Welcome to the Dikastic* court!

This is the site of the second 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 - Strider
Public Defender - bootstoots

Term 1 Court - The Areiopagos

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 2 Judiciary

* Solon was second of the two original law givers for Ancient Greece. The first, Dracos, created a harsh system of law, where death was a common punishment. His name is now the root of Draconian. Solon threw out many of Dracos' laws, keeping only the punishment for homicide as exile. His laws went far beyond criminal law, creating standards for buildings, civil law, marriages.

Several hundred years later, the Dikastic was formed. This court succeeded the Areiopagos, and was run by the ephetai, a group of about 50 citizens. These courts tried all matters of law.

Scrolls of Knowledge

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
Other options may be included through unanimous consent of the Judiciary.

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 of the options tied, with each vote, and the reasoning, posted in the sentencing poll thread.

Term II Docket

Pending Matters (link will go to request post)
None
Completed Matters (link will go to ruling 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
DG7JR8 - How is Article C of the Constitution to be interpreted - is it 1 city per civ, or a total of 7 captured cities, regardless of the civ we capture them from.
DG7CC1 - Donovan Zoi
DG7JR9 – May the President issue legal instructions if a leader posts incomplete instructions?

Deleted - contained the proposed Judicial Procedures. Copying without change to the Scrolls of Knowledge thread.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Original post
I would like to request a judicial review. Section H.5 of the constitution relates to confirmation polls, and states:Originally Posted by Constitution Section H.5
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'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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:Originally Posted by ravensfire
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:

<Gavel> BANG! </gavel>

I hereby declare the Term II Judiciary now in session! The honorable Ravensfire, Strider and Bootstoots presiding.

All ye with business for the court, come now before your fellow citizens and present your case. Be swift with words, open of mind and willing of spirit!

Welcome to the new member of the Court, Judge Advocate Strider and Public Defender Bootstoots!

The Court recognizes that the matter docketed as DG7JR6 and DG7JR7 by the previous Court were not completed. This Court recognizes and accepts those requests, and dockets them under the same number. The original request, and all citizen comments have been transferred over. The clock for rulings has, however, restarted. Justices, please refrain from posting rulings for 24 hours. Your comments as citizens are, of course, more than welcome!

In addition, the proposed Judicial Procedures are posted - please review them, comment and approve/disapprove.

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

I've reviewed the proposed procedures and they look good to me. One minor quibble: if cumulative voting is used, a tie for severity of punishment in a sentencing poll is impossible, so the section about the Judiciary deciding punishment in that case should be stricken out.

Other than that though, I approve these procedures.

I am currently preparing my rulings on the current Judicial Reviews, and they will be posted sometime tommorow.

I've reviewed the proposed procedures and they look good to me. One minor quibble: if cumulative voting is used, a tie for severity of punishment in a sentencing poll is impossible, so the section about the Judiciary deciding punishment in that case should be stricken out.

Other than that though, I approve these procedures.

Probably right, but rather than take a chance that there is a scenario - I'm just going to leave it in.

Strider - thoughts on the procedures?

-- Ravensfire

I'll accept the procedures, with the understanding that I might ask for a change or two sometime or another. Excellent framework, Very good organization, and covers almost everything I could think of (at this moment anyway).

Sorry for the late reply, some unexpected things came up.

Anyway, onto the Judicial Reviews:

DG7JR7:
It should refer to the number of active citizens, or the census. While, based on Gerikes comments, it does seem that this does refer to the total number of registered citizens, I'm hoping this was just a mess-up. So, yeah, technically I should be ruling that it refers to the total number of citizens registered, however, this will force us to then amend the law for then we can actually use it. I'm going to save us the headache and un-needed paperwork. As such, I rule that it does refer to the most recent census.

Also, if the other justices agree with my ruling, I wonder if it would be possible to change the wording of this amendment to eliminate any other possible misunderstandings.

DG7JR6:
Now, while I agree with much of Bootstoots comments earlier on this issue, I'm afraid that it would take an amendment to make much of that possible. These "confirmation" polls lack the flexibility, detail, and finesse that they should. However, in regard to the orginal question asked, I rule that a confirmation poll must have closed (or finished) before the action in question has been initiated.

However, this law does lack much, and we should amend it immediantly.

Okay, here are my rulings:

On DG7JR6, I will retract my previous citizen comment. I missed the "where permitted by law" phrase in section H.5. The law only notes two places where confirmation polls may be used: for appointments and for whether or not a game session may be played offline. Appointments, of course, are not an irreversible action, so this review applies only to the structure of a game play session. As the poll must run for 2 days according to H.5, any data before that 2 day limit is not legally binding. Therefore, the poll must have finished before the start of the game play session to be valid, though a DP may voluntarily choose to switch a gameplay session to online if a confirmation poll is failing (this, however, is strictly voluntary).

On DG7JR7, I will stick to my previous opinion that the article refers to a majority of citizens who voted in the poll, not all citizens of Fanatikos nor the number of citizens in the census. There is no reason to believe that the intent of the law is to require a majority of all citizens in Fanatikos to vote no in a 2-day poll in order for an action to fail a confirmation poll (which would be much harder to accomplish than the Constitutional amendment requirement), nor that it would require a majority of the census, which would have been explicitly mentioned if the law had been intended to require that. As such, a majority of the citizens who voted in the confirmation poll must cast a no vote in order to overturn a decision.

nor that it would require a majority of the census, which would have been explicitly mentioned if the law had been intended to require that. As such, a majority of the citizens who voted in the confirmation poll must cast a no vote in order to overturn a decision.

The census was put in place (orginally) for exactly these types of polls. People kept posting polls during holidays, or other times when few people could vote. As such, you had a dozen people making a decision for 40.

Mr. Members of the Judiciary,


All of us may seem to be informed of the recent attempt of putsch made by mr. M4 Sherman in the President Office thread and in a separate thread opened in the forum, now all erased for the sake of a healthy Fanatikos. My question is: will the Judiciary act according to the law, will it punish M4 Sherman? Will there be any intervention?

Gratefully,

Civlord

The census was put in place (orginally) for exactly these types of polls. People kept posting polls during holidays, or other times when few people could vote. As such, you had a dozen people making a decision for 40.

Your logic is backwards, as it takes a no vote to overturn the action. For this kind of poll you want a lower threshold, or it will make it harder to overturn actions.

If a confirmation poll was really for confirmation, requiring a majority yes vote then your logic would be correct. :)

My question is: will the Judiciary act according to the law, will it punish M4 Sherman? Will there be any intervention?
Moderator Chieftess has already taken care of that.

hmm... So, what about that whole stuff of Public Defender and Judge Advocate? The Public Defender defends a citizen, isn't it?

Your logic is backwards, as it takes a no vote to overturn the action. For this kind of poll you want a lower threshold, or it will make it harder to overturn actions.

If a confirmation poll was really for confirmation, requiring a majority yes vote then your logic would be correct. :)

No, you don't want a lower threshold, for the exact reason I stated. So, if I don't like an action, I can post a confirmation poll and get 5 people who I know will vote for whatever I'd ask them to, to vote with me. Generally speaking, only about a dozen people check these forums everyday. I then go about making posts inside of the other polls, knocking my confirmation poll down the forum, and helping it escape notice.

If 9 people vote total, and 6 of those are me and my buds, then it's going to overturn the action. Regardless of what the majority thinks.

If you want to open it up to abuse, then be my guess. I'll be perfectly happy to use it to my advantage, as you guys seem to think it's legal.

