Welcome to the second term 4 court, Because of Black Holes resignation I have been appointed by President Strider to complete the term ,and my we have quite a bit of work to do

Chief Justice::D Mhcarver
Judge Advocate: Nobody
Public Defender: Donsig

Black Holes Resignation (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3947632&postcount=138)

Striders appointment order (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3964111&postcount=12)

Consitution & code of laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=132270)

Judicial log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=153321)

here is BH's docket, I will be fixing the links and editing it after I've finished reviewing the term 4 thread

Term 4 Judicial Review Docket

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

Term 4 Judicial Review Docket

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
Status: Completed, Ruling published in Judicial log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3967070&postcount=4)

DG1JR12
Question: Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?
Submitted by: ravensfire
Status: To be ruled upon

DG1JR13
Questions:
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?
Submitted by: ravensfire
Status: To be ruled upon

DG1JR14
Question: Proposed col amendment
Submitted by: ravensfire
Status: Completed


DG1JR15
Question: Proposed col amendment
Submitted by: Strider
Status: To be ruled upon

Term 4 Judicial Procedures

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

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.

Nice thread. But why can't we just continue on in the old one?

oh no...cant we just let it go like this.

IT is his duty and right to start his own thread under our freedom of info thing in the CoL.

Kinda confuses me with what i have ruled on and what i havent, i think DG1JR13 is the only case that i havent ruled on.

Nice thread. But why can't we just continue on in the old one?
While I could run the court through the old thread the problem is that I can't edit BH's posts, meaning that it would be hard for citizens to find information in some cases since they would have to go to the end of the thread

Judicial Reviews by nobody(for reference)

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.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Code of Laws
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.




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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveshack
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


DG1JR14

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


DG1JR15
Question: Proposed col amendment
Submitted by: Strider
I find that the proposed ammendment does not conflict with our laws. But remeber to make it clear it is replace the COL.

IT is his duty and right to start his own thread under our freedom of info thing in the CoL.

I don't think it's his DUTY to start a new thread. I do see his point about not being able to edit Black_Hole's posts but we need all the information in one thread. If the new CJ wants to copy and paste everything we need over here then he's welcome to do it. I just thought it would be easier on him (and the rest of us) if he didn't have to do that.

BTW, I sent you a couple pms MR. CJ.

I'll have more posted later, but for the moment I can safely say that JR 14 is completed, and the previous CJ had ruled on 11, though I'm still looking for a ruling on the matter by donsig(not saying it isn' their, just that I haven't found it quite yet)

Black holes ruling on Jr11


Chief Justice Ruling on JR # 11
Question:

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



Relevant articles:

Quote:
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.



Constitution Article B.2.C:

Quote:
The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office



I actually have found two questions in Strider's single question. I have found that there is a conflict between the Code of Laws and Constitution about whether or not term limits can be allowed.
The other question is whether the article applies to non power holding positions.

Lets start with the second one. Nowhere in the Code of Laws or Constitution is there a non elected/appointed position. The Code of Laws obviously states as official as the Judiciary, Triumvirate, Cabinet, and Governors. Thus I find the power to create non power holding offices part of every citizen's freedom of speech as guaranteed by the constitution.

Second, the constitution clearly states that all citizens are eligible for office, so the Code of Laws has no authority to define term limits.

So to summarize:
1. The word official does not refer to non power holding offices.
2. The entire section 6 of the Code of Laws is unconstitutional.

I have my ruling for JR # 12 ready, however I will hold off ruling on it until we figure out whats going on.

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

Section 8.A.I states that No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle. It is reasonalbe and consistent to interpret section 8.B.I & II in light of section 8.A.I. In so doing the term office refers specifically to one which is elective in nature. It is furthermore entirely reasonable to interpret elective offices as those which confer some legal authority upon a citizen. This legal authority consists of posting binding game play instructions, validating polls or conducting official judicial business. Ad hoc offices, such as the Information Bureau, which confer no such legal authority and are not elective in nature should not be considered offices under sections 8.B.I & II.

