Proposal: Changes to PF Judicial System

Talk about any old rubbish here - but don't spam!
Yunalesca
Petty Officer 3rd Class
Petty Officer 3rd Class
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 12:23 am
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Changes to PF Judicial System

Post by Yunalesca » Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:27 am

NoxRaven wrote: ...
However, let me address a point that you bring up. Yes, I agree that the CO's should have some understanding of the Fleet Constitution and Law. None of them, however, will be affluent enough in it for every possible factor that may arise. ...
Yunalesca wrote: ...
m actually more concerned, not that this may cause some COs a bit of inconvenience, reading up on the rules, now and then, but the fact that COs are actively advocating ignorance of them, given "will you abide by the rules" is literally a question that is an instant denial of application on the CO App, and that we, as COs are the ones voting on establishing new, or amending old rules.
...
NoxRaven wrote: You also bring up a perfect point. You say -
Joe_Rhimer wrote:They'd also be presented with our opinion and judgment from the initial hearing to review, so they would understand our interpretation of the rules, and they could just look up the ones pertaining to the case.
As the PFA YOU SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH JUDGEMENTS IN A JUDICIAL MATTER. This is what I'm talking about where you take on the role of judge and jury. That in many aspects does take out the checks and balances. You are an administrative role, not a judicial one. There should be no judgment from the PFA relating to any case or hearing.
...
...I find it odd that you are literally going from advocating that COs should not be required to know the ins and outs of the constitution to advocating against the PFA, who are required to have a higher than average grasp on it, explaining to the judiciary committee how they believe the constitution should apply when ...
NoxRaven wrote: ...
However, let me address a point that you bring up. Yes, I agree that the CO's should have some understanding of the Fleet Constitution and Law. None of them, however, will be affluent enough in it for every possible factor that may arise. ...
These points conflict with themselves.
NoxRaven wrote:

I also disagree with you saying that JAG is an obsolete relic. That is so far from the truth to be laughable. For reasons in part as I stated above is one of the major areas why JAG exists. As I have said several times. I get you want to be more inclusive with the COs. That's a good thing. But this is not the way in which to do so. If you want to include them in something like this. I'd offer an alternative that sort of incorporates your "tribunal" idea. Have the JAG office...then pick say 3-4 CO's. They will serve with JAG for say 3 months. Then after that, they are released and another 3-4 are randomly chosen. This gives you the "inclusiveness" you are looking for as well as preserves the checks and balances that is needed in any organization.

My other concern that has never been answered is I asked to be shown the particulars. From what I see all you have put forward is a framework. There are no specifics. There is nothing as to how the tribunal process will be started. How will the Tribunal be selected? Who will lead the tribunal or be its "spokesperson"? How will judgement be decided? Is it by majority vote or do all of the members of the tribunal have to be in agreement?

You seemingly have no specifics or particulars. To me, it looks like it's simply saying. "Oh we thought this might work..we don't know how. We'll just toss it up into the air and see where the pieces land."

So at this moment yes I will be voting against this when it comes up.
Thusly why this is in discussion, not to be attacked because people are hell bent on staying with the some 'Hey, we're writing starfleet. Let's call our judicial system JAG. HURR HURR' mindset, but to put forward a democratic methodology of resolving our issues like grown ups in a way that is not only inclusive, to ensure all COs understand, or are given a better understanding, of PF's rules. It is also put forward to allow the free exchange of ideas on how to make it better.

The only difference that seems to exist between what is being proposed, and your 'JAG Council' is that it does not rotate the COs, isn't called JAG, and isn't always led by the same person.

Instead of attacking the idea because it dares to be forward thinking, constructive criticism would be greatly more appreciated.
NoxRaven wrote: And the further you go away from it the less feel of Star Trek you get and more of just sci-fi enthusiasts in general.
-Pegasus Fleet does not exclusively consist of Star Trek sims.
-Pegasus Fleet's posting levels last month seemed to indicate our non-trek sims had more enthusiasm than our Trek sims did.
-Statements like this are not inclusive to all members of the Fleet, as not all members choose to write Star Trek characters.
I'm not dead
Let's have dinner

"It'll be fine."
Narrator voice: "It actually was not."

