View Full Version : Term 2 Judiciary - The Court at the Big Rock


ravensfire
Apr 02, 2007, 09:22 AM
Welcome to the Term 2 Judiciary - The Court of the Big Rock!

Yeah, that's us sitting under the shade of that really big boulder. Try to ignore the guy off to the side with that big stick next to him. We only use that for "trouble", like the last time the Mob tried to interfere with us. They were reminded that we take Judicial Indepence seriously!

We're all here to help, so please post any rules related questions here. If you've got something for us to review, please post it! Comments on current matters? Give 'em to us! Ultimately, the court's success depends on the participation of all citizens in its discussions.

The Court
Chief Justice - Ravensfire
Judge Advocate - Lockesdonkey
Public Defender - Octavian X

Useful Links:
Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206618)
Initiatives
Judicial Procedures (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5275738&postcount=2)
Current Docket (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5275748&postcount=3)
Current Initiative/Amendment discussions

Other offices:
Chieftain - Methos (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=214685)
Elder of NoneOfTheAbove - dutchfire (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=214793)
Elder of Falcon's Haven - robboo (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=215001)

Previous Judiciary Threads:
Term 1 - Court of the Big Rock (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=209635)

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

ravensfire
Apr 02, 2007, 09:23 AM
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 precedent, 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 Chieftain.
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 Chieftain.Rights and Duties of the Chief Justice

Post polls for amendments once they pass review
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 Judiciary shall review each request for merit. If any Justice determines the request has merit, it is accepted. The Chief Justice will post each accepted request, clearly denoting the questions for that Judiciary Review. 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.

The Chief Justice may also accept a request as one for a Temporary ruling. This process is for questions that may materially delay the Demogame, but would best be answered by an Initiative or Amendment. Once the ruling is made, the Chief Justice will open a discussion on creating an Initiative or Amendment. This ruling is in effect only until a relevant initiative is passed. Temporary rulings may, at the discretion of the Chief Justice, ignore the 24 hour rule above.

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

INITIATIVES DO NOT NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE JUDICIARY.

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.

Poll Invalidations
Poll Invalidations are used to allow bad polls to be cancelled. To invalidate a poll, any member of the Judiciary posts in the poll thread clearly stating that they are invalidating the poll and the reasons for the invalidation. This must happen within the time limits specified by law.

If a poll is invalidated, any citizen may request an appeal of that invalidation. This request must be done through a post in the official Judiciary thread. Once an appeal has been made, the appeal will be handled as a Judicial Review, with the sole question being "Should the poll in question be invalidated?". If 2 or more Justices vote to accept the poll as valid, it is immediately considered valid and in force.

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 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 in a trial poll, 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
Abstain
Other 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, sent via PM to the citizen, and posted 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 any suspension is to be determined by 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
Apr 02, 2007, 09:24 AM
Current Requests: (links to post accepting request)
None

Closed Requests: (links to post with court's ruling)
C4DG2JR3 - Can the Judiciary create a process for naming things? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5291774&postcount=23)
C4DG2JR4 - Must naming polls include a "None of the Above" option? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5291774&postcount=23)
C4DG2JR5 - Will the Court conduct a Judicial Review of the actions of all past and future Designated Players? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5291774&postcount=23)
C4DG2JR6 - Was the correct process for the naming of the Capital followed? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5365143&postcount=49)
C4DG2JR7 - Was the Naming Initiative violated when the DP's used descriptive, not generic names for the 2nd and 3rd cities? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5365143&postcount=49)
C4DG2JR8 - Do the Term Limits in the Election Act of 4000 BC conflict with Article B of the Constitution? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5385169&postcount=79)
C4DG2JR9 - May a citizen hold multiple elected office as the same time? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5385169&postcount=79)

ravensfire
Apr 02, 2007, 09:26 AM
Reserved for other court matters ...

ravensfire
Apr 02, 2007, 09:27 AM
:hammer: Court is now in session! :hammer:

I'd like to welcome both Octavian X and Lockesdonkey back to the bench! May we have another boring term!

Justices, please review the procedures for this term. They are the same as last term except for the section on poll invalidations, as that initiative has passed.

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

-------------------
Proposed Procedures

<Deleted to save space!>

Octavian X
Apr 02, 2007, 11:31 AM
Looks good, ravensfire - though, according to the first post, we're still the term 1 judiciary. :p

As for the procedures - they look fine as well. I would only suggest one change, at the moment. I think that we should keep a record of poll validation/invalidation decisions (with appropriate links to the poll and subsequent judgements in question) in a (preferably sticky) thread in the polls sub-forum - both for ease of record-keeping, and for the sake of setting an example for future polls by showing what the judiciary has found to be acceptable in past polls.

Lockesdonkey
Apr 02, 2007, 01:20 PM
Hello again. Honestly, I hope that this term is more boring than the last one. The judiciary is like a voyage: uneventful is pleasant.

ravensfire
Apr 02, 2007, 02:18 PM
Looks good, ravensfire - though, according to the first post, we're still the term 1 judiciary. :p
*whistles innocently*

As for the procedures - they look fine as well. I would only suggest one change, at the moment. I think that we should keep a record of poll validation/invalidation decisions (with appropriate links to the poll and subsequent judgements in question) in a (preferably sticky) thread in the polls sub-forum - both for ease of record-keeping, and for the sake of setting an example for future polls by showing what the judiciary has found to be acceptable in past polls.

Can do - I've updated the CJ duties to maintain a log of all poll invalidations and appeals.

With those changes, do the Judge Advocate and Public Defender find the procedures acceptable?

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

NKVD
Apr 02, 2007, 03:53 PM
so here I am with another request. I did a discussion for naming the elements of our empire. It's open since more than 4 days, never been closed.

only 4 people participated at suggesting names giving only a few. Since i'm the cartographer and needs to name geographical elements of my maps i need names. Usually cartographers would give names they would choose without asking. Of course I did make a poll for the naming of the oceans.

2 things: Could the judiciary make some sort of process so things cannot go un-named? like a poll with all suggestion without the "none of the above" option.

second: Actually in the amended constitution of the naming initiative absolutely nothing tell us to include "none of the above" in the polls. for the future can I make polls without that? Also if only one name is being seconded it would then become the only name in the poll right? if the none of the above option is not there it means the only seconded suggestion is the automatic winner... Am I right?

Gaidynne
Apr 02, 2007, 07:02 PM
To All Members of the Court:

I do hereby request a Judicial Review on the conduct (past and future) of the Designated Players for the Nation of Yasutan.

Specifically, what is required of a Designated Player following a game play session and have those requirements been complied with in the past? How can Designated Players comply with any requirements in the future?

