Welcome, fellow citizens, to the Term 3 Judiciary. Here is the place to file any Judicial Reviews, Citizen Complaints, or just simple legal questions that you may have during this month.

The current Court is as follows:

Chief Justice - Bootstoots
Judge Advocate - Black_Hole
Public Defender - mhcarver

The Chief Justice's primary role is to coordinate and lead the efforts of the Judiciary. They are also in charge of creating Judicial procedures, posting in the Judicial log, posting polls for amendments and recalls, appointing pro-tem justices and determining the census.

The Judge Advocate is the justice in charge of prosecution during Citizen Complaints. They may also post a recall poll if for the Chief Justice.

The Public Defender defends the accused citizen during Citizen Complaints.

Below are links to the laws of Fanatikos:

The Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3127121&postcount=2)
The Code of Laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3127126&postcount=3)

Other links:

Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=124088)

Current census: 26

Here are the judicial procedures for the Term 3 Judiciary:

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 Citizen Complaints. 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 Citizen Complaints to determine if there is need
Participate in all Citizen Complaints in a fair and impartial manner
Post clear and decisive opinions on all questions. Abstentions are not allowed
Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement
Discuss and ratify these Judicial Procedures
Recuse themself from any Citizen Complaints that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the CC, 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
Request that other justices post an opinion promptly
Maintain the docket and decide the priority level of cases
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, either of the other two Justices may 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 that the justices post their opinion promptly, requiring all justices to make a ruling within 72 hours. The Chief Justice may request clarification of these findings as needed.

Reviews of a 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 Justice will post the poll for all proposals that pass Judicial Review.

All reviews must be finished by the end of the term if at all possible. The Chief Justice may defer a Judicial Review to the next term if it is filed less than 72 hours before the end of this term.

Citizen Complaints
Citizen complaints 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. Citizen Complaints shall be completed by the end of the term, unless the Judiciary finds this to be impossible, in which case the next term’s court may finish the investigation. 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 a citizen complaint, the citizen making the request may drop the request, ending the citizen complaint unless another citizen wishes to continue the process. Likewise, the citizen under investigation may accept the charges, and move immediately to the Sentencing phase.

If a citizen has been found innocent of a charge or if the citizen has been found guilty and sentenced appropriately, the citizen may not be charged again with the same violation

Review
Each requested Citizen Complaint 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 investigation during a Citizen Complaint 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)
Public Apology
Final Warning
Warning
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 a Warning is issued, a warning will be posted by the Chief Justice in the Judicial thread and may be reposted in that person’s government thread, if they hold an office. If a citizen is given a Final Warning, the above procedure will be used, but with stronger language. Additionally, the options “Warning” and “Final Warning” will not appear on a sentencing poll if that citizen is charged with a similar offense in the future. If a citizen is sentenced to a Public Apology, a thread apologizing for the actions taken must be posted by the defendant within 48 hours of the close of the sentencing poll. If the citizen is removed from office, they are barred from holding that office for the remainder of the term. The length of a suspension is to be determined by the Judiciary, with the required consent of the moderators

Current Matters
DG7JR14 - Missed gameplay sessions (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3193849&postcount=78)

Completed Matters
DG7JR13 - Meaning of "5 cities built" clause - Article C (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3155928&postcount=56)
DG7JR12 - Amendment to Article C (second attempt) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3151836&postcount=48)
DG7JR11 - Amendment to Article C (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3147955&postcount=40)
DG7JR10 - Immediate city razing (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3132487&postcount=13)

I have a question - who is in charge of Worker joins?

The President allocates Workers, but the Governor is responsible for the City and joins without the agreement of the Governor could mess up a well thought out city plan.

This also raises another question: if a Worker is allocated to a city, could the Governor choose to join it to the city rather than use it for improvements?

My feeling is this must be joint:the President should allocate the Worker with permission to join it
the Governor should decided when to join it and should not join Workers without the Presidential approval.

Here are the procedures I propose for Term 3. Ravensfire's procedures are used in general, with some key changes. Substantive changes to those procedures will be bolded, minor changes that do not affect how the Judiciary runs will be italicized, and deletions will be struck through. (note that the titles of each section are also bolded: those do not represent changes unless also italicized)

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 Citizen Complaints. 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 Citizen Complaints to determine if there is need
Participate in all Citizen Complaints in a fair and impartial manner
Post clear and decisive opinions on all questions. Abstentions are not allowed
Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement
Discuss and ratify these Judicial Procedures
Recuse themself from any Citizen Complaints that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the CC, 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
Request that other justices post an opinion promptly
Maintain the docket and decide the priority level of cases
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, either of 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 that the justices post their opinion promptly, requiring all justices to make a ruling within 72 hours. The Chief Justice may request clarification of these findings as needed.