Therefore it is my finidng that Section 8.A.II and Section 8.A.I does not include appointed no-power duties like Chief Bureau's for the Information Department.

donsig
Public Defender

Public Defender donsig,

The poll over your recusal for JR12 has been closed for several days. I trust you have your ruling on the matter ready for posting?

-- Ravensfire

Public Defender donsig,

The poll over your recusal for JR12 has been closed for several days. I trust you have your ruling on the matter ready for posting?

-- Ravensfire

Well, I've been waiting for the Censor to pass judgement on that poll. Then I have to think about whether it's right and proper for a Censor to validate his own polls or not. It might be worth a polling whether the Censor should recuse himself from that kind of thing and let his deputy handle it. Then there's another JR to think about - the one about the Strider Amendment. Am I the only one left to rule on JR12? I don't recall seeing a ruling from the CJ. :hmm:

donsig,

That's rather disappointing to see those words.

-- Ravensfire

donsig,

That's rather disappointing to see those words.

-- Ravensfire

Too bad. I was going for a laugh. Guess my material needs a little work. Or maybe it was my delivery?

DG1JR12
Question: Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveshack
The original intent was to use "official" and "binding" as synonyms.

Because of the nature of an initiative as a legally binding poll, I therefore find that it is official and thus subject to verification by the office of the Censor since as justice nobody pointed out "paraphrasing", anything that can have that level off effect on the game should be certified by the censor to ensure that all game decisions are fair and true

Sorry for the resignation and everything, stuff comes up fast. Thank-You mhcarver for taking this place over.

Regarding JR11, did the other two justices think about the constitutionality problems of the term limits article?

Sorry for the resignation and everything, stuff comes up fast. Thank-You mhcarver for taking this place over.

Regarding JR11, did the other two justices think about the constitutionality problems of the term limits article?

I did and chose not to include that in my ruling. Carrying your argument forward it could be argued that citizens also be allowed to run for more than one office at once. It all seems to hinge on how the phrase eligible for office is interpreted. I'd rather not interpret that unless we had a formal request for a JR on it.

DG1JR12
Question: Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveshack
The original intent was to use "official" and "binding" as synonyms.

Because of the nature of an initiative as a legally binding poll, I therefore find that it is official and thus subject to verification by the office of the Censor since as justice nobody pointed out "paraphrasing", anything that can have that level off effect on the game should be certified by the censor to ensure that all game decisions are fair and true

I am very, very disappointed that my fellow justices have decided to slap together a quick ruling on this issue. I had asked as a sort of professional courtesy that the three of us confer on this (and all JRs) before publicly posting our rulings. Not only am I dismayed that my request for courtesy wasn't even acknowledged I am downright flabbergasted that two citizens whom we had enough faith in to place on the bench can so easily disregard our constitution.

I don't give a rat's behind for what DaveShack intended to say. We must first go by what is clearly written in our constitution. Only when what is written is not clear should we consider what was intended.

I would like to publicly and formally ask both the Chief Justice and Judge Advocate if they are willing to rescind their rulings on JR12 until such time as the three of us can confer on this case.

Donsig, is your problem with the JR12 rulings based on disagreement that the Censor should be required to validate initiatives, or based on the stated reasoning for the rulings?

Does being speedy this term mean finding the fastest way possible to slow down the court's deliberations?

Perhaps if you have a dissenting opinion you could just post it and let the game move on?

I find your remark about slowing down the court's deliberations to be extremely funny. There have been no deliberations. I wrote my ruling on this case long ago and pmmed it to my collegues. I've heard back from neither the JA nor either of the CJs. If there had been any deliberation at all perhaps there would not be a dissenting opinion.

