Proposal: Changes to PF Judicial System

[StarDuster]

I can appreciate noticing that Pegasus Fleet has not really needed it's JAG over the years, and I like the direction of having a tribunal of COs to deal with these matters. However, I highly encourage keeping a someone in the JAG position to oversee the tribunal or to carry out other judicial duties in the Fleet. I say this because some fleets like Bravo Fleet removed the JAG position. Whether the position gets much use or not, it still stands as a representation of fairness, equality, and checks and balances. One thing I personally admired about Pegasus Fleet was that you still had a JAG position in place.

[Chris]

I can appreciate noticing that Pegasus Fleet has not really needed it's JAG over the years, and I like the direction of having a tribunal of COs to deal with these matters. However, I highly encourage keeping a someone in the JAG position to oversee the tribunal or to carry out other judicial duties in the Fleet. I say this because some fleets like Bravo Fleet removed the JAG position. Whether the position gets much use or not, it still stands as a representation of fairness, equality, and checks and balances. One thing I personally admired about Pegasus Fleet was that you still had a JAG position in place.

I actually like this idea. I have no fear or concern over this happening in PF, but BF has been ruined by executive orders and lack of checks and balances. If you at least have the JAG role, a singular person as an organizer for issues, the perception (and organization) of fairness is there.

[Yunalesca]

I can appreciate noticing that Pegasus Fleet has not really needed it's JAG over the years, and I like the direction of having a tribunal of COs to deal with these matters. However, I highly encourage keeping a someone in the JAG position to oversee the tribunal or to carry out other judicial duties in the Fleet. I say this because some fleets like Bravo Fleet removed the JAG position. Whether the position gets much use or not, it still stands as a representation of fairness, equality, and checks and balances. One thing I personally admired about Pegasus Fleet was that you still had a JAG position in place.

I actually like this idea. I have no fear or concern over this happening in PF, but BF has been ruined by executive orders and lack of checks and balances. If you at least have the JAG role, a singular person as an organizer for issues, the perception (and organization) of fairness is there.

In countenance, I have been the victim of the exact opposite of favoritism, by a JAG official in another fleet, with no recourse available. The ideation of taking all judiciary decisions out of a single person's hand would seem to be more inviting, and allow for much more thorough discussions. I also presume that there would be a method for the available council to ask a person to step away, as they had a conflict of interest, be it positive, or negative.

[Chris]

That's why you have issues go to the CO council, with the JAG role more of an organizational one. There is the fairness factor in the "independent" JAG officer, but the non-singular-point of the CO group. They could work in tandem.

[Hawkins]

Independent JAG officer has its perks as much as it has its disadvantage. I say we take this to a vote now. I think we have all covered everything when it comes to the Positives and Negatives.

[Jack Mantell]

For what it's worth, I've never seen JAG be a checks and balances system. I'll admit I haven't been in PF long, and almost in no way associated with the larger fleet. Just from past experiences (and that's all we're built on, really), JAG has always felt to me like either a token position or an inquisitor. Either they do very little, and mete out small activity terminations or resolve minor disputes (while the greater fleet council, whatever they are, handles the larger cases typically) or they are always on the witchhunt and are the go-to enforcer for the fleet council.

Either way, the position has a notorious stink and I'd be happy if PF did away with it. A tribunal of COs (aka a jury of your peers, basically) sounds like a better system. Anyone going before JAG is probably a CO or higher anyway, or has done something so absolutely stupid or abhorrent that it merits such a large action response. And anyone who goes before JAG anyway probably wants to stay in PF, anyone who gets caught doing something and doesn't usually vanishes.

[StarDuster]

I am going to be as respectful with this additional response as I can be. Therefore, I don't mean to take any shots (across the bow or otherwise) against certain individuals or specific fleets (past and or present). However, I do believe some sort of a JAG position should be kept within the Fleet Command structure. Be it an actual Judge Advocate General or simply an appointed Judge Advocate to serve as 'judicial' advisor to the PFA and or Commanding Officers and under. I do like the tribunal type idea for dealing with 'cases' though feel someone in this JAG or JAG like role should oversee things be they like a foreman or just a moderating factor.

Yes, there are serious cons as well as pros to having a JAG or a similar position. Clearly the need for one does not come up very often which is often why they seem like the absent member on the PFA or any Fleet Command or Admiralty. Especially if the only thing they do is serve as JAG. It's an easy position to overlook and end up not attending meetings and eventually going silent and leaving the seat filled by a name only. However, you can have the person be someone that is a CO or involved in some way with the Fleet, and the position can do more than simply over see judicial matters. They could be involved in revisions and amendments to the constitution, by-laws, and etc.

Where Fleets and Organizations tend to go wrong with a JAG position is as stated above leaving them to pretty much be the least involved and least needed position on the Command/Council/Admiralty. Another problem I have seen in the past is someone like the Fleet Commanding Officer appointing someone who is their friend, and not simply known each other online for a while...more along the lines of they crash on my couch sometimes or I go out to dinner with them. Unfortunately, I've seen that done and not work out so well for one reason or another. Especially when you don't fully disclose to other Command members that you really know said person.