Reviews of a 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 Justice will post the poll for all proposals that pass Judicial Review.

All reviews must be finished by the end of the term if at all possible. The Chief Justice may defer a Judicial Review to the next term if it is filed less than 72 hours before the end of this term.

Citizen Complaints
Citizen complaints 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. Citizen Complaints shall be completed by the end of the term, unless the Judiciary finds this to be impossible, in which case the next term’s court may finish the investigation. 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 a citizen complaint, the citizen making the request may drop the request, ending the citizen complaint unless another citizen wishes to continue the process. Likewise, the citizen under investigation may accept the charges, and move immediately to the Sentencing phase.

If a citizen has been found innocent of a charge or if the citizen has been found guilty and sentenced appropriately, the citizen may not be charged again with the same violation

Review
Each requested Citizen Complaint 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 investigation during a Citizen Complaint 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)
Public Apology
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. If a Warning is issued, a warning will be posted by the Chief Justice in the Judicial thread and may be reposted in that person’s government thread, if they hold an office. If a citizen is given a Final Warning, the above procedure will be used, but with stronger language. Additionally, the options “Warning” and “Final Warning” will not appear on a sentencing poll if that citizen is charged with a similar offense in the future. If a citizen is sentenced to a Public Apology, a thread apologizing for the actions taken must be posted by the defendant within 48 hours of the close of the sentencing poll. If the citizen is removed from office, they are barred from holding that office for the remainder of the term. The length of a suspension is to be determined by the Judiciary, with the required consent of the moderators

I have a question - who is in charge of Worker joins?

The President allocates Workers, but the Governor is responsible for the City and joins without the agreement of the Governor could mess up a well thought out city plan.

This also raises another question: if a Worker is allocated to a city, could the Governor choose to join it to the city rather than use it for improvements?

My feeling is this must be joint:the President should allocate the Worker with permission to join it
the Governor should decided when to join it and should not join Workers without the Presidential approval.
I think you're generally right on this issue: the President controls worker allocation according to article E, and the Governors are tasked with the "care, management, and use of the cities they control" according to article F. Therefore, decisions on workers joining a city should be made by the Governor, with the President holding the power to prohibit the joining. However, I would think that there is nothing prohibiting the Governor from unilaterally joining a Worker to their city if they had been allocated the Worker without the President saying that the Governor couldn't do it.

What Governor in their right mind would refuse the addition of population to their city? :confused: This is another reason that we need to authenticate a national plan in our laws. Otherwise, our nation is no more than five disembodied fingers grasping at straws.

What Governor in their right mind would refuse the addition of population to their city?Refuse, no, change plans, yes. These things should not be unilateral.

I would like to file a citizens complaint for ignoring instructions in the last turnchat, where the buildqueue in Priapos was changed to Trebuchet in place of harbor.

On that note, the Judiciary may also look at the worker allocation.

Yes, this is a moderator game action. Due to reasons I can't explain right now (lest I suddenly dissapear), I'd be unable to give any reasons for/against any actions. Doing so would ultimately divulge information that you're not supposed to hear yet. Already this post may be a little too much info. So, cease and desist now. You are dealing with real world issues.

Well then, Judiciary, I retract the query for investigation then, and good luck with your work in the Judiciary.

I know your procedures aren't ratified yet, but I have a request for judicial review regarding whether "abandoned immediately" can be considered equivalent to "razed immediately."
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.
In particular, if a city is acquired culturally and is immediately abandoned the next turn, is that considered the "one city" from that civilization?

TimBentley - This Judicial Review is found to have Merit, and will be docketed as DG7JR10.

The question is: What constitutes "razed immediately" under Article C? Does a city that was taken culturally and razed the next turn count towards our 1 city per civ limit?

Citizens are welcome to post comments on this issue.

CT - The one thing that comes to mind upon seeing that message is "WTF?!" Please tell me (by PM, post, or some other method) as soon as you are allowed to divulge that information. You did violate instructions, and I'd like to see the reason as soon as possible.

I believe that CT's post says cease and desist now. This appears to be a no kidding let's not mention it again post. In fact I'm taking a bit of a chance even saying so, but just in case CT's not online at the moment... ;)

Furiey - Do you, or anyone else, want to file a Judicial Review on the worker allocation matter?

Also, fellow Judiciary members - please state your opinions on the procedures, as proposed, in preparation for a vote on them.

I believe that CT's post says cease and desist now. This appears to be a no kidding let's not mention it again post. In fact I'm taking a bit of a chance even saying so, but just in case CT's not online at the moment... ;)

Yes, I was online at the moment. Like I said, cease and desist. Let's not make this into a conspiracy show.

Also, fellow Judiciary members - please state your opinions on the procedures, as proposed, in preparation for a vote on them.
After thinking over a bit, I accept the new procedures..

I am quite concerned about this "cease & decist" order, and hope to know the reason very soon

I approve these procedures
-office of the public defender

Okay then, these proposals are ratified.

Any citizen comments on JR10?

Citizen comment on DG7JR10:

The culture flip interface is broken relative to captures. Since we are not presented with the option to raze immediately, we should accept the game interface limitations and interpret this to mean at the next opportunity. Note however that this is not a decision to be taken lightly, it will damage our reputation / state of relations with the other civs.

We should just say to all the rebels.

We should just say to all the rebels.

I agree with Nobody. Welcoming a city into Fanatik arms with the intention of leveling it the next turn is unsavory practice. The way our law is written, if we receive a city via culture flip then that is our one city from that nation.

As you can say to your daughter, or something, "Just say NO"....

We should just say to all the rebels.

Nobody, it looks like nobody (besides me) noticed there is no no in your post. :lol:

DZ even quoted it as though there is a no, even though no no can be seen. :rotfl:

The debate isn't whether we should accept the rebels and then abandon their city, it is whether the law allows us to. There is nothing preventing the Foreign Minister (or is is the Expatriate Governor -- maybe that's another JR) from instructing the DP to rebuff all rebels no matter how this JR comes out.

This was posted by Provolution in the Instruction thread. As this is a real place for a question of this nature, I ask the Judiciary to give this a glance.
Just a question of reference. Do the Judiciary hold immunity to a designated player overriding elected official instructions, and is this a preferred practice?
This was merely a generic question.

-- Ravensfire, President of Fanatikos

Just a question of reference. Do the Judiciary hold immunity to a designated player overriding elected official instructions, and is this a preferred practice?
This was merely a generic question.
No, the Judiciary will never give immunity for such an action. However, moderators can in the name of forum rules(*sigh*)

I would hope moderators would be considerate enough to not play if they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Otherwise citizens' rights are violated.

Just a question of reference. Do the Judiciary hold immunity to a designated player overriding elected official instructions, and is this a preferred practice?
This was merely a generic question.
No, that's absurd. However, as noted above, moderators can overrule us.

Edit: Also, I'd appreciate if the other justices will make a ruling on JR10 soon, as there seems to be little discussion on it. I'll make my ruling after the other two have gone (like ravensfire has done in the last two turns).

Citizen Comment on DG7JR10.

I have to say that when I see immediately, I think immediately. That being said, I believe that when a city is captured (and the Constitution doesn't say "captured", it says "gained"), and the option to Raze or Keep is given, we have to raze it at that point in time (that is, of course, unless this is our "one city from this civ"). Whether or not we should keep it the turn then raze isn't the issue, the issue is whether or not we are allowed to do that. In my opinion, the Constitution says that we aren't.

Edits in bold.

Ill make my ruling tomorrow, if any citizens wish to comment please do so soon

We should just say to all the rebels.

That has got to be the stupidest post i have ever made, i dont even know what i was talking about...... oh i got it now i meant say no to citys when they request to culture flip. it makes sense to me. And provolution i would never say no to your daughter. ;)

I find that a city acquired via cultural flip counts as the city acquired from another civ even if that city is abandoned after one turn, for My reasoning I would like to reference this ruling (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3085682&postcount=9) in which the court determined that we may not abandon a city to take another one. And quite frankly abandoning is not the same as auto-razing , you have to actually hold a city to abandon it, so I find that cities acquired via culture and abandoned immediately afterwards still count as the one city from that civ

JR 10

I concur with mhcarver, getting a city by culture flip counts as that foreign empires one alotted city, if future flips occur by a civ already having the 1 alotted city taken, they must be rebuffed.
It also counts as a taken city if it is razed after 1 turn.

Bolded below is the key phrase that made my decision. Culture flips fall in the category "by any means"

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 Judge Advocate

....if future flips occur by a civ already having the 1 alotted city taken, they must be autorazed.Mr Judge Advocate, a comment about your statement above.

There is no option to autoraze when a city flips to us, the only options given to us would be to accept the city, or to rebuff the rebels. If we choose rebuff, the city will not be razed but stay with the original Civ.

