Welcome to the Areiopagos*! (http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_law_glossary?page=10&greekEncoding=UnicodeC)!

This is the site of the first term of the DG VII Judiciary. Here, the three Justices resolve any disputes that arise and make sure than any new laws don't conflict with existing ones. We're available to answer any questions you have - just let us know!

The Court:

Chief Justice - Ravensfire
Judge Advocate - Black Hole
Public Defender - mhcarver

The Chief Justice coordinates the efforts of the court, and keeps everything on schedule. They create the Judicial procedures, and make sure that the othe Justices follow them. At the conclusion of each judicial proceding, they create an entry in the Judicial Log summarizing what happened.

The Judge Advocate represents the interests of the State. During investigations, they work with the Public Defender to find evidence and determine if there's a reasonable chance something wrong was done. If there was, the Judge Advocate argues the side of the State in the ensuing trial.

The Public Defender represents the interests of each citizen. During investigations, they work with the Judge Advocate to find evidence and determine if there's a reasonable chance something wrong was done. If there was, the Public Defender argues the side of the accused in the ensuing trial.

During reviews, the Justices work together to discuss the situation. Along with comments from interested citizens, the Justices determine how to interpret sections of the laws that aren't clear. These interpretations are considered part of the law. At the end of each review, the Chief Justice is responsible for making sure that the Judiciary has clearly answered the questions, and put the summary in the Judicial Log.

Thanks!
-- Term 1 Judiciary

* The Areiopagos is one of the oldest courts of Ancient Greece. Rumoured to be originally a homicide court, it was given the power of apophasis, allowing it to investigate any matter involving public security, and present a report on the matter to the ekklesia, or the public assembly.

The Constitution

The Code of Laws

The Judicial Log

The Ruleset FAQ

Judicial Procedures
Common
Rights and Duties of all Citizens
Participate in all Judicial discussions
Request that any Judicial discussion be moved to its own thread in the Citizen's forum
Post requests for Judicial Review of existing law. These requests should contain a specific question and the section of law in question
Post requests for Judicial Review of proposed amendments. This request should contain the exact text to be reviewed and a link to the discussion thread
Post requests for clarification. This is an unofficial question about the rules that does not create a finding, but may lead to a Judicial Review
Post requests for Investigations. This is a request to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. This request must be posted in the Judicial thread. There are no anonymous requests
Shared duties and responsibilities of all Justices
Conduct the business of the court in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner unless otherwise required
Review and discuss any questions about our laws
Review all proposed Amendments to our laws
Review all requested Investigations to determine if there is need
Participate in all Investigations in a fair and impartial manner
Post clear opinions on all questions
Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement
Discuss and ratify these Judicial Procedures
Recuse themself from any Investigation that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the investigation, or as the citizen under investigation.
Rights and Duties of the Chief Justice
Post polls for amendments once they pass review
Post any valid Recall poll
Determine and post the official Census
Oversee all Judicial Proceedings
Maintain the Judicial Log
Appoint all Pro-Tem justices and seek confirmation by the President
Rights and Duties of the Judge Advocate
Post any valid Recall poll if for the Chief Justice
Serve as the Prosecution during any trial of a citizen. In this role, the Judge Advocate need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side
Rights and Duties of the Public Defender
Serve as the Defense during as trial of a citizen, unless requested otherwise by the citizen. In this role, the Public Defender need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side
Judicial Reviews
Judicial Reviews are used to resolve questions of the law and to validate proposed amendments. The opinion of a majority of the Justices will be used to resolve the Judicial Review.

Reviews of existing laws may be requested by anyone. The Chief Justice shall review each request for merit. If the Chief Justice declines the request, the other two Justices may both accept the request, and override the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice will post each accepted request, clearly denoting the questions. After at least 24 hours, each Justice may post their finding. This post should clearly answer the questions as posed by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may request clarification of these findings as needed.

Reviews of proposed law may be requested by anyone. The post must include the proposed law, and a link to the discussion thread. The proposed law must have been conspicuously posted as a proposed poll for at least 24 hours, and the discussion thread open for at least 48 hours. The Justices will review the law for any conflicts with current law, and post their findings. The Chief Justices will post the poll for all proposals that pass Judicial Review.

Investigations
Investigations are used to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. They may be requested by any citizen in a post in the Judicial thread. Except as noted, the Justices must act in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner throughout the process. All citizens are innocent unless determined to be guilty. All evidence, except foreknowledge of the game, must be presented publicly. Evidence of foreknowledge of the game will be reviewed by the Judiciary, and a statement about that evidence posted. Once that evidence becomes irrelevant due to game progress, any citizen may request it to be posted.

At any time during an investigation, the citizen making the request may drop the request, ending the investigation unless another citizen wishes to continue the process. Likewise, the citizen under investigation may accept the charges, and move immediately to the Sentencing phase.

Review
Each requested Investigation will be reviewed by the Judiciary. Justices will gather and look through the evidence presented, including requests for statements from all citizens. If all three Justices determine the request to have No Merit, the basis for that finding will be posted by each Justice and the request is denied. If at least one Justice determines the request to have Merit, a trial on the facts will be conducted. The Judge Advocate will review the request and the relevant law, and determine the specific law the accused citizen is alleged to have violated.

Trial
The Judge Advocate will create a thread for the trial in the Citizen's forum. This initial post should contain the specific violations and the evidence for those accusations. The next two posts are reserved for the citizen accused and the Public Defender - until they post, or 24 hours from the initial post, no other citizen may post in the thread. All citizens are encouraged to post in this thread, but are reminded to respect the rights of all citizens.

Once the at least 48 hours have passed, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

The Trial poll will be a private poll, with the options Innocent, Guilty and Abstain. It will run for 48 hours. The option receiving the most votes will determine the result. In the event of a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the result by posting clear opinions in the Trial thread.

Sentencing
If a citizen under an investigation has accepted the charges, the citizen, the accuser and the Judiciary may determine and assign a sentence if they all unanimously agree to the arrangement. Failure to uphold that arrangement will result in full sentencing poll posted as if the citizen were found guilty in a Trial.

If an arrangement cannot be made, or the citizen was found Guilty, the sentence will be determined by the citizens through a poll. The Chief Justice will post the poll, marked as private with a duration of 48 hours. The options for the poll will include: Suspension from Demogame
Removal from Office (if applicable)
Final Warning
Warning
No Punishment
Abstain
Once the poll closes, the Chief Justice will determine the sentence imposed using cumulative voting. The most severe option that a majority of citizens support will be imposed. If there is a tie, the Judiciary will break the tie through a majority vote, with each vote, and the reasoning, posted in the sentencing poll thread.

Pending Matters (link will go to request post)
DG7JR6 - What happens on a Confirmation Poll if the action has already occurred and is irreversible
DG7JR7 - What does the phrase "majority of citizens" in H.5 mean
Completed Matters (link will go to ruling post)
DG7JR1 - Will a 4-2 vote by the Governors meet the 67% requirement?
DG7JR2 - Is the ability of the Governors to overrule the Assembly in CoL F.2 constitutional?
DG7JR3 - Who names the a city - the first Governor or the Governor when the city is founded?
DG7JR4 - Who controls the actions of workers?
DG7JR5 - Review of Proposed Amendment - CoL F.2

I'd like to welcome all citizens to the Term 1 court!

Welcome also to my fellow Justices Black Hole and mhcarver. Our lovely hilltop has a fine view of the city, nice shade and a handy stream for when debates get heated!

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Excellent, this hill shall serve nicely.
I wish to congratulate ravensfire and mhcarver on their elections, this should be a great term!

Though the rules are still technically being polled, it's a safe bet that they'll pass, and I have a non-urgent review to call regarding two questions I had on them.

1. According to Section F.2 of the CoL:
Section F.2 Declaration of War
To declare a war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will create a normal poll for the House, and a thread poll for the Senate. If more than 50% of the voters, not counting abstain, in both polls support the declaration, war can be declared. If either poll gains a 67% majority in support of war, war may be declared regardless of the other poll.
Would a 4-2 vote in the Senate (or similar two-thirds vote in the Assembly) authorize war regardless of the consent of the other legislative house? In other words, can 2/3 be rounded to 67% for legal purposes, or does "67%" mean slightly greater than 2/3?

2. Is it even constitutional for war to be declared if the Senate votes for it (by a supermajority) while the Assembly votes against it? After all, article J states:
Article J. Will of the Assembly
Elected Officials must plan and act according to the Will of the Assembly. The Will of the Assembly is the aggregate wish of the citizens of our Fanatikos. It is determined by unanimity in a completed discussion, or by the majority vote in an official poll.
Is the Senate, a group of elected officials, subject to the Will of the Assembly in this matter?

From my point of view Question 1 does not have merit, simply because 2/3 is not 67%
2/3 is 66.666 repeating, I believe the idea was slightly more than 2/3; of course I do not rule on merit(based on last games Judicial Procedures)

We also need to get procedures in place before officially reviewing the judicial review.

We also need to get procedures in place before officially reviewing the judicial review.

Almost done with 'em!

-- Ravensfire

From my point of view Question 1 does not have merit, simply because 2/3 is not 67%
2/3 is 66.666 repeating,
That's what he was asking. Since 4/6 is technically 66.66...%, and the constitution requires 67%, does that mean that five senators need to approve?

We intended it to be a 2/3 majority, but Bootstoots found an error with it.

Judicial procedures approved with one edit (changed Refer to Moderators sentence option to Suspension from Demogame).

Text removed to save space ...

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

hmmm in early demogames "Refer to Moderators" was "Suspension from Demogame", I believe it should return to this because thats the only thing mods can do, and keeping it the other term allows mods to basically overrule the citizenry and give no punishment

thats all I noticed....

I agree with BH's reasoning for merit on question one and on a thought about the procedures: shouldn't justices being the subjects of investigation be required to recuse themselves? If not I believe that the potential for a conflict of interest exists since any member could find that charges against themselves have not merit a Judge advocate could not prosecute to the fullest extent and in the event of a tie any member could rule in her or her own favor

Why would question 1 have no merit? Though technically 66.666%... =! 67%, I'm asking for the intent of the law here. Is 67% supposed to mean 2/3, or is it supposed to follow its literal mathematical definition?

Why would question 1 have no merit? Though technically 66.666%... =! 67%, I'm asking for the intent of the law here. Is 67% supposed to mean 2/3, or is it supposed to follow its literal mathematical definition?
because, if it was meant to be 2/3, 2/3 would have been said in the law not 67%, the constitution can't be interpereted to what its intent was...
It clearly says 67% not 2/3, we don't need a JR to find that out

So does that mean we need five senators to vote for war to make it happen?

So does that mean we need five senators to vote for war to make it happen?
yes, 5/6... if that is a problem for anyone start an amendment to change it, but the current law is quite blunt, 67%

A point of order, the esteemed justice Black_Hole is ruling on the substance of the case and not its merit to be heard. The Chief Justice should first determine whether the JR request has merit. Furthermore the JR request had two parts, and the court does not appear to be considering the 2nd part.

I would like to request a Judicial Review of CoL H.2, Designated Player Pool.

Question: Is the President required to allocate play sessions to people in the Designated Player Pool, or is this an optional feature which the President can use or not use according to whether he/she wants to play the turns personally?

To save double posting on this request, I'll just give my opinion here.

Personal observation: As the original source of this idea (or at least one of the original sources) I can state with considerable authority that the intent was for the DP Pool to be optional and that any President would have the authority to play every turnset if so desired. The intent was never to strip the President of this important position, but to provide an alternative which allows those citizens with too little time to play every session a means of being assured that someone is available to take up the slack.

A point of order, the esteemed justice Black_Hole is ruling on the substance of the case and not its merit to be heard. The Chief Justice should first determine whether the JR request has merit. Furthermore the JR request had two parts, and the court does not appear to be considering the 2nd part.
I can't speak for the esteemed Judge Advocate but I have witheld any comment on issue two because I am waiting for the CJ to give his thoughts since he was one of the original framers of this constitution and could help provide perspective to what may end up being a controversial ruling

I was actually giving points why it should have no merit, merit comes when their is a conflict or question in the law, not when someone thinks it should be a different way

if we have to rule on those types of JRs, it will be a very long term

P.S. I approve of the Judicial Procedures

Sorry for the delays in responding - works been overloading.

To business!

The changes suggested by both Black Hole and mhcarver are noted. Specifically, changing a sentence option from "Refer to Moderators" to "Suspension from Demogame". The Judicial Procedures will be posted.

The Areiopagos Court is now in session!

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Requests for Judicial Review

Bootstoots posted a request to review F.2 of the Code of Laws. Can 4 out of 2 Governors meets the 67% requirement in the law.

This request for Judicial Review is found to have Merit. The comment from Black Hole is noted.

Docketed as DG7JR1 Will a 4-2 vote by the Governors meet the 67% requirement?


Bootstoots posted a request to review F.2 of the Code of Laws. Can a super-majority of Governors over-rule a decision by the Assembly when determining if war should be declared. A possible conflict with the Constitution is noted.

The request for Judicial Review is found to have Merit.

Docketed as DG7JR2 Is the ability of the Governors to overrule the Assembly in CoL F.2 constitutional?

Daveshack posted a request to review the allocation of the DP duties to the Designated Player pool (CoL H.2, CoL L.1). Essentially, he's asking how are the DP duties handled - can the President allocated the duties as they desire, including playing all the saves, or must they use the pool.

This request for Judicial Review is found to have No Merit. The rules are clear - the Designated Players for each session come from the DP Pool exclusively. If the DP Pool is empty, the President can have any citizen serve as DP, but so long as there is one citizen in the pool, that is the source for the Designated Players.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Comment on DG7JR1:

I wrote this section, and the intent was for a 4-2 vote to be considered a super-majority. I'm dealing with so many rounding functions at work, that I just tossed in 67% (can't really put a 2/3 discount on a reciept, at least, we can't!). Rounding the 66.6666~ does give you 67%. Regardless of the decision, I would strongly suggest a CoL amendment to change it from 67% to 2/3 majority.

-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatikos

Citizen comment on DG7JR2:

I believe the Senate can overrule the assembly. First, during the discussion this exact scenario was brought up, and was strongly commented on. To paraphrase, it was commented that the Governors have the most direct impact from any conflict, given that most of them control only one city. Second, both the Assembly and the Senate are given the power to declare war in the Constitution. In the CoL, this is given more detail, including the ability for each side to overrule the other.

The Constitution is the framework, the Code of Laws is the structure built on that framework. I don't see a conflict here. It's a supermajority required by either side to overrule. That's a fairly strong check on the power of both sides.

-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatikos

okay, my citizen comments on both JRs that have merit(note, these are not the official rulings, citizens may sway me)
1. Same as above, 2/3 does not equals 67%, a 4 - 2 will not count as 67%
2. This is a tricky one, unfortunatly the article containg the will of the people is in the constitution, meaning it ovverrides the CoL article on declarations of war... So basically The Senators cannot ovveride the public...

Both of these should be fixed by an amendment, heres how:
1. Change 67% to 2/3
2. Move the article on war declaration to the constitution

Whoops - I missed this one prior to posting the accepted procedures. This was from a comment by mhcarver.

Add to the Common duties section for the Judiciary
Recuse themself from any Investigation that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the investigation, or as the citizen under investigation.

Black Hole, mhcarver - let me know if you see a problem with this. Changing procedures after initial acceptance requires unanimous approval. Sorry for missing this, mhcarver, it's a good catch that I dropped.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

I agree to the change

On my moms blackberry now so I'll be brief
Procedured: I approve the changes

1 4/6 is not 67 percent

2. as the Chief Justice(as a citizen) pointed out both the senate and the house of people are given the power to declare war. Because of this a supermajority should be able to override the others. I also would like to point out that it is not against the WOTP for the senate to ovveride the house because the people are the ones who chose the senate, not the other way around.

Greeting Judges,
I would like to file a judical review. The governors get to name citys, and most governors have already named citys. Even though they havent been bulit. The code of law says
Section E.1 City Placement and Naming
Discussions on city placement and names will be lead by the Governor of that city.

But what if this term ends with all five cities being bulit. Who names the city the first Governor or the current (new) governor?

It seems that the Judiciary has been rather quiet for the past 2 1/2 days. Are rulings on JR's 1 and 2 in the works?

It seems that the Judiciary has been rather quiet for the past 2 1/2 days.

Now there's a rarity. ;)

It seems that the Judiciary has been rather quiet for the past 2 1/2 days. Are rulings on JR's 1 and 2 in the works?
well I was hoping for comments from citizens, but since there are none, below is my official ruling:

JR # 1:
A 4-2 vote in the senate does not constitute the 67% required to declare war

JR# 2:
The senate does not have the power to ovveride the citizen(but NOT vice versa), this is because the article giving senators power to do so is in the CoL, which is overuled by the WOTP article in the Constitution

These should both be fixed IMO...

It seems that the Judiciary has been rather quiet for the past 2 1/2 days. Are rulings on JR's 1 and 2 in the works?
With the lack of urgency on those two JR's, I'm waiting for mhcarver to post a rule ruling. I'm pretty much gotten mine typed up, and mostly have the final rulings ready, assuming things stand as they are.

Sorry for the lack of posting - I'm here.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Request for Judicial Review

Nobody posted a request to review E.1 of the Code of Laws. If a city is not built in the term where a discussion on naming that city is held, does the first Governor or the Governor of the city during the term the city was built name the city?

This request for Judicial Review is found to have merit.

Docketed as DG7JR3 Who names the a city - the first Governor or the Governor when the city is founded?

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

I agree to the change

With all justices agreeing to the change, the procedures have been updated.

Justices are now required to recuse themself if they request an investigation or have an investigation concerning them be requested.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Greetings Judiciary! I would like to follow a Judicial Review. Governor DaveShack has been giving orders for the worker. However the constitution says something contrary to this:

The President is responsible for control of the slider, worker allocation and resolving disputes between leaders, such as over use of gold. The President is also responsible for all tasks not assigned to another leader.

Each Governor is responsible for the care, management, and use of cities they control.

As you can see above, the Constitution gives controlling workers to the president, not the governor.

And these are Governor DaveShack's instructions for the next Turnchat:

Worker Actions:

Complete mine (4 turns)
Road current location (3 turns)
Move E to wines (1 turn)
Road wines (3 turns)
Irrigate wines (4 turns)

Production
Warrior (2 turns), Settler (15 but will be less), Warrior, Settler. If this weren't 5CC then after the 1st settler would be a granary and we would have a 4-turn settler pump.

MM
Adjust MM as needed to minimize overruns. Preference for controlling hapieness is wines , MP, lux slider, taxmen, entertainers.


So shouldn't Octavian_X be posting instructions for the worker and all future workers?

Request for Judicial Review

greekguy posted a request to review Article E and F of the Constitution with respect to worker tasks.

This request for Judicial Review is found to have merit.

Docketed as DG7JR4 Who controls the actions of workers?

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Citizen's comment on DG7JR3 Who names the a city - the first Governor or the Governor when the city is founded?

I think it's the Governor when the city is founded. The Governor is given the power to name the city, meaning they have to post that as an instruction in the TCIT. Only current, elected officials can post (or at least, should) post in that thread, giving direction to the DP.

I'd love to see all 5 founded this term, but if that doesn't happen, the governor at the time the city is founded should have the power to name the city.

-- Ravensfire, Citizen

Citizen comment on DG7JR4.

The constitution says the President is responsible for allocation of workers, not use of or instructions for. The specific worker actions fall under care and management of.

If we had two cities, then it would be correct to point out that neither governor has the right to give worker orders unless / until the President allocates a worker to one of them.

Citizen comment on DG7JR3

It makes the most sense to give naming rights to the governor at the time the city is founded. This is especially true because we might not know the surrounding territory in advance. If the 1st term governors don't have their cities built and they still want to name them, they are welcome to run for re-election in term 2. :)

sorry I'm behind but schools starting soon and I've been working my but off on projects

Public Defenders Ruling on DG7JR3

The person who is governor when a city is founded has the exclusive naming rights to the city since to name it they must post instructions in the TCIT and that cannot be done unless the city is going to be built.

ruling on 4 to come later today

Judge Advocate Ruling on JR #3
The governor that posts the instructsion for where to settle a city also decides on the name of that city.

Citizen Comment on DG7JR4

I think DaveShack has the right idea. The President should be able to allocate workers to certain governors depending on their needs and requests, while the governor should be responsible for the specific improvement, as it is the governor who should know what needs to be done, while it is the President who should know which has national priority. I'd also add, though, that the President should retain the right to use that power of allocation for national, inter-city projects (i.e. a road to connect cities, a new road and colony, or a road to a foreign nation).

Incidentally, should this judicial review turn out in favor of my position, I'd also propose a new naming system for workers, in which each is numbered sequentially as it is built. My thought is that this would make the allocation process much easier.

just to clarify my rulings on JR's 1 and two are on a previously edited post earlier in the thread,

Ruling on DG7JR1

Question: Will a 4-2 vote by the Governors meet the 67% requirement in CoL F.2?

Citizen Comments: Thanks to RegentMan, Bootstoots for their comments

Ruling: No. A strict 67% standard is to be used.

Explanation: The arguement put forth are persuasive - the requirement, although not the intent of the idea is clearly stated to be 67%. A 4-2 majority is 66.66~%, and does not meet the 67% requirement.


Ruling on DG7JR2

Question: Is the ability of the Governors to overrule the Assembly in CoL F.2 constitutional?

Citizen Comments: None

Ruling: Yes, the ability of the Governors to overrule the Assembly is Constitutional.

Explanation: The conflict here is the Will of the People Clause vs the Declaration of War clause. Delcaring war is a difficult decision, especially given a 5BC variant. The ability of our core cities to support a war is even more paramount. A hasty war could savage our nation, likewise ignoring a viable war could limit our potential. As such, a check on such power given to the Assembly and the Governors makes sense, and improves our nation. Those presenting arguements on one side or another in a DoW debate will have to use reasoning and logic, not calls to emotion to persuade both houses.

Ruling on DG7JR3

Question: Who names the a city - the first Governor or the Governor when the city is founded?

Citizen Comments: Thanks to DaveShack for his comments.

Ruling: The governor when the city is founded names the city.

Explanation: A city is named when it is founded by the Designated Player. The instructions for that turn chat must include the name of the city. Only the instructions posted by elected officials are considered valid and binding on the DP. All of this makes it quite clear that the Governor at the time the city is founded will name the city.

Ruling on DG7JR4

Question: Who controls the actions of workers?

Citizen Comments: Thanks to DaveShack and Octavian X for their comments.

Ruling: The Governor of the city controls the action of workers allocated to them.

Explanation: Looking at the Constitution, the President is responsible for "... worker allocation ...". Governors are responsible for "..., management, and use of cities they control." This seems fairly clear. The President determineshow many workers will be available to each Govenor and for National projects (rail line, etc). Governors determine the actions and the priority of those actions for the tiles used by their cities.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Judicial Rulings

DG7JR1 - Will a 4-2 vote by the Governors meet the 67% requirement in CoL F.2?

Ruling: By a 3-0 decision, a strict standard of 67% is to be used. A 4-2 vote is a 66.66~%, and does not meet the standard required in CoL F.2.

DG7JR2 - Is the ability of the Governors to overrule the Assembly in CoL F.2 Constitutional?

Ruling: By a 2-1 decision, the ability of Governors to overrule the Assembly in CoL F.2 is Constitutional. The Chief Justice and the Public Defender voted for, with the Judge Advocate voting against.

DG7JR3 - Who names the a city - the first Governor or the Governor when the city is founded?

Ruling: By a 3-0 decision, the Governor when the city is founded names the city.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Judge Advocate Ruling on JR#4
The Governor shall be responsible for workers allocated to them, while the President decides how many workers are given to each governor.

I have my own judicial review for you lovely people.

Here is Section H.2 of the code of laws:
Section H.2 Designated Player Pool
During each regular election cycle, a separate thread will be created during the nomination process for DP Candidates. Any citizen that wishes to be a DP must post in this thread. When the election polls are posted, a separate poll, in multi-choice format, listing each candidate will be posted. Citizens will vote their approval for a candidate by selecting their name.

A citizen may run for an elected office and apply to be a DP in the same term. The DP Pool does not count as an elected office.

Each candidate that receives a vote from more than ½ of the citizens that vote in the poll will be accepted as a DP for that term. The Election Office will put together a list of the Designated Players, ordered by the number of votes in support for that term. In the event of a tie, the order of posting in the nomination thread will be used. All DP’s that actually ran a game session in the previous term will be put below those that did not, regardless of the number of votes. This list will determine the order that the DP’s will be used for game sessions. If there are more game sessions that DP’s, start again from the top of the list.

Should the DP pool be empty, the President is responsible for determining who will be the DP for each game session, using any citizen of Fanatikos to serve as DP.

Members of the DP pool may exchange places as they desire, so long as all citizens involved agree.
1. Does that mean that if a term is over before the list is up, the remaining DPs are out of luck? Do they automatically head the next term's list?

2. Do special zero turn trade chats count as a DP's playing session?

Question #1 is very simple and should have no merit IMO:
Each candidate that receives a vote from more than ½ of the citizens that vote in the poll will be accepted as a DP for that term.
If elected again, they will go above people that played a session the previous term

From the Office of the Judge Advocate
A PM complaint has been sent to admiral-bell because of his violation of Article D.1 of the CoL:
Section D.1 Freedom of Information
All elected officials will create an official thread. This thread will be used to provide updates to the citizens about their office. The information in this thread should updated frequently in order to accurately reflect the current game situation.

He has yet to post an official government thread as Governor of City #5

He has yet to post an official government thread as Governor of City #5

Do you relise that there is not 5 citys yet, what would he post there? he can't even give a title to the thread.

Public Defenders ruling on DG7JR4
The Governor of the city is responsible for the workers allocated to them by the president

On the matter of Admiral Bell as a citizen I would like to request a Judicial review:
Does section D1 of the constitution require that governor's of cities yet to be built set up threads?

Do you relise that there is not 5 citys yet, what would he post there? he can't even give a title to the thread.
On the matter of Admiral Bell as a citizen I would like to request a Judicial review:
Does section D1 of the constitution require that governor's of cities yet to be built set up threads?

He is still an elected official, of which all need to post a thread, there weren't any exceptions in the law.

He is still an elected official, of which all need to post a thread, there weren't any exceptions in the law.

It looks like admiral-bell has complied (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=126599) with this silly law, so as a citizen I would like to see this matter dropped.

If we are going to crack down on premature governors, shouldn't we put a gag order on all references to premature city names? These include the unofficially named city threads in the Government forum, as well as any references to illegal city names in the Citizens Forum. These threads actually go against a ruling from the court and nothing seems to be getting done about those.

This is not a request for a Judicial Review, as a ruling has already been made. But who is going to enforce this ruling against the premature governors of Civatonia, Styx and the Augean Stables? :confused:

I thought the city names were garunteed. :confused: (i.e., if you're governor #3, you get city #3). Aren't they just like the provincial threads of old? So, why aren't those allowed, and yet, the expatriate thread must be there? :confused:

(Sometimes I think the demogame is a conspiracy to confuse me. :p )

I thought the city names were garunteed. :confused: (i.e., if you're governor #3, you get city #3). Aren't they just like the provincial threads of old? So, why aren't those allowed, and yet, the expatriate thread must be there? :confused:

(Sometimes I think the demogame is a conspiracy to confuse me. :p )

CT, the Judiciary recently ruled that cities will be named by the Governor in power when the city is founded, so more than likely you are off the hook. Didn't mean to confuse you, or scare you for that matter. :)

I have been in silent opposition of the premature governor law from the start, and am finally addressing it now that it is not being handled with consistency.

It looks like admiral-bell has complied (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=126599) with this silly law, so as a citizen I would like to see this matter dropped.

If we are going to crack down on premature governors, shouldn't we put a gag order on all references to premature city names? These include the unofficially named city threads in the Government forum, as well as any references to illegal city names in the Citizens Forum. These threads actually go against a ruling from the court and nothing seems to be getting done about those.

This is not a request for a Judicial Review, as a ruling has already been made. But who is going to enforce this ruling against the premature governors of Civatonia, Styx and the Augean Stables? :confused:
first off, I am just wishing for everyone to comply with the law, which is my legal responsibility
now technically the cities have yet to be named, as they haven't been built(except Olympus), so the elected officials can name their threads whatever they want... there is no city, thus no city name, just the name in a threads title

edit: and yes, I did notice he complied shortly after i requested it

Question #1 is very simple and should have no merit IMO:

Each candidate that receives a vote from more than ½ of the citizens that vote in the poll will be accepted as a DP for that term.

If elected again, they will go above people that played a session the previous term
But it says nothing of what happens if they don't get to play. We can only assume that they're out of luck.

I want to amend Section F.2 of the code of laws. The discussion thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=125974) has been opened for the minimum 24/48 hour mark.

Here's how it stands now:
Section F.2 Declaration of War
To declare a war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will create a normal poll for the House, and a thread poll for the Senate. If more than 50% of the voters, not counting abstain, in both polls support the declaration, war can be declared. If either poll gains a 67% majority in support of war, war may be declared regardless of the other poll.

I wish to change the 67% majority to a 2/3 majority. That was the way it was originally intended to be, but rounding has made this technically not the case.

Changes are in bold and italics.
Section F.2 Declaration of War
To declare a war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will create a normal poll for the House, and a thread poll for the Senate. If more than 50% of the voters, not counting abstain, in both polls support the declaration, war can be declared. If either poll gains a two-thirds majority in support of war, war may be declared regardless of the other poll.

