Suspect violates an article of the Constitution.
Suspect is reported to the Investigation thread or a Mod. If reported to a Mod, the Mod reports the allegation to the Investigation thread. The Constitution article allegedly violated must be noted.
The suspect is notified of the charges.
An investigation thread is opened detailing the facts of the alleged violation and history of convictions.
The first reply to this thread is reserved for the suspect’s response to the charges (defense). If the suspect has not posted in 24 hours they lose this reserved spot and anybody can post.
Citizens post their opinions on the charge and whether they think the suspect is guilty of an infraction.
If the discussion is not clearly in favor or against the suspect a poll is held to determine guilt or innocence.
If the suspect is found guilty through the investigation thread or poll, a sentencing poll is held. Possible punishments are eviction from the Demo game, suspension from the Demo game, loss of office, final warning, warning and no punishment.

This procedure was discussed and developed here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=296322#post296322).

This poll will run for 48 hours, ending 16:45 GMT on Thursday, May 30.

QUOTE: If the discussion is not clearly in favor or against the suspect a poll is held to determine guilt or innocence.

I think this is too ambiguous, who decides if a discussion is "clearly" for or against someone? I think all investigations, or at least all that recieve a response, must result in a poll. I wouldn't want to be "convicted" because someone thought the discussion was clearly against me. Many people read threads but never post, but they do vote. Especially for an investigation, those without a direct involvement in the issue may be hesitant to state a post, but certainly deserve a vote in the decision. Also, for those found innocent, a true poll goes further to "clear the name" than some arbitrary decision that the discussion was "clearly" in their favor.

You're right Justus II. Another judgement call here.

I also agree with Justus II, the final judgement of the people should be confirmed beyond argument. The only way to ensure this is to poll at the end of each investigation. Anything less will just result in controversy.

How about:

7 - If the Discussion thread results in 5 Innocent and/or 5 Guilty opinions a poll will be held to determine innocence or guilt. If the required number of responses are not posted within 72 hours the case will be dropped.

the idea was: if there is no negative voice in the discussion, then it is useless to post a poll. it should be that if there is only 1 negative voice, the poll should be posted.
(see investigation#1 for a "no negative response" example)

I'm with Disorganizer on this, of the opposition voices their opinion, then they deserve a fair hearing (regardless of minority or majority in the thread, threads don't always reflect the popular view).

If there is opposition but they don't post, then they've lost their chance to complain.

Even with the change to #7, it's still (or can be) a judgement call. A poll will show concrete opinion or declaration. Just because you meant it in one sense, doesn't mean it can't be flipped around to mean the complete opposite. Just like in the quorum discussion.

well, so make better proposals for it. just always againt it, eh?
every rule can be streched to the opposite. thats the nature of rules. but where would we be without rules?

Please note that proposed changes do not affect this poll but will be used for the next round of discussions to modify these rules (should this poll show approval).