Term 4 ~ Judiciary [Archive] - Civilization Fanatics' Forums

Black_Hole

Mar 30, 2006, 03:20 PM

Common Rights and Duties of all Citizens
Participate in all Judicial discussions
Request that any Judicial discussion be moved to its own thread in the Citizen's forum
Post requests for Judicial Review of existing law. These requests should contain a specific question and the section of law in question
Post requests for Judicial Review of proposed amendments. This request should contain the exact text to be reviewed and a link to the discussion thread
Post requests for clarification. This is an unofficial question about the rules that does not create a finding, but may lead to a Judicial Review
Post requests for Citizen Complaints. This is a request to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. This request must be posted in the Judicial thread. There are no anonymous requests.
Appoint a pro tem justice in the event of official absence or recusal from specific CCs or JRs. Either of the remaining two judiciary members can veto this appointment within 72 hours. Citizens can also post a confirmation poll within 72 hours (said confirmation poll to be open 72 hours). In case of a conflict between a judicial veto and a citizen confirmation poll, the citizen confirmation polls takes precedence. Shared duties and responsibilities of all Justices

Conduct the business of the court in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner
Review and discuss any questions about our laws
Review all proposed Amendments to our laws
Review all requested Citizen Complaints to determine if the charge has merit
Participate in all Citizen Complaints in a fair and impartial manner
Post clear and decisive opinions on all questions. Abstentions are not allowed
Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement
Discuss and ratify these Judicial Procedures
Recuse themself from any Citizen Complaints that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the CC, or as the citizen under investigation. Rights and Duties of the Chief Justice

Post polls for amendments once they pass review
Post any valid Recall poll
Oversee all Judicial Proceedings
Maintain the Judicial Log
Request that other justices post an opinion promptly
Maintain the docket and decide the priority level of cases
Maintain the Constitution and Code of Laws threads
Rights and Duties of the Judge Advocate

Serve as the Prosecution during any trial of a citizen. In this role, the Judge Advocate need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side
Post polls for amendments and recalls Rights and Duties of the Public Defender

Serve as the Defense during a trial of a citizen, unless requested otherwise by the citizen. In this role, the Public Defender need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side
Post polls for amendments and recalls
Changes to Judicial Procedures
The Judicial Procedures may be changed at any time by a majority decision of the court.

Judicial Reviews
Judicial Reviews are used to resolve questions of the law and to validate proposed amendments. The opinion of a majority of the Justices will be used to resolve the Judicial Review.

Reviews of existing laws may be requested by anyone. The Chief Justice shall review each request for merit. If the Chief Justice declines the request, either of the other two Justices may accept the request and override the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice will post each accepted request, clearly denoting the questions. After at least 24 hours, each Justice may post their finding. This post should clearly answer the questions as posed by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may request that the justices post their opinion promptly, requiring all justices to make a ruling within 72 hours. The Chief Justice may request clarification of these findings as needed.

Reviews of a proposed law may be requested by anyone. The post must include the proposed law, and a link to the discussion thread. The proposed law must have been conspicuously posted as a proposed poll for at least 24 hours, and the discussion thread open for at least 48 hours. The Justices will review the law for any conflicts with current law, and post their findings. Any Justice may post the poll for all proposals that pass Judicial Review.

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

Absence Investigations
Absence Investigations are used to determine the status of an elected official who has not posted for an extended period of time and to remove that citizen from office if necessary. Any citizen may initiate an Absence Investigation if an elected official fails to post on the Civilization Fanatics' Forums for 7 days.

If a valid Absence Investigation is called, the Chief Justice is to start the investigation by indicating that an Absence Investigation has started. The Chief Justice must then send a private message to the official against whom the investigation has been called. An e-mail should also be sent if possible. The official will have 48 hours to respond to the private message. At the end of this time, or after a response has been received by the official in question, the Chief Justice may declare the commencement of voting on whether or not the seat should be rendered vacant. Each justice should clearly post their vote on this issue. If a majority of justices vote in favor of declaring the office vacant, the official shall be removed and the President empowered to appoint another citizen to that post.

Citizen Complaints
Citizen complaints are used to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. They may be requested by any citizen in a post in the Judicial thread. Except as noted, the Justices must act in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner throughout the process. All citizens are innocent unless determined to be guilty. Citizen Complaints shall be completed by the end of the term, unless the Judiciary finds this to be impossible, in which case the next term’s court may finish the investigation. All evidence, except foreknowledge of the game, must be presented publicly. Evidence of foreknowledge of the game will be reviewed by the Judiciary, and a statement about that evidence posted. Once that evidence becomes irrelevant due to game progress, any citizen may request it to be posted.

Any citizen who is the defendant of a Citizen Complaint shall have the right to representation throughout the process. The Public Defender shall be tasked with defending each citizen charged with an offense from the moment the Citizen Complaint is filed until the complaint is concluded, unless another citizen is appointed by the defendant to serve as the Defense, with that citizen's consent.

At any time during a citizen complaint, the citizen making the request may drop the request, ending the citizen complaint unless another citizen wishes to continue the process. Likewise, the citizen under investigation may accept the charges, and move immediately to the Sentencing phase.

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

Review
Each requested Citizen Complaint will be reviewed by the Judiciary. Justices will gather and look through the evidence presented, including requests for statements from all citizens. If all three Justices determine the request to have No Merit, the basis for that finding will be posted by each Justice and the request is denied. If at least one Justice determines the request to have Merit, a trial on the facts will be conducted. The Judge Advocate will review the request and the relevant law, and determine the specific law the accused citizen is alleged to have violated.

Trial
The Judge Advocate will create a thread for the trial in the Citizen's forum. This initial post should contain the specific violations and the evidence for those accusations. The next two posts are reserved for the citizen accused and the Public Defender - until they post, or 24 hours from the initial post, no other citizen may post in the thread. All citizens are encouraged to post in this thread, but are reminded to respect the rights of all citizens.

Once the at least 48 hours have passed, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

The Trial poll will be a private poll, with the options Innocent, Guilty and Abstain. It will run for 48 hours. The option receiving the most votes will determine the result. In the event of a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the result by posting clear opinions in the Trial thread.

Sentencing
If a citizen under investigation during a Citizen Complaint has accepted the charges, the citizen, the accuser and the Judiciary may determine and assign a sentence if they all unanimously agree to the arrangement. Failure to uphold that arrangement will result in full sentencing poll posted as if the citizen were found guilty in a Trial.

If an arrangement cannot be made, or the citizen was found Guilty, the sentence will be determined by the citizens through a poll. The Chief Justice will post the poll, marked as private with a duration of 48 hours. The options for the poll will include:

Suspension from Demogame
Removal from Office (if applicable)
Public Apology
Final Warning
Warning
Abstain Other options may be included through unanimous consent of the Judiciary.

Once the poll closes, the Chief Justice will determine the sentence imposed using cumulative voting. The most severe option that a majority of citizens support will be imposed. If a Warning is issued, a warning will be posted by the Chief Justice in the Judicial thread and may be reposted in that person’s government thread, if they hold an office. If a citizen is given a Final Warning, the above procedure will be used, but with stronger language. Additionally, the options “Warning” and “Final Warning” will not appear on a sentencing poll if that citizen is charged with a similar offense in the future. If a citizen is sentenced to a Public Apology, a thread apologizing for the actions taken must be posted by the defendant within 48 hours of the close of the sentencing poll. If the citizen is removed from office, they are barred from holding that office for the remainder of the term. The length of a suspension is to be determined by the Judiciary, with the required consent of the moderators.

ravensfire

Mar 30, 2006, 04:41 PM

Black_Hole

Mar 30, 2006, 04:43 PM

I have a question that I wish to submit before the Court for a Judicial Review.

Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?

Thank you,
-- Ravensfire, Censor
As the court is not in session until April 1st, I will hold off on ruling whether this JR has merit or not.

Black_Hole

Mar 30, 2006, 04:45 PM

Fellow judicial members:
Are there any changes that are needed to the judicial procedures used for that last 3 terms?
They can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3519942&postcount=2), if not, please vote on whether or not to accept these procedures.

Nobody

Mar 30, 2006, 05:00 PM

Everything seems fine to me, except maybe in light of the last Terms Judicary Crisis Shared duties and responsibilities of all Justices final bullet point Recuse themself from any Citizen Complaints that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the CC, or as the citizen under investigation.

Could be extended to include things like JR

Black_Hole

Mar 30, 2006, 05:44 PM

Everything seems fine to me, except maybe in light of the last Terms Judicary Crisis Shared duties and responsibilities of all Justices final bullet point

Could be extended to include things like JR
how about we add another bullet at the end
Recuse themself from any Judicial Reviews they submitted or they are affected by.

Nobody

Mar 30, 2006, 05:46 PM

I agree and if thats added i Accept these Judical Procedures

Strider

Mar 31, 2006, 04:25 PM

Does Section 8.A.II and Section 8.A.I include appointed no-power duties like Chief Bureau's for the Information Department?

B) Limits to Holding Office
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.
II. Governors and Members of the Cabinet may hold up to two offices at the same time.

I must ask for the utmost speed in deciding this issue.

Black_Hole

Mar 31, 2006, 05:49 PM

Does Section 8.A.II and Section 8.A.I include appointed no-power duties like Chief Bureau's for the Information Department?

I must ask for the utmost speed in deciding this issue.
unfortunately it will be a few days, we can't rule on a thing until tomorrow, and we need procedures in place, and ravensfire's JR was submitted first and has equal precedence.

donsig

Apr 01, 2006, 12:40 PM

Well, here's my question. Do justices have to recuse themselves from JR's they are affected by? There is nothing in our laws (except the constitutional charge to be fair) that requires it. There is nothing in the judicial log from last term to clarify the law. We had a Chief Justice last term who refused to recuse himself from a JR that affected him. We have a citizen's initiative poll that clearly shows our citizen's do not want justices ruling on JRs that affect them but the legality of this poll has been questioned. (The poll was also been invalidated by the Censor though the legality of the Censor's authority to do so has also been questioned.) Since the judiciary may not want to move forward to resolve this issue without having judicial procedures in place I would like to suggest that we leave the clause about JR recusals out of the procedures for now. Once we have rulings on the issues mentioned above we can add the clause in if that would be consistent with whatever rulings are eventually made. We are allowed to amend our procedures in the middle of a term.

Under the shared dutoes section I think there is a typo. One bullet reads:

Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement

Shouldn't this be : Notify the Judiciary of any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement?

Also, I'd like to ask my fellow judiciary members if they think we should spell out the procedures for arranging for a pro tem? This affects not only absences but recusals as well. Should we have an outside agency appoint the pro tems or should we allow the other two justices to make the apointment? If we allow the affected justice to make his own appointment I think at the very least we should give the other two justices veto power over the choice. I just think we need a little mechanism to ensure impartiality.

Also, given the fact that an amendment to our CoL was passed and not formally added to our CoL thread I'm wondering if we should add a clause making it our duty to ensure the CoL is up to date. I'm not really sure if it's our job though. If the Censor should be validating amendment polls then perhaps it should be his duty to ensure the amendments are posted to the CoL thread. If we decide it's not our job then I will suggest the Censor add something to his procedures to ensure it gets done.

Finally, it might be a good idea to include something formal about transferring unfinished cases to the next term's judiciary.

None of these have to actually be included in our procedures right now - with the possible exception of arranging for pro tems. If we want to get down to business we can just adopt last term's procedures and get down to business. After the initial rush we can amend our procedures as we see fit, with the hope that each successive term will accept the changes we make.

Nobody

Apr 01, 2006, 02:32 PM

AS far as aranging for a Protems i think we should just Find them ourselves (either ask for applications or ask somone we know) and then give the Judicary a chance to veto them (say for 24 hours after a Justice Nominates them the other 2 may veto him. Or a larger amount of time say 48 or 72 but he/she can begin work during this term).

