Quoth Donovan ZoiI 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.

This request for Judicial Review has been 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.

I've open this thread as I feel this discussion is core to our system, and want to keep it focused (and outta my office, as much as 2 rocks and some sticks can be called an office).

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Thank you for opening this thread, Mr. Chief Justice.

Recently, I have noticed a movement to circumvent the original intent of this article. I think that the words highlighted in bold make it quite clear that we are bound by law to acquire no more than one city total from any nation for the duration of the game. Nowhere can it be implied that we can take the entire number of cities (7) from just anyone.

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.

I concur with Donovan's quote box.

However, this pops open a new question (originally thought up by DaveShack, if I remember correctly): can we abandon a city we've taken from a rival in order to take another?

I concur with Donovan's quote box.

However, this pops open a new question (originally thought up by DaveShack, if I remember correctly): can we abandon a city we've taken from a rival in order to take another?

Good question, RegentMan, though I would say "No" to that as well.

Once a city is "taken," we should be allowed to "take" no more. On this issue, I see a very minor flaw in the article. If you change "taken" to "held," only then would we be able to do what you have mentioned.


Example:
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 held at one time by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.

In order not to confuse anyone, I wish to point out that this is not an amendment thread. So let's not turn this discussion into ways to improve Article C for now. I was just trying to illustrate a point.

i totally agree with Donovan zoi. I didnt like the idea of a 5cc but i think the intent of the law is clear. 5cc plus one from each, so we can only take one from each civilization.

only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means.
That line there says it all.

I agree that the law clearly states we can acquire only one city from each one of our rivals. Because only one city can be "taken by any means," that mean we can't take a city then later abandon it in order to take a second city.

I agree that the law clearly states we can acquire only one city from each one of our rivals. Because only one city can be "taken by any means," that mean we can't take a city then later abandon it in order to take a second city.

Agree. And the subtlety of "taken" vs "held" is actually a nice point about the law as it's written here. No opportunistic behavior possible.
The only remaining question is: what does "city from civ X" mean? Currently held by X, or originally built by X? I.e., if France takes Berlin, then we take Berlin from France, does that count as a city taken from France, or from Germany? I would say the first.

I agree, let us net make this game more gamey, and stick o acquiring only one ONCE from each civ.

i don't think we should be allowed to take more than 1 city from each civ. the law clearly says that. keep it the way it is.

I strongly disagree with the "one from each" idea. Take Persia for example -- they are hopelessly backwards as it is. What if they get eliminated before we have a chance to capture one of their cities? Then we are stuck with +6. What if none of their cities are worth keeping?

On keeping only the first one, consider this. We should have some opponents on different continents, if the game was created correctly. We need to take a coastal city as a beachhead, but that might not be the right city to keep for the long-term if there is some other city which is more valuable. We should be allowed to abandon the lower value city to keep a higher value one.

Here's my view, as a citizen:

Article C is worded very clearly. As Donovan Zoi noted, it states, "only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means." I do not see any way that this can possibly be interpreted other than that we may take only one city from each rival respectively. That also means that, if Persia is eliminated before we get our city from them, that's too bad for us: we won't get a city. I also believe that we are not permitted to keep a rival city temporarily and then sack it to capture another one, as we would have taken and held two cities from one civilization instead of razing one immediately. That we held them in different time frames is irrelevant. I acknowledge DaveShack's objections to this idea, but it must be kept in mind that the entire reason we decided to play this variant is that we wanted a challenge, and violating Article C as it's currently worded to make the game easier for us isn't exactly falling within the intent of the variant, not to mention the law.

I strongly disagree with the "one from each" idea. Take Persia for example -- they are hopelessly backwards as it is. What if they get eliminated before we have a chance to capture one of their cities? Then we are stuck with +6. What if none of their cities are worth keeping?

On keeping only the first one, consider this. We should have some opponents on different continents, if the game was created correctly. We need to take a coastal city as a beachhead, but that might not be the right city to keep for the long-term if there is some other city which is more valuable. We should be allowed to abandon the lower value city to keep a higher value one.

