The Chief Justice is the head of the Judicial Branch, and along with the Public Defender and Judge Advocate, and is tasked with upholding, clarifying and reviewing all changes to the Constitution and its supporting laws through Judicial Reviews, and upholding the rights of all citizens through Investigations. The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.

Please submit nominations for the Chief Justice of the Court in this thread and Accept or Decline any nominations you may receive. Self nominations are allowed. Citizens may only run for one elected position.

Nominations will close and elections open 00:00 GMT on the December 29 (7PM EST/6PM CST December 28).

-the Wolf

Well, since i wont be using civ until next month, i nominate myself and accept!

I nominate Daveshack

second dave, though tbh i cant really remember if this was the area he liked the best :)

I lean towards accepting, but I will remain undecided for a bit, to see what needs there might be.

Quit riding the fence DS.:nono:

:D
-the Wolf

yeah, i wanna know if i have to run against you! :( in which case i will lose like a pancake

I'll go ahead and accept this nomination, looks like there is enough activity in the nomination threads that offices will be filled. And it wouldn't be fair to wait any longer in case my quite capable opponent is planning to select another office. ;)

My platform for the term is to interpret the rules in a way which maximizes fun for the most people while not depriving anyone of the right to have their questions, issues, and complaints heard in a fair and impartial manner.

darn it! ah well i guess i will never hold office now:(

My Platform is to that i wont hold any bias during trials, in order to allow pure justice. all decisions made by me as chief justice would be in the best interests of (in order)
1. the citizens of the demogame
2. the nation

that way we may go down the drain, but hey, everyone will have fun and not be unfairly sentenced.

I will now take questions from the press

oh yes, and another reason that you should vote for me is that i am new, so you would be introducing new blood to the Demogame. also i dont have a good computer, so CJ allows me to be part of the demogame without needing to know civ 4

You can still be an active part of the demogame without holding a position you realise?

not that i mean you to drop out just pointing it out :)

yeah, but i never had a position, so i meant active in that way.

k well go for it, dave needs some competition :)

It's refreshing to be in an actual election. The Civ3 game has been too short of players recently, and most offices go uncontested.

BTW, open call to everyone: If you want an office, hardly anyone is even nominated for the Civ3 game.

I nominate Cyc for CJ

i doubt that he will see this is in 2 hours

well it does say 29th of december and it is only the 27th so doesnt that mean a day and 2 hours or am i being stupid?

@BCLG100, Your're right Nominations close in about 25 and 1/2 hours.

-the Wolf

oh woops, time to reset my computer calender :p

Wow! Thanks for the Nomination, Black_Hole! :eek:

I can't remember the last time I saw an election for Chief Justice with 3 candidates. Of coure we ARE talking about MY memory here.... So, I'll Accept.

DS knows a lot more about the latest version of the Constitution, but I'll try to give him a run for his money. Good Luck, DS and RoboPig.

To all candidates:

1) Explain your thought process in making a ruling on judicial reviews?

2) One of the duties of the Chief Justice is to organize the affairs of the Court. What policies would you put in place?

3) Do you support a system of resolving citizen complaints that can bypass a trial/sentancing phase if all parties involved are satisfied with the solution?

-- Ravensfire

thanks, but now i can bet that i will lose between 2 giants...

thanks, but now i can bet that i will lose between 2 giants...

Bah! Kick back, relax, and campaign the heck outta them! It's true, some of the other candidates bring some experience with them. Be different! Campaign on that! Be aggressive in selling yourself to us, and you'll be surprised at what's possible.

-- Ravensfire

1) Explain your thought process in making a ruling on judicial reviews?

1).First, is it constitutional, is it right, would it infringe on our basic principles
2). is it worth a court review or is it an insignificant complaint
3). is it in violation of a previous decision
4). is it for the good of first, the citizens and second, the nation

2) One of the duties of the Chief Justice is to organize the affairs of the Court. What policies would you put in place?

ones that make the DG more fun without ruining it for other people, ones that enforce the constitution

3) Do you support a system of resolving citizen complaints that can bypass a trial/sentancing phase if all parties involved are satisfied with the solution?


no, we cannot allow something that is wrong and unjust go ahead because people are happy, we must think of future consequences and of whether it is right. you wouldnt reinstate slavery because everyone agreed would you? sometimes people make bad choices, thats what the judiciary is for. do make sure that decisions are fair, not too join a crowd

Bah! Kick back, relax, and campaign the heck outta them! It's true, some of the other candidates bring some experience with them. Be different! Campaign on that! Be aggressive in selling yourself to us, and you'll be surprised at what's possible.

-- Ravensfire
thank you! but people do tend to vote for people who they are familiar with. however lots of people know me, so maybe...

thank you! but people do tend to vote for people who they are familiar with. however lots of people know me, so maybe...

sometimes it is a popularity contest which is why you need to win the votes of those undecided, you'll do this with your answers in discussions and the such like :) good luck!

anymore questions from the press?

To all candidates:

1) Explain your thought process in making a ruling on judicial reviews?
1. What's the real question? Dissect the question to find the exact purpose of it.
2. Break out the Constitution and analyze every angle of the question against all logical Articles (if more than 1). If the question pertains to the CoL, then that is looked at for answers and then cross-checked against the Constitution to see if any Articles are violated.
3. Question my answer. Does the opinion formulating in my mind make sense? Or is it over-complicating a basic truth?
4. Double check my points and document my opinion.
5. Articulate my opinion in a post to the people.

2) One of the duties of the Chief Justice is to organize the affairs of the Court. What policies would you put in place?
Mainly procedures used in the High Courts I became involved with in the CIV3 DGs. They can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2145820&postcount=3). Following procedure would be policy #1. A fair deal to all would be policy #2.

3) Do you support a system of resolving citizen complaints that can bypass a trial/sentancing phase if all parties involved are satisfied with the solution?

-- Ravensfire
Good question. If the Defendant pleaded guilty, then the trial is skipped and the case goes directly to sentancing. But if all parties involved can come to an agreement that can be unanimously approved by the Court prior to a trial actually starting, then whatever arrangements agreed to by the parties, including dropping the charges (or complaint), can be accomodated.

Good question. If the Defendant pleaded guilty, then the trial is skipped and the case goes directly to sentancing. But if all parties involved can come to an agreement that can be unanimously approved by the Court prior to a trial actually starting, then whatever arrangements agreed to by the parties, including dropping the charges (or complaint), can be accomodated.
i disagree here, are you saying that we should just go with the crowd? the judiciary is here not to make everyoen feel happy, but to do what is right. if something is not fair, no matter how popular it is, it must be struck down

i disagree here, are you saying that we should just go with the crowd? the judiciary is here not to make everyoen feel happy, but to do what is right. if something is not fair, no matter how popular it is, it must be struck down
RoboPig, good oink to you and thanks for the question. Although I'm sure the honorable Ravensfire understands my answer, I can see you're not quite aware of his pet policies.

Let's say I wronged you in some way that you claim denies you your rights according to the law. You file a Citizen's Complaint against me. Seeing this, I contact you (or your attorney) and promise to publically apologize in a dedicated post to the people for my blunder, promise never to do it again, plus shine your boots for a month. I would promise to do all this (and anything you might add) if you would drop the CC. You agree.

In doing this, we have saved the Court and the people time (and perhaps boredom) by working it out on our own. We have lightened the caseload of all the Justices and made speedy trials and reviews more prominent. I do not think this is a bad thing. But keep in mind, all three Justices would have to approve of the action.

RoboPig, good oink to you and thanks for the question. Although I'm sure the honorable Ravensfire understands my answer, I can see you're not quite aware of his pet policies.

Let's say I wronged you in some way that you claim denies you your rights according to the law. You file a Citizen's Complaint against me. Seeing this, I contact you (or your attorney) and promise to publically apologize in a dedicated post to the people for my blunder, promise never to do it again, plus shine your boots for a month. I would promise to do all this (and anything you might add) if you would drop the CC. You agree.

In doing this, we have saved the Court and the people time (and perhaps boredom) by working it out on our own. We have lightened the caseload of all the Justices and made speedy trials and reviews more prominent. I do not think this is a bad thing. But keep in mind, all three Justices woild have to approve of the action.

while it would lighten the load see my example:

mr. B insults mr.A. Mr.A is a new demogamer. he accepts the settlement but what mr.B did is much more serious. plus, now mr.B thinks that he can do this again. he may hurt someone else like this and the next time it will be far more serious. therefore, these offences must be tried to stop bullies like this. So that they dont repeat their offences. my opinion

Courts give rulings based on cases presented before them - they can't make a ruling on a case that doesn't come to them. With your example RoboPig...

The Court can't make a ruling limiting Mr. A's actions until said ruling comes before the court. If Mr. B agrees to the deal (which are done in real life too), then that case is resolved. The court can't intervene and say "hey, that wasn't fair" and make a ruling unless someone challenges it.

The Judiciary is passive until called upon.

Courts give rulings based on cases presented before them - they can't make a ruling on a case that doesn't come to them. With your example RoboPig...

The Court can't make a ruling limiting Mr. A's actions until said ruling comes before the court. If Mr. B agrees to the deal (which are done in real life too), then that case is resolved. The court can't intervene and say "hey, that wasn't fair" and make a ruling unless someone challenges it.

The Judiciary is passive until called upon.
however with my platform people will be more willing to come to court since they no that i am very strict on griefers. my policies will make people more willing to come, they know that whoever offended them will be tried appropriately

however with my platform people will be more willing to come to court since they no that i am very strict on griefers. my policies will make people more willing to come, they know that whoever offended them will be tried appropriately

Let's take an example where this system was used. An official had failed to post instructions for several sessions, despite being reminded. A request was filed. There was no question that the events happened, and the official was willing to plead guilty. However, all parties (the citizen filing the request, the official and the court) agreed that a statement apologizing for the action and would not to repeat the action.

Since then, that official has remained in the game, and does a pretty good job. All of this took a few days, tops.

Assuming that this citizen would plead guilty, how would a sentancing poll make this any better?

-- Ravensfire

Let's take an example where this system was used. An official had failed to post instructions for several sessions, despite being reminded. A request was filed. There was no question that the events happened, and the official was willing to plead guilty. However, all parties (the citizen filing the request, the official and the court) agreed that a statement apologizing for the action and would not to repeat the action.

Since then, that official has remained in the game, and does a pretty good job. All of this took a few days, tops.

Assuming that this citizen would plead guilty, how would a sentancing poll make this any better?

-- Ravensfire
well by trying him and identifying the cause of the inactivity, we can see if it will ever happen again.

well by trying him and identifying the cause of the inactivity, we can see if it will ever happen again.

There is no trial - the citizen pleads guilty. Again, how does this help the situation?

Now, does the cause of an action violating a rule matter?

-- Ravensfire

There is no trial - the citizen pleads guilty. Again, how does this help the situation?

Now, does the cause of an action violating a rule matter?

-- Ravensfire
it wouldnt be as much a trial as an evaluation. say the cause is that the officials relative just died. over the remainder of the term a funeral and all the mourning will occur. so the court would rule that due to the sad passing away, the official is not fit for duty. this way we can work more efficiently since the official can leave his office or be given a short break since he must mourn etc.

it wouldnt be as much a trial as an evaluation. say the cause is that the officials relative just died. over the remainder of the term a funeral and all the mourning will occur. so the court would rule that due to the sad passing away, the official is not fit for duty. this way we can work more efficiently since the official can leave his office or be given a short break since he must mourn etc.

Under what law (Constitution or Code of Laws) would you do that?

-- Ravensfire

Under what law (Constitution or Code of Laws) would you do that?

-- Ravensfire
none i suppose at the moment, but remember, the judiciary is creating itself in the first term.
plus, it would be more of reccomendation and the minister would have to agree too.

Cyc was available to answer first, so my answers will end up looking like "me too", but...

To all candidates:

1) Explain your thought process in making a ruling on judicial reviews?



Determine what the question is, and locate laws relevant to the question. Post back the (potentially clarified) question and relevant laws to give the originator a chance to fix any misunderstandings.
Wait for citizen input. Even if input gets ignored, it is important to allow citizens to have their say.
I'm of the fairly firm opinion that most, if not all, questions have "merit". I don't like the stand that some people have taken in the past that a question has to be substantial to merit a review. "No merit" as an answer would be reserved for cases where the originator is trying to gum up the works or to use the JR process for a purpose it was not intended for.
Look at the law to see if there are any inconsistencies between what it means and what it says. Weigh the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law to determine if anything needs to be clarified. When different parts of the law are inconsistent with each other, look at which one is "closest" to the point of the question, as the one closer in relevance takes precedence.
Look at the question relative to the law as written and the interpretation of the law. Write a draft ruling, and walk away from it for a while.
Review the draft with a fresh mind and revise as needed.
When CJ, try to hold off posting a ruling until last, but don't hold off so long that timelieness suffers. This can be relaxed significantly when the PD and JA are experienced people.
2) One of the duties of the Chief Justice is to organize the affairs of the Court. What policies would you put in place?

The procedures used by most courts in the the most recent two Civ3 DGs have worked well. They would need to be reviewed to ensure there aren't any conflicts between the procedures and the laws. I would advocate using separate threads for significant JRs and for all CCs for ease of navigation.


3) Do you support a system of resolving citizen complaints that can bypass a trial/sentancing phase if all parties involved are satisfied with the solution?


Yes, I fully support a system where conflicts can be resolved without going through the full complaint process. Such an "out of court settlement" logically has the effect that the complaintant drops charges in exchange for the accused taking actions to remedy the situation which led to the complaint. Since most situations which result in valid CCs are either communication problems or oversights, this lets breaches be healed without causing more significant damage via prosecution.

Nominations for Chief Justice of the Court are now closed. Please continue any discussion in the Election Poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150548).

-the Wolf