As far as the COL is concerned i think that is more censors job than the courts and also normally the person who puts forward the amendment would make sure to chase it up.

Swissempire

Apr 01, 2006, 02:59 PM

But Donsig, how are we to determine which JR's affect whom? Curufinwe didn't recuse himself because he felt it didn't affect him and he could make an impartial ruling.

DaveShack

Apr 01, 2006, 06:15 PM

Black_Hole

Apr 01, 2006, 08:23 PM

So procedures wise, I think I should fix the typo and thats it for now, because we have some semir urgent JRs that we need to get through. What do you guys think?

donsig

Apr 01, 2006, 08:50 PM

I will, naturally, expect the originator of any poll affected by a challenge to its validity, or the validity of similar kinds of polls, to appoint a pro-tem. It should be very obvious to whom this comment applies and for what cases. I won't bother to spell it out unless that justice fails to act.

Well, you know what? I tought it was very obvious that Curufinwe was affected by certain JRs last term. Where were you when that was going on? Don't beat around the bush here. Come out and say it. It'll help me decide what I should do. You are not making a difficult situation any easier by making veiled threats. That only makes me want to adopt Curufinwe's stance regarding the pushing around of the judiciary. And I will spell that one out for you: push me and I'll be quite happy to show you how stubborn I can be. I've had a very bad day what with the Galls and their sneak attack so I don't have much patience right now. To be quite frank and out front I am facing a dilemma. There are some upcoming JRs that I would normally consider recusing myself from however the laws as they were interpreted last term do not seem to force me to do so. So I am caught between doing what I think is right for the judiciary (recusing myself from the cases) and doing what I think is right for the game as a whole (showing you all once again the pitfalls of making a mockery of our legal system). The latter would be quite fun. If you think I'm afraid of the complaints that you could lodge against me then I'd ask you to recall my presidential stints in both DG1 and DG3. I stood up to far more serious charges in both those games.

So, as a citizen, would you like to comment on the legality of our proposed judicial procedures and perhaps add your constructive efforts to ensuring a judicial term we can all be proud of?

@ Swissempire: Well, I don't know. I do understand that Curufinwe thought those JRs did not affect him. It is very frustrating that you still don't see that there were others who thought those JRs did affect Curufinwe. Unfortunately, there was no official judicial ruing on the matter that we can go by. There has been no legislation either enacted or proposed to address the matter. We only have one poll that you (as Censor) said is invalid (i.e., it doesn't count). All we have is the precedent that Curufinwe established. I led the effort to have Curufinwe recuse himself. Curufinwe refused and was upheld in his refusal by the citizens at large. Do you all really expect me now to do what you wouldn't have Curfinwe do last term?

@ Black Hole: I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the choosing of a pro tem. Nobody's suggestion looks good to me for now - unless you have something different you'd like to propose.

DaveShack

Apr 01, 2006, 11:17 PM

I'm using these definitions of expect:

To look forward to the probable occurrence or appearance of: expecting a telephone call; expects rain on Sunday.
To consider likely or certain: expect to see them soon nothing threatening there... :D

Finally, it might be a good idea to include something formal about transferring unfinished cases to the next term's judiciary.

Well now, this could get really interesting. Is a case concluded when all 3 justices have ruled, or when the Chief Justice has consolidated the rulings, posted the formal court ruling, and posted the Judicial Log? If we consider a case to still be open until all the paperwork is done, then a little creativity in the wording of the judicial procedures could have a pretty drastic effect on the incomplete work from the previous term. :mischief:

If you want me to post a proposal for the court to review I'd be happy to -- but I think it's best for me to refrain from doing that in case this term's court doesn't want to play hardball with last term's cases.

DaveShack

Apr 01, 2006, 11:28 PM

Well, you know what? I tought it was very obvious that Curufinwe was affected by certain JRs last term. Where were you when that was going on? Don't beat around the bush here. Come out and say it. It'll help me decide what I should do.

Umm, I was saying the same thing you were, of course. Trying to be slightly more diplomatic by effectively saying "yeah, the case doesn't affect you due to Nobody's resignation, but for the game's sake go ahead and recuse yourself anyway", and it almost worked. I was actually surprised when the big announcement was a refusal instead.

Swissempire

Apr 01, 2006, 11:31 PM

Donsig, I regonize that others feel the same way as you, just as other feeel the same way as me. I can even simpathize with them. I am a fair-even minded person . Your post made me chuckle because you were contemplating doing EXACTLY what curufinwe did, and if you did it you would no doubt see it as correct. :)

Also, I would like to volunterr muslef for Pro-temship whenever needed, so i can prove to my doubters that i can be a good justice.

Curufinwe

Apr 02, 2006, 01:13 AM

Donsig, actually, the Judiciary decided that the poll was valid up until the point of hte extension, meaning that the result at that time (with me being confirmed) was the legal one.

Nobody

Apr 02, 2006, 01:31 AM

Come on everyone stop bickerning, this is a court. Treat it respectfully, last terms recusals/nonrecusals have been debated into the ground. Right Now the only bussiness of the Judicary is to create our procedures. Citizens can post Judical Reviews or CCs during this time but there is no reason to dicuss them until these procedures are set.

So here is what is propose.
Lets just confirm the current judical procedures with the following ammendments:

Under the Shared Duties Title we add a new bullet Point. Recuse themself from any Judicial Reviews they submitted or they are affected by.
Under the Shared Duties title Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement Becomes Notify the Judiciary of any Absence,
Under Shared Duties another bullet point is added Whenever a justice is going to be absent or is going to recuse there self they should inform the Judiciary and appoint a Pro-tempor Justice. If the concerned justice is unable to appoint a Pro-tempor then the Chief Justice shall do so. The appointed Pro-tempor shall have what ever powers that the appointer grants them. Pro-tempor appointments may be vetoed by any member of the Judiciary within 72 hours of their appointment. During the 72 hour “veto period” the Pro-tempor shall exercise granted powers.

Lets discuss the procedures and decide whenever or not to add anymore. Ofcourse what i wrote above is just some ideas feel free to throw them away or rewrite them. But lets get this done before we discuss anything else. And lets forget last term for a while.

donsig

Apr 02, 2006, 07:53 AM

Well now, this could get really interesting. Is a case concluded when all 3 justices have ruled, or when the Chief Justice has consolidated the rulings, posted the formal court ruling, and posted the Judicial Log? If we consider a case to still be open until all the paperwork is done, then a little creativity in the wording of the judicial procedures could have a pretty drastic effect on the incomplete work from the previous term. :mischief:

If you want me to post a proposal for the court to review I'd be happy to -- but I think it's best for me to refrain from doing that in case this term's court doesn't want to play hardball with last term's cases.

Well, I would think if a case made it to the judicial log it would be considered finished. Anything not making it there is unfinished. What sort of legal definition would you put on *unfinished*? I'm not sure what you're hinting at. Are there unfinished cases from last term? Maybe I should check into that. I never got to participate in the formal JR discussions last term because I asked the CJ one last time to recuse himself. He chose not to answer so I missed the JRs. My proposal was prompted by the CoL fiasco between terms one and two. In term one we had a JR on an amendment which was polled and passed but not included in the official CoL thread till term 3. That had a direct impact on the term three follies. Was it my job as term two CJ to get the CoL updated? If it was then I missed it and that's why I thought it would be a good idea to formalize the transfer of unfinished business from term to term. I'm sorry if my motives don't live up to my reputation. :rolleyes:

@ Swissempire: No, I would not think it was right. I would however, think it was legal. There is a difference and anyone who wants to be a justice should realize that.

@ Curufinwe: So what? As I said, the judiciary did not make any rulings last term on whether justices should or must recuse themselves from judicial reviews that affect them. Your confirmation poll was legally about confirming you as chief justice and nothing more.

@ Nobody and Black Hole: I would vote for Nobody's revisions regarding judiciary absences and the appointment of pro tempore justices. At this time I would not vote for judicial procedures that force justices to recuse themselves on judicial reviews. As I said earlier, the current legal situation is that we are allowed to rule on JRs that affect us. Until that legal situation is rectified by something higher than our own procedures I respectfully request that we leave that clause out. Once again I remind my fellow justices that we are allowed to change our procedures mid-term. Let's leave this hot potato alone for awhile and let it cool down.

Swissempire

Apr 02, 2006, 12:01 PM

Question: Do ALL the justices have to rectify the procedures, or just the majority?
------------
Seperate Idea: May be you can have a list where people who would like to pro-tem so they can gain judicial experience can put there name forward BEFORE HAND, so when a justice is absent you don't have to play favorite or we dob't have people jockeying for justices that share said persons opinion on the matter. Just choose the next on the list. I think this would be more fair for everyone. And no, this is not just me wanting to pro-tem. I'm sure there are a lot of people(actuaally i know there are) who would like a chnce to get there hands dirtty and show people what the have got.

ravensfire

Apr 02, 2006, 12:04 PM

Suggestion for the procedures:

During term 1, we created a template for amendments, to make sure all relevant information was covered. I suggest including that template in the procedures.

-- Ravensfire

DaveShack

Apr 02, 2006, 12:27 PM

Are there unfinished cases from last term?

I had no idea if any cases are unfinished. I thought there might be some, but it appears it only looked that way because the final opinion was posted only in the log and not in the judiciary thread.

In term one we had a JR on an amendment which was polled and passed but not included in the official CoL thread till term 3.

As far as I know, though it was difficult to tell because the editing of the Constitution thread didn't go the way I thought it would, the amendment was posted to the thread. I (as term 1 CJ) appended the amendment, and then it never got edited in by the mods. Later when it was edited in (after Chieftess discovered her mistake I reckon) the amendment itself was deleted from the thread, erasing the paper trail I thought should be there.

ravensfire

Apr 02, 2006, 12:40 PM

ravensfire

Apr 02, 2006, 12:43 PM

I have some questions about filling Vacant positions.

1) Is there a required place for the office filling the position to post that they are looking for candidates?

2) Must the office filling the position wait 72 hours after that request to fill the office, or may someone be appointed before that time period?

3) If only one citizen applies during that 72 hour period, must the office filling the position appoint that citizen?

Section 8.C of the Code of Laws.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

DaveShack

Apr 02, 2006, 02:22 PM

DaveShack,

That was at my request due to the confusion about the ruleset. Citizens were reading the old ruleset only, and not the amendments. We need to keep the ruleset thread accurate to make it as easy as possible for citizen to review and understand the rules.

-- Ravensfire

I agree totally that the law needs to be kept current, and not editing in the change was the triggering event for the confusion. We should also have the amendments which have been passed, which show old and new text. That way a question of prior law can be answered.

ravensfire

Apr 02, 2006, 03:06 PM

Furiey

Apr 02, 2006, 03:26 PM

As the Civ 3 Demogame is coming to a close, I should be able to format and maintain the laws in the same way I did the DG7 ones if it would help. Please let me know if you would like me to do this.

DG7 Laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=130149)

Black_Hole

Apr 03, 2006, 08:14 AM

Those should probably be in subsequent posts. The posts there were up there did not include the sections removed, and did not help to clarify the matter.

Something to add to the CJ's duties in the Procedures!

-- Ravensfire
Just to make sure I am getting this right, we should add the duty of constitution orginazation to the CJ?

Black_Hole

Apr 03, 2006, 08:28 AM

ravensfire

Apr 03, 2006, 09:47 AM

Just to make sure I am getting this right, we should add the duty of constitution orginazation to the CJ?

I'm suggesting that we require the CJ do several things after an amendment passes. First, add the entry into Needed Things to get the ruleset updated. Second, add a post to the ruleset thread with the old section and the new section as a changelog. Third, make sure that the ruleset does get updated correctly.