NoxRaven
Crewman Recruit
Crewman Recruit
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2016 6:39 pm

Re: Proposal: Changes to PF Judicial System

Post by NoxRaven » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:00 am

Ok yet again my words are being twisted out of context.

Nowhere did I say that the COs should not be required to know the ins and outs of the constitution. What I said was, if you actually read what I said, was that CO's should have some understanding of the Consitution and Law. My sentence after that however was the fact that none of them would have read and considered it deep enough to understand every nuance of what was written in them.

The next point you want to try to bring up. That is correct that the PFA should not be giving judgements of a judicial nature or any interpretation thereof for any sort of judicial case or hearing. They are the administrative branch. Not the judicial. They should in no way be speaking to the jury or instructing them in the ways they should apply the law...period.

The third point that you are trying to say my statements contradict. Actually, they don't if you read and understand what it was I was saying. However, I will explain further since it seems you don't grasp it. What I was saying is that JAG is not obsolete. That it does server a purpose. I followed up with that to give a way that they could still be more inclusive with the rest of the CO's as they are wanting to be. It would also help promote a deeper understanding of the Fleet Constitution and Law in that way. I then went on to further outline as to why I disagreed with the current proposal and the faults I found with it. None of that contradicts itself. I would suggest you re-read what I actually said.
Cmdr Genix Tolos
TFCO TF88
Commanding Officer, USS Paladin

LtCmdr Syrric
XO, USS Carpathia

Jack Mantell
Crewman Recruit
Crewman Recruit
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Proposal: Changes to PF Judicial System

Post by Jack Mantell » Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:52 am

NoxRaven wrote:My sentence after that however was the fact that none of them would have read and considered it deep enough to understand every nuance of what was written in them.
I think that's a bad assumption. It is certainly plausible that a CO has deeply read the constitution and knows its nuance. If I were a CO, I think I would do so, especially as I'm a big fan of rules documents and bylaws (having done work on them for student government in college).

Honestly, I think you already made your point clear:
NoxRaven wrote:So at this moment yes I will be voting against this when it comes up.
and nothing I've seen from you so far indicates that you'll be changing this. Nothing I've seen so far indicates that others here will alter their votes due.

Sounds to me like you all need a vote and let the cards fall as they will.
Image

Yunalesca
Petty Officer 3rd Class
Petty Officer 3rd Class
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 12:23 am
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Changes to PF Judicial System

Post by Yunalesca » Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:52 am

As I'm growing tired of repeating myself(as I'm sure, are you, and Rhimer), I'm simply going to say:

Yes. You've made your points. We hear what you're saying. We disagree with your points. Repeating yourself is not going to sway our opinions on this topic. It is readily apparent the reverse is also true.

Unless there are constructive points to add beyond this point, let's cease the repetition of the same arguments that are going nowhere, doing nothing, and apparently missing each other's points.
I'm not dead
Let's have dinner

"It'll be fine."
Narrator voice: "It actually was not."

User avatar
Constantine
Chief Petty Officer
Chief Petty Officer
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:49 am

Re: Proposal: Changes to PF Judicial System

Post by Constantine » Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:29 pm

I'll put my two cents in as a former senior member of the Admiralty to shed light on what the purpose of the JAG office is its importance as it has been lost for quite sometime.

First thing is first and once again needs to be repeated.

Discipline is the responsibility of the Chain of Command. Sim command staff and Fleet Command staff are responsible for running their sims, the fleet and administering any disciplinary action if required. The JAG office is not a police force, it does not administer any disciplinary measures as it is not this force. Like others have said it is a check and balance and protects command staff as much as it does players. It ensures that all actions carried out by players and staff are within fleet law, it does not enforce fleet law.

You as Commanding Officers and Fleet Admiralty and even players are responsible for ensuring PF's core values are upheld.