Mr Judge Advocate, a comment about your statement above.

There is no option to autoraze when a city flips to us, the only options given to us would be to accept the city, or to rebuff the rebels. If we choose rebuff, the city will not be razed but stay with the original Civ.
my mistake, that was what I meant

I see we're still bent on taking the most difficult (game-wise) approach possible, logical arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. :(

The question has been asked: Do cities obtained through a cultural flip count towards the one city per civ limit, even if razed at the beginning of the next turn? To address this, I'll quote Article C of the Constitution. It 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.
As far as I can tell, the cultural flip and immediate autoraze of a foreign city would indeed count towards the one city per civ limit. I have several reasons for this ruling.

First, according to DG7JR8, which occurred last term, we may not abandon a foreign city in order to take another city from the same civ. Even though we would never have held two cities simultaneously during that time, the actual time frame we held them has been found to be irrelevant. Therefore, according to past judicial precident, taking a city by cultural flip would count towards the requirement, regardless of how brief the timespan is.

Another argument I have for this ruling is that the article, as noted by the other Justices, most definitely includes cultural flips. Its second sentence states that only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means, a definition that very clearly includes cultural flips as well as acquisitions by treaty. Since it says that only one city may be taken by any means, taking another city, even if immediately disbanded, is unconstitutional.

Additionally, though the third sentence may seem to allow this as long as the city acquired is "razed immediately," it seems fairly obvious that the Constitution's use of "immediately" does not allow us to flip a city and then abandon it. The intent of this article, as far as I can tell, is to prevent us from taking any advantage of owning more than one city from the same foreign power simultaneously. Allowing us to do this would undermine the variant we chose to play, which allows only one city from each foreign power, period. This article is written to back that up. Because of this, I'd say that "razed immediately" in the third sentence refers to the razing of a city as it is being captured, not capture (including by cultural flip) and subsequent abandonment.

It is acknowledged that putting such stringent limits on ourselves may appear to be a form of shooting ourselves in the foot. However, it must be remembered that we chose to do just that, in the name of a challenge.

In summary, I concur with the other two justices in this ruling.

Judicial ruling - DG7JR10

By a 3-0 decision, the Judiciary ruled that cities that are acquired due to a culture flip and then are immediately razed do count towards the one city per civ limit.

Greetings Justices,

I would like to request an urgent Judicial Review of the attached bill amending Article C of the Constitution. This review is being requested in parallel with the citizen discussion to expedite the process, so that ratification can occur prior to our (hopefully) upcoming peace with Germany. Please act on this review assuming the posted text does not need further changes via the discussion process. :D

========================================

Proposed poll:

Do you approve this amendment to Article C of the Constitution?
Yes/No/Abstain

Note: New text is provided both with and without formatting. The "unformatted" version is the one to be included in the Constitution. The "formatted" version is provided for your reference only and is not binding. Any disagreement between the formatted and unformatted version is incidental and does not affect amendment passage.

Current text:

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.


Proposed new text without formatting (official copy):

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 taken by any means may be held by Fanatikos at the end of a turn. Any other cities beyond the limits stated in this article must be razed immediately or abandoned prior to the end of the turn. Foreign cities may be acquired during a turn or between turns as long as enough cities are abandoned prior to the end of the turn to comply with the limits stated in this article.


Proposed new text (non-binding copy, provided for reference only):

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 may be held by Fanatikos at the end of a turn. Any other cities beyond the limits stated in this article must be razed immediately or abandoned prior to the end of the turn. Foreign cities may be acquired during a turn or between turns as long as enough cities are abandoned prior to the end of the turn to comply with the limits stated in this article.

This Juidicial Review of proposed law is approved and docketed as DG7JR11 - Amendment to Article C.

I will post my opinion shortly

The text of the proposed amendment to Article C of the constitution violates no Articles of the Constitution. However, it was submitted too early according to Article N. Article N states:
Amendments to the Constitution must be posted as a Proposed Poll in the discussion thread for at least 24 hours prior to submission to the Judiciary. The discussion on the amendment must have lasted at least 48 hours.
The proposed poll has not been up for 24 hours yet, and the discussion thread has only been open since October 7 at 21:26 GMT (5:26 PM EDT), less than 24 hours ago. As such, this amendment fails Judicial Review at the moment, though any submission after October 9, 21:26 GMT will be valid.

Please wait until then and resubmit the amendment.

I agree with the Chief Justice, please wait and resubmit

You guys promise to be online at that time? I would like the poll posted as immediately as possible please. Last game I was extremely upset with the judicidary when a whole week passed between the JR for an amendment and the poll being posted because the judiciary bickered among themselves about who should post it.

Take your time, Judiciary. This is a flawed law.

You guys promise to be online at that time? I would like the poll posted as immediately as possible please. Last game I was extremely upset with the judicidary when a whole week passed between the JR for an amendment and the poll being posted because the judiciary bickered among themselves about who should post it.
I'll be online at or close to that time and should be able to make a ruling quickly. As for who will post the poll, that is clearly in my jurisdiction, so I'll post it as soon as I see that it passed Judicial Review. I'd like to get all three opinions on the amendment before concluding the review and posting the poll, however, so if another Justice takes awhile in posting their review, it could take some time. That's the only thing I can see slowing this down, though, and I'll send PM's once I see it resubmitted. Also, keep in mind that the poll will have to be open for 96 hours according to Article N, so the chances of this finishing before next turnchat are nil.

It can be resubmitted any time now
But the Judiciary cannot guarantee any timing, mhcarver is usually quite busy with school work

resubmitted:

Greetings Justices,

I would like to request an urgent Judicial Review of the attached bill amending Article C of the Constitution. This review is being requested in parallel with the citizen discussion to expedite the process, so that ratification can occur prior to our (hopefully) upcoming peace with Germany. Please act on this review assuming the posted text does not need further changes via the discussion process. :D

========================================

Proposed poll:

Do you approve this amendment to Article C of the Constitution?
Yes/No/Abstain

Note: New text is provided both with and without formatting. The "unformatted" version is the one to be included in the Constitution. The "formatted" version is provided for your reference only and is not binding. Any disagreement between the formatted and unformatted version is incidental and does not affect amendment passage.

Current text:

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.


Proposed new text without formatting (official copy):

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 taken by any means may be held by Fanatikos at the end of a turn. Any other cities beyond the limits stated in this article must be razed immediately or abandoned prior to the end of the turn. Foreign cities may be acquired during a turn or between turns as long as enough cities are abandoned prior to the end of the turn to comply with the limits stated in this article.


Proposed new text (non-binding copy, provided for reference only):

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 may be held by Fanatikos at the end of a turn. Any other cities beyond the limits stated in this article must be razed immediately or abandoned prior to the end of the turn. Foreign cities may be acquired during a turn or between turns as long as enough cities are abandoned prior to the end of the turn to comply with the limits stated in this article.

This review is approved and will be docketed as DG7JR12 - Amendment to Article C (second attempt).

Ruling to come shortly.

The proposed amendment to Article C of the Constitution violates no other articles. As such, it should pass Judicial Review.

Judicial ruling - DG7JR11

By a 2-0 decision, an amendment proposed by DaveShack to Article C of the Constitution has failed Judicial Review because it was submitted too early, violating Article N of the Constitution as well as the Judicial Procedures. The Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate voted for this ruling, with the Public Defender not casting a vote. The review was concluded early due to the resubmission of the amendment at such a time that it did not violate Article N, making this review obsolete.

As a note, I would normally never conclude a review with a missing opinion, but since this review became obsolete, asking for an opinion from mhcarver on it is a needless formality.

I find the Daveshack's proposed legislation is not in conflict with current law and should move forward to the polling process.

I find the current resolution is not in conflict with law and should move forward, I wouild like to apologize for not ruling on the first submission because I interpreted it as a dismissal by the CJ, which I agreed with

I find the current resolution is not in conflict with law and should move forward, I wouild like to apologize for not ruling on the first submission because I interpreted it as a dismissal by the CJ, which I agreed with
Okay, that's fine. Actually, I should have dismissed it out of hand, but didn't notice the timespan until after accepting it for review (but not before reviewing it), so I decided to proceed with it.

Judicial Ruling - DG7JR12

By a 3-0 decision, the Judiciary has ruled that an amendment proposed by DaveShack to article C of the Constitution conflicts with no laws, and therefore passes Judicial Review and will proceed to the polling phase.

The poll should be up soon.

I have a point for Judiacial Review:

Article C. Game Structure
Many questions were asked and answered by the Judiciary during previous terms on capturing cities, but this particular question was not asked and with the discussion surrounding changing this law I believe it should be:

... Likewise, we are never allowed to build another city ourselves, so should the French attack and destroy say Augean Stables, then we are playing a 4BC because we are not allowed to rebuild....Our laws say that "No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time." so if a city was captured we couldn't build another, but if a city was razed then 5 cities would no longer exist and we should be should be able to build another as it does not specify the same 5 cities. Could we also then raze one of or existing cities and rebuild providing we raze before we resettle?

So I suppose that's 2 questions:
1. Can we rebuild if a city is destroyed
2. Can we raze and then resettle one of our own cities.

This review is found to have Merit and will be docketed as DG7JR13 - Meaning of "5 cities built" clause, Article C

It will be addressed in two parts:

1. Can we rebuild if a city is destroyed?
2. Can we raze one of our own cities and the resettle it?

Citizens: feel free to make comments.

Citizen Comment

ok, here's my take on this:

1. i believe the law states that we cannot have more than "5 Built Cities at any one time". if one of the built cities got razed, then we would have 4 cities. since that would be 4 cities at that specific time, we would be allowed to build a new 5th city.

2. on this one i would have to say self-razing would be legal, but i would think it would be betraying citizens.

1. I would say yes, we can and should (with or without the amendment). I think we should take full advantage of what the Law allows.

2. Again, I would say yes we can. But should we? Only if we really, really need to... ;) An act like this would fer sure piss off the people arguing against DaveShack's Proposed Amendment. :rolleyes:

Citizen Comment on DG7JR13-


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.


Seems to me that "No more than five cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time" means that if one of our cities gets destroyed, there's nothing stopping us from building another one to replace it. So, that's a Yes for A, and it may be placed anywhere, not just on the same ground. However, if a city is taken and not razed, it still counts as one of our five cities, and so we cannot build another one.

Also, it seems to me that there is nothing in the constitution that is stopping us from abandoning one of our own cities. So, it's a Yes for B also.

I do think it is yes to both my questions. Whether we would want to do the second is a different debate altogether.

So we're going to say that we can rebuild one of our cities if it gets razed, but if one we captured gets razed by the enemy then we're out of luck?

I love the way this game is consistent. If this and previous judiciaries had just given common sense answers to previous questions instead of consistently taking the (stupid IMO) strict letter of the law, then we would not still be asking these questions.

My answer as a citizen is NO and NO. If we're dumb enough to let one of our cities be razed then we get what's coming to us. On the second issue, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander -- if you won't let me raze a captured city and capture another, I'm sure not going to let you raze one of our cities and rebuild elsewhere.

So we're going to say that we can rebuild one of our cities if it gets razed, but if one we captured gets razed by the enemy then we're out of luck?

I love the way this game is consistent. If this and previous judiciaries had just given common sense answers to previous questions instead of consistently taking the (stupid IMO) strict letter of the law, then we would not still be asking these questions.

My answer as a citizen is NO and NO. If we're dumb enough to let one of our cities be razed then we get what's coming to us. On the second issue, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander -- if you won't let me raze a captured city and capture another, I'm sure not going to let you raze one of our cities and rebuild elsewhere.
we don't rule on what wouldn't be dumb, we rule on the law

we don't rule on what wouldn't be dumb, we rule on the law

Actually, you should always take both into consideration.

Judicial Reviews are there because there are legitimate questions about the law. The obvious ones, the ones that can be determined easily by looking at the law, should be dismissed.

That big ruling we did last term had a few areas that I intentionally looked at the "fun" aspects of the game because the law could go either way.

Quite honestly, several of those questions, and probably both of these could be handled by a CoL amendment, as they would explain and detail how the Constitution is interpreted. I didn't like some of what DS said below, as I strongly disagree with him. I think, however, that he could work to change some of those ruling (and probably this one) by putting together a CoL amendment to change them to use his version of common sense.

To go on topic:
Question 1: Yes, we can rebuild a core city that is recaptured.
Question 2: No, we can not abandon and refound a core city. This is far too "gamey" for me, and I don't want to see it.

-- Ravensfire

I think, however, that he could work to change some of those ruling (and probably this one) by putting together a CoL amendment to change them to use his version of common sense.


This JR, and many of the previous ones to which I refer, are based on Article C of the Constitution, which cannot be changed via a CoL amendment.

Actually, you should always take both into consideration.

Judicial Reviews are there because there are legitimate questions about the law. The obvious ones, the ones that can be determined easily by looking at the law, should be dismissed.

That big ruling we did last term had a few areas that I intentionally looked at the "fun" aspects of the game because the law could go either way.

Quite honestly, several of those questions, and probably both of these could be handled by a CoL amendment, as they would explain and detail how the Constitution is interpreted. I didn't like some of what DS said below, as I strongly disagree with him. I think, however, that he could work to change some of those ruling (and probably this one) by putting together a CoL amendment to change them to use his version of common sense.

To go on topic:
Question 1: Yes, we can rebuild a core city that is recaptured.
Question 2: No, we can not abandon and refound a core city. This is far too "gamey" for me, and I don't want to see it.

-- Ravensfire
what I am saying is that even though it is dumb to raze cities and rebuild(if they are built by us), its legal
we shouldn't make it illegal because its a dumb idea(which it is)

This JR, and many of the previous ones to which I refer, are based on Article C of the Constitution, which cannot be changed via a CoL amendment.

Sure it can - that's the purpose of the CoL - to explain and provide details. The CoL cannot contradict the Constitution, but it can explain how things happen. That's the whole purpose.

Look at the declaration of war stuff - it says the Senate and Assembly have the power to declare war in the Constitution. It doesn't say how. That's all in the Code of Laws.

With this, we've got some gray areas. The constitution says we can have 5 built cities. It doesn't fill in the details about various scenarios because it shouldn't. THAT goes in the Code of Laws.

Make your changes in the CoL, you're filling in the details of Article C.

-- Ravensfire

The other justices may make their rulings on DG7JR13 at any time. I'll rule after the other two have gone.

JA's Ruling on JR#13
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.

So the answers to both questions are "yes"
Yes, we can rebuild a city lost(if we built it)
Yes, we can raze a city and rebuild it(if we built it)

The law is quite clear, that we can have 5 cities built by us

1.Yes we may rebuild a city that has been lost if we rebuilit it

2.No we may not raze our own cities and rebuild them, it goes against the game and I feel like that was not the spirit I envisioned when I voted for this variant.

umm, I hate to prod but is their a Chief Justice in the house? ( Mhcarver heads down to the wine cellar, realizes that the locks have been changed, theres an interesting combination of thuds and what can best be described as a chugging noise,he decides some things are best left alone)

HEY! Stop all that banging up there! Don't you know that there's wine to be drunk down here?

Sheesh - you give 'em the keys and they suddenly think they have the only copies... :D

-- Ravensfire, President of Fanatikos

umm, I hate to prod but is their a Chief Justice in the house? ( Mhcarver heads down to the wine cellar, realizes that the locks have been changed, theres an interesting combination of thuds and what can best be described as a chugging noise,he decides some things are best left alone)My apologies, I'll be right on it, once I get this thing open. ;)

My apologies, I'll be right on it, once I get this thing open. ;)

Gimme that shtupid bottle! <hick!> I'll open it heh heh heh

<CRASH>

Ohhh. That's not good. I think I'll .... uym ... what was I gonna do?

Security detail: I think it's time to go home, sir.

Ohh yeah! That's a really good idea. Woah - this room isn't level. Mishter Chief ummm, what every you are. You sshhoould really look into that. Thish is dangerous!

Security detail: Okay - time to go home, sir.

Yesh! It's time to go home!

-- Ravensfire, President of Fanatikos (who apparently enjoys his wine!)

Judicial Review 13 comes in two parts, namely whether or not we can rebuild if a city is destroyed, and whether or not we can raze one of our own cities and the resettle it. The relevant article of the Constitution, Article C, states the following:
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.

Article C is worded so that we can have no more than five cities that we built standing at any time. Unlike the sentence relating to the capture of foreign cities, the first sentence does not appear to restrict us to only 5 cities, just five cities at any time, thus allowing us any number of cities through the course of the game provided only five are standing simultaneously. This is the key to this ruling, and it answers both questions. My answers to them are as follows:

1. Yes, we most certainly can rebuild cities if they are destroyed. As long as we have fewer than five cities standing at the time the replacement city is built, it's perfectly legal.

2. Razing our own cities and then rebuilding them is not exactly an encouraged practice, but there is no law against it. Article C prohibits that no more than it prohibits the rebuilding of cities. Therefore, it is legal. However, any official ordering or performing such an action without polling it can expect a CC for violating the will of the people - the people should be assumed to be against any extreme measures such as this one. I personally would vote for such an action only under the most dire of circumstances.

Good call, CJ Bootstoots. See? A little wine never hurt anyone. :lol: I hope the President made it home safely... ;)

Judicial ruling - DG7JR13

This ruling was on the interpretation of Article C of the Constitution. It came with two questions. These questions and the rulings the Term 3 Judiciary has made are as follows:

1. Can we rebuild a city that has previously been destroyed?

In a 3-0 ruling, the Judiciary decided that cities that are destroyed by a foreign power can be rebuilt.

2. Can we abandon our own cities and then resettle them?

In a 2-1 decision, the Judiciary ruled that the abandonment of our own cities, with the consent of the people, is constitutional. The Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate voted for this ruling, the Public Defender dissented.

Justices,

At the most recent game session, the Designated Player did not show up in a timely manner, based on the time in the Instruction Thread. I used the authority in Section L.1 of the Code of Laws to take over that session.

My question, as raised by Furiey in the DP Pool thread, is does that count at Provo's slot in the DP rotation? There was no notification of a delay. It's quite understandable if something came up, and I'm sure that the other players would accomodate an emergency, but it's in the best interest of everyone to keep things moving on.

Thanks for your help!
-- Ravensfire

Justices,

At the most recent game session, the Designated Player did not show up in a timely manner, based on the time in the Instruction Thread. I used the authority in Section L.1 of the Code of Laws to take over that session.

My question, as raised by Furiey in the DP Pool thread, is does that count at Provo's slot in the DP rotation? There was no notification of a delay. It's quite understandable if something came up, and I'm sure that the other players would accomodate an emergency, but it's in the best interest of everyone to keep things moving on.

Thanks for your help!
-- Ravensfire
a tought question, there is no actual clause stating what should happen in this case... I will have to conduct further legal review

I will treat this as a Judicial Review request.

This review found to have Merit and will be docketed as DG7JR14 - Missed gameplay sessions.

The question to be addressed is the following: If a DP misses their game play session, and the session is taken over by the President (edit: or another official) according to CoL L.1, does that missed session count as their gameplay session, as it would if they were actually present?

The Court is now open to citizen comments.

If you schedule your session at your convenience and then don't turn up, sorry but you've missed your session. There is plenty of flexibilty to allow DPs to swap the order in which they play in advance. OK, sometimes things happen, our PC dies, our internet connection is lost, and then it is unfortunate. But this was meant to be a quick game, if someone doesn't turn up we need to move on and get the next session scheduled. The DP that didn't show for their turn can wait until next time.

If the DP for a session does not show up, or is unable to continue, a substitute DP can be chosen for that session. This substitute is chosen from the President, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Defense and the Minister of Trade and Technology, in that order.


There is no rule that states that the DP that misses or must leave the turnchat gets to host the next turnchat, or does in fact get any reimbursement of any kind. Rather, by default it should be treated as if they conducted the turn session as planned. Anything contrary would be a special case, and there are no special cases as such listed. Instead, the next logical step would be to continue on down the DP pool line.

Unofficially, I suppose that if a DP who misses their session comes back after the fact and provides a reasonable explanation for their absence, they could try to get all the pool participants to move down one spot. This would in effect put the player at the top of the pool legally, under the CoL:


Members of the DP pool may exchange places as they desire, so long as all citizens involved agree.

Much better put Gerikes, I really shouldn't post at 5 AM after an all night civving session.

As a notice, I'm going to be gone from a little after this point today to the evening of the 25th, or about two and a half days. I may be able to check in later tonight, but probably won't have internet access from then until my return. I don't think this is a long enough absence to appoint a pro-tem justice, so I decided against it. Feel free to make citizen comments on JR 14 and the other justices are welcome to rule on it when they see fit, but if anything new is filed, I probably won't be able to get to it until the evening of the 25th.

Ruling on JR 14
If a designated player does not show up at a scheduled game session, that session still counts as his/her session.

This is because article H.2 of the CoL states that Designated Players are chosen by pool, and DPs decide on game sessions.

We need rulings on this before the next TC

I've been standing by for mhcarver and will send him a PM.

Our constitution is clear on this matter, DP's do decide on their own sessions, the fact that they didn't show up doesn't mean that their sessions can be rescheduled

so if a player misses his/her scheduled TC, that does count as his/her session

on a side not I would like to apologize to my colleagues, the first quarter ends at my school tommorow so I have been taking tests and writing papers like crazy, I guarantee this won't happen again.

Designated Players have the right to set their own game play session times, as has been noted before. Though our ruleset is not explicit that they lose their session for failing to show up, it is a logical conclusion. I think it is fairly clear that, if somebody does fail to show up to their own game play session, they are not entitled to another session (unless the DP list cycles back to them, of course).

Whoops, just realized that I ruled and forgot to close this one out.

Judicial Ruling - DG7JR14
The Judiciary ruled, in a 3-0 decision, that any turnplayer who forget to play his turn and has his session played by another player according to CoL L.1forfeits his turn to play the save.