Do you approve? Options will be:
Yes
No
Abstain

But it says nothing of what happens if they don't get to play. We can only assume that they're out of luck.
the article says they are DPs for that term
however if they get reelected they are put at the top of the list

It's not so much those that don't play are put to the top of the list for the next term, more like those that do play are put to the bottom of the list. Otherwise the order is in the number of votes received. This all of course assumes that they are re-elected to the DP pool. If they don't play and are not re-elected then they are just out of luck, just like the governors who do not get a city founded.

It's not so much those that don't play are put to the top of the list for the next term, more like those that do play are put to the bottom of the list. Otherwise the order is in the number of votes received. This all of course assumes that they are re-elected to the DP pool. If they don't play and are not re-elected then they are just out of luck, just like the governors who do not get a city founded.
exactly :goodjob:

If they don't play and are not re-elected then they are just out of luck, just like the governors who do not get a city founded.
That's what I was looking for. I withdraw my first question, but do still maintain my second.

DG7JR4 - Who controls the actions of workers?

Ruling: By a 3-0 decision, Governors may assign tasks to those workers allocated to them by the President.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Requests for Judicial Review

RegentMan posted a request to review H.2 of the Code of Laws. Do citizen's in the DP Pool that don't get a chance to play go into the next term's pool?

This request for Judicial Review is found to have No Merit. Section H.2 of the Code of Laws is clear on this point - "Each candidate that receives a vote from more than ½ of the citizens that vote in the poll will be accepted as a DP for that term." Citizen's in the DP Pool that do not play in that term do not automatically go into the next term's pool. They must apply and receive enough support from the Assembly.

RegentMan posted a request to review H.2 of the Code of Laws. Do special, zero-turn chats count as a DP's playing session?

This request for Judicial Review is found to have No Merit. Article L of the Constitution is clear on this point - "A special session to accomplish a specific, short goal may be held by the President ..." Special sessions are run by the President.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

That's what I was looking for. I withdraw my first question, but do still maintain my second.

I hope you don't mind if I toss 'em out! ;) So you know - the first version of the message did find merit, until I happened to think about looking in the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire

I hope you don't mind if I toss 'em out! ;) So you know - the first version of the message did find merit, until I happened to think about looking in the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire
Meh, they were answered. Tossed out or not, I'm happy. :)

It looks like admiral-bell has complied (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=126599) with this silly law, so as a citizen I would like to see this matter dropped.

If we are going to crack down on premature governors, shouldn't we put a gag order on all references to premature city names? These include the unofficially named city threads in the Government forum, as well as any references to illegal city names in the Citizens Forum. These threads actually go against a ruling from the court and nothing seems to be getting done about those.

This is not a request for a Judicial Review, as a ruling has already been made. But who is going to enforce this ruling against the premature governors of Civatonia, Styx and the Augean Stables? :confused:

I'm not going to disagree that there are "silly" parts to this situation. The flip side, of course, is equally silly. Trying to appoint multiple governors in one term - that's just as bad.

We're almost certainly going to found a city next turn chat, and possibly found 1 or 2 more this term. The focus is on those cities, the 5 that we found. We're giving those Governors more control than ever before. So yes, elect them. All of them. Elect them up front, and let THEM drive discussions about THEIR cities. Where to found it, what to name it. I'd rather have too many discussions than not enough. At that point, this discussion is entirely moot.

Do I consider this matter dropped? I do. I'm certainly NOT going to halt "premature" discussions. Why? With some luck, they won't be. We're founding city two this game session, and have a chance at getting one or two more founded this term. I would have loved to have seen them all, but knew that was a risk.

-- Ravensfire

I want to amend Section F.2 of the code of laws. The discussion thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=125974) has been opened for the minimum 24/48 hour mark.


Do this for me: "Amendments to the Code of Laws must be posted as a Proposed Poll in the discussion thread for at least 24 hours prior to submission to the Judiciary."

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Does the proposed poll in the first post of that thread count? It states:
Do you approve? Options will be:
Yes
No
Abstain

Does the proposed poll in the first post of that thread count? It states:

Personally, I'm going to say no. The idea of starting the discussion with a proposed poll just sets wrong with me. There isn't any discussion, and the clock already starts. I also like to see the phrase "Proposed Poll" in there - something concrete. Basically, though, that post does have everything else.

Black_Hole, mhcarver - thoughts?

-- Ravensfire

well it says it must be posted in the discussion thread, not be the discussion thread...
I would just repost it

I'm not going to disagree that there are "silly" parts to this situation. The flip side, of course, is equally silly. Trying to appoint multiple governors in one term - that's just as bad.

We're almost certainly going to found a city next turn chat, and possibly found 1 or 2 more this term. The focus is on those cities, the 5 that we found. We're giving those Governors more control than ever before. So yes, elect them. All of them. Elect them up front, and let THEM drive discussions about THEIR cities. Where to found it, what to name it. I'd rather have too many discussions than not enough. At that point, this discussion is entirely moot.

Do I consider this matter dropped? I do. I'm certainly NOT going to halt "premature" discussions. Why? With some luck, they won't be. We're founding city two this game session, and have a chance at getting one or two more founded this term. I would have loved to have seen them all, but knew that was a risk.

-- Ravensfire

Thanks for the response, Ravensfire. The "silly" part was addressed mostly to forcing the fifth governor to open a thread, but as Black_Hole noted: that is the law.

As long as these governors know that the name of their city is not a foregone conclusion until it is founded, then we are cool. But after reading their sponsored threads, I tend to think otherwise.

C'est la vie. I just decided to rant to make it a bit interesting. Things are a bit too "Kumbaya" for my tastes this time out, so I have to find my issues where I can. ;)

I'm so confused... I saw Black_Hole say repost, so I'm reposting my request...

I want to amend Section F.2 of the code of laws. The discussion thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=125974) has been opened for the minimum 24/48 hour mark and the proposed poll has been opened for the minimum 24 hour mark.

