Forums-->Off-game forum-->
1|2
| Author | Justice Vs Power |
|---|
For Pantheon
What if Secretary dosen reply ? | That's what waiting is for.
But there is little alternative after that. It is pretty much like when the Supreme Court denies to hear your appeal.
5.4. Moderators are allowed to estimate the actions of other moderators, of an administrator, or to discuss their decisions exceptionally through private correspondence with them, on the special hidden forum, or directly with the game Administration.
Since the rules apparently has this loophole where mods can question the actions of other mods, you can try asking for help from other mods. | Reply to 15:
Done. Court by internet. Same as now except the jury is the general public that can submit electronic votes via the internet.
Interesting, but I fail to see the real gain. The jury still have to be given the same information to make a decision that is equally good. That does (in my world) take just as long time or maybe even longer in front of a screen instead of participating in RL. The gain would be the time it takes to travel to and from the court.
You might want the internet jury to be given less information or only a summary. I do not want to stand on trial in that kind of justice system. | No, there's much more to gain than just the travel time. The current system is inefficient. It wastes much resources and time.
1. Mass paper mailing for juror summons.
2. Most mail gets ignored, wasn't delivered, or was lost.
3. Those who do read their mail are required to check online or via phone multiple times to see if they are truly needed to come.
4. Those who make thru the final check are summoned to court.
5. After arriving to court they need to wait for quite awhile in the waiting room.
6. If needed, they are summoned to the 2nd waiting room.
7. In the 2nd waiting room, lawyers question and screen the potential jurors.
8. When you're finally accepted, you wait in the 3rd waiting room for the trial to start.
All these steps can basically be skipped or expedited via online system. Actually the internet jury would get better information. What do I mean by that? Whenever the judge orders something to be stricken from the record or for juries to ignore something, this part can just be completely removed before the internet jury sees it. Also there is much dead time that can be removed from online proceedings. What do I mean by this? For example when you watch a tv show, you will notice that many scenes are skipped. Eating, bathroom, and sleeping are skipped or cut short. Traveling between locations can instantly occur with a scene change.
Also have you ever seen jurors not paying attention or falling asleep? This can be remedied with online proceedings where the juror can rewind or reread the info.
Many feel that the juries are stacked against them or that they don't truly represent your peers. An online system could involve over 100 jurors in your trial.
Also the savings to the government is huge especially for felony crimes. And the justice system would definitely be much more fair for misdemeanor crimes. Current system basically has law enforcement slapping people with lesser misdemeanors. And for those who go through the court system for misdemeanor crimes, they are completely at the mercy of the judge who has a quota of trials to complete. All is worsen by the recession. In my area they have fired over half the police and court officials. And since our system was already overtaxed in the first place, our courts immediately announced that certain crimes will not be tried even if the police arrested the criminals. | Yes, there seems to be parts of your jury system that does not work 100% effective. I would be very interested in your solution. Just saying "online" does not explain how the jury should be chosen. How do you prevent the potential problems? Will some just have the computer at play and sleep or eat at the same time? Easy way to earn some money.
Involving 100 jurors in a case sounds incredible expensive. It also sounds expensive to record a trial properly with both high quality picture and sound. With the technology we have today, it sounds more expensive then the juries. It must also include technology that is almost fail safe. It simply does not do to replay a session because of a technical failure.
I think most of the world have a justice system without jury. Your solution only covers a part of the problem in a part of the world. | Of course there are many little details to work out like I had previously stated. Probably need a bunch of legislators and lawyers writing up some 1000+ page manual/rulebook too.
Just saying "online" does not explain how the jury should be chosen
Jury should of course be chosen at random. Pretty much how they do it right now. Though the defense and the prosecutors can select jurors based upon certain characteristics and the questioning process. All this can be done online as well, but more efficiently, faster, and cheaper. In later stages of the project, profiles can be done by each person: something similar to online social network profiles, dating profiles, etc. (though the govt could datamine us and create their own hidden profiles of us all)
Easy way to earn some money.
Earn money? Jurors don't earn money. The government does compensate us for little things like traveling costs (not the actual cost, they give us a few pennies per mile that was initially calculated a few decades ago).
Involving 100 jurors in a case sounds incredible expensive.
Obviously not every trial should involve many jurors. But when the govt is prosecuting a suspect for a capital crime, having a few extra jurors might help. The current costs for trials put the cost of jurors near the bottom. Disregarding the investigation and lab work, the high costs for a trial are the judge, lawyers, and security. The reason why most crimes do not involve a jury isn't because of jury cost, it's because of expediency (which translates to lower costs for the aforementioned categories).
It also sounds expensive to record a trial properly with both high quality picture and sound. With the technology we have today, it sounds more expensive then the juries.
Actually I would say it's cheap with today's technology. The real problem is on the other end. Jurors would need the internet bandwidth and a computer that can play videos. For that solution I would resolve it by having low tech or poor citizens to still use the traditional offline method. Also it's not like a project like this can be done overnight. There always leftover courthouses and challenges to the online method (technical, legal, ethical, personal choice, freedom, moral, etc).
I think most of the world have a justice system without jury. Your solution only covers a part of the problem in a part of the world.
Due to some inherent problems of an online system, I only advocated putting the jury online and not the entire court system. But for example India has a major backlog of criminal cases. Many defendants are jailed for years because they can't even get a trial.
Of course due to many different problems in current justice systems around the world, simply putting a portion of the justice system online won't solve everything. Simply put the laws are too complicated and there is too much corruption. | You have still not convinced me. Finding people for the jury must still be made in some way and unless you are sending out spam email, you have to do it the same way as before. I pretty much voids the first 4 points in your list.
The time waiting for lawyers questions must be done anyway. The only difference is that it can be done at home with the advantage of making it possible to do household tasks. It is good, but not revolutionary.
If the trial should be edited as you suggested, that must be some control the the correct parts are edited. To cover all parts of a court, you need multiple cameras. Unless you want to have all cams at once in small windows, you have to employ people to pick correct pictures to display.
The final verdict will also be delayed because the jury will watch it some time after the actual trial and then discuss it even later.
Still, you have not explained how to make sure the jury is actually watching.
I'm not saying that it is an entirely bad idea, but that you have not explained what advantages you actually get. You could do that by explaining each step in the current system and each step in your system. Then point at the advantages in each step. After that you have to explain how to avoid the possible disadvantages. | LOL people, how bored you must be!
But I like the concept, so let's play the devil's defense ;p
Player X posts in forum, Y bans him
First error: we aren't given the elements to know if X was rightful in his posting, or if Y banned him for a good reason.
I assume the second, since we are in a school case.
Remember, you can't just say "he was right" or "he was wrong", you must prove your assertion.
X Pms Y about it and Y answers.
Again, we have no idea of the messages content. I assume they both stay on a polite and constructive exchange.
They have a short discussion
As above
Both say they are right
So far so good, but one of them ought not to be (unless we take in the "deep truths" that Einstein and Bohr exchanged about ;p ), and again, we can't decide who is and who isn't since we don't know the context, as above.
The solution dervied is both Blacklist each other
Ok.
Few mins later, Y, who has the "Power" bans X for spamming his inbox and then levies a few more false bans and delets posts so no one can read the truth.
Wait, your honor: we were talking about forum messages, then private messages, and now.. What is deleted? What are "false bans"?
This is confused.
However, Mr X still has his own messages in his inbox and outbox, and those contain Y answers. He can use the message IDs to prove his point if needed.
Shud X get justice here or the Y who has power win ?
Well. Here is the verdict:
After a long deliberation, and according to the well established and holy laws of common sense, with so little evidence WE, the court, can but to pronounce a verdict of NON GUILT, your honor.
Whose for, you'll know when the mess is cleared up ;p | I vaugely remember an Asimov (?) short story, where ruler of the nation is picked (for a relatively short period of time) randomly by computer from social numbers pool, just applying some age filter. After mumber decided, nominee is given a series of interwievs just to test he/she is sane enuf for the task, evaluted by same AI again before he/she gets the ruling position :d
any1 remember the name of the story/book ? I read that at least 20 years ago should be written 30+ years ago :d | Wait, your honor: we were talking about forum messages, then private messages, and now.. What is delete
Random forum posts and false bans levied
What are "false bans"?
False bans are like I ban ur post for insulting admins | Baweja, I think you have a choice here. You can either describe your hypothetical story with an abundance of details, or you can post something that actually happened here. In the latter case you will get a long and well deserved ban. In the former case, make sure it has nothing to do with anything that actually happened.
You have the entire internet to cry on but you pick the only forum where it is not allowed.
Most games I have played previously have had similar rules about not discussing admins or mods actions. Since it it rather common I suppose it is needed. I have also played games with a forum where it was allowed to tell whatever you wanted about other players. It turned out to be a very ugly forum. Some may complain about the LWM forum, but I feel a lot better after reading here.
I have a hard time understanding why it bothers people so much to be unable to post for a few hours. In a few cases it might even be a wrong ban. Mods are also humans and make mistakes. So, accept it, forgive and get on with your life. Nothing will get better by making enemies and nurture hate.
This is, however, the only game I have played with a forum where it is specified how many redundant characters (length of arrows) you may have in a post. Why was it needed here? Because some players had to constantly probe the limits, accumulating loads of bans. This kind of behavior is natural for children that are learning their and the social limits, but more rarely seen in mature adults. I would hate to see the need for such detailed regulations about other occurrences in this forum. It will not be needed if all players keep away from gray areas and try to understand the thoughts and intentions behind the rules. | Mods are also humans and make mistakes. So, accept it, forgive and get on with your life. Nothing will get better by making enemies and nurture hate.
Agreed
That was the time I PMed the mod, we discussed, ended up blacklisting
and in the few following hours, I get a ban for spamming his mail, then another for insulting him and another for discussing his actions
In reality, none of the above rules for which I was banned were broken by me
He very well deleted all posts, so i have no proof and by no way, i can have justice
I wrote to secretary, waiting for reply
Contacted CBS, he cant help
So I decided to use this thread to know who is actually wrong
guyb's post gave me a fine answer
Ur and Patheon's discussions were quite intellectual
So i gained a lot from this.
Will soon make another thread or re open this for another scenario | | closed by Lord Baweja (2012-10-08 05:45:56) |
|---|
1|2Back to topics list
|