What may be confusing some is in the case of a court martial or summary trial where a member can be brought before a JAG officer whom oversees the proceedings and will in the end make judgement. This is done in extreme cases where the severity of the action requires such an act be taken and overseen by a learned member of Fleet Law.

This can also take place when a member has appealed a decision made by a staff member or CO.

JAG is more then cases. What people need to realize is not hearing from your JAG department is a good thing! That means you guys are taking care of business on your own. However should a time come when this is not the case, JAG will support.

There is a reason JAG got notifications when players were removed on IFS. That's part of the check and balance. Ensuring all players were treated fairly. If they were not they'd get their chance to voice their concerns.

Does that mean your JAG can disappear? No! But they should be allowed to quietly go about their business in ensuring our core values are met.

Once again, JAG is NOT a police force.

While it may be a quiet department, it is vital to keeping the fleet running smoothly.

Also to add as a final point. A tribunal of CO's is great, but what happens when the player wants an appeal?

To bad so sad? Or perhaps that independent body would prove useful.

User avatar
Emily
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:19 pm

Re: Proposal: Changes to PF Judicial System

Post by Emily » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:01 am

I think you may be a bit confused by our proposal here. You might not have read through all of the 40 some posts in this thread (it is a lot to catch up on lol). We've been trying to communicate that we agree with the checks and balance that the JAG department provided. We aren't trying to get rid of that balance in the fleet. Quite the opposite, actually. We're trying to replace it with something that we feel improves upon that idea. We're giving more power to the COs and allowing them to make decisions when a player is treated unfairly or has an issue with the fleet (even with someone on the PFA or with a decision the PFA has made).

The way the CO Council will work is, whenever someone has an issue that cannot be resolved by the Chain of Command (whether that be a player dispute, a Fleet Law issue, etc.), a council of Commanding Officer who have no conflicts of interest will be selected at random. Instead of having one person dedicated to a position that is almost never used, we're giving even more power to Commanding Officers who know this fleet and how it should be operated better than anyone else.

As for JAG doing more than cases, their checking to make sure the PFA is staying true to the Constitution in their votes (I assume), that is something that we, again, are not getting rid of. If a member of the fleet thinks we're being unconstitutional, they can bring their evidence in front of a CO Council as they would to a JAG and probably get a more fair decision. This is an extreme that assumes that the PFA are not looking out for the best interests of the fleet, which is what we are here to do. Using the JAG is an extreme worst case scenario that we don't think will ever happen, but if it does we think that a CO Council will better reflect the "core values" of the fleet (with them being the core leaders of the fleet).

The JAG isn't a police force, the PFA isn't a police force - there is no police force in Pegasus Fleet. We are a roleplay community that people choose to be apart of on their free time. We strive to offer our members the best writing environment possible. If we don't, then people won't want to write with us and we'll face a much more serious problem than whether or not we have a JAG.

User avatar
Constantine
Chief Petty Officer
Chief Petty Officer
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:49 am

Re: Proposal: Changes to PF Judicial System

Post by Constantine » Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:00 am

I see where you guys are going with the CO council, but here is the issue I can foresee.

The CO council is a body not independent of the CoC, they are all a part of it while they may not be in that players direct chain, they are part of the Chain nonetheless and this removes the appearance of impartiality. Therefore players may come into the preconceived notion that the deck is already stacked against them prior to coming to trial. The thing is all CO's are peers, we encourage this as it is a role playing community. However that in itself makes a council seem impartial as now you have a judicial body which in itself does not seem unbiased and impartial.

That is where the JAG department comes in. Ideally yes, they would be members outside of any Chain of command, I.E normal players. However that isn't necessary always the case. However these individuals are dedicated to upholding our core values and remain impartial. In this case, I may even go as far as to recommend a constitutional change to disallow CO's to be part of the JAG department.

ideally you want focused individuals learned in Fleet law so that they can provide the best support possible. If you dedicate COs to a council the other concern comes also what if one of those COs are part of the concern.

Also, above is said discipline is a function of the Chain of command. Right now, COs and the PFA should be able to handle most disciplinary matters, JAG is a LAST resort. Also, a JAG or CO council would be considered last resort and be reviewing decisions made by not only their peers but quite possibly their superiors. JAG functioned as the top of the disciplinary chain hence why it was a position within the Admiralty. Having a group of CO's superceding their superiors may not look right and once again remember this may not be limited to just cases.

Every change made should be atleast looked at by JAG just to be sure it was completed within the confines of fleet law. That's a huge responsibility to dump onto your COs as now they will be expected to know the fleet structure inside and out as I as a player would expect those handling my concerns are the utmost learned and competent with regards to the law.

User avatar
Stannes
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 4:26 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Changes to PF Judicial System

Post by Stannes » Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:09 am

No, actually, and that seems to be the sticking point in so much of this. We want this to be a hobby. There is no need for martial structure when we are not a martial group or have any real world relevance in any fashion. We are proposing a more appropriate means that keeps the power in the community. No, this is not how other fleets do it. We aren't other fleets. May there be issues? Yes. But there are a TON of issues with JAG as it is. Please go reread all of the posts, Nick. Every one of your issues has been addressed. After you read them all, then comment. Your argument may change and you may bring up points not already addressed that we need to consider. Otherwise, it's rehashing the same thing all over again.
ImageImage

User avatar
Joe_Rhimer
Master Chief Petty Officer
Master Chief Petty Officer
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:52 am
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Contact:

Re: Proposal: Changes to PF Judicial System

Post by Joe_Rhimer » Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:21 am

Want to add one more note here: You mentioned superiors. What superiors? This is not a military structure. We are the management team, and we're running the fleet to serve the COs. Another thing that's been mentioned and is being talked through is removing rank structure from our roles. We are ALL COs here, and we all are striving to help this community grow. We're working on getting rid of the idiotic fake rank hunting that happens here, and bringing things down to where these types of communities started: Story telling communities. By putting the COs in place as the check and balance and our appeal process, we're bringing the idea of a real community back. That's what's most important here. Beyond that, do what OTouvelli said and read through all of the tags. You're rehashing old items.
Image
Image

User avatar
Emily
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:19 pm

Re: Proposal: Changes to PF Judicial System

Post by Emily » Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:24 am

Yes, Commanding Officers are part of the chain of command. But if they were part of that player's chain of command, then they won't be permitted to serve on that particular CO Council. So, in that sense, it is independent of the relevant chain of command. I don't think it's fair to say that if the player's issue was with one Commanding Officer will automatically make all Commanding Officers in the fleet corrupt, with the trial being "stacked against them."

COs are all peers, yes. Using that same logic, the JAG is on the PFA and thus a peer of the PFA, making that position biased in favor of the PFA (using your logic). We need to keep in mind that players, commanding officer, and admiralty members are all individuals with their own thoughts and opinions. This isn't the Borg collective where we all share the same opinions, thoughts, and actions.

Commanding Officers are expected to have an understanding of the Fleet's Laws. Everyone is expected to have an understanding of the Fleet's Laws so that we can actually function in a fair way. If not, then the Commanding Officer is breaking the agreement they make when they take their command. With that being said, not every CO will be fluent in the fine legal aspects of the Constitution, no. But they will be able to read through what laws they have voted into practice and be able to decide if the case in question was within the terms of the laws.

As for having CO's "superseding" their "superiors," that is not at all how I see the way this fleet operates. I'm not sure exactly how things were when you served on the Admiralty (I wasn't in the fleet at the time), but right now the PFA works for the members of this fleet - not the other way around. We report to each and every single writer and Commanding Officer that can call this fleet their home.

Every change that we make is in the best interest of the Fleet and with Fleet Law in mind. Most PFA members are well versed in Fleet Law and can make decisions that are in the best interests of the Fleet. If people don't think that decision is within the confines of Fleet Law, then they can request a CO Council meet and possibly overturn the decision. Commanding Officers are the ones who ratify any change made to the majority of the Fleet's Law.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”