View Full Version : Term VIII Judiciary - The Court of Reason


ravensfire
Aug 02, 2006, 09:55 AM
Term VIII Supreme Court

Chief Justice: Ravensfire
Public Defender: Nobody
Judge Advocate: Eklektikos

Useful links:
Constitution and Code of Laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=132270)
Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=153321)
Judicial Procedures (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4352328&postcount=2)
Current Docket (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4352331&postcount=3)

Term VII Judicial Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=176004)


-- Ravensfire

ravensfire
Aug 02, 2006, 09:55 AM
Judicial Procedures

(click on the spoiler to show the 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.
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 or set legal precendent, but may lead to a Judicial Review if any Justice feels one is needed.
Post requests for Investigations. 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.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 Investigations to determine if there is need.
Participate in all Investigations in a fair and impartial manner.
Post clear opinions on all questions.
Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement
Discuss and ratify these Judicial Procedures.
Recuse themself from any Investigation that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the investigation, or as the citizen under investigation. A Pro-tem replacement will be named by the President.
Recuse themself from any Judicial Review where they feel unable to render a fair, impartial, open or speedy decision. A Pro-tem replacement will be named by the President.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.Rights and Duties of the Judge Advocate

Post any valid Recall poll if for the Chief Justice.
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.Rights and Duties of the Public Defender

Serve as the Defense during as 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.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, the other two Justices may both 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 clarification of these findings as needed.

Reviews of proposed law may be requested by anyone. The post must include the proposed law, and a link to the discussion thread. This post should clearly note all changes, including additions, deletions and changes. 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. The Chief Justices will post the poll for all proposals that pass Judicial Review.

Concurring decisions or rulings by at least two justices will resolve a judicial review. Any justice can request clarification of another justice's decision or ruling. Justices may also request the use alternative means of internal discussion to aid in their decisions. All ruling MUST, however, be posted in the Judicial thread.

Requests may be deferred to the next term if the Chief Justice deems it likely that the Judicial Review will not finish prior to the conclusion of the current term.

Investigations
Investigations 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. 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 has the right to representation throughout the process. The Public Defender will defend 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, or if the accused prefers to defend him/herself.

At any time during a citizen complaint, the prosecution and the defense (and accused) may agree to drop the case and implement an alternative agreed to solution, provided the Chief Justice concurs. Likewise, 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 Investigation will be reviewed by the Judiciary. Justices will gather and look through the evidence presented, including requests for statements from all citizens. If all Justices posting decisions 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 an investigation 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)
Final Warning
Warning
AbstainOther options may be included through unanimous consent of the Judiciary.

Once the poll closes, the Chief Justice or Judge Advocate 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.

Changes to Judicial Procedures
The Judicial Procedures may be changed at any time by a concurring decision of at least two justices.

ravensfire
Aug 02, 2006, 09:56 AM
Docket

Current Cases (link is to original request)

Past Cases (link is to official decision)
C4DG1T8JR1 - Review of Proposed Amendment (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4373352&postcount=15)

ravensfire
Aug 02, 2006, 09:57 AM
Amendment Procedures

<coming later - stupid meetings!>

dutchfire
Aug 02, 2006, 09:59 AM
let's get started

Mock Poll
This is a Citizen's Initiative poll for the amendment of the Code of Laws. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the need for deputies, and change it into an option.

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=180040)

Do you wish to adopt this amendment?

Current law:
B) Deputies

I. Deputies
IA. Members of the Triumvirate and Judiciary shall not have a Deputy.
IB. All members of the Cabinet and Governors shall have a Deputy, appointed by the principals of those respective offices.


Proposed amendment, completely replacing above section:
I. Deputies
IA. Members of the Triumvirate and Judiciary shall not have a Deputy.
IB. All members of the Cabinet and Governors may have a Deputy, appointed by the principals of those respective offices.

Poll Question: Do you wish to amend Section 3B of the Code of Laws as follows?

Yes
No
Abstain

Poll settings:
Duration - 4 days
Public Poll - Checked

ravensfire
Aug 02, 2006, 01:24 PM
Fellow Justices,

Please review the procedures above, and let me know what you think.

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

ravensfire
Aug 02, 2006, 01:32 PM
Mock Poll
This is a Citizen's Initiative poll for the amendment of the Code of Laws. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the need for deputies, and change it into an option.