Also, you shouldn't want actions to be overturned, and they should only be overturned in the most drastic of situtations. Overturning an action would cause un-needed divison and anger.

hmm... So, what about that whole stuff of Public Defender and Judge Advocate? The Public Defender defends a citizen, isn't it?
The public defender defends the accused in a trial. The accused might be a DP who disbanded three of our cities or rushed a temple when the governor asked for a hoplite. Forum stuff that violates forum rules is handled by the moderators. Our demogame laws are diddly squat to the forum's.

Thanks, RegentMan! Anyway, that was pathetic...

Also, you shouldn't want actions to be overturned, and they should only be overturned in the most drastic of situtations. Overturning an action would cause un-needed divison and anger.

I definitely agree with you on this, that overturning an action should be very rare. However, take the case of appointments. Suppose one of the completely unknown people who just register and never show up again, gets appointed to an office. A President who wants more power might do that, to ensure that he/she gets to make policy until the phantom citizen doesn't show up and gets declared absent again. In that case, if this JR ruled that a majority of all citizens is required you might have a hard time non-confirming the appointment.

Still, this conversation is pretty much moot anyway. Confirmation polls need to be open for 2 days which reduces the "few buddies" effect, and can only be used to protest online vs offline, and appointments which for the most part are rubber stamp situations anyway. Right now we just need a CJ opinion on JR7 as we have a tie to break.

Mr. Members of the Judiciary,


All of us may seem to be informed of the recent attempt of putsch made by mr. M4 Sherman in the President Office thread and in a separate thread opened in the forum, now all erased for the sake of a healthy Fanatikos. My question is: will the Judiciary act according to the law, will it punish M4 Sherman? Will there be any intervention?

Gratefully,

Civlord

Civlord,

As has already been noted, the Judiciary is here to handle situations involving the laws of Fanatikos. When the violation involves the rules of CivFanatics, we are powerless except to notify the moderators. The matter was handled by those that are empowered to handle it.

All citizens of Fanatikos enjoy certain rights and liberties, among those is the right to free speech. Those rights end when the rules of CFC begin.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Ruling on DG7JR6

Question: What happens on a Confirmation Poll if the action has already occurred and is irreversible

Citizen Comments: Thanks to Gerikes, Daveshack, Bootstoots and Furiey for their comments.

Ruling: The Confirmation Poll is null and void.

Explanation: Confirmation polls happen in limited situations - they are explicitly allowed "where permitted by law." Currently, that's for appointments to fill a vacancy and for off-line game sessions. Confirmation polls must be posted within 24 hours of the action, and remain open for 2 days. The implication behind all confirmation polls is that the action is approved - the burden is to prove that the action should be rescinded.

It is possible, although highly unlikely, that a situation could arise where a confirmation poll does not complete prior to an irreversible action as a result of the action allowing the confirmation poll. The presumption of approval and the continuation of governance must take priority here to a poll that is not complete, and the results not known or considered final

Ruling on DG7JR7

Question: What does the phrase "majority of citizens" in Section H.5 of the Code of Laws mean?

Citizen Comments: Thanks to Gerikes, Daveshack and Bootstoots for their comments.

Ruling: The phrase "majority of citizens" refers to those citizens who voted in the poll.

Explanation: The intent is very clear - only those citizens that vote in the poll are considered.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Judiciary Rulings

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

By a 3-0 decision, a Confirmation Poll is null and void if the action permitting the poll has already occurred and is irreversible.

DG7JR7 - What does the phrase "majority of citizens" in Section H.5 of the Code of Laws mean?

By a 2-1 decision, the phrase "majority of citizens" in CoL H.5 refers to the citizens that voted in that poll.
The Chief Justice and Public Defender voted for, with the Judge Advocate voting against.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

I have a question - not a judicial review, but more a point of order. What would happen if, for example, I had ruled in JR7 that "citizen" refers to all citizens that registered, causing a 1-1-1 tie where all three justices have different opinions?

I have a question - not a judicial review, but more a point of order. What would happen if, for example, I had ruled in JR7 that "citizen" refers to all citizens that registered, causing a 1-1-1 tie where all three justices have different opinions?

I would have worked with original requestor to clarify the question some, to make it less open. For example, changing the question to "Does the "all citizens" refer to only those citizens that voted in the poll?" would probably resolve the deadlock and answer the immediate question.

Getting that question right is my job - it needs to be clear what's trying to be answered. This one was a bit too open. Look at some from DG3 or 4 for some rulings where all three justices went on differnet tangents.

-- Ravensfire

Several hundred years later, the Dikastic was formed. This court succeeded the Areiopagos, and was run by the ephetai, a group of about 50 citizens. These courts tried all matters of law.

So, which one of us is so fat that you got us confused with 48 people? :lol:

Honorable Judiciary,

I would like to request a Judicial Review on the wording of Article C of our Constitution.

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.

Does this article as written require that we acquire no more than one city from each of our 7 rivals, or can it be construed to mean that we can take as many as 7 cities total from any one rival? I would like to get this resolved so that it does not become an issue at an inopportune moment.

Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter.


Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatikos

Request for Judicial Review

Donovan Zoi has come before the court with a question on Article C of the Constitution, asking how it should be interpreted.

I find this request for Judicial Review has merit. Further, due to the core nature of this question, I will be creating a discussion thread in the Citizen's sub forum. Please post ALL discussions in that thread. Justices must post their rulings in the Judicial thread, but are encouraged to cross-post to the discussion thread.

Docketed as DG7JR8 How is Article C of the Constitution to be interpreted - is it 1 city per civ, or a total of 7 captured cities, regardless of the civ we capture them from.

Discussion thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=128321)

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Mr. Chief Justice,

I would like to warn you that you are not a "Public Defender" anymore.

Sincerely,

Governor Civlord

Mr. Chief Justice,

I would like to warn you that you are not a "Public Defender" anymore.

Sincerely,

Governor Civlord

Ah, but I am here to defend the Public as Chief Justice!

Hmmmm, what to change it to ...

-- Ravensfire

Ah, but I am here to defend the Public as Chief Justice!

Hmmmm, what to change it to ...

-- Ravensfire

Anyway, do we have here two public defenders and no chief justice? There is something wrong, then...

Anyway, do we have here two public defenders and no chief justice? There is something wrong, then...
one has the title of "Public Defender", the other defends the public ;)

After much deliberation, and a general petering-out of the relevant discussion over the course of several hours, I feel it is time to make my ruling. Here it is. For those without the time to wade through my arguments to find out the rulings, a summary of my stances is posted below.

1) How should Article C of the Constitution be interpreted - 1 city per civ, or 7 cities total, from any combination of civs?

Article C states, “In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means.” According to the letter of the law, we may take only one city from each civilization. There is no reason to believe that the intent of this law is any different than its text, which is very clear on this particular issue. Therefore, my decision is that only one city may be taken per civilization, and that taking more than one city that originated with any single civ is illegal.

2) Does recapturing a city we built count as taking a city from a civ?

I’ll quote Article C in full this time around. It states, “No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.” My ruling in this case is that recapturing a city we built does not count as taking a city from another civ. My reasoning is threefold. First, the second sentence of Article C begins with “in addition,” implying that the five cities mentioned in the first sentence do not count in that one city per foreign civ limit. Second, Article C mentions that “only one city from each foreign civilization” may be taken. A city built by us is not a city from a foreign civilization, but is instead one of our five cities, as it originated with us, despite the fact that it may have temporarily been under foreign control. And finally, I’ll make a practical argument that not allowing us to retake our own city would cripple preexisting game progress and is clearly not be the intent of this Constitutional article. Even a strict 5CC would permit the recapture of a city originally founded by the player, and to my knowledge there was no discussion of this when the Constitution was written, thus showing no intent to keep us from recapturing our own cities.

3) May we abandon a city from a civ to take another city from that civ?

My ruling here is that we may not abandon a city from a rival civ to take another one. Quoting the second sentence of Article C yet again, “only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means.” Capturing a second city from the same civ would violate this article. The fact that we wouldn’t be holding both cities in the same time frame is irrelevant: it is still the capture of a second city.

4) If we capture a city, then the civ recaptures that city back, may we recapture that city, any other city the civ has, or no city from that civ?

We absolutely can recapture that same city. Article C prevents us from taking two or more cities from the same civilization, not taking the same city twice. However, after capturing a city, we may not capture and hold any other city from that same civilization. If we did that, we would have captured without razing immediately two cities from the same rival, which would violate Article C. Again, the time frame in which the two cities are captured would be irrelevant.

5) If we capture a city from Civ A that was founded by Civ B, and we keep that city, which civ did we take that city from, A (who we conquered it from) or B (who founded it)?

This one is a fairly tough question. I’ll begin my response in a rather typical (by this point) manner, by quoting the second sentence of Article C. According to it, “only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means.” When I looked at this article, its word order caught my eye. It states that only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken, not that only one city may be taken from each foreign civilization. There’s more to this than may meet the eye at first. Through this word order, it implies that the city’s identity, for the purposes of the one city per civ limit, is with its founder (the civ it is “from”), not with its most recent occupier. If the law was intended to limit us to taking one city directly from each foreign civilization, instead of taking one city that originated with each foreign civilization, it would have been worded in the manner mentioned above (namely, “only one city may be taken from each foreign civilization”). Therefore, I rule that we would have taken the city from B (the founder), not A (the most recent occupier). This ruling has several implications. We may not, under this decision, have our city-control limit reduced by one for every civilization that falls before we have a chance to capture a city. If Persia falls before we capture one of its cities, we can still take one from another rival at a later date. Additionally, we will have to be careful during war not to take two cities that originated with the same civilization, despite the fact that they may have come from different civs at the moment of capture.


So, in summary:
1. We may have only 1 city per civ, not 7 cities regardless of origin.
2. No, we may recapture our former cities without counting toward the limit.
3. No, we may not abandon a city and then take another city from the same civ.
4. Yes, we may capture the same foreign city more than once, but we may not capture any other city from the same civ.
5. The city comes from civ B (original founder), not civ A (the civ that last occupied the city).

This post will be copied into the discussion thread.

Not so much a judicial review; just more of a point of clarification. However, if it can become a JR, then consider it one.

Here is Article F of our constitution, displaying only the parts relevant to my question:
Article F. Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch is formed of the Assembly and a Senate of Governors.

The Assembly is made up of all citizens, and is responsible for the creation of new laws and Amendments. The Assembly will present all such proposals to the Judiciary for review.

The Senate is made up of 6 Governors...

The power to declare War is given to the Assembly and the Senate.

Here is Section F.2 of our code of laws:
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.

My question is: can the governors vote in both declaration of war polls, as they are part of the Assembly and Senate? The code of laws mentions a House; who composes the House?

I would certainly think that they'd be able to vote in both polls. Both Article A and F have all citizens included in the Assembly, and there is nothing making voting in both polls illegal for governors. As for the House, I think somebody got the governmental structures of the United States and Fanatikos mixed up; that should read Assembly.

I would certainly think that they'd be able to vote in both polls. Both Article A and F have all citizens included in the Assembly, and there is nothing making voting in both polls illegal for governors. As for the House, I think somebody got the governmental structures of the United States and Fanatikos mixed up; that should read Assembly.

perhaps this should be corrected to avoid confusion.

I don't personally like that the Governors are able to declare war against the vote of the people, but our laws say they can. They should be able to vote in both polls, they are still citizens and should still have their say as citizens, they then get another chance as Governors. But the House/Assembly thing does need correcting.

A funny thing about the poll of the governors is that at least 60% of the governors voting have to vote yes in order for the vote to be >50%, but as few as 1 could declare war if the other 5 abstain. (if I'm reading it right, could be wrong here) In fact, the only scenario in which a majority vote would not also be an overriding vote is when exactly one abstains, and the vote is 3-2-1.

Here are the "winning" vote totals, Y-N-A format
4-2-0, 5-1-0, 6-0-0 min 66.66... %
3-2-1, 4-1-1, 5-0-1 min 60%
3-1-2, 4-0-2 min 75%
3-0-3, 2-1-3 min 66.66... %
2-0-4 min 100%
1-0-5 min 100%

They should be able to vote in both polls, they are still citizens and should still have their say as citizens, they then get another chance as Governors. But the House/Assembly thing does need correcting.

Absolutely correct. First and foremost, Governors ARE citizens of Fanatikos, with all the rights from that.

Yup - the change to Assembly was a late one, I missed an update. Furiey - if you'd correct that in your nicely formatted version before a friendly mod comes along and posts that version, I'd appreciate it!

-- Ravensfire

Done.

COL F.2 House corrected to Assembly as follows:

previous:
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.

corrected:
Section F.2 Declaration of War
To declare a war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will create a normal poll for the Assembly, 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.

I find it disturbing, and highly disgusting that a half dozen people are capable of making a decision that should be asked of everyone. I trust that the issue of checks and balances in this case will be examined, and the issue will be modified.

I must ask however, why do those whose duties don't even relate to a declaration of war, have the ability to do so? Is it some sadistic attempt to copy the American Constitution? What is the point or purpose [rhyme or reason] to doing such?

The peoples consent should be the one, and only consent we need to declare war.

I find it disturbing, and highly disgusting that a half dozen people are capable of making a decision that should be asked of everyone. I trust that the issue of checks and balances in this case will be examined, and the issue will be modified.

I must ask however, why do those whose duties don't even relate to a declaration of war, have the ability to do so? Is it some sadistic attempt to copy the American Constitution? What is the point or purpose [rhyme or reason] to doing such?

The peoples consent should be the one, and only consent we need to declare war.

As best I can tell, the primary reason for having this "feature" in the law is to give the governors a lot more power -- in a somewhat misguided effort to make the 5BCC variant "more meaningful".

Unfortunately, we have effectively zero chance of making any constitutional changes, since the honorable Chief Justice demanded and got a 2/3 majority requirement to pass amendments. The very same 8-10 people who are rabid 5BCC supporters are the same ones who wanted the governors to have all the power, so it's pretty clear that they can hold up changes if they want to.

:joke: about the rabid part... but they are pretty adament about it :lol:

Okay DS, time to hammer into your reply.

As best I can tell, the primary reason for having this "feature" in the law is to give the governors a lot more power -- in a somewhat misguided effort to make the 5BCC variant "more meaningful".
Either your memory failed you or you didn't look. This had absolutely nothing to do with a 5BC. Zip. Zero. Nada. Go back and read the discussion on it. I may be rapid, but I'll still let you do the busy work.