I must offer my apologies to my collegues. I have not written my ruling on JR12 yet. This is the JR where my recusal is in question. I confused this with the Strider Amendment JR. I was also thinking we'd be doing things like in an earlier term where we had a set order for deciding cases. That method is much better than the free for all of the last couple terms.

I think it's quite revealing that there haven't been any nominations for two of three Judiciary spots.

I think it's quite revealing that there haven't been any nominations for two of three Judiciary spots.

I fixed that. Consider yourself nominated DaveShack.

Yes, it is revealing. It reveals just how lazy our citizens are. They are too lazy to fix the CoL and constitution through proper means, preferring to have the judiciary rubber stamp whatever interpretation glosses over problems in our laws no matter how far the laws have to be bent. Then when the judiciary refuses to do this dirty work and tells the citizens they must either live by the laws they passed or change them, the citizens ignore both the laws and the judiciary!

I dont know about lazy..there just isnt that many of us around any more.

Fix that and we fix the problem of apparent laziness.

I dont know about lazy..there just isnt that many of us around any more.

Fix that and we fix the problem of apparent laziness.

Well, let's get rid of the turn chat and make it a forum based game where we can all participate equally. Then let's do away with the monthly terms and make terms based on a fixed number of game play turns.

If there aren't that many around then it should be easier to change our laws, not more difficult. I'm sticking with the lazy diagnosis.

I fixed that. Consider yourself nominated DaveShack.


That wasn't exactly what I was looking for, but thanks anyway. ;)

Well, let's get rid of the turn chat and make it a forum based game where we can all participate equally. Then let's do away with the monthly terms and make terms based on a fixed number of game play turns.

If there aren't that many around then it should be easier to change our laws, not more difficult. I'm sticking with the lazy diagnosis.

Interesting..has it been done before in a demogame??? Not a MTDG but in a demogame

No, it's never been done. The very first Civ III demogame started without turn chats. Turning the first term, Grey Fox, (the first President / designated player) started holding chat sessions as he played the turns. It was a social event that took hold and became institutionalized. When we lost alot of players in that first Civ III DG someone started a thread about the reduced participation and a common theme was people lost interest because game play decisions were being made in the chat. I've been fighting the chat since term three of that DG. (I was president back then and we had quite a few rows. Ahhh, the good old days.) Back in the thrid Civ III DG, in term 3 (again when I was president) we had another blow up (over a little war with the Aztecs) and I threatened to play all the sessions off line that term. I think I did one off line and such a ruckus was raised that the mods put the game on hold for a week so things could calm down. We once had a constitution that did not demand chat sessions (nor did it prohibit them either).

So endeth the history lesson.

If there aren't that many around then it should be easier to change our laws, not more difficult.

Unless one, or three, people sit on amendment proposals instead of evaluating them using common sense so they can be put to a vote. :mad:

Me and donsig have exchanged pms on JR 15 and I hope to rule on it soon, I would like to ask the court to begin debating the questions posed in JR13

I would like to beseech the court to consider JR13 with all possible speed, since it is likely to be called into action immedately upon the start of the new term, and we'll likely be short at least one justice at the time and so unable to rule on it.

DG1JR13
Questions:
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?
Submitted by: ravensfire
Status: To be ruled upon


Relevant Law

C) Vacancies
I. A Vacancy occurs when an office is empty due to the office holder resigning, judicial action, impeachment, if no citizen ran for election for that office or when a new office is created.
II. Triumvirate Vacancies IIA. If there is a Vacancy in the Triumvirate, the President shall nominate a citizen to that office. If the Presidency is Vacant, the Secretary of State, or Secretary of War if the Secretary of State is also Vacant, shall nominate a citizen to that office. The citizen must accept the nomination prior any further steps. IIB. The Judiciary shall confirm the appointment. If confirmed, the citizen takes office immediately. If not confirmed, a different citizen must be nominated. IIC. The nominee may be any citizen that does not currently hold a Triumvirate or Judicial position. If the nominee holds another office, they must resign immediately upon confirmation. IID. This appointment may not be challenged by a confirmation poll. III. Cabinet Vacancies IIIA. The President must offer the position to the Deputy, if there is one. IIIB. If there is no deputy, the President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office. IIIC. This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll. IV. Governor Vacancies IVA. The Governors Council must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Council within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Council may appoint any citizen to the office. IVB. If there is no Governors Council, the Minister of Interior must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Minister of Interior within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Minister of Interior may appoint any citizen to the office. V. Judicial Vacancies VA. The President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office. VB. This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll. VI. All vacancy appointments which are subject to a confirmation poll are provisional until the time for a confirmation poll has passed, or when a confirmation poll for that appointment concludes with a 'Yes' majority. 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. VIB. A Citizen who holds office may apply for a new office before the 72 hour waiting period provided they write in their application that they will resign from their current office. That citizen does not have to resign until the provisional period passes. VII. Being a member of the Designated Player Pool is not considered holding an office and thus is not counted against a Citizen in terms of being able to run for and hold multiple offices.

Citizen input

Question 1. The law does not say the call for candidates must be posted in a specific place.

Question 2. The law limits when a current office holder may be appointed, to no earlier than 72 hours after the call for applications. The purpose of this limit is to allow citizens without offices to apply without competition from people who do have offices.

Quesiton 3. The official is not limited to choosing only people who apply for the job, but there is a limitation that a current office holder may only be appointed if there are no non office holder applicants.

thank you, I'll be issuing a ruling this time tommorow

No, it's never been done. The very first Civ III demogame started without turn chats. Turning the first term, Grey Fox, (the first President / designated player) started holding chat sessions as he played the turns. It was a social event that took hold and became institutionalized. When we lost alot of players in that first Civ III DG someone started a thread about the reduced participation and a common theme was people lost interest because game play decisions were being made in the chat. I've been fighting the chat since term three of that DG. (I was president back then and we had quite a few rows. Ahhh, the good old days.) Back in the thrid Civ III DG, in term 3 (again when I was president) we had another blow up (over a little war with the Aztecs) and I threatened to play all the sessions off line that term. I think I did one off line and such a ruckus was raised that the mods put the game on hold for a week so things could calm down. We once had a constitution that did not demand chat sessions (nor did it prohibit them either).

So endeth the history lesson.
currently chat sessions can be offline or online:
A Designated Player shall choose whether his Play Session will be online or offline.

Donsig, is your problem with the JR12 rulings based on disagreement that the Censor should be required to validate initiatives, or based on the stated reasoning for the rulings?

Does being speedy this term mean finding the fastest way possible to slow down the court's deliberations?

Perhaps if you have a dissenting opinion you could just post it and let the game move on?

I replied to this a long time ago but the post isn't there. :confused:

My problem with the JR12 rulings are based solely on the fact that they do not correspond with what is written in the constitution. I have no *disagreement* that the Censor should be required to validate initiatives. My perceived disagreement stems from the fact that I've read the constitution and CoL and the Censor has no legal authority over initiatives. I do think it would be a good idea to have the Censor validate binding polls but we've never legally authorized it and it is not the judiciary's job to do that. I would gladly support an initiative or amendment that gave the Censor authority to validate initiatives but in the mean time the Censor should be restricting himself to validating official polls only. (I have written my dissent and pmmed it to my fellow justices in hopes they will reconsider their own rulings on this JR.)

For the record, my *disagreement* concerning initiatives also is more about the allowed lengths of initiative polls and the allowed form (public and private).

Please note that JR14 was ruled on in the first judicial thread this term. It was never put into the judicial log though.

EDIT: Also, the amendment poll was posted and is now closed. Not sure if the amendment has been actually added to our CoL thread.

I concur, it has not been updated in the Constitution thread, and the new text of CoL section 8 was not included in my previous post of the law for JR 13. In this case it doesn't actually matter, since that particular subsection isn't relevant to the questions for this JR.