<snip>


Request Accepted and docketed as C4DG1T8JR1 - Review of Proposed Amendment

Fellow Justices, please review this amendment for any disparity with current laws, and post if you find this amendment does or does not conflict with any current laws. If it does conflict with current laws, please detail the conflicts.

Please do not post until tomorrow morning to allow 24 hours to pass after the proposed poll was posted (poll posted ~2 am August 2nd, CDT).

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

dutchfire
Aug 02, 2006, 02:39 PM
The procedures weren't there when I made it, but I don't think you need all the changes colorcoded anyway :p

Nobody
Aug 02, 2006, 03:55 PM
*strolls in to the court house, with a gotti like style and a corleone temperment, still wondering how this sick twisted nation allowed me, the "worst president in history" to some how be "elected" to a position of power. Places the puffy hat firmly on his head and begins to speak in a low droneing voice*


Greetings fellow my fellow justices, it is a great honour to be able to serve once again on this ultimate judical board of honour. Thank you citizen held such great faith in me that you decided not to run against me, a race you surely would have won.

With out thurther adue, let us beging:

procedures- I concur with your proposed prcedures.
C4DG1T8JR1 - I will look into it.

Eklektikos
Aug 03, 2006, 05:17 AM
The procedures seem fine to me.

ravensfire
Aug 03, 2006, 10:25 AM
With all three Justice's concurring ...

:hammer:

Court is now in session!

Fellow justices, please review the proposed amendment docketed as C4DG1T8JR1 and post your rulings.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

ravensfire
Aug 06, 2006, 11:47 AM
I find no conflicts with this proposed amendment, and recommend that it be presented to the people.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Nobody
Aug 06, 2006, 06:13 PM
C4DG1T8JR1

I find no conflicts with this proposed amendment, take to da people.

Eklektikos
Aug 07, 2006, 11:40 AM
No conflicts found.

ravensfire
Aug 07, 2006, 01:17 PM
The Court has found that the Proposed Amendment submitted by dutchfire and docketed as C4DG1T8JR1 does not conflict with existing laws, and should be presented to the Citizens of Licentia.

EDIT: Ratification poll has been posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=181227).

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

DaveShack
Aug 15, 2006, 09:24 PM
If it please the court,

or if it doesn't please the court,

I would remind the court that it is the Censor's position to rule on the validity or invalidity of binding polls. Please refrain from commenting on this issue. For the record, the 1st poll on trading with Alex would have been marked valid if it hadn't been for unnecessary and unwarranted interference. If we need to ask for a review of a law, we're quite capable of finding the courthouse. ;) Please don't go ticking off the residents, we have few enough as it is.

ravensfire
Aug 15, 2006, 10:35 PM
Daveshack,

Kindly read my reply to you in your Censorial thread.

-- Ravensfire

robboo
Aug 16, 2006, 10:57 AM
I need a rule clarification...hopefully you guys can help.

Heres the situation based on current polling. We will be making a trade for CS and Monothesim adn tehn get paper via the Great scientist. As SoS I need to present the people with another trade option. What I want to know is do we have another 1 turn TC or can I go in make the trades and then see what other trades can be made for paper after we light bulb it. In normal games most people would lightbulb then trade immediately.

TO summarize...I want to go into the save. Make the trades and light bulb the tech in order to see what other trades are possible after getting paper, no units will be moved its still all "preturn". If its not possible I will stop play before we press enter and have a zero turn turnchat but prefer to get a full TC in since we have been a bit slow this term. Article E 1. almost makes what I am asking seem like a possibility.

ravensfire
Aug 16, 2006, 11:08 AM
robboo,

Interesting. Off the top of my head, I don't know. I'll try to do some research this afternoon.

I'm going to provisionally docket this, pending further research. I ask my fellow Justices to also consider this, and please PM me with your response as soon as possible. These wouldn't be considered a ruling on the JR, merely trying to provide some guidance to keep the game flowing.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

robboo
Aug 16, 2006, 11:29 AM
I appreciate it. Like I said, I just want some guidance. BUT if its quicker to do a zero turn TC...I think I can get someone.

DaveShack
Aug 16, 2006, 12:29 PM
Are citizen inputs acceptable on this question?


