Welcome to the term four judiciary. This is not the official thread since term 4 doesn't start for another few hours but I thought that I'd get the ball rolling early

Term 4 justices
Chief Justice:Mhcarver
Judge Advocate:Civgeneral
Public Defender: Nobody

Pro tem Chief Justice:Blackhole

The census for this term is 29


I am posting last terms judicial procedures below as my proposal for the new procedures the only change is in bold and simply requires that a judiciary member under CC investigation recuse themselves

Judicial Procedures

A]All members of the Judiciary shall share certain rights and responsibilities. There responsibilities are:

Discuss the Court Procedures, as composed by the Chief Justice, in a most constructive way, and ratify when reaching consensus.
Post polls and discussions on interpretations of the Constitution, and any lower laws.
Are expected to appoint a Pro-Tem Justice, if they are unable to carry out there duties. Pro-Tem officials have all the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for, but are a temporary position, and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official. The pro-tem status may be given for individual assignments or for the entirety of the official (this must be declared).
Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews, in a timely manner, to determine the legality of proposed Constitutional Amendments and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews (JRs) to interpret and clarify existing Constitutional Articles and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews to examine whether or not all investigations should be considered as having "No Merit".
Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

B The Chief Justice ~

Performs as needed in the positions of Public Defender and Judge Advocate in the absence of either official. This duty shall only apply if said officials have not appointed a Pro-Tem official. This may include the appointment of a Pro-Tem official for that position.
Is responsible for posting the current Active Census in the Judicial thread at the beginning of the Term.
Is responsible for the updating, maintaince, and organization of the Judicial Log.
Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on topic and procedurally accurate.
If the situation arises where the actions of a Leader (Advisor) of a Department fall within the parameters of being absent from a position, as set forth by CoL Section H.5, the Chief Justice may declare said Office vacant.

C The Public Defender ~

Is tasked with ensuring all Citizens’ Complaint investigations are performed correctly, with presumed innocence of the accused.
Will ensure that the accused understands the charges brought against them and what rules were in violation so the accused can mount an effective defence.
Will perform as defender, unless the accused wishes otherwise.

D The Judge Advocate ~

Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations and trial.
Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence)

E Judicial Review

All Judicial Review and Investigations will be held publicly. Public communication between the Justices will be posted in the Judicial thread or the Investigation threads.
A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary except in the case of absence (either announced or unannounced) in which case two members are sufficient.
Review of proposed legislation.

Any member of the General Assembly may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary, after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws.
The request will be included in the Court’s Docket.
2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict with existing rules.
If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the General Assembly with details of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then be edited and resubmitted for Review.
If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.

Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.

Any member of the General Assembly may request a Judicial Review for interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. They must include the law in question, or the laws location (IE: Article B. Section 2.). If after making reasonable efforts to identify the law in question the citizen is unable to do so, the court must assist the citizen by giving a reference.
The request will be included in the Court’s Docket.
The Chief Justice has the right to dismiss a Judicial Review, if the Chief Justice deemes a Judicial Review to have "No Merit". Specific reasoning must be given by the Chief Justice for a judgement of "No Merit".
If the Judge Advocate and the Public Defender believe that the Judicial Review has merit, while the Chief Justice dismissed a Judicial Review, the Majority Opinion will be followed.
Anyone, including justices, may request the Judicial Review to receive a thread in the Citizen's Forum. This thread will be posted by the Chief Justice.
2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial Log for reference.


F Citizen's Complaint

If any citizen believes that someone has violated an Article of the Constitution or any other lower form of law, they can report this suspected violation for investigation and trial.
Allegations of misconduct must include:

Name of the defendant.
The Article(s) or lower Law(s) suspected of being violated.
When and where the suspected violation(s) occurred.

The Citizen's Complaint will be included in the Court’s Docket.
The Judge Advocate notifies the Public Defender and the accused of the charge(s).
If the accused is a standing member of the court they must recuse themself of that case in particular until the matter is settled
A review of the charge(s) is done to determine if the charges have "No Merit". A majority of the justices must agree that the charges have merit for the case to proceed.
If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the accused may then decide to work out an agreement with the accusing party. The Judge advocate and Public Defender act as a meditating party during this process. If not agreement is reached, then the Judge Advocate opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).

The first two replies to this thread are reserved for the Public Defender and the accused to respond publicly to the charge(s) (Defence). Either may post first, and both may say what they wish (within forum rules). If their replies/responses have not been posted within 24 hours of the thread's posting, they lose these reserved spots and anyone can post.

Citizens can post in this thread their opinions on the charge(s), whether they think the accused is guilty of the infraction or not, and if the case should go to Trial.
If the accused pleads guilty, the Trial is skipped and the case moves to the Sentencing Process. The Chief Justice may close the investigation thread early if this occurs.
When discussion has petered out and at least 72 hours have passed, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.

The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent and Abstain and will remain open for 48 hours.
In the event the Trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine if the defendant is innocent or guilty by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Trial poll.

If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll is posted by the Judge Advocate.

The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the following Options:

Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
Warning
No Punishment
Abstain

If the guilty party has previously received a final warning or warning for the current offence, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
Once the poll has been closed, the Chief Justice shall determine the sentence for the accused.

Each vote shall be determined as a vote for the option selected, and all less-severe options.
The sentence selected shall be the most severe sentence that a majority of the citizens supported. Example:Option A- 4 Votes Option B - 12 Votes Option C - 13 Votees The sentence carried out is option B. Option A has 4 total votes. Option B has 16 total votes. Option C has 29 total votes. A total of 29 citizens voted, making Option B is the most severe sentence that a majority of the citizens support with a total of 16 votes in support and 29 votes overall.

In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.
The guilty party must abide by the sentence as determined in the Poll by the Chief Justice.

The Judicial Log may be referenced for further interpretation or clarification, but may not be used for criteria for review of proposed legislation.
For any Judicial Review ruling or issue involved with a Citizen Complaint, each Justices must post independently their opinion on the matter. In essence, they must answer the question asked by the Judicial Review in a Yes or No fashion (have "Merit" or "No Merit" also applies here). Specifically, there will be no "fence-riding". Each Justice will come down on one side of the issue or the other, clearly.

Ratification of court procedures
Status:RAtified by 3-0 vote
Details: previous procedures proposed,with minor additions

Selection of a pro-tem Chief Justice
Status:Approved by associates and president
Details:BlackHole's has been accepted as the pro-tem chief justice to act in the place of a planned absence by the Chief Justice

DGVITIVJR1
Filed by:Bootstoots
Status:Completed, ruling published in Judicial log
Details:Bootstoots wishes to know wether or not moving units along railroads violates the provision in article L of the constitution prohitibing ireversible actions by anyone other than the demoplayer

DGVITIVJR2
Filed by:Classical Hero
Status:Completed,ruling published in judicial log
Details:CH has requested a review on what constitutes a valid discussion

DGVITIVJR3
Filed by:ZYXZ
Status:completed,ruling published in judicial log
Details: ZYXZ wants clarification on the provision in article A stating that citizens have freedom of speech and right to free movement

DGVITIVJR4
Filed by:Regentman
Status:complted
Details:RM wants to know if article L of the constitution allows for the playing of previous saves

DGVITIVJR5
Filed by:Mhcarver
Status:merit approved
Details:Mhcarver has submitted an addition to the code of laws dealing with a vacant presidency .

