Office of the Censor - Term 4

Censor - Ravensfire
Deputy - Donovan Zoi

Term 3 thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=161919) - Swissempire
Term 2 thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=156869) - Swissempire
Term 1 thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151283) - Octavian X
Term 0 thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149496) - Alphawolf

Censor Office Summary
Censor Procedures (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3864704&postcount=2)

Active Polls
Name City 5 - Final Poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=167564)
Patch now to version 1.61? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=167566)
Should donsig Recuse himself from JR12? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=167638)
Confirmation Polls amendment (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=167624)

Closed Polls
City 4 Name - Round 1 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=165684)
Opinion Poll - Term Limits (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165641)
Build queue for City 4 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165621)
City 4 Name - Final Poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=166049)
Trade Drama? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=166375)
Where to settle City 5 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=166598)
Name City 5 - Preliminary Round (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=167113)
Declare War on Mongol? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=166877)
Opinion - Does JR12 affect donsig? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=166728)

Government Links
Triumverate
President (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165328) - Strider
Secretary of State (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165439) - DaveShack
Secretary of War (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165068) - Robboo

Cabinet
Censor (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3864700) - Ravensfire
Minister of Interior (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165057) - GeorgeOP
Minister of Culture (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=164973) - Methos
Minister of Science (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165407) - Sigma
Directory of Intelligence

Governor's Council
Governor of Boaring Wallow (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165542) - Tubby Rover
Governor of Abydos (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165718) - Civgeneral
Governor of Micalian's Gate (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165417) - Whomp
Governor of Toot Uncommon (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=166511) - Swissempire

Judiciary
Chief Justice (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165326) - Black_Hole
Judge Advocate - Nobody
Public Defender - donsig

Duties of the Censor
The Office of Censor is defined in the Code of Laws, in Section 1.B.III.IIIB. The Censor is in charge of conducting elections, validating elections and posting the official results of the elections. They are also responsible for validating all official polls, posting instructions related from Assembly votes and maintaining a list of names for cities, units and other items as approved by the Assembly.

Elections
All times will be based on GMT. Threads and polls will be posted at approximately 0000 GMT.

Nomination threads will be posted in the main forum, and will start 9 days before the end of the term. Citizen's may nominate themselves or any number of other citizens to office. A nominated citizen must explicitly accept a nomination to be a candidate for office. Self-nominations are considered accepted unless other-wise indicated.

Citizens may nominate themself prior to the opening of the nomination threads by posting in the Censor thread or by PM'ing the Censor.

Citizens may not accept a nomination in more than one office. Should this happen, the Censor will attempt to determine the preference of the citizen prior to the election polls. If this cannot happen, the first office the citizen accepted the nomination for will be the election in which they are the candidate.

Election polls will be posted 4 days after the Nomination threads are posted, and will be set to run for 3 days. These polls will list all valid candidates, plus abstain, and will be marked as Private. If there is only one candidate for the office, no poll will be posted.

In the event of a tie between two or more candidates, a run-off poll will be posted once the previous poll closes. This poll will list the tied candidates, plus abstain, will be set to run for 2 days, and will be marked Private. This process will be continue until there is a single winner.

Candidates may withdraw from the election at any time. Although they cannot be removed from the ballot, their vote total will be ignored for the purpose of determing the winner. If there is only one remaining candidate after a withdrawal, that candidate is immediately declared the winner of the election.

Polling
Polls are used for Opinion Polls, Referendums, Initiatives and Recalls.

Opinion Polls
Opinions Polls are all polls posted by citizens not labeled as Initiatives, and all polls posted by Officials acting in their area labeled as "Opinion" or "Informative". Results of this poll are considered non-binding, but may be used as the basis of a decision.

Referendums
Referendum polls are those posted by officials acting within their area. Results from a Referendum poll are considered binding and official, and superceed are other decision types except for initiative.

Initiative
Initiative polls are the ultimate form of decision, and can only be superceeded by another initiative poll. Initiative polls are started by Citizens.

Polling Standards
Polls must be written in a fair and clear manner to be validated. The first post of a poll must contain the question for the poll, the options with explanations if not clear, a link to the discussion thread(s), the type type of poll, the length of the poll and how the poll will be interpreted. Lobbying or supporting any option is not to be in this post.

Unless required otherwise, polls must be at least 2 days in length, with 3 or 4 days preferred if time is available. It is not required, although strongly preferred, that a discussion be held before a poll is posted. Polls must be public unless required otherwise by law.

Validation
The Censor or a designated representative will review each official poll, and validate those that meet the above standards and other legal requirements. If a poll does not meet requirements, the Censor will work with the author to improve the poll and validate it. The Censor may override any decision by a designated representative. The Censor may also change the validation status of a poll after the initial decision, although this decision must reflect the standards in force at that point in time.

Any not poll not reviewed within 48 hours of closure is assumed to be Validated.

Recall Polls
A Recall poll is one that asks if particular official should be removed from office. This poll may be posted by any Citizen, and follows the above standards with the following exceptions. The length of a Recall poll must be 96 hours. The Recall poll must be marked as Private.

Citizens are reminded that although Recall polls can be emotionally charged, they must act in a civil and respectful manner. Moderators will take special notice of such a poll due to its very nature - citizens should act with respect and courtesy towards each other.

Term 5 Election Dates

Term 5 Nominations Begin
Apr 23, 2006, 00:00 GMT
Apr 22, 2006, 19:00 CDT

Term 5 Election Polls Begin
Apr 28, 2006, 00:00 GMT
Apr 27, 2006, 19:00 CDT

Term 5 Begins
May 1, 2006, 00:00 GMT
Apr 30, 2006, 19:00 CDT

NOTE CHANGE - Election polls will be posted on 4/28

Placeholder ...

Objectives for Term 4

Press for the founding of the Governor's Council
Establish naming lists for units
Validate all polls
Work with all leaders as needed to improve polls


-- Ravensfire, Censor

If you need a deputy and i lose the election to donsig, i would be happy to help:) But i would also understand if you want to distence yourself from me, for reasons of beleifs or individuality.:goodjob:

If you need a deputy and i lose the election to donsig, i would be happy to help:) But i would also understand if you want to distence yourself from me, for reasons of beleifs or individuality.:goodjob:

Given recent events, discussions and posts, I think it would be best for that not to happen. There needs to be a working relationship between an office holder and their deputy, and that would be lacking.

-- Ravensfire

That cool ravensfire:goodjob:

Is this place open for business? If it is I'd like to have a word with the guy in charge about certain procedures.

Is this place open for business? If it is I'd like to have a word with the guy in charge about certain procedures.

I await a decision by the court on the matters. Until a decision is handed down, my office, once open, will act upon the procedures listed above.

-- Ravensfire, Censor

I await a decision by the court on the matters. Until a decision is handed down, my office, once open, will act upon the procedures listed above.

-- Ravensfire, Censor

Hmmm... I was under the impression that each censor was free to establish censorial procedures. Working under that assumption, I wanted to ask about some of the procedures you've listed. I'm not sure if you're saying you can't change the procedures until the judiciary rules on something or if you won't change the procedures unless judicial rulings necessitate such changes.

If you're saying you can't change the procedures then I think you're mistaken. If you're saying you won't change the procedures, then frankly, I'm a little put off since I haven't even specified what part of the procedures I'm referring to! I'm sure you have a very good idea of the areas I'm concerned with but still in all it would be nice to be able as a citizen to come to the censor's office (when it is open) and talk over concerns I have over the censor's procedures. I guess I'm quite perplexed. Regardless of whether you think you can't make changes or won't make changes, why is it you won't even discuss changes?

I'd be interested in hearing what the question is, regardless of whether it will be answered.

There are some matters that I intend to present to the Judiciary for discussion.

I am certainly willing to hear any comments you might have, of course.

-- Ravensfire, Censor

I'd be interested in hearing what the question is, regardless of whether it will be answered.

Under *Polling Standards* the phrase Polls must be public unless required otherwise by law is included in the procedures. My question: Is the censor willing to remove this phrase from the procedures so as to allow for private polls?

I feel as though a citizen should be able to post a private poll if that is the citizen's wish. There is nothing in our constitution nor in our code of laws that forces polls to be public. In light of this I do not think it proper for a censor to prohibit the use of private polls.

I am genuinely confused about our views on private versus public polls as a group. I posted a citizen's initiative poll on allowing private polls for citizen initiative polls. There are currently more no votes in that poll than yes votes but I'm not sure if the votes reflect my fellow citizen's desire to limit the use of private polls or their displeasure with me and/or the method I choose for that particular poll. Since a different poll on the same question might well return a different decision I'm contemplating starting a discussion on an amendment to give citizen's the choice of using either private or public polls (as long as the poll is not about an individual). If it is truly within the censor's powers to decide the fate of public and private polls then the easiest thing to do is try to get that official to write procedures that allow both methods to be used. Hence, my visit to the censor's office and my question.

There are some matters that I intend to present to the Judiciary for discussion.

I am certainly willing to hear any comments you might have, of course.

-- Ravensfire, Censor

As a prospective justice I'd ask the Censor to at least try to come up with procedues we all can live with before going to the judiciary. The judiciary should be a last resort to be used only if serious disagreements cannot be resolved in any other (legal) way.

As a citizen I'd really like to know what issues our censor thinks it is necessary to bring before the court. I'd also like to know why these issues can't be brought up and discussed here in this government thread.

Under *Polling Standards* the phrase Polls must be public unless required otherwise by law is included in the procedures. My question: Is the censor willing to remove this phrase from the procedures so as to allow for private polls?

I do not plan to remove this procedure.

Public polling has a long tradition of acceptance in this game, and I have come to accept the reasons in support of that.

Should I see an abuse of public polling through derogitory remarks directed at a citizen because of their vote, I will revisit this. Until then, this policy will remain.

-- Ravensfire, Censor

I cannot speak for ravensfire but one thing i think that some citiziens want to bring before the judiciary is the power of the Censor to regulate intiatives

I do not plan to remove this procedure.

Public polling has a long tradition of acceptance in this game, and I have come to accept the reasons in support of that.

Should I see an abuse of public polling through derogitory remarks directed at a citizen because of their vote, I will revisit this. Until then, this policy will remain.

-- Ravensfire, Censor

This is not a question of accepting public polling or not accepting public polling. I am not asking that public polls be banned. I am merely asking that private polls be allowed, especially for polls posted by citizens (as opposed to polls posted by officials acting within the capacity of their office). I must confess I'm so :old: I can remember a time before there was such a thing as a public poll. We managed to play a few demogames without a single public poll so I don't see that they are all that bad. The fact that we actually require private polls in some cases tells me they still have some level of acceptance in the DG community. I must confess that I'm not aware of the reasons why public polls are better than private polls. I'm also wondering how recent technology (our user group) impacts the private versus public poll debate.

I'm here in the office and ready to listen. Tell me why public polls are so good or why private polls are so bad that the Censor demands public polls unless otherwise specified by law.

As to why public polls could be good.

While i do't do this(except in the case of Judicial Reviews, then i do judge how a judge vote), some people may like to see how people feel on certain issue when voting for them. Since they may not be things the officials want in the lime light, its the citizien right to know if so and so support this or that

I agree 100% with Donsig that the Judiciary should only be used as a last ditch effort. I also agree that private polls should be allowed.

However, if the poll is private, it should not be binding. I want to see how my elected officials vote. In American politics they can take a private vote (I believe this is called a caucus), but it doesn't become official until a public vote is conducted. It's not that I want to beat on people who voted against me, but I would like to know who I can debate it with.

I am genuinely confused about our views on private versus public polls as a group. I posted a citizen's initiative poll on allowing private polls for citizen initiative polls. There are currently more no votes in that poll than yes votes but I'm not sure if the votes reflect my fellow citizen's desire to limit the use of private polls or their displeasure with me and/or the method I choose for that particular poll. Since a different poll on the same question might well return a different decision I'm contemplating starting a discussion on an amendment to give citizen's the choice of using either private or public polls (as long as the poll is not about an individual). If it is truly within the censor's powers to decide the fate of public and private polls then the easiest thing to do is try to get that official to write procedures that allow both methods to be used. Hence, my visit to the censor's office and my question.


I would definitely approve of a discussion focused on the proper uses of public and private polls, and if that resulted in the citizens wanting to press forward with an amendment I would support having a discussion and vote on such an amendment. At the same time, I would prefer to use the commonly accepted practices that we've started this game with.

You're probably right, there are likely to be many no votes in that poll due to process issues which might be yes votes if the process issues didn't exist. An opinion poll would have been a better idea, so people wouldn't think you were trying to singlehandedly change the law.

The Censor doesn't work in a vacuum, there are established precedents which have been accepted in prior terms by the vast majority. This can be said of every elected official, including the Judiciary.

I agree 100% with Donsig that the Judiciary should only be used as a last ditch effort. I also agree that private polls should be allowed.

However, if the poll is private, it should not be binding. I want to see how my elected officials vote. In American politics they can take a private vote (I believe this is called a caucus), but it doesn't become official until a public vote is conducted. It's not that I want to beat on people who voted against me, but I would like to know who I can debate it with.

For non-binding polls (opinion polls), the Censor has no authority over them, nor do I want to have authority over them. I have no issue with those polls being public, private, fair, biased or just plain dirty-pool.

In short, your suggestion is already there!

-- Ravensfire, Censor

The Censor doesn't work in a vacuum, there are established precedents which have been accepted in prior terms by the vast majority. This can be said of every elected official, including the Judiciary.

And many citizens have pointed out that this is a new game and we should not be bound by what was done in earlier games just because that's the way things were done before. So it the Censor (or the judiciary) saw a good reason to change things then it would be appropriate to do so.

I agree that a discussion of acceptable uses of public and private polls would be good. I can't start one tongiht - have to play a turn in the MTDG and in Cage Match II. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=163309) :)

It is with great pleasure that the office of the Censor of Licnetia announces that Donovan Zoi has accepted the position of Deputy Censor.

Throughout this term, Donovan Zoi will be helping evaluate and validate polls, begin discussions as needed and other tasks as needed.

Thanks, DZ!

-- Ravensfire, Censor

It is with great pleasure that the office of the Censor of Licnetia announces that Donovan Zoi has accepted the position of Deputy Censor.

Throughout this term, Donovan Zoi will be helping evaluate and validate polls, begin discussions as needed and other tasks as needed.

Thanks, DZ!

-- Ravensfire, Censor

Thank you for putting your trust in me, Ravensfire. I look forward to a very productive term. :)

Could one of the esteemed new censors post a Preliminary Naming Poll witht he following name choices for city 4

Basillica
Yavin IV
Daedsimsilaicos
Desigoths Tavern
Jungolia
Alpha Omega
Superioria
Judiciary Nightmare
Air Strip One
Aloha
New Port City
Auda City
Cheeseburg
JR (Judicial Review)
Toot Uncommon

Could one of the esteemed new censors post a Preliminary Naming Poll witht he following name choices for city 4

Done. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=165684)

-- Ravensfire, Censor

I think this new format is too singular. I think the old choose three format would have let the populance narrow it down to where making a choice was significantly simplified.

I think this new format is too singular. I think the old choose three format would have let the populance narrow it down to where making a choice was significantly simplified.

Sorry, I like my method better.

-- Ravensfire, Censor

Initial post updated!

-- Ravensfire, Censor

As a quick update ...

WAR!

The Assembly has authorized the declaration of War with the Mongol nation!

City 5 Name

The final poll for the name of City 5 is up! Vote now!

Patch now?

Should we patch now to version 1.61?

-- Ravensfire, Censor

Mr Censor.. Please read the last few post on this thread and let me know what legal standing we have with this. I request that Nobody be removed from the DP pool if he can not follow clearly written instructions. Let me know what procedures must be followed to accomplish this. I am sure GeorgeOP will also feel the same way.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3946348#post3946348

Mr Censor...According ot our previous poll I would like you to start a war plan approval poll. I will Set conditions for the war to be started in the Goals and timetable thread. However..if you would prefer we couddl wait till after the next TC and then at least one of the conditions..( Old Sarai would already be met) and it is quite possible that the second condition could be met.( troops in position) This would allow the war to start at the begining of the next TC( after Daves).Without Dave having to stop 1 turn short or declare war. IF we wait one TC the poll would be a simple Declaration of war poll instead of a conditional declaration of war.

Poll going up soon - my apologies for the delay!

-- Ravensfire

Errrm, nominations?

Your schedule said they should be up approx 00:00 GMT 23 April, 8 days before the start of the next term. Your procedures say 9 days. It's now approx 11:00 GMT 24 April, less than 7 days before the next term. Time does fly!

Gah - stupid weekend!

Nominations going up immediately.

-- Ravensfire

Fellow citizens,

My apologies for the delay in the posting of the nomiations. Due to the delay, the election polls will be posted on 4/28 (GMT). The schedule has been updated to reflect this.

Again, sorry for the trouble.

-- Ravensfire, Censor

Due to an unforeseen event, I will not be able to officially close the elections when they end. Even more unfortunately, my current deputy, Donovan Zoi, has a prior even that also prevents him from helping out.

Therefore, I am firing Donovan Zoi (Woohoo!), and replacing him with Whomp.

Thanks for your help, DZ! No hard feelings ...

Thanks especially to Whomp for helping out in the waning days of this term!

-- Ravensfire, Censor

Gah - stupid weekend!

Nominations going up immediately.

-- Ravensfire

May I quote you when it comes time to discuss how long we should allow initiative polls to be open? :D

There is a closed amendment poll. Since amendment polls are posted by the CJ in the course of his appointed duties it would seem that amendment polls are official polls and therefore can be validated or invalidated by the Censor. Woudl you either validate the poll or invalidate it or post that you intend to do neither. Then steps can be taken to include the amendment in our CoL if that it is indeed a valid/binding/official/amendment that actually passed.

Fellow citizens,

My apologies for the delay in the posting of the nomiations. Due to the delay, the election polls will be posted on 4/28 (GMT). The schedule has been updated to reflect this.

Again, sorry for the trouble.

-- Ravensfire, Censor

Umm, April has only 30 days, so the polls need to open today or they will run past the beginning of the month! :eek:

Umm, April has only 30 days, so the polls need to open today or they will run past the beginning of the month! :eek:

Volleyball ran late, poll are opening today.

-- Ravensfire

May I quote you when it comes time to discuss how long we should allow initiative polls to be open? :D

There is a closed amendment poll. Since amendment polls are posted by the CJ in the course of his appointed duties it would seem that amendment polls are official polls and therefore can be validated or invalidated by the Censor. Woudl you either validate the poll or invalidate it or post that you intend to do neither. Then steps can be taken to include the amendment in our CoL if that it is indeed a valid/binding/official/amendment that actually passed.
Being the stickler for procedure that you are, I'm quite sure that you read mine, and thus know that this situation is covered.

So why, exactly, are you posting here?

-- Ravensfire, Censor

Being the stickler for procedure that you are, I'm quite sure that you read mine, and thus know that this situation is covered.

So why, exactly, are you posting here?

-- Ravensfire, Censor

I only read procedures when the need arises. So please tell me how the situation is covered. I'm quite confused that we have a censor who likes validating/invalidating initiatives that he has no authority to do, while official amendment polls go unvalidated. :confused:

OK, I read your procedures. Don't see how the situation is covered. Would you please explain your position on this?

OK, I read your procedures. Don't see how the situation is covered. Would you please explain your position on this?


Any not poll not reviewed within 48 hours of closure is assumed to be Validated.


Does this help? :cool:

That's pretty cheesy. Is it really too much to ask for an official validation / invalidation post?

That's pretty cheesy. Is it really too much to ask for an official validation / invalidation post?

Of course not, but I think your original request was a bit beyond that, donsig.

I will validate that poll shortly.

-- Ravensfire, Censor

Results from the Term 5 Election:

President - DaveShack

Secretary of War - Rihiter

Secretary of State - VACANT

Censor - Ravensfire

Minister of the Interior - VACANT

Minister of Culture - VACANT

Minister of Science - VACANT

Governor of Boaring Wallow - GeorgeOP

Governor of Abydos - robboo

Governor of Miclian's Gate - Whomp

Governor of Toot Uncommon - StrategyDoRK

Governor of Auda City - ice2k4

Chief Justice - donsig

Judge Advocate - VACANT

Public Defender - Cyc

-- Ravensfire, Censor

Of course not, but I think your original request was a bit beyond that, donsig.

I will validate that poll shortly.

-- Ravensfire, Censor

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Did I ask you to do more than invalidate / validate a poll? Since you are returning as Censor would you please change your prodecures to remove the blanket validation clause. I'd like to know that the Censor or his deputy have actually looked at each poll.