I had a whole analysis typed and ready to submit, which would support looking ahead in this limited circumstance where we know what we will do, and then the analysis started down a path that led to a 0-turn chat. I think the ultimate question is whether we might decide to change our minds on the 1st trade and the lightbulb based on what the 2nd trade reveals. If it makes us overturn a previous decision, then it's effectively the same thing as reloading. Playing and saving the CS trade and lightbulb would ensure the people can't go back on those decisions.

Just my opinion, as a philosopher and citizen.

robboo
Aug 16, 2006, 01:02 PM
My response to Daveshack



We can ensure that the trades and lightbulb goes as we had polled...No "reload". We have to be honest with ourselves. Its sorta like knowing someone has a spoiler in your PBEM game...you could read it but what fun would that be. IF we cant be honest with ourselves...then we should retire from this game right now. We discussed the morality of slavery but we would repoll to get an advantage in a trade. I hope you dont think I am tryg to do this to gain an advantage. IF we do this..the first trades and lighbulb MUST stand as polled. And I will not follow any citizens polled orders that contradict those ordersfirst orders IF I am allowed to look deeper into the second trades.

ravensfire
Aug 16, 2006, 01:22 PM
Advice, suggestions and comments from citizens are always welcome, Daveshack.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

DaveShack
Aug 16, 2006, 01:26 PM
Advice, suggestions and comments from citizens are always welcome, Daveshack.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Thanks, I came down too hard on you for comments you didn't intend to be official, and wanted to make sure my comments would be seen as unofficial as well. :D

Now if we could just get people to recognize our comments as just comments and not commands it would be easier for both of us to post.

DaveShack
Aug 16, 2006, 01:29 PM
To robboo, yes I know we can trust you. We need to soften the whole thing IMO. We're long past the point we can afford to alienate the actual game-playing people in any way, because without people to play [civ4] we don't have a basis for continuing the democracy part.

ravensfire
Aug 16, 2006, 01:39 PM
From a brief review of the Constitution, I think you're both on the rigth track.

Interestingly, the "Playing the Save" section went a fairly radical change for this DG. Previous version would have absolutely forbidden what robboo is wanting to do, which is essentially perform an action.

Our constitution, however, it a but more lenient on this matter.
1. No person may play the save other than a Designated Player specifically tasked to do so, or an official who is required to attempt certain actions to get information about what is possible in the game.
a. If any action must be performed outside a scheduled play session, to obtain information about possible options, the game must then be immediately closed without saving, and without performing further actions.
2. Obtaining information which would not be visible to someone playing the game, at the current point in time reflected by the current saved game or a previous saved game, by any mechanism, is prohibited. As noted in Section 1.a of this Article, actions performed by an official, where performing the action is the only way to determine options, are permitted as long as the game is immediately closed following such investigation.

Clearly, once a course of action has been determined, new option may present themselves to officials which yield further actions. The relevant example here are trades - where an approved action that yields a technology may open new trade options. The Constitution very pointedly allows officials to "obtain information about possible options". The prohibition about playing ahead very specifically includes an exclusion permitting the very action that robboo is requesting.

robboo, I'm going to both reject and accept your request for review. (HUH?!?!).

Specifically for your action, I reject your request for Judicial Review as even a narrow reading (as both you and DaveShack have done) of Article E permits an official to take a specific, citizen-approved in-game action with the intent to discover new options revealed by that option.

I accept your request for judicial review in order to determine the limits of that power. This will be docketed as C4DG1T8JR2, pending confirmation of my above rejection.

Fellow Justices, please review my reasoning on denying robboo's request in part. If both of you determine that his specific request merits review, we will open a JR on the matter. If you feel that my approach is acceptable, please post that.

robboo - please do not check on the future options until all relevant polls have closed and my rejection of the JR for you specific request is denied.

EDIT - Note, once the status of the JR request is confirmed by my fellow Justices, I'll be opening a discussion thread on this JR.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

robboo
Aug 16, 2006, 01:45 PM
Ravesnfire...I wont do anything in the save other what has been done which was within the roll of SoS to get the trade info.

Honestly...I am so confused after reading that......just tell me after the JR if I can look ahead or not. I dont know if rejection allows it or grants it.

edit..OK i re-reread it...and understand. Still I want very clear permission as to what i can do and not do if I am allowed to make the trade and lightbulb.

ravensfire
Aug 16, 2006, 02:04 PM
edit..OK i re-reread it...and understand. Still I want very clear permission as to what i can do and not do if I am allowed to make the trade and lightbulb.

Yes - once the polls for both of those action close, you can perform those actions, see the new trade options, close the save and report those actions back to the forums for the next decisions. You need to wait until the polls close so that those actions are confirmed.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

ravensfire
Aug 16, 2006, 02:09 PM
Whew - now that THAT'S posted, personal views on this.

I think that DS and robboo are on the right track - that once we've determined a course of action, we should be able to, in some situations, "look ahead" to help keep the game moving and give us, the people, the opportunity to help our leaders make better decisions.

I feel that we should limit this to performing only actions that are approved, and only for zero-turn situations. Actions such as making a trade, using a GL for a tech, declaring war to determine who would ally with us should be considered acceptable. Actions such as attacking to see if we'd win, moving units or any other action where no future options would be revealed should not be permitted.

-- Ravensfire

robboo
Aug 16, 2006, 02:37 PM
Ravensfire..Thanks for the quick actions getting this going. I am patiently waiting for the polls to be validate at there close.

GeorgeOP
Aug 17, 2006, 07:56 AM
Robboo: After you make a trade for a new technology, you must wait one turn before aquiring more techs. For example, let's say we trade for Mono, and Alexander also has Theology. You can not trade for Theology the same turn you got Mono, you must play one turn. Theology will be listed as "Can't Trade" without playing a turn, but they may not want to trade with you and you wouldn't know without playing one turn.

Just wanted to warn you. I do think you should be allowed to play one turn to find out this information (so I don't get another 1 turn TC), but I'm not a member of the court.

DaveShack
Aug 17, 2006, 09:15 AM
Robboo: After you make a trade for a new technology, you must wait one turn before aquiring more techs. For example, let's say we trade for Mono, and Alexander also has Theology. You can not trade for Theology the same turn you got Mono, you must play one turn. Theology will be listed as "Can't Trade" without playing a turn, but they may not want to trade with you and you wouldn't know without playing one turn.

Just wanted to warn you. I do think you should be allowed to play one turn to find out this information (so I don't get another 1 turn TC), but I'm not a member of the court.

Ouch! Forgot entirely that the developers took away the ability to trade new stuff the same turn, to reduce the human advantage of chained trades. :mad:

I suggest doing only the trade and lightbulb, then end turn taking no other actions. That way we can see if the next trade is available without contaminating the remainder of the current turn. Alternatively, have the President add robboo to the DP pool, assign him the next play session, and play a real 1-turn session.

robboo
Aug 17, 2006, 11:15 AM
If I need to play 1 turn...I will be wiling to be added to the DP pool...and play 1 turn offline. I would then do the troop movements and things needed for that one turn. BUT if its legal I would rather just get the info we need by doing the trades and pressing enter and checking the trades possible letting the real DP do it all over again in a correct TC.

Mainly because I would have to wait for the offices to get me the info needed for that one turn. Bear in mind..I am out of town starting Sunday till Wed...it would have to be decided and instructions posted by early Saturday for me to do a "true" one turn TC. I was hoping to get the info post the poll before I leave so that we can have a TC as soon as possible. It sounds like I am pushing things to my schedule..but what I am trying to do is not have my schedule hold up trades or TCs.

robboo
Aug 18, 2006, 10:41 PM
Anyway for you guys to make a decision? SOON. Your lack of action has caused to have another short TC because there now is no way to see what our people want in time for the TC. I think we need to enact some sort of time limit of JRs.

Eklektikos
Aug 19, 2006, 05:06 AM
It wouldn't have made any difference this time around since I simply completely failed to notice the CJ's rejection/acceptance post at all, despite having opened this thread several times since it was posted. :crazyeye:

My apologies for the delay.

I concur with the Chief Justice's decision to accept the JR with the stated limitations of scope (which is what I understand the "rejection" to constitute - please set me straight if that is incorrect).

Nobody
Aug 22, 2006, 09:56 PM
*runs in* Dont think iv droped out yet.... *pant pant*.... my computer on frits could... *pant* .... post for a bit...


I concur with the chief justices decision.