D The Judge Advocate ~

Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations and trial.
Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence)


Work Cited:
The People of the Demogame. “Demogame Consitution” 6 Mar 2005. 3 June 2005 < http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113684>.

Approved

sorry, final exams and a psycho computer

I will be away from june 11-19 and will have very little access to the internet. Accordingly I will be needing a pro-tem. After a brief exchange of PM's outgoing public defender Blackhole has agreed to be my pro tem justice. Per our constitution his nomination must be ratified by the other two justices and the president so I would like to submit his name for consideration fo the JA and PD elects

-mhcarver

Hey Hey HEY!! Il sir Nobodazine che la vostra nuova protezione pubblica proviene indietro dalla prigione, i moderatori non può mantenerlo giù sono di nuovo al difendo la gente, per difendere la costituzione e difendere la libertà, la La Cosa Nostra ha assunto la direzione delle corti con due dei nostri memebers come i giudici, civ generale e nobodazine. Infine i diavoli costituzionali che hanno corrotto il nostro grande socity saranno incitati per pagare, pagare con là le vite che è tempo per la libertà di regnare e per la nostra costituzione democraticly scelta da regolare sopra il nostro nationsm e per la nostra gente giusta per cambiare le leggi poichè vediamo la misura. Libertà, Familiy, LiveLa La Cosa Nostra.

Finally i have been elected to a position in this demogame, and you will not be disapointed. First i would like to say my door is always open, if you have any issues legal issues, feel free to PM me or email me (Greystar0@hotmail.com) i won't tell on you if you broke the law. I hope to prove to everyone who questioned the wisdom of voting for me, and to reward my supporters by defending all your rights against "The Man."
.................................................. ..................................................

Anyway down to the legal bussiness

Ratification of court procedures:I will hold off ratifying for now, as im not sure if 1# NO ANONYMOUS CCs will be filed. is in conflict with Article , F section, Judge Advocate - Prosecutes Citizen Complaints if the Citizen Complaint is filed anonymously.... Article F also says that the constitution overules these court procedures. Anyway i will think about it more before i decide.

Selection of a pro-tem Chief Justice: I approve Blackhole, he has proven himself as a judge before and must be sad as i bet him SO BAD in the election his can be a concelation prize :D

Hey Hey HEY!! Il sir Nobodazine che la vostra nuova protezione pubblica proviene indietro dalla prigione, i moderatori non può mantenerlo giù sono di nuovo al difendo la gente, per difendere la costituzione e difendere la libertà, la La Cosa Nostra ha assunto la direzione delle corti con due dei nostri memebers come i giudici, civ generale e nobodazine. Infine i diavoli costituzionali che hanno corrotto il nostro grande socity saranno incitati per pagare, pagare con là le vite che è tempo per la libertà di regnare e per la nostra costituzione democraticly scelta da regolare sopra il nostro nationsm e per la nostra gente giusta per cambiare le leggi poichè vediamo la misura. Libertà, Familiy, LiveLa La Cosa Nostra.

Finally i have been elected to a position in this demogame, and you will not be disapointed. First i would like to say my door is always open, if you have any issues legal issues, feel free to PM me or email me (Greystar0@hotmail.com) i won't tell on you if you broke the law. I hope to prove to everyone who questioned the wisdom of voting for me, and to reward my supporters by defending all your rights against "The Man."
.................................................. ..................................................

Anyway down to the legal bussiness

Ratification of court procedures:I will hold off ratifying for now, as im not sure if is in conflict with Article , F section, . Article F also says that the constitution overules these court procedures. Anyway i will think about it more before i decide.

Selection of a pro-tem Chief Justice: I approve Blackhole, he has proven himself as a judge before and must be sad as i bet him SO BAD in the election his can be a concelation prize :D
Ahhh Mr. Nobody has found another problem with anonymous CCs.... As a citizen i would like the inclusion of anonymous CCs..., the consitution pretty much says anonymous CCs exist...

Details:previous procedures proposed,with minor additions
Looks like your list of court procedures and the above are going haywire, mhcarver. Work of your psycho computer? ;)

nobody, I have removed the portion on no anonymous CC's because you are correct, it does blatantly violate the constitution, would you, or anyone alse have opinions on this matter

Per our constitution his nomination must be ratified by the other two justices and the president so I would like to submit his name for consideration fo the JA and PD elects
As the cybornetic Judge Advocate. I aprove the nomination for Black_Hole to be pro-term CJ.

nobody, I have removed the portion on no anonymous CC's because you are correct, it does blatantly violate the constitution, would you, or anyone alse have opinions on this matter

Then i ratify the court procedure. Might i also had that if an amendment to the constitution, to ban anonymous CC's was put forward i would consent to it and then vote for it.

Then i ratify the court procedure. Might i also had that if an amendment to the constitution, to ban anonymous CC's was put forward i would consent to it and then vote for it.
Well, if you are going to personaly push forward an admendment to ban anonymous CC's and the mock poll comes here for judical reviews. I would recomend having a pro-term PD to approve in order to avoid conflicts of interest. Though this is my opinion since when I pushed for the special turn sesson admendment (mind you I was a judicary student at the time ;)) I kept my $0.02 out in order to prevent a conflict of interest :).

"A review of the charge(s) is done to determine if the charges have "No Merit". A majority of the justices must agree that the charges have merit for the case to proceed."

Does this mean the PD must decide if the case has merit also? Isn't that a bit odd, cause if the case has merit then more than likely the defendant is gonna be somehow guilty. Isn't it the PD's job to prove his innocence? Seems a bit odd to me...

Well, if you are going to personaly push forward an admendment to ban anonymous CC's and the mock poll comes here for judical reviews. I would recomend having a pro-term PD to approve in order to avoid conflicts of interest. Though this is my opinion since when I pushed for the special turn sesson admendment (mind you I was a judicary student at the time ;)) I kept my $0.02 out in order to prevent a conflict of interest :).
no offense conflicts of interest are not in the constitution, Nobody is a citizen and may propose legislation and he is also a justice who reviews legislation... Also pro terms, according the constitution, are to be used for absences... nothing is said of conflict of interests...

no offense conflicts of interest are not in the constitution, Nobody is a citizen and may propose legislation and he is also a justice who reviews legislation... Also pro terms, according the constitution, are to be used for absences... nothing is said of conflict of interests...
I see. Well from my mind set, I came from a demogame where conflicts of interest is a taboo. Especialy back when a leader/offical can be a deputy. So long as it is alright, I see no problems :)

I was just saying that its better for the people to decide if we have Annomous CC's and not the judges job. And if any legislation was put im sure we can vote how ever we want we are citizens aswell. Also it isnt our job to veto legislation if its not in conflict with the current laws, not if its a good idea or not thats up to the legislative goverment (everyone), And i was just saying that i would probably vote yes if that law came to a poll. Maybe your right and judges should say how they feel about specific legislation, i will remeber that next time.

Good to see "Nobody" is "Carving" out their names in "Civ", in "General". LOL :D
Good lucks with the Judiciary, and maybe someone cause some drama by dragging some snivelling Gollum like character to the court against the dramatic outcries of the politically correct ensemble.

