Chief Justice : DaveShack
Judge Advocate: CivGeneral
Public Defender: Donsig

Link to previous term's Judiciary thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229585)

Term 6 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 the portion of any Investigation where they feel their court position is in conflict with their interest in the case, for example JA as accused or PD as accuser. 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 Justice 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 if they do not, 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 dwindled or reached a point where arguments are being repeated with no new information, 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 or Abstain receiving the most votes, the Trial is declared a mistrial, the accused continues to be assumed Innocent, but a new investigation may be started on the same charge within two weeks.

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)
Warning
No Action
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. IIf 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.

Change Log
8/1: Modified recusal provision for investigation, to try to address PD Donsig's concern.

The Docket:

Term 6 Investigation 1; People vs donsig (as DP).
Announced here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5770403&postcount=21).

Draft procedures have been posted in post #2, for review and approval by the Justices. Citizens are invited to comment.

I am against adopting the judicial procedures as currently written. I haven't been through all of them yet but I am against one of the recusal clauses:

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.

I do not think the judge advocate should have to recuse himself from any investigation he initiates nor do I think the public defender should be forced to recuse himself if he is the target of an investigation.

As time permits I may have other reservations to bring forward.

I am against adopting the judicial procedures as currently written. I haven't been through all of them yet but I am against one of the recusal clauses:

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.

I do not think the judge advocate should have to recuse himself from any investigation he initiates nor do I think the public defender should be forced to recuse himself if he is the target of an investigation.

As time permits I may have other reservations to bring forward.

I agree with these proposed changes.

I'm OK with the first change but I'm not at ease with the second change. If you want to take away any signs of bias or prejudice then I think someone else should investigate matters that concern the Judge Advocate.

EDIT: I know I'm not part of the Judiciary but I do have my concerns.

I am fine with a few modifications

I am fine with a few modifications
A few, but not all?

I'm OK with the first change but I'm not at ease with the second change. If you want to take away any signs of bias or prejudice then I think someone else should investigate matters that concern the Judge Advocate.

EDIT: I know I'm not part of the Judiciary but I do have my concerns.

All citizens are welcome to give input here. My change does not suggest that the judge advocate be exepmt from recusal if he is the target of an investigation. I've asked that the judge advocate be allowed to initiate an investigation without having to recuse himself. I don't really expect the JA to investigate himself (but I guess it could happen).

I'm OK with the first change but I'm not at ease with the second change. If you want to take away any signs of bias or prejudice then I think someone else should investigate matters that concern the Judge Advocate.

EDIT: I know I'm not part of the Judiciary but I do have my concerns.

Here's the new line:

Recuse themself from the portion of any Investigation where they feel their court position is in conflict with their interest in the case, for example JA as accused or PD as accuser. A Pro-tem replacement will be named by the Chieftain.

Here's the new line:

Recuse themself from the portion of any Investigation where they feel their court position is in conflict with their interest in the case, for example JA as accused or PD as accuser. A Pro-tem replacement will be named by the Chieftain.
Better, but what if a JA doesn't recuse himself and the citizens, say more then 5, really want the JA to recuse himself.

I, as a citizen of our great empire, would like to bring it upon the attention of our courts, that the current DP, citizen Donsig, in his TCIT (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=235361) has failed to comply with the Game Play Session Scheduling Initiative, in his disregard to state an appropriate time for his TCIT as required below:

Excerpt from Game Play Session Scheduling Initiative (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5197960&postcount=1)
Game Play Session Scheduling Initiative

Any game play session must be publicly announced in the CivFanatics Civ4 - Democracy Game II forum at least 24 hours before the scheduled start of said game play session. Said announcement must include:


The date and time the game play session will start
The Designated Player for the session
A link to the sessions's game play instruction thread
The purpose of the game play session

We'll need to get the judicial procedures approved before we can take up any caseload. Hopefully that will go quickly. If we could just figure out what the JA's reply meant. ;)

In the meantime, is this a request for an investigation, or for a review on the meaning of the cited law in light of the impact, or lack thereof, of the investigation held last term? A JR would almost certainly be quicker, but I'm open to handling it either way, after we have procedures.

Would not an investigation require a review of the law and it's previous impact? Therefore I request an investigation.

I propose we change:

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 verdict will be Innocent. Should Abstain receive the most votes, the Trial is declared a mistrial, the accused continues to be assumed Innocent, but a new investigation may be started on the same charge.

to

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 or Abstain receiving the most votes, the Trial is declared a mistrial, the accused continues to be assumed Innocent, but a new investigation may be started on the same charge within two weeks.

I agree to this change proposed by DaveShack:

Recuse themself from the portion of any Investigation where they feel their court position is in conflict with their interest in the case, for example JA as accused or PD as accuser. A Pro-tem replacement will be named by the Chieftain.

Assuming the procedures are adopted swiftly and the case is found to have merit it is possible a settlement could be reached faster than a JR. I suspect a JR on last term's impact on the game play scheduling initiative could take more than a few days to sort out.

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 or Abstain receiving the most votes, the Trial is declared a mistrial, the accused continues to be assumed Innocent, but a new investigation may be started on the same charge within two weeks.
You cannot prosecute someone twice for a single offence. In a system with multi-level courts you can appeal a lower court ruling at a higher court however. We only have one court level, the Yasutan Supreme Court. I will not vot in favour of any rule that makes it possible for people to be prosecuted twice for the same offence. I will vote in favour of a proposal like:

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 or Abstain receiving the most votes, the Trial is declared a mistrial, the accused continues to be assumed Innocent.


Recuse themself from the portion of any Investigation where they feel their court position is in conflict with their interest in the case, for example JA as accused or PD as accuser. A Pro-tem replacement will be named by the Chieftain.
I will make sure to start a procedure that seeks to force any member of the Judiciary to recuse himself from an investigation into his own actions. I now believe the Citizens have that right without any supplement to this proposal necessary.

Any word from the JA? I'd really like to get the procedures in place today and try to resolve the investigation (assuming it has merit). My Internet access during the weekend is limited.

I would go ahead with the procedures and I'll go ahead and dig into the background of the investigation to see if there is any weight of merit.

I agree to the change proposed by PD Donsig.

Assuming that post is considered conditional approval, the procedures are approved, so court is now in session. :hammer:

The request brought by Methos is accepted to the docket and will be referred to as Term 6 Investigation 1. The Justices may commence review of the facts to determine merit.

The accuser and accused are invited to reach an agreement, which can occur even before determination of merit according to the Judicial Procedures.

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.

You cannot prosecute someone twice for a single offence. In a system with multi-level courts you can appeal a lower court ruling at a higher court however. We only have one court level, the Yasutan Supreme Court. I will not vot in favour of any rule that makes it possible for people to be prosecuted twice for the same offence. I will vote in favour of a proposal like:


A mistrial effectively winds back the clock to before the beginning of the trial. Refiling charges in that circumstance is the typical RL method of dealing with the situation that no verdict was reached. The court would have the power to deny a new investigation request as without merit.


I will make sure to start a procedure that seeks to force any member of the Judiciary to recuse himself from an investigation into his own actions. I now believe the Citizens have that right without any supplement to this proposal necessary.

Well, I don't see why the defender shouldn't defend himself, so I question the "any member" part. My opinion is that it would be better to trust the justices to recognize situations in which they cannot be impartial for the stages of an investigation where impartiality is required. As pointed out several times in the past, a case where recusal is necessary should be rare, and we'll know it when we see it.

The request brought by Methos is accepted to the docket and will be referred to as Term 6 Investigation 1. The Justices may commence review of the facts to determine merit.

The accuser and accused are invited to reach an agreement, which can occur even before determination of merit according to the Judicial Procedures.

I think the CJ also has to agree to any settlement, isn't that correct? I will pm a settlement offer to Methos, the CJ and the JA.

EDIT: First of all, as a member of the judiciary I find this case to have merit. Second, I have just pmmed a settlement offer to Methos, DaveShack and CivGeneral.

I concur with the case having merit, and that the procedures say that the CJ needs to agree with a settlement.

I see the case has merit.

I see the case has merit.

Check your PMs please. :)

wow another case so soon! i wish i had run for JA (and won) it would have been fun to win the case from the opposite point of view.

wow another case so soon! i wish i had run for JA (and won) it would have been fun to win the case from the opposite point of view.

I was counting on your legal expertese to defend me! :hammer2:

Nobody defends not just anybody :) If there is no body, there is no crime.

A settlement has been reached in Term 6 Investigation 1, as follows:


Donsig, the accused, pleads guilty to the charge, and will add necessary information to the game session thread and announcement to make it consistent with the game session scheduling initiative.
The specified information for the game session has been provided.
The Court will review the Investigation People vs Joe Harker from last term to determine the true meaning of that Court's interpretation of the relevant law via its ruling in the case, and provide further interpretation. This review will not affect the innocent verdict in that case, merely clarify its effect on future scheduling of game sessions.


With the concurrence of the accuser, accused, and all members of the Court, this case is hereby closed.

A review has been requested, as follows:

I would like a full judicial review of the ruling handed down by last term's judiciary regarding the game play scheduling initiative. While the judiciary found Joe Harker not guilty and that cannot be undone, I do think the present judiciary (if so inclined) can reverse or overturn the reasoning the prior judiciary used. Again, I do not seek to change the verdict. I merely seek to have the present court (with input from citizens) re-examine last term's ruling concerning the game play scheduling initiative.


This review is accepted as Term 6 JR 1, and is found to have merit. To facilitate citizen input, a discussion thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=236050) has been created in the Citizen's forum.

here are some question i had when i was public defender. Now i think i ruled fairly and i think i did my job as i was meant to, but these were things i was wondering anyway, these dont need to be jr but if you want to make them so thats ok too:

1. When interpreting the law do we follow the exact wording of the law, or the intent behind the law?

2. If the trial was a tie and it came down to the judiciary, as a judge was i meant to act neutral or as the public defender should have i tried to help the defendant?

Two very interesting questions from Nobody:
1. The intent of the Law, but it must be consented by its wording.
2. When the moment to take a decision arrives, a Judge must be neutral.
(Here is very easy, if the Law wanted the two Auxilia Judges to keep
themselves as representatives of any part, then it would say it to would
be up to Chief Justice to decide).
Best regards,

1. Do as you feel like, just make it sound legal
2. Do as you feel like, just make it sound neutral

Can the Judiciary explain to me what exactly "lower forms of law" are?

Its like theres the constitution and then any other laws are lower laws

I will be away on Thursday, August 9 and Friday, August 10.

Perhaps when I return we can get going on the review before us? It would be nice if we could consult on that privately before handing down our individual decisions.

I would like to file a Citizens Complaint for the orders based on the poll "Tech Poll" (Engineering and Democracy Beeline), where there is a tie of 5-5, but where the runner up with engineering first wins 2-1. The Chief Scientist is not considering the poll as he should (Engineering ahead of Democracy), and listening to the voice of the Chieftain, but not Will of the People. If the order from Chief Scientist is rescinded, and Engineering is put as the first research order, this CC would be held back from my side. If the contrary is done, and engineering is ignored in spite of the outcome of the poll and general citizen input, I will bring this all the way to the Rim of the World.

If someone could take on me for one unit, I can certainly do the same with backing in a poll in something as critical as technology.

I also request the turnchat to be frozen, until this dispute has been settled. (Yes I am citizen now, as you notice.)

Return of the German Longbowman!

A question for the judiciary, can a person who was in an office for the 2 term limit stage a coup against said office?
Also, does being appointed to an office (not voted in) count towards the 2 term limit?
And again, does winning by default count towards the 2 term limit?

Edit: Woot! 100th post

Edit #2: More questions
Is thisIf you want the position, all you have to do is ask, I'll give it to your without the need for a coup.legal (including the fact that it would violate the 2 term limit (if it would))?
And if so, would it apply towards the 2 term limit?
And, would a coup apply towards the 2 term limit?

Sorry for the multitude of questions.

Oh my, a coup plot popping up, the plotline is as complex as "24".

A question for the judiciary, can a person who was in an office for the 2 term limit stage a coup against said office?
Also, does being appointed to an office (not voted in) count towards the 2 term limit?
And again, does winning by default count towards the 2 term limit?

Edit: Woot! 100th post
If you want the position, all you have to do is ask, I'll give it to your without the need for a coup.

EDIT:
I really think that the citizen complaint is unnecessary, on the grounds that there is already a poll in place regarding this exact issue.
If Provolution feels that the TC should be delayed to allow more time for polling, then there isn't any harm in that, but since polling is the proper democratic procedure, then I don't see why it must be taken a step further.
I have explained my position, which he rejected, as far as I can tell, on the grounds that his opinion differs from mine.

I would like to file a Citizens Complaint for the orders based on the poll "Tech Poll" (Engineering and Democracy Beeline), where there is a tie of 5-5, but where the runner up with engineering first wins 2-1. The Chief Scientist is not considering the poll as he should (Engineering ahead of Democracy), and listening to the voice of the Chieftain, but not Will of the People. If the order from Chief Scientist is rescinded, and Engineering is put as the first research order, this CC would be held back from my side. If the contrary is done, and engineering is ignored in spite of the outcome of the poll and general citizen input, I will bring this all the way to the Rim of the World.

If someone could take on me for one unit, I can certainly do the same with backing in a poll in something as critical as technology.

I also request the turnchat to be frozen, until this dispute has been settled. (Yes I am citizen now, as you notice.)

Return of the German Longbowman!

In examining this complaint for merit, it is necessary to separate out the complaint itself from commentary. As such, I find the complaint to be:

I would like to file a Citizens Complaint for the orders based on the poll "Tech Poll" (Engineering and Democracy Beeline), where there is a tie of 5-5, but where the runner up with engineering first wins 2-1.

Looking then to the law on polling, we find:
Binding plurality poll initiative
(http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=211395)

Any single choice poll which does not state an interpretation criteria, and is not by rule subject to a specific criteria, shall be decided by designating the option receiving the most votes as binding.


The poll referred to in the complaint does not state an interpretation criteria, and is not bound by rule to any specific criteria. Therefore the option with the most votes would be binding. Since the poll did not have any option with the most votes, it counts as no binding decision.

Despite the logic behind the complaint, which does argue at least somewhat in favor of the accuser's preferred poll interpretation, there is no basis in law for a complaint on those grounds. I therefore must rule that the case has no legal merit.

A question for the judiciary, can a person who was in an office for the 2 term limit stage a coup against said office?
Also, does being appointed to an office (not voted in) count towards the 2 term limit?
And again, does winning by default count towards the 2 term limit?

Edit: Woot! 100th post

Edit #2: More questions
Is thislegal (including the fact that it would violate the 2 term limit (if it would))?
And if so, would it apply towards the 2 term limit?
And, would a coup apply towards the 2 term limit?

Sorry for the multitude of questions.

What is this term limit thing? I've looked at all the polls which include the term "term", and can't find anything about a limit. Not in the Constitution, Tribal Government Act, Elections Act, or any other rule-making poll.

I think we might have all been taking for granted something which doesn't actually exist. :confused:

If the 2 other members of the Judiciary can rule on the merits of the CC too I might be able to hold the gameplay session as scheduled.

What is this term limit thing? I've looked at all the polls which include the term "term", and can't find anything about a limit. Not in the Constitution, Tribal Government Act, Elections Act, or any other rule-making poll.

I think we might have all been taking for granted something which doesn't actually exist. :confused:

This poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=195707) is 11-5 in favour of a term-limit, and 8-4 in favour of a 2 term term limit. Any poll is an initiative as per the current demogame rules, so this poll is binding and instates a 2 term term limit.

However, that poll was made before our constitution was approved (heck, it was before the Civ4-DG2 forums were up), so it's at least dubious to use it as an official guideline.

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

@Mike
Section 2 - Vacant Offices
Offices are vacant when one or more of the following conditions is met:
No citizen was elected to the office, at the conclusion of the election cycle
When the current office holder resigns for any reason
when the current office holder is absent from the game for more than 7 days without an explanation, as determined by the Judiciary
When an office is created in the middle of a term.

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

I would like to file a Citizens Complaint for the orders based on the poll "Tech Poll" (Engineering and Democracy Beeline), where there is a tie of 5-5, but where the runner up with engineering first wins 2-1. The Chief Scientist is not considering the poll as he should (Engineering ahead of Democracy), and listening to the voice of the Chieftain, but not Will of the People. If the order from Chief Scientist is rescinded, and Engineering is put as the first research order, this CC would be held back from my side. If the contrary is done, and engineering is ignored in spite of the outcome of the poll and general citizen input, I will bring this all the way to the Rim of the World.

If someone could take on me for one unit, I can certainly do the same with backing in a poll in something as critical as technology.

I also request the turnchat to be frozen, until this dispute has been settled. (Yes I am citizen now, as you notice.)

Return of the German Longbowman!

This does bring up an interesting question. In case there's an unfinished poll that is used to determine in-game actions, like happened here, and the final result of the poll (after the TC) is different from the result used as it was at the start of the TC, which result is legally binding.

Now, from a legal standpoint, it seems logical that the citizens input as per the final result will be used for the next TC. So from a meta-game perspective, that's the right thing to do.
However, it's quite clear that that can lead to worse in-game results, because there's a change in strategy while we've already invested in another strategy. C4DG1 shows that flipping strategies over and over again is not the way to win this game.

Imagine this poll:
Who shall we declare war on? Rome/Germany/No-one/Abstain.

This poll didn't finish in time, so the DP uses the results at the start of the TC, declare war on Rome. So he declares war on Rome and attacks them. Then, after the TC, some other people have voted, and declare war on Germany is now in the lead. Should we declare war on Germany in the next TC, with all our finest troops in Roman territory because we're already at war with them, and thus severely risking our empire?

Does not matter. Taking engineering in 2-3 turns would not destroy or capsize any democracy strategy, but would be very useful to the war effort in wrapping up our two wars. I hope you respect our view more than just writing us off as you frequently do.

We will get democracy 2-3 turns later, so what? What is the drama?

Your examples are also flawed, we are having engineering before the democracy beeline, and you bring up such a far fetched example to bring down engineering, that is so typical.

Now, the poll has finished in time, and in good time to, so we can use all the votes that came in before poll closed.

It is also quite clear that not following polls seems to be ok, but to argue a case not your own is bordering insanity.

I would say the opposite, ignoring good argumentation and polls also severely risks our empire. We are not blind, deaf and dumb idiots, we argued for engineering for good reason.

The handling of discussions from the tech office this term has been so appalling, that a coup is brewing is in the works, as seen in an earlier post here.

Does not matter. Taking engineering in 2-3 turns would not destroy or capsize any democracy strategy, but would be very useful to the war effort in wrapping up our two wars. I hope you respect our view more than just writing us off as you frequently do.

We will get democracy 2-3 turns later, so what? What is the drama?

Your examples are also flawed, we are having engineering before the democracy beeline, and you bring up such a far fetched example to bring down engineering, that is so typical.

Now, the poll has finished in time, and in good time to, so we can use all the votes that came in before poll closed.

It is also quite clear that not following polls

I would say the opposite, ignoring good argumentation and polls also severely risks our empire. We are not blind, deaf and dumb idiots, we argued for engineering for good reason.

The handling of discussions from the tech office this term has been so appalling, that a coup is brewing is in the works, as seen in an earlier post here.

You seem to have missed the entire point of my post. I was talking about a hypothetical situation and was wondering (and inquering the judiciary) what to do in such a situation.

The situation at hand however has been ruled legal by 1 justice already, and I hope to see another justice coming in to agree before 12.00 GMT so we can do the TC without problems.

Well, you guys own the court, something wrong has been done, but nothing done about it. As long as this goes on, we are effectively a one party state.

I also think getting a delay would be helpful (1.5 hours left).

In examining this complaint for merit, it is necessary to separate out the complaint itself from commentary. As such, I find the complaint to be:



Looking then to the law on polling, we find:
Binding plurality poll initiative
(http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=211395)


The poll referred to in the complaint does not state an interpretation criteria, and is not bound by rule to any specific criteria. Therefore the option with the most votes would be binding. Since the poll did not have any option with the most votes, it counts as no binding decision.

Despite the logic behind the complaint, which does argue at least somewhat in favor of the accuser's preferred poll interpretation, there is no basis in law for a complaint on those grounds. I therefore must rule that the case has no legal merit.

Well, then why did you pass on the poll as it stood? You obviously saw something wrong happen, but you happened to let it pass, since it fit your agenda.

May I urge the CJ to collaborate with the JA and PD regarding Provolution's case.

I guess DS already made up his mind about this, as it seems. But that is understandable, knowing that I posted the CC. Hopefully he may consider the others supporting the engineering, and look away from the fact that I posted the CC.

I am just sick and tired of double standards and comraderie.

I am just sick and tired of double standards and comraderie.
I've been in this forum for about 2 week, I'm about 2 TCs into my first term, I have no idea how I managed to form corrupt political bonds bordering on parliamentary dictatorship in that amount of time.

Sorry Tanktunker

You are not party to this "comraderie" per se, but your stance in tech issues and handling of polls have been found useful by some forces in this game. This is what some of us want undone, which explains the argument over engineering increasing.

I have not yet had time to look at Provolution's case thouroughly and so would like to hold off on my decision regarding merit / no merit. There are indications that the game play session will be postponed till Friday which should give time for the issue to be resolved without judicial action.

I guess DS already made up his mind about this, as it seems. But that is understandable, knowing that I posted the CC. Hopefully he may consider the others supporting the engineering, and look away from the fact that I posted the CC.

I am just sick and tired of double standards and comraderie.

I happen to think that Engineering, RP, Democracy is the correct tech path. It wouldn't matter who posted a CC based on an official failing to change the interpretation of a poll after the fact, the ruling would be the same.

You are possibly right on this ruling itself. And we happen to agree on technology strategy, especially since a few here convinced me out of "democracy". "replacable parts" is now a word with better connotations anyways, and on a closer look it fits the strategy better.

What I mostly reacted to, was the treatment given by the Chief Scientist and the Chieftain in discussions and polls, and a failure to create a similar uproar to previous terms, when less wrongs have taken place. The new engineering poll will settle the issue once and for all, and filing the CC gave us enough time to bring this case to closure.

Can I completely ignore Provolution's engineering poll on the grounds that another poll, dealing with the exact same issue, is about to end with a "yes" majority that conflicts with a "yes" victory on his poll?
Legally, that is.

Well, then we set-up another poll, if Tanktunker will play hardball, that does not solve anything.

The point is, Daveshacks poll was a game-discussion poll about stopping up for discussing the entire game. My poll was about setting Engineering first the very first turnchat, in line with "The German Longbowman" (case sets precedence in court). My poll does not rule out "Democracy beeline", but places engineering firmly ahead of any beeline.

I am not accepting any heavy-hand behavior here.

I am also eagerly awaiting what Mike wants to do in all this.

Continue with beeline and ahead of Democracy Beeline are pretty conflicting.
As far as I can tell, that poll is there only to sabotage the other poll.

No, the other poll is there to make sure you guys put "Engineering" before anything else, if that is what the people wants. Sabotage is something that was done in the previous polls and discussions. This poll is merely balancing things out with making a final clarification the citizens deserve.

Unfortunately the most recent poll has priority, Provolution has mastered the tactic of delaying actions and stirring up controversy. While his poll was completely unnecessary after Dave's poll it was created none the less because Dave's poll did not generate the result he desired, and the judiciary did not appear to be siding with him either. His poll is the one which must be listened to unless a new tech poll is created to super cede it, or if that poll is ruled invalid for some reason.

It seems ridiculous in my opinion to create a poll invalidating another poll that is already in progress. If I were attempting to force my opinion through, as some here certainly are, I'd create a poll asking if the first poll on this subject should be the only one used for decision making. However that is a dirty tactic and I'm absolutely sick of the dirty tactics that Provolution has been attempting, whatever the result of these polls lets all just STOP making new polls on the subject and listen to their results for god's sake.

I have not been doing the dirty tactics here. I have merely been employing the rules of this game and the support base that wants engineering early to generate a poll, which is not even decided on yet.

Engineering may very well not win the poll at all. What matters is a fair clarification and a signal to the ruling authorities that citizens, and I mean all citizens, have a voice in this game.

The engineering clarification poll is something different than DS' poll, as DS agenda and ambition is much more comprehensive, even abandoning Democracy Beeline altogether.

Besides Grant, the controversy was already there, you just happened to think you already won, and you were wrong, that is what vexes you. Just let us see if 50 % wins, and then we make a further decision.

Not agenda nor ambition, just a different method. Not having access to any in-game information, I didn't feel right posting a poll about which tech, merely one which asked if we're satisfied with the existing decision.

DS, but you agree that your poll was something completely different from my poll? The engineering poll is of a more tactical nature geared to handling two successive wars more effectively, whereas your poll is more orientated to have a more qualified and fact-driven discussion on long term tech goals?

I would say the two different timeframes of A. (Engineering, 2-3 turns) and B. (Long term strategic considerations for technology, wonders and so on) warrant two different and separate polls.

Of course, someone tried to demonize me for that.

The problem is that your poll renders his poll voided.
You ruined his poll, because now the results are conflicts.

Your poll has a yes right now, it could change, but right now it's a yes on engineering before democracy.
His poll has a yes on democracy before anything else, but your poll is newer, there's nothing wrong with it, except that you made another poll and ruined it.

I'm genuinely tempted to make another poll out of spite.

Tanktunker, read the posts closely, Mike changed his vote, so it is in the balance.

Also, you failed to have a run-off poll, I did it for you. Do not pitch me against DS for no reason. If both polls says yes, the interpretation would be Engineering, then Democracy Bee Line, no drama. You have already shown your devotion to spite by ignoring the engineering supporters, and I think it would be a most curious election campaign move to post another poll now.

Of course, if these 2-3 turns feel hurtful, that is another story, but I cannot help that.

Can I completely ignore Provolution's engineering poll on the grounds that another poll, dealing with the exact same issue, is about to end with a "yes" majority that conflicts with a "yes" victory on his poll?
Legally, that is.

I believe we have a system in place where the most recent poll is used. At least that's what happened last term IIRC. you can, of course, completely ignore anything you want but if you would like to remain out of reach of a valid citizen's complaint the I suggest you do not ignore valid polls.

It seems ridiculous in my opinion to create a poll invalidating another poll that is already in progress. If I were attempting to force my opinion through, as some here certainly are, I'd create a poll asking if the first poll on this subject should be the only one used for decision making. However that is a dirty tactic and I'm absolutely sick of the dirty tactics that Provolution has been attempting, whatever the result of these polls lets all just STOP making new polls on the subject and listen to their results for god's sake.

I agree, though our esteemed CJ did that very thing last term. If it's ok for DaveShack to do it, it's okay for any of us to do it, right?

I agree, though our esteemed CJ did that very thing last term. If it's ok for DaveShack to do it, it's okay for any of us to do it, right?

I'm having trouble remembering the exact circumstances of the redone longbowman polls, I had thought you had posted a poll to invalidate his, but maybe his was one intended to invalidate a previous poll by you? :crazyeye:

Either way I don't think that's how polls should be done, the first poll on a matter should also be the last poll on that matter, unless the first poll is invalidated, or becomes void due to new information.

I'm having trouble remembering the exact circumstances of the redone longbowman polls, I had thought you had posted a poll to invalidate his, but maybe his was one intended to invalidate a previous poll by you? :crazyeye:

Either way I don't think that's how polls should be done, the first poll on a matter should also be the last poll on that matter, unless the first poll is invalidated, or becomes void due to new information.

Yes, I posted a poll to invalidate the poll that he posted to invalidate my original poll that was meant to let the citizens decide the reloading issue. That was a perfect example of why we shouldn't try to outdo each other's polls. But one term later we have not learned the lesson. :(

Donsig

Problem was that DS's poll did not address the repoll issue at all, it merely questioned the entire democracy beeline, which was never the intention for the engineering poll. The engineering poll and DS' broader policy polls are two very different polls, and should not be confused.

If both polls say "yes", the DS poll outcome may still be valid, AFTER engineering.

I'm not so sure that interpretation would be unanimous Provolution. It is actually difficult to know how to interpret DaveShack's poll since as instructed is not made clear in the first post of the poll. What is clear is that the first tech poll left much to be desired as does the second. In instances such as this, where there is confusion and contention, my inclination of a member of the judiciary is to hold off on playing the save until it is sorted out via a fair poll. It seems this is being done which is a good sign. :)

I would like to file a CC against Daveshack for closing the poll "Coup: mike6426 versus Tanktunker". This is in clear volation of The Tribal Government Act of 4000BC. It states that "This poll...must be set to expire in 4 days." The poll was closed after only 2 days. The closing of the poll biased the results against myself. This is also an abuse of the Mod's abilities in order to further political goals.

The poll was set to expire in 4 days, is there anything in there saying that it has to actually expire in 4 days?

This is also an abuse of the Mod's abilities in order to further political goals.

This here is a touchy subject, as it is PDMA (Public Discussion of Moderator Actions). I would strongly advise that you move this specific part of your discussion to a PM. Making it public is violating forum rules. Also note, it would be best that the CC not include that specific statement, as our Constitution also states that forum rules supersedes that of the DG. In other words, it would be best not to discuss it publicly. This is just a friendly suggestion from another citizen.

Partners and gents:

Today is 16th day of the month. August and term shall finish within 15 days.

So,please, what do you want with all this confusion?

Or, that's me who is wrong and just should try to understand that the big

metagame never needs a game running, conversely performs better without?

Best regards,

I misread the thread and made a mistake. It's been reopened.
The closing was an action in response to something which happened in that thread, but it wasn't the right action.

then I withdraw my CC

I would like to request a judicial Review. Is this Poll Legal and Binding?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=239257

Good, I want to know it too because I'm really confused now. Everyone could've made this poll at any time over the passed few days.

I admit that the discussion about who should replace the Chieftain was focussed in the Government Hall but the Tribal Goverment Act of 4000BC clearly says:

Section 2 - Vacant Offices
Offices are vacant when one or more of the following conditions is met:
No citizen was elected to the office, at the conclusion of the election cycle
When the current office holder resigns for any reason
when the current office holder is absent from the game for more than 7 days without an explanation, as determined by the Judiciary
When an office is created in the middle of a term.

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

All appointments to a vacant office are subject to a confirmation poll.

I would like to request a judicial Review. Is this Poll Legal and Binding?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=239257

I don't want to step in before the CJ even gets to add this to the docket but I will join Hyronymus in quoting The Tribal Government Act of 4000 BC: (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=207890)

Section 2 - Vacant Offices
Offices are vacant when one or more of the following conditions is met:
No citizen was elected to the office, at the conclusion of the election cycle
When the current office holder resigns for any reason
when the current office holder is absent from the game for more than 7 days without an explanation, as determined by the Judiciary
When an office is created in the middle of a term.

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

All appointments to a vacant office are subject to a confirmation poll.

This quote is not meant to be a ruling since I did not look for later laws but I offer it up in the hope that citizens can form their own opinion of the legality of the poll until the judiciary is able to formally look at the question.

Crystal clear, the four elders need to make the vote alone, not have it polled.

Crystal clear, the four elders need to make the vote alone, not have it polled.

Which than would make Hyro's poll illegal, as he's polling all the citizens, rather than just the elders.

It was pretty late here already when I noticed this, so all I can offer at this time is informal and rather sleepy ramblings...

There is another question, that being whether current office holders are eligible. Sounds like a look at the books is needed...
<some minutes pass while the aging CJ looks through piles of parchments in the still-unorganized law library>

In looking at the passed laws, I couldn't find any statements limiting who is eligible for an appointment. The limitations on being elected to 2 consecutive terms in the same office and being elected to one office are in the Election Act. Neither limit would seem to apply to appointments.

The Tribal Government law quoted above says the governors collectively determine the new chieftain, but does not say how that needs to be done. Unofficially that says to me that a particular method of making their decision, for example a poll or a private conversation via PM, is neither required nor prohibited. The law is clear however that it is the governors who must make the decision on appointing a chieftain, in the same way it is clear that the chieftain makes appointments. The citizens get their voice on an appointment after the fact, in the optional confirmation poll.

The above being unofficial, I'll leave it to the citizens for the next few hours to ponder what they think about the poll. I'd be interested in my fellow justices' opinions as to merit of the case.

Well, DaveShack, you have raised the question of whether the elders appoint or elect a new cheiftan. Will the judiciary be forced to decide what determine means?

Well, DaveShack, you have raised the question of whether the elders appoint or elect a new cheiftan. Will the judiciary be forced to decide what determine means?

Just enough time for some less sleepy ramblings before I brave my long journey to work. :crazyeye:

That's an interesting question. Why would a different word other than elect or appoint be used in this instance? I think it was because elect is associated with "by the people" and appoint is associated with "by an individuall". A new term was needed to describe "by the Elders" (which got changed to Governors by the Aimag Amendment) which would not be confused with either an election or an appointment.

This thread of reasoning leads me to think that my sleepy ramblings were part wrong. If determine is different than appoint, then no confirmation poll would apply.

Another line of reasoning is to give the indeterminate word the meaning related to its nearby or enclosing clauses. It is embedded in a section on appointments, so by this method it seems most likely that determine means appoint, if one of the given two meanings must be chosen. The governors must take an extra step to determine what their appointment will be, since they might not all have the same opinion.

If one would permit the concept behind that section ...

"Election" refers to one thing only - the regular election cycle that begins towards the end of the month and ends when the last position is decided, and involves all citizens. Everything else is an appointment.

The clause that DS was over-thinking is pretty straightforward - you cannot be elected to the same position more than twice in a row. That's it - the only restriction. You can be appointed to an office any number of times. That was deliberately included so that when participation wanes we don't hang ourselves by our pride. We can fill positions by people who are interested in those positions, when nobody was interested in running for them.

-- Ravensfire

And what about having to step down from another Official position when you want to take on another Official position that became vacant during a term. I don't think it's fair to step down before you are 100% certain you will be chosen for the other Official position. If your gamble fails you are left with nothing!

If one would permit the concept behind that section ...

"Election" refers to one thing only - the regular election cycle that begins towards the end of the month and ends when the last position is decided, and involves all citizens. Everything else is an appointment.

The clause that DS was over-thinking is pretty straightforward - you cannot be elected to the same position more than twice in a row. That's it - the only restriction. You can be appointed to an office any number of times. That was deliberately included so that when participation wanes we don't hang ourselves by our pride. We can fill positions by people who are interested in those positions, when nobody was interested in running for them.

-- Ravensfire
Not over-thinking, just predicting any possible challenge and refuting such challenge in advance with clear logic. :D

And what about having to step down from another Official position when you want to take on another Official position that became vacant during a term. I don't think it's fair to step down before you are 100% certain you will be chosen for the other Official position. If your gamble fails you are left with nothing!

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my unofficial statement above...

Still unofficially, I'd say there is no need to step down from an existing position to be appointed to another. There is nothing in the law which prevents someone from holding multiple offices at the same time. The only limitation is on being elected to multiple offices in the same election cycle, and on being elected to the same office more than twice in a row.

OK. Not sure if it was due to you being unclear about it Daveshack :D.

And what about having to step down from another Official position when you want to take on another Official position that became vacant during a term. I don't think it's fair to step down before you are 100% certain you will be chosen for the other Official position. If your gamble fails you are left with nothing!

*slaps on Intent hat again*

So let's look at the restricts on holding office that are out there. There are .... ummm, none? No restrictions on holding office? Seriously? Is that right? I mean, someone screwed up, right?

Nope. Very, very intentional (and discussed when we were creating the ruleset, plus used previously). Let me state is very clearly - there are NO restrictions on who can hold office and how many offices. None.

What IS restricted is the election process. You can be nominated for one office, and you can only be elected twice to the same office. That's it. Those are the restrictions.

The goal is that when participation is high, we'll have opportunity for people to run for office. When participation is low, we can appoint people to multiple offices if needed, or to the same office term after term. The system encourages diverse leadership when it can, but provides a fallback to keep things running when THAT is needed.

-- Ravensfire

I would like the following poll to be reviewed for validity:

Polling Act
(http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=239622)

It is my belief that this poll should be invalidated as the proposal was changed after the poll was opened. Therefore some citizens voted on one proposal, other citizens voted on a revised proposal. I request the poll be invalidated and closed.

Donsig, the proposal was NOT changed after it was posted. Instead, the OP was made more clear. The content however did not change.

Donsig, the proposal was NOT changed after it was posted. Instead, the OP was made more clear. The content however did not change.

The poll was edited. We have no record of what was there before the edit. Such an important piece of legislation should not be tainted in that way. I am not withdrawing my objection to the poll's validity.

Question: Who makes the Nomination Threads if we dont have a cheiftain.

Cause if we dont have nomination threads so, we will be in a world of trouble.

Maybe the Chiefjustice could and then we can settle things afterwards.

Question: Who makes the Nomination Threads if we dont have a cheiftain.

Cause if we dont have nomination threads so, we will be in a world of trouble.

Maybe the Chiefjustice could and then we can settle things afterwards.

Question: Why haven't the governors appointed a Chieftan yet?

Question: Who makes the Nomination Threads if we dont have a cheiftain.

Cause if we dont have nomination threads so, we will be in a world of trouble.

Maybe the Chiefjustice could and then we can settle things afterwards.

If you look in the Citizens forum you'll see this has already been brought up.

Question: Why haven't the governors appointed a Chieftan yet?

We're still discussing it, though considering the fact we're all from different parts of the world, it's taking a while.

Great job Donsig! I'm wondering if we should move this to a sticky thread?

Isn't it good to have such topic stickied indeed but expanded with Supreme Court rulings. I recommend to summarise the Court Ruling then though and keep relevant links in place. Right now I'm searching for something the Judiciary appearently once ruled upon: when does an Office become vacant.

The proble is, his post will get lost fairly quickly. It's a very valuable pot too.

Edit: Moved it for now, can always be brought back.

Good idea to give it a new home. Thanks. I agree with Hyronymus that more must be included. Like any good library the collection must be developed and organized. (Can you all tell I work in a library?) There are many polls that are initiatives but were about game play [civ4] actionable topics. It would be nice to have these all in one place, too. Maybe we can eventually get all polls added to that thread with different posts for different types of polls. :hmm: Sounds like a big job. Maybe we need a bit of a group effort, especially if we are to include summaries. I'll see what I can come up with.

As for rulings, yes they should also be part of a law library. We used to keep a judicial log of all judicial decisions. Has that been discountinued?

We have a log, in the offices subforum. There haven't been many rulings and I don't think last term kept it up to date.

Ok, then we can just link to the log for now. When we get around to summarizing and organizing the library we can import from the log.

The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered.
By Initiative in the form of a completed forum poll initiated by any citizen.
By Mandate in the form of game play instructions posted in the forum by a duly elected official with legal authority in the area covered by said instructions.
By Constituency in the form of citizen comments in favor of a decision, in a forum discussion.
By Designated Player Action in the form of actions made (and logged) during game play.


Playing now. I've got instructions for dutchfire and Provolution who have posted as citizens. Since they do not back their instructions up with a poll (the only instance in which citizens can post instructions) I must consider these instructions to be non-binding.

:sheep::sheep:

The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered.
By Initiative in the form of a completed forum poll initiated by any citizen.
By Mandate in the form of game play instructions posted in the forum by a duly elected official with legal authority in the area covered by said instructions.
By Constituency in the form of citizen comments in favor of a decision, in a forum discussion.
By Designated Player Action in the form of actions made (and logged) during game play.


Playing now. I've got instructions for dutchfire and Provolution who have posted as citizens. Since they do not back their instructions up with a poll (the only instance in which citizens can post instructions) I must consider these instructions to be non-binding.

I'd like to have the Judiciaries view on donsigs post. Should I request a Judicial Review or something else?

It would be easier in the short term to just have the Chieftain post instructions on the topic in question.

There is additional law on the subject:


Citizen's Initiative - The Playing the Save Act of 4000 BC

Section 1 - Instructions

All official instructions must be posted in the current game session instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined. All sessions, including special sessions, must have an instruction thread.

Officials must post their instructions at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session. Officials may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the session, so long as those changes are clearly noted. Officials that do not post instructions for a game session are considered to have given the DP complete control over their area for that game session, even should they be at the game session.

Citizens may post instructions based on the results of completed initiatives. These instructions must be posted at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session.

If an instruction thread has not been created for a scheduled game session when a citizen is ready to post instructions, that citizen may create a instruction thread for that session.

Section 2 - Playing

The DP for each game session, including special sessions, must maintain a log of their actions in sufficient detail that another citizen may generally recreate their actions.

During a game session, citizens are encouraged to comment and offer advice to the DP. The DP may also seek comments from citizens. The DP is not required to do so, and is not required in any way to follow any such advice.

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


Bold emphasis added to the relevant clause: Citizens are expressly given the power to post instructions relating to initiatives. Officials are given the power to post instructions over their areas. Nothing is said about mandate.

I'll hold off and let the other Justices comment on the question before going further.

The bold section of the "old" playing the save act of 4000 BC is also present in the new Gameplay Scheduling and Session Act of 1695 AD. This because the Constitution clearly states the ability (and supersedence) of completed citizen's initiatives.

The bold section of the "old" playing the save act of 4000 BC is also present in the new Gameplay Scheduling and Session Act of 1695 AD. This because the Constitution clearly states the ability (and supersedence) of completed citizen's initiatives.

Yes, but Constituency also clearly supersedes Designated Player Action.

Yes, but Constituency also clearly supersedes Designated Player Action.

I agree with Dutchfire here, DPs are required to follow clear constituencies in the constitution, and it is certainly within a citizens right to draw a DP's attention to a constituency which they might otherwise miss.

The DP is not considered an official, and thus isn't covered by the constitution's clause. They are explicitly restricted by the Playing the Save Act to act only according to the instructions given to them in the instruction thread.

Citizens should be posting in the official threads of our leaders, demanding that they post instructions, not filling the instruction thread with posts that don't belong there!

-- Ravensfire

OK, to avoid further confusion:


Article C - Decision Making
1. All decision making power within the Democracy Game is derived from the collective rights of all the citizens.
2. The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered.
1. By Initiative in the form of a completed forum poll initiated by any citizen.
2. By Mandate in the form of game play instructions posted in the forum by a duly elected official with legal authority in the area covered by said instructions.
3. By Constituency in the form of citizen comments in favor of a decision, in a forum discussion.
4. By Designated Player Action in the form of actions made (and logged) during game play.
3. In the event that two or more such delegations of the Power of the People are in conflict, the following hierarchy shall determine which decision has precedence.
1. An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type, including an earlier initiative on the same subject.
2. Mandate supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier mandate on the same subject) except an initiative or another later initiative.
3. Constituency supercedes only designated player actions.
4. Designated Player Action does not supercede any other type of decision.
4. A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except
1. Initiative must always be allowed
2. No decision shall require more support than an amendment to the Constitution.

Hmm, so the DP is restricted, by initiative to following only instructions posted in the instructions thread. That same initiative ALSO restricts non-official citizens to posting instructions only when there is a completed initiative.

As allowed BY THE CONSTITUTION, we've limited the ability of citizens to post in the instruction thread to minimize noise and reduce confusion. We allow officials to post for their area, and citizens to post for completed initiative. That's it.

-- Ravensfire

Then the Constitution needs to be changed to allow citizens to post instructions for citizen initiatives containing GPIT instructions that were succesfully polled.

Yeah, Hyro is right there, the law needs to be bridged.

Then the Constitution needs to be changed to allow citizens to post instructions for citizen initiatives containing GPIT instructions that were succesfully polled.

Nope!

Re-read the Playing the Save act that DS posted - in particular, look at the section about when citizens can post. Hint - it's bolded.

It's already in there, folks. Pass an initiative and any citizen can post the instruction(s) to impliment the initiative.

-- Ravensfire

Then what did you mention earlier, Ravensfire. You sure know how to confuse :s.

The question was prompted by this:

Citizen Dutchfire:

By constituency(did I get that Constitution term correctly?):
If we get a Great Engineer, then move him to the city where we'll build the Statue of Liberty (Riversight?), and use him to hurry production there.

If we get a Great Prophet, then move him to Equus Aurum and settle him there.

If we get a Great Scientist, move him to Xanadu and build an academy there.

Ravensfire's point was that the law allows citizens to post an instruction based on an initiative (i.e. a poll), but things that are not polls need to be posted as instructions by an official.

If the DP knows about a constituency decision it should be followed, but technically it isn't an instruction unless it meets the definition in the Playing the Save Act.

Then what did you mention earlier, Ravensfire. You sure know how to confuse :s.

Nope - it's all in the context.

Instructions threads should have instructions from officials in their area, and from citizens posting instructions to impliment completed initiatives. There should NOT be anything from "concerned citizens" posting about "constituency". That's garbage and spam, plain and simple, is not helpful to the DP and confuses matters.

Instruction threads need to be clear, concise and to the point. If it in the IT, the DP does it. Constituency is there to govern officials, not the DP. Heck that's what our rules clearly state! Shoving that down the DP's throat makes their job infinitely harder, and even more prone to the over-zealous second-guessing, whining and complaining that already goes on.

The process is simple - officials determine the Will of the People and post instructions that implement said will. Citizens post instructions only to impliment citizen initiatives that weren't polled by an official (to make sure they don't get missed). That's it. Everyone knows exactly what the DP has to do, keeping the confusion and guesswork to a minimum.

-- Ravensfire

Then I completely fail to see the fuzz here.

Well, I sure hope you're not all waiting for me to give my opinion on my post! :lol: I pretty much gave my legal opinion right in the post. I think ravensfire pretty much said what I would have said in a JR. Constituencies do trump DP action but we cannot expect the DP to hunt down every constituency, especially since that elusive term has never been properly defined within the democracy legal system. I applaud both dutchfire and Provolution for bringing attention to instructions that were needed but, IMHO, under our current law only officials can post instructions based on constituencies.