I have written proposed rulings on all outstanding JRs. I've been waiting on possible feedback from my fellow judiciary members. If none is forthcoming by this evening I will post my rulings then.

DG1JR12
Question: Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?

Article C.1.2 of our constitution states By Initiative in the form of a binding poll initiated by the citizenry, which has force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type.

The same article states by Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.

The descriptions of these two types of decision making differ in three ways:

1) the term official is applied to referendums but not initiatives;

2) the phrase initiated by the citizenry is applied to initiatives but not referendums;

3) initiatives have force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type while referendums only have force over the former.

It is clear that the difference between initiatives and referendums is not one dimentional. This judicial review concerns itself with the question of whether initiatives are official polls. Combining the fact that the word *official* is not used in our constitution to decribe initiatives while it is used in the previous clause to describe referendums it is clear that initiatives are not to be considered official polls. This is confirmed by the fact that initiatives are specifically initiated by the citizenry. One of the differences between initiatives and referendums is that referendums are *official* (i.e., posted by officials) whereas initiatives, being posted by the citizenry (i.e., not posted by an official) are not *official*. Note that both of these decision types are specifically stated to be *binding*. The fact that referendums are explicitly listed as both official AND binding strongly suggests that under our constitution there is a legal difference between the two terms. The phrasing of these constitutional clauses recognizes the common law presumption that a poll need not be posted by an official in order to be considered binding upon our officials. In other words, a *binding* poll need not be *official*.

Therefore, initiatives are not to be considered official polls. I would like to point out here that this interpretation in no way contradicts the other difference between initiatives and referendums (i.e., the scope of each decision type). Nor does any given interpreation of the scope of the two types contradict the interpretation of the officialness of initiatives. Just as the length of a rectangle is not dependent upon its width, how we choose to define the scope of a decision making type is not affected by how we define its offialness.

The second part of this question concerns the Censor's authority to verify (or validate) initiative polls.

B.III.IIIB of our CoL lists the Censor's duties:

The Powers and Duties of the Censor:
1. The Censor shall post his Procedures of Censorship at the beginning of his term, defining how Official Polls will take place during his tenure.
A. The Censor must obey the Procedures that he laid down for his term.
2. The Censor shall be the Official in charge of all elections.
3. Censor shall be responsible for the official results of an election and for validating an election.
4. The Censor is also responsible for validating any other official polls.
5. The Censor posts all votes by the Assembly as instructions as needed.
6. The Censor shall be responsible for maintaining a list of names for the naming of cities, units, and other appraise items, approved by the Citizens Assembly.

Nowhere is the Censor given explicit authority to validate either initiatives (specifically) or binding polls (generally). The Censor is given authority to validate only two types of polls: elections and official polls. Since initiatives are neither, they are not subject to verification or validation by the Censor.

donsig
Public Defender

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

Section 8.C has several subsections wherein different vacancies are handled differently.

1) Only subsections III, IV and V (dealing with cabinet, gubernatorial and judicial vacancies respectively) require the President or Governor's Council to request that interest citizens contact him, her or them. The place to post the request is not specified therefore the President or Governor's Council may choose where to place the post as long as it is in a public CivFanatic forum devoted to this demogame.

2) Again, only subsections III, IV and V (dealing with cabinet, gubernatorial and judicial vacancies respectively) mention a 72 hour period. It must be assumed that this period was included to give citizens ample time to respond to the required request. Therefore, the President or Governor's Council does indeed have to wait for the 72 hour period to elapse before making an appointment.

3) Again, only subsections III, IV and V (dealing with cabinet, gubernatorial and judicial vacancies respectively) are affected. It must be assumed that the reason for calling for interested citizens to apply for vacant positions is to create a poll from which to make the appointment. It therefore follows that if only one citizen applies within the required time frame then he or she must be appointed.

This interpretation does not really tie the hands of the President or Governor's Council. If the appointing officer(s) have someone in mind that they would like to appoint to a vacant office all they have to do is ask the prosepective appointee to declare interest in the job. It would be best if this interest was expressed publicly. SO while it is not mandatory given the law as currently written, it is a good idea for the call for interested citizens to be made in a thread devoted to filling the office in question. Furthermore, it would be best if all interested citizens posted their interest in the office publicly. This way the filling of cabinet, gubernatorial and judicial positions via appointment would be similar to our established nomination process. We allow a fixed amount of time for nominations, nominations are public and in a thread devoted to a single office and the nominee must publicly accept the nomination before being placed on the ballot. Section 8.C merely requires a similar process for appointing citizens to vacant offices.

donsig
Public Defender

Element D of the proposed amendment states A simple majority of the house must be achieved for an amendment to pass. The proposed amendment further defines the house as The highest vote total of these elections shall constitute a full census (the House).

Article C.4 (bullet number 2) of our constitution states No decision shall require more support than an amendment to the Constitution. Article G.2 of our constitution states The Constitution may be amended by a 60% majority of votes cast in a public poll which shall be open for no fewer than 4 days.

Using the recent elections, the full census would be 32 (number of votes cast in the CJ election which drew the most votes). A CoL amendment would therefore require 17 affirmative votes to pass. By contrast a constitutional amendment requires a 60% majority of those voting in the amendment ratification poll. If only ten citizens voted in such a poll then six affirmative votes would be enough to pass the constitutional amendment. By tying the ratification of CoL amendments to the census it is quite possible that more support (as measured by the number of citizens voting for an amendment) would be required for the CoL amendment than for a constitutional amendment. I dare speculate that it is not only possible but likely to happen.

Viewed from another angle, let us look at a hypothetical ratification poll for a CoL amendment under the proposed amendment. For the hypothetical amendment to pass it must get at least a fixed number of affirmative votes, namely one half of the full census plus one (rounded down). Let us call this number X. Therefore any ratification poll that closes with less than X total votes would not be ratified even if all voters voted in the affirmative. By contrast, constitutional amendments that garner less than X total votes would pass as long as a sixty percent majority of those voting in the poll vote in the affirmative. In these cases, the CoL amendment requires more support than a constitutional amendment.

Therefore, I find Element D of the proposed amendment to be in conflict with article C.4 of our constitution and is therefore ineligible to be brought before the assembly for ratification.

donsig
Public Defender

Therefore, I find Element D of the proposed amendment to be in conflict with article C.4 of our constitution and is therefore ineligible to be brought before the assembly for ratification.

I pointed that out in the discussion thread, and apparently didn't get any action on the comment. :mischief: Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you still can't force it to drink. :lol:

Please clarify, I would have thought you would say "and therefore the entire amendment is ineligible ...". Did you really mean the amendment could go in without Element D, as the wording of your ruling suggests? :crazyeye:

I pointed that out in the discussion thread, and apparently didn't get any action on the comment. :mischief: Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you still can't force it to drink. :lol:

Please clarify, I would have thought you would say "and therefore the entire amendment is ineligible ...". Did you really mean the amendment could go in without Element D, as the wording of your ruling suggests? :crazyeye:

No, I certainly did not mean to suggest that the amendment without Element D could be submitted. When amendments are presented to the judiciary for review the judiciary can only give a yes or no to the conflict question. While the judiciary can point out the conflicts and even suggest possible remedies the judiciary cannot choose to accept part of a proposed amendment. If someone wants to submit a new review for this without element D the process needs to begin anew. I would like to state here that I had neither time nor desire to check for further conflicts once I found one. So merely resubmitting the proposal with out Element D or with a changed Element D does not guarantee more conflicts will not be found.

Anyone wanting a judicial rewview on my interpretation is asked to submit it to next term's court.

Hey everyone, i just want to aplogies for not finishing last terms JR, my internet has gone away so i couldnt.