Congrats with the Judicary folks.

Good to see "Nobody" is "Carving" out their names in "Civ", in "General". LOL
Good lucks with the Judiciary, and maybe someone cause some drama by dragging some snivelling Gollum like character to the court against the dramatic outcries of the politically correct ensemble.

:lol: i get the whole name in the thing, thing. but as for the rest :yeah: come again?

"A review of the charge(s) is done to determine if the charges have "No Merit". A majority of the justices must agree that the charges have merit for the case to proceed."

Does this mean the PD must decide if the case has merit also? Isn't that a bit odd, cause if the case has merit then more than likely the defendant is gonna be somehow guilty. Isn't it the PD's job to prove his innocence? Seems a bit odd to me...

thats how it has always been as long as I have been part of the Demogame. In my mind it is a good idea because if the PD couldn't rule on merit then I don't think it would be logical for the JA to rule which would give to much power to the chief justice,

Well, since conflicts of interest have been raised, it does not make sense for the PD to be able to represent him/herself in a CC. While it is true the PD could easily prepare the defense, the court is also responsible for ruling on guilt/innocence in the case of ties, and for breaking ties on sentencing polls. Clearly being able to take such actions on the case against oneself is a conflict of interest.

On the subject of anonymous CC's, my interpretation would be that if an anonymous CC is allowed to be filed, then the provision cited takes effect -- but the wording does not explicitly say that an anonymous CC must be allowed. I think this leaves the matter up to the court to decide on a term by term basis, unless someone uses a legal procedure to force a decision which makes precedent.

Black Holes appointment as pro-tem chief justice has been confirmed by the president, black hole will assume the office of chief justice on 6/11 and hold it until the beggining of 6/20

There's a question I've had for some time, but never thought to ask it, involving what constitutes a "reversible action". Since we're apparently going to be getting railroads soon, I'd like to call a Judicial Review on it.

If I, as a citizen with no claim to the position of Designated Player, choose to open up a save and move a unit along a railroad, in our territory or in the territory of an ally with whom we have an ROP, is this action considered a violation of Article L of the Constitution, which forbids "commission of any game action by any player other than the Designated Player...that is not instantly reversible without reloading the save"? Additionally, can the DP move units on a railroad offline before the start of a turnchat, or would Article J be violated?

There's a question I've had for some time, but never thought to ask it, involving what constitutes a "reversible action". Since we're apparently going to be getting railroads soon, I'd like to call a Judicial Review on it.

If I, as a citizen with no claim to the position of Designated Player, choose to open up a save and move a unit along a railroad, in our territory or in the territory of an ally with whom we have an ROP, is this action considered a violation of Article L of the Constitution, which forbids "commission of any game action by any player other than the Designated Player...that is not instantly reversible without reloading the save"? Additionally, can the DP move units on a railroad offline before the start of a turnchat, or would Article J be violated?
Hmm, this one is a strange scenario. Though at first glance it would forbid Article L of the Consitution. But since the unit is being moved on a railroad with unlimited movement points, it would still be considered a reversable action so long as the unit remains on the tracks and return to it's original spot and thus would not violate Article L.

I deem that Bootstoots Judicial review has merit and will be added to the docket as DGVIT4JR1

and on a more technical note the Judge Advocate has yet to ratify the court procedures, CG could you please do so or state your objections since technically nothing the court does is official until the procedures have been agreed upon?

and on another note:
I just read DS message(sorry dave) and I agree and wish to add the public defender to list I submit these new changes to the court for ratification.,

and on a more technical note the Judge Advocate has yet to ratify the court procedures, CG could you please do so or state your objections since technically nothing the court does is official until the procedures have been agreed upon?
Almost forgot about that, I have edited my first post in this thread to include that :blush:. In short I do approve the procedures. The Cybornetic Judge Advocate approves the court procedures.

ooooo..... Nice Judical Review, and my first i will get back to you.

the article being questioned reads
Article L. Commission of any game action by any person other than the
Designated Player while carrying out their duties that is
not instantly reversible without reloading the save is
strictly forbidden.
1. Exception: Determining options in the renegotiation of
Peace agreements requires an action of acceptance or war
to exit the bargain screen. This may be done but the game
must be immediately closed without saving.


This case is (in my mind) rather easy because the law cleary states that an reversible action is any action that can be undone without having to re-load the saves. In the scenario mentioned by bootstoots then the action is perfectly legal because of it can be reversed completely. Therefore I rule that movements on railroads through our own territory or nations by which a ROP exists by anyone other than the demoplayer are not illegal as long as the unit(s) in question return to their point of origin

-Mhcarver

the article being questioned reads
Article L. Commission of any game action by any person other than the
Designated Player while carrying out their duties that is
not instantly reversible without reloading the save is
strictly forbidden.
1. Exception: Determining options in the renegotiation of
Peace agreements requires an action of acceptance or war
to exit the bargain screen. This may be done but the game
must be immediately closed without saving.


This case is (in my mind) rather easy because the law cleary states that an reversible action is any action that can be undone without having to re-load the saves. In the scenario mentioned by bootstoots then the action is perfectly legal because of it can be reversed completely. Therefore I rule that movements on railroads by anyone other than the demoplayer are not illegal as long as the unit(s) in question return to their point of origin

-Mhcarver
I agree with the CJ's statement. Since the unit is being moved on a railroad with unlimited movement points, it would still be considered a reversable action so long as the unit remains on the tracks and return to it's original spot and thus would not violate Article L.

DGVIT4JR1

have broken the Judicial Review into two parts as he asked two questions.

The first part of this Judicial Review asks if moving a unit along the rail road is considered a violation of Article L of the Constitution. I find that it is a violation of Article L. “Commission of any game action by any person other than the Designated Player while carrying out their duties, that is not instantly reversible without reloading the save is strictly forbidden.” So the key to this question is whenever or not the movement of units along the rail road is considered an “Instantly reversible” action. Moving units along a rail road is not “Instantly reversible” because you are not reversing the action you are just making another action of moving the Unit back. So it is two actions not just one which is then reversed. It is no different than moving it along a road it is just faster. Because this is not a instantly reversible action to do this would be a violation of Article L.

The second part asks if the DP moves units on a railroad prior to the start of a turnchat is this a violation of Article J. The constitution says “all irreversible game actions must progress during a scheduled game session.- The Constitution Article J” As I have stated above I think that movement along railroads are not instantly reversible because it is not like pressing ‘Undo’ you need to move back and forth. A reversible action is like setting queues. Therefore I find that if the DP moves units along a railroad prior to the start of a turnchat they are in violation of Article J.

I would like to bring the following to the attention of the court regarding the JR requested by Bootstoots.

Moving a unit on a rail through enemy territory will reveal the presence or absence of units on that rail, and in that sense cannot be reversed. On a more technical level, it will flag that unit as "having moved this turn", and that too cannot be reversed.

Nonetheless I would argue that this type of game action is harmless.
Both are technicalities and just require a minor amendment of the law. Maybe Bootstoots would like to take the initiative?

I would like to bring the following to the attention of the court regarding the JR requested by Bootstoots.

Moving a unit on a rail through enemy territory will reveal the presence or absence of units on that rail, and in that sense cannot be reversed. On a more technical level, it will flag that unit as "having moved this turn", and that too cannot be reversed.

Nonetheless I would argue that this type of game action is harmless.
Both are technicalities and just require a minor amendment of the law. Maybe Bootstoots would like to take the initiative?

Thank you for you're input, what you have just stated is correct, however in bootstoots request for Judicial review the only scenario he mentioned was moving units within our territory and those we have a right of passage with, though I did not make this clear in my ruling I will do so now, that is if the JA will agree with me.

you're right, I should not have said "enemy territory" but "territory of the ROP partner".

I have a JR for this Court. I was wondering I the President must have a discussion about the use of MGL's. I see there is little discussion about this, but there is another army and clearly the MGL has been used before it was discussed. Here is the part of the Constitution for this JR. I have bolded the most important part of this discussion. For reference, here is a "discussion" on the subject. Military Great Leaders A back up question. Is a few hours, enough time to be considered to be called a discussion? For reference, here are two images about the time taken between opening the thread and most probably when the decision was made.
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/Thread_Opened.jpg

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/Decision_Made.jpg
I'll assume that the time was when the decision was made. You must remember that the times are GMT+8.


Article D.
1. President - Leads discussions crossing over multiple
areas of different Consuls. Sets the overall budget
and balances financial needs. He/she will also decide on
any strategic tasks not designated to another consul
in this constitution. The President is the primary
designated player. He/she has the following
responsibilities, and may appoint a citizen to oversee
a responsibility: Naming of Cities and Units,
Elections, and Polling Standards. These appointed
officials remain in office until removed by a
President. The President also leads discussion on how
to use military and scientific great leaders.

After looking over Classical Heroes request for Judicial review I find that this is the primary question


1.What constitutes a valid discussion?

I find that this judicial review has merit and is to be added to the docket as DGVIT4JR2

I shall withdraw the first part of my JR, because the answer is yes, but the second one is still valid.

I shall withdraw the first part of my JR, because the answer is yes, but the second one is still valid.
so noted, I'll be ruling sometime tommorow afternoon

another JR, i will comment soon.

another JR, i will comment soon.
Just hope that it will come before the three hour blackout of CFC :eek:.

DGVIT4JR2 Public Defenders Comments (not final decision just comments i will fialism my decision after hearing more from the other judges and citizens)

1.What constitutes a valid discussion?

This is hard to answer, I planned to look at the constitution but it has no reference to a time span, at all. So i decided to find the definition of "Discussion" which is to talk about a subject with someone and tell each other your ideas or opinions: or 2 to talk or write about a subject in detail, especially considering different ideas and opinions related to it:.

So i think that a legal discussion should have a miniumum of one more Idea or Opinion or Point of view added to it after the first post. Plus a post from any goverment branch concerned.


*Dictionary used is the Cambridge Online Dictionary http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=22235&dict=CALD

I am sorry to all of the citizens but because I just started working I have been very busy and will not be able to rule until tommorow when I have a day off.

I am sorry to all of the citizens but because I just started working I have been very busy and will not be able to rule until tommorow when I have a day off.
Ouch, that must be a real downer :(.

the question before the court here is "what constitutes a valid discussion?" for the sake of continuity I will use nobodys first definition of a discussion which is

to talk about a subject with someone and tell each other your ideas or opinions:

Just to be clear in this case I consider talk to mean interactions on the message board. Because of the definition of discussion I rule that a valid discsuccion is one in which one or more other opinions was presented and that failing the presence of other opinions one or more posts concurring with a suggestion.

Hmm, this one is a toughy. But in all simplicity. A valid discsuccion contains one or many options that has been presented to the public and often has two or more posts with approval, suggestions, and criticizm. I agree with Nobody's and Mhcarver's presentation of the definition of a discusccion.

So, if only one person posts an opinion, is that a discussion? If I read it correctly, then CG says yes, mhcarver and nobody say no.

I would say an official has to give the opportunity for discussion. If no-one wants to discuss, then the official cannot be blamed for that...

I think classical_hero was mainly concerned with the time-frame, i.e., how long should there be opportunity for discussion before a decision is made?

PD's ruling on Dgvit4jr2

I find dicussion to be defined as:
to talk about a subject with someone and tell each other your ideas or opinions:

Where talk means interaction on these forums.

I think classical_hero was mainly concerned with the time-frame, i.e., how long should there be opportunity for discussion before a decision is made?
You summised correctly. Don't forget that we need to have discussion for everyone, because we have people from all over the world and not all discussions can be done over a few hours.

So, if only one person posts an opinion, is that a discussion? If I read it correctly, then CG says yes, mhcarver and nobody say no.

I would say an official has to give the opportunity for discussion. If no-one wants to discuss, then the official cannot be blamed for that...

I think classical_hero was mainly concerned with the time-frame, i.e., how long should there be opportunity for discussion before a decision is made?


1.yes that is correct

2. for that I refer you to this portion of my ruling failing the presence of other opinions one or more posts concurring with a suggestion. the problem is that nowhere in our constitution is a timeframe made for discussions so a valid discussion can only be interpreted by opinion

3.You are right about the time frame but the judiciary can only interptet the constitution , we cannot add to it and I cannot find any point in the constitution from which I can draw a ruling on timing of discussions.

To follow up on classical_hero's point, one could argue that Article A gives every citizen the right to assemble and the right to free speech, which would imply that all timezones have to be able to see the topic and be given a chance to respond. Not doing so might not be enough to convict someone of a crime but both this broad reading of Article A and long standing tradition say that 24 hours is the "normal minimum" for discussions.

If a leader thinks that a group decision was already made on a subject, there might not be any discussion on implementing that decision, which might lead to changed circumstances not being taken into account. This is why I have said in the past that decisions are only valid while the conditions they are based upon are still true. In this specific case (MGL's) a prior decision to build an army would be invalidated by a small wonder being available to build.

This is not a CC so we don't need to get all formal about it, but I think a good way to defuse it would be for the President to acknowledge that a new discussion would have been appropriate.

To follow up on classical_hero's point, one could argue that Article A gives every citizen the right to assemble and the right to free speech, which would imply that all timezones have to be able to see the topic and be given a chance to respond. Not doing so might not be enough to convict someone of a crime but both this broad reading of Article A and long standing tradition say that 24 hours is the "normal minimum" for discussions.

If a leader thinks that a group decision was already made on a subject, there might not be any discussion on implementing that decision, which might lead to changed circumstances not being taken into account. This is why I have said in the past that decisions are only valid while the conditions they are based upon are still true. In this specific case (MGL's) a prior decision to build an army would be invalidated by a small wonder being available to build.

This is not a CC so we don't need to get all formal about it, but I think a good way to defuse it would be for the President to acknowledge that a new discussion would have been appropriate.
you make a very valid point DS, however since I will be on vacation soon I will not be able to re-evaluate my ruling since I have to go to work sooon and will be on vacation soon so I am leaving the option on re-evaluating the deciscion to my talented pro-tem Blackhole

==================================================
The Temporary Term 4 Docket
==================================================

DGVITIVJR2 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2819291&postcount=35)
Filed by:Classical Hero
Status:Merit approved
Details:CH has requested a review on what constitutes a valid discussion

Pro Term Chief Justice Checking in :)

Daveshack brings up a valid point, I will reinterperet the JR in about 7 hours(when my pro term begins)...
I have posted a termporary docket above as I cannot edit mhcarver's posts.

So, if only one person posts an opinion, is that a discussion? If I read it correctly, then CG says yes, mhcarver and nobody say no.
Actualy, I say no. Edited my previous post for clarification.

sorry for not getting to the jr, I will tomorrow

After reviewing the law at DaveShack's request, I have found Article A does in fact give all citizens a right to view and respond to a discussion. Because of timezones, the discussion must be atleast 24 hours long so all timezones can discuss it.

Personally I find the above definition is very poor, a better one would be:
The participation of citizens in an organazation of arguments and opinions.

I would like the other justices to clarify on whether a discussion must be atleast 24 hours in length. And which defintion to use.

After reviewing the law at DaveShack's request, I have found Article A does in fact give all citizens a right to view and respond to a discussion. Because of timezones, the discussion must be atleast 24 hours long so all timezones can discuss it.

Personally I find the above definition is very poor, a better one would be:

The participation of citizens in an organazation of arguments and opinions.



I would like the other justices to clarify on whether a discussion must be atleast 24 hours in length. And which defintion to use.
I agree with the Pro-term CJ's definition in regards to the definition of a discussion. I have found nothing related to the 24 hour limit for a discussion. What I beleve is that the discussion must have an age of at least 24 hours is one of the unwritten courtesy rules to give respect to all citizens living in each timezone to give them a chance to put in their two cents into the discussion.

I am getting confused here, and I think the judiciary is walking on thin ice.

Let me explain. Classical_hero has asked for a JR on what constitutes a valid discussion. The court has correctly noted that our current law does not provide such a definition. IMO, that should end the JR, as a JR is intended for "Interpretation and clarification of existing Law" (Court procedures E4).

Instead the justices have been trying to add a requirement for a discussion to be valid. First they unanimously decided on a requirement of participation, but now the majority has swayed to requiring a minimum time period. Whatever it will be, you are trying to write new law here.

Our constitution allows for new law to be added through approval by the General Assembly, but not through a JR. I therefore kindly ask the court to reconsider. IMO the correct judgement on this JR should be that the current law does not provide any requirements on discussions, but that any citizen is encouraged to initiate the procedure for adding such requirements. (I can well imagine that an amendment adding a minimum time period can count on broad popular support).

I am getting confused here, and I think the judiciary is walking on thin ice.

Let me explain. Classical_hero has asked for a JR on what constitutes a valid discussion. The court has correctly noted that our current law does not provide such a definition. IMO, that should end the JR, as a JR is intended for "Interpretation and clarification of existing Law" (Court procedures E4).

Instead the justices have been trying to add a requirement for a discussion to be valid. First they unanimously decided on a requirement of participation, but now the majority has swayed to requiring a minimum time period. Whatever it will be, you are trying to write new law here.

Our constitution allows for new law to be added through approval by the General Assembly, but not through a JR. I therefore kindly ask the court to reconsider. IMO the correct judgement on this JR should be that the current law does not provide any requirements on discussions, but that any citizen is encouraged to initiate the procedure for adding such requirements. (I can well imagine that an amendment adding a minimum time period can count on broad popular support).
we are not writing a new law, we are interpereting Article A:
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.
That says that citizens have the right to participate in discussions, but because of timezones for allcitizens to have this right, discussions must be atleast 24 hours in length. If someone from Eastern USA creates a discussion for 12 hours during the day, half of the world could not participate in that discussion, this violates the rights of people in the western hemisphere of the world. However it seems CivGeneral's reason was different, citing "unwritten laws", which of course do not exist. I hope he clarifies...

I disagree with the other justices that someone else must respond, if citizens have a chance to respond but don't that can still be taken as a discussion, most likely there was no argument to the leader so the discussion is still valid.

To the Public Defender and Judge Advocate:
This is going to be a tricky thing for me to put together as a majority opinion. I would like all justices to answer the following questions:

1. Must discussions be atleast 24 hours in length?
2. Does another citizen besides the topic poster have to respond to make the discussion valid?

My answers:
1. Yes
2. No

Black_Hole,

Thank you for your considered response. Although I disagree with your reasoning, I can see where your interpretation comes from, and I do agree that this is what the law should say. I hope you don't mind this interference with your business.

Unfortunately, the three rights you highlight are not explained further in the law, so interpretation can only be based on "common sense", or the use of these phrases in wordly systems of law.

The "right to free speech" usually means that citizens may not be hindered in voicing their opinion. It usually does not mean that they have to be heard by a minister or similar government official. My interpretation of this would be that every citizen has the right to post in a thread, or open a new thread. Of course your interpretation may be different, and IMO any interpretation makes new law, precisely because this article is so vague. One might be able to patch this together using the article on the will of the people, but that's a pretty vague one too.

The "right to assemble" usually means the right to form parties or citizen groups. Does not apply here.

I have no idea what "the right to free movement" is supposed to mean in the context of the game.

To the Public Defender and Judge Advocate:
This is going to be a tricky thing for me to put together as a majority opinion. I would like all justices to answer the following questions:

1. Must discussions be atleast 24 hours in length?
2. Does another citizen besides the topic poster have to respond to make the discussion valid?

JA's Answers:
1. Yes
2. No

1st. yes but maybe even a little longer.
2nd. It needs another opinon.

Really this should be varible, say no one says anything for 2 days then the offical can poll (or what ever) but if say 10 people make a good dicussion then 1 day is fine.

Majority Opinion
For a discussion to be legal it must be atleast 24 hours in length, however there is no requirement for responses from citizens.

Any one need any defending

Any one need any defending
Be paitent, ATM we are getting into the slow season :).

You know, this has to be a record for the quietest judiciary ever...

You know, this has to be a record for the quietest judiciary ever...
I have a feeling that everyone is content with the rules (no rule proposals), has a better understanding of the rules (no JRs), and/or no breaching of rules (no CC's).

I do however encourage any citizen who has little or no understanding of the rules to post a JR request so that he/she can have a better understanding.

I do also encurage any citizen who wishes to improve the rules to start a discussion, no need to be shy, we too are curious about your proposals regardless if you are a demogame newbie or demogame elite ;).

I have a feeling that everyone is content with the rules (no rule proposals), has a better understanding of the rules (no JRs), and/or no breaching of rules (no CC's).


I have the impression people just ignore the rules and play "nice" :).

I do however encourage any citizen who has little or no understanding of the rules to post a JR request so that he/she can have a better understanding.

Coming up.

I do also encurage any citizen who wishes to improve the rules to start a discussion, no need to be shy, we too are curious about your proposals regardless if you are a demogame newbie or demogame elite ;).

Who knows? Might be what this game needs: a rule discussion to get people heated up a bit ;).

JR request. I would like to request a JR on some of the citizen rights listed in Article A.

Question: what do the "right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech" mean in the game?

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.

You know, this has to be a record for the quietest judiciary ever...

Either this one, or last term, it's a close call.

Either this one, or last term, it's a close call.

That's because no one really cares about the laws anymore. All of the passionate legalists have pretty much left the game, leaving our elected officials to do whatever they want.

If I still had the passion to delve into things this term, I am sure I could find a few missteps that would spice up this thread. However, I do not have the time or desire to do so.

Play ball! :D

That's because no one really cares about the laws anymore. All of the passionate legalists have pretty much left the game, leaving our elected officials to do whatever they want.

If I still had the passion to delve into things this term, I am sure I could find a few missteps that would spice up this thread. However, I do not have the time or desire to do so.

Play ball! :D
I hear you... Looking back this term CT never posted a TCIT 3 days in advance as required by law, and people jumped all over DaveShack for not doing it once :sad:

I have noticed that xyxy's JR request has gone unnoticed. I am not sure if Black_Hole has noticed it yet and placed in a Temp Docket. I do hope that I am not stepping on anyone's toes since the Judical Procedures A.4. is shared by all 3 judicaries :).

==================================================
The Temporary Term 4 Docket
==================================================

DGVITIVJR3 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2849686&postcount=69)
Filed by:zyxy
Status:Merit approved
Details:zyxy has requested a review on what constitutes a right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech within the game

Help please.

I am obviously being dense here as I cannot find where the chain of command is defined in our law books. What is is please and where is it defined?

Also, are deputies included in the CoC for the purposes of being DP? This may well be answered of course once I can find where it is in the rules :crazyeye:

I have noticed that xyxy's JR request has gone unnoticed. I am not sure if Black_Hole has noticed it yet and placed in a Temp Docket. I do hope that I am not stepping on anyone's toes since the Judical Procedures A.4. is shared by all 3 judicaries :).

==================================================
The Temporary Term 4 Docket
==================================================

DGVITIVJR3 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2849686&postcount=69)
Filed by:zyxy
Status:Merit approved
Details:zyxy has requested a review on what constitutes a right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech within the game
actually mhcarver is coming back today, so I will let him handle it...

Pro Term CJ Signing out

Help please.

I am obviously being dense here as I cannot find where the chain of command is defined in our law books. What is is please and where is it defined?

Also, are deputies included in the CoC for the purposes of being DP? This may well be answered of course once I can find where it is in the rules :crazyeye:

Good point. :)

If there is any definition, it is defined via JR in term 2, but since no rulings from that court made it into the judicial log, it will be somewhat hard to find. :(

The common law (unwritten) version we have been following is President, VP, Strategic (in order listed), Tactical (in order listed). Traditionally deputies have the power of the office they are a member of only when the official is on a scheduled absense, and are not eligible for DP otherwise. Judiciary members are traditionally excluded, no specific reason I'm aware of except that it would open holes for CC's against justices.

Good point. :)

If there is any definition, it is defined via JR in term 2, but since no rulings from that court made it into the judicial log, it will be somewhat hard to find. :(

The common law (unwritten) version we have been following is President, VP, Strategic (in order listed), Tactical (in order listed). Traditionally deputies have the power of the office they are a member of only when the official is on a scheduled absense, and are not eligible for DP otherwise. Judiciary members are traditionally excluded, no specific reason I'm aware of except that it would open holes for CC's against justices.
I believe we had a general non constitutional amending poll on this, and justices were in it... only because the city naming list was based off teh CoC... however the term 2 judiciary is a hard place to find stuff, besides Provolution not putting stuff in the Judicial Log, his docket is inaccurate and doesn't contain links to the JRs...

Traditionally deputies have the power of the office they are a member of only when the official is on a scheduled absense, and are not eligible for DP otherwise..
What if no one but the highest ranking deputy is present in the chatroom? Before in the older consitutions, the deputies were allowed to take control of the TC if they are the highest ranking present in the room. Are we going to simply cancel the TC just because the President does not show up and the only person that is present is a deputy of an office

What if no one but the highest ranking deputy is present in the chatroom? Before in the older consitutions, the deputies were allowed to take control of the TC if they are the highest ranking present in the room. Are we going to simply cancel the TC just because the President does not show up and the only person that is present is a deputy of an office
If only deputies and citizens are there we shouldn't be playing the game, the deputy was not elected by the people... Only elected people should be playing the game

If only deputies and citizens are there we shouldn't be playing the game, the deputy was not elected by the people... Only elected people should be playing the game
I see, so in a sense, the citizens and deputies are just going to sit their while they wait for an elected leader. I understand that deputies are just appointed and cannot play the game but there should be a system inplace in the event the President nor an elected leader is not present for the TC so that the citizens in the chatroom are not left in the dark :).

First one: Freedom of speach means you can say what ever you want as long as it dosent break the rules of the forum For example "This constitution sucks", freedom to assemble means you can make any group you want like the La Cosa Nostra. Freedom of movement means you can come and go from the demogame as much as you want.

Second one: No offical CoC, but in the old days there was, these days there isnt. But some presidents state one in the Turn chat threads

First one: Freedom of speach means you can say what ever you want as long as it dosent break the rules of the forum For example "This constitution sucks", freedom to assemble means you can make any group you want like the La Cosa Nostra. Freedom of movement means you can come and go from the demogame as much as you want.

Second one: No offical CoC, but in the old days there was, these days there isnt. But some presidents state one in the Turn chat threads
Saying the constitution sucks is legal, it is not breaking forum rules either... Otherwise Strider would have been banned multiplte times ;)

1. Note on procedure: I think the CJ first has to decide whether a JR "has merit" before the court actually deals with it.

2. The definition of freedom of speech given by Nobody conflicts with the majority opinion on the JR filed by classical_hero.

Saying the constitution sucks is legal, it is not breaking forum rules either... Otherwise Strider would have been banned multiplte times

i know i was saying the right lets me say that. but if i was to say "Black_hole sucks" then it would be i think, of course its ok a it the truth.

I find that ZXYZ's request for Judicial review has merit and will be added to the docket as DGVIT4JR3

i know i was saying the right lets me say that. but if i was to say "Black_hole sucks" then it would be i think, of course its ok a it the truth.
But if you say that a particular person sucks, then thats treding into flame/trolling territory. ;)

I find that ZXYZ's request for Judicial review has merit and will be added to the docket as DGVIT4JR3
Glad to see that I'm not the only one who has trouble with his name. :) ;)

Yeah, I don't like to be called DGVIT4JR3 either.... :)

I find that ZXYZ's request for Judicial review has merit and will be added to the docket as DGVIT4JR3
welcome back Mr. Carver!

zyxy has come before the court with the following question:

1.what constitutes the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of movement

Freedom of speech
In this I agree with the PD that free speech means you can say anything as long as it is within the forum rules, however I would also like to add that as discussed in DGVIT4JR2 the freedom of speech also grants citizens the right to be able to weigh in on a discussion, meaning that becuase of timezones 24 hours as determined by the previous ruling is a realistic period that allows citizens to excercise their right to freedom of speech

Freedom of assembly
This is the right to form citizens groups with any purpose as long as they are within the forum rules

Freedom of movement
This is essentially the freedom that is given to anyone to come and go as they please with varying participation levels, this is not an excuse for an elected official who is not participating to stay in office, since they are bound by the constitution, it simply means that anyone who is a citizen does not forfeit that right by not being active.

Not that it matters for this JR, but... :D

A historical note on freedom of movement: At one time a citizen could be a "resident" of a particular city or province, for role play purposes. Freedom of movement was intended to allow people to move their "residence" and thus affect role play changes.

In a Civ4 DG, reports indicate that it is possible for several civs to play cooperatively with shared victory conditions. If we choose to play as several teams then freedom of movement might be construed as the ability to switch teams.

2. The definition of freedom of speech given by Nobody conflicts with the majority opinion on the JR filed by classical_hero.

Come again?.

Does anyone else find it iritating that the constitution is in parts and it says the wrong nation name, since article K says no Law of japantica can conflict with the CFC rules, does that mean we can make laws that conflict with them? (of course Thunder fall would deploy national Guards (moderators)
........................................
Bussiness

Public Defenders Ruling on DGVIT4JR3

What constitutes a right to assemble within the game?

This right guarantees that any Demogame citizens may create and join any citizen or other group with in the demogame.

What constitutes the right to free movement within the game?

This right guarantees that any Demogame citizen may join or leave the demogame as much as they like.

What constitutes the right to free speech within the game?

This right says that any Demogame citizen may say what ever they want in the Demogame forums as it dosent breach Article K. of the constitution. Also this gurantees the right of a citizen to take part in any discussion. To ensure this any discussion must be at least 24 hours long, so that its day time for everybody at least once.

hey Civ General i think a The judge advocate you should say "your nicked son" to the criminals

Not that it matters for this JR, but... :D

A historical note on freedom of movement: At one time a citizen could be a "resident" of a particular city or province, for role play purposes. Freedom of movement was intended to allow people to move their "residence" and thus affect role play changes.

In a Civ4 DG, reports indicate that it is possible for several civs to play cooperatively with shared victory conditions. If we choose to play as several teams then freedom of movement might be construed as the ability to switch teams.

And those teams can be seen as semi-autonomous regions. One team could build up the army, while the other builds up gold to give to the other team for instance. (This was the origanal dream of the Game of Republic, BTW).

What constitutes a right to assemble within the game?
This right give the right to citizens to forum and/or join citizen groups.


What constitutes the right to free movement within the game?
In older demogames, this relates to the citizens registry (under the option of city of residence). This gives the citizen the right to move from city to city without hassle. The freedom to join and leave the demogame is also applied to this category.

What constitutes the right to free speech within the game?
The freedom of speach within the demogame gives the citizen the right to say what ever is on their mind.

Actually I would like to point something out to the justices, the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution should be the right to say anything. This JR is dealing with the Demogame rules not forum rules, moderators should be enforcing forum rules and not demogame rules, and vice versa.

This may not sound important but it is, if this JR is ruled this way then I can CC someone for what I think is flaming...

So I would describe freedom of speech as the right to post anything unless specifically outlawed in the constitution.

Actually I would like to point something out to the justices, the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution should be the right to say anything. This JR is dealing with the Demogame rules not forum rules, moderators should be enforcing forum rules and not demogame rules, and vice versa.

This may not sound important but it is, if this JR is ruled this way then I can CC someone for what I think is flaming...

So I would describe freedom of speech as the right to post anything unless specifically outlawed in the constitution.

No your wrong. If someone breaks the Forum rules inside the Demogame, then they are also breaking the demogame rules Article K. So really someone could CC someone if they have broken the Forum rules even if the moderators have done nothing.

No your wrong. If someone breaks the Forum rules inside the Demogame, then they are also breaking the demogame rules Article K. So really someone could CC someone if they have broken the Forum rules even if the moderators have done nothing.
how so?
Article K. The Constitution, laws and standards of Japanatica can
never be contrary to the rules and regulations of the
Civfanatics forums. Moderators may veto any such
constitutional amendments, laws or standards.
Article K says that our laws cannot break forum rules.... So this means I can CC someone for flaming?!?
So by flaming, I am somehow making our laws contrary to the forum rules?!? Your logic is puzzling me...

how so?
Article K. The Constitution, laws and standards of Japanatica can
never be contrary to the rules and regulations of the
Civfanatics forums. Moderators may veto any such
constitutional amendments, laws or standards.
Article K says that our laws cannot break forum rules.... So this means I can CC someone for flaming?!?
So by flaming, I am somehow making our laws contrary to the forum rules?!? Your logic is puzzling me...
I would leave the CFC rules to the discression of the mods, especialy our Demogame mods. Pesonaly, I wont CC a person for flaming. Insted, I hit the little http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/darkblue/buttons/report.gif button and the mods take care of the rest. The Judicary handles the Demogame Laws and Rules and the Demogame Mods handles the CFC Laws and Rules.

Article K says that our laws cannot break forum rules

So that means that if you break the forum rules you are also breaking the demogame rules, although to CC someone would be silly, thats the mods job.

Look at it this way, we cannot form a law that conflicts with the CFC Forum's Rule since that where we are based. If someone break a law, they can be CC. However, since we have no laws conflicting with CFC Forum's rule, any infraction will be reported to a moderator rather than the Judicary. The jurisdiction of the Judicary resides over the Demogame's Code of Law and Consitution wherelse the jurisdiction of the moderators is any infraction of the Forum rules.

In short, we don't make laws that conflict with the rules and we make laws that concides with the Forum rules. In other words, the forum's rule is also the law of speech and conduct among ourselves.

So that means that if you break the forum rules you are also breaking the demogame rules, although to CC someone would be silly, thats the mods job.
no it doesnt mean that!!! it means we can't make a law like : "You can flame the recipient of a CC", but it doesnt mean breaking forum rules is breaking demogame rules!!! you are making an inaccurate and huge link....

no it doesnt mean that!!! it means we can't make a law like : "You can flame the recipient of a CC", but it doesnt mean breaking forum rules is breaking demogame rules!!! you are making an inaccurate and huge link....

I see what you mean (i surender) but would it article that our rules that say "you can have free speach" would be braking our other law that says "laws cant conflict with the CFC forum rules" and the CFC rules say "there is no freedom of speech" anyway this conversation is pointless, we all know that everyone can say what ever they want as long as they dont swear,spam or flame or discuss moderator action.

I have a JR for the court. Don't think that your term is up yet... ;)

Here is Article L of our constitution:

Article L. Commission of any game action by any person other than the
Designated Player while carrying out their duties that is
not instantly reversible without reloading the save is
strictly forbidden.

Does this include previous turnchat saves? For example, in order to help me decide whether or not I wanted to accept my nomination for president, I played turn one of the 1320AD save. We're currently on 1370AD. Does my action still violate Article L? Would me playing 300BC violate this article?

Trying to CC yourself? :lol:

Speaking as a citizen, and looking at the reason the law is there in the first place, I don't think it should be a violation of the law to play an old save -- as long as there is no second action like using the knowledge thus gained.

The main intent of the law is to avoid cheating by gaining knowledge which wouldn't otherwise be available. Playing a sufficiently old save would have very little chance of yielding knowledge which would be useful. There is a secondary reason for not playing old saves, which is to avoid second-guessing ourselves. Also we don't want citizens replaying old saves and using different results as a rallying point for or against political candidates.

My suggestion to the court is to look at this JR as "does the prohibition on playing the save imply the current save, or does it extend beyond the current save? If the ruling is that it extends beyond the current save, I would advise leaving it at that and not trying to define an answer to "how old is old". :D

Trying to CC yourself? :lol:
Just wanting to make sure that everyone knows that I was not trying to do anything illegal on purpose. I could see someone reading my post and thinking that that's illegal, so I skipped steps two and three and went to the end myself. :)

oops, sorry about overlooking regentmans review, I find regentmans request for judicial review has merit and is to be added to the docket as DGVIT4JR4

I do admit that I am quite orthodox with the rules regarding playing the save. Playing an older save is still considered forbidden since you could come up with alternate events that would have happened and thus is a irreversable action.

In this ruling I do agree with the Judge Advocate/ CJ elect, playing any of the previous saves does constitute an action that cannot be reversed and is this illegal. on a personal note , If people did begin playing the old saves then I feel the demogame as a whole would weaken since their would essentially be nothing but playback.

Retracted: Proposal still undergoing discussions

Public Defeneder ruling on Dgvit4jr4

I agree with the ruling of my fellow justices. Playing any save including the old saves, is in clear violation of the constitution.

before I go to work I would like to issue the following ruling
If the proposed poll from CG dealing with a vacant presidency is submitted to this court unchanged within the 24 time period then I find it has merit,

2.If the previous statement is true then I also find it does not contradict the constitution and may proceed to polling assuming it receives judicial approval

well I think the vacant presidency bill needs to be sped up in order to get a president in place as soon as possible. So I am submitting this addition to the COL on CG's behalf


Proposed Poll
Do you approve of the following changes to the Consitution?
Yes/No/Abstain and will run for a maxumum of 96 Hours

Original Text of the current consitution:
5. Vacant Offices
a. An official or Justice may declare themselves to be
Absent for a period of time. This period may not exceed 1
week. During this time, the deputy or pro-tem will act
with all power and duties of that office, surrendering
them to the official or Justice when they return or at
the end of the planned absence, whichever comes first.

b. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3
days in a thread related to their area without prior
notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.

c. If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial matter
for three days, the remaining Justices may declare the
Justice Vacant. If all three Justices fail to post on
any active Judicial matter for 3 days, the President may
declare all Judicial offices Vacant, and immediately
appoint a new Chief Justice.


Proposed Changes/Addition (Changes in Boldface):
5. Vacant Offices
a. An official or Justice may declare themselves to be
Absent for a period of time. This period may not exceed 1
week. During this time, the deputy or pro-tem will act
with all power and duties of that office, surrendering
them to the official or Justice when they return or at
the end of the planned absence, whichever comes first.

b. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3
days in a thread related to their area without prior
notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.

c. If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial matter
for three days, the remaining Justices may declare the
Justice Vacant. If all three Justices fail to post on
any active Judicial matter for 3 days, the President may
declare all Judicial offices Vacant, and immediately
appoint a new Chief Justice.
d. If in the event that the presidential office is vacant,
The chief justice shall nominate a citizen for president.
The candidate that the chief justice nominates shall be
approved by both the public defender and the judge advocate.
[/QUOTE]

I find that above submission has merit and will be added to the docket as DGVIT4JR5

I also rule that the above request does not conflict with the constitution of code of laws in any way and may proceed to polling, assuming this meets judicial approval I would like to ask that the last judiciary member to rule on this proposal post the poll immediately

I would like to thank Mhvarver for placing the proposal up :).
I agree with the current CJ that this new addition does not conflict with the constitution of the CoL.

(Now I just need to get Nobody's butt in here to place his rulling :p )

Yeah i agree that the proposed legislation does not conflict with the constitution.

Good, you finished the ruling prior to the end of the term. Now the poll has to go up before the end, to make sure it can't be argued as being illegal due to the term having expired.

However, we'll be in limbo until the new law is ratified, which will be a couple of days into the next term.

Question to the Court:

Why isn’t each judicial action discussed in a separate thread in the Citizen’s forum? I believe Court Procedures say this may happen if someone requests it; but otherwise it won’t.

The reason I inquire is because I, at least, tend to miss discussions when they take place only in a governmental thread. This is probably my own failing; but I would think if you would like citizen input on matters – and perhaps you don’t – that making discussions more accessible would be useful. It’s also a good way to organize discussions; by confining them only to the Judicial Thread, there can be several different discussions running concurrently, and it can be difficult for the casual reader to sort out which post belongs to which topic.

Thank you for your consideration,

Bertie

Question to the Court:

Why isn’t each judicial action discussed in a separate thread in the Citizen’s forum? I believe Court Procedures say this may happen if someone requests it; but otherwise it won’t.

The reason I inquire is because I, at least, tend to miss discussions when they take place only in a governmental thread. This is probably my own failing; but I would think if you would like citizen input on matters – and perhaps you don’t – that making discussions more accessible would be useful. It’s also a good way to organize discussions; by confining them only to the Judicial Thread, there can be several different discussions running concurrently, and it can be difficult for the casual reader to sort out which post belongs to which topic.

Thank you for your consideration,

Bertie
if you desire a certain JR to be discussed in the citizen forum, post so in the judicial thread and the CJ or other justice will post it, if no one requests it then it won't be posted so we don't clutter up the citizens forum

if you desire a certain JR to be discussed in the citizen forum, post so in the judicial thread and the CJ or other justice will post it, if no one requests it then it won't be posted so we don't clutter up the citizens forum

Thanks, Black_Hole, for the reply. I do understand that someone has to specifically request this in order for it to be posted in the Citizen Forum. The only reason we do this is not to clutter up the citizens' forum?

My motivation behind the question was I completely missed RegentMan's request for a JR, and as it happens I think the court decided this wrongly (DaveShack's comments as a citizen were on the right track, IMO). Had I seen this earlier, I would have commented.

This isn't a big deal to me, but I do think it preferable if all official proceedings receive maximum visability. Under the reasoning of not wanting to clutter up the citizens' forum, every official could hold all discussions only in the official thread for each office; this doesn't promote transparency or citizen involvement. Quite the reverse, actually.

Thanks, Black_Hole, for the reply. I do understand that someone has to specifically request this in order for it to be posted in the Citizen Forum. The only reason we do this is not to clutter up the citizens' forum?

My motivation behind the question was I completely missed RegentMan's request for a JR, and as it happens I think the court decided this wrongly (DaveShack's comments as a citizen were on the right track, IMO). Had I seen this earlier, I would have commented.

This isn't a big deal to me, but I do think it preferable if all official proceedings receive maximum visability. Under the reasoning of not wanting to clutter up the citizens' forum, every official could hold all discussions only in the official thread for each office; this doesn't promote transparency or citizen involvement. Quite the reverse, actually.
well in the past JRs were never really posted in, and at peak judiciary times we can have 5 JRs going on at once, the citizens forum really gets chaotic

In previous DGs we did have separate threads for most if not all judicial proceedings. There were a couple of memorable terms when the bulk of the citizens forum discussions were on judicial matters, completely obscuring the in-game discussions, which led to the current system. It has been bad enough at times (though not lately) that the judiciary would have needed its own subforum. :eek:

Sometimes there are citizen comments before the question is even recognized as a JR. Ideally we would need a friendly mod to gather up the comments on an issue and put them in the discussion thread.

well, It's july 1st so this term is over and I hereby declare the carver court closed :hammer: