This thread is for citizen discussion relating to the question posed by Blkbird regarding the poll which allegedly ratified the Triumvirate 6.2 government as the CoL.

Civ4DG1JR1

Question: Was the poll for ratification of Triumvirate 6.2 performed legally according to the rules in force at the time the poll was conducted?

The relevant law is the Constitution, Article C. Members of the court and citizens may point out additional relevant laws as needed.

Article C - Decision Making
Power of the People
All decision making power within the Democracy Game is derived from the collective rights of all the citizens.
The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered.
By Mandate as evidenced in a citizen's selection to hold office via the elective process.
By Constituency as evidenced by citizen comments in favor of a decision, in a public discussion.
By Opinion Poll in the form of the results of a non-binding poll
By Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.
By Initiative in the form of a binding poll initiated by the citizenry, which has force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type
By Recall of an official and selection of a replacement via election or appointment
In the event that two or more such delegations of the Power of the People are in conflict, the following hierarchy shall determine which decision has precedence.
An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier initiative on the same subject) except another later initiative which repeals it.
Binding polls of any type have precedence over any other decision type.
Non-binding polls have precedence over non-polling decision types.
Citizen input has precedence over mandate.
If two or more polls or discussions occur on a matter, the last one to complete shall prevail.
Lower forms of law may modify parts of this hierarchy, except for the provision regarding initiative which may not be modified.
A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except
Initiative must always be allowed
No decision shall require more support than an amendment to the Constitution. This is not a discussion on whether the Triumvirate 6.2 or Flexible government is better, or on which one we should choose now. The question before the court is on whether that specific poll was conducted according to the law in effect at that time.

In order for our system of government to work correctly, the court must operate with as much impartiality as possible. Given the polarized nature of the current Tri vs Flex poll, it is certain that some or all of the justices may have a personal preference. We need to approach this case by examining it according to the law and not our preferences.

The citizens should understand that while we seek input to help us interpret events based on the law, the court does not operate on the popularity of our decisions.

This discussion must stay on topic. There are plenty of places to talk about the related issues.

For anyone who saw what was posted here, I realized even an analogy might break my own request for staying on topic. I've copied it to another file to think about it a bit more.

I think this article should be kept in mind as evidence is presented:

Article A - Forms of Law
1. Governing rules shall consist of this Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented.

2. No rule shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution.
a, Rules which are more specific on a given point may clarify more general points without being contradictory.

3. These rules may not contradict the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics Forums. Moderators may veto any such rules.

Here is another relevant article imo:

Article A - Forms of Law
Governing rules shall consist of this Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented.
No rule shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution.
Rules which are more specific on a given point may clarify more general points without being contradictory.
These rules may not contradict the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics Forums. Moderators may veto any such rules.

There are no requirements for CoL ratifacation, so we could assume that the CoL's own amendment proccess would have to be followed for ratifacation of the CoL

edit: Donsig beat me

Look at the order of precedence of decision making types:


# An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier initiative on the same subject) except another later initiative which repeals it.
# Binding polls of any type have precedence over any other decision type.
# Non-binding polls have precedence over non-polling decision types.

I think it is obvious the CoL amendment poll would be an intiative and the other polls non binding polls, so the CoL amendment poll has precedence...
There is no clause stating that if an intiative if based on a non binding poll, and the non binding poll is invalid, then the intiaive is invalid

The sequence of events was:


Poll asking "which government to focus on" between Tri (3.0), Flex (unspecified), and Traditional (from DG7), which was tied by the first count.
Some upgrades to Tri, bringing version to 5.0 or 5.1. A hacked version of Tri placed in the Flex thread to show how easy it is to remove the key feature of Tri and morph it into flex.
Poll asking "which government to focus on" between Tri (5.1) and Flex (hacked Tri or modified DG7, TBD), which was in favor of Tri on the first count.
Tri was upgraded from 5.1 to 6.2, with input from many citizens. Part of this upgrade happened during the poll in #3.
Poll asking "Ratify Tri 6.2 as the CoL", with overwhelming majority which was not affected by the DL's.
Revelation of the fraud affecting votes 1 and 3. Followup questions:

During step 4, were the proponents of Flex given an opportunity to influence Tri? Did that influence result in a convergence of the two ideas?
Hypothetically, if Flex had won would Tri supporters have influenced the Flex drafting process? Would it be likely that their input would result in a convergence between the two ideas?
Does anyone else wish to offer their opinion of a categorization of points 1 thru 5 in terms of the definitions of decision types?

I would further note that there was fraud in the poll from Step 3. The results of that poll were 22-16 in favor of the Triumverate. After the DL's were removed, the actual results of that poll was 12-16 in favor of the Flexible ruleset.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

I would further note that there was fraud in the poll from Step 3. The results of that poll were 22-16 in favor of the Triumverate. After the DL's were removed, the actual results of that poll was 12-16 in favor of the Flexible ruleset.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

That's noted in the timeline by including "first count" in the description, and step 6.

DaveShack:

My opinion is that Points 1 and 3 were Opinion Polls, and Point 5 was an Initiative.

There are no requirements for CoL ratifacation, so we could assume that the CoL's own amendment proccess would have to be followed for ratifacation of the CoL

I disagree to consider the initial ratification of a CoL as some kind of "amendment" in this or any other context.

Firstly, by definition, an "amendment" cannot occur before the subject to amend exists. In this case, the CoL is the subject to amend, which does not legally exist until the point of its ratification.

Secondly, the amendment process is not legally binding until *after* the ratification, so the ratification is in no way bound by the amendment process specified in the very CoL to be ratified.

My opinion is that Points 1 and 3 were Opinion Polls, and Point 5 was an Initiative.

I second this opinion.

There are no requirements for CoL ratifacation, so we could assume that the CoL's own amendment proccess would have to be followed for ratifacation of the CoL

I missed this and then Blkbird quoted it and posted an opinion on it.

Unofficially speaking, there is a precedent that ratification does not generally need to meet the same standard as an amendment to the law being ratified.

The constitution specifically stated that a majority was sufficient for its ratification and that 60% would be required for an amendment.
In the Civ3 DGs we commonly ratified constitutions using a different requirement than amendments would require. In every case that I can remember, ratification required a majority. Still speaking unofficially, it is clear that if the law being ratified, or the ratification itself, specifies criteria then they need to be met. If a higher level of law requires lower levels of law to be ratified by a specific criteria then it would need to be met.

An official response can be expected as part of the ruling for this case.

The constitution as written is a bit confusing regarding the decision making process. The difference between referendums, initiatives and opinion polls is not clear to me. I'm sure the intent was for the Code of Laws to define and clarify these differences but in determining whether or not we have a code of laws we can only base our decision on the constitution. This is a case where the intent behind the constitution is relevent. Since I was not part of that debate I encourage citizens ot present evidence from the original constitutional debates regarding the assumptions I have made below:

A referendum is official because it is posted by an elected official acting under the authority vested in the office he or she was elected to.

Initiatives and opinion polls are posted by citizens who hold no office or by an office holder delving into areas beyond the authority of their elected office. An example of the latter would be a poll posted by me (Judge Advocate) about whether we whould go to war against a specific country. Since the subject has nothing to do with the Judiciary I'd be posting an opinion poll or initiative (as a citizen) rather than a referendum as Judge Advocate.

The difference between an initiative and an opinion poll is that the former is binding while the latter is not. This difference is based upon the form of the poll, presumably the poll itself specifies whether it is a binding initiative or a non-binding opinion poll.

I disagree to consider the initial ratification of a CoL as some kind of "amendment" in this or any other context.

Firstly, by definition, an "amendment" cannot occur before the subject to amend exists. In this case, the CoL is the subject to amend, which does not legally exist until the point of its ratification.

Secondly, the amendment process is not legally binding until *after* the ratification, so the ratification is in no way bound by the amendment process specified in the very CoL to be ratified.
so what does the CoL require for ratification? 60%, 50%, or something else? In all past DGs the CoL has been ratified by its own conditions.

All the constitution says is that there can be a CoL, by your logic, it doesn't even need to be ratified! There has to be some type of requirements for ratification, and the amendment requirements are what it should be. Technically it could be said we are amending a blank CoL to one full of content.

A referendum is official because it is posted by an elected official acting under the authority vested in the office he or she was elected to.

I cautiously agree with your interpretation of "official" - for now, until someone present arguments against it.

The difference between an initiative and an opinion poll is that the former is binding while the latter is not. This difference is based upon the form of the poll, presumably the poll itself specifies whether it is a binding initiative or a non-binding opinion poll.

In my opinion, a poll can only be binding if:

1. it specifies so itself AND
2. the subject is specific and the wording is precise AND
3. the subject of the poll has legal significance.

If I post a poll asking, "Do we like apple or orange?" it cannot be binding even if the poll says so because it has no legal significance.

In the matter at hand, the questions of the two "government style" polls were:

1. Which government style should get our focus? (Flexible / Traditional / Triumvirate / Abstain)
2. What government style should we focus on? (Triumvirate / Flexible / Abstain)

Besides the fact that they both didn't specify being binding, they're both not specific and precise enough - "focus" is a pretty vage term. The legal significance of the two polls are questionable as well because "focusing" on a ruleset doesn't mean anything in the context of the Constitution.

All the constitution says is that there can be a CoL, by your logic, it doesn't even need to be ratified!

Yes it does. Until ratification, there is no CoL.

There has to be some type of requirements for ratification, and the amendment requirements are what it should be.

Yes, the same requirement as for other polls, because nothing else is specified in the Constitution.

Technically it could be said we are amending a blank CoL to one full of content.

Even if we see it that way, the ratificantion only needs to follow the amendment process defined in the blank CoL - which is none. Until the rafitication is completed, the (new) amendment process cannot not binding.

As a citizen responsible for posting some of the polls in question, here is the 1st post text from the first Tri vs Flex (vs Traditional) poll.
========================
Government Style (where to focus the rules work)
We have very little time left before our preferred start date of Jan 1st (or shortly thereafter). It is now time to focus our efforts on finishing the rules for the government type preferred by the most people.

The choices, with links to discussion threads, are:

Flexible Government (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142948)
Triumvirate 4.0 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=146657)
Traditional Government (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=146769)

This poll will be open for 3 days and its results will be used to tell the rule makers which one to push to completion. You are not voting to ratify a ruleset in its current form! The government style getting the most votes can be modified before its Code of Laws is submitted for ratification. I strongly suggest we start working on the one which gets a lead after a day or so.
===========================

The intent of this poll was to instruct the rule makers what to work on. It was posted by an official responsible for the area covered by the poll.

We must stay with the Tri. We are regressing to the October, novemeber point, we are being driven back 2 months by a scandal, and we must not allow this to happen!

We must stay with the Tri. We are regressing to the October, novemeber point, we are being driven back 2 months by a scandal, and we must not allow this to happen!
This discussion is about the legality of the the current Code of Laws, not which course of action we should take
However, it would not take 2 months, more like 10 days

We must stay with the Tri. We are regressing to the October, novemeber point, we are being driven back 2 months by a scandal, and we must not allow this to happen!

Although I agree with you, I have to point out that this doesn't matter here in this very decision. This is a purely judiciary matter, and justice knows no price.

It was posted by an official responsible for the area covered by the poll.

You were an official back then? By what authority?

You were an official back then? By what authority?

He was chosen as a Founding Father by a poll of all citizens.

-- Ravensfire

Question for the citizens:

The ruleset presented for ratification was based on two polls later found to be fraudulent. Does this matter?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

He was chosen as a Founding Father by a poll of all citizens.

I cannot find that poll. Would you care to give me the link?

The ruleset presented for ratification was based on two polls later found to be fraudulent.

This statement is incorret. The ruleset was not "based on two polls", the acceptance of the ruleset as a CoL draft was. The ruleset itself was based on no polls at all, but a number of discussions.

This statement is incorret. The ruleset was not "based on two polls", the acceptance of the ruleset as a CoL draft was. The ruleset itself was based on no polls at all, but a number of discussions.

And those discussions, the final tweaking of the Tri into its final form, were based entirely on the result of two polls.

Poll 1 - tie between Tri and Flex (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=147660)(Flex wins with DL accounts removed)
Poll 2 - Reolves tie (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148415), Flex wins with DL accounts removed.

You can do a quick search in the poll for the Founding Father polls - there should be two of them. When you are looking, can you find a single poll where an explicit preference for Triumverate over Flex was the final result?

-- Ravensfire

Let's start by looking at government style poll #1, which is copied into post #17 in this thread.

Was this a binding poll?
If it was binding, what does it say to do, specifically?
Given the apparent outcome (tied), what was the correct action to take at that time?

Let's start by looking at government style poll #1, which is copied into post #17 in this thread.

Was this a binding poll?
If it was binding, what does it say to do, specifically?
Given the apparent outcome (tied), what was the correct action to take at that time?

In my opinion, that poll was not binding as it does not only lack the specification of being binding, it increases the impression of non-bindingness by explicitly saying the CoL is *not* being ratified by it.

We don't want to rush this case, nor do we want to hold it up if we have enough information.

Each Justice should post a notice in this thread when sufficient information has been gathered to move to a ruling.

Mr. Chief Justice,

I'd like at least one more day to allow for possible discussion. There's only a few people debating in this thread, which concerns me as this decision will likely determine the course for the immediate future.

Also, as an advisory, I will also be considering points made in the thread Rik created (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152528) on this matter.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

being a citizien, i will answer Ravenfires question. I tdoen't matter because the CoL was still ratified. While mostg of the pubnlic has turned out to support the Flexible, the pubvlic still ratified a binding CoL that made the Tri the law of the land. Then after that they were happy under it and content, holding elections and getting ready for the game. After that the scandal appeared and out of the woodwork came those who would have us forget the law because they don't like it. The tri worked, has worked, and will continue to work.

I agree with the principle of using comments from Rik's thread, and information from other sources as well. Another day won't kill us at this point.

Question for the citizens:

The ruleset presented for ratification was based on two polls later found to be fraudulent. Does this matter?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
This is a very strong point, the ratifacation was based on two other 2 binding polls
Now, that I have been thinking about this, I am going to change my opinion... I don't think the ratification was legal, because first offthe preceeding polls were binding...

Second 48 hours did not pass between the mock poll and the posted poll:
Check this link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149494&page=2
The mock poll was up for 21 hours before the actual poll, which going by the CoL's standards isn't legal, but do the CoL standards have to be followed in its ratifacation? This can be argued for awhile, I think so because otherwise there are no requirements for its ratification

I don't think the ratification was legal, because first offthe preceeding polls were binding...

The question if those polls were binding has been asked by DS and answer by me (as a citizen) negatively (see above). If you would answer to it positively, you need to present some evidence and/or arguments why they were in fact binding.

The question if those polls were binding has been asked by DS and answer by me (as a citizen) negatively (see above). If you would answer to it positively, you need to present some evidence and/or arguments why they were in fact binding.
and ravensfire already has, they were posted by an official responsible for that area, which was a founding father, if it were posted by a non founding father, it would not be binding

just because it doesn't ratify the CoL doesn't mean it can't be binding, which is your argument...it binds us to work on the winning selection instead of the other one... If it wasn't binding why would we have voted on it? If it was an opinion poll, it holds little power. The losing side could have posted a ratifiacation for the losing one then

In my opinion, that poll was not binding as it does not only lack the specification of being binding, it increases the impression of non-bindingness by explicitly saying the CoL is *not* being ratified by it.

So for a poll to be binding, it must explicitly state that it is not binding?

What is required for a poll to be binding?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

In my opinion, that poll was not binding as it does not only lack the specification of being binding, it increases the impression of non-bindingness by explicitly saying the CoL is *not* being ratified by it.

So for a poll to be binding, it must explicitly state that it is binding?

What is required for a poll to be binding?

To be more specific to this situation, is any poll that decides between two approaches that will require additional work to be finalized a binding poll?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

In my opinion, that poll was not binding as it does not only lack the specification of being binding, it increases the impression of non-bindingness by explicitly saying the CoL is *not* being ratified by it.
To add to ravensfire's argument:
The actual ratificaation poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150285), did not state it was binding... it said it was to ratify the CoL, but thats the same as saying "This poll is binding"

Plus when was the last time you saw a poll say: "This Poll Is Binding"? I almost never have

To throw a few more questions out there ...

At the time, the Constitution was in place, so there was a basic framework of law. There were also the general guidelines the Founding Fathers (see here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=145809) and here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148777) for some FF threads) used.

What aspects from those two works should be applied here?

I guess my question is trying to get at one of my personal questions - law versus right versus fun. That's proving to be my big sticking point right now in framing my thoughts.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

If it wasn't binding why would we have voted on it? If it was an opinion poll, it holds little power.

That's just ridiculous. I wouldn't have vote in polls if they weren't binding?!

The losing side could have posted a ratifiacation for the losing one then

What is exactly what has happened, in hindsight.

That's just ridiculous. I wouldn't have vote in polls if they weren't binding?!



What is exactly what has happened, in hindsight.
What I said was that voting in a non binding poll wouldn't be of use, because the losing side could still try to ratify their CoL, and we would have two CoLs trying to be ratified. Binding polls actually force people to stuff, opinion polls don't do so as strongly

So for a poll to be binding, it must explicitly state that it is binding?

In my opinion, YES, except when the poll is clearly impossible to be non-binding. As an example, an election poll or a Constitution amendment poll is automatically binding without explicitly saying so because they obviously cannot be non-binding. As long as a poll could be non-binding, it is implicitly non-binding unless explictly stated otherwise. The principle here is that no person or decision should have power over others which are not explictly granted to him/her/it.

To throw a few more questions out there ...

At the time, the Constitution was in place, so there was a basic framework of law. There were also the general guidelines the Founding Fathers (see here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=145809) and here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148777) for some FF threads) used.

What aspects from those two works should be applied here?

I guess my question is trying to get at one of my personal questions - law versus right versus fun. That's proving to be my big sticking point right now in framing my thoughts.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
I think those two links could be considered "Mandate", because they were posted by elected officials(founding fathers)

In my opinion, YES, except when the poll is clearly impossible to be non-binding. As an example, an election poll or a Constitution amendment poll is automatically binding without explicitly saying so because they obviously cannot be non-binding. As long as a poll could be non-binding, it is implicitly non-binding unless explictly stated otherwise. The principle here is that no person or decision should have power over others which are not explictly granted to him/her/it.
Well then we could take back practically every decision from past DGs, we have been violating the WOTP all of this...
Also who gets to decide when is "is clearly impossible to be non-binding."? This is definetly an opinion...

If you read the constitution:

By Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.
According to that, any poll posted by an official of that department is binding, I am not reading anything that says the first post must have the words "This Poll Is Binding"

What I said was that voting in a non binding poll wouldn't be of use, because the losing side could still try to ratify their CoL, and we would have two CoLs trying to be ratified.

Constitutionally that wouldn't be a problem. The CoL getting ratified first is in effect, and would most probably then make the second ratification illegal.

If you read the constitution:

By Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.

According to that, any poll posted by an official of that department is binding,"

That is an obviously wrong interpretation. That paragraph says a poll is a Referendum if it is: (1) official AND (2) binding. There is nothing suggesting a causality between "official" and "binding", they are two parallel attributes to the same subject ("poll").

If I say, "I'm getting a ride in form of a big, black limo", would that imply all big limos were black???

Another question (or two) from the bench:

Are Founding Fathers considered officials? If so, under what circumstances should polls posted by Founding Fathers be considered referendums?

Another question (or two) from the bench:

Are Founding Fathers considered officials? If so, under what circumstances should polls posted by Founding Fathers be considered referendums?
I would say so, they were elected in the following polls:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=136312
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=136310

They should be considered referendums when the poll deals with pregame options, their official title is "Pre Game Council"

I would also say that members of the Pregame Council are in fact officials.

A poll posted by one of them should be considered a Referum if (and only if):

1. It's posted after the ratification of the Constitution (before that "Referendum" is undefined); AND
2. The poll is regarding "pregame organization and planning", as specified in the polls through which the Pregame Counsil is elected; AND
3. The poll is binding (the creteria for which is obviously disputed between us).

I'd like to add that there is nothing preventing an official from posting non-binding opinion polls dealing with subjects within the authority of his office. And there *shouldn't* be anything to prevent that, either.

Therefore, a poll by an official dealing with subjects of his office is by far not automatically a Referendum.

I would also say that members of the Pregame Council are in fact officials.

A poll posted by one of them should be considered a Referum if (and only if):

1. It's posted after the ratification of the Constitution (before that "Referendum" is undefined); AND
2. The poll is regarding "pregame organization and planning", as specified in the polls through which the Pregame Counsil is elected; AND
3. The poll is binding (the creteria for which is obviously disputed between us).
Well it seems your main argument is that a poll has to specify it is binding to be binding, so I will argue against that point.

First, lets look at the following polls (in spoiler):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150190
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150219
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150066
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150068
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149895
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149464
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149941
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149894
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149952
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149467

These are all of the enviroment polls, none of them say "This Poll is Binding", so I guess none of these are binding and we must redo all these polls.

And the following links are examples of binding polls in the Civ3 DG, that don't say "This poll is binding"

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149174
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148509
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=147739
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=147323
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142095
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137947
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=139380
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=132840

And those polls were just on the first page...

The point I am making, 90% of binding polls have never said "This Poll is Binding", why are we changing this now?

This review seems to come down to a tradeoff between two principles.

We value fairness
In the face of adversity we don't go back for "do-overs" Suppose we were in the middle of the game, and were discussing which of several possible enemies to go to war against. A binding poll is held between Greece and France, with Greece winning the honor of being our next victim by a narrow margin. A subsequent poll to declare war wins by a huge margin, which of course isn't a big surprise. We play a few turns and end the session. Then the unthinkable is revealed, someone with a pathological need to beat up on Alex has rigged the "which victim" poll, and we're at war with the wrong enemy.

Do we:

Carry on the game, possibly with some wailing and gnashing of teeth that we really wanted to stick it to Napoleon this time?
Drop everything and go back to the save before we declared war, plan for a different war, rerun the war declaration poll, and replay the turns? But we haven't played any turns, you might say? Is this the same thing or different? This is the dilemma I face in trying to rule on this case.

This review seems to come down to a tradeoff between two principles.

We value fairness
In the face of adversity we don't go back for "do-overs" Suppose we were in the middle of the game, and were discussing which of several possible enemies to go to war against. A binding poll is held between Greece and France, with Greece winning the honor of being our next victim by a narrow margin. A subsequent poll to declare war wins by a huge margin, which of course isn't a big surprise. We play a few turns and end the session. Then the unthinkable is revealed, someone with a pathological need to beat up on Alex has rigged the "which victim" poll, and we're at war with the wrong enemy.

Do we:

Carry on the game, possibly with some wailing and gnashing of teeth that we really wanted to stick it to Napoleon this time?
Drop everything and go back to the save before we declared war, plan for a different war, rerun the war declaration poll, and replay the turns? But we haven't played any turns, you might say? Is this the same thing or different? This is the dilemma I face in trying to rule on this case.
I thought you weren't ruling on those decisions, but on whether the CoL is actually ratified

These are all of the enviroment polls, none of them say "This Poll is Binding", so I guess none of these are binding and we must redo all these polls.

These poll are in fact all non-binding, in my opinion. However, I don't understand how you jumped to the conclusion that "we must redo all these polls" at all.

Non-binding polls still have relevance because they are one kind of decision making process, as defined by the Constitution. They're significant as long as not overruled by a nothing decision of higher priority, again as defined by the Consitution.

These poll are in fact all non-binding, in my opinion. However, I don't understand how you jumped to the conclusion that "we must redo all these polls" at all.

Non-binding polls still have relevance because they are one kind of decision making process, as defined by the Constitution. They're significant as long as not overruled by a nothing decision of higher priority, again as defined by the Consitution.
What I am trying to point out, is there polls were all considered binding and always have been

Daveshack, that is a very good metaphor( not the right word for it, maybe situation). I say that we must keep going in that situation, and that we cannot turn back in the face of adversity. While it is unfortunate that the polls were rigged(in our game and your situation), we have already begun down the path, engaging in war, or in the real case, holding elctions and getting everyhting ready for the demogame. We shouldn't just drop everything and turn back!

Also since the people overwhelmingly voted for war, they may not have originally liked the choice of enemies(or governemnt systems) but they did approve the outcome and set it into motion(ratifing the code of Laws), and assuming we were winning the war in your situation, you can draw a direct parrall to our current situation.

Why illegally get rid of a good thing for somehting else that may/may not be better. Why get rid of the conquered cities(elected officials)? Who knows if you get trounced by france or not. Then if you do get trounced to you go back to the older save? This cowards way out opens up a whole new can of worms!

I thought you weren't ruling on those decisions, but on where the CoL is actually ratified

I have to agree with him, DS. Even though your example seems fully equivalant to our current situation, your question is the wrong one, in my opinion. Something cannot be illegal just because declaring it legal would be bad for the game - and vice versa. As I've said before, justice knows no price.

Besides, we have, at any time, the final tool of Constitution/CoL amendment - in extreme case a retrospective amendment. As far as I know, it is possible for most justice systems to retrospectively declare an action legal (a pardon, if you will). Of course the reverse - retrospectively declaring an action illegal - is not possible in any sane justice system.

Daveshack, that is a very good metaphor( not the right word for it, maybe situation). I say that we must keep going in that situation, and that we cannot turn back in the face of adversity. While it is unfortunate that the polls were rigged(in our game and your situation), we have already begun down the path, engaging in war, or in the real case, holding elctions and getting everyhting ready for the demogame. We shouldn't just drop everything and turn back!

Also since the people overwhelmingly voted for war, they may not have originally liked the choice of enemies(or governemnt systems) but they did approve the outcome and set it into motion(ratifing the code of Laws), and assuming we were winning the war in your situation, you can draw a direct parrall to our current situation.

Why illegally get rid of a good thing for somehting else that may/may not be better. Why get rid of the conquered cities(elected officials)? Who knows if you get trounced by france or not. Then if you do get trounced to you go back to the older save? This cowards way out opens up a whole new can of worms!
this discussion is about the constitutionality of the CoL ratifacation

What I am trying to point out, is there polls were all considered binding and always have been

Do you have any evidance that those polls "were all considered binding" or is that just your personal impression?

Do you have any evidance that those polls "were all considered binding" or is that just your personal impression?
For one thing, whenever someone didn't want a poll to be binding, they either stated: "This poll is non binding" or "This poll is informational only"

Second lets talk about the defintion of "binding", in my opinion it means elected officials are forced to follow them, in the past informational polls would guide the elected official but they wouldn't be forced to follow them

I thought you weren't ruling on those decisions, but on whether the CoL is actually ratified

The code of Laws was ratified, its whether the scandal was enough to overturn them, thats what i thought was the case

What I am trying to point out, is there polls were all considered binding and always have been

The code of laws is considered binding and always had been, and since it made the Triumvirate government the law, then it should stay the law, even if other binding polls said the majority of the citziens SUPPORTED the flexible theory and would like it put in place. But when given a code of laws that was not what the majority had recommended, deceived or not, they ratified it in a binding poll and made it LAW! I see no reason for it to be overturned!

For one thing, whenever someone didn't want a poll to be binding, they either stated: "This poll is non binding" or "This poll is informational only"

That's just another claim without evidance. "Whenever someone didn't want..."? How did you know *that*? You checked *all* polls of *all* demogames and personally asked each author what they had wanted at the time they posted the poll?

Second lets talk about the defintion of "binding", in my opinion it means elected officials are forced to follow them, in the past informational polls would guide the elected official but they wouldn't be forced to follow them

I agree to your definition of binding. A non-binding decision doesn't legally have to be followed by officials. But politically an official certainly needs good arguments not to follow an even non-binding decision of the people.

That's just another claim without evidance. "Whenever someone"? How did you know *that*? You checked *all* polls of *all* demogames and personally asked each author what they had wanted at the time they posted the poll?

Can you find an example where they didn't? You call his claim without evidence, do you have some that backs yours?

Black_Hole has been here a while, and has some experience that you don't. For every DG that I've been in, a poll posted by an official that is in his area is considered binding unless they clearly state that it is informational.

Any other approach yields chaos.

-- Ravensfire

The code of Laws was ratified, its whether the scandal was enough to overturn them, thats what i thought was the case

No, that's not the case. The case is if the ratification was legal (and therefore valid) or illegal (and therefore invalid).

Can you find an example where they didn't? You call his claim without evidence, do you have some that backs yours?

I didn't make a claim, so why would I need evidance?

I didn't - and don't claim anything about the *intent* of people posting polls - they may have wanted a poll to be binding or non-binding when they didn't specifiy one way or another. I only described how I precepted things, and how I think they *should* be precepted. I repeatedly used "in my opinion" to emphasize that, and I did provide arguments for why I think they should be precepted the way I do.

I didn't make a claim, so why would I need evidance?

I didn't - and don't claim anything about the *intend* of people posting polls. I only described how I recepted them. I repeatedly used "in my opinion" to emphasize that.
Opinion, but no evidence, no support.

Gotcha.

-- Ravensfire

Opinion, but no evidence, no support.

No evidence, but arguments, so *with* support. Evidences are needed for claims, arguments are needed for opinions.

PS: I edited the post you quoted, please re-read.

The people watching is so fun here! :D

So, consider the possibility that all 3 polls are binding, when viewed from the perspective of the facts known at the time they were posted.

What kind of poll is the ratification poll? Does the Constitution specifically define what kind of poll this has to be?

Knowing what was going on inside the Constitution author's head is quite an unfair advantage to me :mischief: so this question is left as an exercize for the citizens and my fellow justices.

(In response to the analogous situation)

I thought you weren't ruling on those decisions, but on whether the CoL is actually ratified

In the analogous situation, this JR would be held on the question whether the declaration of war is valid.

No evidence, but arguments, so *with* support. Evidences are needed for claims, arguments are needed for opinions.

PS: I edited the post you quoted, please re-read.

To along with your edit, think about how treating all polls posted by an official in an area they control as binding would eliminate completely the "perception" issue. Assuming, of course, they don't indicate that it's informational only. It greatly simplifies everything AND is how past DG's have been done.

That it's not in the Tri system is the fault of the author, as the Flex system and numerous prior DG's all contain that language. Indeed, much of the Tri polling standards is from prior DG's. I'll quote the relevant section from DG VII:Polls posted by an elected official on an area they control are considered official and binding unless specifically stated otherwise. Polls posted by citizens, by officials outside their area or by officials in their area explicitly noted as such are considered unofficial, and do not bind officials in any way. Officials should, however, take such polls into account during planning.
Given that such an approach does reduce confusion and interpretation errors, why should that approach not be taken here?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

I have another question or two. Before asking them I'd like to remind citizens presenting legal arguments that I think the constitutional articles relevent to this JR are unclear. I think it is appropriate in this JR to fall back on the intent of those who wrote the constitution. I encourage all interested parties to present evidence from the original constitutional debates to back up their legal briefs in this thread. I'd further like to remind you all that I did not participate in those debates. My mind is a tabla rasa ready for you to fill with the proper evidence. :)

If a poll does not specify whether it is binding or opinion poll, should it automatically be assumed to default to one of these? In other words, should all polls that do not declare themsleves to be either opinion poll or binding be considered opinion polls? Should they all be considered binding?

If an initiative and a referendum are in conflict, which should prevail?

If an initiative and a referendum are in conflict, which should prevail?

I'll take the easy one by quoting the Constitution, Article C.1.3 :
* An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier initiative on the same subject) except another later initiative which repeals it.
* Binding polls of any type have precedence over any other decision type.
* Non-binding polls have precedence over non-polling decision types.
* Citizen input has precedence over mandate.
* If two or more polls or discussions occur on a matter, the last one to complete shall prevail.
* Lower forms of law may modify parts of this hierarchy, except for the provision regarding initiative which may not be modified.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

by daveshacks defintion, a intititave would, seeing as it has precedent over future decistions(sp?) That said i feel the code of Laws should have precedent over everything, and should be consisdered a part of the constition(which i think it may be) I'm really tired right now and can't remember if it is. But the Code of Laws was ratified scandal free, and is the law of the land. See my above post as to why, because i don't feel like repeating myself. The decision seems fairly obvious in this judicial review.:sleep: :coffee: :banana: :sleep:

If I am reading the Constitution correctly, I really don't think it matters if even all three polls are binding. However, I won't even begin to say that because the Constitution is a bit unclear as to what constitutes "binding." But let's just assume that all three are? What does everyone think of this interpretation?

By Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.

I believe that the two polls between Tri/Flex could be seen as Referendums at best: the "current decision" being to choose between two governments.

By Initiative in the form of a binding poll initiated by the citizenry, which has force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type.

Ratification of our first Code of Laws must be seen as an initiative, since it will be the basis for all future legal decisions (until modified via a later initiative, of course).

In the event that two or more such delegations of the Power of the People are in conflict, the following hierarchy shall determine which decision has precedence.
--->An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier initiative on the same subject) except another later initiative which repeals it.

Per this part of of the Constitution, Initiative trumps all else. I take this to mean that the ratification of the Triumvirate government trumps the previous polls.

----

But wait, there's more......... :groucho:

Going back to the Constitution:

Article A - Forms of Law
Governing rules shall consist of this Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented.
No rule shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution.
Rules which are more specific on a given point may clarify more general points without being contradictory.
These rules may not contradict the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics Forums. Moderators may veto any such rules.

Article A specifically mentions that "lower forms of law....may be implemented." There is no mention of a prior run-off poll between two different forms of law in our Constitution. Therefore, the ratification of our Code of Laws can be rightly seen as our first official act under our Constitution.

As far as I can see, the relevance of the current Triumvirate ruleset cannot be put to question when based on our Constitution alone. It is our law, and cannot be removed --- even when faced with the dilemma of prior foul play. I truly believe we would have to go outside of our Constitution to prove otherwise. Do we really wish to do that?

I have another question or two. .......

If a poll does not specify whether it is binding or opinion poll, should it automatically be assumed to default to one of these? In other words, should all polls that do not declare themsleves to be either opinion poll or binding be considered opinion polls? Should they all be considered binding?

donsig, you actually asked this earlier in the Constitution Draft: Discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=141203) thread:

Refering to the later post about the power of the people, I think it's a good idea in general. (Also, POP is a much better acronym than WOTP! ) The only problem I see is that section refers to binding polls. Just what distinguished a binding poll from a non-binding poll? We had debate back in the Civ III demogames and we found it a very sticky situation. Does one merely state in the poll that it's binding or non-binding? Use who posted the poll (elected official versus just plain citizen) as the criterion? Come up with a standard definition of a binding poll? The last option is the best we could come up with.

The idea of making a hierarchy for resolving conflicts is great but remember there can be conflicts within each item and not just betwen different items. For instance you can have two polls (make them both binding polls if you like) that conflict. It would be nice to have the resolution procedure to such a conflict spelled out as well.

The main point I'm trying to make here is that, like with the exploits in E4, if you're going to put a term like *binding poll* into the constitution then it should be defined in the constitution.

To which DaveShack replied:

On binding vs non-binding, what I'm aiming for with a binding poll is the ability of an informed majority to make absolute decisions about game play. Majority is easy to define, but informed is not. I'm hoping to have a way to define the "informed" part in lower law so we can tweak it as necessary. With the opened by the officialcriteria for a binding poll, the people cannot directly require the official to listen to them. An official can merely ignore the request for a poll, and there is nothing the people can do short of a recall -- which is too late if the decision is for the current play session.

On the hierarchy for multiple decisions on the same topic, the last decision wins. This means no decision is ever permanent, the people can always change their mind with another decision on the same topic.


Hope this helps you out. I'll see what else I can dig up.

I'm a bit confused by the attitude of the honorable Chief Justice. Instead of working on the case, it seems to me that he's more in the mood of giving free lectures (with homeworks and all) on constitutional law here...

I'm a bit confused by the attitude of the honorable Chief Justice. Instead of working on the case, it seems to me that he's more in the mood of giving free lectures (with homeworks and all) on constitutional law here...

To answer these questions myself could be construed as a ruling on parts of the case, or at least prematurely reveal the likely outcome. If I desire the ability to have influence over the proceedings prior to posting my ruling, it is necessary to draw the necessary answers out of someone else. It's working too, Donovan Zoi seems to have caught the drift of the "what kind of poll is a ratification" question perfectly.

Under normal circumstances, I'd just give an answer and move on, but it's necessary in this case to try to convince the Judge Advocate and Public Defender that a particular kind of ruling is the right answer (in my opinion), without coming right out and telling them what that answer should be. Of course we're each quite capable of deciding for ourselves but we don't want to have three different opinions, so we're cautiously feeling each other out.

Edit: You'll see in further responses below that I'm perfectly comfortable though with answering questions that other people ask. :D

I'll take the easy one by quoting the Constitution, Article C.1.3 :

* An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier initiative on the same subject) except another later initiative which repeals it.
* Binding polls of any type have precedence over any other decision type.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

If an initiative supercedes *any other decision type* and a binding poll has precedence over *any other decision type* then I'm at a loss to tell which is higher in the hierarchy. :confused:

Since analogies have been popular in this thread I'd say asking which is *higher* is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. As I said before, conflict within the constitution allows us to delve into the intent behind what is written. Did the framers intend for initiatives to win in conflicts with binding polls? Are initiatives assumed to always be binding polls? In other words, all initiatives are binding polls but all binding polls are not initiatives?

Donovan_Zoi did some good research on binding polls in the Constitutional debates and came up with this:

On binding vs non-binding, what I'm aiming for with a binding poll is the ability of an informed majority to make absolute decisions about game play. Majority is easy to define, but informed is not. I'm hoping to have a way to define the "informed" part in lower law so we can tweak it as necessary. With the opened by the officialcriteria for a binding poll, the people cannot directly require the official to listen to them. An official can merely ignore the request for a poll, and there is nothing the people can do short of a recall -- which is too late if the decision is for the current play session.

On the hierarchy for multiple decisions on the same topic, the last decision wins. This means no decision is ever permanent, the people can always change their mind with another decision on the same topic.

SO, now that we're delving into the murky world of intent we have a can of worms opened. This quote has greatly impacted my thinking on this JR. The informed majority phrase sheds a whole new light on this problem. Given the fraudulent nature of the first polls can we say the majority of those voting in the ratification poll was informed? If not, then how does that affect the *bindingness* (to coin a phrase) of the ratification poll? Were the terms *binding* and *non-binding* meant to be applied only to things pertaining to [civ4] game play or to demogame gameplay as well?

I'm a bit confused by the attitude of the honorable Chief Justice. Instead of working on the case, it seems to me that he's more in the mood of giving free lectures (with homeworks and all) on constitutional law here...

I'm curious as to what work you would have him do. If he is the main author of the constitution then what does he have to do? I would think he understands what is written there as well as any of us and knows better than any of us what the intent behind the words was. And I missed the homework assignment. Hope I don't get a zero. :mischief:

DZ, thanks for digging up that quote. I was planning to go look for it after getting the kids into bed, but you beat me to it.

Did you add the bold on informed majority or was that in the original thread? If you bolded it, you picked exactly what words I was planning to use for the answer to Donsig's question in this thread.

Informed in this usage is primarily the traditional polling standards. Among other things it means aware of what the poll means, clearly defined options, links to discussions, knowledge of what will happen if each option wins, and definite ending time. A poll does not necessarily need to have every one of these attributes at a level of perfection in order for the citizens to be informed, and therefore for the poll to be binding. In particular, it is possible to imagine a poll for which the citizens are so obviously informed that it might be questionable in each of the polling standards areas, but still be subjectively judged to be binding.

On a more general note, the tradition is clearly that polls are binding unless there is some attribute of the poll which makes it non-binding. Being explicitly marked unofficial, informational, or non-binding, having no significant discussion, being posted as a flagrant means of challenging a previous decision, and obvious attemts by one official to undermine another official's agenda are things which might cause a poll to be considered non-binding.

If an initiative supercedes *any other decision type* and a binding poll has precedence over *any other decision type* then I'm at a loss to tell which is higher in the hierarchy. :confused:

Read this as an if-then-else, top down. The first condition that a given decision matches places it in the hierarchy.


An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier initiative on the same subject) except another later initiative which repeals it.
Binding polls of any type have precedence over any other decision type.
Non-binding polls have precedence over non-polling decision types.
Citizen input has precedence over mandate.
If two or more polls or discussions occur on a matter, the last one to complete shall prevail. So if poll A is an initiative and poll B is a referendum, then poll A wins. Furthermore, the decision of poll A has the force of law and persists, even in the face of other decisions on the same subject, until another initiative supercedes it.

If decision S is made by a binding poll, while decision T is made by an official exercizing her mandate from the people, then S wins and T is discarded. S can be further superceded by another binding poll. Once conditions change, the next decision is no longer on the same topic, and an official is now free to exercize her mandate over an area.

If an official makes a decision, and gets citizen input which clearly favors another single course of action, the official must allow that citizen input to supercede the decision. However if there is citizen input on both sides of a question and the official merely chooses one side based on an impression of which side is stronger, they drop into a gray area where a poll should be taken. If the official decides not to have a poll, they open themselves to complaints from the citizens whose input is not heard.


Since analogies have been popular in this thread I'd say asking which is *higher* is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. As I said before, conflict within the constitution allows us to delve into the intent behind what is written. Did the framers intend for initiatives to win in conflicts with binding polls? Are initiatives assumed to always be binding polls? In other words, all initiatives are binding polls but all binding polls are not initiatives?


Yes, yes, yes. ;)


Donovan_Zoi did some good research on binding polls in the Constitutional debates and came up with this:
...

SO, now that we're delving into the murky world of intent we have a can of worms opened. This quote has greatly impacted my thinking on this JR. The informed majority phrase sheds a whole new light on this problem. Given the fraudulent nature of the first polls can we say the majority of those voting in the ratification poll was informed? If not, then how does that affect the *bindingness* (to coin a phrase) of the ratification poll? Were the terms *binding* and *non-binding* meant to be applied only to things pertaining to [civ4] game play or to demogame gameplay as well?


Here are some clarifying questions to ask yourself. Don't forget to think about timeframe.

Did the people know what effect the ratification vote would have?
Did those who disagreed with the content which was being ratified have a chance to register their disagreement?
Was the thing which was ratified the same thing which was previously polled, or was it changed? Who participated in those changes?
Was the information presented to the people by the person who opened the poll correct, at that time, in the eyes of the person who opened the poll and in the eyes of the people?

Here are some clarifying questions to ask yourself. Don't forget to think about timeframe.
Did the people know what effect the ratification vote would have?
Did those who disagreed with the content which was being ratified have a chance to register their disagreement?
Was the thing which was ratified the same thing which was previously polled, or was it changed? Who participated in those changes?
Was the information presented to the people by the person who opened the poll correct, at that time, in the eyes of the person who opened the poll and in the eyes of the people?

I shall now answer my own homework. This post is evidence, not an opinion on the case. :)

Darn right they did. I don't think there is any way to challenge the idea that most of the people who vote in a ratification poll know that what they are ratifying will become the laws of the game.
Many of them had already registered their disagreement, by voting for another option, and by making comments in the seemingly dozens of threads on the subject. (We can have someone count if necessary) Anyone could vote no in the poll. I was actually expecting as many as 25% or more no votes.
The flex vs tri runoff poll had tri 5.x as its base. Tri 6.2 was polled in the ratification, therefore it obviously changed. There were a lot of comments in the Tri 6.0 thread. At least two members of this court commented on those changes, and for the most part everthing we asked to be changed was changed.
I opened the ratification poll. At that time, I had absolutely no clue that anything was amiss, and neither did the people voting in the poll, except for the votes which were excluded during the DL analysis. What we knew at that time was that the ruleset we were ratifying had been chosen.

DZ, thanks for digging up that quote. I was planning to go look for it after getting the kids into bed, but you beat me to it.

Did you add the bold on informed majority or was that in the original thread? If you bolded it, you picked exactly what words I was planning to use for the answer to Donsig's question in this thread.

Dave, the bolding was yours ( I know I lean on that tactic a bit, but I always try to avoid doing so to other peoples' work. ;) )

With a long workday ahead, I feel that this will be the last contribution I will be able to make to all discussions before they close. I would like to thank the Judiciary for their time and dedication during this historic period.

Questions from the bench:

If an initiative has force of law then how specific must an initiative poll be in order for it to be considered a true initiative? How does the wording of a poll affect its stature as an initiative or opinion poll? If I'm a warmonger and I post a poll asking Should we attack someone? can that be considered an initiative? (Note the someone is intentional - I'm a warmonger I just want war, I don't care who the victim is.) Or do I have to specify a target and a date for implementation (such as Should we declare war on Ceasar and the Romans on 1000 BC?) in order for my poll to be considered an initiative? What if my poll asked Do you want to attack someone? Initiative or opinion poll?

I don't think you can say the people voting in the ratifacation poll were informed, since the last two polls contained fraud! The people were informed that triumvirate was the what the citizenry wanted and that information was wrong.

I don't think you can say the people voting in the ratifacation poll were informed, since the last two polls contained fraud! The people were informed that triumvirate was the what the citizenry wanted and that information was wrong.

I'll use a phrase that's currently in my working papers on this.

Does it matter that the citizens acted in "good faith" in all three polls, without knowing that the first two were fraudulent?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Under normal circumstances, I'd just give an answer and move on, but it's necessary in this case to try to convince the Judge Advocate and Public Defender that a particular kind of ruling is the right answer (in my opinion), without coming right out and telling them what that answer should be. Of course we're each quite capable of deciding for ourselves but we don't want to have three different opinions, so we're cautiously feeling each other out.

And of course, it's really all three of us are trying to influence each other. There's several right ways to rule, and quite a few wrong ways to rule, when looking at what precedents can be set from this ruling. There's some ugly things that can be set from this.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Questions from the bench:

If an initiative has force of law then how specific must an initiative poll be in order for it to be considered a true initiative? How does the wording of a poll affect its stature as an initiative or opinion poll? If I'm a warmonger and I post a poll asking Should we attack someone? can that be considered an initiative? (Note the someone is intentional - I'm a warmonger I just want war, I don't care who the victim is.) Or do I have to specify a target and a date for implementation (such as Should we declare war on Ceasar and the Romans on 1000 BC?) in order for my poll to be considered an initiative? What if my poll asked Do you want to attack someone? Initiative or opinion poll?

I'm not the Bench. :D But I'd like to answer anyway. Your example cannot be an Initiative as an Initiative doesn't deal with one-time matters. It "has force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type". Obviously we aren't going to war forever just because we go to war now - that'd be extreme even for a warmonger.

I almost think we could have an entire thread on the various types of polls. Respectfully, I'm beginning to feel that there are a few too many gray area in that section of the Constitution.

My question - what is the difference between a Referendum, and an Initiative? What langauge should be present to distinguish between the two?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

On a more general note, the tradition is clearly that polls are binding unless there is some attribute of the poll which makes it non-binding. Being explicitly marked unofficial, informational, or non-binding, having no significant discussion, being posted as a flagrant means of challenging a previous decision, and obvious attemts by one official to undermine another official's agenda are things which might cause a poll to be considered non-binding.

(Please focus on the bolded section - full quote given for context)

This is explicitly allowed by the Constitution, with no further restrictions on it. Neither ruleset proposed (Tri or Flex) limits this either. With perfect hindsight, the Ratification poll for the Triumverate does exactly that - it's a flagrant means of challenging the true and correct results of the Ruleset selection poll. Taking your statement at face value would yield strong consideration that make the Ratification poll non-binding.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Even if the ratification poll is non-binding (which might well be the case, I feel), it still has legal significance (and is therefore effective) until it is overridden by a binding poll. And from the point on when the ratification is done, an override is no longer that easy as the legal frame has been extended by the CoL. In other words, the very fact that the poll was a CoL ratification makes it pretty much irrelevant if it was technically binding or not.

Even if the ratification poll is non-binding (which might well be the case, I feel), it still has legal significance (and is therefore effective) until it is overridden by a binding poll. And from the point on when the ratification is done, an override is no longer that easy as the legal frame has been extended by the CoL. In other words, the very fact that the poll was a CoL ratification makes it pretty much irrelevant if it was technically binding or not.
but, if the ratifacation poll isn't binding, but the other polls (ruleset selection polls) are binding, then the ratifacation poll cannot override the other polls

Thus, we're getting to where one of my major questions lies - are decisions, made in good faith but corrupted by a deliberate misdeed or accidental error, still enforceable?

If not, how far back should one go to correct that error? Does it matter if a subsequent decisions, dependant on the bad decision, is made?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Darn right they did. I don't think there is any way to challenge the idea that most of the people who vote in a ratification poll know that what they are ratifying will become the laws of the game.

As a citizen, I must respectfully disagree with this opinion.

While those of us who participated in the ratification were aware of the potential impact of a "Yes" vote, we were also deliberately misled as to the circumstances leading up to that vote. Many of us wanted the Demo Game to begin, and as such were willing to submit to the will of the majority. Even a CoL we disagree with in part is better than no CoL at all. Only it turns out that the will of the majority was not, in fact, what we believed.

To continue with the analogies, suppose that we are 50 turns into the game and a DP fakes a screenshot of Napoleon insulting our nation. As a result, the Secretary of War posts a poll and we decide to declare war. But prior to that decision having any significant impact on the game, the fraud is discovered. Shouldn't the citizenry be allowed a chance to revisit their decision?

In my opinion, it is only partially relevant that we think we know the potential impact of a poll. We may know a war with Napoleon will be costly, but we have been misled as to the motivating factors for accepting that burden. A decision is based at least as much on the circumstances leading up to it as it based on what we expect as a result.

At this point, the only impact caused by the vote is lost time. This, in my mind, is not significant enough to warrant ignoring that it was founded on fraud.

At this point, the only impact caused by the vote is lost time. This, in my mind, is not significant enough to warrant ignoring that it was founded on fraud.

Time AND effort. A lot of effort. By many people.

Time is not equal time, the time you speak of has not been idled away. We lose not just time, but a lot of valueable work that has already been done which does not have to be wasted.

Time AND effort. A lot of effort. By many people.

Time is not equal time, the time you speak of has not been idled away. We lose not just time, but a lot of valueable work that has already been done which does not have to be wasted.
this argument can go both ways
because of the fraud, people working on the flexible government have lost lots of time and effort

To continue with the analogies, suppose that we are 50 turns into the game and a DP fakes a screenshot of Napoleon insulting our nation. As a result, the Secretary of War posts a poll and we decide to declare war. But prior to that decision having any significant impact on the game, the fraud is discovered. Shouldn't the citizenry be allowed a chance to revisit their decision?

In my opinion, it is only partially relevant that we think we know the potential impact of a poll. We may know a war with Napoleon will be costly, but we have been misled as to the motivating factors for accepting that burden. A decision is based at least as much on the circumstances leading up to it as it based on what we expect as a result.

At this point, the only impact caused by the vote is lost time. This, in my mind, is not significant enough to warrant ignoring that it was founded on fraud.

Wow, ok. :hmm:

a) Are you saying that throwing out our code of laws, the elections, and conquently make many people vacate offices that they have lobbied for and set up is not a significant impact?!!!:dubious:

b) How has the Triumvirate been costly?:confused:

c) Are you saying that time and progress made in it are not significant impacts?!:eek:

An ok analogy, but doesn't apply well to this situation. I also feel you overlook a ton!

Wow, ok. :hmm:

a) Are you saying that throwing out our code of laws, the elections, and conquently make many people vacate offices that they have lobbied for and set up is not a significant impact?!!!:dubious:

b) How has the Triumvirate been costly?:confused:

c) Are you saying that time and progress made in it are not significant impacts?!:eek:

An ok analogy, but doesn't apply well to this situation. I also feel you overlook a ton!
a) In all reality, we won't get the new CoL up until about Feb.1, and new offices would be in anways

b) The people didn't want it

c) How about time and progress spent on the Flexible, wasted because of fraud?

a) In all reality, we won't get the new CoL up until about Feb.1, and new offices would be in anways
b) The people didn't want it

c) How about time and progress spent on the Flexible, wasted because of fraud?

a) Doesn't really answer the question, but there is more time and effort, and work, wasted again by throwing out the old and then waiting ANOTHER MONTH at least to being to discuss starting the demogame!.

b) The majority didn't want it but after ratifing it, they flourished and set up the foundations of a good demogaame. Now we are letting this scandal tear all our work down. I think the costs of a redo out weigh the costs of people orgiannly not likeing, but then adaoting themselves and it!

c) Much more time and work went into they tri, before and after, then the Tri was instated, set up, and had begun functioning, so again this is much more significant.

a) Doesn't really answer the question, but there is more time and effort, and work, wasted again by throwing out the old and then waiting ANOTHER MONTH at least to being to discuss starting the demogame!.

b) The majority didn't want it but after ratifing it, they flourished and set up the foundations of a good demogaame. Now we are letting this scandal tear all our work down. I think the costs of a redo out weigh the costs of people orgiannly not likeing, but then adaoting themselves and it!

c) Much more time and work went into they tri, before and after, then the Tri was instated, set up, and had begun functioning, so again this is much more significant.
First off "and had begun functioning" & "they flourished and set up the foundations of a good demogaame", we haven't even played the game, so I don't think you can saw the Triumvirate has been functioning or flourishing

a) if we went with Flexible we could start by Feb. 1...

b) This is being discussed in this thread, but all of your posts idolize the Triumbirate and don't give any legal arguments

c) Maybe, maybe not, we don't know how much time authors have spent on Constitutions, just because the Triumvirate had more revisions doesn't mean less time or effort was spent on it

c) How about time and progress spent on the Flexible, wasted because of fraud?

Sorry, but given that it wasn't even worked out, the time and effect spent on Flex is in no comparision with the time and effort spent on working out and ratifying the Tri, electing officials and starting governmental business.

And the most important thing: The time and effort spent on Flex are not going to be wasted in any way. We will be merging out CoL to Flex, that is almost certain.

And seriously, please stop repeating the "Feb. 1" myth - yes, that's what it is. I can't even remember how often I've debunked the totally unfounded claim that the game will "have to wait till Feb. 1 anyway". Repeating it any time you can doesn't make it true.

Sorry, but given that it wasn't even worked out, the time and effect spent on Flex is in no comparision with the time and effort spent on working out and ratifying the Tri, electing officials and starting governmental business.

And the most important thing: The time and effort spent on Flex are not going to be wasted in any way. We will be merging out CoL to Flex, that is almost certain.

And seriously, please stop repeating the "Feb. 1" myth - yes, that's what it is. I can't even remember how often I've debunked the totally unfounded claim that the game will "have to wait till Feb. 1 anyway".
1. Have you viewed this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142948) thread?
There are three flexible government drafts, so to say its not worked out is completely false

2. When have you debunked that claim? All I am claiming is we can have flexible up by Feb. 1, in time to have a full term... We already have flexible government proposals, so I think it would take no more than 10 days to fix up flexible and ratify it

Wow, ok. :hmm:

a) Are you saying that throwing out our code of laws, the elections, and conquently make many people vacate offices that they have lobbied for and set up is not a significant impact?!!!:dubious:

b) How has the Triumvirate been costly?:confused:

c) Are you saying that time and progress made in it are not significant impacts?!:eek:

An ok analogy, but doesn't apply well to this situation. I also feel you overlook a ton!

a) No; I'm saying that the ratification of the Triumverate has not had a significant impact to date in terms of the game. We have elected officials, but those officials have not been able to exercise any powers.

b) Every decision comes with a cost. Certainly, reversing the ratification and/or adopting Flex would come with a cost as well. The question at hand is whether or not the citizenry had enough access to information to make an informed decision about whether or not said cost was worth it.

c) This point is very unclear. Could you please clarify? What do you mean by "progress made in it"?

Please note that the opinion poll on Triumvirate vs Flexible is closing just about now. The court might take note of the vote -- or it might not. In either case, we're well aware of the heavy burden of this decision given the cost to our society in terms of time lost, the potential for further delay, and potential for eroding long-standing demogame values.

Time AND effort. A lot of effort. By many people.

Time is not equal time, the time you speak of has not been idled away. We lose not just time, but a lot of valueable work that has already been done which does not have to be wasted.

How is any of that effort lost?

If effort went into cleaning up the Triumverate CoL and making it a better system, all that effort would still be preserved if and when it faced another ratification vote. Any improvements are still intact. None of us hold the power to rewind time and undo them, even if I did advocate such a position.

I do acknowledge that most (not all) of the effort tied to the elections would be in vain, but I still do not believe that this is a significant impact.

The simple fact is that consent predicated on fraud is not consent. I will ultimately defer to the opinions of the Justices here, but I believe that there is plenty of precedent in modern legal systems to support this position whether or not there is specific mention of it in the DG Constitution.

Sorry, but given that it wasn't even worked out, the time and effect spent on Flex is in no comparision with the time and effort spent on working out and ratifying the Tri, electing officials and starting governmental business.

And the most important thing: The time and effort spent on Flex are not going to be wasted in any way. We will be merging out CoL to Flex, that is almost certain.

Blkbird, the exact same thing is true of any effort spent working out the Triumverate. None of that effort is lost is we are to repeat the ratification process.

The only effort that will be lost is any which occurred after the ratification process. While I do acknowledge that many participants put hard work into their election campaigns, I do not believe that their work is significant enough to warrant allowing poll results to stand that are the direct result of a defrauded citizenry.

1. Have you viewed this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142948) thread?
There are three flexible government drafts, so to say its not worked out is completely false

Have you? If you have, you should see that I'm the last one who posted a length comment to it. So I know what's going on there, and NO, it's not "worked out" - as "in ready to be ratified".

2. When have you debunked that claim? All I am claiming is we can have flexible up by Feb. 1, in time to have a full term... We already have flexible government proposals, so I think it would take no more than 10 days to fix up flexible and ratify it

For the last time: We don't have to wait until Feb. 1 to start the game. We can start right this weekend, if this JR request in decided to my favour. And I'd like to see the game start this weekend, not Feb. 1.

How is any of that effort lost?

If effort went into cleaning up the Triumverate CoL and making it a better system, all that effort would still be preserved if and when it faced another ratification vote. Any improvements are still intact. None of us hold the power to rewind time and undo them, even if I did advocate such a position.

I do acknowledge that most (not all) of the effort tied to the elections would be in vain, but I still do not believe that this is a significant impact.

The simple fact is that consent predicated on fraud is not consent. I will ultimately defer to the opinions of the Justices here, but I believe that there is plenty of precedent in modern legal systems to support this position whether or not there is specific mention of it in the DG Constitution.


So your saying the the countless days of campainging, voting, and then setting of threads and hard-coding of websites, thats not significant? ok then. Also the people knew they ratified the Tri, and if they really really didn't want it they would have voted no! or at least the majority. The people who voted yes either agreed with the tri, or didn't feel that the slight difference would be the be all, end all of the demogame.

We are getting more and more off-topic here, in my opinion. We're trying to find out what is legal and what not, not what is more or less beneficial.

I certainly know how much work I put into my version of the Flex system. The initial one didn't take much, but it's been tweaked quite a bit, and has gotten some work of late to post to that thread.

I also know how much work and effort that I put into what I thought was the choice of the people was actually wasted. That, more than anything else, has gotten me upset. I've got quite a few PM's from AW asking for advice, suggestions and comments. To find that was all the product of a fraud he was involved in is quite upsetting. I consider all of that time wasted.

-- Ravensfire

To find that was all the product of a fraud he was involved in is quite upsetting.

Supposedly involved in. Don't forget you are the Public Defender and evtl. will be tasked defending him. This line of yours would have prettey devastating effect then. :nono:

Supposedly involved in. Don't forget you are the Public Defender and evtl. will be tasked defending him. This line of yours would have prettey devastating effect then.

Seperate personal beliefs from elected duties - it's pretty easy to do.

I'm somewhat expecting a case to happen, and have already prepared a few things.

Sheesh - relax, will ya?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

I personally beleive we should avoid a trial, as this "scandal" has caused enough problems. I beleive that the other 11(or is it 10?) accounts should be banned, and Alphawolf (the login and the man) should be granted a presidential pardon. He is a valuable member, though his actions were "corrupt". If he comes back he would be an asset to the community once again, and this could be a lesson for all, not just a black mark on our fledgling history.

If he comes back he would be an asset to the community once again, and this could be a lesson for all, not just a black mark on our fledgling history.

I'm afraid that position of yours won't get majority support among the people.

But, we're getting OT again.

Supposedly involved in. Don't forget you are the Public Defender and evtl. will be tasked defending him. This line of yours would be prettey bad evidance then.
Won't there be a conflict of interest in having the estemed Public Defender defend AlphaWolf? Ravensfire was the prime leader for the side opposite AlphaWolf. If Ravensfire doesn't want to defend him, does he have the right to ask for someone to step up and volunteer to defend AlphaWolf? Article F, Section 4, subsection b. of the Constitution reads, "The Public Defender will act as council to an accused citizen, if the accused citizen wishes." My humble oppinion is that anyone can defend him in court, but Ravensfire has to do it if no one else will. I'm sure if the court asked, someone would be willing to step up and do it to avoid a conflict of interest. (wink, wink)

edit: I don't see anything in the Constitution granting the power of pardon to the President. Of course, the courts don't have to charge AW with anything. Also, being the current President, can he be tried in court at all?

Won't there be a conflict of interest in having the estemed Public Defender defend AlphaWolf? Ravensfire was the prime leader for the side opposite AlphaWolf. If Ravensfire doesn't want to defend him, does he have the right to ask for someone to step up and volunteer to defend AlphaWolf? Article F, Section 4, subsection b. of the Constitution reads, "The Public Defender will act as council to an accused citizen, if the accused citizen wishes." My humble oppinion is that anyone can defend him in court, but Ravensfire has to do it if no one else will. I'm sure if the court asked, someone would be willing to step up and do it to avoid a conflict of interest. (wink, wink)
Couple of points - first, I'm not allowed to *NOT* want to defend him. That's my job - to defend all citizens in a trial unless they ask me not to. My personal beliefs and feelings are of no importance - I'm there to safeguard their rights and present a vigorous defense.

Any Public Defender that refuses to defend someone should be removed from office, except, of course, we can't do that.

And I assure you, I've done it before, and have no qualms about doing it again.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

edit: I don't see anything in the Constitution granting the power of pardon to the President. Of course, the courts don't have to charge AW with anything. Also, being the current President, can he be tried in court at all?

That's because there is no such power.

Please though, take these questions to the Judiciary thread. We'll be more than happy to answer them there.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

We are getting more and more off-topic here, in my opinion. We're trying to find out what is legal and what not, not what is more or less beneficial.

You're right, and I apologize for my part in this.

The intention of my original comment here is probably best summed up by the following:

1) I believe that citizens voting to ratify the Triumverate were doing so under fraudulent pretenses (i.e. that it had been chosen by a majority of the membership over other systems).
2) Agreements made under fraud or duress are not, in fact, binding.
3) Therefore, the ratification poll should not be binding.

I added my clause about "significant impact," because I also recognize that sometimes the damage from fraud may be undoable. For instance, if this had all been uncovered, say, 50 turns into the game, the impact of undoing the ratification and all subsequent decisions would be too substantial for the system (and players) to bare. I do not believe, however, that we are at such a point.

I'm not saying refused because of person bias, but stepped aside because of conflict of interest. I know judges and other public attorneys have done that before just to remove any doubt about the trial. I wasn't trying to imply you wouldn't or couldn't do your job. The "wishes" part of the Constitution is a little vauge.

Sorry, back to topic.

Another point I though about. If the CoL is struck down, does that not strike down all elections that happened? Let's assume that you rule that there was fraud in the original Tri vs. Flex pole, and that trickles down and nulifies the CoL vote. Some say that the CoL votes were based on fraudulant information. Should it not also trickle down and nulify all election results? Those results were based on votes with the same information. The problem is that if the results of elections are overturned, this court has no right to rule on the validity of the CoL. I'm not sure whose side I helped more, but I thought that was an important point to think about when deciding this case.

Couple of points - first, I'm not allowed to *NOT* want to defend him. That's my job - to defend all citizens in a trial unless they ask me not to. My personal beliefs and feelings are of no importance - I'm there to safeguard their rights and present a vigorous defense.

Any Public Defender that refuses to defend someone should be removed from office, except, of course, we can't do that.

And I assure you, I've done it before, and have no qualms about doing it again.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

I think this is veering off topic quickly and should be moved to a couple of threads:

1) A thread under the judiciary to deal with a trial (to be created only if one should occur)
2) A more open thread about clarifying whether or not a citizen may choose someone other than the Public Defender to advocate on their behalf or possibly amending the CoL or Constitution to make this allowance

Please note, Ravensfire, that point 2 by no means suggests that I think you may be unable to perform your job. Rather, it is more about a general philosophy I hold that people should be allowed to choose their own counsel.

Another point I though about. If the CoL is struck down, does that not strike down all elections that happened? Let's assume that you rule that there was fraud in the original Tri vs. Flex pole, and that trickles down and nulifies the CoL vote. Some say that the CoL votes were based on fraudulant information. Should it not also trickle down and nulify all election results? Those results were based on votes with the same information. The problem is that if the results of elections are overturned, this court has no right to rule on the validity of the CoL. I'm not sure whose side I helped more, but I thought that was an important point to think about when deciding this case.

No, if the CoL were overturned, the Constitution would still be valid. And the elections for the Judiciary were valid under the Constitution (see Articles D and F).

I think this is veering off topic quickly and should be moved to a couple of threads:

1) A thread under the judiciary to deal with a trial (to be created only if one should occur)
2) A more open thread about clarifying whether or not a citizen may choose someone other than the Public Defender to advocate on their behalf or possibly amending the CoL or Constitution to make this allowance

Please note, Ravensfire, that point 2 by no means suggests that I think you may be unable to perform your job. Rather, it is more about a general philosophy I hold that people should be allowed to choose their own counsel.

These are easy points to cover.

If you're referring to a complaint against Alphawolf, it won't be necessary to hold a trial, since the situation was already handled by the mods. I think we have a mod tagged statement to that effect somewhere...

On the ability of a citizen to choose someone other than the Public Defender, that is already defined in the law.

Con. F.4.b says:

The Public Defender will act as council to an accused citizen, if the accused citizen wishes. It doesn't get any clearer than this. ;)

No, if the CoL were overturned, the Constitution would still be valid. And the elections for the Judiciary were valid under the Constitution (see Articles D and F).

Exactly. I triple-checked that before I filed this JR. :lol:

Ok, so the Judiciary would stand, but the other elections would be nulified, correct? Or am I still not seeing the whole picture?

Also, (I'm sorry, but being new I'm not sure how normal Judicial process works, so I'll just come out and ask) do you know when the courts will reach a decision? When does the court rule on anything? Once two justices agree, or when all three have agreed that they've heard enough?

GeorgeOP - see my response in the Judicial thread.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Two More Arguments against its ratifacation:
1. If we follow the amendment proccess in the CoL, the CoL couldn't have been ratified, 48 hours between the mock poll and poll is required only 21 hours occurred, but does the ratifacation have to follow its own amendment proccess?

2. Constitution: No decision shall require more support than an amendment to the Constitution.
According to Blkbird himself, the Code of Laws is harder to amend than the constitution, but is this allowed? Are ratifacation polls counted as decisions? If so that article is void, but if that article is void we can't change the CoL, this could put us in a pickle

Maybe the Judicary could ok the CoL, but then someome could bring up a second JR that challenges the amendment policy.

Two More Arguments against its ratifacation:
1. If we follow the amendment proccess in the CoL, the CoL couldn't have been ratified, 48 hours between the mock poll and poll is required only 21 hours occurred, but does the ratifacation have to follow its own amendment proccess?

2. Constitution:
According to Blkbird himself, the Code of Laws is harder to amend than the constitution, but is this allowed? Are ratifacation polls counted as decisions? If so that article is void, but if that article is void we can't change the CoL, this could put us in a pickle


I don't think it would make any amendments impossible to pass -- I think it would just make them fall under the same structure as any decision within the Constitution (referendums, initiatives, etc.).

Two More Arguments against its ratifacation:

They rather questions than arguments, aren't they?

1. If we follow the amendment proccess in the CoL, the CoL couldn't have been ratified, 48 hours between the mock poll and poll is required only 21 hours occurred, but does the ratifacation have to follow its own amendment proccess?

No, I've answered it in detail.

2. Constitution:
According to Blkbird himself, the Code of Laws is harder to amend than the constitution, but is this allowed? Are ratifacation polls counted as decisions? If so that article is void, but if that article is void we can't change the CoL, this could put us in a pickle

"Harder" in this context means that the process is more lengthy and complicated, not that it requires more support. Of course the ratification is a decision, and it requires less support (50% vs. 60%) than a Constitution amendment. A CoL amendment, which the rafication is not, would also require no more, but the same amount of support (60%) as a Constitution amendment.

For those who doesn't know, the honorable Public Defender ravensfire has posted his official ruling on this JR:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3560510#post3560510

For those who doesn't know, the honorable Public Defender ravensfire has posted his official ruling on this JR:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3560510#post3560510

Update: All three justices have posted their rulings, and the ratification has been upheld.

I wonder if anyone knew when they were nominating/campaigning that their first case would carry such weight with it... =)

I wonder if anyone knew when they were nominating/campaigning that their first case would carry such weight with it... =)

The first term tends to be the busiest. The first term with a brand new ruleset has the potential to be extremely busy.

-- Ravensfire