That's all part of the fun. Instead of taking the obvious coastal city as a beachhead, why not send worker teams to build fortresses/barricades?

Regarding your Persia scenario: our loss. We didn't act fast enough, so we don't deserve another city.

Crossposted with Bootstoots.

haha, great another thread I can rant about 5BC in. I'll get back to this later.

haha, great another thread I can rant about 5BC in. I'll get back to this later.
I am not sure why you will keep this up, its not gonna change... As a justice you should be talking about the legal side, not using this JR as a time to rant about a variant you don't like

What if say germany took over persia. Could we then take one german and one persian city. (by caputring a german city of persian heritage)

Suppose we capture a German city, and then they capture Civatonia. Under the law as currently written, I guess I'd then have to demand that we raze Civatonia upon recapturing it, since strictly by the letter of the law we would have already captured a city held by Germany. The law does not have an exception for this potential disaster, if it is interpreted strictly.

Suppose we capture a city and then it flips away. Under the law as written we have to raze it upon recapturing it. Or we capture one and then another better one flips to us - we have to keep the 1st one.

Or we get into a war with two opponents who are also at war with each other. Say France and Germany for example. If France captures a German city and we have already captured a French one but not a German one, then we're out of luck?

I don't fancy losing in the 1400's AD after we find that we don't control any coal because we have no way to get it off the other continent due to all our captures being used up and no way to then keep a coastal city. We won't be able to trade for it because after centuries of war it's doubtful anyone is willing to give us any.

These are all hypothetical problems, of course. You can be reasonable and take a liberal interpretation of the law, knowing we won't actually raze and repeat or take 2 from one opponent unless we need to. Or you can be unreasonable and invent a totally new way for us all to commit suicide if any of these nightmare scenarios come up. Is losing really that fun?

Suppose we capture a German city, and then they capture Civatonia. Under the law as currently written, I guess I'd then have to demand that we raze Civatonia upon recapturing it, since strictly by the letter of the law we would have already captured a city held by Germany. The law does not have an exception for this potential disaster, if it is interpreted strictly.

Suppose we capture a city and then it flips away. Under the law as written we have to raze it upon recapturing it. Or we capture one and then another better one flips to us - we have to keep the 1st one.

Or we get into a war with two opponents who are also at war with each other. Say France and Germany for example. If France captures a German city and we have already captured a French one but not a German one, then we're out of luck?

I don't fancy losing in the 1400's AD after we find that we don't control any coal because we have no way to get it off the other continent due to all our captures being used up and no way to then keep a coastal city. We won't be able to trade for it because after centuries of war it's doubtful anyone is willing to give us any.

These are all hypothetical problems, of course. You can be reasonable and take a liberal interpretation of the law, knowing we won't actually raze and repeat or take 2 from one opponent unless we need to. Or you can be unreasonable and invent a totally new way for us all to commit suicide if any of these nightmare scenarios come up. Is losing really that fun?

Interesting point. Perhaps we should post an amendment thread for the Code of Laws.

Suppose we capture a German city, and then they capture Civatonia. Under the law as currently written, I guess I'd then have to demand that we raze Civatonia upon recapturing it, since strictly by the letter of the law we would have already captured a city held by Germany. The law does not have an exception for this potential disaster, if it is interpreted strictly.
If I were ruling on a case like that, I would rule that we can indeed take the city back, as it was not originally from a foreign civilization (we were the original founders) and was within the five-city limit of cities built by Fanatikos. I can see, however, how that one could be ruled either way. As a result, I'd support a minor amendment, probably a CoL amendment, clarifying our ability to recapture our own cities if they fall under foreign control.

Suppose we capture a city and then it flips away. Under the law as written we have to raze it upon recapturing it. Or we capture one and then another better one flips to us - we have to keep the 1st one.
First point - We would not have to raze upon its recapture. Article C limits us to one city from each foreign civilization. It does not say that we can't recapture a city if it is captured or flips. The limitation it expresses is that we cannot have control over two or more cities created by the same opponent, not that we can't capture a single city multiple times.

Second point - The idea behind a 5BC is that we would indeed not be able to capture a second city if we like it better than a first. So you're absolutely right there, but that was the intent of the variant we passed as well as the wording of the law.

Or we get into a war with two opponents who are also at war with each other. Say France and Germany for example. If France captures a German city and we have already captured a French one but not a German one, then we're out of luck?
I guess you could say that we could capture a French-controlled German city, as that city would be from (if we define "from" as founded by) Germany. Alternately, you could rule that only a direct capture would count, so we wouldn't be able to take that city. That's a gray area in this article, and I'd like to see a judicial review on it after this one's over, assuming that it's still relevant of course.

I don't fancy losing in the 1400's AD after we find that we don't control any coal because we have no way to get it off the other continent due to all our captures being used up and no way to then keep a coastal city. We won't be able to trade for it because after centuries of war it's doubtful anyone is willing to give us any.
There are ways to remedy that. First, of course, trade could be utilized. Granted, we'd probably have to pay an arm and a leg for it, but we'd probably be able to find some opponent that we hadn't cut off trade to directly and would be willing to trade with us (we may have to get them to declare war against somebody first so that they would forget our broken trade deals with that nation). Also, it'd be rather odd for there not to be a single source of coal on our continent that we could acquire through military force and set up a colony on. Even if all coal were on the other continent, it would be unlikely that we'd use up all captures for nations on that continent without acquiring a single city on it that we could use to ship the coal to us (using colonies and military force as necessary). If all that were impossible, then I guess we'd have to live with our bad planning and survive without railroads.
These are all hypothetical problems, of course. You can be reasonable and take a liberal interpretation of the law, knowing we won't actually raze and repeat or take 2 from one opponent unless we need to. Or you can be unreasonable and invent a totally new way for us all to commit suicide if any of these nightmare scenarios come up. Is losing really that fun?
If the constitution says something like "At the end of Term 2, the capital must be abandoned", I as a justice cannot in good conscience rule that the capital does not actually have to be abandoned because it would be detrimental to game play. I can get angry that some idiot put that in there, and I can suggest an amendment to remove that before the end of Term 2, but I cannot rule against a rule's wording and intent. This could be viewed as a similar situation. Though I am not personally opposed to the current restriction, I'd rule exactly the same way if I were. Article C states:
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. It is quite clear that this article wants us to get only one city from each individual foreign civilization, and that it means exactly what it says.

Suppose we capture a German city, and then they capture Civatonia. Under the law as currently written, I guess I'd then have to demand that we raze Civatonia upon recapturing it, since strictly by the letter of the law we would have already captured a city held by Germany. The law does not have an exception for this potential disaster, if it is interpreted strictly.

In my interpretation, that is correct. Better not lose any cities then :D.

Suppose we capture a city and then it flips away. Under the law as written we have to raze it upon recapturing it. Or we capture one and then another better one flips to us - we have to keep the 1st one.

Or we get into a war with two opponents who are also at war with each other. Say France and Germany for example. If France captures a German city and we have already captured a French one but not a German one, then we're out of luck?

Yes, and yes. Means we'll have to decide carefully which cities to take.

I don't fancy losing in the 1400's AD after we find that we don't control any coal because we have no way to get it off the other continent due to all our captures being used up and no way to then keep a coastal city. We won't be able to trade for it because after centuries of war it's doubtful anyone is willing to give us any.

Coal is rather cheap. Past warfare doesn't limit the willingness of the AI to trade, only broken deals do. Even then, paying in hard goods always works. Still, it's better not to break any deals.

These are all hypothetical problems, of course. You can be reasonable and take a liberal interpretation of the law, knowing we won't actually raze and repeat or take 2 from one opponent unless we need to. Or you can be unreasonable and invent a totally new way for us all to commit suicide if any of these nightmare scenarios come up. Is losing really that fun?

Or we could be strong (or stubborn :D) and stick to the variant. Really, there are lots of people out there playing variant games, and sticking to the rules until the end - and they don't even need a constitution or something. If I understood it right, the whole purpose of the variant was to keep the game interesting for a longer time. That requires a certain amount of risk.

I don't fancy losing in the 1400's AD after we find that we don't control any coal because we have no way to get it off the other continent due to all our captures being used up and no way to then keep a coastal city. We won't be able to trade for it because after centuries of war it's doubtful anyone is willing to give us any.


are you afraid of a challenge? playing without coal doesn't mean we will have to retire because the AI will steamroll us. it just means the game will be a bit more difficult. i hope you're not suggesting changing our constitution to make the game easier, to suit your preferences.

Interesting point. Perhaps we should post an amendment thread for the Code of Laws.
that wouldnt be possible, the Code of Laws cannot override the Constitution... The constitution would have to be amended

are you afraid of a challenge?

If I were afraid of a challenge would I be trying to challenge the "establishment"? This whole thread is a waste of time because you all are going to be unwilling to be open minded anyway.

No, I want flexibility. Unlike some other masochists, I'm not interested in losing. If we can win strictly by the variant then fine, but if it goes south then we should be able to change our approach. I think we'll cruise no matter what we do -- it's the principle of being flexible, not any expectation that we'll actually need to use it.

Let me put this another way. I'm against extremes and in favor of middle positions.

that wouldnt be possible, the Code of Laws cannot override the Constitution... The constitution would have to be amended


But we could ammend it, couldn't we;)? If not, then dummy Civlord will shut up.

But we could ammend it, couldn't we;)? If not, then dummy Civlord will shut up.
yes we could :)
I'm not sure if I personally would want to however

If I were afraid of a challenge would I be trying to challenge the "establishment"? This whole thread is a waste of time because you all are going to be unwilling to be open minded anyway.

No, I want flexibility. Unlike some other masochists, I'm not interested in losing. If we can win strictly by the variant then fine, but if it goes south then we should be able to change our approach. I think we'll cruise no matter what we do -- it's the principle of being flexible, not any expectation that we'll actually need to use it.

Let me put this another way. I'm against extremes and in favor of middle positions.

In order to change our approach, this must be done through our system of law. If you feel strongly enough about this, then you should work toward an amendment that mirrors your goals.

I am being premature, as the Judiciary hasn't even ruled on this matter yet. However, there is a pretty strong consensus that the flexibility you want does not exist under our current law. And no amount of altruistic prose is going to change that.

We are discussing the law as written. Once the Judiciary makes its determination, we can then discuss possible changes.

hehe "no amount of altruistic prose" haha old Donovan, you hit the nail there, "altruistic prose", "no amount", hehehe, really entertaining that one :)

In order to change our approach, this must be done through our system of law. If you feel strongly enough about this, then you should work toward an amendment that mirrors your goals.


Unfortunately, 1/3 of the people here (really 1/3 of those voting) can block any change. There are way too many people who wanted a strict 5CC to ever have a chance to amend it.

We're going to be in pretty bad shape if the French really are after Augean Stables. If our hoplite loses we're in a world of hurt, because once we retake it, technically it's our one "capture from the French". Too many people are more concerned about getting out a dictionary and using the definitions of the words in the law instead of taking a common sense approach. :(

Nice discussion we're having here, one that's actually bringing up some good scenarios. I'm going to expand the questions for this Judicial Review, in hopes of making this JR fairly comprehensive.

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

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

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

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?

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)?

I think that's all the major questions from the discussion - if there are any others, please let me know and I'll consider adding them.

Justices, my apologies for increasing the number of questions, but I'd rather we handle as much as we can on this Article in one shot.

Thank you,
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

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).

The original copy of this ruling can be found in the judicial thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=127677).

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

Thanks to all for this discussion!

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice