View Full Version : Legal Discussion, Const Article A.


Provolution
Mar 13, 2005, 05:20 PM
Honorable Fanatannians

We need to improve on the law, for the interest of the majority of the people, and the citizen registry discussion proved to be to spurious and speculative, that a stricter definition of Article A would leave nothing to argument and circumstance.

Article A.
All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair and speedy trial, the
right to representation, the right to name units (within
the naming convention), the right to request an
investigation into possible violations of law and the
right to vote, ADD participate in elections, become elected and to be nominated for appointment or appointed for any office in Fanatannia.

blackheart
Mar 13, 2005, 06:54 PM
Citizens are going to be forced to run in elections and become elected, even if they don't want to? I don't see the point of that. I know you're trying to root out people who just register and don't ever show up again, but it's not fair to those who wish to lurk or are busy with real life things.

Provolution
Mar 13, 2005, 07:05 PM
this is about the right to become elected and appointed, not a requirement. to run for elections. Read carefully the amendment.

This is to root out DG players who are not in the citizen registry to mess up our offices.

blackheart
Mar 13, 2005, 07:12 PM
this is about the right to become elected and appointed, not a requirement. to run for elections. Read carefully the amendment.

This is to root out DG players who are not in the citizen registry to mess up our offices.

My apologies, read the bolded text wrong.

Read the constitution again. There's no rights given to non citizens. I tought it was agreed that the CoL should be strict and definite, while a constitution that is open is flexible and can be changed. We don't need the Constitution to be the thing to bind our hands.

Provolution
Mar 13, 2005, 07:15 PM
The amendment cover something fundamentally basic, and got to be in the Const.

Black_Hole
Mar 13, 2005, 08:06 PM
participate in elections, become elected and to be nominated for appointment or appointed for any office in Fanatannia.
I almost fell out of my chair laughing after I read this....Are you serious?!?
This would mean all citizens have the right to be elected(thus if they dont win an election, we will still put them in an office), meaning this doesnt become a democracy anymore... we will need 80 offices(1 for each citizeh)....

Provolution
Mar 13, 2005, 08:14 PM
This is the right to participate in the elections, with the outcomes of these.
There is no other interpretation. However, other election laws and CoC limits the number of offices naturally.

Black_Hole
Mar 13, 2005, 08:16 PM
This is the right to participate in the elections, with the outcomes of these.
There is no other interpretation. However, other election laws and CoC limits the number of offices naturally.
NO, it clearly says you will have a "right to be elected", which means every citizen can be elected if they wish

Provolution
Mar 13, 2005, 08:17 PM
they can be elected, but it is not guaranteed that they will be elected.

blackheart
Mar 13, 2005, 08:30 PM
...and the right to vote, participate in elections, become elected and to be nominated for appointment or appointed for any office in Fanatannia.

Read again. This is what it would be if were approved. The right to become elected. It means that they are GUARANTEED an elected office by the constitution. Poor choice of wording, might want to change it.

BTW, the constitution is meant to be interpreted, otherwise it wouldn't be one of the functions of the judiciary.

Provolution
Mar 13, 2005, 09:14 PM
The wording is improved even more.

Article A.
All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair and speedy trial, the
right to representation, the right to name units (within
the naming convention), the right to request an
investigation into possible violations of law and the
right to vote, ADD participate on equal terms in elections and to be considered on equal terms for appointment in any office in Fanatannia.

Bill_in_PDX
Mar 13, 2005, 09:58 PM
I still don't see a problem. The very beginning of constitution defines what a citizen is, and that they must register in the citizen thread to be a citizen. Anything else is not needed.

Provolution
Mar 13, 2005, 10:06 PM
The right of participation in the elections should be specified

DaveShack
Mar 13, 2005, 10:33 PM
This crusade (and that is what it is) has gone on long enough.

Suppose it was the 26th of the month, 5 minutes before nominations close, and someone who is not registered as a citizen notices that we don't have a candidate for a critical position. This individual posts a self-nomination, but then doesn't complete citizen registration until 5 minutes after midnight. By your attempted change to the rules, we would deny this person the ability to join the game and have his / her self-nomination recognized because of the timing of two posts in the forum, by ten minutes in this example.

No, the right answer is the same answer it has always been. Point out the oversight, the problem gets corrected, and everyone (except yourself it seems) is happy.

The incident you're trying to solve is over. Please drop the matter.

Provolution
Mar 13, 2005, 10:41 PM
Not a problem DS. The President will then basically appoint the official following the elections, and after the person signed the citizen registry. But the person would have no rights in the election process against a legitimate candidate that posted in time and
managed to sign in the citizen registry.

But election laws must have deadlines. Look at how strict we regulate the polls. One wrong word and the poll is invalidated. With defined deadlines, we are certain all candidates get a fair chance to nominate and be elected, as the deadlines should be written in the nomination thread. These nominations and elections should be exactly as time sensitive as the official game polls. It is a matter of principle, and this is a government simulation. People abiding by deadlines and rules are rewarded, where those who are not are penalized.

This is not a crusade, but a legal process to set things straight. Obviously, we disagree on what is right and wrong, but there is no need to threat me for pursuing this legal debate.

DaveShack
Mar 13, 2005, 10:48 PM
No threat implied here, just pointing out that an amendment is an awfully tall hill to climb. Our efforts are better utilized on the actual game. BTW good work with the culture strategy discussion. :)

ravensfire
Mar 14, 2005, 09:24 AM
Again? Sigh.

We don't need this.

It's already in the ruleset.

It was already confirmed in a judicial review over the matter.

We don't need this.

Show me where any harm has ever come because this was lacking. There has been one time that someone forgot to register and happened to be away during the start of the matter. It has been corrected, they were somewhat embarrased over the matter and took care of it immediately.

Where is the problem? I just cannot see anything that this proposal will do that isn't already in the ruleset.

-- Ravensfire

Eklektikos
Mar 14, 2005, 09:33 AM
Agreed.

The proposed amendment is nothing more than unnecessary verbiage, at best adding nothing of value and at worst causing confusion due to the linguistic contortions required to phrase the additional text in a manner consistent with the existing article. I would most definitely vote against its enactment.

classical_hero
Mar 14, 2005, 09:41 AM
There is nothing wrong with Article A as it stands at the moment. It is not a problem of the constitution.

blackheart
Mar 14, 2005, 05:09 PM
I'm surprised that there is even the possibility that someone can think of us capable of such a gross negligence as denying people a right to run and nominate in elections. This is like codifying everyone has the right to make posts, threads, and replies in the forum.

Provolution
Mar 17, 2005, 01:30 AM
Whatever, just close down this debate. If a mistake happens, we just heavily ridicule the perpetrators abuse of the electoral process. I will do anything to invalidate a candidate not registered and coming after deadline seeking to compete with a registered and deadline complying candidate.

The wording of the Article itself is indeed irrelevant to the point I am making, as it can be interpreted widely.

Chieftess
Mar 17, 2005, 06:20 AM
You guys micromanage every single word too much... This is what drives some away.

blackheart
Mar 18, 2005, 02:13 PM
Whatever, just close down this debate. If a mistake happens, we just heavily ridicule the perpetrators abuse of the electoral process. I will do anything to invalidate a candidate not registered and coming after deadline seeking to compete with a registered and deadline complying candidate.

The wording of the Article itself is indeed irrelevant to the point I am making, as it can be interpreted widely.

That's kind of the point isn't it? Wording changes interpretations