Curia? The Collective voice of the Civitates.

I was of the opinion that it was the Head of moderation and was/is the one who watches over the Tribunal. Soren has on occasion reversed Tribunal cases and has also intervened and as Manstein has shown the deputy of Moderation also has authority in the Tribunal. Logically it should (and in my opinion from what I have experienced and seen dealing with the Tribunal) it is the Head of Moderation who is the overseer. Never have I seen the Speaker of the House interfere with the Tribunal. The two are seperate roles and seperate branches. Viewing the Hexagon forum should not effect Justinians Judgement.


Furthermore, as I pointed out, the issues of Tribunal ratification have been raging for over a month and recent events have further prompted the need for their ratification. I am referring to the rules aden proposed which were universally rejected by all debators. It is purely coincidental that the Sudden election of Speaker and the initial phases in what I hope to be ratification of all the Judges have come in line. Ratification is an issue I feel strongly about and I dont intend on haivng it stopped when we are so close to having Curia Ratified Judges.

You also seem certain that Justinian will win the election, as you stated there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits him holding both positions and therefore it is your "suggestion" that he cannot which is based on misinterpretations.

If indeed the Constituion states that a member of the non moderating branch is Hexagons representation in the Tribunal (which you stated is community not curial barring appointment/election) it is clearly an error that should be ammended since in practice it is the (Ratified!) Head of moderation who should assume this role.


The only role the Speaker should have is to ensure the fair election of the Judges. The rest is up to the head of moderation, being the most experienced and senior moderator. It's logical.