I believe the pertinent portion of The Playing the Save Act is as follows:

"The game session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions, until a posted instruction says to hold the session or when the DP decides to end the session. Once a game session is over, the DP must post a summary of that session, a detailed log of their actions, and a save in the instruction thread and in the summary thread."
[Emphasis added.]

The Court might address points such as:

(A) Is the Designated Player required to post both a summary and a chatlog?

(B) What is required in a summary?

(C) What is required in a chatlog?

(D) When must the Designated Player comply with the post-session requirements?

(E) Can the Court point to any prior Designated Player post-session postings as adequate or inadequate?

Many thanks for the Court's attention to the request.

Respectfully,

Gaidynne

Octavian X
Apr 03, 2007, 01:48 PM
OK - Let's get going!

2 things: Could the judiciary make some sort of process so things cannot go un-named? like a poll with all suggestion without the "none of the above" option.

My initial reaction is: no, this is beyond the authority of the judiciary alone. Nothing requires us to name every single geographic element we happen to see; in fact, that would be an unnecessarily onerous requirement, though useful with those who have an interest in cartography. In my view, this isn't a particularly urgent matter either, so what power that the judiciary might have for temporary legislation is unneeded. There is nothing we can or should do, so I find this first request to have no merit.

If you want to change the law on this matter, your course of action is clear - sponsor an initiative to that end.

second: Actually in the amended constitution of the naming initiative absolutely nothing tell us to include "none of the above" in the polls. for the future can I make polls without that? Also if only one name is being seconded it would then become the only name in the poll right? if the none of the above option is not there it means the only seconded suggestion is the automatic winner... Am I right?

This isn't an official opinion, but I think the laws are pretty clear. Nothing forces anyone to include a 'none of the above' option in any polls. It is, however, an optional regulatory option placed in the polls to prevent the citizenry from being stuck with a bad name - an option that citizens such as myself appreciate, and the lack of which some may find unfair.

dutchfire
Apr 03, 2007, 01:52 PM
This isn't an official opinion, but I think the laws are pretty clear. Nothing forces anyone to include a 'none of the above' option in any polls. It is, however, an optional regulatory option placed in the polls to prevent the citizenry from being stuck with a bad name - an option that citizens such as myself appreciate, and the lack of which some may find unfair.

And some might want to repoll things when they find the polls unfair.

Octavian X
Apr 03, 2007, 01:54 PM
Now, as for Gaidynne's questions - this is an excellent list, which probably requires greater public attention then is often given to this thread. If my fellow justices would consent, I suggest that we move the discussion to a new thread in the citizen's forum.

Oh, and one more thing - I approve of the procedures as posted. :)

NKVD
Apr 03, 2007, 04:37 PM
And some might want to repoll things when they find the polls unfair.

well then they should go suggest some names...people called me unfair for my polls about Oceans...If I would have followed the constitution only one name was seconded. It means it would have been the only one in the poll, thus making it the instant winner.

NKVD
Apr 03, 2007, 04:41 PM
OK - Let's get going!




If you want to change the law on this matter, your course of action is clear - sponsor an initiative to that end.



this is what i'm saying...I dont need to change the law to come to my goal...I just have to follow the procedures and dont include "none of the above" so then people will probably be angry

ravensfire
Apr 05, 2007, 01:57 PM
Hey look - court business!

2 things: Could the judiciary make some sort of process so things cannot go un-named? like a poll with all suggestion without the "none of the above" option.
Sorry, NKVD, but as Octavian pointed out, that's beyond the powers of the Judiciary. Naming can be a pain at times, but things will eventually get named. As such, I find no merit for a Judicial Review in this request.

second: Actually in the amended constitution of the naming initiative absolutely nothing tell us to include "none of the above" in the polls. for the future can I make polls without that? Also if only one name is being seconded it would then become the only name in the poll right? if the none of the above option is not there it means the only seconded suggestion is the automatic winner... Am I right?
Again, I'll concur with Octavian. It's not required to be present. So yup, if there's just one name seconded, that's it if you so choose.

Again, I find no merit for a Judicial Review in this request.

Gaidynne also posted an excellent list of questions and concerns, many of which surely sent donsig whirling in delight that someone else shares some of his worries. My view for this Judiciary is to keep any efforts through Judicial Review to create "new law" to an absolute minimum, especially when the areas involved are broad or important. Clearly, matters around the save are important. Rather than use a Judicial Review that ultimately results in a few people answering the questions and concerns, I'll be starting a thread in the citizen's forum, with the intention of addressing those issues.

Thus, I find Gaidynne's requests to have no merit for a Judicial Review, but that a discussion on them should be started.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

ravensfire
Apr 05, 2007, 01:58 PM
this is what i'm saying...I dont need to change the law to come to my goal...I just have to follow the procedures and dont include "none of the above" so then people will probably be angry
Honestly, some people will find ways to be angry! Be firm, polite and respectful, and don't let their anger affect you too much.

If they truly don't like the name or the process, they can use an initiative to force a change in the name or the process.

-- Ravensfire

NKVD
Apr 05, 2007, 02:44 PM
Honestly, some people will find ways to be angry! Be firm, polite and respectful, and don't let their anger affect you too much.

If they truly don't like the name or the process, they can use an initiative to force a change in the name or the process.

-- Ravensfire

thank you...thats exactly wht I want...I want them to participate...The first names given on maps to certain places were rarely their definite one

Gaidynne
Apr 05, 2007, 05:34 PM
My view for this Judiciary is to keep any efforts through Judicial Review to create "new law" to an absolute minimum, especially when the areas involved are broad or important. Clearly, matters around the save are important. Rather than use a Judicial Review that ultimately results in a few people answering the questions and concerns, I'll be starting a thread in the citizen's forum, with the intention of addressing those issues.

Thus, I find Gaidynne's requests to have no merit for a Judicial Review, but that a discussion on them should be started.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Raven:

First, let me thank you for acknowledging my request for Judicial Review. I posted it a few days ago and while Octavian mentioned it on April 3rd, I was beginning to worry because none of the Judiciary had actually done anything yet. I am aware that there is no strict timeline imposed on Judicial Reviews but I think letting a Request for Judicial Review sit for more than a couple of days is dilatory.

Second, I respectfully disagree with the sentiment you state above (I quoted for easy reference). Or more accurately, I think that the principle you state is generally sound, but that it is inapplicable here. I would like the Judiciary to review what the Designated Players to date have done and to determine whether their conduct has complied with the existing law governing Playing the Save. I don't ask that you make new law, rather I merely want you to judge whether elected officials have complied with the law.

Accordingly, I ask that you re-consider my request for Judicial Review.