Unfortunately, we have effectively zero chance of making any constitutional changes, since the honorable Chief Justice demanded and got a 2/3 majority requirement to pass amendments.
Yup - it's odd that people wanted a set of core rules that won't be changed at a mere whim as some want at the slightest hint of danger. Gosh - we might lose? We might have a challenge? Oh the horror! What would the Carebears do? Oh yeah - change the rules.
The very same 8-10 people who are rabid 5BCC supporters are the same ones who wanted the governors to have all the power, so it's pretty clear that they can hold up changes if they want to.Nope - not totally. But since you read the discussion, you know the answer to that by now.

Finally, since this appears to be related to the overrule of one group (Assembly vs House) on DoW, which is the only place it can happen, please review the law to determine where the details, including the thresholds, are given. Now, I know the rapid supporters, including the Chief Justice, know where it is, and the process for changing that percentage. I'm hoping that the Carebears will figure out that there isn't anything preventing them from making changes to that section.

Oh, and j/k about the Carebears - I'll have to come up with a different term.

-- Ravensfire

Judge Advocate Strider,

Any update on when you'll be posting your ruling on DG7JR8?

Thanks,
Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Okay DS, time to hammer into your reply.


Put away that hammer! Just playing my role this term as disgruntled outie. :lol:

Judge Advocate Strider,

Any update on when you'll be posting your ruling on DG7JR8?

Thanks,
Ravensfire, Chief Justice

I am placing a vote of Abstain on this one. I don't trust myself to rule on this issue without causing un-need anger.

I am placing a vote of Abstain on this one. I don't trust myself to rule on this issue without causing un-need anger.

Hmm, the judicial procedures say you have to post a clear opinion, I don't know if abstaining is allowed.

For my part, I've always said (or at least I hope so) that I pursue a subject until the WOTP is determined, and then drop the matter if it goes against me. Whether others might be angry is another question of course.

Hmm, the judicial procedures say you have to post a clear opinion, I don't know if abstaining is allowed.

I'd hope there smart enough to walk the red carpet while it's there.

Also, I did state a clear view on the issue. Which is why we need a dictionary to define these damnable terms.

I am placing a vote of Abstain on this one. I don't trust myself to rule on this issue without causing un-need anger.

Very well. I'm disappointed, that's rather a cop-out, but I accept your ruling of Abstain on DG7JR8. As you pointed out, it is a clear ruling, and it covered the entire JR.

I would not have accepted a partial ruling, answering some and abstaining on other questions.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Very well. I'm disappointed, that's rather a cop-out, but I accept your ruling of Abstain on DG7JR8. As you pointed out, it is a clear ruling, and it covered the entire JR.


This is a pleasant surprise, and while not the optimum solution it is probably the most prudent for all concerned. I applaud you both for handling the situation in a way which is best for the common good. :)

I have a question about play sessions and instructions. The judiciary may choose to consider this a JR request or not depending on whether it is too obvious.


CoL Section L.1 Game Sessions
The game session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions, until a posted instruction says to hold the session or when the DP decides to end the session. Once a game session is over, the DP must post a summary of that session, a detailed log of their actions, and a save in the instruction thread and in the summary thread.


Traditionally (in previous games), the minimum scheduled game session was 10 turns, and all officials were expected to provide instructions lasting at least that long. Can that tradition be assumed in this game as well? I'm not inclined to give anyone bad ideas so will avoid commenting on what it would mean if the answer to that question were no.

Chief Justice's ruling on DG7JR8

Question: How should Article C of the Constitution be interpreted - 1 city per civ, or 7 cities total, from any combination of civs?
Citizen Comments: Thanks to Donovan Zoi, RegentMan, Nobody, Bertie, zyxy, Provolution, greekguy, Daveshack for your comments and discussion on this matter.
Ruling: The nation of Fanatikos may capture and hold only 1 city from each civilization.

Explanation: Article C is clear on this matter - 1 city per civilization may be taken. 1 from German, 1 from Babylon, etc. Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.

The following questions were posed by various citizens throughout the discussion. To help in the creation of a comprehensive review over all questions raised about Article C, the Chief Justice requested the Judiciary also answer those questions.
To draw from the first clause of Article C:No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. I'm going to create a consistent theme throughout this JR – the doctrine of creation. A city is considered “owned” by the Civ that founded that city, not the civilization that currently owns the city.

It's been pointed out that this is a game, that we are here to have fun. The 5BC variant is a compromise variant between a 5CC and an Epic game. The restrictions are there to primarily force our focus on those first 5 cities. This is born out in great latitude that we give our Governors in control of their cities. We view the conquered cities with much less interest, placing all of them under control of 1 Governor. These cities might be the only opportunities we have to acquire some resources through land we directly control. Colonies are nice, but can be limited by lack of port access and the threat of a civ simply walking over the colony. Only a city provides permanence.

There is also no reason to punish the players of DG7 for the actions of another civ any more that necessary. Nor should the Governor of cities that we've conquered see their duties reduced because of a war-mongering civ on another continent that we did not know about.

Question: Does recapturing a city we built count as taking a city from a civ?
Ruling: No, it does not.
Explanation: Per the doctrine of creation, a city founded by Fanatikos is considered our city, now and forever. Our retaking of that city is considered a return of rightful property, not of conquering foreign territory, regardless of how long that takes.

Question: May we abandon a city from a civ to take another city from that civ?
Ruling: No, we may not.
Explanation: Aside from the obvious gamesmanship and poor sportsmanship, the instant we conquer a city, those citizens become members of our civilization. We would no sooner burn down Olympus as we would a city we have liberated from another land.

Question: If we capture a city, then the civ recaptures that city back, may we recapture that city, any other city the civ has, or no city from that civ?
Ruling: We may reconquer that city, and no other from that civilization.
Explanation: As in the question above, when we conquer a city it is our. We have the right and the duty to protect that city from harm, and are lessened by its loss. Reconquest of that city is always permitted.

Question: If we capture a city from Civ A that was founded by Civ B, and we keep that city, which civ did we take that city from, A (who we conquered it from) or B (who founded it)?
Ruling: The city comes from Civ B, the city that founded it.
Explanation: Again, the doctrine of creation comes into play. We place many burdens on our shoulders, this is not one we should bear. Cities draw their heritage from the civilization that founds them – we should not forget that.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Judiciary Rulings

DG7JR8 – How should Article 3 of the Constitution be interpreted?

Question: May we take 1 city per civ, or 7 cities total, from any combination of civs?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may only take 1 city per civ. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.

Question: Question: Does recapturing a city we built count as taking a city from a civ?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may recapture cities we've founded without counting them as conquering a foreign city. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.

Question: May we abandon a city from a civ to take another city from that civ?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may not abandon a city we've conquered to take another city from that civ. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.

Question: If we capture a city, then the civ recaptures that city back, may we recapture that city, any other city the civ has, or no city from that civ?
By a 2-0-1 decision, we may recapture cities we've conquered and lost, but may not conquer another city from that civ. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.

Question: If we capture a city from Civ A that was founded by Civ B, and we keep that city, which civ did we take that city from, A (who we conquered it from) or B (who founded it)?
By a 2-0-1 decision, the origin of cities is based on the founder of the city, not the current owner. The Chief Justice and the Public defender voted for this ruling, the Judge Advocate abstained.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

I have a question about play sessions and instructions. The judiciary may choose to consider this a JR request or not depending on whether it is too obvious.


In either case however it would be nice to get a reply. ;)

So, all is clear. The Judge Advocate wants to stay out of politics. That's unacceptable!

Post edited. Some flamming words removed to avoid another ban (I hate that).

In either case however it would be nice to get a reply. ;) Sorry - got a (tiny) bit busy. One reply, coming up!

-- Ravensfire

I have a question about play sessions and instructions. The judiciary may choose to consider this a JR request or not depending on whether it is too obvious.


CoL Section L.1 Game Sessions
The game session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions, until a posted instruction says to hold the session or when the DP decides to end the session. Once a game session is over, the DP must post a summary of that session, a detailed log of their actions, and a save in the instruction thread and in the summary thread.


Traditionally (in previous games), the minimum scheduled game session was 10 turns, and all officials were expected to provide instructions lasting at least that long. Can that tradition be assumed in this game as well? I'm not inclined to give anyone bad ideas so will avoid commenting on what it would mean if the answer to that question were no.

To correct you, traditionally, game sessions were traditionally to go a [b]maximum[/]b of 10 turns. Leaders were expected to include instructions for 10 turns, perhaps 1 or 2 more if a major event (tech researched, wonder completed, etc) would happen then.

Game sessions can now go any number of turns, so long as there are instructions from the leaders that go that far, and those instructions do not say "Stop". The intent was, during the early phases and the late phases, to allow for more turns to be played to keep the pace of the game somewhat constants. During the middle phase of the game, events will happen requiring a stop, including conflict, trade opportunities, research, wonders and leaders simply unable to plan long term do to the chaotic nature of events.

-- Ravensfire

To correct you, traditionally, game sessions were traditionally to go a [b]maximum[/]b of 10 turns. Leaders were expected to include instructions for 10 turns, perhaps 1 or 2 more if a major event (tech researched, wonder completed, etc) would happen then.


Of course -- the minimum and maximum expected game session length were both set to 10.

Not surprisingly, this response (and the rest that I decided not to fully quote) didn't exactly answer the question I was trying to ask. I'm being oblique somewhat on purpose because someone who gets the gist of things and has a grudge against someone else could potentially use the answer in a damaging way.

What would happen for example if one of the governors only supplied 3 turns worth of instructions, or if some official didn't provide any instructions? Anyone knowledgable about the history of the DG will know how this situation was handled in the past. How would it be handled now in this game -- the same way or a different way?

There never was a minimum set - it was always just a maximum. Many session went fewer than 10 turns.

Then, as now, no instructions == DP's discretion.

Then, if a DP posted instructions for only a partial turn. Hmm, I think it depended on the DP. Some would play through, others would stop. It's a potential nightmare, because if leader A posted instructions for 4 turns, and the session went longer, it's almost carte blanche for a useless CC on the DP.

This stuff is all in the CoL, and pretty darn easy to change. Sounds like you've got some ideas on the issue.

-- Ravensfire

Thanks, the latest answer says what I hoped it would say.

I small tired little man walks into the large noisy court house, the little man thinks back to a time when he and his freinds ruled this twobit town, but now that is in the past. Nobody stands in the corner in a small grey suit, soaking wet from the rain outside when no one would share a unbrealla. walking slowly up to the desk of the Judge advocate he places a small file on the desk fileing a Investigation. then he leaves to think more about the joy of past coups and familiy crime movements

I nobody Citizen of Fanatikos here by File an investigation. I claim that the current President Donovan Zoi acted ultra vires (in excess of legal power) by refusing a foreign demand and forcing us into a war.

Donovan Zoi is President of our nation, and therefore has the following powers

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.



I think that he acted in excess of the above legal powers when he advised Designated Player Civgeneral to refuse a foreign demand during the last turnchat. The demand was issued by the Persian Despot Xerxes. The demand was for the Technology of Literature. President Zoi advised the Designated Player during the online turn session held on September the 18th of this year. A transcript of the conversation relating to the Advising in below:



(23:25:11) CivGeneral: And Xerxes demans us to give up literature
(23:25:12) CivGeneral: :o
(23:25:37) DX_Zoi: ooh, any word from Icmancin on that one?
(23:25:54) Gerikes: "Steer away from all conflicts"
(23:25:59) CivGeneral: Nothing in regards to demands
(23:26:06) CivGeneral: Stay clear of any demands
(23:26:40) Gerikes: I take it we can't ask for some gold in return?
(23:26:44) Gerikes: :P
(23:27:44) CivGeneral: Cant ask for a counter offer
(23:27:46) TimBentley: Last word on demands was two turnchats ago: he said to give in then
(23:27:47) CivGeneral: Its a demand
(23:28:18) CivGeneral: Well, in his wize words, I should go along with that statement
(23:28:28) DX_Zoi: it seems unclear though
(23:28:33) DX_Zoi: hold on
(23:28:47) TimBentley: nothing for this turnchat though
(23:28:55) CivGeneral: Yeah
(23:28:56) DX_Zoi: persia is a minor threat. we are stronger than them
(23:29:09) CivGeneral: So tell him to take a hike?
(23:29:19) Gerikes: Maybe we could get france to help us out there?
(23:29:22) DX_Zoi: my guess is he will back down for now
(23:29:27) Gerikes: If he declares war.
(23:29:32) DX_Zoi: possibly
(23:29:51) CivGeneral: Ok, shall I tell him to take a hike?
(23:29:54) DX_Zoi: Jerkses is in no position to bargain
(23:29:58) CivGeneral: lol
(23:30:01) DX_Zoi: I say let him walk
(23:30:02) Gerikes: haha
(23:30:05) CivGeneral: Refusing offer



Under normal circumstances the advice given in a turnchat would not be considered the same as making the decision. But this is not a normal situation; Donovan Zoi is President of our nation and a well known former Foreign Leader. Therefore his words have more weighting than a normal civilian. His Advise clearly made the decision for Civgeneral. CivGeneral: Xerxes demans us to give up literature [sic]… his wize words, I should go along with that statement. DX_Zoi: persia is a minor threat. we are stronger than them…. I say let him walk. CivGeneral: Refusing offer Also he admitted later that he made the decision I felt that I was within my rights to personally make this call..



By making this decision Donovan Zoi clearly acted in excess of the above legal powers. He is President, not the Foreign Affairs Minister and doesn’t have the legal right to set policy on foreign demands. By doing so he broke the Law of our nation. This is not the first time President Zoi has acted on behalf of the foreign Affairs minister, leading a recent movement for war against Germany.



Donovan Zoi claims it was his “right to make this call” because there was “no clear directions for the FA department.” I think that there was sufficient direction on the matter of Demands. In the turnchat thread the official Foreign Affairs instructions were “Steer away from all conflicts” I don’t think that giving the Persians a case for war, was steering away from conflict. If this wasn’t clear enough, it has been a Foreign Ministry policy for the past 2 terms to give into all demands. As stated here in the first ever instruction thread Border Control Policy: Ask foreign land units leave our nation. Do not demand they leave. and by the current minister 2. Give in all demands.



President Donovan Zoi coerced Designated Player Civgeneral into refusing a demand; Donovan Zoi admittedly made the decision himself. He acted in excess of legal power, ultra vires and caused a war. For a technology of little value to anybody, We already have the great Library.

Nobody has requested that the Court investigate President Donovan Zoi regarding his actions during the recent game session. All such requests will be investigated by the Judiciary.

This request for investigation has been accepted.

Docketed as DG7CC1 - Donovan Zoi

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Review Phase:

The Judiciary is now investigating the actions of Donovan Zoi during the most recent game session.

Process: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.

The Judiciary hereby requests that any citizen with additional evidence concerning this matter please post such evidence in this thread.

Please do not post your opinion of this matter here!

Citizens, these matters can be contentious and divisive. We're trying to gather the facts and determine if there's a chance a law was violated. Help keep the matter calm and keep the Judiary thread (relatively) clean.

Fellow Justices, please begin your review of the matter. If you feel there is a reasonable chance a violation of the law occured, find that the request has Merit. If you do not think there is a reasonable chance a violation occured, find that the request has No Merit.

Thank you,
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

The Judiciary hereby requests that any citizen with additional evidence concerning this matter please post such evidence in this thread.


I submit the evidence of the exact instructions (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3089737#post3089737) that the Minister of Foreign Affairs Icemancin gave for the turnchat in question, that of September 18th.

Edit:

Also, in case they are needed, the following are the previous three turnchat instructions from the Minister of Foreign Affairs Icemancin, in reverse-chronological order with their date of Turnchat included.

Sept 15th (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3081796#post3081796)
Sept 10th (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3056061#post3056061)
Sept 3rd (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3044729#post3044729)

Honorable Judiciary,

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present further evidence to your court. Since the majority of evidence collected against me involves the instructions of our current Foreign Minister, Icmancin, I feel I should present the history of FA instructions for Term 2.

During the first two game sessions, the instructions of the FA minister were quite clear:

Session 1
Foreign Affairs

1. Remain neutral in the conflict between Germany and France
2. Give in to all demands

Ic :salute:

Session 2
Foreign Affairs

1. Remain neutral in the war between France, Rome and Germany. If war is declared on Fanatikos stop the chat.
2. Give in all demands.
3. Build an Embassy with Germany ASAP. Build an Embassy with France sometime during the chat. These actions were confirmed Here

Ic

What is important to note about these first two sessions is that we had not reached a state of tech superiority yet. Therefore, the most we could have gievn away is gold.

Then came the instructions for Session 3, where no direction whatsoever is given regarding the acceptance or refusal of demands. As far as I am concerned, this lack of instruction negates the precedence set by the previous two.

Session 3 is also important due to the fact that we now found ourselves launched to the forefront of research, thanks to the volumes of information kept by the Great Library of Aristotle. If there were any time to protect what was ours, now would be the time. Yet those instructions were unclear, clouded by the bigger issue of a possible pre-emptive war with Germany.


Session 3
I don't know if my "Polls" will end in time. Before you start the chat, look at the "Polls" for a war with Germany. which ever one is leading, do it. Follow Defense Minsters plan for gearing up and battle plan. Ic, out.

Finally, in Session 4, the nation was treated to the following instructions from the FA Minister:

Session 4
Remain Neutral in the Romani-German War. There is no point in joining, France has left. Steer away from all conflicts.

Nowhere in these directions does it mention the acceptance or refusal of demands, just like Session 3. And for all I know, "steer away from all conflicts" could just as easily mean to have all military units hang a U-turn before entering the Berlin war zone. After all, we have had possession of the Wheel for quite some time now. ;)

What it all comes down to is a lack of clear instruction from our FA Minister during an extreme change in the value of what could be lost in tribute to a rogue nation such as Persia. Ever since we have had tech available for tribute to other nations, there has been no clear instruction on how to handle this. Section L1 of our CoL requires this:

Section L1 (partial - pertinent only)
All official instructions must be posted in the current game session instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined. Officials must post their instructions at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session. However, officials may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the chat, so long as those changes are clearly noted. Officials that do not post instructions for a game session are considered to have given the DP complete control over their area for that game session.

It should also be noted that as influential as I may be, I do not possess the right to infer the validity of instructions during a game session. That distinction goes to the DP. But do we really want to put a dedicated citizen through the ringer for taking the advice of the President? I should hope not.

Therefore, I take full responsibilty for the decision I made and will let the Judiciary decide whether there is enough evidence for this to go to trial. Due to the relative distance between ourselves and Persia, I have a strong feeling that this war could be over before we even see battle. I certainly hope that we can say the same about this Citizen Complaint.

Thank you for your time.


Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatikos

Acting as Public Defender of Fanatikos, I have reviewed the charges brought against Donovan Zoi and have made a ruling on them. I hereby find that they have No Merit and should be dismissed. Specific reasoning is mentioned below.

First of all, the only action that the defendant, President Donovan Zoi, did was advise the Designated Player to refuse the demand by Persia. He was well within his rights to say so. Under Article A of the Constitution, citizens are given the right to free speech, among other rights. Nobody mentions that DZ's advice, as it was coming from the President and former Foreign Advisor, somehow carried more weight and that it somehow made the decision for CivGeneral; therefore, it should not be allowed. However, this reasoning is completely flawed. Whether or not Donovan Zoi held those positions is irrelevant under the law; he still had every right under the principle of free speech to advise the Designated Player. And, though CG took in DZ's advice, he did make the final decision. DZ's acceptance of responsibility for advising CG is duly noted, but he still had the right to advise, whether or not he accepts responsibility for the outcome.

Additionally, the action taken by CivGeneral in accordance with DZ's advice was within his rights as DP as well. Minister of Foreign Affairs Icemancin stated to "steer away from all conflicts." This could be interpreted as a desire to give in to all demands, but it is sufficiently vague as to allow us to reject tribute demands from nations that are unlikely to declare war. Persia is a weak nation that is probably not going to last much longer, and it was quite likely that they would not have declared as a result of this. The instructions say nothing specifically on tribute demands, so under Article L.1, CG had the ability to choose for himself.

For these reasons, I rule that these charges have no legal basis and should be thrown out of court.

Donovan Zoi, a lack of instructions does not give you the right to interpret a instruction whichever way you like. Yes, I do believe that the refusal of this demand was the correct action. However, you seem to believe that just because someone leaves out the bottom line of there copy & paste, it allows you to make what choice you want.

No, in this circumstance you should have looked at past instructions and current discussion threads. Yes, if for some reason we got a demand from a Civilization we were planning to declare war on soon anyway, your comments (or actions) may be excuseable. However, this action was not an attempt (even misguided) to further a current goal.

The lack of specific instructions does not give anyone the right to do whatever they <snipped> well please. This goes for every single DP, you had better use your <snipped> head when something like this comes up. You've got a brain for a reason, use it.

However, you were well within your right as a citizen to advise the DP. If you had not posted your "defense" above, you would have been saved this rant. Your actions inside of the turnchat were legal, and I see no fault of yours. It is every citizens right, correction... it is every citizens duty to advise our elected officials. As such, I rule that this case has No Merit.

I would stress, once again, that while your actions inside of the turnchat were legal.. I do find your comments above inexcuseable and misguided.

Watch your language, Strider. - Rik

But do we really want to put a dedicated citizen through the ringer for taking the advice of the President? I should hope not.

Therefore, I take full responsibilty for the decision I made

Judges Preisdent Donovan Zoi has taken responsability for the action. Therefore the issue of him advising the DP isnt relavent. You should consider when ever the decision was legal not if he made it or not. As he has taken responsability for it.

I see both the JA and PD say "no merit" on the current CC before the court.

We could have a CC against the Minister of Foreign Affairs for posting instructions which violate the CoL phrase "Instructions must be clear and defined", however it would have little point other than to rake a little more muck. This, obviously, is not a CC request and I'd recommend against anyone else asking for one.

I think I'll be proactive in the next TCIT and ask for clarifications in the government threads ahead of time. ;)

Note: the following does not represent a comment on the President himself -- it is merely a question about proper procedures. :mischief:

And now for a little actual judicial material, I request a JR on the President's duties. Specifically, does the President have any power to give instructions in areas for which the elected leader has provided none? CoL L says the DP gains power over any area without instructions. Article E says the President may handle tasks not assigned to another department, but does not say anything about assuming the duties of absent leaders. Not a CC request but it seems we have had some cases where Governors delegated their responsibilities to the President, which does not seem legal to me...

Ruling on DG7CC1

Request: Investigate the actions of Donovan Zoi during the most recent game session

Citizen Comments: Thanks to Nobody, Gerikes and Donovan Zoi for their presentation of evidence and testimony.

Ruling: The request for investigation is found to have No Merit.

Explanation: The evidence on this matter is clear, for the game session in question, there were no instructions from the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning demands from other nations. Remain Neutral in the Romani-German War. There is no point in joining, France has left. Steer away from all conflicts. A situation presented itself to the Designated Player where an action must be taken. There was no opportunity to take the decision back to the forums. The DP asked for advice from the citizens attending the chat. President Donovaon Zoi was attending the chat, and offered his advice. The DP took his advice, rejected the demand and halted the chat after the declaration of war.

The question centers around did Donovan Zoi violate a law. In the request, a comment is made about Donovan Zoi being both the President and a former Foreign Affairs leader, and that his words would carry more weight. The Designated Player is also an experienced citizen who has served in many capacities in the past. He is more than capable of making his own decisions.

The instruction contains the phrase “Steer away from all conflicts.” All instructions are required to be “Instructions must be clear and defined.“ (CoL L.1). These instructions fail that test. Indeed, previous instructions by this leader over this matter were clear on what to do. The mere fact that the DP asked how to handle the situations demonstrates the need for clear instructions.

For these reasons, I find this request for investigation to be without merit.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Judiciary Ruling

DG7CC1 – Donovan Zoi

By a 3-0 decision, the Court dismisses the request for investigation as No Merit.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Note: the following does not represent a comment on the President himself -- it is merely a question about proper procedures. :mischief:

And now for a little actual judicial material, I request a JR on the President's duties. Specifically, does the President have any power to give instructions in areas for which the elected leader has provided none? CoL L says the DP gains power over any area without instructions. Article E says the President may handle tasks not assigned to another department, but does not say anything about assuming the duties of absent leaders. Not a CC request but it seems we have had some cases where Governors delegated their responsibilities to the President, which does not seem legal to me...

I am a bit curious about this myself, and therefore humbly await a ruling from the Judiciary.

I would like to point out that my deal with the Governors is voluntary on their part, and is only offered to those who do not have the time to monitor their micromanagement to avoid riots or "one shield off" misbuilds. In a sense, the authority still technically lies with the Governor to make this happen.

"How convenient for you, Mr. President," one may muse. But know that I also request that said governors grant authority to the DP to make such changes as well. Besides, I invite you to find an instance when this method was not used in the best interest of Fanatikos. A ruling against this harmless tactic would certainly ensure that we have no recourse whatsoever against such unfortunate events.

The above may sound defensive, but it is certainly not meant to be. There should be a bit of room in our laws for federal assistance if everyone benefits from it. I certainly hope that the Judiciary feels the same way.

Request for Judicial Review

Daveshack has come before the Court with a question on Section L.1 of the Code of Laws and Articlse E and L of the Constitution.

If a leader posts instructions that are not complete or too vague for a reasonable person to discern direction, does the President have any power to give instruction cover that area?

This review is found to have merit.

Docketed as DG7JR9 – May the President issue legal instructions if a leader posts incomplete instructions?

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Judiciary Ruling

DG7CC1 – Donovan Zoi

By a 3-0 decision, the Court dismisses the request for investigation as No Merit.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Honorable Judiciary,

My humble thanks for a swift and true verdict! In the future, I shall try to make a point of addressing less than adequate instructions before our DPs have to act on them.

I must also thank the vigilant citizen Nobody for taking the time to bring this issue to the court. Our nation is richer for having brought this matter to light.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatikos

Citizen's comment on DG7JR9:

The President has no authority to issue any instructions of any type save those expressly granted to them. The President is granted "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." (Article E of the Constitution). The other leaders are given explicit areas they are to control and issue instructions for.

Should they fail to post instructions, Section L.1 of the Code of Laws clearly states “Officials that do not post instructions for a game session are considered to have given the DP complete control over their area for that game session.” Thus, the President may not issue instructions in that case as the task of creating instructions, even ad-hoc ones, falls to the DP. The “Catch-All” authority only covers those scenarios where nobody has authority. However, that is not the scenario in question.

The question deals with incomplete or vague instructions. The “catch-all” clause clearly fails here – a leader has authority, but did not post the instructions. Therefore, the President does not have the authority to issue legal, binding instructions.

But, what should be done? The DP is caught in a quandary – halt the chat, and face complaints of not playing enough turns, make their own instructions and face complaints by the leader for “not doing what they wanted” or ignore the matter, and face complaints of doing nothing. The answer is all three, depending on the situation. The DP must rely on their own wisdom and knowledge, and the advice of those attending the chat if on-line. Although the ultimate decision rests with the DP, consulting those at the chat is appropriate, helpful, but not binding.

EDIT:
I wish to comment further on something DZ said. There is nothing wrong with a leader delegating some of their authority to another citizen, including another leader. Leaders cannot, however, delegate their responsibilities away except as expressly permitted. An example of this is during an known absence, the deputy is responsible for posting the instructions.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

Citizen comment on DG7JR9.

As noted when the question was posed, this is not a question about whether previous incidents were good or bad for our country, but a mechanism for determining how it should work so that future operations can proceed correctly.

I notice that the current law differs markedly from the last game. Yes, I know that the previous games should not be used as precedent, but it does have me thinking. What should happen if an official is absent and there is no deputy? What about long term absenses? Should we expect the DPs to make something up for the 2-3 chats it would take to replace a leader who is not performing? If enough people think this is a problem which needs to be addressed, then we should probably draft a law to fix it.

Citizen comment on DG7JR9

In response to DaveShack's post, I see this as a definite problem. Our laws currently dictate that a gap in instructions (whether by absence or negligence) cannot be fixed until one of a rotating list of designated players notices or, more likely, is confronted with an unforeseen dilemma in session. DPs do not leave instructions for themselves, so there is currently no way to legally rectify a glaring problem until a game session has started.

Without bias to my current position, I strongly feel that the President should have the first opportunity to rectify a situation before it even reaches the game session. Of course, all opportunities to communicate with the absent/negligent leader should be exhausted first. Ultimately, the Office of President should be able to exercise a "buck stops here" mentality for any instructional lapses from the other leaders.

Perhaps that is not how the law is set up now, but that is how it should be. With all due respect to the two gentlemen next-in-queue :) , a once-a-term gameplayer should never be able to pull rank on the President as the former is far less accountable to the nation's citizens. The accountability of necessary decision making needs to return where it belongs --- with the President.

I am thinking of sponsoring an amendment here, but won't have time for a day or two. I am also wary of further accusations of a Presidential power grab. ;)

DPs do not leave instructions for themselves, so there is currently no way to legally rectify a glaring problem until a game session has started.

Maybe we should make it to where DP's do leave instructions? Okay, well not instructions, but something along the lines of Goals or Guidelines. Basically, the DP that is up for the turnchat launch's a discussion on the goals for his/her turnchat.

These goals should be a general idea of all major policy's (Domestic, Foreign Affairs, etc.). They should not go into extreme detail, for flexibility reasons, but in the absense of clear or defined instructions from a leader the DP should then use the discussed/polled goals to make his decision. Of course, the DP is still allowed to do whatever they want to to achieve that goal, but that's part of the perks of the job.

This way, we know how the DP should react. We also have a general idea of how the turnchat should go, and that will allow for more planning.

Edit: Or we can just tack this onto the Presidents duties also.

Justices,

Please post your ruling on DG7JR9, I'd like to get this one wrapped up.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Honorable Judiciary,

I would like to request a Judicial Review on the validity of Sunday's game session. It seem like not only in there less than 72 hours to plan for this session, but it also fails the calendar date requirements if based solely on the preferred time zone of choice, GMT. Additionally, this session would be illegal in about 10 other time zones as well.

Game Session: 5am GMT 9/23/05 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=129023)

Game Session: 3pm GMT 9/25/05 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=129061)

Code of Laws - Section L1 (Partial - Pertinent Only)
A Game Session Instruction Thread must be created at least 2 days before the chat by the Designated Player for that session. Should a thread not be created in a timely manner, the President may create one. Game Sessions must be at least 3 days apart, no more than 7 days apart. The initial post should contain the date and time of the game session, a link to the save to be used for that session, and if the game session will be on-line or off-line. If the game session is off-line, a citizen may post a confirmation poll for that session. If the confirmation poll fails, the DP must reschedule the game session as an on-line session.

Please look into this request immediately, as time is of the essence. As Designated Player for the session, Chief Justice Ravensfire also has the opportunity to alter his session time. Either way, I would still like a ruling on the basic question: Due to Time Zones, must "3 Days" be interpreted as "no less than 72 hours?"

My apologies for not catching this sooner.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatikos

Request for Judicial Review

Donovan Zoi has come before the court with a question about Ravensfire's game session, and how to interpret the time requirements for game sessions.

I find this request for Judicial Review has no merit. A day is 24 hours long. In this case, the measuring stick is the end of the previous session, and the start of the next, measured in the same time zone. The planned session fails the requirement.

Ravensfire is ordered and directed to reschedule his game session to comply with the requirements of Section L.1 of the Code of Laws.

Ravensfire is further reminded that he wrote said article, he should be :blush: right about now!

Sorry for the trouble,
-- Ravensfire

Justices,

Please post your ruling on DG7JR9, I'd like to get this one wrapped up.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
Sorry for my tardiness, I haven't had much time recently. I should be able to post the review within a few hours.

After having reviewed the relevant law, here is my ruling.

DaveShack started this review with the following:
Specifically, does the President have any power to give instructions in areas for which the elected leader has provided none? CoL L says the DP gains power over any area without instructions. Article E says the President may handle tasks not assigned to another department, but does not say anything about assuming the duties of absent leaders. Not a CC request but it seems we have had some cases where Governors delegated their responsibilities to the President, which does not seem legal to me...
This seems to be a fairly clear-cut case to me. As DaveShack noted, Article E states, "The President is also responsible for all tasks not assigned to another leader." However, that section of the Constitution really isn't relevant in this case. It seems clear that the intent of this article is that the President is responsible for all tasks that the ruleset does not delegate to other leaders. I base this on the fact that the article then goes on to mention other leaders and their responsibilities, leaving me with the clear impression that if nobody else is given a particular responsibility, the President is tasked with it. It says nothing about any ability of the President to take up responsibility for tasks that are under the responsibility of another office. This is further backed up by CoL Section L.1, which gives the Designated Player (not the President) full authority over their area. It seems a very logical extension to say that, if a leader fails to post specific instructions, they have given the DP authority over anything not specifically covered. Furthermore, another section of L.1 says "Instructions must be clear and defined." If a leader posts a vague instruction, that instruction is in clear violation of L.1. Though I would not condone a CC of a leader who did that, it could definitely be argued that illegal instructions do not have to be obeyed, thus also giving the DP control.

Also, to address another point in the CC, and an area where I appear to disagree somewhat with our Chief Justice, nobody may delegate anybody, including the President, any binding authority, except where provided by law (deputies and pro-tem justices). It is, of course, perfectly permissible for an office to come up with unofficial advisors and the like to serve under them, but they have no legal authority, as there is no law (unless I missed something, but I don't think I did) allowing them to assume such responsibility.

In addition, to comment on Donovan Zoi's post, perhaps the President should have a bit more authority in such cases, but that isn't how the law is structured right now and it would take an amendment to change it. By all means, bring it up if you wish; I'd like to see the text of such an amendment. I'm not really sure how I stand on that issue at the moment.

In summary, I have found nothing giving the President the authority to make binding instructions over an area when another leader posts a vague instruction, and must therefore rule that the President's advice is just that, advice, and (s)he has no more power to post a binding instruction over an area clearly covered by another office than any other person.

I see no revelant law that says the President can make instructions if a leader fails to post legal instructions. As my fellow justices pointed out, if a leaders instructions are lacking, it's up to the DP to decide on those issues.

Not much more that needs to be said, that hasn't already been said. I rule that the President does not have the power to create legal instructions in the lack of legal instructions from a leader.

Chief Justice's ruling on DG7JR9

Question: May the President issue legal instructions if a leader posts incomplete instructions?

Citizen Comments: Thanks to DaveShack, Donovan Zoi and Strider for their comments.

Ruling: The President may not issue legal instructions if another leader posts incomplete instructions.

Explanation: This matter deals with incomplete instructions posted by a leader. Quite simply, the leader did post instructions. The President cannot simply “fill in the blanks” - this is not part of the duties of the President. The President, the DP or any other citizen may request clarification of the instructions, if they feel it warranted.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Judiciary Ruling

DG7JR9 - May the President issue legal instructions if a leader posts incomplete instructions?

By a 3-0 decision, the President may not issue legal instructions if another leader posts incomplete instructions.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

I have a judicial review/question.

Apparently, some posters are now permbanned. My question is do votes of permbanned members still count in current polls, such as this one (http://forums.civfanatics.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=11360)?

Request for Judicial Review

RegentMan has come before the Court with a question votes cast by citizens that have subsequently been perma-banned.

This review is found to have no merit.

Article A of the Constitution states "All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of our country, and members of the Assembly." Once they are perma-banned, they are no longer users of the Civfanatics Forum, and as such are no longer citizens of Fanatikos.

All votes of non-citizens are discarded when the votes are tallied upon the closure of a poll. As such, citizens that are perma-banned are treated the same way.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Daveshack has come before the Court with a question votes cast by citizens that have subsequently been perma-banned.
:( He did? ;)

Thanks for the quick response. Although one of these days I'm going to get one that has merit! ;)

:( He did? ;)

Thanks for the quick response. Although one of these days I'm going to get one that has merit! ;)

Doh - copy paste. Corrected!

I'd rather many questions that are easily answered than ones that people don't ask about and result in problems.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Talking about copy & paste, as we have failed dismally to find a friendly mod to post the formatted version of the laws in the constitution thread I have done it myself and requested that the first post is deleted. Perhaps this will be a quicker process and it will get done. I have also posted the amendment that has been included and linked back to the poll that passed it. I will add any future amendments in the same way, although of course a Mod can always edit my posts anyway.

BANG!


I declare this session of the Supreme Court of Fanatikos closed!

My thanks to my fellow justices Strider and Bootstoots for the efforts during this term.

To the next Chief Justice, Bootstoots, I offer my congratulations and best wishes for a quiet and peaceful term III!

Thanks most especially to all citizens that took time out of their busy day to share with all of us their wisdom. Your words were most welcome.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Thank you, ravensfire. The thread will be up soon, and my apologies for it being later than expected.