I'm not in the mood to change anything of importance in terms of procedure, so I'm copying the header from the Term 3 Judiciary.

:hammer: The Supreme Court of Yasutan - Term 5 :hammer:

"Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the State of Yasutan, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the court is now sitting. May the ancestors save Yasutan and this honorable court."

Welcome to the opening of the Fifth Session of the Court of Yasutan! After that peculiar epoch in which our existence was barely recognized, we finally got our act together, and have a pleasant building between the chambers of the National Assembly and the State Khural. It's still a little dusty from the construction, but I must say that these leather-covered chairs are amazing...and there's still a little drawer under the Judge Advocate's desk to hide the doughnuts. We still don't have a decent view...the idiot donor who provided the funds insisted on stained glass. You win some, you lose some.

The Justices of the Court welcome all citizens to the bench, whether to ask questions of the law or bring official business before our attention. We hope the serve the citizens of this nation to the best of our abilities.

Members of the Court
Chief Justice: Lockesdonkey (http://forums.civfanatics.com/member.php?u=48886)
Public Defender: Nobody (http://forums.civfanatics.com/member.php?u=2194) (by appointment)
Judge Advocate: Ori (http://forums.civfanatics.com/member.php?u=74768[/url)

Useful Links
The Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206618)
The Government Structure (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=208757)
Office Tracker (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=210328)

Archive
The Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=219694)
Term 1 Judiciary (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=209635), The Honorable Chief Justice ravensfire Presiding
Term 2 Judiciary (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=215040), The Honorable Chief Justice ravensfire Presiding
Term 3 Judiciary (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=219803), The Honorable Chief Justice Octavian X Presiding
No judicial decisions were taken in Term 4.

You really didn't think that I'd forget to post the procedures, did you?

Term 5 Court 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 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, at his discretion, move discussion on a Judicial Review currently under consideration to a separate thread in the Citizen's Forum, in order to attract attention to an important discussion, or to insure clarity of discussion if multiple requests are simultaneously under review.

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 rulings MUST, however, be posted in public, either in the Judicial thread or in designated Judicial Review discussion threads.

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 canceled. 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.

Judge Advocat is on board and subscribing to this thread. :salute:

The Yasutan Supreme Court has not even yet been in session and we have already received a request for Judicial action on this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229483):

I object!

"Change civics" without any kind of indication of what to change them to is not an actionable instruction. As a citizen I request it be marked invalid.

For a review:
The Poll Invalidation Act (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=214451) is not very specific on the grounds for invalidation, just on the procedure. We do not as of now have rules about what constitutes an unfair/invalid poll, so we are left with rather subjective decisions.

I'll summarize my thoughts here:
The poll in question asks whether a change in civics is to be done, without specifying which civics are to be changed. This is left to another poll.
Now this in itself is not an actionable poll, however citizens are asked to poll on a major game choice without being given a chance to weigh different civics choices against no civics change, thus depriving them of an important choice once the specific civics changes are polled.

I tend towards seeing merit in the request for invalidation, but would ask the other members of this court for their review as well.

nobody is here

The Yasutan Supreme Court has not even yet been in session and we have already received a request for Judicial action on this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229483):


After reviewing the DaveShack's request I deemed the said poll to be invalid and have decided to go on without further input from either of my esteemed colleagues, since the invalidation would only have been possible for a further few hours.

After reviewing this request I declare this poll invalid.

Reason: This poll is written in a way that deprives citizens of
important choices in a matter that can have great impact on the further game. By just giving a choice between change or no change this poll could be used to force changes in a subsequent poll that are not desirable to the majority of citizens.
Also by itself this poll does not allow for a choice for any game action ("Change Civics" is not actionable, "Change Civics to XXX" would be), so that citizens cannot decide on a choice and know in what game action this choice will result. Overall this poll seems to be unfairly worded and thus should be invalidated.

Now, the Poll Invalidation Act (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=214451) does give specific instructions on how to invalidate a Poll, but what constitutes an invalid poll has never been specified (neither have we rules on what a valid poll would be). A broader discussion about this might be in order.

The Poll Invalidation Act (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=214451) stipulates that any citizen who does not agree with the invalidation of this poll may appeal this decision to the full Judiciary within 24 hours of this post. Such an appeal has to be posted in the Judiciary thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229585) for this term.

Sorry, I got busy today...you know, the day before the Fourth and so on...lots of family in town...

Retroactively, I approve ori's decision.

I would like the judiciary to review the Kill the longbow poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229779) for invalidation and or interpretation of its results.

Specifically, I think this poll should be invalidated because killing the longbow is not something that can be guaranteed, especially by one unit. (The poll specifies the available full-strength keshik.) An instruction to attack the longbow is valid but one to kill the longbow is not.

Now, if the court decides that in the context of this poll that kill means attack and upholds the validity of the poll I further request a ruling on what exactly it is that is required by the poll. Specifically, does the poll require just an attack by the the available full-strength keshik or must other available units also attack the longbow in an effort to kill it? Finally, who is (or is not) allowed to post any required instructions pertaining to this poll if its validity is upheld?

Thank you,
donsig
a concerned citizen

Edit: I have also asked for a delay in the game play session (here) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229755) and so would appreciate a timely ruling in this matter.

Did you really have to do this on the Fourth...? ;)

This is really a confusing point of law, because as I see it, there are two issues. The first issue is whether the title of the thread, the question in the box immediately on top of the poll options, or the question in the text of the first post takes precedence, because the OP does in fact specify the Keshik. In other words: Do we trust our citizens to read the OP before making the vote? I think the answer is yes, though no doubt when the time comes to actually issue a ruling, I will enter a warning into the decision to ensure that future polls are not so ambiguous.

The second issue is whether the votes should be invalidated on account of Dave_Shack's uncharacteristically poor choice of words in describing that was being voted on. While at first this seems like semantic nitpicking, it is possible that some voters expect that the Keshik will, rather than might, kill the Longbowman, thus providing grounds for invalidation.

I will not, of course, hand down a ruling until the remainder of the Court has seen the case. Nor am I unwilling to ultimately decide that the case has no merit...I just know that ori, at least, is not going to be online today (I wouldn't be either, but for a few bizarre occurrences), and I think it best to have his opinion, as well.

donsig, I agree to grant the stay of gameplay pending the resolution of this matter, though I'm not sure that it will matter.

I would like the judiciary to review the Kill the longbow poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229779) for invalidation and or interpretation of its results.

Specifically, I think this poll should be invalidated because killing the longbow is not something that can be guaranteed, especially by one unit. (The poll specifies the available full-strength keshik.) An instruction to attack the longbow is valid but one to kill the longbow is not.

Now, if the court decides that in the context of this poll that kill means attack and upholds the validity of the poll I further request a ruling on what exactly it is that is required by the poll. Specifically, does the poll require just an attack by the the available full-strength keshik or must other available units also attack the longbow in an effort to kill it? Finally, who is (or is not) allowed to post any required instructions pertaining to this poll if its validity is upheld?

Thank you,
donsig
a concerned citizen

Edit: I have also asked for a delay in the game play session (here) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229755) and so would appreciate a timely ruling in this matter.

You know what he meant with the poll, He meant should we send the available full-strength keshik to attack and hopefully kill the longbow outside berlin.

Finally, who is (or is not) allowed to post any required instructions pertaining to this poll if its validity is upheld?

thats a real question, lets have a judical review.

Frankly, I do not have a problem with the said poll itself.


Kill the Longbow?


is not the best choice of words, but people should understand that it means "attack", also the OP for this poll specifies the way of attacking the Longbow:

Should we immediately send the available full-strength keshik to kill the longbow outside Berlin?

Yes
No
Abstain

This poll will be open 3 days or until the next play session, whichever comes first.

Link to discussion thread.

Thus this poll asks "Should we immediately send the available full-strength keshik to kill the longbow outside Berlin?" Yes/No/Abstain
The result (unless there is tie) should be simple and the DP will get the instruction accordingly "Attack the Longbow with the Keshik immediately / Don't attack the Longbow with the Keshik".
So regarding the question whether this poll is invalid without looking at the ensuing discussion: I'd say no it is not.
That said: I do not like the discussion about how to interpret the poll in the poll thread:
Any tactical move which results in the longbow's death prior to the current EOT is acceptable. Any move which allows the longbow a path to the city at EOT is not acceptable. A poll's originator is free to issue binding instructions which implement the poll's result, and such instructions would overrule any other instructions on the same subject.
Here the poll's originator tries to rephrase his OP and thus the poll question:
"Should we attack the Longbow immediately?" is NOT "Should we attack the Longbow with the Keshik immediately" I don't bother to quote the rest of the discussion but in effect this lead to a dispute on who has the right to interpret a badly worded poll - or in other words: If the poll question and the poll OP are not identical and can be interpreted differently, which one takes precedent?

This should be reviewed by this court a citizen's initiative that defines what is a good poll....

But first to donsig's other request: this is simple (and not simple ;) ) the Playing the Save Act (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=207423) clearly states that a citizen may issue a directive pertaining to a completed initiative. The Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206618) clearly states that such an initiative supersedes all other decisions by anyone (aka Officials ;) ).
Now neither of them limits the power of issuing directives derived from a poll to the citizen who posted the poll. Thus any citizen can post directives and should those directives be in conflict with each other they may call for a judicial review of those different interpretations of a poll result.

Now for my view on interpreting a poll question:
A poll question often is an abridged and/or paraphrased form of the question put forward in the OP for a poll. Forms like "Do you agree with this and that in the OP?" are easy, since they do not open other ways of interpreting a poll. In the case of the poll in question this is not as easy, since "kill the longbow" can be achieved in different ways, while "attack the longbow with the healthy keshik immediately" cannot. If asked what an affirmative poll result would be, I would argue that the poll clearly states that:

The Longbow is to be attacked with the healthy keshik immediately. NOT the Longbow is to be killed by any means and the keshik is just an example on how to do this.
(Thus I think the poll poster posted a bad poll in content - but that is up to the citizens to decide).

If on the other hand I had to rule on what a negative result would mean, Id still say:

Do use the healthy keshik immediately to attack the Longbow. NOT do not attempt to kill the Longbow by any other means.

In conclusion:
1) The poll in question is badly phrased, but the poll question and the accompanying OP give a clear, simple and fair choice in a very specific question. Thus I would deem the poll valid.
2) The Rules of this Demogame are clear on who can post instructions pertaining to this poll: Any citizen can.
3) If a poll question and a poll OP are worded in a way that allows conflicting interpretations between them, the OP should take precedence
I would uphold 3) only if the OP has not been significantly edited after posting the poll - in fact the fact that only mods can alter a poll question is a very valid argument for the poll question and not the OP taking precedence, but I am inclined otherwise.

ceterum censeo: we need a binding ruling by the citizens on what is and/or is not a valid poll ;)



Anyway we haven't had many serious legal problems since "Naming-Gate", so your job shouldn't be too hard.
@dutchfire: don't make soothsaying your profession :p

@dutchfire: don't make soothsaying your profession

That has been noted, I leave for a week and there's a dozen polls waiting for me, including some "dubious" ones.

The Justices have posted their views on the longbow poll, but there is an indefinite stay of play until it is ruled on. Perhaps this can be finished off?

The Justices have posted their views on the longbow poll, but there is an indefinite stay of play until it is ruled on. Perhaps this can be finished off?

None of my esteemed colleagues has deemed the said poll to be invalid and now that it has closed, the time specified for invalidation has lapsed.
I would therefore argue that this part of the review has been concluded by the court not taking any action. Thus this court deemed the said poll valid.
I do not believe that the TC should be stayed any longer.

With regards to the rest of the review:
I vote for affirming the rules set down by the Playing the Save Act, namely that any citizen may issue an order pertaining to the results of a valid poll.
I vote for affirming the precedence of the (unedited) OP over the poll question, thus the poll in question requires the DP to immediately send the available full-strength keshik to kill the longbow outside Berlin

I ask my esteemed colleagues to post their views on this and ask the Chief Justice to lift the stay on the current TC.

I definitely vote to lift the stay.

I believe that since the question of invalidation is moot, the Court does not need to actually rule on this matter.

I definitely vote to lift the stay.

I believe that since the question of invalidation is moot, the Court does not need to actually rule on this matter.


Now, if the court decides that in the context of this poll that kill means attack and upholds the validity of the poll I further request a ruling on what exactly it is that is required by the poll. Specifically, does the poll require just an attack by the the available full-strength keshik or must other available units also attack the longbow in an effort to kill it? Finally, who is (or is not) allowed to post any required instructions pertaining to this poll if its validity is upheld?

Since the request for a review specifically asked about
a) who may issue an instruction regarding this poll
and
b) how this poll should be interpreted

I would argue that we should still rule on this even if only to clarify matters for future polls...

Our current DP recently moved a keshik outside of the turnchat and learned the correct % chance of winning versus the longbow. Due to this being against the rules, the mod Dave Shack (not the citizen) removed the post so as not to contaminate the game. Unfortunately, it appears to have already happened.

I therefore bring it before the courts the request, that the move that Joe Harker made with the Keshik be made mandatory as his first move when playing his turnchat. This will make it so that any information we have already learned not contaminate the game any further, as it appears it already has.

I am not seeking legal action against citizen Joe Harker. I am merely seeking that his move be forced upon us.

Thank you,
citizen Methos

Edit: I apologize that I cannot link the post, as it has been removed by a mod. There are currently many other posts that are based off of that information throughout several threads.

Yes, Joe Harker is a good man, and should not be punished.
Knowing the exact odds, we would have learned in a turnchat anyways.

IMO this issue has been solved, there has been NO spoiler information, everything could have been learned in world builder too.

everything could have been learned in world builder too.

You are correct, but the problem is, it wasn't. During the discussion and poll no one attempted to research it using WB. It wasn't until after the poll was closed and illegal actions were taken that the information was learned. Now that it has come out this information was learned illegally, players are seeking legal ways to learn it. This isn't even legal in a court of law (at least here in the US).

We're already seeing players seeking alternative moves even though they go against a binding poll that was recently made.

Let us let our courts decide.

I suggest setting up a new poll, undoing the infamous longbowman poll.

I'd hold off on all actions until the court decides, if we move to quickly we may unintentionally wander into illegal territory ourselves. Joe sure is getting an interesting turnchat for his first time :)

I suggest setting up a new poll, undoing the infamous longbowman poll.

Under what reason? You have no legal reason to do so. You would be basing that poll off of information that was learned illegaly, thereby making your own poll invalid.

I suggest waiting until the courts decided. Realize that the topic has been brought before the courts, therefore others can seek their guideance as well.

Joe sure is getting an interesting turnchat for his first time :)

That sure is the truth! :lol:

The smartest the judiciary can do now, if they are more mongols than tunnelsighted lawyers, is to deem illegal the infamous longbowman poll, and let us move the keshiks NE of Berlin instead. This would be a clean cut, and a wise decision with what we know now.

I do not think the territory of testing out the odds for a particular move is illegal. This is a game technical numeric thing, people could have researched elsewhere. What fooled me, was Daveshacks insistence that the keshiks terrain bonus, also worked on military odds, which was wrong.

So, being gamers above barristers, I suggest to nulify the longbowman poll (rendering the other longbowman automatically void) and just move the damn keshiks.

Joe sure is getting an interesting turnchat for his first time :)

:lol: :cry: :blush:

I think that sums up my feelings! :)

Under what reason? You have no legal reason to do so. You would be basing that poll off of information that was learned illegaly, thereby making your own poll invalid.

I suggest waiting until the courts decided. Realize that the topic has been brought before the courts, therefore others can seek their guideance as well.



That sure is the truth! :lol:

AFAIK it's entirely legal under our laws to have a new poll supercede an older one, for whatever reason.

The smartest the judiciary can do now, if they are more mongols than tunnelsighted lawyers,

IMO they better be tunnelsighted lawyers, as that is the reason they hold their current position.

is to deem illegal the infamous longbowman poll, and let us move the keshiks NE of Berlin instead.

By what legal right could they do that? There is no valid reason to do so.

I do not think the territory of testing out the odds for a particular move is illegal.

Neither do I, but the actions were illegal and are against our DG rules.

So, being gamers above barristers, I suggest to nulify the longbowman poll (rendering the other longbowman automatically void) and just move the damn keshiks.

:lol: I'm not sure this is how you really feel, or if your just trying to act like a Mongol! :lol:

It is up for the courts to decide now.

Our current DP recently moved a keshik outside of the turnchat and learned the correct % chance of winning versus the longbow. Due to this being against the rules, the mod Dave Shack (not the citizen) removed the post so as not to contaminate the game. Unfortunately, it appears to have already happened.

I therefore bring it before the courts the request, that the move that Joe Harker made with the Keshik be made mandatory as his first move when playing his turnchat. This will make it so that any information we have already learned not contaminate the game any further, as it appears it already has.

I am not seeking legal action against citizen Joe Harker. I am merely seeking that his move be forced upon us.

Thank you,
citizen Methos

Edit: I apologize that I cannot link the post, as it has been removed by a mod. There are currently many other posts that are based off of that information throughout several threads.

6 days into the term an 3 reviews? nice :rolleyes:
Anyway, since I don't have access to the game at the moment: is it still possible for the DP to follow the result of the Longbow poll? I.e. can that keshik attack the longbow even if the said move is being made mandatory? I would be extremely unhappy if we would be asked to legalize a rule break that would lead to effectively overruling a valid poll result...

Edit: oh and I love tunnelsight - you know I have been spending the better part of the last three years looking through a microscope :p

Note: This didn't actually happen during a turnchat (the turnchat will only be monday AFAIK), the respective player was just checking the game.

Or , just let Joe suicide the keshik across the bridge and we can name the battle "Charge of the Citizens" as a reminder for future poll purges. This is by far the simplest solution, and it costs us 1 keshik.

One more thing, since I for my part won't be able to spend much more time online today:
In light of this I think we should keep the stay on this TC.
I am sure we'll be able to resolve this before Monday, but I don't want to rush this either. Might have to look at the game after all ;)

As I recall by Joe's description of the move the keshik will still be able to attack across the river in immediately per the instructions from the valid longbowman poll.

6 days into the term an 3 reviews? nice :rolleyes:

I was wrong:


I'm seeking that this poll be considered invalid. The mention of creating this poll was not brought up until information was gained through illegal actions.

And:

As a citizen I request this poll nullified by the Justices. The poll lasts till 8 of April, which is far too late in the process before the turnchat. This ill conceived move has to end. So I request this poll nullified.

So make it 5 in 6 days. Now this TC will have to wait a bit... Also: please anyone making a review request: Post them in the Judiciary thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229585) I don't want to accidentally find requests :mad:;)

I, Methos, citizen of our great nation, ask that this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5648460&posted=1#post5648460) be invalidated. This poll did not appear until after information was gained through means against our Constitution. The poster has also stated on many occaisions to alter our actions based off this information. For this reason I feel this poll should be considered invalid, as it's basis is on actions that go against our Constitution.

I will post an article, showing I got this information from another source. These are game technical rules, not specific game secrets.

I request the second longbowman poll invalidated for the following reasons.

1. The orders giving in the turnchat thread was submitted for this deadline, polls posted past the official deadline for a turnchat should be declared non-valid, my poll on reversing the poll included

2. The topic was not discussed in a thread for long, and no player requested this from the warlord directly, not until AFTER the official turnchat time

3. The second longbowman poll came as a result of allegedly illegal information, information that the odds would be lowered due to the river penalty (If the poll was honorable, it would have come long before).
This came up as a direct consequence of wanting to mitigate the increased risk of a river crossing Joe Harker brought to light.

4. Not enough time was given to discuss the second longbowman poll.

On that note, I also beg to retract my own poll, which is illegal for the same reasons stated in Reason 1.

In a law for polls I suggest we have official thread discussion times for a poll to take place, or we get a system of brutal challenger polls, undermining larger scale planning. If brutal challenger polls become the accepted norm, I will embrace it as any other tool in the political arsenal.

Anyone else finding it hard to locate specific posts? :confused:

2. The topic was not discussed in a thread for long, and no player requested this from the warlord directly, not until AFTER the official turnchat time

According to our Constitution, they don't have to submit it to the official. It's one of the powers of a Citizen.

3. The second longbowman poll came as a result of allegedly illegal information, information that the odds would be lowered due to the river penalty (If the poll was honorable, it would have come long before).

Okay, I can't seem to find the post, but the OP of said 2nd poll showed proof he brought his desire and statements up prior to the release of illegal information. Therefore this point is invalid.

I request the second longbowman poll invalidated for the following reasons.

1. The orders giving in the turnchat thread was submitted for this deadline, polls posted past the official deadline for a turnchat should be declared non-valid, my poll on reversing the poll included[QUOTE]

The turchat has been delayed by previous litigation and had been rescheduled to begin on Monday the 9th, the poll you are asking to invalidate ends on Sunday the 8th, the only requirement for information before a TC is that all orders must be submitted at least one hour before the start of the TC, this poll gives sufficient time, and even failing that there is a precedent of using incomplete poll results to indicate a constituency in favor of a proposed action.

[QUOTE]2. The topic was not discussed in a thread for long, and no player requested this from the warlord directly, not until AFTER the official turnchat time

Once again the official turnchat time is Monday the 9th, that hasn't happened yet. As of now there is no standard on how much discussion is required for a poll to be created, by this standard the unit naming poll is invalid. The intention of this poll was to follow up the first about an important issue that was not specified clearly, all discussion of the first longbowman poll is also relevant to this one as it is asking about the same issue. As Methos has also said there is no requirement to submit a poll to the warlord before creation either.

3. The second longbowman poll came as a result of allegedly illegal information, information that the odds would be lowered due to the river penalty (If the poll was honorable, it would have come long before).
This came up as a direct consequence of wanting to mitigate the increased risk of a river crossing Joe Harker brought to light.

Incorrect, the 2nd longbowman poll came as a result of the warlord not considering this option, and I not knowing if other citizens like myself supported this move. As you can see in this thread, and as I've already stated to you once.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5648343#post5648343
The intention to create the poll came before Joe released his information, I then created the poll immediately after posting my intention to do so.

If brutal challenger polls become the accepted norm, I will embrace it as any other tool in the political arsenal.


In the same way you've adopted poll invalidation as a political tool?

In your opinion it is invalid, but you are not nature incarnate, are you?
This is for the judges to decide, what is invalid or not.

The poll was posted after we sort of "understood" the river penalty.
I think referring to the river penalty, which should be common knowledge, as a break of rules, is utter crap. I was misinformed by Daveshack, who made me believe the keshiks were excempted from this. I should have listened to myself here, not "citizen input", which was not even researched properly.

One can be good lawyer, but a bad civplayer, that is absolutely possible.

You can pretend "you do not know river penalty" all you want, but that is not going to help the situation.

[QUOTE=Provolution;5648545]



In the same way you've adopted poll invalidation as a political tool?

I just arrested myself, withdrew the poll, and rather argue against its stupidity on its own merits. It is beyond doubt a very bad move, from a Civ 4 perspective.

by Daveshack, who made me believe the

Sorry, but this isn't physically possible. Nobody can force you to believe anything, especially on a forum. You chose to believe it, as many of us did. Don't put the blame on DS for something you did.

In all honesty, I also believed what he said. That's my fault for failing to research it further. I would be a complete idiot to blame that on DS.

At least you can't say that this terms the judicial officials were bored! ;)

Actually, I thought of the river penalty, but never having played "Keshik" before, I did not know about its particular special skills. I still feel misled.

My original plan, if you read it, assumed the river penalty, so I am not the main one to blame here. I could not fight the longbowman discussion to the end, as I thought saving the stack against parts of the citizenry and making civics happen had priority. You all knew you had to drag the keshik out of me.

I have now found Civ 4 Battle Calculator, very exhaustive in Javascript. This ends the discussion about us knowing the river penalty was illegal insider knowledge, it is now common knowledge.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/proc/civ4/combat_calc.htm

Wow, a guy goes to lunch, and all heck breaks loose...

Facts first -- the keshik does have a 66% chance to win, if you don't move it to the floodplain first. I'm not completely stupid. Just select the keshik, separate it from the other units, and hover over the longbow. Screenshot to be added in a couple of minutes.

Remainder of thread under review.

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/8389/civ4screenshot0052mp7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I lean to agree with DS here, as the 2 moves constitute a "charge" , which gives us these odds.

Perhaps an apology about my alleged "attempt to mislead" might be in order?

Daveshack, I apologize for being wrong on your keshik plan.

I would be more than lucky to get similar apologies from the single stack attack next turn crowd, something I do not expect at all.

That said, I am startled over the inconsistency of the river penalty. If you charge over the river from a distance, Monthy Python style, the river penalty is omitted from the strike. Starting on the tile next by, it works differently, halving the odds. Firaxis needs to fix this in a patch.

I would like to suggest the following:

We need to stop mentioning actions which didn't happen. I would have read the Warlord's instructions and discovered that the orders didn't match the method I used to get the 67% estimate, and pointed out the tactical change which was needed. We would never have done that other move which has been alluded to, and it would have turned out that we did make the right decision for the right reasons.

The 2nd longbow poll looks like it is being withdrawn, for the right reasons. I applaud Provolution's quick action once the truth was brought forward.

These are only suggestions, the court may do as it pleases. We all need to take more care in maintaining discretion where needed.

OK, this starts to get a bit disorganized, so I'll start with a List of Reviews this Court is conducting this term.

Review 1:

Request by DaveShack to invalidate the Civics Revolution Poll
Decision: Poll invalidated by ori, no appeal posted, poll is invalid, review closed

Review 2:

Request by donsig to
invalidate the Kill the Longbow poll
review who is allowed to post instructions to the DP pertaining this poll
review how this poll is to be interpreted


Decisions:
The court decides to take no action, poll is valid
Decision pending
Decision pending
Current Turnset is stayed while this Review is pending

Review 3:

Request by Methos to make mandatory a move by the current DP Joe Harker
Decision pending

Review 4:

Request by Methos to invalidate the Reversing the infamous longbowman polls poll
Decision pending

Review 5:

Request by Provolution to invalidate the Shall we attack the longbowman with our 2nd keshik should the 1st fail? poll
Decision pending

Now working down the list:

Review 2:
I gave my ruling and ask my esteemed colleagues to either affirm that they do not see a need to rule on this or give their opinions, so that we can close this review.

Review 3:
Making the said move mandatory would effectively result in taking away the foundation of the poll reviewed in Review 2. This is a valid poll, while the said move was made outside the rules of this demogame. Thus the request under review here asks this court to invalidate a valid poll results on the grounds of a rule break. I see no way to do this that would not break the rules of this demogame. Thus I vote for:
This request has no merit. The result of the poll reviewed in Review 2 is binding unless overturned by a valid subsequent poll.
At the same time I am quite willing to rule any poll invalid that uses information obtained via a rule break. Arguing that such information could have been obtained legally but had not before has no merit in this case.

Review 4:
This poll has been posted to overturn the poll reviewed in Review 2 on the grounds of information obtained via a rule break. I would invalidate this poll if this was still within the powers of this court. The Poll Invalidation Act however stipulates that any invalidation has to be posted in the poll thread which is no longer possible.

Review 5:
This poll has been posted solely on the grounds of legally obtained information. It asks about a specific, actionable instruction for the DP and is fairly worded. I regard this poll as valid - if any of my colleagues disagrees he is free to invalidate it though.

I've pm'ed Nobody to take a look at these issues too.

Ruling 2: I have determined that I have no need to rule on this issue. I join in ori's opinion.

Ruling 3: I see no reason to pursue this case further, seeing as this would ex post facto interfere with the decision in ruling 2 (in my view, anyway), thus violating the rule of stare decisis. With all due respect to an honored citizen such as Methos, I rule that this case bears no merit.

Ruling 4: I concur with ori's analysis on this point. The Poll Invalidation Act, as I see it, is part of the extended Constitution of the Yasutani State, and as such cannot be altered by judicial action, an in fact dictates it. This Court has no jurisdiction over the poll in question, and thus this case bears no merit as of now.

Ruling 5: I do not disagree with ori's analysis, and join his decision (such as it is).

We should at some point decide on the stay on the current Turnset. Originally it had been set for just Review 2. After the barrage of further requests I voted for extending this stay until all of them were resolved.
Now there are at least two polls underway that aim at either affirming or overturning decisions by this court - therefore I ask my colleagues:
Should the stay on this turnset be lifted now, or should we lift the stay only after the citizens had their say on those court decisions? I myself am split on this - on the one hand we do not have an appeals process so that a court decision can only be appealed via a legit initiative and we should allow such attempts and give enough time for appeals to be resolved by the citizens. On the other hand this could well lead to an indefinite stay on the turnset, depending on how many repolls are issued...

On the other hand this could well lead to an indefinite stay on the turnset, depending on how many repolls are issued...

Well, seeing as DaveShack put up a poll two hours after mine in what can only be an effort to trump the citizen's wishes in that poll, I have posted yet another poll to give our citizens the opportunity to reaffirm or disregard DaveShack's poll. I hope the judiciary will leave the turn play stay in effect until these three polls are completed. Hopefully DaveShack and everyone elese will not post anymore polls about this subject until these have closed. :rolleyes:

We will make the best move for the civ game, if I have to continue campaigning for that move until 2010.

Even if the best move for the civ game is not the best move for the democracy game? Campaigning for what you want is and always has been a part of the democracy game. Posting polls to trump other polls has not been part of that tradition. Let's let the current polls run their course and then abide by their results in true DG spirit.

If the people defeat the best in-game move in a poll on that move, then so be it. Trying to defeat the best move by making up a bogus reason is what I can't abide by.

I have fought against bogus reasons in the past too. Not wanting to start DG1 because of the DL issue was bogus and damaging to the game. We did start that game despite objections, and IMO the reason that game went downhill is that we sucked at playing civ. I'd rather not start down the slippery slope of playing a losing civ game because of going out of our way to make up reasons to play poorly.

The best in game move is to move the keshiks across the river, as I said, I will provide a demonstration on the subject matter quite soon.

What is temporarily and politically established as "best civ in-game move" is not necessarily the best move in total, for this specific game. It may be better than actually playing the one by one tile move, so in that respect "best". Also best because of that the original poll (the very uninformed and flawed one) was bent on attacking across the river.

So, if we are not to follow the rightful river-crossing penalty, and have a legal battle for this "exploit", for it is indeed an exploit that double our chances by ignoring river penalties, we will get what is "best" compared to outright suicide.

Frankly, I am appalled by all this. If we simply decided that the keshiks were more useful alive as scouts, and that we easily could conquer Berlin with what we have, we would be better off. The keshik chargers are more or less the same people that wanted to attack with the unhealed stack.

We are of course to respect the poll of polls ending this polling marathon, given which particular review that passes through, be it legal argument or political duress. As a sociological study, quite interesting, yes.

I am almost getting a poll-en allergy here...

@DaveShack & donsig:
I don't feel your poll war will go anywhere else then to finish this DG off in terms of participation. Now to settle this dispute in a civilized manner I propose the following:
Both of you retract their polls on the darn Longbow thing. One poll will be set up by the Judiciary for the citizens to decide on this matter (private, 3 days, single choice). Whatever this poll results in will be binding and the Turnset can go ahead sometime next week.
Could you accept such a measure?

@Lockesdonkey & Nobody:
Would you accept such a measure?

I feel that the Constitution with its rule on "upholding the rights of all citizens" also covers actions by the court to ensure that this DG can actually continue and is not stayed until the "next decade".

Yes, it is high time the Judiciary arbitrates this, and I would like the following information added to the same official judiciary poll:

Option for scouting across the river with same keshik (German Golden Hill)
Option for healing the wounded Keshik up to full strength
Option for blocking the longbowman with Both Keshiks NE of Berlin

Add the Civ4 Battle Calculator in the thread, so people can consult the numbers themselves

Write in the promotions and health levels of the two keshiks

Make sure both keshiks are polled in the same poll, so the citizens get the bigger picture.

Finally, mention the "exploit" nature of the keshik ignoring the river-penalty for two moves as opposed to a one-by-one tile move.

I would also like to see the numbers for a longbowman attacking a keshik on flat ground.

Since we have had so much time and energy to research this travesty in detail, I suggest you add these inputs, instead of adding to a further "political dumbing down" of the demogame, confusing "illegal information" with commonly available information. Remove the politics in the poll, and add the facts and objective criteria, please.

The best way to resolve this is to have the 1st longbow poll prevail.

Edit: I should explain why the first longbow poll should prevail. At that time, we had not been contaminated by knowledge we shouldn't have had. The people clearly chose to attack, when all the information they had was the assertion that there was a 67% chance.

No, having the judicary start another poll won't cure it. Just let things run their course.

It will be cured, since this would be the first and only poll with a neutral party adding all the facts and positions for all the citizens to assess.
I think this is the best way to end it with objective criteria, the court should take charge, and reclaim the law.

Review 2:
I agree with ori's ruling.

Review 3:
I rule this case has no merit.

Review 4:
The poll has been withdrawn and closed. No action needed.


Review 5:
I agree with the other judges. The poll is legal.

No, having the judicary start another poll won't cure it. Just let things run their course.

So be it... Edit: unless other members of this court also see merit in taking action without the consent of the parties involved
Other then that:

We should rule on the current stay - I vote for lifting it once all those polls have closed.

I would lift the stay ASAP, so count that as a vote to lift the stay.

Furthermore, I actually would be willing for the judiciary to post a poll to solve this dispute, assuming it's actually the best policy choice; I can see no constitutional objections to it.

If the Honourable Chief Justice allows, I'll update this as a sort of Judicial log:

Review 1:
Request by DaveShack to invalidate the Civics Revolution Poll
Decision: Poll invalidated by ori, no appeal posted, poll is invalid, review closed
Review 2:
Request by donsig to
invalidate the Kill the Longbow poll
review who is allowed to post instructions to the DP pertaining this poll
review how this poll is to be interpreted
Decisions:
The court decides to take no action, poll is valid
The court decides that any citizen may issue instructions pertaining to a valid poll
The court decides that the poll is to be interpreted as follows: the DP is required to "immediately send the available full-strength keshik to kill the longbow outside Berlin", review closed
Review 3:
Request by Methos to make mandatory a move by the current DP Joe Harker
The court decides that this case has no merit, review closed Review 4:
Request by Methos to invalidate the Reversing the infamous longbowman polls poll
The court decides it cannot act, poll is withdrawn and closed, review closed
Review 5:
Request by Provolution to invalidate the Shall we attack the longbowman with our 2nd keshik should the 1st fail? poll
The court decides to take no action, poll is valid, review closed

I agree Lockesdonkey

You should make a proper and informed poll, and we should dig up the polling standards from Civ3 demogames, which cover how good polls are set up. I am sorry I forgot how they look like, been a long time, but it would be good to refresh. So go on with a Judicary neutral arbitration poll bringing all facts and options on a singular table, so that we are not seeing "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with BS"

I vote to lift the stay on playing the game, i dont think another poll is needed.
It seems to me we ruled this poll valid
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=230194
It gives the dp discreation, so the dp can decide.

Mr DP Play the Save!

So the stay has been lifted as of now. I'll post it in the TC-thread.

Thanks for your speedy ruling on this case. I wouldn't have been able to survive more bickering.

Well, this was a process today, but I invalidated another poll - I am not entirely sure if that is correct, but I am now rather on the track to invalidate dubious polls early:

I have some problems with this poll
a) the last poll also included other German cities - that are not mentioned in this poll. Why?
b) this is a single choice poll that spreads the doWar choices over 5 choices while the doPeace choices are just 1 - people who want peace can easily overrule people who want a continued war even if they are a small minority.
c)The discussion after the last Turnchat wasn't even allowed to run for more then 14-16 hours before this poll sprang up - much too short a time for a real discussion on this matter.

I think I need a before I make any decision - but I lean towards invalidating this one on my own initiative...

I still have two concerns:

1)
A true run off would read something like:

Do you want to make Peace now?
Do you want to continue the war?

Those are basically the two options the other poll (link) comes down to - Berlin is conquered so those who wanted to stop there could vote Peace. Those who wanted to conquer all of Germany and those who voted for just the core cities could vote for continuing the war.

This poll however mixes two questions:

Do you want to continue the war?
AND
What do you want to do IF we continue the war.

Ideally both should be answered in separate polls.

I think a real run-up poll is necessary. If you feel that the immediate war objectives should be polled (I'd agree on this) do so as well, but separate those questions. No one forces you to wait for one poll to close - you can always ask: IF we choose to continue should we ... ?

wage defensive war
attack cologne
attack dortmund
attack cologne and dortmund
etc.

2) The time for debate is too short.

My patience has grown thin for non-good polls recently - at the same time this is not a really bad one either, since:

1) The Polling Act currently debated specifically would say that this is no reason to invalidate and I am not going to invalidate a poll for reasons that (apart from me) no other people in this debate have yet found objectionable

2) The timeframe has indeed been shortened by the DP - and I will not now delay this TC as well. I'll rather take part in the pace discussion going on...

Anyway this rant has gone on long enough and it should actually have been placed in the Polling Act discussion. I don't feel this is a good poll. However my concerns can be countered validly enough for me to not invalidate it without a request to do so.

Falcon02's post I missed earlier - dutchfire's I didn't, both tip the balance:

This poll
a) is posted after too short a discussion for a meaningful decision - while the DP has indicated that he wants to play about 3 days after the last TC he also acknowledged that this might change because of the delay
b) does not include all options available, thus skewing the interpretation into the direction of the poll poster
c) asks two different questions at a time which is at least unadvisable

This poll is invalid.

The Poll Invalidation Act stipulates that any citizen who does not agree with this decision may appeal to the full court within 24 hours of this post. This appeal has to be posted in the Judiciary thread of this term.

I am shocked that the judicary's lifting of the stay on turn play resulted in our DP hurrying to play the save before a poll closed. If this poll had been allowed to run it's course then at least one move would have had to have been made differently. The judiciary allowed the DP to rush ahead and do what he wanted while a give poll's current vote could be used to justify his move. The judiciary is here to ensure that citizens' voices are heard and you three failed miserably in this.

Well you see Donsig, I am the new whipping boy in the poll universe now.
When principles are causes of problems more than solutions, like we are seeing now, it has gone too far. The longbowman farce could go on and on, but this well-intended, balanced poll was shot down in its infancy.

I smell double standards here.

I agree with Ori on the most recent poll. The poll did ask two questions, war/peace and war goals.

Well you see Donsig, I am the new whipping boy in the poll universe now.
When principles are causes of problems more than solutions, like we are seeing now, it has gone too far. The longbowman farce could go on and on, but this well-intended, balanced poll was shot down in its infancy.

I smell double standards here.

I take this as an appeal - is that correct? If so I'll ask Lockesdonkey and Nobody for their opinion.

Ori, I already closed the poll. So that story is already ended, it is disrupted.
It was a good poll, but I realized the strategy discussion on war goals needs more time, so I arrest myself there.

That does not change that the poll was not good enough, it was the timing that was wrong. And knowing Methos would delay to friday/saturday, I am all good.

You are forgiven, my wrong, on the timing.

I am shocked that the judicary's lifting of the stay on turn play resulted in our DP hurrying to play the save before a poll closed. If this poll had been allowed to run it's course then at least one move would have had to have been made differently. The judiciary allowed the DP to rush ahead and do what he wanted while a give poll's current vote could be used to justify his move. The judiciary is here to ensure that citizens' voices are heard and you three failed miserably in this.

Could you post an initiative/part of the constitution that was violated in this case? As far as I'm concerned at the moment (before really looking into the details), the DP was allowed to play at that time, when the moratorium on playing was lifted by the Judiciary.

Thanks in advance

Could you post an initiative/part of the constitution that was violated in this case? As far as I'm concerned at the moment (before really looking into the details), the DP was allowed to play at that time, when the moratorium on playing was lifted by the Judiciary.

Thanks in advance

The constitution is mute on this. donsig's poll was aimed at appealing a court decision to the citizens. The constitution itself does not give any possibility of appeal to a court decision and as such does not mandate a stay either by the court or the DP until such a poll closes.
Now I voted to wait for the poll(s) to close simply because we don't have an appeal's process and a citizen's initiative is the only way someone who does not like a court decision can go. But this court decided otherwise and in fact did not have to extend the stay.
Actually I think donsig is saying that by not waiting for the outcome of this poll the court violated the spirit of the Demogame not so much the actual laws. Now I disagree with that - but as we could witness in the case of the Longbow saga there are very different views on what is right in the spirit/tradition of Demogames and I don't think a discussion will bring us any further.

The facts, as I see them:

The normal DG tradition is to set a time for the play session, and the results of open polls are taken as of the time play starts. The stay disrupted the normal scheduling method. Since there has been no precedent for a stay of this type, there was nothing to refer to when deciding when to start play.

Donsig is right to question the actual timing. Even if there is no legal basis to say play should have waited (as an obligation), there is plenty of reason to say it would have been preferable to wait. It would have been OK, and reasonable to expect, that the stay would not be lifted until after all questions were decided.

Edit: however, I do not see any purpose in arguing it post facto. If a law is needed, then write one.

I did not say the judiciary did anything against the current rules. If they had I would surely call them on it. But, the judiciary had the authority to keep the stay in place and they voted to lift it even while there were open polls on a very controversial question. I am extremely disappointed that neither the judiciary nor the designated player saw fit to restrain play until the polls closed. Then we have DaveShack now saying, yeah it would have been better had we waited, He says this now that things went the way he wanted them. Funny how when things go his way there is no talk from him about mods having to step in and take action for the good of the DG. :rolleyes:

As for discussing this after the fact, well, you've all left no other option have you? Writing a law isn't going to undo the injustice you've already perpetrated. You've left no other recourse have you? I can only complain and refuse to participate in this DG any more (just like last time when we had a DP ignore polled results).

donsig,

What do you want? Your options are not limited to just complaining and quitting. There are many other things you could do. The limiting factor seems to be limits on what you want to do.

donsig,

What do you want? Your options are not limited to just complaining and quitting. There are many other things you could do. The limiting factor seems to be limits on what you want to do.

What can I do to undo what you have already done? Do I suggest we not count the last game play session and redo it using the results of the polls? For those of you not paying attention, that was the exact sort of thing I was arguing against doing! :crazyeye:

Tell me what I can do now DaveShack. Bear in mind that no poll, no law can undo what you, the judiciary and Joe Harker have already done. What really grates the most is that you all think you did the right thing. I guess I should just :bowdown: to the powers that be.

What can I do to undo what you have already done? Do I suggest we not count the last game play session and redo it using the results of the polls? For those of you not paying attention, that was the exact sort of thing I was arguing against doing! :crazyeye:

Tell me what I can do now DaveShack. Bear in mind that no poll, no law can undo what you, the judiciary and Joe Harker have already done. What really grates the most is that you all think you did the right thing. I guess I should just :bowdown: to the powers that be.

What you can do to undo the last TC? nothing.
What you can do to make sure something like this does not happen again? - depends:
If you believe that everyone here acts in bad faith and his hellbent to either destroy this DG or force on everyone else their views of how it should be run: probably not a lot.
If you accept that there may genuinely a difference in opinion on what is and what is not a rule for conducting a DG: argue your case (not attacking people while doing so may help) and convince people that your opinion on what should be the way to handle such situations is the better one for this DG.

From my perspective on this farce, which could have been a Shakespearen play if it was well written, is that with the Sacrifice of "Boyan Chargers", it will take a very long time till the next ill-researched move will be pushed on the Army.

I am not into the "legalities" of this, but that is the final outcome.

I promised myself never return to politic or law matters and I'll keep my promise.

Just want to ask: is it the question so important to upset someone?

Obvious, there will always be some "stress" because here we have two games

in one: the civ game and the demo game; not possible to play (if you like it) or

to micromanage (if you do not like it) both, without one of them to trouble the

other.

But that is the game we accepted.

Best regards,

I see no purpose in meddling with what has already happened. The law can admit that something happened that was wrong, but even if it's technically possible, it cannot dictate the past. What's done is done.

If you accept that there may genuinely a difference in opinion on what is and what is not a rule for conducting a DG: argue your case (not attacking people while doing so may help) and convince people that your opinion on what should be the way to handle such situations is the better one for this DG.

Since when did I not accept a genuine difference of opinion? I posted a legitimate poll so we could all vote our individual preferences and decide the question. I even made it a two day poll even though I feel that is too short a time. I made it two days so it would not delay the scheduled game play session. I was perfectly willing to accept the results of that poll and be done with it. All I wanted was an opportunity to have my vote counted in the matter.

THEN not even two hours later DaveShack (a moderator no less) posts another poll in a blatant effort to trump my poll. If anyone has been unable to accept a genuine difference of opinion it has been DaveShack. I saw no efforts from him to be fair or concilliatory. All I saw was a blind drive on his part to get his way. That's to be expected in a democracy game but (as I've said before) those citizens who want to play that way should not be moderators. If you want to call this an attack on DaveShack then so be it. Just tell me what is not true in this paragraph.

As for the judiciary, as I said, I saw no rule or law being broken. Just because someone follows the rules does not mean they have done the right thing. At least one of you wanted to extend the stay until the poll was over and he has my gratitude. The other two will not get votes from me for judicial positions again. If this is an attack then so be it.

As for Joe Harker, he'll not get another vote from me for anything. He has shown himself to be an irresponsible designated player. Again, if this is an attack then so be it.

Since when did I not accept a genuine difference of opinion? I posted a legitimate poll so we could all vote our individual preferences and decide the question. I even made it a two day poll even though I feel that is too short a time. I made it two days so it would not delay the scheduled game play session. I was perfectly willing to accept the results of that poll and be done with it. All I wanted was an opportunity to have my vote counted in the matter.

THEN not even two hours later DaveShack (a moderator no less) posts another poll in a blatant effort to trump my poll. If anyone has been unable to accept a genuine difference of opinion it has been DaveShack. I saw no efforts from him to be fair or concilliatory. All I saw was a blind drive on his part to get his way. That's to be expected in a democracy game but (as I've said before) those citizens who want to play that way should not be moderators. If you want to call this an attack on DaveShack then so be it. Just tell me what is not true in this paragraph.

As for the judiciary, as I said, I saw no rule or law being broken. Just because someone follows the rules does not mean they have done the right thing. At least one of you wanted to extend the stay until the poll was over and he has my gratitude. The other two will not get votes from me for judicial positions again. If this is an attack then so be it.

As for Joe Harker, he'll not get another vote from me for anything. He has shown himself to be an irresponsible designated player. Again, if this is an attack then so be it.

I feel the next post I'll make on this matter might be in another thread - I think this should be discussed but with all citizens.
Anyway: I respect all you have posted in this post and while I may not agree on all points: my "attack" comment I should not have made but since my typing was faster then my thinking on that one: it was aimed at a couple of your posts which I felt were much more aimed at venting your anger then actually making a point or even convincing anyone else that you position has more merit then others.
If you want to discuss how we should proceed
a) in any future event like this
or
b) if anyone wants to challenge a court decision
I'd love to but then I would create a different thread so that it doesn't drown this thread and so that we can have a focussed discussion in the citizen's subforum

For reference, I am making Advisory polls on everything I can keep away from the judiciary, so the opportunity to vote does not go down the drain due to some impulse to "correct" things. I will still poll war/peace the normal way, but would expand with several advisory polls to get some "air" for own initiatives.

THEN not even two hours later DaveShack (a moderator no less) posts another poll in a blatant effort to trump my poll. If anyone has been unable to accept a genuine difference of opinion it has been DaveShack. I saw no efforts from him to be fair or concilliatory. All I saw was a blind drive on his part to get his way. That's to be expected in a democracy game but (as I've said before) those citizens who want to play that way should not be moderators. If you want to call this an attack on DaveShack then so be it. Just tell me what is not true in this paragraph.


Yes, that was the intent. Using only citizen powers and the truth (*). Leave the M word out of it.

The truth, which you conveniently ignore, is that we never use illegally obtained information, for any purpose, in the DG.

This principle, for me, overrides everything else.

One more request for poll invalidation and one more done by this overzealous Judge Advocate:

I hereby request that the Judiciary invalidate this poll, as there are three options in this poll, of which the latter is our capital city, None of the Above. I would recommend a new poll stating (for the duration of this poll), None of the Below, and place that over the two valid options, since legally, and technically speaking, from a citizen's principal viewpoint on how to best put forward a valid poll - that the inaugeration of "None of the Below" will take place after this poll has been put into motion.

However, if this poll is posted when the results of "Xanadu vs None of the Below" is posted, I recommend simply Abstain, or Other.

Thank you

Judge Dredd

Actually this poll is invalid - but not for the reason Provolution cited. The Nomination thread was only up for 2 days, sadly the Naming Initiative states:

that a nomination thread has to be open for at least 4 days...

I actually remembered it to be 3 days and would not have gone back to read it were it not for Provolution's request...

Edit: the Poll Invalidation Act stipulates that any citizen can appeal this decision to the full Judiciary within 24 hours of this post. The appeal has to be posted in the Judiciary thread for this term.

Also the other currently active naming poll is also not in line with the naming initiative - basically the same reason. Since this mistake was done because of my wrong guidance I will not get active on my own. If any Citizen feels this poll should be invalidated, please speak up.

Just because someone follows the rules does not mean they have done the right thing. At least one of you wanted to extend the stay until the poll was over and he has my gratitude. The other two will not get votes from me for judicial positions again. If this is an attack then so be it.


Donsig i remember when cheiftess appointed me chief justice. And although you didnt want to run for a position as soon as you saw me get one you launched about 5 JD and a CC, force one chief justice from office and then tried to remove another. Cheiftess appointed me, then you said we needed another appointment process because her appointment wasnt right, so i sat out another 72 hours of appointment, but you said it was wrong and demanded another 72 hours. Then after another person was elected you made a poll to remove them from office and then a CC to try and remove them. And then you say "Just because someone follows the rules does not mean they have done the right thing."

I would rather have the turn played than stopped, there was a perfectly fine poll but it said "kill" rather than "attack", everyone knew what it meant. But we had to stop everything and get everyone angry for no reason. Cant the Military Leader post military instructions and the d.p. carry them out.

I must say this:
A Court job is to follow the rules. To be legal. To understand and follow the
rules. If the law is "good" , "bad" or even "evil" is not its concern.
To create good rules is the task of Legislator. To do good things is the task of
the Executive.
A Court of follows the Law can never be blamed.
Best regards,

Yes, that was the intent. Using only citizen powers and the truth (*). Leave the M word out of it.

The truth, which you conveniently ignore, is that we never use illegally obtained information, for any purpose, in the DG.

This principle, for me, overrides everything else.

What truth am I ignoring? you're the one who is not opening your eyes to the other point of view. I am standing on priciples just as much as you are. The overriding principle to me is the reloading issue. You continue to rant and rave and don't even keep track of your own arguements. In the polls you argued that we didn't get any information we didn't already have anyway. Now you argue that we never use illegaly obtained information. The trouble that you are blind to is that the dissemination of the move couldn't not be stamped out. If you had encountered it early enough we wouldn't be having this discussion because it would have been nipped in the bud. But it wasn't nipped and in this sense we ended up facing a situation similar to the one He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named put us in last game. By the time we discovered what You-Know-Who had done we were well on our way. We did the appropriate thing and discussed and polled whether to accept the bad polls or not. I was merely trying to do the same thing here and my attempt would have been all well and good irregardless of the outcome of the poll as long as the poll would have been allowed to conclude. This mess was made much worse when the save was played with polls still open. The save ws played under one poll result which differed from the final result.

Answered via PM. :)

Donsig i remember when cheiftess appointed me chief justice. And although you didnt want to run for a position as soon as you saw me get one you launched about 5 JD and a CC, force one chief justice from office and then tried to remove another. Cheiftess appointed me, then you said we needed another appointment process because her appointment wasnt right, so i sat out another 72 hours of appointment, but you said it was wrong and demanded another 72 hours. Then after another person was elected you made a poll to remove them from office and then a CC to try and remove them. And then you say "Just because someone follows the rules does not mean they have done the right thing."

I would rather have the turn played than stopped, there was a perfectly fine poll but it said "kill" rather than "attack", everyone knew what it meant. But we had to stop everything and get everyone angry for no reason. Cant the Military Leader post military instructions and the d.p. carry them out.

nobody - that was an ILLEGAL appointment by CT. Inadvertent, yes. Illegal, yes. You never were CJ in that instance.

-- Ravensfire

nobody - that was an ILLEGAL appointment by CT. Inadvertent, yes. Illegal, yes.

Boy, that was a long time ago, wasn't it!

Nobody, I hope you realize that arguing that someone is not CJ because his or her election or appointment was invalid is not the same as saying they would be a bad CJ. You'll never be just nobody to me. :)

And my remark about following the rules is not always doing the right thing was aimed at the current judiciary who removed the stay. The did not break any rules in doing this (and so followed the rules) but they did not do the right thing. Note that they could have decided to keep the stay in place (and do the right thing) and still have followed the rules. This does not mean that I believe breaking rules is the right thing. DaveShack and I have both throughout this recent controversy been arguing that illegal actions should not be followed. We've just not agreed on what was illegal. Or more illegal to be precise. Another fine distinction to be considered.

Look, donsig, DaveShack:

1. donsig, I understand your concern, but I got a pair of angry PMs for imposing the stay. I lifted it with the greatest reluctance, but I knew that a lot of folks would get as angry as these two guys for holding up the game.

2. donsig and DaveShack, and everybody else: take this bickering over past actions to a chatroom or AIM or another thread or whatever. What's done is done. Keep it out of my courtroom.

I'm not sure how to rule on anything here (if there is indeed anything to rule on...it's gotten really confusing), and the good arguments for each side are so mixed up with attacks (however politely phrased and philosophical they are, they're still attacks) that it's impossible to figure things out, so I want a summary of all rational arguments neatly laid out in the next couple of posts.

Lockesdonkey,
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Yasutan

1. donsig, I understand your concern, but I got a pair of angry PMs for imposing the stay. I lifted it with the greatest reluctance, but I knew that a lot of folks would get as angry as these two guys for holding up the game.

Oh, so if I had sent you an angry pm then you would have kept the stay in place? :rolleyes: Perhaps you should try making rulings that are based on what is right and wrong whether than who sends you angry pms.

2. donsig and DaveShack, and everybody else: take this bickering over past actions to a chatroom or AIM or another thread or whatever. What's done is done. Keep it out of my courtroom.

Our judiciary (and all offices) should be open to the citizens to air their concerns so the officials in question (and everyone else) will know whats' going on. This is more preferable than having officials base decisions on angry pms. Though if it will make you feel better I can send you an agry pm, too.

As for your courtroom, election time is, what, two weeks away? Don't know if you had any competition in the last election but you words cry out for someone to run against next time.

Don't know if you had any competition in the last election but you words cry out for someone to run against next time.

None of the races had more than one cadidate. So, Donsig, are you already putting your name in for one of the Judiciary positions? :mischief:

hehehe angry PMS is that Premenstrual Syndrome?

Oh, so if I had sent you an angry pm then you would have kept the stay in place? :rolleyes: Perhaps you should try making rulings that are based on what is right and wrong whether than who sends you angry pms.

Look, I knew that most people just wanted to start the game, and the PMs confirmed that. I couldn't think of a legal objection to the stay that I could believe in good conscience, but considering that the stay was issued to resolve a particular problem and that problem had been (in my opinion of the time) solved, I couldn't. I recognize that it probably was a bad idea, though.

Our judiciary (and all offices) should be open to the citizens to air their concerns so the officials in question (and everyone else) will know whats' going on. This is more preferable than having officials base decisions on angry pms. Though if it will make you feel better I can send you an agry pm, too.

Yes, but you've spent your posts here explaining why the other guy is wrong and having an argument with him rather than rationally setting out--in a single clear, concise post--what you want the Court to do. I recognize the importance of free debate, and also recognize that this is an important place to do legalistic theorizing and debating, its first and foremost purpose is to allow the Court to find a decision. The sheer quantity of you explaining why DaveShack is wrong and DS explaining why you are wrong has buried in it the real point at issue: whether these polls and actions are in fact fully legitimate. I would normally not have made that post, but the argument--however lively, informative, and entertaining--made it difficult for me to find out exactly what it was each of you were saying.

As for your courtroom, election time is, what, two weeks away? Don't know if you had any competition in the last election but you words cry out for someone to run against next time.

Two weeks ago is also how long it's been since I was elected. Furthermore, I am going to make this eminently clear: because this is a system that places the will of the people above all else, I am reluctant to do anything that might tick off a majority of the population, as long as the legal justification for it is at least as strong as the legal justification is against it--doing anything else would run contrary to the central principle.

I'm sorry if I've somehow offended you, donsig, but I really don't know what to say anymore, other than no matter what you say ill about me, if you and DaveShack will just present your cases clearly, I will try to get this whole situation over with.

As far as I know, there is nothing left needing the court's resolution. No polls from that time can be invalidated now because the time limit is passed, and the game issue they relate to is no longer current.

Unless donsig agrees with you, I cannot believe that. If he does not agree, then prepare to present your case for saying so in full. If he does, well, then, if you want to argue with him, fine, and while I'd rather you not clutter up the Court thread with it, I suppose I can hardly bar you from doing so if you feel that this is the best forum for it.

I'm sorry if I've somehow offended you, donsig, but I really don't know what to say anymore, other than no matter what you say ill about me, if you and DaveShack will just present your cases clearly, I will try to get this whole situation over with.

As DaveShack pointed out, there is nothing that can be done (legally or otherwise) about what has already happened. As for what you can say or do, how about resigning so we can get a justice who is more interested in protecting the rights of citizens to participate instead of one who is afraid of the majority and a couple angry pms.

As DaveShack pointed out, there is nothing that can be done (legally or otherwise) about what has already happened. As for what you can say or do, how about resigning so we can get a justice who is more interested in protecting the rights of citizens to participate instead of one who is afraid of the majority and a couple angry pms.

Look, I'm not going to resign over this. I made a mistake, plain and simple. I've learned my lesson. Now, can we get on with running the game?

I agree with Lockes here, that we go on with the game. That Longbowman poll should never have been posted in the way it did, and I should have tried to research the fallibility in proposed options, instead of rejecting these.

The key here, is that it will take a very long time for someone to post an ill-researched option, and that is something we learnt collectively.
This TC will have no such idiocracies.

Look, I'm not going to resign over this. I made a mistake, plain and simple. I've learned my lesson. Now, can we get on with running the game?

:goodjob: Sure we can

I would like to formally request an investigation into whether or not the game play session held on July 9, 2007 by Joe Harker was played in accordance with established democracy laws in effect at that time. Specifically, was proper notice of the game play session given in accordance with the Game Play Scheduling Initiative (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=211661) and the Playing the Save Act of 4000BC. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=207423)

The former initiative calls for an announcement specifiying The date and time the game play session will start.

I have found no such announcement.

This (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5646626&postcount=15) was posted in the TCIT on July 6, 2007:

I am planning to play the save on Monday night, is that enough time for the court case to finish?

This (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5657685&postcount=28) was posted in the same thread on July 9, 2007:

Ok starting now unless anyone objects

I maintain that (if these are indeed the only forum postings concerning the scheduling of the game play session then) adequate notice of the game play session was not given and the game play session was conducted against the prevailing democracy game rules.

I respectfully request that the judiciary find this case to have merit and proceed with the investigation.

I almost thought this wouldn't happen ;)
I do believe that we should review this and I will discuss my views on this in this post. First though I'd like to note the sequence of events I feel are necessary:
- The DP did announce the originally scheduled time on July 3rd at about 15:30 GMT
- The Chief Justice issued a stay on the Session on July 4th at about 19:00 GMT
- On July 6th at about 9:30 GMT the DP announced he was planning to play on Monday July 9th at an unspecified time (well "night")
- The originally scheduled time was July 6th 12:00 GMT
- On July 9th at about 1:00 GMT the court lifted the stay
- The DP played the Game on July 9th at about 17:30 GMT

Now for some possible interpretations I see:
1) The DP announced his plan to play on July 3rd more then 24 hours prior to the scheduled session. The court ordered stay delayed this session but this dely does not make the initial announcement invalid.
2) The DP announced on July 6th that he planned on playing on July 9th if the stay had been lifted by then. This is more then 24 hours prior to the played session so there is enough time between both events.
3) The session should have been rescheduled after the court announced it lifted the stay, thus the session could have been played on July 10th 1:00 GMT at the earliest and the DP did not conform with the Scheduling Initiative.

1) and 2) would essentially mean that the DP was in line with the rules of this DG when playing the save, 3) would mean he was not.
I am not sure how to rule (I feel either 2) or 3) are valid). I do feel that after the stay had been in effect the DP was obliged to reschedule the session. I also think that giving 3 days notice is enough so that the exact timing is not important especially since we do not want to enforce online sessions. On the other hand the purpose of the scheduling initiative is to allow ample time for officials and citizens to post instructions and since nobody knew whether or when the court would lift the stay until it actually did, one can quite validly argue that the time should have started to run again after the court decided to lift the stay. I am puzzled and won't commit to either of those options before I hear more opinions on this...

I see the position and the objection, and agree that there was some breach of procedure, and am inclined to rule that it has merit. I have but one question (and I hate to bring this up again) is one of jurisdiction: seeing as this deals with past actions, were the Court to rule on this, what would change? What would the petitioner advocate be done? I'm not going to prejudge the case, of course, but I do want to have everything on the table before the Court comes to any more rash decisions (having been burned by one already).

Lockesdonkey,
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Yasutan.

EDIT: This is a cross-post. Now that I see Ori's opinion, I am still more inclined to rule that the complaint has merit and accept his analysis of the general situation. However, the question still stands.

Lockesdonkey, if this gets very far, there are "warnings" and "punishments" and so on. These could entail that for example a DP is barred from playing the next term, it could be a simple warning and so on. CC and the other terms they use could have some implications for certain players. But I leave that to you , DS and Donsig.

Lockesdonkey, if this gets very far, there are "warnings" and "punishments" and so on. These could entail that for example a DP is barred from playing the next term, it could be a simple warning and so on. CC and the other terms they use could have some implications for certain players. But I leave that to you , DS and Donsig.

Thank you. You see, I recognize the possibilities, but I want to know what the plaintiff has to say about consequences, since the law is not clear on this point.

I have but one question (and I hate to bring this up again) is one of jurisdiction: seeing as this deals with past actions, were the Court to rule on this, what would change? What would the petitioner advocate be done?

Lockesdonkey,
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Yasutan.

Technically this isn't a question of jurisdiction. We all agree the judiciary has jurisdiction over this investigation request. I do understand the CJ's question though: what's the point of proceeding?

The game play session is in the books so what has been played cannot be undone and I wouldn't even think of asking that it be undone. The reason for proceeding with the investigation is to (first) determine if the playing of the save was legal under the specified citizen initiatives. If it is found to not have been legal we'll have an official reinforcement of the initiatives and I hope more discussion (and perhaps an initiative) to stipulate how stays impact the two initiatives cited in the investigation request. I also believe some form of punishment is in order (rather than a warning) if it is found the initiative(s) were not adhered to. An appropriate punishment would serve as a reminder to all DPs. I have my own idea of what would be appropriate as I'm sure other Yasutan citizens do. It is too early to discuss punishments when the judicary hasn't even decided if the case has merit.

Whether the case has merit or not should not depend on what the outcome can or cannot be. Nor should it depend on what the petitioner wants or does not want. It should depend on whether the legal question presented merits an answer or not. I think the question raised deserves an answer and, once again, I respectfully request that the judiciary find the case has merit and begin the investigation.

I find donsigs request has Merit. But you have not said if you are requesting a Judaical Review or a Citizens Complaint.

Mr Harker has a right to know if it is a CC? So he may plan any possible defense.

I find donsigs request has Merit. But you have not said if you are requesting a Judaical Review or a Citizens Complaint.

Mr Harker has a right to know if it is a CC? So he may plan any possible defense.

I have requested an investigation per the posted judicial procedures: Investigations are used to determine if a citizen has violated a rule.. Since these same procedures declare If at least one Justice determines the request to have Merit, a trial on the facts will be conducted I suggest a defense is in order.

A suggestion to the Court: it will reinforce impartiality if the Justices avoid posting opinion type statements relating to current matters. Previous cases have generally been handled that way.

I believe there are two questions:
Does the law apply to the circumstances
Do the actions taken break the law

It would be possible to proceed as two independent cases, a JR on the applicability of the law (Judiciary decides) and a CC on the facts (people decide), or as a single case where the people decide all.

I also suggest a separate discussion, either way it is handled.

Speaking soley as a citizen, right DaveShack?

Speaking soley as a citizen, right DaveShack?

Speaking as a moderator looks like this.


If you don't see that, then I'm speaking as a citizen.

Speaking as a moderator looks like this.


If you don't see that, then I'm speaking as a citizen.

moderators are overpowered, the need a nerf.

Bit touchy tonight DaveShack?

Bit touchy tonight DaveShack?
You asked for it, don't act surprised. Now please stop the bickering and keep this topic for requesting the Supreme Courthouse's ruling. It's fine if you want to discuss an issue but maybe a different topi is more suited for the dicsussion part.

Just being clear. :)

Very entertaining.

Just being clear. :)

Thanks. <snip>
Donsig - that is public discussion of moderator (non-)actions. If you have questions about it; use the PM system. Rik

You asked for it, don't act surprised. Now please stop the bickering and keep this topic for requesting the Supreme Courthouse's ruling. It's fine if you want to discuss an issue but maybe a different topi is more suited for the dicsussion part.

I've put in my request, it has been found to have merit. It's up tp the judicary to act now. Read the procedures in the second post of this friend and then you'll know how this is supposed to work.

I've put in my request, it has been found to have merit. It's up tp the judicary to act now. Read the procedures in the second post of this friend and then you'll know how this is supposed to work.


Im waiting for the CJ or JA to open the case.

Thanks. <snip>



I've put in my request, it has been found to have merit. It's up tp the judicary to act now. Read the procedures in the second post of this friend and then you'll know how this is supposed to work.

I completely agree, but what can you do? It has always been like this on this forum by mixing up different roles. All you can do is to swallow your pride and argue the case. Foul means seems to be acceptable norm with the appropriate official backing and mandates. I also vividly recall the over-reporting of my posts compared to comparable posts. Either did the political adversaries single me out with the "politically correct" card, or individuals abused the alert button in order to hang me out. Very dirty indeed. If those individuals had the mental capacity to at least research their findings in place of using their wits on foul tricks, I could at least have respected their argument. The same applies to arbitrary treatment of polls.

Last time Provolution.
Don't insinuate that other participants are having problems with "mental capacity". And the "report-a-post" option is a CFC-forum option that should be used, whether you like it or not. We are the judge of what posts and types of posts are CFC-worthy and which ones aren't. Your dislike of that forum-function plays no part. - Rik

All such foul actions are reminiscent of the character "Gollum".

I was also entitled to post in the capacity of warlord, consider it a contingency order. Yet, since we got a very weak constitution (which should be revised soon, I beg you Lockesdonkey), we got no real accountability in office, except for letting oneself be bullied as an official with non-researched inputs you flat out reject, then are forced polls on. It does not stop there.

But that is past now, and I am not letting these maneuvers get to me.

I was also entitled to post in the capacity of warlord, consider it a contingency order. Yet, since we got a very weak constitution (which should be revised soon, I beg you Lockesdonkey), we got no real accountability in office, except for letting oneself be bullied as an official with non-researched inputs you flat out reject, then are forced polls on. It does not stop there.


Actually, we have a coup law. You might want to research your own statements when complaining about others.

Im waiting for the CJ or JA to open the case.
Actually according to the Judicial Procedures it is up to me - and I will open a thread today. I do not currently have the time to do this properly and I don't believe a few hours delay will hurt.
In the meantime I formally request the other members of this court to approve of two changes to any possible Sentencing poll. The reason I propose this now is that I feel that any possible sentence should be known prior to the start of a trial.

1) add "Public Apology" as a sentencing option
Reason: the Sentencing guideline mentions the possibility of such a sentence but does not include it in the poll options. If any trial leads to a conviction, citizens might want to issue more then a warning but stay short of removal from office, this might be a possible way to do this.

2) add "No Punishment" as a sentencing option
Reason: Citizens might find that a case brought for trial merits a conviction but might not find the conduct merits a punishment. I do not think that "Abstain" covers this.

Any change in these guidelines can only be made if the court decides so unanimously and I ask my colleagues to vote on each of my proposals separately.

Donsig: You are experienced enough to know when a participating moderator posts as a moderator and when not. DaveShack doesn't post as a moderator in threads or topics he himself is involved in - he'll inform non-participating moderators like me. So from now on you have no more reason to question DaveShack's role, so you stop making innunedo's.

Actually, we have a coup law. You might want to research your own statements when complaining about others.

I am only complaining when unfairly treated, and everyone is of course welcome to "coup" me. I prefer a knife to the back compared to some of the dirty moves I have seen. Anyhow, I am retiring in two weeks time, and will only deliver a last set of instructions for the very last turnchat (So many games coming out now, Shockforce and BTS). I am also happy that the polls did work out as they did, full score, even Coppertown that is.

1) add "Public Apology" as a sentencing option
Reason: the Sentencing guideline mentions the possibility of such a sentence but does not include it in the poll options. If any trial leads to a conviction, citizens might want to issue more then a warning but stay short of removal from office, this might be a possible way to do this.

2) add "No Punishment" as a sentencing option
Reason: Citizens might find that a case brought for trial merits a conviction but might not find the conduct merits a punishment. I do not think that "Abstain" covers this.

I consent to the "no Punishment" option but not the "Public Apology" option. I don't think we should ever force people to make a public apology.

I consent to the "no Punishment" option but not the "Public Apology" option. I don't think we should ever force people to make a public apology.

I also think that those sentenced to "Public Apology" are not humanly capable of apologizing either, maybe a little sweet PM would do.

The Defense would like to file a small pre-trial motion.
The Judaical Procedure currently gives the defense 24 hours in which to make the first to two posts of the investigation thread. Before the public can have there say and the judicial procedures also say the thread must be opened for atleast 48 hours before the Chief Justice can move the trial on to sentencing.

The defense humbly asks that these times be extended by 12 hours each (for the defense posts and closing of the trial phase). That would mean 36 hours for us to post and 60 hours for the thread to be opened.
I live in New Zealand, I think the defendant lives in england(?) and most of you live in America. These time zones make it difficult for the PD and the defendant to exchange pms to discuss the case, It isnt like we are running out of time we have 11 days till the end of the term. (and my birthday, remember a post in off topic)

I understand the law says we must act in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner. I think in this case a small 12 hour delay wont do any damage and will be fair to all concerned.

please consider and vote. (its technically calling for a temporary adjustment of the judicial procedures, so since i have obviously voted yes one more will do it.)

Unless the Judge Advocate files a reasonable objection, I'll grant the motion; I can't see any onface objections.

Unless the Judge Advocate files a reasonable objection, I'll grant the motion; I can't see any onface objections.
:agree:

I'd appreciate it if you could give your opinion on my proposed amendments - I'd like that to be clear before opening the Investigation thread, is possible. (The "apology" one is rejected - but the other one I'd like to know)

Actually according to the Judicial Procedures it is up to me - and I will open a thread today. I do not currently have the time to do this properly and I don't believe a few hours delay will hurt.
In the meantime I formally request the other members of this court to approve of two changes to any possible Sentencing poll. The reason I propose this now is that I feel that any possible sentence should be known prior to the start of a trial.

1) add "Public Apology" as a sentencing option
Reason: the Sentencing guideline mentions the possibility of such a sentence but does not include it in the poll options. If any trial leads to a conviction, citizens might want to issue more then a warning but stay short of removal from office, this might be a possible way to do this.

2) add "No Punishment" as a sentencing option
Reason: Citizens might find that a case brought for trial merits a conviction but might not find the conduct merits a punishment. I do not think that "Abstain" covers this.

Any change in these guidelines can only be made if the court decides so unanimously and I ask my colleagues to vote on each of my proposals separately.

I would like to formally request that the investigation I requested (and which has been found to have merit) be conducted under the judicial procedures in effect at the time the case was found to have merit. It is not good form to change the rules in the middle of an investigation, especially when doing so intimates that the court favors no punishment! That does not sound very impartial. :rolleyes:

I would remind the court and everyone else that (according to the judicial procedures) a trial can be avoided if the accused pleads guilty and the accused, the judiciary and the accuser reach an agreement as to remedy or punishment.

The Defense would like to file a small pre-trial motion.
The Judaical Procedure currently gives the defense 24 hours in which to make the first to two posts of the investigation thread. Before the public can have there say and the judicial procedures also say the thread must be opened for atleast 48 hours before the Chief Justice can move the trial on to sentencing.

The defense humbly asks that these times be extended by 12 hours each (for the defense posts and closing of the trial phase). That would mean 36 hours for us to post and 60 hours for the thread to be opened.
I live in New Zealand, I think the defendant lives in england(?) and most of you live in America. These time zones make it difficult for the PD and the defendant to exchange pms to discuss the case, It isnt like we are running out of time we have 11 days till the end of the term. (and my birthday, remember a post in off topic)

I understand the law says we must act in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner. I think in this case a small 12 hour delay wont do any damage and will be fair to all concerned.

please consider and vote. (its technically calling for a temporary adjustment of the judicial procedures, so since i have obviously voted yes one more will do it.)

Again, I object to changing the rules of the investigation as it proceeds. In requesting the investigation I was bound by the judicial proceedures in place at the time and therefore the judiciary and accused should likewise be bound.

Also, there really is no need to adjust the time periods. Nobody isn't quite interpreting the judicial procedures as they are written. Once the trial thread is opened no one excpet for the accused and public defender can post in it for 24 hours. This does not mean that once 24 hours are up they can no longer post in the thread! The rule is there simply to give them the first two posts. This can be done with a reserved post or two which can be edited later, or the accused and PD can simply post after others have. After all that, the Chief Justice has to wait at least 48 hours after discussion has died down before moving to a sentencing poll. If there is substantial discussion in the trial thread then there is plenty of time. Note that during this discussion phase everyone, the accused and PD included can submit evidence and or argue their case. The judicial procedures are not clocks ticking to force a quick decision.

Therefore, I ask the court to disallow the pre-trial motion, get the trial thread set up, allow the accused and PD to reserve the first two posts and then allow for other discussion 24 hours after the thread is opened.

OK, here goes:

I am somewhat unsure how to proceed with this matter. Since the public apology is out the window, the only thing that remains is no punishment. I would argue that a simple warning is equivalent, since the conviction clearly implies that something wrong was done and includes, implicitly, a warning not to do it again, so issuing a warning would merely be formal recognition of this fact. From this, it would follow that the addition of a "No Punishment" option is therefore unnecessary. Of course, you may disagree with my reasoning, but I'm going to say--barring really good counter-arguments--that there is no need to amend the laws on punishment at this time, rendering moot both ori's proposal on punishments and donsig's complaint that said proposal would be a violation of the law.

As for donsig's other complaint, I rule that, as unlikely as it might be, time differences could make it possible that the people in question make the relevant posts within 24 hours. We must be careful and take into account all possible contingencies.

Lockesdonkey,
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Yasutan

As for donsig's other complaint, I rule that, as unlikely as it might be, time differences could make it possible that the people in question make the relevant posts within 24 hours. We must be careful and take into account all possible contingencies.

Lockesdonkey,
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Yasutan

I once read that Dubya complained about the Bush v. Gore supreme court ruling until someone told him the ruling was in his favor. Can anyone tell me if this ruling is in my favor? :lol:

As for the sentencing options, the current judicial procedures state:

Other options may be included through unanimous consent of the Judiciary.

Seeing as the accused may either be found not guilty or reach a plea agreement, either of which obviates the need for a sentencing poll, I suggest the judiciary leave the question of sentencing options open until such time as they are actually needed.

I am sorry I hurt anyones feelings, and apologize for that, in the preceding posts. Just focus on the game, and not bringing ideas and people down.

I once read that Dubya complained about the Bush v. Gore supreme court ruling until someone told him the ruling was in his favor. Can anyone tell me if this ruling is in my favor? :lol:


Sorry I wasn't clearer. It's not, I'm afraid. Nobody gets his 36 hours.

Sorry I wasn't clearer. It's not, I'm afraid. Nobody gets his 36 hours.

So, to clarify, you are ruling that once the trial thread is opened, no one other than the accused or public defender can post in the thread for 36 hours?

Nobody's motion had an additional aspect - the next step can't be undertaken until 60 hours after discussion has died down instead of 48 hours. Are you also voting in favor of this?

Dont worry don, it probably wont take me 36 hours to post. Its just at the time Joe hadn't been replying to my pms and i was worried we wouldnt speak in time.

i dont want to irritate you or anyone else, but 12 hours either side isnt really much when you consider things, we are talking about joes freedom. If i hadnt said to extend the trial lenght to 60 days then but extending the defense period to 36 i would have been robbing you 12 hours. In reality we will probably have posted within the first 24 and it wont matter.

and about the sentencing edits, dont worry too much about them, we wont be seeing them.

(if you get bored donsig, just go read the new harry potter when it comes out in about 30 hours)

Dont worry don, it probably wont take me 36 hours to post. Its just at the time Joe hadn't been replying to my pms and i was worried we wouldnt speak in time.

i dont want to irritate you or anyone else, but 12 hours either side isnt really much when you consider things, we are talking about joes freedom. If i hadnt said to extend the trial lenght to 60 days then but extending the defense period to 36 i would have been robbing you 12 hours. In reality we will probably have posted within the first 24 and it wont matter.

and about the sentencing edits, dont worry too much about them, we wont be seeing them.

(if you get bored donsig, just go read the new harry potter when it comes out in about 30 hours)

OK. Looks like I was the one guilty of mis-interpreting the judicial procedures. Once the accused and public defender post in the trial thread then anyone else can. So the 24/36 hour rule does not mean we all have to wait that long (unless the accused and PD don't post). I do have a formal question for the judicairy on this: Are the judicial procedures being officially changed to read:

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 36 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 60 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.

If so I suggest a further clarification: Once at least 60 hours have passed from the opening of the trial thread, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

BTW, why the melodramatics Nobody? We are not talking about joes freedom here. It's kinda funny though how 12 hours isn't supposed to matter here but it means everything when it comes to playing that save. :mischief:

:

If so I suggest a further clarification: Once at least 60 hours have passed from the opening of the trial thread, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.


I would support this - although to be honest, I already understand it that way...

If so I suggest a further clarification: Once at least 60 hours have passed from the opening of the trial thread, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.


I would support this - although to be honest, I already understand it that way...

Fiat.

Tenchar.

BTW, why the melodramatics Nobody? We are not talking about joes freedom here. It's kinda funny though how 12 hours isn't supposed to matter here but it means everything when it comes to playing that save.

we dont have these things often, so dont mind me if i get a little in the character, i see myself as young Jake Brigance in a time to kill and you the evil DA Rufus Buckley, joe (carl lee) is on trial for his life and i will have to save the day. "Yes i think he deserves to play! and i hope he Plays it WELL!"

(if you aint seen the movie it wont make much sense)

OK. Looks like I was the one guilty of mis-interpreting the judicial procedures. Once the accused and public defender post in the trial thread then anyone else can. So the 24/36 hour rule does not mean we all have to wait that long (unless the accused and PD don't post). I do have a formal question for the judicairy on this: Are the judicial procedures being officially changed to read:


Deja vu! Seems I remember a time when someone mistakenly thought that the President had to wait 72 hours to make an appointment, even if someone eligible to be appointed had applied for the job immediately. :mischief:

Sorry, couldn't resist that one. :lol:

It would be helpful if the discussion thread could be opened, so that the defense may post.

I'm willing to offer my services as a mediator in this matter. Perhaps a settlement can be reached.

I'm willing to offer my services as a mediator in this matter. Perhaps a settlement can be reached.

no way, there will be no settlement, the dye is cast. We will have a trial, and i will win, and donsig will look the fool.

Deja vu! Seems I remember a time when someone mistakenly thought that the President had to wait 72 hours to make an appointment, even if someone eligible to be appointed had applied for the job immediately. :mischief:

Sorry, couldn't resist that one. :lol:

No problem my friend. At least I'm consistent in trying to give all DG participants time to participate, unlike Joe Harker and this judiciary. ;)

@Nobody: Remember the old song: everybody plays the fool sometimes, there's no exception to the rule.

The requested investigation has just started. Please adhere to the procedural rules for this one:
The People vs. Joe Harker (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=232143)

The requested investigation has just started. Please adhere to the procedural rules for this one:
The People vs. Joe Harker (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=232143)

Sounds like a 2003 movie made by Tom Hanks, a sort of 15 million USD budget drama with elements of morals and societal questions.

But then again, being tough on Joe Harker on his first try is a bit unfair.
I swamped him with instructions to shape up the military, and there was an underbrush of very legally difficult people.

Not the kind of maiden voyage you wish even your worst enemy.

Since I think Joe Harker is a good buddy, no need to go too far here.

Sounds like a 2003 movie made by Tom Hanks, a sort of 15 million USD budget drama with elements of morals and societal questions.

But then again, being tough on Joe Harker on his first try is a bit unfair.
I swamped him with instructions to shape up the military, and there was an underbrush of very legally difficult people.

Not the kind of maiden voyage you wish even your worst enemy.

Since I think Joe Harker is a good buddy, no need to go too far here.

Also a great book, its sitting in my toilet right now.

@ Provolution:

The People vs. the defendant is standard nomenclature for criminal cases at the state level in the United States. The People is usually an abbreviated form of the People of [State], so it would be The People of the State of California vs. John Doe, the People of the State of Michigan vs. Richard Roe, the people of the State of New York vs. Jane Braganza, the People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Richard Gavin, etc., etc., etc. Roughly equivalent to The Crown or Regina or Rex in Commonwealth Realm terminology.

Also a great book, its sitting in my toilet right now.

Even though that sounds bad, any book found next to a person toilet more than likely is a very good book! We practically have a library in there. :D

Heads to the courtroom.

Without wanting to pressure the honorable Chief Justice too much - if this court is to bring the current investigation to an end a poll would have to be started soon.

Also in light of the discussion in the current investigation's thread I do feel that quite a sizable number of citizens do want to distinguish between the question whether a law was broken (i.e. guilty or not guilty) and the question whether or not a punishment is in order.
I therefore repeat my notion to add a "no punishment" option to a putative punishment poll and ask this court to again rule on this now so that citizens can make this distinction if they want to.

By the way, what does "Leges sine moribus vanae" mean exactly? Something like "Laws without norms (are) vain"?

From my understanding of the laws, first we need to have a 'jury' poll. If he is found guilty, than sentencing is decided.

From my understanding of the laws, first we need to have a 'jury' poll. If he is found guilty, than sentencing is decided.

This is correct, however I read some opinions that people would vote not-guilty in order to avoid punishment. I believed before starting this investigation and still do that guilty or not guilty should not be decided on whether one thinks that a punishment is necessary.
However this option can only be added by unanimous decision of the court.

How can we vote without knowing for sure what the implications for each option are? If a poll like that turned up about an in-game issue, it would be shot down directly.

however I read some opinions that people would vote not-guilty in order to avoid punishment.

The point of the trial is on whether or not the law was broken, not whether or not someone should be punished.

How can we vote without knowing for sure what the implications for each option are? If a poll like that turned up about an in-game issue, it would be shot down directly.

The point of the trial is on whether or not the law was broken, not whether or not someone should be punished.

I agree with both of you

The point of the trial is on whether or not the law was broken, not whether or not someone should be punished.

A trial has several points, including determining the sentence. Heck, I'd be inclined to say that that is the most important part of a trial for most common people.

I respectfully request that the judiciary formally agree to add the option 'no punishment' to any sentencing poll that arises from the jury poll in the investigation I initiated against Joe Harker. I further request that this agreement be formalized before the jury poll is posted. I believe this agreement can be made while still allowing the judiciary to add still more options to the sentencing poll if they so desire.

I respectfully request that the judiciary formally agree to add the option 'no punishment' to any sentencing poll that arises from the jury poll in the investigation I initiated against Joe Harker.

I thank donsig for making this request, and add my support. The citizens should be free to make their determination of guilt vs innocence on the facts of the case, without needing to worry about this sentencing choice being available.

I thought we went through this already, anyway i am against adding that option to any potential sentencing poll. Donsig made a good argument when he said It is not good form to change the rules in the middle of an investigation, especially when doing so intimates that the court favors no punishment! That does not sound very impartial.

Oh and i think earlyier i voted to allow the new option, i dont want to cause any arguments, if you want to add it go ahead, and i did consent earylier, but i changed my mind now. If you still want to count my old vote i entirely understand and i dont want to cause any argument.

I'm fine with it.

So when is the Gulity/non gulity poll going up?

I hope this term, it gets confusing if a case from the previous term spills into the current term, especially when the members of the Supremen Court and Public Defense are different.

Especially since my defence might be done by donsig! :lol: (no offence meant! It's just a bit ironic :))

Especially since my defence might be done by donsig! :lol: (no offence meant! It's just a bit ironic :))

No, donsig would have to recuse (sp?) himself and someone else would have to take his place for your trial. It would be hilarious though, as your accuser would be the acting defender. :lol:

Oh no not another recusal conversation! Get that poll up fast. Arghhhh! :lol:

Especially since my defence might be done by donsig! :lol: (no offence meant! It's just a bit ironic :))

Yes indeed, very Kafkaeque for the Europeans, or was it Catch 22 to the Americans.

I am certain you would get the best defense there Joe Harker, as Donsig is a man of principles not agendas.

[...] as Donsig is a man of principles not agendas.
I hope he makes it in time for his job then :lol:.

As I see it the poll will not be to decide about a punishment or if a law was or
not broken.

The Jury shall decide if Joe Harker is Guilty or Not Guilty.

Best regards,

OK, I'm a bit distracted and busy now...what exactly are the poll options supposed to be?

OK, I'm a bit distracted and busy now...what exactly are the poll options supposed to be?

You have to put up a Trial poll with the following specifics:

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.
So options are
Innocent, Guilty, Abstain

If Guilty is the majority decision a sentencing poll has to be posted. That would include:
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. - the other one just decided (I think) would be no punishment

I'll do it immediately.

- the other one just decided (I think) would be no punishment

I believe the majority of us who are saying guilty are asking for no punishment, so you are correct. 'No Punishment' would be one of the options.

I believe the majority of us who are saying guilty are asking for no punishment, so you are correct. 'No Punishment' would be one of the options.

Actually to add this a unanimous vote by this court is required - Lockesdonkey agreed, I agreed and Nobody agreed and disagreed - but I read his last post as a sort of approval unless he protests :rolleyes:

Actually to add this a unanimous vote by this court is required - Lockesdonkey agreed, I agreed and Nobody agreed and disagreed - but I read his last post as a sort of approval unless he protests :rolleyes:

Technically, I think it could be done with a citizens initiative too, but we don't want to go down that road if it isn't necessary

Actually to add this a unanimous vote by this court is required - Lockesdonkey agreed, I agreed and Nobody agreed and disagreed - but I read his last post as a sort of approval unless he protests :rolleyes:

Go ahead put the option in. Really what happened was i voted for the option but then regretted it.

Before the Court concludes the "State vs Joe Harker", I would like to request a quick review of the Judicial Procedures vs. the Constitution. Please understand that I don't mean for this review to slow things down nor am I interested in changing the result of the trial in any way. I merely want to ensure sufficient thought is put into the implementation.

I put off asking this question because at the point I realized it was even a question, it didn't look like it would need to be asked. I am asking it as a citizen foremost.


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.



All Election and other polls in which specific individuals are chosen by name shall be private polls, and not public polls.


Question: Does the Judicial Procedure for the Justices posting clear opinions constitute a poll? If it does constitute a poll, does the public nature of the procedure violate the Constitution on the aspect of public polling being disallowed for polls concerning an individual?

I would argue that it is a court ruling after the Jury could not decide and thus it does not constitute a poll in which an individual is chosen by name.

This is right. In all demogames this happened before, there is a written statement of a couple or three paragraphs each for each Judge, when this happens.

I join Ori's (brief) opinion.

Does the Judicial Procedure for the Justices posting clear opinions constitute a poll?

No, it is not a poll it is a court ruling made after the Jury poll was tried and couldn't decide the issue.

I'm not going to make a decision until both the Judge Advocate and Public Defender make their determinations.

I have posted my ruling in the trial thread.

Just waiting for ori, then...

Just waiting for ori, then...
No more ;)

cyas later, has been a fun term.