-- Ravensfire

Black_Hole

Apr 03, 2006, 10:09 AM

I'm suggesting that we require the CJ do several things after an amendment passes. First, add the entry into Needed Things to get the ruleset updated. Second, add a post to the ruleset thread with the old section and the new section as a changelog. Third, make sure that the ruleset does get updated correctly.

-- Ravensfire
would Maintain the Constitution and Code of Laws threads be sufficent?

Also if we change the Pro Tem appointment system we need to remove this line from the CJ's duties:
Appoint all Pro-Tem justices and seek confirmation by the President

Nobody

Apr 03, 2006, 01:44 PM

Agree, Blackhole why dont you just throw together a list of what we are changing so we can agree to it and move on.

Swissempire

Apr 03, 2006, 03:17 PM

donsig

Apr 03, 2006, 04:45 PM

@Swissempire: It's not a bad idea to have those who want to be pro tems make that known but I don't think it's a good idea for justices to have to choose from the list.

As for your question, do you mean rectify as in fix or ratify as in adopt? Since you want to be a justice (elected or pro tem) I'd like to hear what you think the answer is to the question. :)

Swissempire

Apr 03, 2006, 06:44 PM

Both, and my feelings as a potential justice are that the Judicial System is a system of give-or-take and comprimise. In JR's, its majority rules, and in this matter I think it should be the same. There are three justices for a reason!:D

P.S. I hope i'm not wrong!

Black_Hole

Apr 03, 2006, 07:02 PM

I don't think we need to change the pro tem system, the CJ can appoint a replacement and it can get verified by the President... I don't think there are any problems with this

Nobody

Apr 03, 2006, 07:19 PM

ok i can live with that. So if there are no changes? I agree to procedures

Black_Hole

Apr 03, 2006, 08:36 PM

ok i can live with that. So if there are no changes? I agree to procedures
no the only change will be this added to the CJ's duties:
Appoint all Pro-Tem justices and seek confirmation by the President
we may change the procedures later this term, but we need to get going

do you still approve?

Nobody

Apr 04, 2006, 03:10 AM

I concur, do you concur mr donsig

Black_Hole

Apr 04, 2006, 09:28 AM

I concur, do you concur mr donsig
sorry actually thats not the change, that line above is currently already in the procdures... my bad
I meant this line:
Maintain the Constitution and Code of Laws threads

Nobody

Apr 04, 2006, 01:59 PM

Its ok i still concur, and do you concur mr Donsig?

Black_Hole

Apr 04, 2006, 03:35 PM

I agree to the proposed judicial procedures.

Once donsig agrees we can start working on some JRs

Nobody

Apr 04, 2006, 05:09 PM

I think donsigs going into hiding to Avoid the Celtic Warriors that are hunting him.

donsig

Apr 04, 2006, 08:13 PM

I think donsigs going into hiding to Avoid the Celtic Warriors that are hunting him.

If only they were Celtic warriors there'd be no problem. ;) Well, I just finished up GOTM 53. Irony of irony, we played the Celts. I had a wonderful time launching my spaceship in 2049 AD. The real funny thing is the Iroquois ended the game with about 600 more points than my Celts. But I still won because I launched my ship. :)

I don't want to hold up the proceedings but seeing as we're faced with JR's about polls I posted last term (and hence I may be asked to recuse myself) I'm quite interested in how pro tems are to be arranged for. If I'm correct, under the procedures used in previous terms (which we are considering adopting with only a change about maintaining the constitution) then we would pick our own pro tem if we're absent or recuse ourselves from a case. Is my interpretation correct?

Black_Hole

Apr 04, 2006, 10:21 PM

If only they were Celtic warriors there'd be no problem. ;) Well, I just finished up GOTM 53. Irony of irony, we played the Celts. I had a wonderful time launching my spaceship in 2049 AD. The real funny thing is the Iroquois ended the game with about 600 more points than my Celts. But I still won because I launched my ship. :)

I don't want to hold up the proceedings but seeing as we're faced with JR's about polls I posted last term (and hence I may be asked to recuse myself) I'm quite interested in how pro tems are to be arranged for. If I'm correct, under the procedures used in previous terms (which we are considering adopting with only a change about maintaining the constitution) then we would pick our own pro tem if we're absent or recuse ourselves from a case. Is my interpretation correct?
according to previous procedures the CJ will appoint a pro tem and he/she will be approved by the president, but I still want your approval of these terms

Nobody

Apr 05, 2006, 04:24 AM

Come on guys. we were meant to be the speedy effiecent term, and so far with a not being either. Post Post Post Post Post!

Black_Hole

Apr 05, 2006, 09:51 AM

Come on guys. we were meant to be the speedy effiecent term, and so far with a not being either. Post Post Post Post Post!
We need donsig to accept the procedures

donsig

Apr 05, 2006, 02:24 PM

Here's the problem. Under CJ responsibility we have the CJ appointing pro tems and the president confirming. Under shared responsibilities we have justices *arranging* for pro tems (whatever *arranging* means). Let's avoid potential haggling over possible conflicts here by coming up with something a little better.

Under these procedures the CJ can appoint his own pro tem but the PD and JA can't. Let's just let each member of the judiciary arrange for their own pro tem and include the checks I suugest in the next paragraph.

I'm not too keen on having the President confirm appointments. We started off last term without a president and that held up the judiciary. If we want confirmation protection let's give the remaining two justices veto power over pro tem appointments and give citizens the option of posting a confirmation poll.

My formal proposal is to strike the bullet under CJ responsibilities that has him appointing all pro tems and change the bullet regarding pro tems under shared responsibilities to:

Appoint a pro tem justice in the event of official absence or recusal from specific CCs or JRs. Either of the remaining two judiciary members can veto this appointment within 72 hours. Citizens can also post a confirmation poll within 72 hours (said confirmation poll to be open 72 hours). In case of a conflict between a judicial veto and a citizen confirmation poll, the citizen confirmation polls takes precedence.

Note: This is in addition to the proposed addition of maintaining the constitution and CoL. :)

Black_Hole

Apr 05, 2006, 02:42 PM

Okay, here is the final list of changes to the procedures:

Remove from CJ duties:
Appoint all Pro-Tem justices and seek confirmation by the President

Add to CJ duties:
Maintain the Constitution and Code of Laws threads

Add to all justicies duties:

Appoint a pro tem justice in the event of official absence or recusal from specific CCs or JRs. Either of the remaining two judiciary members can veto this appointment within 72 hours. Citizens can also post a confirmation poll within 72 hours (said confirmation poll to be open 72 hours). In case of a conflict between a judicial veto and a citizen confirmation poll, the citizen confirmation polls takes precedence.

Okay, I approve of these procedures. Nobody and donsig please approve this asap so we can get going.

donsig

Apr 05, 2006, 05:01 PM

I approve of the procedures posted above.

Nobody

Apr 05, 2006, 06:02 PM

I approve of the procedures posted above.

Black_Hole

Apr 05, 2006, 08:21 PM

The judicial procedures have been ratified and this court is now in session. :hammer:

Please give me a bit to catch up on the JRs submitted

Black_Hole

Apr 05, 2006, 08:24 PM

I have a question that I wish to submit before the Court for a Judicial Review.

Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?

Thank you,
-- Ravensfire, Censor
I find this judicial review to have no merit, becuase it does not include a law in question.

edit: I decided it no longer has merit, reread above

Black_Hole

Apr 05, 2006, 08:27 PM

Does Section 8.A.II and Section 8.A.I include appointed no-power duties like Chief Bureau's for the Information Department?

I must ask for the utmost speed in deciding this issue.
I find this Judicial Review to have merit and it will be added to the docket as JR11

ravensfire

Apr 05, 2006, 08:33 PM

I find this judicial review to have no merit, becuase it does not include a law in question.

edit: I decided it no longer has merit, reread above

Do your procedures require me to state a law?

That kinda goes against making the Judiciary accessable to all citizens.

EDIT: I see it does. That's too bad. I will be editing my JR request, please review it again shortly.

-- Ravensfire

Black_Hole

Apr 05, 2006, 08:40 PM

Do your procedures require me to state a law?

That kinda goes against making the Judiciary accessable to all citizens.

EDIT: I see it does. That's too bad. I will be editing my JR request, please review it again shortly.

-- Ravensfire
requiring a specific law doesn't make it nonaccessible to any citizens, it just requires them to understand the law they are questioning before submitting a question

ravensfire

Apr 05, 2006, 08:43 PM

That's a barrier of entry for citizens. I'll be the first to admit that I used to have such a position, but have certainly changed my mind.

I'm disappointed.

Now, reread my JR and rule again.

-- Ravensfire

Black_Hole

Apr 06, 2006, 08:38 AM

I have a question that I wish to submit before the Court for a Judicial Review.

Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?

EDIT: As required, reference the Code of Laws, Section 1.B.III.IIIB.4. Also, aspects of the Constitution will come into play, I will leave that as an exercise for the Court. I further request that a discussion thread be opened for this.

Thank you,
-- Ravensfire, Censor
I find this JR to have merit and it will be added to the docket as JR12, a discussion thread will be opend soon.

edit: here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=166147) is the thread

Black_Hole

Apr 06, 2006, 08:42 AM

Black_Hole

Apr 06, 2006, 08:44 AM

robboo

Apr 06, 2006, 09:25 AM

Section 6 Term Limits

A) Term Limits
I. Holder of Triumvirate and Cabinet offices are affected by term limits.

II. No one may be elected to the same Triumvirate or Cabinet office for more that two terms consecutively.

III. After serving two terms in the same Triumvirate or Cabinet office a Citizen must wait at least one term before running for the same office but may run for and hold any other office.

We need to clarify this part of our CoL. Section II states elected to the same office..what if they are appointed or run uncontested? Section III says after serving 2 terms.

This seems to be a instance where our CoL is conflicting with itself. I think we should fixed one of these parts to make sure we do not have any problems in the future.

I don't know if this qualifies as a JR or not, but it needs to be addressed. Also note that there was an opinion poll that showed the majority of the citizens are not in favor of Term limits. That poll could result in an amendment if the part that poll choses to do so.

If I screwed up the proper request let me know and I will change my request...

Black_Hole

Apr 06, 2006, 10:32 AM

We need to clarify this part of our CoL. Section II states elected to the same office..what if they are appointed or run uncontested? Section III says after serving 2 terms.

This seems to be a instance where our CoL is conflicting with itself. I think we should fixed one of these parts to make sure we do not have any problems in the future.

I don't know if this qualifies as a JR or not, but it needs to be addressed. Also note that there was an opinion poll that showed the majority of the citizens are not in favor of Term limits. That poll could result in an amendment if the part that poll choses to do so.

If I screwed up the proper request let me know and I will change my request...
are you requesting a JR?

robboo

Apr 06, 2006, 10:37 AM

I dont know..thats why I asked if this would qualify as a JR or not...

IF it does then yes. IF not then what must I do to get this looked at.

Black_Hole

Apr 09, 2006, 08:21 AM

I find this JR to have no merit. There is no conflict in my opinion.
Each of those statements is an instance in which a player can't hold the same office for 2 terms, they overlap some, but do not conflict.

Most of the time you serve in an office where you were elected, so most of the time clause 2 is overlapped by clause 3, clause 3 states a term limit for any person serving in an office, which would include being appointed and such.

If the other two justices disagree with my ruling on merit, the two together may overrule me.

ravensfire

Apr 09, 2006, 10:14 PM

Please review the following amendment, proposed poll is posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3883801&postcount=24). The only changes have been minor typos.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

----------------------------------

This is a Citizen's Initiative poll for the amendment of the Code of Laws. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the process for Confirmation polls and to close a current loophole in the law.

This is a public poll, and will run for 4 days. For this amendment to pass, a 6/10 majority of voters must vote 'Yes'.

Link to discussion thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165009)

Do you wish to adopt this amendments?

Current law:
VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office. This is a private poll, asking the question "Should <citizen name> serve as <office>?", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll should last for 48 hours. If a majority of citizens who vote, excluding abstain, vote no, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term.

Proposed Amendment, completely replacing above section:
VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office within 48 hours of the appointment. This must be a private poll, asking the question "Should the appointment of <citizen name> as <office> be confirmed", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll must last for 3 days. If the poll closes with more no votes than yes votes, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term. The appointee holds the office and is free to exercize the full powers of the office until such time as the appointment is reversed.

Poll Question: Do you wish to amend Section 8.VI.VIA of the Code of Laws as follows?

Yes
No
Abstain

Poll settings:
Duration - 4 days
Public Poll - Checked

donsig

Apr 09, 2006, 10:44 PM

This is an open question to all citizens and officials. Should I recuse myself from JR 12 (the JR about whether initiatives are official). This JR will have a direct bearing on at least one initiative poll I posted last term.

Should I recuse myself on the JR concerning the amendment in the post immediately prior to this post. I initiated the original discussion on this amendment and some of the wording in the proposed amendment is mine.

Please post your comments on whether or not I should recuse myself from these cases.

ravensfire

Apr 10, 2006, 12:46 PM

Do you feel that you can render an impartial decision on the matters?

I trust your judgement in this case.

-- Ravensfire

Black_Hole

Apr 10, 2006, 04:07 PM

Black_Hole

Apr 10, 2006, 04:15 PM

Strider

Apr 10, 2006, 04:47 PM

Code of laws proposal up for Judicial Review:

Element A. The Government
The Government shall consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch. These branches and the Citizenry as a whole are responsible for the management of the nation.

Element B. The Executive Branch
The Executive Branch of Government shall consist of the Office of President, as well as the several Advisors. These Advisors post discussions and polls over duties they are charged with as listed below.

Section 1. Office of the President
The President shall be the Head of State of the nation, as well as the leader of the Executive Branch of Government. Specifically, the President shall be responsible for coordinating the efforts his various Advisors. The President shall also be responsible for any duty not specifically assigned to any of the Advisors, including the management of the budget and of the slider, as well as Civic choices for the nation.

Section 2. Office of War
The foremost priority of the Office of War in both peacetime and war shall be the defense of the nation. The War Advisor shall be responsible for the management of all offensive and defensive units. The Advisor shall also be responsible for tactical and strategic planning during war. The Advisor may assign military units to the Office of Foreign Affairs as the Advisor shall see fit.

Section 3. Office of Culture
The Cultural Advisor shall be responsible for the movement of settlers, as well as planning for city placement. The Advisor shall also be charged with the formation of national boundaries and the monitoring of national culture levels. The Office of Culture shall also be tasked with placement of Wonders of all types, as well as overseeing the spread of religion, though the Cultural Advisor shall not initiate Civic changes. The Advisor shall also monitor Great People Points, and shall control all Great Artists and Great Prophets.

Section 4. Office of Foreign Affairs
The Foreign Affairs Advisor shall be charged with the negotiation of treaties, as well as all espionage-related activities. The Advisor shall also be responsible for all exploration activity, and therefore shall control all non-military scouting units (including Scouts, Explorers, Caravels, etc., and other units that may be assigned to the Office of Foreign Affairs by the Office of War as the War Advisor may see fit). The Advisor shall be responsible for all trading activity (including trading of technology and resources). The Advisor shall also control Great Merchants.

Section 5. Office of Research and Development
Research and Development Advisor shall control all worker units of the nation, and shall also direct technological research. The Advisor shall also control all Great Scientists and Great Engineers.

Section 6. The Office of the Censor
The Censor of the Assembly shall be tasked with validating polls, managing elections, and determining the census. Within two days of initially taking office, the Censor shall post Procedures for polling, which must define procedures for Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Polls shall always be validated based on the Procedures in place when the poll was initially posted. The Censor shall also be responsible for polling the names of cities, units, geographic regions, as well as polling for the nation’s name and national symbols.

Section 7. Designated Players
The Designated Players shall be responsible for physically playing the saved game. Designated Players must first follow the posted current instructions and goals of a leader. Should no posted instruction exist, the Designated Player during his session may take guidance from polls. Should no such relevant polling data exist, the Designated Player may take guidance from discussion within the Democracy Game forum. Should no such relevant discussion exist, the Designated Player may take guidance from other citizens in the Democracy Game chatroom, should the session be online.

Section 8. The Governors
The Governors of the States shall be charged with the management and specialization of a single city or state. In cities assigned to that Governor, a Governor may specify certain A.I. specialization, or may individually place population to work certain tiles and hire specialists. The Governor may also set the build queues for all assigned cities.

Element C. The Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch shall consist of The Senate.

Section 1. The Senate
The Senate is formed by all Citizens of the nation. The total number of Citizens in the Assembly shall be determined by the Census. The Assembly shall be charged with the formation and passing of laws.

Element D. The Census and amending the Code of Laws
The average of the number of votes cast in each of the most recent contested elections shall constitute an active census of citizens. The highest vote total of these elections shall constitute a full census (the House). A simple majority of the house must be achieved for an amendment to pass. An amendment must pass a Judicial Review and be open for discussion for 72 hours before a poll may be posted. The poll must remain open for 48 hours.

Element E. The Election process
Elections shall decide who among the citizenry are trusted to manage the game. The President, the Advisors, Judiciary, Governors, and Designated Players are all elected. Each of these poistions, excepting the Judiciary, shall have a deputy chosen by the winning citizen. The Election process shall be made up of Nominations, Debates, and the Elections themselves. No citizen may hold the same office for 2 consecutive terms.

Section 1. Nominations and Debates
Nominations shall be posted atleast 8 days before the end of the term, debates will last through the duration of the nominations. Nominations will be closed when the election polls start.

Section 2. Election Polls
Election Polls shall be posted atleast 4 days before the end of the term, and will be set to run for 3 days (72 hours). The candidate with the highest number of votes at the end of the 3 days is considered the winner. If two candidates tie, then a run-off poll, lasting 2 days (48 hours) is posted with just those two canidates which will continue as needed. The election for designated players shall be multiple choice, and list all of the possible candidates. Any candidate that recieves over 50% of the vote is a designated player for that term.

Section 3. Judicial Terms
The Judiciary shall remain in power one week after the election of a new Judiciary. At this time, the newly elected Judiciary shall take over.

Element F. Vacant Poistions
An advisor or Justice may declare themselves to be Absent for a period of time. This period may not exceed 2 weeks. During this time, the deputy or pro-tem will act with all power and duties of that office, surrendering them to the official or Justice when they return or at the end of the planned absence, whichever comes first. If this period exceeds one week, then the deputy or pro-term may keep the power and duties of the office, unless they decide to give it up. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for one week days in a thread related to their area without prior notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.

Section 1. Filling Vacant Offices:
The President will appoint a citizen to any vacant office. The appointment is subject to a conformation poll, set to run for 3 days. If the Presidential seat is vacant then the Advisor of Foreign Affairs appoints a President.

Section 2. Judicial Absence's
If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial matter for seven days, the remaining Justices may declare the Justice Vacant. If all three Justices fail to post on any active Judicial matter for seven days, the President may declare all Judicial offices Vacant, and immediately appoint a new Chief Justice. The remaining members of the Judiciary appoint a replacement for a vacant Justice.

Element G. Recall
Any citizen may request a recall for an elected official by posting a thread in the Citizens forum, citing the reasons for the recall. If two or more citizens support the recall, the Chief Justice must post a recall poll. The poll must run for 3 days, be private, and be set up in a Yes/No/Abstain. If 2/3 of the census votes to recall an official, then the official is removed from office, and the office becomes vacant. In the case of a Judicial recall, the President will handle the recall poll.

Element H. Referendum
A referendum is the submission of a proposed public measure or a decree to a direct popular vote, it is the second highest form of decision making. A referendum must comply with all polling procedures. Referendums are a direct result of an elected official carrying out their duties.

Element I. Initiative
An initiative is executive legislation created, proposed, and approved by the citizens. It is the highest form of decision making, and over-rides any other decisions, excempting a decision tasked to do so.

Section 1. Proposing an Initiative
Any citizen of the democracy game can propose an initiative. An initiative must receive atleast 3 days of discussions and two days of polling. Initiatives only hold power during the term they are approved, unless otherwise stated.

Element J. Sunset Clause
A sunset clause is an emergency legislative act. It must be discussed for 48 hours, and receive 24 hours of polling. A simple majority of the house is required to pass the clause. A sunset clause will automatically be removed at the end of the term it was passed in, or during a other pre-determined time. At this time changes made by the sunset clause will revert back to it's original state.

Element K. Turnchats
All irreversible game actions must progress during a scheduled game session called a turnchat. Reversible game actions (i.e. build queues) that adhere to legal instructions can be prepared offline before the scheduled game session.

Section 1. Turnchat Instruction Thread
A Designated Player shall post a turnchat instruction thread 3 days before the scheduled turnchat. All executive advisors shall post instructions, based on citizen approval, in the instruction thread. These instructions are then used by the Designated Player to play the save. Advisors must post their instructions appro. 2 hours before the turnchat. The turnchat instruction thread is the only legal method of giving instructions to the designated player.

Element L. Liberare of Information
The Liberare or Library is a collection of game, save, and constitutional information. The Library is headed by a Director who is appointed by the President. The Director can then dictate additional tasks to Bureau Chiefs, who then take charge of a Bureau. The Library shall keep a record of all Bureau's and their purpose. The Director is charged with supplying save information at the citizens discretion.

Black_Hole

Apr 10, 2006, 04:51 PM

Strider

Apr 10, 2006, 05:17 PM

Strider, that isn't exactly a proposed poll, look at this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3909766&postcount=70) post...
Could you repost in the thread?
Oh yeh, that reminds me of ravensfire's suggestion of creating a template for these, I will get to that when I have some free time to avoid further confusion.

Proposed poll has been re-posted. Had to include the current law as links to the current CoL, because otherwise the post was almost 10,000 characters longer than the allowed limit.

Nobody

Apr 10, 2006, 05:44 PM

DG1JR11
Question: Does Section 8.A.II and Section 8.A.I include appointed no-power duties like Chief Bureau's for the Information Department?
Submitted by: Strider
Judge Advocates Ruling:

First of all you have cited section 8.A.I and the nonexistent 8.A.II while providing an example of section 8.B.I and 8.BII. I think this is a mistake But I will look at all of them none the less.

Section 8 - Office Limits and Vacancies
A) Limits to Running for Offices.
I. No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle.

B) Limits to Holding Office
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.
II. Governors and Members of the Cabinet may hold up to two offices at the same time.

The Code of laws does not set a clear Definition of the term “office.” Therefore for this Judicial Review I shall interpret Office as any position within the Demogame to which you are normally elected. This includes positions appointed because of a vacancy but normally would be elected. I do this because it is what it appears to mean in context of the law. For example “8.A.I. No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle.” This clearly implys that an Office is a position up for election.

Section 8 subsections B says no Triumvirate of Judiciary may hold a second normally elected position, and members of cabinet and governors may hold no more than two normally elected positions. It makes no reference to appointed no-power positions.

Section 8 of the code of law does not include appointed no-power.

Nobody

Apr 10, 2006, 06:06 PM

DG1JR12
Question: Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?
Submitted by: ravensfire
Judge Advocates Ruling:

The right to make an initiative is protected in the constitution because it is citizens guaranteed way to make decisions. These are fundamental to our democracy. An initiative is legal order of what should be done. As well as being a tool of democracy the Initiative is also very powerful.

Polls are made Official because they are legally binding, because they have an effect game. Because this is a Democracy anything that has an effect on the game must be fair and true. This is why we have a censor to ensure all game decisions are fair and true. So that Democracy takes its course.

The original intent was to use "official" and "binding" as synonyms.

As citizen shack has pointed out, an initiative is a legally binding poll that directly affects the game. As such the censor has a legal responsibility to ensure that these polls are fair and true.

This means that is an initiative is an official poll and is subject to verification by the censor.

Nobody

Apr 10, 2006, 06:19 PM

DG1JR14

I find the proposed legislation does not conflict with current laws and is formatted correctly.

donsig

Apr 10, 2006, 06:33 PM

Oh yeh, that reminds me of ravensfire's suggestion of creating a template for these, I will get to that when I have some free time to avoid further confusion.

I think someone already made up a good template in term one. It's probably in the term 1 judiciary thread. All you have to do is find it and copy in where others can easily access it.

Black_Hole

Apr 10, 2006, 07:28 PM

DG1JR12
Question: Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?
Submitted by: ravensfire
Judge Advocates Ruling:

The right to make an initiative is protected in the constitution because it is citizens guaranteed way to make decisions. These are fundamental to our democracy. An initiative is legal order of what should be done. As well as being a tool of democracy the Initiative is also very powerful.

Polls are made Official because they are legally binding, because they have an effect game. Because this is a Democracy anything that has an effect on the game must be fair and true. This is why we have a censor to ensure all game decisions are fair and true. So that Democracy takes its course.

As citizen shack has pointed out, an initiative is a legally binding poll that directly affects the game. As such the censor has a legal responsibility to ensure that these polls are fair and true.

This means that is an initiative is an official poll and is subject to verification by the censor.
Is your ruling based on the intent of the law? If so I ask you to respectfully rethink your reasoning. (I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your outcome, but the reason you came to it)

Nobody

Apr 10, 2006, 08:16 PM

No, i just voted daveshack because he said what i thought, A Binding poll measn its legal. If its legal it is offical. I think its pretty obvious that any poll that affects the game should be checked to make sure its fair and thats the censors role.

DaveShack

Apr 11, 2006, 12:30 AM

Please post your comments on whether or not I should recuse myself from these cases.

The following reply is with respect to JR 12. I don't think there is any need for a pro-tem for the amendment JR based on partial authorship of the amendment. If there were such a restriction, I'd be prohibited from serving in the judiciary based on having written the Constitution. :eek:

There are two answers to this question.

From the leadership viewpoint, it has often been said throughout history that a leader should not ask others to do something unless the leader is willing to do the same thing. This concept if often called leading by example. The leadership by example approach to these recusal opportunities would be to assume that some reasonable citizen might think there is a chance that a ruling might not be truly impartial. Under that assumption, if you want others to recuse themselves under similar circumstances, you need to provide the example and show that you're not just talking about impartiality, but living it.

From the technical viewpoint, it is reasonable to ask if you think you can rule impartially on the cases, as Ravensfire has already one. I will point out to everyone that impartiality does not mean not having an opinion on a subject. You may have already decided how to rule on such a case, even before it is brought. A question of impartiality must ask, can you rule correctly on the basis of the law, even when such a ruling will damage yourself in some way. Two factors must be considered in answering that question -- an honest appraisal of your own thoughts, and consideration of whether the people will accept the answer.

If it were me, I think I'd probably use a pro-tem, especially if it had been me who just tried to force someone else to do the same thing, in circumstances which weren't all that different.

DaveShack

Apr 11, 2006, 12:31 AM

No, i just voted daveshack because he said what i thought

I suspect you meant quoted instead of voted, right? :lol:

Nobody

Apr 11, 2006, 03:12 AM

yes i meant quoted

donsig

Apr 11, 2006, 09:11 AM

If it were me, I think I'd probably use a pro-tem, especially if it had been me who just tried to force someone else to do the same thing, in circumstances which weren't all that different.

The current cases are different in a very important respect: they can have no impact whatsoever on whether I am legally a justice during this term. If there was any doubt about the legality of my judicial position I would not hesitate to recuse myself from any cases brought to resolve that issue.

The current cases are similar in this repect: we have another circular dilemma with a justice deciding on something important to him. Last term, if the court had decided Nobody's appoint was legal then Curufinwe's appointment would have been rendered illegal making his (Curufinwe's) decision on the case questionable. (If he wasn't CJ, then how could he rule on the case?) And of course Curufinwe's position as CJ depended on the court's (and therefore Curufinwe's) decison. This term the court is called upon to decide whether the Censor has authority to validate or invalidate citizen initiative polls. This decision will have a direct impact on a citizen initiative I brought regarding whether or not justices should rule on cases directly affecting them. A resounding NO was given, but the poll was invalidated by the Censor. If the court rules the Censor has no authority to invalidate the poll then we must consider the initative to be in effect. Under this scenario, if I rule on the case then I'd be violating the initiative.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be for me to voluntarily recuse myself to not only avoid any possibility of conflict of interest, but to lead by example as DaveShack as pointed out. Believe it or not, I've tried to do just that throughout this game. Last term, as a citizen, I tried setting an example for citizens, tried showing them that they have the power in this game, not officials. This term, as an official, the example I should be setting is that officials should actively seek citizen's desires and then implement them. So, the thing to do is post a citizen iniative poll on this subject and let the citizens decide. I will see what can be done about that.

donsig

Apr 11, 2006, 04:53 PM

Is donsig directly affected by JR12? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=166728)

Please vote in this poll.

Strider

Apr 11, 2006, 04:58 PM

I would like to (once again) put this amendment to the Code of Laws up for Judicial Review:

Proposed poll is found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3912585&postcount=132)

Discussion thread is found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3912585)

Element A. The Government
The Government shall consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch. These branches and the Citizenry as a whole are responsible for the management of the nation.

Element B. The Executive Branch
The Executive Branch of Government shall consist of the Office of President, as well as the several Advisors. These Advisors post discussions and polls over duties they are charged with as listed below.

Section 1. Office of the President
The President shall be the Head of State of the nation, as well as the leader of the Executive Branch of Government. Specifically, the President shall be responsible for coordinating the efforts his various Advisors. The President shall also be responsible for any duty not specifically assigned to any of the Advisors, including the management of the budget and of the slider, as well as Civic choices for the nation.

Section 2. Office of War
The foremost priority of the Office of War in both peacetime and war shall be the defense of the nation. The War Advisor shall be responsible for the management of all offensive and defensive units. The Advisor shall also be responsible for tactical and strategic planning during war. The Advisor may assign military units to the Office of Foreign Affairs as the Advisor shall see fit.

Section 3. Office of Culture
The Cultural Advisor shall be responsible for the movement of settlers, as well as planning for city placement. The Advisor shall also be charged with the formation of national boundaries and the monitoring of national culture levels. The Office of Culture shall also be tasked with placement of Wonders of all types, as well as overseeing the spread of religion, though the Cultural Advisor shall not initiate Civic changes. The Advisor shall also monitor Great People Points, and shall control all Great Artists and Great Prophets.

Section 4. Office of Foreign Affairs
The Foreign Affairs Advisor shall be charged with the negotiation of treaties, as well as all espionage-related activities. The Advisor shall also be responsible for all exploration activity, and therefore shall control all non-military scouting units (including Scouts, Explorers, Caravels, etc., and other units that may be assigned to the Office of Foreign Affairs by the Office of War as the War Advisor may see fit). The Advisor shall be responsible for all trading activity (including trading of technology and resources). The Advisor shall also control Great Merchants.

Section 5. Office of Research and Development
Research and Development Advisor shall control all worker units of the nation, and shall also direct technological research. The Advisor shall also control all Great Scientists and Great Engineers.

Section 6. The Office of the Censor
The Censor of the Assembly shall be tasked with validating polls, managing elections, and determining the census. Within two days of initially taking office, the Censor shall post Procedures for polling, which must define procedures for Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Polls shall always be validated based on the Procedures in place when the poll was initially posted. The Censor shall also be responsible for polling the names of cities, units, geographic regions, as well as polling for the nation’s name and national symbols.

Section 7. Designated Players
The Designated Players shall be responsible for physically playing the saved game. Designated Players must first follow the posted current instructions and goals of a leader. Should no posted instruction exist, the Designated Player during his session may take guidance from polls. Should no such relevant polling data exist, the Designated Player may take guidance from discussion within the Democracy Game forum. Should no such relevant discussion exist, the Designated Player may take guidance from other citizens in the Democracy Game chatroom, should the session be online.

Section 8. The Governors
The Governors of the States shall be charged with the management and specialization of a single city or state. In cities assigned to that Governor, a Governor may specify certain A.I. specialization, or may individually place population to work certain tiles and hire specialists. The Governor may also set the build queues for all assigned cities.

Element C. The Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch shall consist of The Senate.

Section 1. The Senate
The Senate is formed by all Citizens of the nation. The total number of Citizens in the Assembly shall be determined by the Census. The Assembly shall be charged with the formation and passing of laws.

Section 2. Governor's Council & States
The Governor's council shall be created when atleast three governors are present and is made up of all the governors. The Governors council is incharge of the creation of states. A state is a collection of cities managed by one governor. Each state must have a minimum of 3 cities and a state can not be created untill there is atleast 5 cities present in the civilization. The creation of a state requires a simple majority of both the Senate and Governors Council.

Element D. The Census and amending the Code of Laws
The average of the number of votes cast in each of the most recent contested elections shall constitute an active census of citizens. The highest vote total of these elections shall constitute a full census (the House). A simple majority of the house must be achieved for an amendment to pass. An amendment must pass a Judicial Review and be open for discussion for 72 hours before a poll may be posted. The poll must remain open for 48 hours.

Element E. The Election process
Elections shall decide who among the citizenry are trusted to manage the game. The President, the Advisors, Judiciary, Governors, and Designated Players are all elected. Each of these poistions, excepting the Judiciary, shall have a deputy chosen by the winning citizen. The Election process shall be made up of Nominations, Debates, and the Elections themselves. No citizen may hold the same office for 2 consecutive terms.

Section 1. Nominations and Debates
Nominations shall be posted atleast 8 days before the end of the term, debates will last through the duration of the nominations. Nominations will be closed when the election polls start.

Section 2. Election Polls
Election Polls shall be posted atleast 4 days before the end of the term, and will be set to run for 3 days (72 hours). The candidate with the highest number of votes at the end of the 3 days is considered the winner. If two candidates tie, then a run-off poll, lasting 2 days (48 hours) is posted with just those two canidates which will continue as needed. The election for designated players shall be multiple choice, and list all of the possible candidates. Any candidate that recieves over 50% of the vote is a designated player for that term.

Section 3. Judicial Terms
The Judiciary shall remain in power one week after the election of a new Judiciary. At this time, the newly elected Judiciary shall take over.

Element F. Vacant Poistions
An advisor or Justice may declare themselves to be Absent for a period of time. This period may not exceed 2 weeks. During this time, the deputy or pro-tem will act with all power and duties of that office, surrendering them to the official or Justice when they return or at the end of the planned absence, whichever comes first. If this period exceeds one week, then the deputy or pro-term may keep the power and duties of the office, unless they decide to give it up. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for one week days in a thread related to their area without prior notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.

Section 1. Filling Vacant Offices:
The President will appoint a citizen to any vacant office. The appointment is subject to a conformation poll, set to run for 3 days. If the Presidential seat is vacant then the Advisor of Foreign Affairs appoints a President.

Section 2. Judicial Absence's
If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial matter for seven days, the remaining Justices may declare the Justice Vacant. If all three Justices fail to post on any active Judicial matter for seven days, the President may declare all Judicial offices Vacant, and immediately appoint a new Chief Justice. The remaining members of the Judiciary appoint a replacement for a vacant Justice.

Element G. Recall
Any citizen may request a recall for an elected official by posting a thread in the Citizens forum, citing the reasons for the recall. If two or more citizens support the recall, the Chief Justice must post a recall poll. The poll must run for 3 days, be private, and be set up in a Yes/No/Abstain. If 2/3 of the census votes to recall an official, then the official is removed from office, and the office becomes vacant. In the case of a Judicial recall, the President will handle the recall poll.

Element H. Referendum
A referendum is the submission of a proposed public measure or a decree to a direct popular vote, it is the second highest form of decision making. A referendum must comply with all polling procedures. Referendums are a direct result of an elected official carrying out their duties.

Element I. Initiative
An initiative is executive legislation created, proposed, and approved by the citizens. It is the highest form of decision making, and over-rides any other decisions, excempting a decision tasked to do so.

Section 1. Proposing an Initiative
Any citizen of the democracy game can propose an initiative. An initiative must receive atleast 3 days of discussions and two days of polling. Initiatives only hold power during the term they are approved, unless otherwise stated.

Element J. Sunset Clause
A sunset clause is an emergency legislative act. It must be discussed for 48 hours, and receive 24 hours of polling. A simple majority of the house is required to pass the clause. A sunset clause will automatically be removed at the end of the term it was passed in, or during a other pre-determined time. At this time changes made by the sunset clause will revert back to it's original state.

Element K. Turnchats
All irreversible game actions must progress during a scheduled game session called a turnchat. Reversible game actions (i.e. build queues) that adhere to legal instructions can be prepared offline before the scheduled game session.

Section 1. Turnchat Instruction Thread
A Designated Player shall post a turnchat instruction thread 3 days before the scheduled turnchat. All executive advisors shall post instructions, based on citizen approval, in the instruction thread. These instructions are then used by the Designated Player to play the save. Advisors must post their instructions appro. 2 hours before the turnchat. The turnchat instruction thread is the only legal method of giving instructions to the designated player.

Element L. Liberare of Information
The Liberare or Library is a collection of game, save, and constitutional information. The Library is headed by a Director who is appointed by the President. The Director can then dictate additional tasks to Bureau Chiefs, who then take charge of a Bureau. The Library shall keep a record of all Bureau's and their purpose. The Director is charged with supplying save information at the citizens discretion.

Cyc

Apr 11, 2006, 06:44 PM

I hope I'm not too late voicing an opinion or two, but I'd say that initiatives were official polls, and that donsig doesn't need to recuse himself from JR12.

Black_Hole

Apr 12, 2006, 04:29 PM

edit: read next post

Black_Hole

Apr 13, 2006, 03:55 PM

Strider

Apr 13, 2006, 04:05 PM

I am temporarily removing my vote on Strider's amendment.

Strider it has come up that your above post doesn't state that it replaces the entire CoL, however it does say this in your proposed poll. Please simply post the entire proposed poll here.

and in doing so you break your own procedures.

To quote the Judicial procedures:

Reviews of a proposed law may be requested by anyone. The post must include the proposed law, and a link to the discussion thread. The proposed law must have been conspicuously posted as a proposed poll for at least 24 hours, and the discussion thread open for at least 48 hours. The Justices will review the law for any conflicts with current law, and post their findings. Any Justice may post the poll for all proposals that pass Judicial Review.

It says nothing about having to show which law it replaces. It actually only says that the post must include the proposed law and a link to the discussion thread, both of which are done.

If you want the proposed poll, there's a link in the Judicial Review request. I followed the procedures to the letter.

Black_Hole

Apr 13, 2006, 04:13 PM

and in doing so you break your own procedures.

To quote the Judicial procedures:

It says nothing about having to show which law it replaces. It actually only says that the post must include the proposed law and a link to the discussion thread, both of which are done.

If you want the proposed poll, there's a link in the Judicial Review request. I followed the procedures to the letter.
Okay, so you don't include what laws it replace, then it will have lots of conflicts with the current Code of Laws, since its not stated it replaces it.

Strider

Apr 13, 2006, 04:20 PM

Okay, so you don't include what laws it replace, then it will have lots of conflicts with the current Code of Laws, since its not stated it replaces it.

Doesn't work that way. I followed the procedures.. I gave a link to the discussion thread, a link to the proposed poll, and I included the proposed law. That is all that is required of me.

The rest is your job and I recommend doing it. I am not in a good mood and I'm not about to spend a week doing this because the Judicial procedures are severely lacking.

Change the procedures if you want, but untill then I've done exactly what the procedures want of me. Also, not following your own rules doesn't look to good. Espicially for somebody in the Judiciary.

Nobody

Apr 13, 2006, 04:56 PM

Strider just edit into the proposal that you intend to replace the entire current COL, Post a nice big warning in the discussion thread that it will replace the current one. And in the offical poll make it clear.

I think that most of the citizens under stand that this is what the the ammendment means just make it really clear. Really As i stated in my election thread i prefer to give these proposals the benefit of the doubt so the People get a chance to vote.

Black_Hole

Apr 13, 2006, 05:26 PM

Doesn't work that way. I followed the procedures.. I gave a link to the discussion thread, a link to the proposed poll, and I included the proposed law. That is all that is required of me.

The rest is your job and I recommend doing it. I am not in a good mood and I'm not about to spend a week doing this because the Judicial procedures are severely lacking.

Change the procedures if you want, but untill then I've done exactly what the procedures want of me. Also, not following your own rules doesn't look to good. Espicially for somebody in the Judiciary.

The Justices will review the law for any conflicts with current law, and post their findings.

I should be searching for conflicts with the current law, your post doesn't say that it replaces the current set of laws which should clearly be noted because this isn't a normal amendment. It won't take a week to do this.
All three justices are in agreement over this, so you aren't going to get far like this.

Strider

Apr 13, 2006, 05:37 PM

If all three judges are unable to follow the rules they set down, then they will not be receiving my vote next election. If you are unable to do the job you were elected for then you don't deserve to have that job.

It is not my problem that the judicial procedures are lacking. It's yours, so do the job you were elected to do.

Black_Hole

Apr 13, 2006, 08:13 PM

I would like to file my own Judicial Review

There is a conflict between the Code of Laws and the Constitution:
Section 6 Term Limits

A) Term Limits
I. Holder of Triumvirate and Cabinet offices are affected by term limits.

II. No one may be elected to the same Triumvirate or Cabinet office for more that two terms consecutively.

III. After serving two terms in the same Triumvirate or Cabinet office a Citizen must wait at least one term before running for the same office but may run for and hold any other office.

The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office
The constitution says citizens have the right to be able to run for office, yet the Code of Laws restricts people. Are term limits in fact legal?

Black_Hole

Apr 13, 2006, 08:16 PM

I have another Judicial Review with a similar problem. The CoL and Constitution are conflicting once again.

D) Impeachment of Judges
I. Judges may not be Impeached..

By Recall of an official and selection of a replacement via election or appointment
The constitution states that citizens have the right to recall officials, yet the Code of Laws bans recalling judges. Can judges be recalled?

donsig

Apr 13, 2006, 09:32 PM

Strider

Apr 13, 2006, 10:39 PM

Yet, as I've pointed out already I've already submitted a proper JR. You want to say otherwise? Then show me where it says I have to include the current law along with the JR? The procedures do not say I have to, nor does it allow for any exceptions or additions to that.

I am not an idoit. How many other times will I have to submit something, just because of some unwritten law someone pulls out of their ass? I gave in once just to keep things moving, but I am not willing to repeat the process over and over again.

Let me put it in simple terms, follow the procedures you agreed to follow. If you didn't write it down, then it doesn't exist. Come on... show me where does it say that the current law has to be included? No, do pull out that that you can't rule on it because you don't know what it replaces. The procedures require that the discussion thread be included, as far as I'm concerned that means you need the discussion thread for something. :hmm: I wonder what that might be?

I am agitated, angry, and really not in a good state of mind the past two weeks. I have half a mind to just end all of your terms right now. Oh.. and no that is no idle threat. I can launch a Citizen Complaint against all three of you for breaking the lower forms of law. With no way to appoint pro-tems to serve all three judicial poistions, this term is over. Wait, unless the President appoints a pro-tem Chief Justice. Although, that line of reasoning won't go in your favor.

However, what would that achieve? It will just slow things down, back things up even worst. It would make me like you. My interest is not in slowing things down, I just wanted to keep things moving. We have almost a half-dozen new players in the game. Now is not the time to be showing them that the democracy game doesn't hold to democratic ideals.

I backed off... I re-posted the proposed poll in the format that was shown to me. Even though there was not a single law in place that said I had to. Now, once again I follow the law... and you tell me once again that there was some unwritten rule that I had to do this. No, sorry it doesn't work that way.

There's thing that are worth giving up I know, but I won't let this get me. This is just to disturbing to just pass by. You are purposely attempting to block a movement that has followed the laws and procedures as laid down. Hell, a movement that has even went out of it's way twice now just to keep things moving.

Every other elected official is charged with supplying information to the citizens. Yet I see the complete opposite here. You require that the citizens supply information to you, and for no logical reason. It's right in front of you, but a click away. Not that you needed that click, as you knew the information before I even launched the judicial review.

The legislative part of our game is one of the most complex in the game and the Judiciary is even more complex. It's often unclear and blurred. Your doing nothing to change that. You are only harming an honest effort to legally change things. Your saying that the procedures set down earlier this term.. are not set in stone. That you can make up rules just off the top of your head.

I'm sorry, but it is time to give our laws back to the citizens of this game. It is time to require that the Judiciary answer to the people, just like the cabinet must.

It is disturbing seeing those who say the citizens don't get enough voice, refuse to give the citizens a voice.

You can tell me all you want about how "simple" it might be just to change it. Yes... I know how simple it is, but I'm not going to let this slide by. The Judiciary can not go on thinking that they can just pull things out of thin air and call it law. Yet, how hard would it be for you to just review the law as you know it should be reviewed? You know what it's meant to replace, it's not that hard.

Yet, there is no principle, rhyme, or reason in refusing to do so. Your are purposely attempting to block a legal change for no reason. I pointed out already that the procedures do not require I include the current law. A link to the proposed poll has been include with the review.. it says pretty clearly in the proposed poll what it's meant to replace.

I'm getting tired of people acting like this is there own little boxing arena. I had enough drama and gossip during High school. I use to love confrontation, hell I use to love getting into fights. Now it just tires and annoys me. I am not going to beat heads with you untill were all so groggy we don't even know what the hell were saying.

I'm not going to have some long angry arguement with you about who's right and I'm not going to let you roadblock this game.

robboo

Apr 13, 2006, 11:06 PM

Strider..just suck it up and post like they asked. Quit being bullheaded just to take the roll of matryr. This is the same thing you did in the rpg. All three want it that way it doesn't change your proposal..so what the big deal.

Also noone is road blocking the game..we have a perfectly good game going on for almost 4 months without the revisions...the patch might be the only road block.

Nobody

Apr 13, 2006, 11:32 PM

I assume your recusing yourself, or just me and donsig could rule as 2/3 is the right amount? also who says it they are accepted or now.

Anyway can we get through the JRs we have first.

Nobody

Apr 13, 2006, 11:48 PM

Strider,

Calm yourself down we you dont need to write 3000 words to say your anoyed. This is just a beurocratic muck up just like all of the last 2 terms problems. We all know that your proposal is to replace the entire Code of Laws, but some people might not have noticted it. On the side of caution you should just write in your proposal (edit it in) that your amendments replace the entire code of laws. I mean right now your proposal would just add your replacement on too the end of the last. Just do that and i will consent to them going to poll.

Second dont go around threatening the Judicary, we are neutral and independant and do not take into consideration any threats like that you have just made, so its a waste of type. If you want to CC us all then role the dice. Cowincidentaly we are the ones who rule of a CCs vaildity.

DaveShack

Apr 14, 2006, 01:48 AM

Reviews of a proposed law may be requested by anyone. The post must include the proposed law, and a link to the discussion thread. The proposed law must have been conspicuously posted as a proposed poll for at least 24 hours, and the discussion thread open for at least 48 hours. The Justices will review the law for any conflicts with current law, and post their findings. Any Justice may post the poll for all proposals that pass Judicial Review.

Strider is right. The judicial procedure does not require the law to be replaced to be quoted in the JR request, and the nature of the new law as a replacement is stated clearly in the proposed poll.

We don't need any any more discussion on this, just review the new law for conflicts with the Constitution and move on.

DaveShack
Chief Justice Emeritus*

* The colloquial usage of the term emeritus refers to someone who has served with distinction in an office and is accorded some degree of respect by the community even though that person is no longer serving in the position.

donsig

Apr 14, 2006, 02:21 PM

DaveShack

Apr 14, 2006, 05:38 PM

Element B, Section 3 of the proposed amendment states The Cultural Advisor shall be responsible for the movement of settlers. This is a direct conflict with existing law B.IIA.6.A which states The President shall control all Settler and the defensive units assigned to them.

I therefore find the proposed amendment, as placed before the judiciary, conflicts with existing law and is ineligible to be placed before the assembly for ratification.

donsig
Public Defenfer

I hereby serve notice of intent to file a Citizen Complaint against PD Donsig for failing to conduct this JR in an impartial manner, and for acting in a manner which prevents the judiciary from conducting the JR in a speedy manner. The law is Article F, Section 3 of the Constitution.

Additional supporting information from the judicial log from Term 3:

Official Ruling on C4DG1JR5

The court ruled 3-0 that the amendment process to the Code of Laws applies to a complete re-writing of the same.

I suggest reconsideration of the ruling on the current JR, taking into consideration the provisions of Article F and the above referenced ruling on C4DG1JR5. I will allow 3 days to pass before actually filing the intended CC.

DaveShack

Apr 14, 2006, 05:42 PM

I would be quite happy to make a ruling on Strider's proposed amendment as it has been submitted to us. However, I would rule that the proposed amendment has numerous conflicts with current law. That would be an unfortunate thing to have to do just because the amendments's sponsor (or someone else) does not want to submit a proper JR for the amendment by simply copying and pasting the proposed amendment poll into the JR request.

When it comes to replacing our complete Code of Laws we should be taking care to be sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed. I would also like to say that it is not (nor should it be) the responsibility of the judiciary to see that citizens submit propeer JRs.

This post serves as a record of Donsig's previous comments on the Strider Amendment, showing predetermined and malicious intent to rule against said amendment. A record is needed to prevent evidence from being edited out by the accused, should a CC proceeding actually result from this sordid affair.

donsig

Apr 14, 2006, 06:06 PM

This post serves as a record of Donsig's previous comments on the Strider Amendment, showing predetermined and malicious intent to rule against said amendment. A record is needed to prevent evidence from being edited out by the accused, should a CC proceeding actually result from this sordid affair.

You ought to know by now that I'm not afraid of CCs or PIs or whatever we choose to call them in any given demogame. It wouldn't even cross my mind to edit a post to avoid accusations. Now, if you'd like to file a complaint then do it. Otherwise, please stop posting veiled threats in the judicial thread.

Strider

Apr 14, 2006, 06:23 PM

After a deep sigh, I'm going to have to say that this has turned things towards an... interesting path. I'll be honest... I am half tempted to give Daveshack a nice pat on the back.. while at the same time giving him a stern smack upside the head.

This is really a small matter that has much deeper meaning. Yes, I know how simple it will be just to re-post the JR. Yet, how easy would it have been for any of the judges? Any citizen may request a JR over a proposed amendment. Instead of telling me that I should re-request the JR with the current law in place, you could have just done it yourself.

No, what pissed me off is the "It's my way or the highway" attitude the members of the Judiciary has shown. I'm sorry, but not a single one of you have made any effort to help.

I'm struggling with a way to say this. You stand more as a obstacle than as a mentor. Tell me, why did you not aid a citizen of this game? Is it just your first reaction to say "No, that's wrong... you MUST do it this way." You could have just requested the judicial review in the way you think it was meant to be done... then reviewed it 30 seconds later. Done and over with.

You could have done things in a much speedier manner by just posting it the correct way yourself. Now, however, it's no longer about how easy the action is... it's about the principle of the other actions taken. As I've pointed out earlier.. it's just wrong to enforce laws that do not exist.

Daveshack.. I must ask you to drop the CC. It's not worth the trouble, nor is it worth the fight that will ensue. My comment was not meant as a representation of my future actions. I meant to show the Judiciary that they are not secure in there seats and that they can be knocked down in just the tune of a few words. In the end, it will have no benefit for either side.

This judiciary has lost my faith, they have shown themselves incapable of doing their duties in a impartial, helpful, or even a speedy manner. Unless they wise up, I will not be voting for any of the three Judicial members in the next election. Regardless of what they are running for. If they are incapable of following laws that made, then they are unfit to follow laws that were made by the people.

I think what this game needs is some drunk karaoke. So... who's up for it?

Cyc

Apr 14, 2006, 06:28 PM

Strider is right. The judicial procedure does not require the law to be replaced to be quoted in the JR request, and the nature of the new law as a replacement is stated clearly in the proposed poll.

We don't need any any more discussion on this, just review the new law for conflicts with the Constitution and move on.

DaveShack
Chief Justice Emeritus*

* The colloquial usage of the term emeritus refers to someone who has served with distinction in an office and is accorded some degree of respect by the community even though that person is no longer serving in the position.
And DS is right that Strider is right. But what Strider had submitted is a poorly written request for a JR on his proposed replacement of the CoL. What's more, his attitude does nothing to improve his peredicament of submitting mass replacement of current law. Just pass the silly thing and let people vote on his writing style, or lack of.

robboo

Apr 14, 2006, 06:33 PM

Just poll it so we can vote it down....

We have a CoL that works.... lets just keep going. This CoL and Striders wild proposals have been the cause of ALL the judicial problems and it started with his co-president proposal..

donsig

Apr 14, 2006, 07:07 PM

No, what pissed me off is the "It's my way or the highway" attitude the members of the Judiciary has shown. I'm sorry, but not a single one of you have made any effort to help.

I'm struggling with a way to say this. You stand more as a obstacle than as a mentor. Tell me, why did you not aid a citizen of this game? Is it just your first reaction to say "No, that's wrong... you MUST do it this way." You could have just requested the judicial review in the way you think it was meant to be done... then reviewed it 30 seconds later. Done and over with.

You could have done things in a much speedier manner by just posting it the correct way yourself. Now, however, it's no longer about how easy the action is... it's about the principle of the other actions taken. As I've pointed out earlier.. it's just wrong to enforce laws that do not exist.

The judiciary has actually given alot of leeway on this JR request. We could have summarily rejected the proposed amendment using the grounds I gave in my ruling. We did not do that. We pointed out what was needed for us to do a proper judicial review. It is not proper for the judiciary to modify requests that are brought before it. When acting on a JR request judicial members are bound to rule according to what is actually written in our laws. By the same token they are bound to make rulings on JRs and CCs as they are written. The judiciary cannot function if it is placed in a positon where it is expected to somehow divine the real intentions of a JR or CC despite what is actually posted in the judicial thread. If anyone wants to think of this as enforcing unwritten rules then so be it.

When it comes to interpreting judicial procedures, who are we to turn to? While everyone is mulling that over I will give my interpretation of our judicial procedures as they relate to this controversy. There is a requirement that a mock poll be posted in an amendment's discussion thread. The judiciary's requirement that a link to the discussion thread be included in the JR request is there so justices can easily veryify such a post was made. The requirement in no way should be construed as the judiciary's *permission* to submit a judicial review that lacks all pertinent information.

Finally, I would like to point out that DaveShack's threat to file a Citizen Complaint seems to hang not only over me but over our Chief Justice and Judge Advocate as well. If they make rulings similar to mine are they also to be subjected to Citizen Complaints? This does not seem to be a good way to go about ensuring we have a judiciary that is free to make impartial decisions.

robboo

Apr 14, 2006, 07:17 PM

But based on past "quickness" in the replacing justices... Wouldnt this just about kill this term. In addition Strider can not appoint anyone as to serve because he is obviously biased...Dave Shack cant because he is the one posting the complaint. I wont becasue I feel this is insane and have already stated I am against the proposal. So the whole tri and judiciary is out.... Here we go dragging this out another term. Supposedly one in which Strider wont be taking part...( his words) so this would effectively kill Striders CoL request.

So Strider...submit it like they want it and then it might get voted on otherwise it will never see a poll unless someone decided to champion your cause...and I dont see that happening. ( unless of course your leaving the game was all a hoax or you changed your mind)

DaveShack

Apr 14, 2006, 07:24 PM

We all know what the JR request is. It's a complete replacement, and there is no possible way to interpret it as anything else. The mock poll says it's a complete replacement. The grounds used by this court to try to deny the JR request aren't following the court's own procedures, and neither are the grounds used by the esteemed PD to rule against the amendment.

We all know what is being asked for. A fair and accurate ruling on whether the proposed replacement CoL is valid with respect to the Constitution is all Strider wants.

There is yet another example of irony embedded in this latest disagreement. Donsig argued that Swissempire was wielding too much power by marking polls invalid according to the Censorial rules. Now the point seems to be that what's good for the Censor is good for the Judiciary, and the Court can also jerk people around by using technicalities in the procedures.

This logic is wrong, on the facts of the actual cases. The difference between the dispute over the Censor's procedures and this dispute is that the Censor's procedures were being applied correctly, where the Judiciary procedures are being applied incorrectly. In fact, that is another charge which could be added to a CC, if it remained necessary to continue with it -- a justice cannot violate the judicial procedures by ignoring the discussion thread accompanying a JR.

My advance warning of a possible CC is no more threatening than Donsig's advance warning to Curufinwe was -- and no less threatening either.

It is still quite possible to rule against the complete replacement -- if it is in conflict with the Constitution. It is equally possible to campaign against its passage, if it does go to a vote.

DaveShack

Apr 14, 2006, 07:34 PM

The judiciary's requirement that a link to the discussion thread be included in the JR request is there so justices can easily veryify such a post was made. The requirement in no way should be construed as the judiciary's *permission* to submit a judicial review that lacks all pertinent information.

Actually, the precedent is that the contents of the mock poll is what the Judiciary is reviewing. It is unreasonable to expect those contents to be reposted in the Judiciary thread -- in the past we had just a link, and ruled based on the content of the mock poll itself.

Strider

Apr 14, 2006, 07:44 PM

So Strider...submit it like they want it and then it might get voted on otherwise it will never see a poll unless someone decided to champion your cause...and I dont see that happening. ( unless of course your leaving the game was all a hoax or you changed your mind)

Daveshack seems to be already "championing my cause" so to speak. Cyc has also, in his own weird insulting way. I'm still debating on wether I should be thanking him or cursing him.

The proposal, however, is mostly dead. There is no way, in good consciousness, I can move forward with something that incites this type of reaction. Even if that reaction isn't justified. My thoughts are that it's unlikely to pass. Far to many people have refused to even look at it, based solely on that it was proposed by me.

I will do my duties as I promised when I ran for President. I will do them with the utmost care and thought. I have people telling me that they do appreciate my efforts. Hell, Donsig has even told me in a replied PM that he appreciates my efforts in the game. However, regardless of the people that tell me that they do appreciate my efforts. I can't help but feel that my efforts do as much harm as they do good. It's not that I mean to do any harm, it's just that everything turns out so wrong and twisted.

We needed a new Code of Laws... it was confusing and lacking. I made the proposal with the intention of helping to fix that. Now that proposal has turned into something so evil and sadistic that even I shudder to think of it.

Yes, after my duties are done I will decrease my partcipation in this game. I feel that the opposition I cause, by just being me, is unhealthy for the game. I hope to find a new head for the information department, if possible. If I don't manage to find one, I am still uncertain if I will continue to do it myself.. or just let it die off.

Me, my name, my personality causes natural opposition that is not healthy for the game. That and I really need to focus on my life, college coming up soon.. and I've got alot to do. I believe that it will be better for the game as a whole and for myself if I was no longer a vocal partcipant of this game.

Black_Hole

Apr 15, 2006, 11:12 AM

I would like to submit this JR on behalf of Strider, and with his permission replace his old JR.

Link to discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=162494)

Do you wish to adopt this amendment?

Current law:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3579771&postcount=3
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3579772&postcount=4

Proposed amendment, completely replacing above:
Note: It will not come into effect untill the next term.

Element A. The Government
The Government shall consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch. These branches and the Citizenry as a whole are responsible for the management of the nation.

Element B. The Executive Branch
The Executive Branch of Government shall consist of the Office of President, as well as the several Advisors. These Advisors post discussions and polls over duties they are charged with as listed below.

Section 1. Office of the President
The President shall be the Head of State of the nation, as well as the leader of the Executive Branch of Government. Specifically, the President shall be responsible for coordinating the efforts his various Advisors. The President shall also be responsible for any duty not specifically assigned to any of the Advisors, including the management of the budget and of the slider, as well as Civic choices for the nation.

Section 2. Office of War
The foremost priority of the Office of War in both peacetime and war shall be the defense of the nation. The War Advisor shall be responsible for the management of all offensive and defensive units. The Advisor shall also be responsible for tactical and strategic planning during war. The Advisor may assign military units to the Office of Foreign Affairs as the Advisor shall see fit.

Section 3. Office of Culture
The Cultural Advisor shall be responsible for the movement of settlers, as well as planning for city placement. The Advisor shall also be charged with the formation of national boundaries and the monitoring of national culture levels. The Office of Culture shall also be tasked with placement of Wonders of all types, as well as overseeing the spread of religion, though the Cultural Advisor shall not initiate Civic changes. The Advisor shall also monitor Great People Points, and shall control all Great Artists and Great Prophets.

Section 4. Office of Foreign Affairs
The Foreign Affairs Advisor shall be charged with the negotiation of treaties, as well as all espionage-related activities. The Advisor shall also be responsible for all exploration activity, and therefore shall control all non-military scouting units (including Scouts, Explorers, Caravels, etc., and other units that may be assigned to the Office of Foreign Affairs by the Office of War as the War Advisor may see fit). The Advisor shall be responsible for all trading activity (including trading of technology and resources). The Advisor shall also control Great Merchants.

Section 5. Office of Research and Development
Research and Development Advisor shall control all worker units of the nation, and shall also direct technological research. The Advisor shall also control all Great Scientists and Great Engineers.

Section 6. The Office of the Censor
The Censor of the Assembly shall be tasked with validating polls, managing elections, and determining the census. Within two days of initially taking office, the Censor shall post Procedures for polling, which must define procedures for Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Polls shall always be validated based on the Procedures in place when the poll was initially posted. The Censor shall also be responsible for polling the names of cities, units, geographic regions, as well as polling for the nation’s name and national symbols.

Section 7. Designated Players
The Designated Players shall be responsible for physically playing the saved game. Designated Players must first follow the posted current instructions and goals of a leader. Should no posted instruction exist, the Designated Player during his session may take guidance from polls. Should no such relevant polling data exist, the Designated Player may take guidance from discussion within the Democracy Game forum. Should no such relevant discussion exist, the Designated Player may take guidance from other citizens in the Democracy Game chatroom, should the session be online.

Section 8. The Governors
The Governors of the States shall be charged with the management and specialization of a single city or state. In cities assigned to that Governor, a Governor may specify certain A.I. specialization, or may individually place population to work certain tiles and hire specialists. The Governor may also set the build queues for all assigned cities.

Element C. The Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch shall consist of The Senate.

Section 1. The Senate
The Senate is formed by all Citizens of the nation. The total number of Citizens in the Assembly shall be determined by the Census. The Assembly shall be charged with the formation and passing of laws.

Section 2. Governor's Council & States
The Governor's council shall be created when atleast three governors are present and is made up of all the governors. The Governors council is incharge of the creation of states. A state is a collection of cities managed by one governor. Each state must have a minimum of 3 cities and a state can not be created untill there is atleast 5 cities present in the civilization. The creation of a state requires a simple majority of both the Senate and Governors Council.

Element D. The Census and amending the Code of Laws
The average of the number of votes cast in each of the most recent contested elections shall constitute an active census of citizens. The highest vote total of these elections shall constitute a full census (the House). A simple majority of the house must be achieved for an amendment to pass. An amendment must pass a Judicial Review and be open for discussion for 72 hours before a poll may be posted. The poll must remain open for 48 hours.

Element E. The Election process
Elections shall decide who among the citizenry are trusted to manage the game. The President, the Advisors, Judiciary, Governors, and Designated Players are all elected. Each of these poistions, excepting the Judiciary, shall have a deputy chosen by the winning citizen. The Election process shall be made up of Nominations, Debates, and the Elections themselves. No citizen may hold the same office for 2 consecutive terms.

Section 1. Nominations and Debates
Nominations shall be posted atleast 8 days before the end of the term, debates will last through the duration of the nominations. Nominations will be closed when the election polls start.

Section 2. Election Polls
Election Polls shall be posted atleast 4 days before the end of the term, and will be set to run for 3 days (72 hours). The candidate with the highest number of votes at the end of the 3 days is considered the winner. If two candidates tie, then a run-off poll, lasting 2 days (48 hours) is posted with just those two canidates which will continue as needed. The election for designated players shall be multiple choice, and list all of the possible candidates. Any candidate that recieves over 50% of the vote is a designated player for that term.

Section 3. Judicial Terms
The Judiciary shall remain in power one week after the election of a new Judiciary. At this time, the newly elected Judiciary shall take over.

Element F. Vacant Poistions
An advisor or Justice may declare themselves to be Absent for a period of time. This period may not exceed 2 weeks. During this time, the deputy or pro-tem will act with all power and duties of that office, surrendering them to the official or Justice when they return or at the end of the planned absence, whichever comes first. If this period exceeds one week, then the deputy or pro-term may keep the power and duties of the office, unless they decide to give it up. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for one week days in a thread related to their area without prior notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.

Section 1. Filling Vacant Offices:
The President will appoint a citizen to any vacant office. The appointment is subject to a conformation poll, set to run for 3 days. If the Presidential seat is vacant then the Advisor of Foreign Affairs appoints a President.

Section 2. Judicial Absence's
If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial matter for seven days, the remaining Justices may declare the Justice Vacant. If all three Justices fail to post on any active Judicial matter for seven days, the President may declare all Judicial offices Vacant, and immediately appoint a new Chief Justice. The remaining members of the Judiciary appoint a replacement for a vacant Justice.

Element G. Recall
Any citizen may request a recall for an elected official by posting a thread in the Citizens forum, citing the reasons for the recall. If two or more citizens support the recall, the Chief Justice must post a recall poll. The poll must run for 3 days, be private, and be set up in a Yes/No/Abstain. If 2/3 of the census votes to recall an official, then the official is removed from office, and the office becomes vacant. In the case of a Judicial recall, the President will handle the recall poll.

Element H. Referendum
A referendum is the submission of a proposed public measure or a decree to a direct popular vote, it is the second highest form of decision making. A referendum must comply with all polling procedures. Referendums are a direct result of an elected official carrying out their duties.

Element I. Initiative
An initiative is executive legislation created, proposed, and approved by the citizens. It is the highest form of decision making, and over-rides any other decisions, excempting a decision tasked to do so.

Section 1. Proposing an Initiative
Any citizen of the democracy game can propose an initiative. An initiative must receive atleast 3 days of discussions and two days of polling. Initiatives only hold power during the term they are approved, unless otherwise stated.

Element J. Sunset Clause
A sunset clause is an emergency legislative act. It must be discussed for 48 hours, and receive 24 hours of polling. A simple majority of the house is required to pass the clause. A sunset clause will automatically be removed at the end of the term it was passed in, or during a other pre-determined time. At this time changes made by the sunset clause will revert back to it's original state.

Element K. Turnchats
All irreversible game actions must progress during a scheduled game session called a turnchat. Reversible game actions (i.e. build queues) that adhere to legal instructions can be prepared offline before the scheduled game session.

Section 1. Turnchat Instruction Thread
A Designated Player shall post a turnchat instruction thread 3 days before the scheduled turnchat. All executive advisors shall post instructions, based on citizen approval, in the instruction thread. These instructions are then used by the Designated Player to play the save. Advisors must post their instructions appro. 2 hours before the turnchat. The turnchat instruction thread is the only legal method of giving instructions to the designated player.

Element L. Liberare of Information
The Liberare or Library is a collection of game, save, and constitutional information. The Library is headed by a Director who is appointed by the President. The Director can then dictate additional tasks to Bureau Chiefs, who then take charge of a Bureau. The Library shall keep a record of all Bureau's and their purpose. The Director is charged with supplying save information at the citizens discretion.

Poll question: Do you wish to amend the Code of Laws?

Yes
No
Abstain

Poll settings:
Duration: 4 days
Public Poll

Black_Hole

Apr 15, 2006, 11:13 AM

I assume your recusing yourself, or just me and donsig could rule as 2/3 is the right amount? also who says it they are accepted or now.

Anyway can we get through the JRs we have first.
I was going to bring this up, they actually don't affect me whatsoever, I was just the one that submitted them, so does this mean I need to recuse myself?

Nobody

Apr 15, 2006, 11:13 AM

I find that striders ammendment does not conflict with the current laws. Although he does not state that it replaces the entire current COL, we all know thats what he meant. As i have said before, i give the benifit of the doubt to the proposed ammendment, I would rather let our Legislature decide our laws.

That said im sure in the final poll it will clearly state that the proposed ammendment will entirely replace the law.

Strider

Apr 15, 2006, 05:01 PM

I give permission for Black_Hole to override my JR request. Not exactly sure why I have to, but whatever. Let's just get this done and over with.

donsig

Apr 16, 2006, 09:56 AM

I suggest reconsideration of the ruling on the current JR, taking into consideration the provisions of Article F and the above referenced ruling on C4DG1JR5. I will allow 3 days to pass before actually filing the intended CC.

I will be taking no further official actions as Public Defender until either a) DaveShack files his complaint; or b) DaveShack rescinds his three day deadline. (BTW, if you're going to make deadlines like this - especially when the deadline covers a weekend - a holiday weekend for some, then you should make them four days.) To paraphrase our previous Chief Justice I will not allow the judiciary to be bullied. File your complaint or drop it.

At the risk of exhibiting malice aforesight I will explain the steps I am willing to take. First, I will gladly find DaveShack's CC has merit. Since it takes only one justice to do so for the case to proceed then it will proceed. There is no way I would recuse myself from this CC. As Public Defender I do not have to be impartial when defending the accused so I do not see how defending myself could possibly be a conflict of interest. Also, since it would be perfectly legal for me to defend myself as a citizen I see no reason why it should not be legal for me to do so as PD. This action may of course just add another layer of legal complexity to the current situation if my refusal to recuse myself causes controversy. Such a controversy could develope in different ways.

Yet another CC against me for refusing to recuse myself but that only sends us into a spiral of me not recusing myself from CCs where I'm the accused.

Another form it might take is a JR of current judicial prcedures since they say justices must recuse themsleves from CC's involving themselves. I'd challenge the constitutionality of the procedures. Then we're back to the question of do I have to recuse myself from such a JR. Well, I'd post a poll asking if the JR directly affected me. Of course I'd make it a private poll since it's about an individual and then most likely our Censor would invalidate the poll because it's private and we're deadlocked again.

Another direction it could take would be an attempt to recall/impeach me. This is currently against our laws but I've already gone on record as saying that is unconstitutional (in other words we should be allowed to recall justices). Any such attempt would result in a JR which would once again bring us to the question of do I recuse myself or not?

Anyone out there see the dilemma raised now that we have a precedent for a justice not recusing himself?

So, DaveShack, you are holding up the judiciary. Please either file your complaint or drop it.