Some places downright abolish the JAG position and or everything like it, leaving the Fleet Commanding Officer to practically do whatever the heck he/she/they so desire. Surely that can't happen with their being others underneath them to prevent this? Unfortunately, throwing out and abolishing a JAG position pretty much throws the constitution out the door and anyone who tries to voice an opinion or make a case again the top individual in charge gets tossed aside and reprimanded.

Now, I am not saying these sorts of things are going to ever happen here, and I am not saying Alex is some maniac tyrant. But I am just trying to think long term. Ideally Alex will be around for a good long while. But should Pegasus Fleet see new faces in the high command positions, I want to know as a member and a new CO that it is not going to become a pure dictatorship or a dictatorship under the guise of being anything else. Some places get left in nearly unfixable state of existence because change cannot happen under current rule, there's no JAG to step in, and the upper command positions are only given to people who easily yield or bend in favor of the regime in place.

All in all, I just encourage caution while we proceed forward.

[Williams]

All very good points that have been raised so far, but I think that some context of how the fleet has been working over the last 7 years may help put the discussion into context.

In terms of the JAG position itself, and how frequently cases have come up for it in the past; we've had a grand total of 1 case and 1 official opinion given. They're visible at our JAG Case archives: http://pegasusfleet.net/jagcases

In terms of the potential for future PFCOs to treat the fleet like a dictatorship; it's true that the PFCO has the ability to issue Executive Orders, but there are protections in place to stop them being used for everything. For one, they expire after 3 months unless the PFA vote them in as a By-Law or Standing Order - meaning that they should only be used when something needs to be put in place quickly or for a short term while PFA discussions on the matter continue (as they can take some time). In the last 7 years, we've had 4 executive orders issued; the last one almost 4 years ago. The culture here has definitely evolved in a way that they are used very sparingly, if at all.

In terms of having the JAG involved in updates to the constitution and by-laws; at the last PFA re-organisation, it was decided (in conjunction with the JAG at the time) to take them out of the voting process, and have them as a non-voting member of the PFA - meaning they could participate in discussions and give advice, but couldn't cast a vote on PFA matters. Now, all constitution updates have to go through the COs of the fleet anyway, and are usually put up on the public forums for the entire fleet membership to read through and comment on, just like this thread. So that just leaves things like by-laws and standing orders for them to advise on, when they wouldn't otherwise be able to. True, by-laws, policies and standing orders tend to be discussed and voted on internally within the PFA, but if something gets changed that anyone in the fleet has a problem with, then you can take it up the chain of command and get the PFA to discuss your concerns with it. And for some of the bigger changes, I think we've actually had discussions on them before, such as when we changed the banned characters policy to the restricted characters policy. I'm fairly sure there was some CO discussion around that at the time - which further goes to reinforce the fact that we've built up a culture here very much focussed on keeping everyone involved, and having discussions on things rather than enacting them from on high. I think that having an extra advisor on by-laws, policies and standing orders before the vote would provide relatively little benefit to the scrutiny they already get from the membership after they are announced, and there is nothing to stop them being revised after the fact.

In terms of your point of fleet appointments; I think history has also shown that this fleet is quite good at making sure to appoint people based on the applications they give in, rather than who they know. I can count multiple times when I've been in the PFA, going through the selection process for a position, and one of my friends didn't get the position they applied for because somebody else put in a better application. We've been fairly consistent on doing that too, I think. In both my stints in the PFA it was the philosophy we followed for appointments, and I'm confident it will be that case for a long time to come.


Now, I know that much of the above centres around the culture that we have here in this fleet, and that the culture isn't set in stone. You can't legislate for something like that, though I think it would take a lot to undo the culture that has built up over 7 years. But the talk about having a check and balance system over the PFA is a valid point to discuss; afterall, that kind of system would help ensure that the fleet leadership/future fleet leadership don't stray too far from the ideals that culture caters for. But I'm not entirely convinced that a JAG position is the right thing to use for that check and balance. Afterall, as a member of the PFA themselves, would they not be just as vulnerable as the rest of the PFA to going astray? Perhaps moreso as a single individual? Who watches the watcher who watches the watchers? What about coming up with a new system to provide checks and balances to the PFA? I don't know what form that could take yet, but what about something where the COs would have the ability to come together to challenge the PFA if they feel they've stepped out of bounds? It would need to be well thought out, and likely need multiple COs to come together to stop a single CO with a personal grievance from taking a challenge to the PFA and taking it out of proportion, but wouldn't that be much more fair of a system than a single JAG officer, when we've already established that they would have very little to do otherwise?

[NoxRaven]

Ok I will be as respectful I can in my retort.

Whether JAG has been involved in 1 case or 100 does not negate the fact of it being a needed function. A neutral party outside of "legislation" is needed to make sure things do not go to far afield and as stated act as a checks and balances to the system.

Now you state about them being vulnerable as the rest of the PFA. Exactly how so? You yourself stated that the JAG office has no powers of voting on any issue that may arise. They may advise and consult as any JAG office should do. I would agree they do not have the power to vote as their jurisdiction lays in keeping the laws and constitution of the Fleet. To act in times when the PFA or anyone else leans to far into what I would call a tyrant's path.

As to who watches the watchers as you say. There should be in place a way of impeachment or removal from office for any officer in command. From the PFA all the way down to the CO/XO of a ship. Also one of the questions I've asked from the beginning has yet to be addressed or answered either. Who will represent the accused or the prosecution in any of these cases that might come up? That in part is also part of JAGs duties. To have a small group of advocates to act as advisers to both sides during the case proceeding.

For those that have stated they have had a reverse experience of actually being persecuted by JAG. True at times things like this can happen. This is why there should be an impeachment process or some kind of system put in place for when that kind of thing happens it can be curbed/stopped. I'm not saying JAG is perfect. No office is perfect nor are the people put into those offices. That is why the system of checks and balances is put into place and is one of the most crucial factors of the whole set up of government. Whether it's a country or an organization such as Pegasus Fleet.

I will say again with all due respect I believe this would be a very bad idea to do away with this office.

[Williams]

Not having a vote in PFA decisions doesn't necessarily mean that a JAG isn't going to need a check and balance itself. Even without the voting power, the traditional position of a JAG still holds a lot of power, which has a large potential for abuse if the wrong person happens to inhabit the position. As the person who is supposed to be the sole leading authority on how the fleet rules are supposed to be interpreted, it potentially gives them a much greater potential for abuse than the rest of the PFA, since while the PFA decisions must go through a vote and reach a majority, in the current system a JAG can essentially decide themselves on an interpretation of the fleet rules, and that then essentially becomes gospel. Obviously there are appeals processes and the like, but it's a very clunky process in my opinion (especially with the current set up, with it preferring multiple layers of JAG officers for you to work your way up through), and I think the ultimate decision still lies with the JAG.

The other part of the JAGs duties - providing a group of advocates to act as advisers and representation for people going through cases; that can still happen even without a JAG officer. The Academy was always intended to be the place where such advocates would go to get the relevant training (though I don't think we've had an active/up-to-date course for that in a long while), so that process of taking the training can still be used, and anyone who passes that course added to a list of registered advocates that an fulfil such a role. That in itself doesn't require a PFA-level JAG officer in order to exist.

Everyone is obviously welcome to disagree with me, and I'm just one voice, but I think that a simpler process is better than the one we currently have for the JAG, and I do think that using a group of COs as a jury of peers for hearing cases that can't be solved through the standard chain of command would be an adequate solution for that side of things. COs are expected to know at least the gist of the rules of the fleet anyway, and if any were called upon to serve on a tribunal, there's nothing saying that they can't brush up on the relevant aspects - heck, I've had to do that myself many times anyway, and I'd expect a JAG officer to likely do the same. No-one can be expected to remember all of the rules word-by-word.

For the checks and balances, I again personally think that utilising the COs and general fleet membership is a good way of achieving that. I think that definitely in the last few years at least most of the by-laws, constitution updates, policies and so on have made a deliberate attempt to stay away from using overly legal language so that they can be read and understood by everyone, so when things get presented to the fleet to review, you don't need to be a legal expert to have a read through and decide whether you think it goes against what the fleet should be doing. The PFA is already required to hold a vote of the COs to approve any constitution updates, and checking the constitution again now the same is true of policies. Those are the big ones where the important stuff gets laid down - by-laws and standing orders are just used for administrative stuff, so defining task forces and the structure of departments and the like - so trying to bring in a piece of tyrannical legislation would need not only the PFA to vote for it, but the COs as well. And the CO vote actually does hold a lot of weight - for constitution updates, it needs the PFA to pass it with a majority of at least 66%, and then separately non-PFA COs to pass it with a majority of at least 66% of the COs who vote. If it doesn't get both, it doesn't pass. For policies, the PFA votes and CO votes get combined into a single vote, which just needs a simple 51% majority; there are only 5 voting members of the PFA, who are easily outnumbered by the COs. The only way for the CO vote to not count in both of these cases is if COs just don't bother to vote - and in the last year or so we've seen a lot of engagement from the CO side in these matters.

As I've said, I don't disagree with you on the points you've raised, in having the checks and balances there, and make sure that things don't go too far away from what the membership wants. None of us wants the PFA to turn into tyrants. The only point I disagree on is that I don't think we should restrict ourselves to the same format of achieving those aims as the vast majority of fleets have. Most fleets have a JAG because, well, all other fleets have a JAG, so why bother messing with that system? But I think that system can be unwieldy, and tends to lead to either a person sat in a position doing next to nothing or a person wanting to get the position for the sake of having the position and accompanying title. So why shouldn't we consider alternative systems to achieve the same goals? Whether it's the tribunal system that's been put forward, or some other system entirely, I think there are other - arguably better - ways for us to come up with something that works for us as an organisation.