Please choose from the following options for Judge Advocate of the Court:

Donsig
Mhcarver
Abstain

This poll is open for three days.
Link to the Nomination Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149629)

Should they choose to make them, their platforms will go below:

Mhcarver's Platform
I’ll be brief here, I am running because I feel that I have done a good job as a judicial official in the past and with a new demo game, comes new questions, new conflicts, and a new dynamic, as an experienced official I at least have some idea how my rulings can affect the nation and if elected I will not issue a ruling that I feel will be detrimental to the game unless it there is no way around it, in which case I would immediately begin lobbying for a change in the law. I believe that In the past I have been fair and done good work as a court official, so vote mharver!

Donsig’s Platform:

As can be surmised from the answer above, I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to interpreting our constitution and laws. I believe justices must be limited to what is written and cannot delve into the world of what was intended to be written. If the founding fathers meant to say turn right but actually wrote turn left then we are bound to turn left until the constitution or law is legally changed to say turn right.

I do also believe justices should look at the constitution as a whole when interpreting it. If doing so highlights a conflict within the constitution then it is proper for the judiciary to explore what was intended when writing the document. For example if one clause says turn right and another says turn left then it is appropriate to decide which way to turn based on intent of the framers.

As for public investigations or citizen complaints or whatever they are called nowadays, I would work hard to resolve any such issues before they reached a trial stage. As Judge Advocate (read prosecutor) I do not think that every complaint filed must be brought to trial. I would certainly guard the people's interests jealously but if I felt a complaint had no merit I would not hesitate to say so.


-the Wolf

Neither cuz they both sound weird:o.

Mhcarver has done a wonderful job as a court official every time he holds office. He definitley deserves a chance to show off his skills in this DG.
VOTE Mhcarver!!!

does anyone have any question? if I'm going to lose in a landslide i'd at least like to be able to debate my opponent in one way or another

I would like to see a platform. I would like to know what are you going to do in offiece.

I’ll be brief here, I am running because I feel that I have done a good job as a judicial official in the past and with a new demo game, comes new questions, new conflicts, and a new dynamic, as an experienced official I at least have some idea how my rulings can affect the nation and if elected I will not issue a ruling that I feel will be detrimental to the game unless it there is no way around it, in which case I would immediately begin lobbying for a change in the law. I believe that In the past I have been fair and done good work as a court official, so vote mharver!

1.and now question to myself and my opponent: how much say do you think the people should have in establishing the court procedure?
I believe that the court should be able to establish it's own procdures at the beggining of every term but it must seek approval from the people if it wants to alter them mid-term.

sounds good to me :goodjob:

Condor, you couldn't be more wrong. Both of these candidates have long histories in the Civ3 DGs, and I can personally vouch for both of them. Just don't lend donsig any money.... :lol: Just kidding.

Both candidates are excellent Jurors and have vast knowledge of the Judicial system. I would be honored to vote for both.

Condor, you couldn't be more wrong. Both of these candidates have long histories in the Civ3 DGs, and I can personally vouch for both of them. Just don't lend donsig any money.... :lol: Just kidding.

Both candidates are excellent Jurors and have vast knowledge of the Judicial system. I would be honored to vote for both.
ignore condor, he'll do anything to get his post count up :p

The first post has been updated with a platform.

-the Wolf

1.and now question to myself and my opponent: how much say do you think the people should have in establishing the court procedure?
I believe that the court should be able to establish it's own procdures at the beggining of every term but it must seek approval from the people if it wants to alter them mid-term.

I think that ultimately the people should have the final say in court procedures as in every other aspect of our democracy. After all, if we don't abide by the people's wishes we're not a democracy. How the people have their say is also up to them and I hope this would be spelled out in our constitution and laws. If the constitution says the chief justice sets court procedures then that's all there is to it. The people still have their say come election time. Unless there is a constitutonal or lower law requiring popular approval of procedures (or changes to procedures) then any such approval is voluntary.

Now for my platform:

As can be surmised from the answer above, I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to interpreting our constitution and laws. I believe justices must be limited to what is written and cannot delve into the world of what was intended to be written. If the founding fathers meant to say turn right but actually wrote turn left then we are bound to turn left until the constitution or law is legally changed to say turn right.

I do also believe justices should look at the constitution as a whole when interpreting it. If doing so highlights a conflict within the constitution then it is proper for the judiciary to explore what was intended when writing the document. For example if one clause says turn right and another says turn left then it is appropriate to decide which way to turn based on intent of the framers.

As for public investigations or citizen complaints or whatever they are called nowadays, I would work hard to resolve any such issues before they reached a trial stage. As Judge Advocate (read prosecutor) I do not think that every complaint filed must be brought to trial. I would certainly guard the people's interests jealously but if I felt a complaint had no merit I would not hesitate to say so.

You plarform has been included donsig.

-the Wolf

Sorry, both candidates were excellent choices, so I abstained

Yes they certainly seem to be extremely qualified and respectable people... I must sadly abstain!

Ok, I still haven't voted in this election. A couple of quick questions. Let's see who answers and what they say.

1. What's the difference between "Innocent until proven Guilty " and "Innocent unless proven Guilty" and how will that difference affect your Court?

2. In your Court, to what extent does the authority of our Moderators permeate the Law of the Land? What are their boundries and what are yours?

1. What's the difference between "Innocent until proven Guilty " and "Innocent unless proven Guilty" and how will that difference affect your Court?


I was wondering when you would ask that question ...

-- Ravensfire

I was wondering when you would ask that question ...

-- Ravensfire
:mischief: I was really expecting a comment from you on that, Ravensfire. I was hoping for more, actually.

I needed to ask a question of the candidates and that question (and your future comment) was the first to pop into my head. :D

So it forced me to come up with a second question and that required a some thought. So thanks for the help! :)

I voted Mhcarver. Donsig's "strict constructionism" seems a bit too rigid. The letter of the law is very important, but one should consider the spirit of the law and the consequenses of a judgement as well. I was (and is) unsure though. Mhcarver might care too little for what is written in the law.

Mhcarver looks to be making a bit of a comeback, though i agree with donsig, it is not upto the judiciary to be leniant with the law, they are there to uphold it, if we want the law more leniant the citizens must change it.

1. What's the difference between "Innocent until proven Guilty " and "Innocent unless proven Guilty" and how will that difference affect your Court?
in my upbringing those two have meant the same thing, given the context in which innocent until proven guilty was often used, if you're going to get technical then until proven guilty means that their is a certain assumption of guilt. A judge advocate must have an assumption of guilt if he/she decides to prosecute someone, if they are prosecuting(note the difference from investigating) then they must believe that the person they are attempting to convict is guilty.

2. In your Court, to what extent does the authority of our Moderators permeate the Law of the Land? What are their boundries and what are yours?
in my mind a moderators boundaries are that they should keep order in the forums and veto any law that contradicts the forum rules, that should be their boundary, that being said moderators have in the past interfered with court business, which while I feel is beyond their boundaries I do not have the power to stop

I. Mhcarver might care too little for what is written in the law.
Perhaps I should clarify a bit more; If I somehow come across a review of a law I don't like then I will uphold the law as it is written , however if the clear intent and understanding of the citizens was that the law meant something else then that is how I will interpret the law

Ok, I still haven't voted in this election. A couple of quick questions. Let's see who answers and what they say.

1. What's the difference between "Innocent until proven Guilty " and "Innocent unless proven Guilty" and how will that difference affect your Court?

Sounds like semantic gymnatics. Also sounds like I missed an interesting judicial *debate*. :mischief: Honestly, the only difference I can see between the two phrases is that it can be argued that the first presupposes that a *guilty* verdict will be handed down. But on the other hand, it can be said the second implies the possibility that a *guilty* party could go unpunished due to an (erroneous) *not guilty* verdict.

Having a little experience with this sort of thing in past demogames all I can say is that as a member of the judiciary I would seperate out my own personal feelings in any judicial reviews or investigations. Legal decisions must be based on an impartial and rational assessment of the law (as written) or else the whole legal system is meaningless. I would not hesitate to hand down a ruling that lives up to the letter of the law even if that decision went against how I felt the game should be played. It is not my job as a justice to decide how I think the game should be played and then use my position to bring about that vision. It is my job as a citizen to decide what the spirit of the law is and then to ensure laws are written to reflect that spirit.

2. In your Court, to what extent does the authority of our Moderators permeate the Law of the Land? What are their boundries and what are yours?

Are you trying to get me in trouble old friend? In my court the mods would only enforce CivFanatics rules. The only say they would have regarding demogame rules would be the same say any other citizen has. As far as I'm concerned, within the demogame, mods are just plain citizens like anyone else playing the game. Mods do have the power to decree that portions of our constitution or laws are invalid because they conflict with forum rules. If they ever did that I would expect them to physically delete the offending passages so the judicary could continue doing its job based on what was left of the laws. I would not expect mods to re-write our laws - that should be left up to the citizens.

In short there are two sets of rules here: 1) forum rules and 2) demogame rules. Mods deal with interpretations and breaches of the former, the demogame judiciary with the latter. In other words, I promise not to dally with forum rules as long as the mods don't dally with demogame rules.

back within two votes! comeon people over 40 people voted in the presidential election, or enough people to tie this up, if you haven't voted then I strongly encourage you to do so

back within two votes! comeon people over 40 people voted in the presidential election, or enough people to tie this up, if you haven't voted then I strongly encourage you to do so

You were right after 41 votes it's tie.;)

:eek: Last minute come from behind victory (EDIT: almost) for Mhcarver!

And I want to see donsig prosecute his own PI. :D

:eek: Last minute come from behind victory (EDIT: almost) for Mhcarver!

What does this "almost" mean? :confused:

What does this "almost" mean? :confused:

The election was tied when she wrote that.

-the Wolf

Official action by the Censor: Mhcarver wins the position of Judge Advocate of the Court; welcome to the Bench.

-the Wolf

An even more stunning outcome.

Wow when i left donsig was quite a few ahead but congratulations mhcarver

Thank you all, first I would like to congratulate my opponent Donsig, he ran a clearly superior campaign that (aid comes and whispers into ear) oh, I mean I would like to congratulate my opponent on a well run campaign , Donsig, you were truly an worthy opponent, though we may not see eye to eye , I think that we each have the better interests of this nation in mind. I would like to thank all the people who voted for me and made this come from behind possible thank you all
-Mhcarver
Office of the Judge Advocate

Congratulations Donsig now apparantly :S

It's Donsig (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151795).

congratulations donsig, you ran a good and apparently better campaign.(goes into cave to cry)

congratulations donsig, you ran a good and apparently better campaign.(goes into cave to cry)

Thank you. I've already seen you post in the Judicial thread seeking a judicial review so I know you'll continue to be active in our country's legal matters. I'm glad of that. I've lost quite a few demogames elections, some in landslides where I got buried, some in close races that required run-offs. But never have I lost an election where I had already been declared the winner. I don't even want to imagine what that feels like. I've never looked at the demogame judiciary as a vehicle of punishment. In fact part of the reason I ran for Judge Advocate was my hope to be a (re)conciliator in any citizen complaints brought. I'd rather spend my time bringing people together in mutual understanding instead of preparing for trial. I can tell you though that if the perpetrator of the recent election frauds is brought before the bench I will gladly see him or her brought to trial.

It is time now for us as candidates and citizens to move on. There is work to be done in our country and always remember it is the citizen who has the power in a democracy.