Here's how it stands now:
Section F.2 Declaration of War
To declare a war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will create a normal poll for the House, and a thread poll for the Senate. If more than 50% of the voters, not counting abstain, in both polls support the declaration, war can be declared. If either poll gains a 67% majority in support of war, war may be declared regardless of the other poll.

I wish to change the 67% majority to a 2/3 majority. That was the way it was originally intended to be, but rounding has made this technically not the case.

Changes are in bold and italics.
Section F.2 Declaration of War
To declare a war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will create a normal poll for the House, and a thread poll for the Senate. If more than 50% of the voters, not counting abstain, in both polls support the declaration, war can be declared. If either poll gains a two-thirds majority in support of war, war may be declared regardless of the other poll.

Do you approve? Options will be:
Yes
No
Abstain

When will they post the polls?

I'm so confused... I saw Black_Hole say repost, so I'm reposting my request...

I want to amend Section F.2 of the code of laws. The discussion thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=125974) has been opened for the minimum 24/48 hour mark and the proposed poll has been opened for the minimum 24 hour mark.

Here's how it stands now:


I wish to change the 67% majority to a 2/3 majority. That was the way it was originally intended to be, but rounding has made this technically not the case.

Changes are in bold and italics.


Do you approve? Options will be:
Yes
No
Abstain

repost as in repost in the thread at the end, which ravensfire did for you, now we can rule on it

Okay. :thanx:

DG7JR5 - Review of Proposed Amendment - CoL F.2

Having reviewed the changes, I find no conflict in the proposal with current law. I recommend that these changes be presented to the Assembly.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

I find the the proposed law does not conflict with any current law and should be forworded to the people.

P.S. ravensfire your title above your avatar still says public defender ;)

I find the propose amendment does not conflict with the constitution in any way

With all members of the Judiciary having posted on DG7JR5 - Review of Proposed Changes to CoL F.2, those changes are found to not conflict with existing law.

A poll for the amendment has been posted here.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

I would like to request a judicial review. Section H.5 of the constitution relates to confirmation polls, and states: When the poll closes, if the majority of citizens, not including abstain, voted No, the action is overturned. Any other result confirms the action. I have two questions:

What happens if the action has already occurred (eg a battle has already been fought or a city built)?

Does the majority of citizens clause refer to all citizens registered, all active citizens (at the last census) or all citizens who voted in the confirmation poll?

Thank you in advance

I would like to request a judicial review. Section H.5 of the constitution relates to confirmation polls, and states:I have two questions:

What happens if the action has already occurred (eg a battle has already been fought or a city built)?

Does the majority of citizens clause refer to all citizens registered, all active citizens (at the last census) or all citizens who voted in the confirmation poll?

Thank you in advance

I'm not too sure about the first, but I'll comment on the second:

Article A of the Constitution declares:


Article A. Citizenship
All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of our country, and members of the Assembly.


This would seem that "all citizens" would be "all those who registered in the Citizen Registry", rather than all citizens who voted in the poll. Confirmation Polls do not have a simple majority voter turnout requirement, unlike some other polls (e.g. Recall Poll), which could lead to a situation where a majority vote is ignored (see below). However, a Declaration of War poll also does not have a simple majority voter turnout requirement, but has protection against such a case (formatting is mine):


Section F.2 Declaration of War
To declare a war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will create a normal poll for the House, and a thread poll for the Senate. If more than 50% of the voters, not counting abstain, in both polls support the declaration, war can be declared. If either poll gains a 67% majority in support of war, war may be declared regardless of the other poll.


The ambiguity in a Confirmation Poll could lead to a situation where a necessary majority of those who voted pass the vote, but where the vote still fails due to not having enough citizen votes. A Declaration of War poll, however, won’t have this problem because it explicitly declares that the ‘Yea’ votes would be compared to the total voters rather than total citizens. The approach in F.2 (Declaration of War) works well, as it removes the possibility of a situation described above occurring. I would thus recommend it be considered whether a similar approach could be used to solve any potential ambiguities that the Confirmation Poll law may give.

Sorry all - had an unexpected weekend away. I'll catch up immediately.

-- Ravensfire

Requests for Judicial Review

Civman2004 posted two requests to review section H.5 of the Code of Laws (mis-identified in the request).

His first request: What happens if the action has already occurred (eg a battle has already been fought or a city built)?

This request is found to have merit.

Docketed as DG7JR6 - What happens on a Confirmation Poll if the action has already occurred and is irreversible

His second request: Does the majority of citizens clause refer to all citizens registered, all active citizens (at the last census) or all citizens who voted in the confirmation poll?

This request is found to have merit.

Docketed as DG7JR7 - What does the phrase "majority of citizens" in H.5 mean

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Citizen comments on DG7JR6:

In large part, this is a hypothetical request. Confirmation polls are explicitly limited to "where permitted by law". That's two situations right now - appointment to fill a vacancy and the structure of a game session. The former doesn't have a time period, so I'll ignore it and focus on the latter.

A confirmation poll is a way for any citizen to challenge certain, unilateral decisions taken by another citizen. It's a check on the use of a specific power. It's also designed to be fairly quick and responsive in use - use within 24 hours of the action and run for 2 days.

There is a presumption built into the Confirmation Polls that the action will be approved. If the action takes place before the poll closes, that presumption must take precedence - no poll is final until it closes. I suggest that means that taking an action renders the Confirmation Poll for that action moot if that action is irreversible and happens before the poll closes. Now, using that against somebody in an subsequent election is fair game.

Citizen comments on DG7JR7:

Easy - it refers to the citizens that voted in that poll.

-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatikos

Now that the ammendment to COL F.2 has passed, I've updated my formatted version and will ask a Mod to put it in the Constitution thread.

I completely agree with rf, but won't formally rule until I hear from some citizens

Now that the ammendment to COL F.2 has passed, I've updated my formatted version and will ask a Mod to put it in the Constitution thread.

Wonderful! Thanks again for the effort on that, Furiey!

-- Ravensfire

Citizen comments on JR's 6 and 7.

On JR6, a confirmation poll (or perhaps more correctly named protest poll) must be opened early enough for it to close prior to the action it is protesting, or the chance to affect that event is lost. This is very clear in the law and it is also common sense that we can't be expected to hold up the game for a last-minute challenge. To allow such a challenge would open the door for malicious road blocks.

On JR7, the only time a percentage of the entire population (or of a specific body) is ever required is when a quorum is explicitly stated. This is not only common practice in the DemoGame, but just about everywhere people vote on anything.

Here are my citizen comments:

On JR 6, the relevant law is as follows:
Section H.5 Confirmation Polls
A confirmation poll is used, where permitted by law, to give citizens the opportunity to challenge certain actions. If a challenge poll does not exist for such an action, any citizen may create such a poll. This poll must be created within 24 hours of the action, should ask “Do you approve of <description of action”>, contain Yes, No and Abstain options, and run for 2 days. If the action concerns a citizen, the poll must be marked private. Otherwise, it must be marked public. When the poll closes, if the majority of citizens, not including abstain, voted No, the action is overturned. Any other result confirms the action.The way this article is worded, it sounds like any action already taken could be overruled as well. However, if the action is irreversible, this is obviously impossible. Though it could be ruled that a DP must either postpone the game session or risk being held responsible for a decision that was later overturned, this is obviously impractical and could result in the game being held up for malicious reasons. If I were on the court, I would probably rule that the confirmation poll must have closed by the time the action is to be taken in order to be binding. However, this leaves much to be desired. A leader could theoretically get away with posting something unpopular less than 48 hours from the deadline, and the citizenry could do nothing about it, as far as I can tell (other than not vote for that official in the next election cycle). Therefore, I'd also add a provision to the ruling that if the confirmation poll has not finished before the start of the gameplay session, the DP may choose to ignore the instruction even though it hasn't finished. If, however, the confirmation poll ends with a majority supporting the action, the DP could be subject to a CC for not following the instruction. On the other hand, if the poll closes with a majority opposing the action, the DP is immune to prosecution because the Will of the Assembly, as expressed in the poll, is for the action not to take place, thus overruling the official who posted the instruction. This way, if a leader posts something ridiculous (i.e. "raze City X"), the instruction could be ignored as long as it was later overturned in a valid poll.

JR 7 is fairly obvious. The very clear intent of the law is for "citizen" to mean "citizen who voted in the poll." Only a very strict constructionist could possibly rule otherwise.

JR 7 is fairly obvious. The very clear intent of the law is for "citizen" to mean "citizen who voted in the poll." Only a very strict constructionist could possibly rule otherwise.
You mean a lawyer? :mischief:

I agree. Thank you all for your prompt consideration.

Now my comments on JR 6:

This looks to be clearly written to undo an action made prior to even posting the poll. If officials make a controversial call in their actions for a TC, a poll could theoretically only get them to undo their actions of posting their instruction post. If the TC already happened and the actions done, well, they can't be undone.

If a problem occurs where an action can't be undone and it was largely disapproved, I believe that it's up to the citizens to demand a full explanation, and possibly warrent the punishment of those responsible.

If the mistake is so grave and absolutly horrific (say razing one of our first five cities for no reason) , I would hope that the DP would end the turnchat, even if not one turn is accomplished. The Code of Law declares that a DP may end the TC at any time, and while it shows a list of actions that could cause the end of the TC, this list is purposefully incomplete. This, however, is of course of an unthinkable oversight happening, but there are already guards in place of it's event.

So in summary, no need to change the law. If the poll shows majority didn't like an undoable action, I would hope that it would serve as grounds for the initiation of recalling that official.

I've seen several posts on JR6 which seem to have missed a critical point. Confirmation polls must be enabled for a kind of action before they apply to that kind of action. To quote the illustrious Chief Justice:


In large part, this is a hypothetical request. Confirmation polls are explicitly limited to "where permitted by law". That's two situations right now - appointment to fill a vacancy and the structure of a game session. The former doesn't have a time period, so I'll ignore it and focus on the latter.


Let's say that again. The only actions which can be challenged by a confirmation polls are appointments and game session structure.

What does this mean in real terms? Appointments have received so little interest this game that they are not worth mentioning. Therefore what other use does a confirmation poll have?

If someone schedules an on-line play session (chat), an anti-chat person could post a confirmation poll. If 2/3 voting say NO, then the chat is cancelled and the play session must be offline.

Likewise, if someone schedule an offline session, a chat supporter can force a confirmation poll, and 2/3 would have to vote NO to force the session to be played online.

These (online vs offline, and appointments) are the only things you can challenge with a confirmation poll.

Now, on the timeframe question... A game session must be scheduled 3 days in advance. The confirmation poll must be posted less than 24 hours after the session is scheduled, to be valid. The confirmation poll must be open 2 days. This means a valid confirmation poll must close before the play session is scheduled to begin -- if it closes after the play session then by definition it is invalid.

I agree with DaveShack's last post, however the timescales for the confirmation poll and the requirement that the TCIT goes up only 2 days before the scheduled session, with no requrement for advanced planning means that if the TCIT were posted at the last moment (as they often have been this term) it would not be possible to get up a confirmation poll which closed before the session took place. In this case the timescales for the confirmation poll seem to have been written for when the TCIT was required to be up 3 days before the next session not 2.

shh.... that was the ace in the hole to make sure we never have a valid confirmation poll... :mischief:

due to time constraints , the fact that the term ends in a few hours, and that their is a new public defender elect I am deffering the public defenders ruling to the next court. It has been an honor to serve in the judiciary this term and I hope to return in the future
-mhcarver

As the Public Defender is deffering rulings, I will too as there is no use in me ruling. Thank-You ravensfire and mhcarver for a great term!

<gavel>BANG!</gavel>

As Chief Justice of Fanatikos for Term 1, I hereby declare this Court adjourned!

I thank all citizens that participated in this session, and my fellow justices. All accomplished this term is due to your wisdom, willingness and patience.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Oops - wrong thread!

-- Ravensfire

Oops - wrong thread again!

-- Ravensfire

Wrong thread as well........sorry!