Many thanks,

Gaidynne

Lockesdonkey
Apr 05, 2007, 07:30 PM
In response to Gaidynne's statements, I would, speaking as a member of the Court, suggest that what has happened has happened and unless he can find a good reason as to why the actions of a given DP in the past are objectionable, we should not seek to rule on them when the option of presenting these concerns to the legislature is an option. If he, for whatever reason, believes this to be an issue for the judiciary rather than the legislature, then he can seek to find a specific where this has happened, wait for it to happen, or, if he so pleases, approach an individual--perhaps a member of the Bar Association who is also a DP--to engineer a test case to allow us to rule on this point of law with specificity (that is, we know what a nightmare scenario would look like, allowing a judgment to come down clearly).

Barring that, however, this Court has no business meddling in legislative affairs. I concur with the Chief Justice's opinion--for the time being at least--and conclude that this request does not bear merit.

I concur also with the Public Defender's opinion in the concerns brought up by the Chief Cartographer with regard to naming that while interesting they bear no merit.

--Lockesdonkey
Judge Advocate of the State of Yasutan

By the way, I'm on vacation for the next week, so...yeah. Do what you like, find a temporary replacement for me (I'm confident that anyone who wants the job will be competent to do it...it doesn't attract idiots), or not, go on, or not, it's up to the other justices.

Gaidynne
Apr 05, 2007, 09:46 PM
Lockes:

I may be mistaken, but I believe it is the Judiciary's job to determine whether a Citizen or a Citizen's action has violated existing Yasutan law.

I have posted a Request for Judicial Review. I have identified, specifically, the law at issue. I have asked whether that law has been violated. I purposefully did NOT identify the specific Elected Officials whom I feel violated the law -- because I didn't want to make this personal! If the Court requires that I post a second Request for Judicial Review with more specificity, including names of alleged offenders, I will do so. But I think it makes this process unnecessarily adversarial.

I agree with you that the Judiciary should not make laws. That is the legislative branch's job. But the Judiciary does have the sole responsibility for reviewing DG conduct to determine if it is compliant with our duly passed laws.

You suggest that a Judicial Review would be a nightmare and imply that it would allow a decision to come down early. I think you are mistaken. To date, there have been several Designated Player sessions. Each of those DPs had legal obligations following their game play. I have Requested that the Judiciary determine if they complied with those obligations. This matter is ripe for review, by YOU. This Court should not pass the buck to the Legislature. They make the laws; you determine if there have been violations.

Gaidynne

ravensfire
Apr 05, 2007, 10:46 PM
Gaidynne,

We do a couple of things - including both Judicial Reviews and handling requests for Investigations.

That said, my Court is being fairly strict about Judicial Reviews for various reasons. First and foremost, the Judiciary should be a last resort when a citizens sees some behavior that they object to. A quick review of your posts shows that you are concerned about this, and have posted in various instruction threads. Great! Perfect! That is, by far, the best way to change people's behavior. It's also the nicest.

Second, my Court is actively avoiding the types of JR's that you're requesting - large in scope and nature, seeking to judge categories of actions, not specific instances. In past DG's, these types of rulings have caused more problems than they have fixed. That's not how my Court will operate. We'll be glad to review or investigate specific instances that you might object to, but we won't do a bulk review of the nature that you are requesting.

The Court is here to review and investigate specific instances where mistakes might have been made, or violations occurred. We are not here to police actions, particularly not over "conduct (past and future)". That is the role of all Citizens, to monitor and comment on actions.

Respectfully, your request is beyond the scope of what the Judiciary should handle, and exactly in the scope of what a Citizen discussion is more. Those discussions, and your reminders, will have a far larger impact, and a much more positive impact, than a Judicial ruling. The Court is a large sledgehammer - we can fix many problems by swinging hard enough. But sometimes, a gentle tap, or a turn of a bolt is all that's needed.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

ravensfire
Apr 05, 2007, 10:49 PM
By unanimous decision, the Court has made the following decisions:

NKVD's requests (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5277671&postcount=9) for a Judicial Review about naming and naming polls has been found to have no merit.

Gaidynne's request (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5278250&postcount=10") Judicial Review on the actions of all prior and all future DP's after the save has been found to have no merit.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Octavian X
Apr 05, 2007, 11:18 PM
First, Lockesdonkey, tell Methos of your upcoming absence. He's the one with the authority to appoint a pro-tem Justice to fill in.

As for Gaidynne's request, I'm going to have to concur with my fellow justices. Yes, I agree that the matter is one worth investigating. However, the Judiciary is and always should be a court of last resort. Having three judges impose an opinion on the legislature may cause more conflict than harm, especially when the matter may easily be settled by public discussion and a poll, if necessary. Unless you've got a specific grievance against one of the Designated Players - in which case an investigation may legitimately be called - I don't believe a judicial review is necessary. Additionally, a review of past turn threads to determine if a fault occurred in the past by the judiciary seems too much like a witch hunt.

At this moment, as the matter is non-controversial (though still pressing), I must concur with my fellow justices and find no merit to the case.

I suggest, again, a thread in the citizens forum for discussion on the questions, which are all legitimate and will need to be answered in the future as our Empire grows larger, inevitably placing greater demands on our DPs. In fact, there's great potential fodder here for a new citizen's group, dedicated to setting good informal DP guidelines, and perhaps judging past performances along those guidelines.

Gaidynne
Apr 06, 2007, 12:32 AM
Raven:

I understand your point about the impropriety of using a Judicial Review to address a class of conduct. I think you may overstate your point, as there are many possible examples of such conduct which I bet your Court would leap to stop. Nonetheless, your effort to avoid Judicial Reviews may be a good idea in the long term. Time will tell.

Your suggestion that my concerns may be better handled by a forum discussion is less than satisfying. Like belly buttons, we all have opinions. And many times, I find other people's opinions about as useful as their belly buttons (meaning not at all). I think haggling over the issue in a forum and eventually polling the issue is time-consuming and wasteful. A more efficient way to deal with this 'legal' issue is to have the Court address it.

Existing Yasutan law mandates that DPs create a post-play summary. This Court exists to interpret law and determine whether it has been broken. Chatting with other Citizens about these things is possible, but probably unproductive as none of them has the right/ability to interpret the law. This Court has that obligation.

In the end, I will probably do what you hint at ... I will post a second Request for Judicial Review. I will name names and point out what I think are inadequacies and violations of the law. My preference was not to do so because I felt it was overly confrontational. But if this Court won't act unless confronted with a specific problem, I will get over my distaste and do it your way.

Respectfully,

Gaidynne

Joe Harker
Apr 11, 2007, 12:55 PM
I don't want to rock the boat but the current name of the capital is invalid as it did not achieve a majority decision which is require under law by the Naming Intative (sorry about spelling)
Please correct me if i am wrong and missed something out.(some how I am sure I have:lol: )

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=213530

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=208881

This is the first verison but the phrase, "If there is no majority decision, then the top three options, including ties, will be polled again." I do not believe has been removed.

donsig
Apr 11, 2007, 03:40 PM
Temporary stand-in donsig reporting for duty! :salute:

ravensfire
Apr 11, 2007, 04:54 PM
I don't want to rock the boat but the current name of the capital is invalid as it did not achieve a majority decision which is require under law by the Naming Intative (sorry about spelling)
Please correct me if i am wrong and missed something out.(some how I am sure I have:lol: )

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=213530

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=208881

This is the first verison but the phrase, "If there is no majority decision, then the top three options, including ties, will be polled again." I do not believe has been removed.

Without a full review, and just a quick glance, (translation, this isn't a ruling!)

You do appear to be correct. I would suggest requesting the Chieftain finish up the poll sequence, and only then, if nothing happens, come back to us, and we'll do a full review. First, though, ask the official in question to continue the process!

If my fellow Justices confirm this, I will state that this request has no merit in the immediate case, but may be revisited based on other actions.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice.

ravensfire
Apr 11, 2007, 04:56 PM
Temporary stand-in donsig reporting for duty! :salute:

Welcome to the bench!

Here's the key to the washroom, and THIS is the key to the Judicial bar. No, not the Lawyer's Bar, the Judicial bar. If you need anything else, that's where I'll be!
:beer:

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

donsig
Apr 11, 2007, 05:46 PM
If my fellow Justices confirm this, I will state that this request has no merit in the immediate case, but may be revisited based on other actions.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice.

My inclination is to go ahead with the review but will defer for now. While I agree that steps can be taken to resolve this without a review, I'd prefer to leave the review open and proceed under the assumption that the request for review can be withdrawn if the matter is settled out of court. I'd really like to hear what the other justcie has to say, and also would like to know if the plaintiff would like to withdraw the request or have it proceed.

Gaidynne
Apr 11, 2007, 06:31 PM
Raven:

I am perplexed by your unwillingness to carry out the Court's duties. There have been at least two requests for Judicial Review, and I think possibly more exist but am too lazy at the moment to look for them. For both my Request and JoeHarker's, specific violations of Yasutan law were brought to this Court's attention. Your response in both instances was not to undertake an appropriate review of the binding legal authority and to judge the offending conduct. Rather, you simply "passed the buck" to the Legislature and/or the Chieftain.

The Citizenry have elected a Court to deal with violations of the law. We have passed several laws. Citizens have come here to point out violations. And they get no action, other than a curt dismissal.

How do you respond?

Gaidynne

Methos
Apr 11, 2007, 07:04 PM
I would like to bring this to the attention of the court:

Turn 0, 1080 BC: Gold+Cows settled,

In regards to this:

II. Procedure for Naming a New City
On founding, a city will be given the temporary placeholder name: "City#1" (In the event that there is already a city holding that name, the new city will be named "City#2" and so on in numerical order as required).

The most recent DP failed to follow the law in regards to naming new cities as shown by the statement quoted at the top of this post.

I'm unsure how this should be handled, other than as Chieftain I should declare a statement in the next TCIT that the past DP's naming actions should be changed to that of City #1 in following the laws of our nation.

Edit: :blush: Yes, I realize I'm going against myself, but that does not change the legal facts of my actions. In truth, it also means that FH was illegally named by Falcon02 as well.

Edit #2: So legally we should rename FH as City #1 and Gold+Cows to City #2 until a proper polling result happens.

Methos
Apr 11, 2007, 07:50 PM
I would suggest requesting the Chieftain finish up the poll sequence,

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice.

Poll posted (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=216664)

ravensfire
Apr 11, 2007, 09:59 PM
How do you respond?
This Court reviewed the requests, and by a 3-0 margin, determined that it was not a matter for the court to handle.

Contrary to your desire, the Judiciary is NOT there to enforce the laws. We are not here to police the entire game. We are not here to create new laws. We are here to resolve questions of interpretation, and to conduct specific investigations as requested by citizens.

We have and will continue to refuse the vague and overreaching requests that you have made because they are beyond our scope. The role of policing the game, and ensuring that the rules are followed is the duty of all citizens. By far, the best approach to handling such matters is a gentle reminder, a PM to a person, or a direct post.

This is, ultimately, a game. People participate because they enjoy it. Carrying out a witch hunt, and hanging people for vandalism will kill this game. Reminding people, and allowing them to correct mistakes, when possible, keeps them informed, aware and interested.

If you have a specific matter that you wish to accuse a citizen of violating a law, as you have not yet done, please post specifics of the incident, and we will docket it as a request for Investigation.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

ravensfire
Apr 11, 2007, 10:00 PM
Poll posted (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=216664)

Thanks, Chieftain Methos!

Joe Harker - does this resolve your concern?

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

ravensfire
Apr 11, 2007, 10:11 PM
The most recent DP failed to follow the law in regards to naming new cities as shown by the statement quoted at the top of this post.

I'm unsure how this should be handled, other than as Chieftain I should declare a statement in the next TCIT that the past DP's naming actions should be changed to that of City #1 in following the laws of our nation.

Edit: :blush: Yes, I realize I'm going against myself, but that does not change the legal facts of my actions. In truth, it also means that FH was illegally named by Falcon02 as well.

Edit #2: So legally we should rename FH as City #1 and Gold+Cows to City #2 until a proper polling result happens.
Oops! It would appear that, at least for the most recent city, that you are correct! I would have to see if FH was founded before or after the Naming initiative was passed to see if that name too was incorrectly done.

If my fellow Justices agree, I think that an acceptable resolution to this would be, as you have already suggested, for you to post instructions to rename those cities to the required, neutral names.

Fellow Justices, is this acceptable to you? This would be treated as a JR, with a specific action ordered by us (Methos to instruct the city names to change).

Thoughts?

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Joe Harker
Apr 12, 2007, 03:47 AM
Thanks, Chieftain Methos!

Joe Harker - does this resolve your concern?

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Yes thanks
:D

Octavian X
Apr 12, 2007, 01:58 PM
My, this naming business is messier than I ever imagined it could be. I am tempted to ask the court to name the cities by Judicial fiat. :p

But, with Methos' most recent capital naming poll, the system appears to be on track once more. If it does not produce a majority, we move to one last, two-options only poll. This seems straightforward enough, and even though there appeared to some confusion surrounding the process to begin with, I don't think there's any need to stir up controversy with any Judicial action. Since things appear to be on the right track, I find no merit in the current controversy.

donsig
Apr 12, 2007, 03:32 PM
My, this naming business is messier than I ever imagined it could be. I am tempted to ask the court to name the cities by Judicial fiat. :p

There have been suggestions to give the judiciary the power to post game play instructions in order to rectify (if possible) acts that have been done contrary to our established rules and laws. Having been no effort made towards that end I have to agree with ravensfire's observation that the judiciary is not here to enforce rules.

At this point I also agree with Octavian X that judicial action is not required. I still hesitate to say this review has no merit since it seems clear the correct process was not followed. Given the fact that the correct process is now underway I think the proper procedure would be for the review request to be formally withdrawn.

In any event, if it is necessary that I make a determination of merit or no merit please let me know. Otherwise, I don't have anything else to say on the matter. :)

ravensfire
Apr 12, 2007, 03:55 PM
At this point I also agree with Octavian X that judicial action is not required. I still hesitate to say this review has no merit since it seems clear the correct process was not followed. Given the fact that the correct process is now underway I think the proper procedure would be for the review request to be formally withdrawn.

In any event, if it is necessary that I make a determination of merit or no merit please let me know. Otherwise, I don't have anything else to say on the matter. :)

donsig, I like that approach.

For now, the Court will table C4DG2JR6 (Was the correct process for the naming of the Capital followed?) pending completion of the naming process. At that time, the Court will ask Joe Harker if they wish to withdraw their request for Judicial Review.

C4DG2JR7 will also be tabled, pending action by the Chieftain to reset the names in the upcoming game session.

I thank donsig and Octavian for an innovative method to solve problems like this, where corrective action can be taken by an official and/or citizen without the need for significant Judicial action.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Methos
Apr 12, 2007, 08:18 PM
C4DG2JR7 will also be tabled, pending action by the Chieftain to reset the names in the upcoming game session.

Current instructions are in place to rename Gold+Cows as City #1.

I would have to see if FH was founded before or after the Naming initiative was passed to see if that name too was incorrectly done.

This needs to be looked into, as I may have to adjust my instructions pending your findings and rename FH.

In order to follow along with current legal proceedings if NotA's polling name is not completed, I will also by law have to rename our capital too.

Falcon02
Apr 12, 2007, 10:13 PM
If I'm not mistaken our Second city (Falcon's Haven) was founded after the City #1, #2,... standard was passed :blush:

At the time I saw no harm in it, as the City #1, etc. naming standard seemed like a very minor part of the initiative. The important thing, as I saw it was the nomination and polling process to determine the final name. I was also getting frustrated with the naming process for the Capital and didn't want to have a generic stand in for the next month.

In retrospec I do recognize one negative aspect to using a real name (particularly one that was intended for nomination) as a replacement for the number system, aside from deviating from specifics of the letter of the law.

Using a name that was to nominated as a placeholder, it can bias some people to use that name just for consistancy sake, and not because it's the name they like best... :sad:

And for that fact, and the bit of controversy stired by such a deviation from protocol, I apologize for this breach of protocol during my last turnchat.

ravensfire
Apr 13, 2007, 08:12 AM
Current instructions are in place to rename Gold+Cows as City #1.
Thanks!

This needs to be looked into, as I may have to adjust my instructions pending your findings and rename FH.
That city, as Falcon02 noted, was founded after the naming law passed, so if you would also rename it to a generic placeholder, it would be appreciated.

In order to follow along with current legal proceedings if NotA's polling name is not completed, I will also by law have to rename our capital too.
Probably a good idea as well, just to prevent a possible JR.

Thank you for your attention to this, Chieftain Methos!

-- Ravensfire

Lockesdonkey
Apr 15, 2007, 03:30 PM
I'm back, but I recuse myself from any reviews initiated during my absence on account of incompetence--it will be impossible for me to catch up properly.

Octavian X
Apr 15, 2007, 04:31 PM
I'm back, but I recuse myself from any reviews initiated during my absence on account of incompetence--it will be impossible for me to catch up properly.

Welcome back to the Bench! I wouldn't worry about anything - donsig performed admirably during your absence, and the subjects in question were more-or-less non-controversial.

Black_Hole
Apr 24, 2007, 06:34 PM
Request for Judicial Review
People of the court, I have come forth with a possible conflict in the law.

The Election Act of 4000 BC appears to be in conflict with the constitution.
The act states:

No citizen can be elected to the same office in more than two consecutive terms.

However, Article B of the Constitution states, in part:
All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
...
c. The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office
...


For example, if I am elected Chieftain two terms in a row, according to the election act, I cannot be elected to the office of Chieftain again. But Article B of the constitution states I am guaranteed the right to be eligible for public office.

I am aware this has been requested as a judicial review in previous demo games, however the conflict has never been removed from our laws.

Octavian X
Apr 24, 2007, 07:31 PM
Since I'm not ready to rule of this just let, let's start off with some discussion.

My initial reaction is that no, there is no conflict. Even though I am speaking as a government official who is about to be term-limited out of office, I think it's a reasonable restriction on elections to limit the power of incumbency. On top of that, if the candidate has been successful enough to win two consecutive terms, I should think that the citizens would be inclined to elect him again to another office, anyway.

ravensfire
Apr 24, 2007, 07:50 PM
I am aware this has been requested as a judicial review in previous demo games, however the conflict has never been removed from our laws.
It has been requested, and was reviewed in past DG. It was determined NOT to be a conflict.

As with Octavian, my initial reaction is that there is no conflict. In fact, my reaction was "Oh no. HOW many times do we have to go over this?!?" :crazyeye:

However, since we haven't actually had a decent review in a while, there's a week left in the term and with new candidates running for various Judicial offices, I find this request has merit, and will be docketed. Discussion to be held in the Judiciary thread.

DOCKETED - C4DG2JR8 - Do the Term Limits in the Election Act of 4000 BC conflict with Article B of the Constitution?

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

ravensfire
Apr 24, 2007, 07:52 PM
For now, the Court will table C4DG2JR6 (Was the correct process for the naming of the Capital followed?) pending completion of the naming process. At that time, the Court will ask Joe Harker if they wish to withdraw their request for Judicial Review.

C4DG2JR7 will also be tabled, pending action by the Chieftain to reset the names in the upcoming game session.


As both matters have been corrected to follow the legal process, C4DG2JR6 and C4DG2JR7 have been found to have no merit, as the matter has been resolved without court intervention.

The Court thanks all citizens involved for their patience and willingness to do things the right way.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

ravensfire
Apr 24, 2007, 08:05 PM
Black_Hole has come before the court asking:
The Election Act of 4000 BC appears to be in conflict with the constitution.
The act states:No citizen can be elected to the same office in more than two consecutive terms.
However, Article B of the Constitution states, in part:Quote:
All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
...
c. The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office
...
For example, if I am elected Chieftain two terms in a row, according to the election act, I cannot be elected to the office of Chieftain again. But Article B of the constitution states I am guaranteed the right to be eligible for public office.

This request for Judicial Review has been found to have merit, and has been docketed as C4DG2JR8.

Relevant laws:
From the Constitution:
Article A - Forms of Law

1. Governing rules shall consist of this Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented.
2. No rule, law or standard shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution or the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics Forums. Moderators may veto any such rules.

Article B - Citizens

1. A citizen is any member of the CivFanatics forums that participates in the Democracy Game in any way. Citizens are encouraged, but not required, to post in the Citizen Registry. Membership in the user group specific to this democracy game is required in order for a citizen to vote.
2. All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
1. The Right to Assemble
2. The Right to Vote
3. The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office
4. The Right to Free Speech
5. The Right to Free Movement
6. The Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial
7. The Right to Presumption of Innocence unless proven guilty
8. The Right of Representation
3. These rights may be limited by CivFanatics Center Forum Rules, which take precedence at all times.

Article D - Elections

1. Terms of service of all elected and appointed offices shall be determined in advance of the beginning of such term, as further defined by law.
2. All Election and other polls in which specific individuals are chosen by name shall be private polls, and not public polls.
3. The candidate with the highest vote total is the winner of an election poll, regardless of whether such vote total is a majority of votes cast or not.
1. Should two or more candidates tie for the most votes, as many runoff elections shall be held as needed to resolve the election, as further defined by law.


From the Election Act of 4000 BC
Section 1 - Elections
Conducting the affairs of Government in our system requires periodic elections. These elections allow citizen to chose their leaders based on their personalities, views and stated goals.

Terms of office will run from the first of the month to the last day of the same month, using GMT time. If the first term starts in the middle of a month, that term will not end until the last day of the subsequent month. No citizen can be elected to the same office in more than two consecutive terms.

Elections will be conducted by the official in charge of Election (called the EO). The EO will create nomination threads for each elected office, plus the Designated Player poll, 7 days prior to the end of the current term. After 3 days, the EO will post voting polls, one for each contested office, listing each candidate that has accepted their nomination in order of acceptance. These polls will be marked private, single-choice, and will be set to expire in 3 days.

Question for the Court to answer:
1) Do the Term Limits mentioned in Section 1 of the Election Act of 4000 BC violate Article A of the Constitution by contradicting Article B of the constitution?

Discussion is to be held in the Judiciary thread. Justices are requested to be ready to rule by Saturday, April 28th. Rulings may be posted any time after 9:00 pm (CDT) on April 25th.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Black_Hole
Apr 24, 2007, 08:42 PM
Since I'm not ready to rule of this just let, let's start off with some discussion.

My initial reaction is that no, there is no conflict. Even though I am speaking as a government official who is about to be term-limited out of office, I think it's a reasonable restriction on elections to limit the power of incumbency. On top of that, if the candidate has been successful enough to win two consecutive terms, I should think that the citizens would be inclined to elect him again to another office, anyway.
I agree that it is a reasonable restriction, however does that matter?
I don't think it matters how well thought or poorly thought out an initiative is if it violates the constitution.
I hope the justices rule on what the law says and not that the law makes sense.

I understand the argument that some will make:
"You can still run for other offices, so your right to be eligible to hold office isn't eliminated"
And they would be correct, it is not eliminated, however I don't believe an initiative should have the power to restrict rights in the constitution.

Take a hypothetical initiative:
"Only leaders can post in the government forum". This would restrict the right to freedom of speech, but not eliminate that right since citizens could still post in other forums.
My point being that initiatives should not be able to restrict constitution rights:
No rule, law or standard shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution or the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics Forums. Moderators may veto any such rules.

DaveShack
Apr 24, 2007, 08:47 PM
As a friend of the Court and a member of the Bar Association, I would like to suggest the following analysis for C4DG2JR8.

Constitution Article B.2.3, "The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office", should be interpreted to mean "The Right to be Eligible to hold some Public Office". A limitation on the number of consecutive terms an office can be held by a citizen does not generally limit the ability to hold some office. If this right were interpreted to prohibit any limitations on what offices a citizen can be eligible for, that interpretation would also require one citizen to be eligible to hold all offices at the same time.

Octavian X
Apr 25, 2007, 11:58 AM
I do see the point that Black_Hole is trying to argue, and certainly any attempt to restrict a citizen's rights should be carefully considered. However, I simply do not feel it appropriate, especially in this case, to take a strict reading of the Constitution into account. A to-the-letter interpretation, as DaveShack points out, has its own consequences.

Lockesdonkey
Apr 25, 2007, 01:13 PM
I concur with the Public Defender and Chief Justice, and rule that this has no merit.

CivGeneral
Apr 25, 2007, 02:18 PM
Question for the Court to answer:
1) Do the Term Limits mentioned in Section 1 of the Election Act of 4000 BC violate Article A of the Constitution by contradicting Article B of the constitution?
I hope no one minds that I comment since Octavian X did asked the future candidates to make a comment.

On my interperatations of these two pieces of the law. Neather of them contradicts each other. A citizen has a right to be ellegable to hold some public office is one school of thought that I have in mind when interpreting this law. The second is the definition of "consecutive" which by definition is defined as "Following, in succession, without interruption". However it does not bar a citizen who served two terms in one office to seek another.

Black_Hole
Apr 25, 2007, 06:45 PM
I concur with the Public Defender and Chief Justice, and rule that this has no merit.
Neither the Public Defender nor the Chief Justice ruled that this has no merit. They simply said they didn't think there was a conflict, but the Chief Justice decided to rule on this case anyway.

Black_Hole
Apr 25, 2007, 06:48 PM
As a friend of the Court and a member of the Bar Association, I would like to suggest the following analysis for C4DG2JR8.

Constitution Article B.2.3, "The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office", should be interpreted to mean "The Right to be Eligible to hold some Public Office". A limitation on the number of consecutive terms an office can be held by a citizen does not generally limit the ability to hold some office. If this right were interpreted to prohibit any limitations on what offices a citizen can be eligible for, that interpretation would also require one citizen to be eligible to hold all offices at the same time.
I don't believe we should be adding words into the constitution to make our lives easier. The people voted for the language in the constitution, not for that language including an extra word ("some"). So I would like to request that the justices rule on what is actually present in the law.

I also don't believe the justices should rule a specific way because the consequences of ruling according to the text would be undesirable.
The thing is it does limit ones right to be eligible to hold office! It doesn't eliminate their right, but it limits it.

DaveShack
Apr 25, 2007, 08:12 PM
English is a language which is full of implied words. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Bu ffalo_buffalo. for an extreme example.

The task the Court faces is determining whether this is a case where an implication is correctly part of the law, or if that is not the correct interpretation.

Real Life courts face a similar dilemma when interpreting real laws. Take the (US) Fourth Amendment. What is "unreasonable search and seizure"? Take the First Amendment -- what does it mean to "establish a religion"?

Courts must also weigh the impact of a restriction on an individual vs the benefit to society. It is quite reasonable, and very important, to consider the consequences of a ruling. There have been many previous decisions where the wider implications played a big part in the Court's deliberations. No need to reopen old wounds, so I'm not going to point one out, but it doesn't take much imagination to think of a decision where ruling the opposite way would have had huge consequences.

It is quite reasonable to disagree with the Court's opinion. If you did, it wouldn't be the first time that's ever happened. ;) There are other avenues to get what you want if this one doesn't produce results. :)

dutchfire
Apr 26, 2007, 08:41 AM
English is a language which is full of implied words. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Bu ffalo_buffalo. for an extreme example.


Indeed, for any n ≥ 1, the sentence buffalon is grammatically correct

:crazyeye:

ravensfire
Apr 26, 2007, 09:15 AM
:crazyeye:

Messed up, isn't it? This is what English majors do when they get bored ...

-- Ravensfire

fed1943
Apr 26, 2007, 09:47 AM
No doubt, I agree with the Court.

(While I do not agree with the Law, but that is irrelevant).

Best regards,

ori
Apr 26, 2007, 01:18 PM
I hereby ask the judiciary to invalidate this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5370927#post5370927).
Reason: it does not conform to the regulations of the Naming Initiative (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5198270#post5198270) on two points
a)one name that was not seconded is included in the poll
b)the discussion on Naming was open for less then 3 days instead of the minimum of 4 days specified there.

Methos
Apr 26, 2007, 03:14 PM
a)one name that was not seconded is included in the poll

I'm confused, what name are you talking about? Both Coppertown and Abstain were both seconded. If you talking about the None of the Above, I read that as in actual "I don't like any of the above choices".

b)the discussion on Naming was open for less then 3 days instead of the minimum of 4 days specified there.

This one I agree on. Procedures were not followed according to the law.

ori
Apr 26, 2007, 10:52 PM
I'm confused, what name are you talking about? Both Coppertown and Abstain were both seconded. If you talking about the None of the Above, I read that as in actual "I don't like any of the above choices".
robboo seconded abstain after I asked for invalidating and after the poll was posted.

Methos
Apr 27, 2007, 04:26 AM
robboo seconded abstain after I asked for invalidating and after the poll was posted.

My mistake. I failed to notice the timestamps. You're correct, at the time the poll was posted 'Abstain' hadn't been seconded. Both your reasons are legit IMO.

ravensfire
Apr 27, 2007, 10:27 AM
I hereby ask the judiciary to invalidate this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5370927#post5370927).
Reason: it does not conform to the regulations of the Naming Initiative (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5198270#post5198270) on two points
a)one name that was not seconded is included in the poll
b)the discussion on Naming was open for less then 3 days instead of the minimum of 4 days specified there.

After review, I have invalidated (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5374965#post5374965) the poll on naming our fourth city.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Hyronymus
Apr 27, 2007, 10:40 AM
That was swift and justified, I want to apologise once more for "screwing up". Now 4 days did pass but I suggest someone else creates the poll this time.

ori
Apr 27, 2007, 10:49 AM
That was swift and justified, I want to apologise once more for "screwing up". Now 4 days did pass but I suggest someone else creates the poll this time.
http://www.warofthering.net/ahobbitstale/characters/characters_ents.jpg
Don't be so hasty :p there is still one hour left and maybe someone seconds some other name :rolleyes: - I won't be online then, but if no one posts the poll by tomorrow morning I'll do it ...

DaveShack
Apr 27, 2007, 04:12 PM
I would like to request a judicial review on whether a citizen can hold multiple offices, by appointment.

The only law I can find which mentions a limit on muliple offices is the election law, which says only one nomination can be accepted.

Octavian X
Apr 27, 2007, 07:43 PM
First, let's get the old JR out of the way...

Ruling: C4DG2JR8

The provision on term limits is simple enough. The right to be eligible to hold public office does not particularly include the right to hold a specific office itself. Additionally, the initiative limiting a person to two consecutive terms presents a reasonable restriction imposed by the Legislature.

Therefore, I find that there is no conflict between the Election Act of 4000 B.C. and Article A of the Constitution.

-Octavian X
Public Defender

Octavian X
Apr 27, 2007, 08:01 PM
As per DaveShack's request, I do find merit with the question.

While I think there's merit here, I'm not quite ready to rule yet. While there is a clear limit to the number of offices for which a person can run, it doesn't look like anything really prevents the Chieftain from filling an empty elective post with a person who already has another office. Of course, it would seem that the potential negative reaction to such a move would prevent that from happening.

Our clear intent, I think, was to limit a citizen to one elected office, while leaving various appointive offices (like deputies and the like, or the cartographer and historian) were not bound to these limits. I'm not one who likes to rule based on the 'intent' of the founder, however.

That said, I think this presents the bench with an interesting opportunity. We've given ourselves the power to issue temporary rulings to define law for "questions that may materially delay the Demogame, but would best be answered by an Initiative or Amendment," and so far we haven't touched it. The question that DaveShack brings presents us with an interesting chance to test exactly how that process would work in the game.

ravensfire
Apr 27, 2007, 11:55 PM
Daveshack comes before the court asking:
I would like to request a judicial review on whether a citizen can hold multiple offices, by appointment.

The only law I can find which mentions a limit on muliple offices is the election law, which says only one nomination can be accepted.This request for Judicial Review has been found to have merit, and has been docketed as C4DG2JR9.

Relevant laws:

Article 2 of the Constitution

Terms of service of all elected and appointed offices shall be determined in advance of the beginning of such term, as further defined by law.
All Election and other polls in which specific individuals are chosen by name shall be private polls, and not public polls.
The candidate with the highest vote total is the winner of an election poll, regardless of whether such vote total is a majority of votes cast or not.
Should two or more candidates tie for the most votes, as many runoff elections shall be held as needed to resolve the election, as further defined by law. Section 2 of the the Election Act of 4000 BC
Nominations may be made by any citizen, for any citizen (including self-nominations) by posting in the Nomination thread for the office. Nominations may also be made via PM or posting an Election Office thread prior to the start of the election cycle if the citizen will be unavailable at that time. Citizens can only accept one nomination for an elected office. Nominations may be accepted by a post by the citizen in the nomination thread or by notifying the EO via PM or post in an Election Office thread. If they accept more than one nomination, the EO will try to determine which one is their preference. If the EO cannot, they will assume the most recent acceptance takes precedence.Section 2 of the Tribal Government Act of 4000 BC
Offices are vacant when one or more of the following conditions is met:
No citizen was elected to the office, at the conclusion of the election cycle
When the current office holder resigns for any reason
when the current office holder is absent from the game for more than 7 days without an explanation, as determined by the Judiciary
When an office is created in the middle of a term.

Vacant offices are filled by the Chieftain appointing a citizen to that office. If there is a designated deputy for an office, that citizen must be offered the office first. If the Chieftain office is absent, the Elders will collectively determine a new Chieftain.

All appointments to a vacant office are subject to a confirmation poll.Question for the Court to answer:
1) May a citizen simultaneously hold multiple elected offices?

Discussion to be held in the Judiciary thread.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

ravensfire
Apr 28, 2007, 11:16 AM
Comments on JR9:

Being the author of most of the relevant laws, I've got a pretty good insight as to the intent of the drafter. That intent has been the same that guided C3DG7 and C4DG1 - citizens can be elected to only one office. That's it. In this DG, we control that by simply limiting how many nominations you can accept. It's kinda hard to get elected to multiple offices, when you can only be in one race!

The goal is to prevent someone from having multiple offices when there are other citizens interested in holding office. A secondary goal is to make sure that, when there are open offices after an election, we aren't hampering the ability of the Government to function by preventing motivated citizens from helping out.

I believe that the restriction is only that a citizen can be elected to one office, and that our ruleset permits a citizen to hold multiple offices via the appointment process.

-- Ravensfire, citizen

donsig
Apr 28, 2007, 11:31 AM
I would like to offer the following:

Section 2 of the Tribal Government Act, an act that deals specifically with with vacancies and appointments to government office, does not restrict holders of other government positions from being appointed to a vacancy. As long as no other law forbids holding multiple offices there is legal justification to it.

donsig
Friend of the Court by the Big Rock

Lockesdonkey
Apr 29, 2007, 11:15 AM
Ruling on docket number C4DG2JR8:

I accept Octavian X's analysis of this particular point of law. The intent of the law clearly is not to allow any person to hold any office, but rather to allow any person to hold an office. Note the absence of the "y."

I would also advise the filer of the complaint not to worry.

Ruling on docket number C4DG2JR9:

The law on this point is annoyingly perverse, because while one cannot be elected to multiple elective offices on account of the limitation on nominations, it appears that one can, in theory, be appointed to a vacant elected office. It should be noted that I see no problems with a person holding both an elective office (e.g. Chieftain) and a solely appointed office (e.g. Cartographer).

While I accept Ravensfire's analysis that the intention of the law was not to allow anyone to hold two elected offices, I cannot accept that anything in the law forbids a holder of an elected office to be appointed to another elected office, so if there is a tie in the election for, say, Elder of NotA, and the Chieftain decides that he/she wants to appoint himself or herself to that job until the runoffs are over, I see no legal reason for the Chieftain not to do so. However, I think that policywise it's a bad idea, and I would advise the Court, upon meeting after the election, to issue a standing injunction against elected officials holding other elective offices by appointment.

Yours, etc.:
Lockesdonkey, Judge Advocate and Public Defender-elect

Octavian X
Apr 29, 2007, 04:20 PM
Ruling: C4DG2JR9

I concur with Justice Lockesdonkey's analysis - the law clearly forbids a person for participating in multiple elections, but does not prevent a person from actually holding multiple elective offices. That said, at the moment, this is perfectly acceptable, legally speaking.

It is not, however, a good course of action. To that end, if the Chief Justice will accept the request, the Court should consider an injunction against holding multiple elective offices, filled either through election or appointment due to vacancy.

-Octavian X
Public Defender

ravensfire
Apr 29, 2007, 11:45 PM
Summary:
The Term Limits clause of the Election Act of 4000 BC does not conflict with Article B of the Constitution.

Relevant Law:
The relevant laws have been quoted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5365193&postcount=50).

Citizen Comments:
Thanks to Black_Hole, DaveShack, Octavian X, CivGeneral and fed1943 for their comments on this Judicial Review.

Analysis:
The truly relevant phrase here is “eligible to hold an office”.

The rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution are some of our most important rights – ensuring that citizen can speak their minds and run the government (to grab just a few!). The Constitution also guarantees that ultimately, the power to make decisions belongs to the people. Going way, way back in time, the people did speak on term limits (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=195707), and said that they wanted limits on them.

The current Term Limit clause limits the ability of a citizen to be elected to the same office more than two terms in a row. The citizen can be appointed to the office any number of time. The citizen can also wait a term, then run for the office again. The citizen is also eligible to run for any other office, should they be barred from running for a certain office due to term limits.

That last part is key – citizens affected by the term limit clause can still run for any other office, just not that one. The Constitution guarantees the right to hold Public Office, but not the right to run for every office. So long as a citizen is eligible to hold a public office, that requirement is met. This would also hold true to defeat arguments that the single nomination clause is invalid.

Ruling:
I find that the term limits clause of the Election Act of 4000 BC does not conflict with Article B of the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

ravensfire
Apr 29, 2007, 11:46 PM
Summary:
Citizens may be appointed to an elected office, even if they currently hold an elected office.

Relevant Law:
The relevant laws have been quoted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5377036&postcount=72).

Citizen Comments:
Thanks to Octavian, Ravensfire and donsig for their comments.

Analysis:
I find that I agree with my colleagues on this – the laws are fairly obtuse on this matter. The irony is rather thick here, as I am the crafter of those very laws!

What is clear, is that citizens are prohibited from accepting more than one nomination per election cycle. This nicely limits the number of offices a citizen can be elected to just one. The Election Act speaks no further on this subject.

The next obvious place to look is the act covering appointments. With the appointment process being covered here, surely it will say something about this. It it, unfortunately, silent on if citizens can be appointed to an elected office if they already hold one.

Ruling:
Given the generally permissive nature of our rules, I decline to take a strict view of this, and find that a citizen already holding an elected office may be appointed to another elected office.

Addendum:
As both my colleagues noted, this is a area of the rules that should be cleared up. As such, I will start a discussion on this in the morning to identify the preferences of the citizens, and amend the rules as needed. I decline, however, to issue any temporary rulings prohibiting this, as this matter will not delay the DG.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

ravensfire
Apr 30, 2007, 09:02 AM
The court has made the following rulings:

C4DG2JR8 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5365193&postcount=50)

By unanimous decision, the court rules that the Term Limits clause of the Election Act of 4000 BC does not conflict with Article B of the Constitition, and thus is constitutional.

C4DG2JR9 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5377036&postcount=72)

By unanimous decision, the court rules that citizen holding an elected office may be appointed to another elected office. The court also directs Ravensfire to begin a discussion on this matter to determine if an amendment is needed to clarify this situation.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice