This thread will serve as the central communication point for the Term 5 Judiciary.

The Constitution of Phoenatica can be found here (http://www.civfanatics.net/~demogame/constitution_of_phoenatica.htm).

The Judicial Log can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26749).

Chief Justice: Octavian X (http://forums.civfanatics.com/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=10158)
Public Defender: Eklektikos (http://forums.civfanatics.com/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=16187)
Judge Advocate: Bill_in_PDX (http://forums.civfanatics.com/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=10733)

Term 5 Census: 41

Term 5 Basic Quorum Level: 21 (1/2 Census)

What goes in this thread?
Almost anything having to do with the rules of the nation is appropriate to this thread. We do want to keep discussions to a minimum so a new thread may be spawned off if necessary. We'd rather err on the side of inclusion so if you're not sure if it belongs here go ahead and post it anyway. If it doesn't belong, we'll direct you to where it should be. Specific items that should always be posted in this thread include:
Requests for Judicial Reviews (for Articles, Laws, Standards, and Clarification of existing rules)
Requests for Ivestigations
Requests for advice on the rules and how they work
Previous Offices:
Term 4 Judiciary thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26642)

Get a law or amendment passed?
Open a thread in the Citizen subforum to discuss the new item or change to an existing item.
Continue discussion until a general consensus has been reached by the discussion participants.
Construct a proposed poll. Make sure to include the poll question, answer choices, poll duration and the exact text you will want in the poll's first post.
Post in the Office of the Judiciary Term 5 thread requesting a Judicial Review of the proposed poll. Be sure to post a link to the proposed poll.
The officers of the judiciary will Review the proposed poll for polling standards and content of the proposed change/addition. This is done to ensure fair polling and to make sure the proposal does not conflict with existing rules.
If at least 2 of the 3 Reviews are positive, the last judicial officer to review the proposal will post the actual poll.
If at least 2 of the 3 Reviews are negative, the poll will not be posted. Correct the items noted in the Reviews (more discussion will likely be necessary) and then request a new Review.

Get a standard passed?
Post a Council Vote for the new or altered standard and post a request for Review in the Office of the Judiciary Term 5 thread. Be sure to post a link to the Council Vote.
The officers of the judiciary will Review the standard "live", while it is being voted upon.
If the Council Vote approves the standard it is considered valid immediately.
When the 3 Reviews are complete the standard is either confirmed (2 or more affirmative reviews) and becomes a permanent part of the Code of Standards or it is declined (2 or more negative reviews) and is stricken.
A declined standard is no longer valid. Reformat the standard to address the issues noted in the negative reviews and then repeat the process.

Start an investigation?
Post a Request for Investigation in this thread. Include the infraction, the rule(s) violated and the person(s) responsible for it. You may also make your request by PM to the Judge Advocate (http://forums.civfanatics.com/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=10733), Chief Justice (http://forums.civfanatics.com/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=6979) or Demo Game Moderator (http://forums.civfanatics.com/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=1567). If reported by PM you may remain anonymous.

This post will be used to track reviews during the term.

Judicial Review is when the 3 officers of the judiciary decide on a point of law. This can be to make sure a proposed Article, Law or Standard is legal and does not conflict with or duplicate existing Codes or the Constitution, to determine exactly what existing Articles, Laws and Standards mean, or to rule that an investigation is without merit and dismiss it. Let's look at the three types of Judicial Review in more detail.

Review of Proposed New Rules
The primary purpose of this Review is to keep the Constitution and Codes neat and clean and non-contradictory. If a proposed rule conflicts or changes an existing rule, this review should identify exactly what the conflict is so the proposal can be altered to avoid the conflict or include changes to the existing rules. The secondary purpose of this Review is to eliminate the adoption of rules that are already in effect through existing rules. This Review will never consider the merit of a new rule, only the legality of it. This Review is an automatic step between the discussion and approval polling of a proposed rule.

Review of Existing Rules
This Review will serve to clarify and explain existing rules and the affect they have on the game. When a question comes up on what to do in a particular situation or exactly how a particular rule applies, this Review can be used to remove the confusion. The results of these Reviews will be logged so they can be referenced when the same or a similar situation develops. Note that it isn't necessary for an actual situation to occur for this Review to take place. Any noted confusion or questioning on how a rule works can spawn a Review. This Review can be initiated by any judicial officer on their own volition or at the request of a citizen.

Review of Investigations
This Review may close an investigation if the judicial officers determine that it is without merit. When is an investigation without merit? Some examples would be an obviously fabricated accusation, a possible violation that has been retroactively eliminated by rule changes and lack of prosecution or evidence in the investigation. This Review can be initiated by any judicial officer on their own volition or at the request of a citizen. The Judge Advocate is also specifically tasked with considering the calling of this Review before polling for guilt/innocence (after an investigation discussion thread has been completed).

All judicial officers should conduct a Review on this proposed Standards change (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28624).

Question:
* If a poll on a law was started in term 4 and ends in term 5, which quorum is needed? the one of 4 or of 5? (referring to the np-poll for example)
* Where is the updated quorum for term 5 shown?

Proposal:
The first post of the poll-registry should contains a description of the process for each poll-type. Not like it is explained in the constitution, but in simple words (for example: discuss the issue, post in judical thread to request review ...).

Originally posted by disorganizer
Question:
* If a poll on a law was started in term 4 and ends in term 5, which quorum is needed? the one of 4 or of 5? (referring to the np-poll for example)
* Where is the updated quorum for term 5 shown?
The quorum needed is the current one.
Quorum and census info are in the first post of this thread.
Originally posted by disorganizer
Proposal:
The first post of the poll-registry should contains a description of the process for each poll-type. Not like it is explained in the constitution, but in simple words (for example: discuss the issue, post in judical thread to request review ...).
Good idea. I did that in the second post of this thread. I'll edit the 1st post of the poll registry as well.

Council Vote question. Is this just for the forums? Or turn chats too?


3. Council Votes (Executive Branch)
A. A quorum requires the attendance of 2/3 of the Council.

D. Override Council Vote
1 Called by any Department Leader.
2 An affirmative result overrules a presidential veto.
3 Unanimous support is required to override the veto.


There was confusion in the turn chat (and on the forum) about this code. (You know, it takes me well over 2 days to understand 1 point. How do you do it? :))

It had to do with overriding non-existant build queues (it wasn't just me who had confusion, several others did, too). Here's (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28813) the thread I posted. I, and others thought that we couldn't do any about it, since you needed the 2/3 quorum, and we didn't even have 2/3 of the council present at the turn chat. So, I (and others) felt we couldn't do a thing. Now, Donsig says we could have, since that partains to just the forums. :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

And I can't even find any rules about turn chat procedures...
*watches Shaitan turn around and pull out a stack of them in 5 seconds* ;)

One question:
The LAW-Quorum now is 35 votes. How should we ever reach this?
I think the rule has to be changed for our nation to continue functioning.
Could you review if there is a kind of emergency loophole for us to change to quorum to be 2/3 of the AVERAGE OF ALL ELECTIONS (didnt i propose this in the proposals for the constitution :-P).

Next question:
Whats up with the "run only for 1" rule? Was a poll posted yet?

Law quorum? :confused:

I thought it meant the cabinet leaders and president (7 total)??
:confused: (again)

@Chieftess

I think these are the bits of the CoL that should answer your question:3. Council Votes (Executive Branch)
B. Administrative Council Vote
1. Called by the President.
2. Affirmative result overrules an elected official’s instructions and decisions for game play.
3. Simple majority of respondents required to override the official

G. Spot Council Vote
1. An Administrative vote called and carried out in the turn chat.
2. Tallied immediately in the turn chat.
3. Simple majority of respondents required to pass the proposed measure.

H. Process and Procedure
1. Poll is posted by the sponsoring official.
2. Proposal must be in Yes/No/Abstain format.
3. Forum polls will stay open until:
a. All votes have been cast, or;
b. A quorum has responded and further votes cannot affect the outcome of the vote, or;
c. The posted poll closing time has been reached.
i. Minimum duration to run a poll is 48 hours.
4. Each Department Leader casts one vote.
5. In the event of a tie where a simple majority is required, the President will cast the deciding vote.
however as far as I can see there is nothing in the constitution about in-chat citizen polls. This surely can't be right, since decisions have been taken using this device in the past.

I think the CoL needs a bit of work done on it...

I've seen those, but it's also the 2/3 quorom that stops it at the turn chat... which means that the DP can't change the queues...
Yes, I'm still confused. The 2/3 quorum was included in that point, so I assumed that it was for all successive sub-points...

Maybe there should be something like the DP or Domestic has control over the non-existant build queues. And define 'non-existant' as being a build queue with no units/improvements in the city queue. Maybe there could be a standard that the Domestic Department posts in the thread about what each city should build. For instance, mass transit before hospitals, recycling plant before factories, etc.

That's what I thought when I first looked through it all... but then I looked more closely at point H:3. Forum polls will stay open until:
a. All votes have been cast, or;
b. A quorum has responded and further votes cannot affect the outcome of the vote, or;
c. The posted poll closing time has been reached.
i. Minimum duration to run a poll is 48 hours.
This stipulates that the quorum rule only applies to forum polls.

Right. But nevertheless the law needs finetuning. We should hold a dummy-presidential election with only 10 votes to get a lower quorum though, as any proposal we will put up wont get 35 votes IMHO ;-P
It was a bad mistake to put the whole COS and change it to COL. This showed clearly now.

Then what about turn chats?

Originaly posted by Cheftess
I've seen those, but it's also the 2/3 quorom that stops it at the turn chat... which means that the DP can't change the queues...
Yes, I'm still confused. The 2/3 quorum was included in that point, so I assumed that it was for all successive sub-points...

Origninaly posted by Eklektikos
That's what I thought when I first looked through it all... but then I looked more closely at point H:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Forum polls will stay open until:
a. All votes have been cast, or;
b. A quorum has responded and further votes cannot affect the outcome of the vote, or;
c. The posted poll closing time has been reached.
i. Minimum duration to run a poll is 48 hours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This stipulates that the quorum rule only applies to forum polls.

Originaly posted by Cheftess
Then what about turn chats?

I think the 2/3rds quorum in the Turn chats is what Cheftess is talking about. Not the quorum in the forums ;).

Since there's no reference to it in connection with the turn chats, it doesn't apply to them. I agree that this fact could be made a whole lot clearer, though... :rolleyes:

I am the one talking about the 2/3=35 law-quorum effective at the moment ;-)

Where's Shaitan when you need him? :)

I'm right here.

The quorum to validate a legislative poll is 26. To approve the measure, 2/3 of those must vote affirmatively. There is no requirement of 35 people for anything.

There is no quorum requirement for Spot Council Votes.

There is no rule for citizen votes in the chat except an outside reference in the COS that does not give them validity. Citizen votes in the chat are an ambiguity. They are a tort or "common knowledge" rule not represented in the official rules.

Now he tells us. :)

There should still be someting in the constitution to avoid confusion. Everyone there thought we had to follow the 2/3 thing (which I though *was* the quorum)...

2/3 is the approval level required to pass a measure. 2/3 of the respondents to a poll must vote affirmatively for a proposal to become law. Quorums are completely different. A quorum is simply the total number of participants that a poll must reach before it can be considered valid.

I'm not sure that I like the idea of in-chat citizen votes being an ambiguity, and I have no truck with torts or any sort (except sachertorte... mmm.... :D). Seriously though, is it really wise to leave such a powerful mechanism unregulated?

Rehashing an old wound Ekletikos? (The turn chat issue)

The national park poll passed requirements:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28523

As the 2/3 approval will be given even if the 3 missing votes for the quorum will be "no".

How to continue?

shaitan:
i seemed to have misinterpreted you post in the park-poll. mea culpa.
of course you are right with the 2/3 approvel and 1/2 quorum.

:)

oh lord shaitan, high priest of the church of the constitutional ammendment and ratification of the laws, can you forgive my misbelief in your judgement?

Originally posted by disorganizer
oh lord shaitan, high priest of the church of the constitutional ammendment and ratification of the laws, can you forgive my misbelief in your judgement?
But of course. ;)

I'm sorry, dis, but the park law poll does still need 3 more participants before it reaches quorum and becomes valid. At least one of them must be a "YES" vote.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I'm not sure that I like the idea of in-chat citizen votes being an ambiguity, and I have no truck with torts or any sort (except sachertorte... mmm.... :D). Seriously though, is it really wise to leave such a powerful mechanism unregulated?
Ah, I see the confusion now. The citizen polling in the turn chat is simply to help the DP make decisions. All of the power for the activities comes from the DP. Citizens are polled when the DP wants/needs feedback.

i thought if we get 1 more yes and it is impossible for the no's to get past the 1/3 mark, it will be still valid?
(i miscalculated with rounding down the result of 2/3 of 26 instead of rounding it up before).

i could argument with the sense of the quorum:
the quorum was implemented to ensure it was citizen's will. if we dont get the participation of the quorum but the no votes could not bring down the result, it would still be in the sense of the quorum rule to make the poll valid.
since this is nowhere specified, finetuning seems to be needed there.

example:
with 24 votes, the quorum would not have been held. when 22 of those 24 votes were yes and only 2 no, the poll would need 7 more votes to be declined. if the poll is older than 48 hours, the poll-rules say it will be finished as soon as the quorum is matched, so it will be closed with 4 no, which will let it pass.
so it will then be impossible to decline the poll even if the quorum participation was not reached.

No, the actual quorum must be reached before the poll is valid. The quorum represents a mimimum level of acceptable interest. That is, if a proposal cannot interest enough people to vote on it, there is not enough interest to function in the game.

Is this really what was intended to do? As i remember our discussion, we intended to implement a quorum as measure for wheter the result of a poll really represents the will of citizenry, not to get a minimum participation.
It was made to prevent 4 citizens polls.
IMHO, the above scenario clearly shows that if it is impossible for a poll to be declined if all further votes till quorum are no, it should be accepted as it shows the will of citizenry anyway!

I would like to have a judical review of the presidential elections. As this election had a 2x higher participation than a) the average poll participation of non-election polls and b) a still MUCH higher participation than any other election, i highly doubt that all votes had been casted by citizens.
this will greatly invalidate our census data for polls and stall all constitutional changes for the next game!
The judges should try to get voters-lists from the ops (not what ppl votet, but who voted. maybe even only which non-citizens voted). We dont even have to validate the result, only the census-validation is urgently needed.
No suspect here... where should i know him/her from? It will show on the investigation who will be the suspect.

example:
similar research in apolytonia showed 1/5 of the casted votes were done by non-citizens. assuming the same number here would lead to a census of 41 instead of 51, which would lead to a quorum of 21 instead of 25.

Dis, there is no requirement of citizenship to vote in the polls. Even if 100% of the votes were by non-citizens they would not be invalidated.

Originally posted by disorganizer
Is this really what was intended to do? As i remember our discussion, we intended to implement a quorum as measure for wheter the result of a poll really represents the will of citizenry, not to get a minimum participation.
It was made to prevent 4 citizens polls.
IMHO, the above scenario clearly shows that if it is impossible for a poll to be declined if all further votes till quorum are no, it should be accepted as it shows the will of citizenry anyway!
With this high quorum it does skew to that reasoning. However, with a lower quorum level it skews the opposit way if we allow polls to be valid without reaching the participation requirement. The problem here is not the quorum rule, it is the high quorum level. The best way to procede at this point is to attack that level.

If we were using the proposed "average of elections" to determine the census it would be 38. This would make a much more attainable quorum of 19.

I agree on that point, shaitan. Please put forward urgent discussion on that point. We will be stalled as the level at the moment is almost impossible to reach. As we now have the possibility of changing many bad rules before the next game starts, this is bad.

non citizens participating in the ELECTIOn will effect the outcome of polls. they will invalidate polls which should be valid from the constitutions point of view (they represent citizens will), but due to the non-citizens election-participation, they wont.

I have started a discussion thread here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28944).

Judge Advocate
Judicial Review

Elections Review

In accordance with Phoenatican CoL, Section E, Point 2, subsection e. The Judge Advocate Office submits this review. Please note the issue posed is a review, not a Public Investigation.

The question posed is: Were non-citizen votes place in the Presidential Election, and if so, would those votes be invalid.

Determination: The Judiciary has no power to conduct any investigation into this issue, as we do not have access to the poll results by voter. That matter is best suited for a moderator.

As to the validity of such votes in any case, I am afraid I must disagree with the honorable Chief Justice on this point.

Phoenatica's Consitution, Article A says:

All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of Phoenatica. Citizens have the right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to representation, the right to demand satisfaction and the right to vote.

Therefore, it is a necessary connection that a Citizen must be registered.

The Code of Laws, Section A, Point 7, further defines the right to vote for citizens:

Right to Vote
a All citizens have the right to vote in all public polls.
b No citizen will be forced to cast their vote against their conscience.
c No citizen will vote more than once in the same poll.


Again, all rights are granted to citizens. Citizens are defined in the Constitution as those in the Registry.

Further, Code of Standards, Section K, also reinforces that those who wish to participate in the game should be registered in the census.

I reiterate that the Judiciary has no capability to ensure that these requirements are being met. But I do dispute the idea that anyone can "come in off the streets" and vote.

Further, with well over 100 registered users we could easily have had nothing go wrong in the last Presidential Election.

Bill
Judge Advocate of Phoenatica

Good points and excellent logic. However, I maintain my position based on the lack of exclusionary wording plus the implausibility of enforcement.

Lack of exclusion: Although the items that Bill cited do indeed confer a guarantee of voting rights upon the citizenry, there is no wording that excludes non-citizens from voting.

Implausibility of enforcement: Ruling that only citizens can vote would be akin to "Purple Sky" legislation. Purple Sky legislation is when a law is created that cannot, under any reasonable circumstances, be enforced. "We decree that the sky shall be purple!"

I tend to agree with the Chief Justice's lack of exclusion interpretation. I disagree that the implausibility of enforcement applies. We could easily do away with the secret ballot in elections and have our citizens post their votes in an election thread or threads. This would allow us to verify that voters are actually registered citizens.

True, we could go to an open ballot system but we're reviewing our current system. Verifying citizenry in our current voting/polling scheme definitely comes under implausibility of enforcement.

I wouldn't be opposed to open ballots. Voting would be a little more tedious but easily verifiable.

And you're right. Just because it shouldn't happen doesn't mean it won't and just because it should happen doesn't mean it will. I was thinking the same thing as I read Bill's post.

Maybe we could bring something in here from apolytonia: The mods there try to bring together the registry and the right to vote in polls.
This means: They plan to implement a routine only allowing registered citizens to vote...
But they also got voters-lists from the mods... but maybe someone of us with good connection to the TF could talk with him about this issues?

@bill: assuming 51 voters being ok just from the fact we have >100 registred citizens is propably a fault. None of our previous polls revealed much more than 20 votes, only in the election phase some get 25-27 votes. even the other elections stayed far beneath 51. This IMHO shows clearly that something was wrong (i cant imagine ppl not caring about the game but being registered just for the elections)

There were several elections with high turnout. The numbers this term were: 51, 44, 41, 38, 31 and 21. Turnout is heavily dependent upon the popularity of the candidates.

But then, why dont normal polls have this high output? Even if its an interesting and important thing, the polls are much lower.

Voter apathy is probably the biggest reason. The same reason why there are generally only a dozen or so active posters.

Agreed, and the same thing holds true in real life. Look at the voter participation in the USA during non-presidential elections, it is much less.

Re-Rebuttal to Shaitan. I agree that non-citizen voting is not specifically forbidden, but that is a messy path to go down for review purposes.

For example, in our review of the turn chat thread, I remind everyone that there is no words specifically excluding non-office holders from posting there. But we all agreed that it was implied by the laws in place.

I am just trying to remain consistent in my interpretations.

Finally, to all, as noted in my post, I do recognize there is the proverbial snowballs chance in hades that we could police this stuff, and I am not advocating it, but I do think we should understand what we approved constitutionally, and correct it if needed.

Originally posted by disorganizer
@bill: assuming 51 voters being ok just from the fact we have >100 registred citizens is propably a fault. None of our previous polls revealed much more than 20 votes, only in the election phase some get 25-27 votes. even the other elections stayed far beneath 51. This IMHO shows clearly that something was wrong (i cant imagine ppl not caring about the game but being registered just for the elections)

dis, you may well be right, but unfortunately (or actually fortunately now that I think about it) the Judiciary has no way to check this.

Further, in the only other instance where a Mod investigated, DoM found no violations. So I think the weight of assumption has to be on the side that the vote is valid unless someone can prove otherwise.

Bill

Nope. I think he said it was not possible to do it as TF doesnt track votes on CFC... he found no violations of duplicate registration etc. but could not see the voter list for finding non-citizens.

but another point:
who puts the national park thing in the COL? it finally passed the quorum (even got 4 over it!)

I've got the combined doc. I'll update it and post it tomorrow and request the change to the Forum copy.

Originally posted by disorganizer
@bill: assuming 51 voters being ok just from the fact we have >100 registred citizens is propably a fault. None of our previous polls revealed much more than 20 votes, only in the election phase some get 25-27 votes. even the other elections stayed far beneath 51.

Didn't the term three presidential election garner close to 50 votes?

i dont know. who can say this?
well, maybe thats why ppl were so dissatisfied with the term3 election result they talked DOM into investigation ;-)

Yes, Term 3 had a huge turnout as well. Similar circumstances - very popular candidates in a tight race.

Originally posted by disorganizer
i dont know. who can say this?
well, maybe thats why ppl were so dissatisfied with the term3 election result they talked DOM into investigation ;-)

Using that logic we should then call for an investigation into the term 5 elections. No one has seriously called for such an investigation. Is that because they're satisfied with the out come this time. ;)

Maybe not. Maybe they just think we had enough PIs? Or maybe some ppl decline every request brought up to them to start a PI for someone else? Who knows.

Originally posted by donsig


Using that logic we should then call for an investigation into the term 5 elections. No one has seriously called for such an investigation. Is that because they're satisfied with the out come this time. ;)

Maybe that was the reason for all of the PIs in Term 3. ;)

But, then again, the game is almost over, the the PI would probably be over AFTER the game is finished. :) Besides, last time Duke checked, he couldn't tell.

Propably thats the reason why nobody pi's this issue any more... ;-)
But what would happen if a pi was started directly before the end of the game? What could be the measures? Shaitan?

Not much of anything as the game would be over before completion of the PI. It doesn't really matter if somebody is impeached when their position is over anyway. What would it matter to issue a warning when there's no chance for a repeat offense?

The only way an end of term investigation would matter would be if we carried over the "criminal records" of the players to the next game.

Originally posted by disorganizer
Maybe not. Maybe they just think we had enough PIs? Or maybe some ppl decline every request brought up to them to start a PI for someone else? Who knows.

At least it terms of term 4 and 5, the PI request I have been presented is yours dis in term 4 where you asked for an investigation of the Kashmir province:

Originally posted by disorganizer
I herewith request judical investigation on the following issue:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showt...9071#post399071
Toasty requested build-queues in the turn-thread, though he:
a) was not in the position to do so (no governor yet)
b) did not base his post on any decission of citizenry nor did even talk back to the cities belonging to his province
c) ignored the proposals of the national park project by requesting a research lab


I then asked you to confirm that you were calling for a Public Investigation of Toasty, to which I received no response from you.

If I have missed other calls for PI's please do bring them to my attention immediately. Having a real world job that distracts me now and again, I may well have missed one. I have never declined a request for a PI though.

Please also remember that a PI requires a person as the target of the investigation, not an issue. Issues are dealt with through reviews.

Actually, I am disappointed in donsig...been on the job six days now and not one PI...jeez! We're running out of time here mister!

Bill
Judge Advocate of Phoenatica

The revised Constitution in html has been uploaded here (http://www.civfanatics.net/~demogame/constitution_of_phoenatica.htm). Changes include COL addition for Parks and COS change for candidate eligibility. Also, formatting has been changed to make it easier to read and it now uses the Civfanatics graphics and background.

Bookmarks have been added to each section so they can be referenced directly. Bookmarks are formated with CON (Constitution), COL (Code of Laws) or COS (Code of Standards), plus a dash, plus the section letter. For example, Constitution article D has a bookmark of CON-D. The link for that section would look like this:
http://www.civfanatics.net/~demogame/constitution_of_phoenatica.htm#CON-D

@bill: i got some pm's like in the donsig pi and the stg pi... i just declined bringing them forward... instead i deleted them after replying and pointing to the official way.

Originally posted by disorganizer
@bill: i got some pm's like in the donsig pi and the stg pi... i just declined bringing them forward... instead i deleted them after replying and pointing to the official way.

No problem dis, I just wanted to ensure I had not missed something.

I am itchin' to do a PI!

Originally posted by Chieftess

Maybe that was the reason for all of the PIs in Term 3. ;)


I might as well face it. Chieftess is the Ronald Reagan and I'm the Richard Nixon of Phoenatica. :(

I am not a crook! :p

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX

Actually, I am disappointed in donsig...been on the job six days now and not one PI...jeez! We're running out of time here mister!


Well, I posted instructions in the turn chat thread and no one complained. I'm getting too old for controversy I guess. Did you all notice how much I aged during term three? I've got grey hairs now! :eek:

@Bill:
just wait. donsig will hopefully also be at the next game, so you will have many chances for pi's ;-)
@donig:
just take over the chat ;-) i would propose just starting 5 minutes before ct would start so you would have done a turn and no one can undo it... :-P
@all
maybe we really should carry over criminal records for the game after the one where they occured ;-)

hmmm. is inciting someone to do a crime sueable in our game?

Conspirarcy... hmmm... ;)

@Donsig

Richard Nixon? But you weren't actually impeached, which probably makes you the Phoenatican version of one Mr William Jefferson Clinton ;)

Originally posted by Eklektikos
@Donsig

Richard Nixon? But you weren't actually impeached, which probably makes you the Phoenatican version of one Mr William Jefferson Clinton ;)

I ain't that lucky. ;) I've decided that I'm actually more like the Phoenatican Rodney Dangerfield...

Originally posted by Eklektikos
[BRichard Nixon? But you weren't actually impeached, which probably makes you the Phoenatican version of one Mr William Jefferson Clinton ;) [/B]

Well, actually, Clinton was the only one of the two to actually be impeached. The "trial" that Clinton won in the Senate was made necessary by that actual impeachment.

Nixon was never impeached, nor was a vote held to do so. Obviously his resignation forestalled that event, which would have likely ended in conviction and removal from office.

Bill

Well, there goes my credibility! :lol:

I'd just like to point out to all that I do research my judicial reviews rather more extensively than my spammy remarks ;)

a good example why to implement different quorums on different issues ;-)
i believe all our official polls should be open unlimited until minimum of 2 days or quorum reached (whichever comes last).

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=416163#post416163

maybe all officials should receive a pm upon their start in the job stating how to put up official polls... just a idea to prevent polls being invalidated due to lack of knowledge of the rules

Just looking for a second & third opinion from my judicial colleagues here:

If a governor wishes to pre-appoint an acting governor to cover possible future absences from the fora, would that governor need to run an acceptance poll for every instance where the acting gov takes control, or could one acceptance poll remain valid for as long as the governor wishes?

My view is that the one poll should be able to cover the rest of the term if the governor wishes it to.

I agree. One confirmation poll is all that is required.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
Just looking for a second & third opinion from my judicial colleagues here:

If a governor wishes to pre-appoint an acting governor to cover possible future absences from the fora, would that governor need to run an acceptance poll for every instance where the acting gov takes control, or could one acceptance poll remain valid for as long as the governor wishes?

My view is that the one poll should be able to cover the rest of the term if the governor wishes it to.

Sounds an awful lot like deputy governors. That's borderline treason. :lol:

@donsig

Ssssh! ;)

Originally posted by donsig


Sounds an awful lot like deputy governors. That's borderline treason. :lol:
No, there's a distinct difference. Acting Governors are never elected. ;)

Originally posted by Shaitan

No, there's a distinct difference. Acting Governors are never elected. ;)

Ouch! That gavel hurts!:hammer:

Originally posted by Shaitan

No, there's a distinct difference. Acting Governors are never elected. ;)
Well... strictly speaking they do have to get past an acceptance poll... which probably makes them more elected than you or I, Shaitan :king: ;)

maybe we should implement acceptance polls for all elected officials after the eleciton?

like: do you accept this government?

You mean non-elected officials? Perhaps have elections even for unopposed candidates with CANDIDATE/NONE/ABSTAIN options. That's doable with no changes to the rules. If NONE wins, the position would then be appointed.

Doooh! How embarrassing...

shaitan: no. i meant what i wrote! ;-)

an example:
you have 4 candidates. you like 2 of them and hate the other 2. you vote for one, but he doesnt get even up to deputy. your second choice becomes deputy though, so in the approval poll you decline the leader and accept the deputy. if many ppl think like this, the deputy would become the leader and could appoint a deputy for himself...
(now this is really! going to be complicated ;-)

We don't have a mechanism to impeach the entire government. Apolytonia is wishing they had one right now. ;)

Any thoughts on the option I presented?

Originally posted by disorganizer
an example:
you have 4 candidates. you like 2 of them and hate the other 2. you vote for one, but he doesnt get even up to deputy. your second choice becomes deputy though, so in the approval poll you decline the leader and accept the deputy. if many ppl think like this, the deputy would become the leader and could appoint a deputy for himself...
(now this is really! going to be complicated ;-)
This is just a very long way to do multiple choice polling (which was shot down with laser guided missiles when I suggested it).

I know... it was more or less a joke though from my side, but just to mention: im for multiple choice elections and polls totally if the rules used to determine the winners are laid out clearly.

I like your option for unopposed candidates, Shaitan. Although I'll be eating my words when I can't get into office in the next game :D

btw:
now as i reread,
i would fully support a acceptance poll for ALL unelected official possitions (including appointed and unopposed).

and another thing:
maybe we could also have approval polls for all non-official positions? what if someone doesnt like the census officer? this would be the only way to get rid of him.

If somebody doesn't like a non-official in a position they could launch an eviction campaign through the normal discussion/polling method.

I've started a discussion on interim rules (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29226). Will we still be bound by the current game rules when we are between games? Will we still have officials during this period? What rules do we use for elections if we suspend our rules?

Regarding acting governors, I think a single approval poll per position and individual is sufficient.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Regarding acting governors, I think a single approval poll per position and individual is sufficient.

Mwahahahaha, shot down COL amendment eat my heart out!
Depudy, I meant, Assisstant Governors here we come!

i spawnded a discussion on the topic of offices for the next game...
please take part:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29288

All justices should post a review on this proposed poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=416714#post416714) to change an article of the Constitution.

I have a question involving the recent 'modding' of our Cheif Justice, Shaitan. Unless I'm much mistaken, moderators are not allowed to hold 'leader' positions, like governor or president. Does this affect the Judical Office?

Please note initiation of a Public Investigation in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29589

Well, Shaitan and Eyrei must be excluded from the official positions for next game i believe, as they are now mods.
Please give a judical review on that one.

I agree with disorganizer, and second the request for a judicial review on the subject.

There is no need for a review on whether I must retire because I've been modded. The Code of Laws is very specific in this regard and leaves no room for interpretation.

Section F, Point 4: (Moderators) May not hold Leader positions.

Which means I am resigning my position as Chief Justice. Of the three positions I've been elected to, this one was definitely my favorite. I leave you in good hands with Bill and Eklektikos. Either one would make a fantastic Chief Justice.

You're insight in this office will be missed. Good luck modding. :D

I have posted my rebuttal in the Public Investigation thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29589)

I think shaitan himself could not have worded it better.

So, from Chief Justice you're moving on up to a position on the highest court in the demogame. I just hope you won't have occasion to use that gavel on us :hammer: ;)

Good luck! :)

Please cast your vote (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29515) on whether to adjust our census.

Judiciary members, please cast your vote as to Merit or No Merit in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=426489#post426489

I request judical review of the poll:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29618
Wording and direct replacement of a poll issue.

I regretfully request an investigation of our Vice President, donsig. He has willfully abused a non-discussion thread that was specifically reserved for a Senatorial vote. He was warned 3 times but refused to cease and desist his unlawful actions. Here are the specifics:

Item violated
Code of Laws
A. Citizen Rights
3. Right to Free Speech
a. Citizens may post their comments in forum threads wherever appropriate.

Location of violation
Governor's Poll - Change in Article I of the Constitution - The Census (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29516)

Violation
This thread is a Senatorial poll. It was clearly and specifically declared to not be open for discussion. It was also clearly reserved for governors only, to post their votes on the constitutional amendment. Donsig violated this 4 times. After the first violation, I responded with my own post. Almightyjosh (a governor) also responded, noting correctly that this thread was not the appropriate place for discussions. I then removed my own and donsig's offending posts. Donsig posted again. I removed his post and cautioned him again that this was not a discussion thread. He posted a third time. I again removed his post and informed him that he would not be warned again. He posted a fourth time. I have closed the thread as it is quite apparent that he will not respect it.

I accuse donsig of willfully, intentionally and repeatedly invading the thread. I believe that he is doing it to provoke a confrontation with me so he will have ammunition for his campaign against mods being citizens.

My options were to handle this as a mod, turn it over to another mod to deal with or try to handle it through the game itself. I chose not to handle this as a mod as I strongly believe this is exactly what donsig was trying to provoke and regardless of how correct I am I do not wish to give him that satisfaction. I am not the type of person to turn over a problem to somebody else so the second option was never really an option for me. As the violation was one of the game rules, I am confident that this can be resolved from within the game, by the game players.

On a personal note, I am incredibly pissed that he is trying to manipulate me to serve his own ends and even more pissed that he is doing it in such an underhanded fashion.

It is with regret that I have began to fulfill my duties and as required, a Public Investigation is now open in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29795

*sigh* not again :-( i insist on him not getting a pi! because i also didnt get one!

You did get one, disorganizer. It went through the proper channels and you were vindicated. Have a beer. :beer:

I think he actually wanted to be convicted.:crazyeye:

I think dis is a bit of a closet masochist... seems he craves punishment :whipped:

Well, the most likely punishment would have been a warning, seeing as he has a clean record and all. And since eyrei did warn all of the RPG folk to keep this games' stuff in this forum he was sort of indirectly punished appropriately in a delayed sort of a fashion. Kind of.

Shaitan, you probably know that a PI was opened on donsig. Will you continue to act a Chief Justice for this investigation?

this is a good question, since Shaitan is the one calling the PI...

If shaitan would act in this matter, i would put him on PI for lost impartiality in this case ;-)
Now where is the backup-plan for our judicacy?

I propose that Shaitan recuse himself from duties related to this case.

The duties of the Chief Justice are to oversee and ensure that a fair trial is provided, and to see that the JA and PD are doing their jobs. Otherwise the process does not involve direct input from the Chief Justice unless I were to call for NO MERIT.

Given that is an option available in this process, I think it is only fair that Shaitan appoint a Special Council for this case to oversee the CJ role for this investigation.

I believe that Eyrei, as a Mod, and experienced official, would serve well in that role.

Bill
Judge Advocate

I'm gonna try to contact CT. Maybe she can appoint someone for council approval.

Originally posted by Octavian X
I'm gonna try to contact CT. Maybe she can appoint someone for council approval.

Shaitan has been trying to contact her for about 24 hours. If she does not respond within another 24 hours, it will have to be passed down the chain of command. Since donsig is next, it will pass to the Domestic Leader.

Also, just a note. We do not have any procedure for dealing with the situation where the accused does not respond to the PI thread. Since the 1st post is reserved for that purpose, someone could simply not respond, thus delaying the PI indefinately.

First, I have resigned from the position of Chief Justice so that isn't a consideration here. Hopefully Chieftess will pop up in the next day. If not, the Domestic Leader will be responsible for appointing a new Chief Justice as she will be officially absent.

The defense has the right to the first posts but only for 24 hours. Once this time has passed they lose the reserved spots.

If CT doesn't show, then could you recommend someone? I want your opinion on it.

Originally posted by Zarn
If CT doesn't show, then could you recommend someone? I want your opinion on it.
Sure will. Unfortunately my top 3 recomendations are all involved in this PI. :(

I'll PM you my recomendations tomorrow if Chieftess doesn't show.

Originally posted by Shaitan
First, I have resigned from the position of Chief Justice so that isn't a consideration here. Hopefully Chieftess will pop up in the next day. If not, the Domestic Leader will be responsible for appointing a new Chief Justice as she will be officially absent.


From the CoL, Section C, points 1 and 2):

B) The Deputy of the Presidency is the Vice President.

C) The Vice President assumes all powers and responsibilities of the Presidency during the absence of the President.

Point 2) Council
B) Each department will have a deputy. The departmental deputy assumes all powers and responsibilities of the department during the absence of the leader.



How in heaven's name does the Domestic Leader appoint a Chief Justice? I may be under investigation but I am still Vice President, am I not?

Originally posted by donsig


From the CoL, Section C, points 1 and 2):



How in heaven's name does the Domestic Leader appoint a Chief Justice? I may be under investigation but I am still Vice President, am I not?

It would be absurd to have a person on trial choose the judge. The task of appointing a new Chief Justice should fall to the domestic leader if CT does not show up soon.

Originally posted by Shaitan
The defense has the right to the first posts but only for 24 hours. Once this time has passed they lose the reserved spots.

I have already pmed Eklektikos and asked him to reserve the second post in the PI thread. I will then reserve the third post. It will take me more than 24 hours to consult with the public defender and post my defense. This is a complicated issue and my time is limited. I am working two jobs this month and one does not come with internet priviledges. I also am unable to get on-line from home right now. I have already pmed the Judge advocate explaining this.

Originally posted by eyrei


It would be absurd to have a person on trial choose the judge. The task of appointing a new Chief Justice should fall to the domestic leader if CT does not show up soon.

Absurd or not eyrei it is constitutional and legal for me as Vice President to assume the powers and responsibilites of the of the President in Chieftess's absence.

Originally posted by donsig


Absurd or not eyrei it is constitutional and legal for me as Vice President to assume the powers and responsibilites of the of the President in Chieftess's absence.


Considering it is likely yours would be the only PI that newly appointed Chief Justice would preside over I do not think it would sit well with most citizens for you to do so. But you are correct, you do have the right to make the appointment, but I think it would be counterproductive for your case.

Originally posted by eyrei


Shaitan has been trying to contact her for about 24 hours. If she does not respond within another 24 hours, it will have to be passed down the chain of command. Since donsig is next, it will pass to the Domestic Leader.

Also, just a note. We do not have any procedure for dealing with the situation where the accused does not respond to the PI thread. Since the 1st post is reserved for that purpose, someone could simply not respond, thus delaying the PI indefinately.

Well, let's take a look at the rules here (from the CoS):



SECTION J ABSENTEEISM
Point 1) An official is considered absent from the chat turn when they are not present at the chat turn.

Point 2) An official is considered absent from the forum when they have not responded to a required inquiry (Cabinet Vote, request in the official's department thread) in 36 hours.



This post is from the term five presidential thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=425939#post425939) It is Shaitan's resignation as Chief Justice and I submit that it is a request (for a new Chief justice to be appointed) in the official's department thread. The request was made at 12:50 pm (GMT) August 13, 2002. It is now 3:28 am August 16, 2002 and more than 36 hours have passed.
As Chieftess has not been heard from I request recognition as President under Section J of the Code of Standards.

Here is the new Presidential thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29843)

I have appointed Chiefpaco as Chief Justice. The post is here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=432249#post432249)

I am not sure how to initiate the council vote for approval. My eyes are getting bleary reading through the CoL and CoS.

*looks around*

I leave this place for a day, thinking the game is over, and what happens? :)

*note to self - never let donsig touch the Presidential Chair* :p

You'd better be careful, donsig. Is it possible to has two PI's on the same person at once?

So, to clear this up...
Donsig, you NEVER get to be president!!!!!! You stay VP with presidential powers until the Prez shows up again.
As the Prez is quite clearly here again, you no longer have these powers.
CP is not yet Cheif Justice, so CT can pick who she likes. She should not be forced to pick CP and should not feel obliged to, as we MUST assume CP was picked with unfair bias. I think also that he is retired from public life.
Regardless of the law, it was totally innapropriate that the accused pick his own judge, and his willingness to do so is very regretable.

Okay, this will be the first of a few posts. Please allow me some time (a few hours) to tie all of this together. I am definately sitting in the middle of this.

Judge Advocate Reviews

Line of Succession

Clearly donsig is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore within the game it is not appropriate in the view of this office that his position as Vice President be bypassed in the line of succession.

I know it doesn't seem right, but frankly it is a bigger violation of the law than he is accused of for this to be promoted as policy.

I say all of this "within the game". eyrei has posted his opinion, and if he imposes it as a mod, then my opinion is moot. Secondly, if the Public Defender agrees with my opinion here, then the absence of the CJ is not a factor.

Who is the current president?

I am concerned with two things here.

First donsig is correct, that should Chieftess not respond to a properly formated request in her thread within 36hrs, then he should be President. I can verify that 36 hrs have passed between CT's responses.

However, eyrei posted a request in a tone that could be interpreted as moderator action when he says "I would like you to hold off for a few days before you accept Shaitan's resignation."

Given the nature of that post, and general confusion around this transition. It is the opinion of the Judge Advocate that Chieftess is still President.

I cast my vote, and ask the PD to do the same not supporting donsig's attempted move. However, there should be NO penalty for this move, as he is following the laws.

Bill
Judge Advocate

I would also like to add, again, that there is nothing in the law that says Donsig would become President (especially not without a poll of some kind). So he may temporarially assume the powers of the president, but that does not mean that he is then the president and may disregard the thread of the absent president and change his tag to President of Phoenatica!!
Sorry Donsig, but you lost the race for president, please don't try and get in the back door.

I'm not sure if I should ask for a judicial review or an investigation but I would like the Judicial Department to look into the matter of the dual appointments make for Chief Justice.
I assumed presidential powers in Chieftess's absence and appointed Chiefpaco as Chief Justice. Chieftess returned at about the same time. I have not figured out if she was back before or after I made the appointment. She also made an appointment to Chief justice. I am hoping that the Judicial Department can make a ruling as to which appointment (if either) is valid.

I think it's easier than it looks. Donsig's appointment wasn't confirmed by the Council so Chiefpaco wasn't in office when Chieftess made her appointment.

Although to the untrained eye it does look improper for the investigated to appoint a justice who could concievably affect the outcome of his case, the specifics of this action counter that impression. We may have some conflicts from time to time but I have absolutely total confidence that donis will always carry out the duties of his office in a fair manner with the benefit of Phoenatica as the ultimate goal in each decision. Additionally, in this case, his choice was identical to what I was going to suggest.

Not that this matters now with Chieftess back, I guess. Still, it needed saying.

I would like a judical review of the following point:

If we use the provinces as they are now, we will propably end up with 1 governor for a long time.
With this, the senate will be a one-man-show for very long.
This will make misuse of the senates position possible and can not be in the sense of the constitution imho.
Whats the judges' view about it?

the delphi files:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29882

Public Defender's Review

Chain of Command
I agree completely with Bill_in_PDX that regardless of his/her embroilment in a PI, the VP would still take over in the event of the president's absence from the moral standpoint of "innocent until proven guilty", from the precendent of Donsig's previous PIs during which he constitutionally retained the full powers of his presidency, and also from the fact that if a PI were to automatically remove officials from power until resolution it would become possible to stage a temporary coup d'etat by requesting PIs of those above one in the CoC.
Thus it is neither constitutional nor desireable that the presidency should not pass to Donsig in Chieftess' absence.

Current President

Chieftess - for the reasons given above by Bill_in_PDX. I do not believe I have anything to add to his analysis of the situation.

Originally posted by donsig
I'm not sure if I should ask for a judicial review or an investigation but I would like the Judicial Department to look into the matter of the dual appointments make for Chief Justice.
I assumed presidential powers in Chieftess's absence and appointed Chiefpaco as Chief Justice. Chieftess returned at about the same time. I have not figured out if she was back before or after I made the appointment. She also made an appointment to Chief justice. I am hoping that the Judicial Department can make a ruling as to which appointment (if either) is valid.

Will someone please tell me what I must do to get this looked at? If Chieftess was really absent then my assumption of the presidential powers was legal and appropriate. That should mean that my appointment must be dealt with. At the very least we need a judicial clarification in case this kind of situation ever arises again.

I would propose ammending the law to exclude the suspect from being able to appoint any judical member as long as he is under pi. ;-) even if he/she takes over the coc, he will be skipped.

Originally posted by donsig


Will someone please tell me what I must do to get this looked at? If Chieftess was really absent then my assumption of the presidential powers was legal and appropriate. That should mean that my appointment must be dealt with. At the very least we need a judicial clarification in case this kind of situation ever arises again.
I'd like to see an official review as well. It's entirely possible that this could happen again (heck, it happened once, didn't it?).

My opinion (as a common citizen, of course) is that donsig's appointment was totally legal and if it had been ratified, chiefpaco would now be the Chief Justice. Since he was not confirmed and we have always used a "last word wins" approach, Chieftess' appointment is fully legal and her candidate will be Chief Justice once he is confirmed by the Council.

There is secondary problem with Chieftess' selection though. Neither Bill nor Eklektikos can be removed from their offices without their consent. To be more precise, they could indeed be appointed to a vacant office but could then remove themselves from that office if they wished, in order to satisfy the 1 Leader Position Only rule. In any case, the Public Defendant office is not vacant until Eklektikos vacates it.

Ugly little mess, isn't it?

Quoting Shaitan:
There is secondary problem with Chieftess' selection though. Neither Bill nor Eklektikos can be removed from their offices without their consent.

Now that was out of left field...They hold elected positions and can be removed from office just like any other elected office. Where did you come up with that?

Well, we can be removed but only via PI & impeachment. Trying to reassign us to another office against our will is another matter.

Originally posted by Shaitan

There is secondary problem with Chieftess' selection though. Neither Bill nor Eklektikos can be removed from their offices without their consent. To be more precise, they could indeed be appointed to a vacant office but could then remove themselves from that office if they wished, in order to satisfy the 1 Leader Position Only rule. In any case, the Public Defendant office is not vacant until Eklektikos vacates it.

Ugly little mess, isn't it?

*sigh*
Will i ever understand your constitution? :)

Here we go again.. new thread...

@Cyc - My statement was in the context of appointments. I didn't mean to imply that they could NEVER be removed.

Originally posted by donsig


Will someone please tell me what I must do to get this looked at? If Chieftess was really absent then my assumption of the presidential powers was legal and appropriate. That should mean that my appointment must be dealt with. At the very least we need a judicial clarification in case this kind of situation ever arises again.

Jeez! Can't a guy get some sleep! :D

My opinion is that when Chieftess returned and nominated her candidate, that she should have also withdrawn your nomination of chiefpaco. donsig is right though, this should be addressed publically.

In other words, the nomination is for the President to make. Since donsig's candidate was not confirmed into office, then I feel the President can change who the nominee is.

Now, in theory, were chiefpaco confirmed by the cabinet vote, then clearly he would be Chief Justice, and CT's return would have no bearing on that, nor would she have the right to remove him at will.

My recommendation is that Chieftess withdraw the Presidential nomination of chiefpaco, and continue with the process of her nomination.

Bill
Judge Advocate with tired fingers

My opinion is that when Chieftess returned and nominated her candidate, that she should have also withdrawn your nomination of chiefpaco. donsig is right though, this should be addressed publically.

In other words, the nomination is for the President to make. Since donsig's candidate was not confirmed into office, then I feel the President can change who the nominee is.

Now, in theory, were chiefpaco confirmed by the cabinet vote, then clearly he would be Chief Justice, and CT's return would have no bearing on that, nor would she have the right to remove him at will.

My recommendation is that Chieftess withdraw the Presidential nomination of chiefpaco, and continue with the process of her nomination.
Ditto.

Or, CT might consider nominating chiefpaco herself. This Judiciary Member would welcome his presence on the bench.

Originally posted by disorganizer
I would like a judical review of the following point:

If we use the provinces as they are now, we will propably end up with 1 governor for a long time.
With this, the senate will be a one-man-show for very long.
This will make misuse of the senates position possible and can not be in the sense of the constitution imho.
Whats the judges' view about it?

My view is that there is nothing to review. :D

We have the law in place, you are welcome to try to change it via normal channels and proceedures.

As for misuse of power, many times that is in the eye of the beholder, but we have more than ample experience at stringing up our leaders via PI, so I feel adequate protection exists.

Bill
Judge Advocate

Originally posted by disorganizer
I would like a judical review of the following point:

If we use the provinces as they are now, we will propably end up with 1 governor for a long time.
With this, the senate will be a one-man-show for very long.
This will make misuse of the senates position possible and can not be in the sense of the constitution imho.
Whats the judges' view about it?
As Bill says, not really a matter for judicial review. If it concerns you, start a discussion about it in the citizen's forum and I'll be happy to post my views on the matter as a plain citizen :D

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX

Jeez! Can't a guy get some sleep! :D

Bill
Judge Advocate with tired fingers

I forgot Shaitan isn't Chief Justice anymore. He seems to always be on-line and I have gotten spoiled with his swift replies. :)

Originally posted by donsig


I forgot Shaitan isn't Chief Justice anymore. He seems to always be on-line and I have gotten spoiled with his swift replies. :)

That's okay, get me an autographed t-shirt (the PI6 model) and all is forgiven...

:p

I HEREWITH REQUEST...

closure and declaration of invalidity of ALL game setup and nation choosing polls. NONE of them were discussed beforehand AND it is not stated clearly that they are only informational, so they are official and MUST be discussed beforehand.

As you youself stated before for the turn -1 polls, all official polls must be discussed before polled at.

Find the fitting article in your own posts!
I do not hat the time and will to look thru the whole forum.

I HEREWITH REQUEST...
public investigation of the closure of the "turn -1" polls.
all of the polls were inadequately closed for further input and discussion. our constitution does not allow closure of running polls. the polls MAY have been invalidate by informalisms, but the closure of a poll, valid or not, is not allowed if not requested by the one setting up the poll.

if they would have been explicitly declared binding (done with no word), then they would have rendered informational by not being valid. but closing them is not right!

i dont know who requested closure nor who closed them, and so i cant put up a suspect.

the rules violated is the rules where the citizens are allowed to express their opinion freely (i think its somewhere in the constitution... you will find it).

evidence:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29877

EDIT:
there may have been a miswording in the poll text, but for me as non native english speaker it did not mean the poll is binding.
also the closure was in any case invalid as stated above.

I HEREWITH REQUEST:
Judical review of the issue that we have binding polls about the game setup of the next game in this games forum. As we officially will start the next game on the 1st, maybe many citizens of that game will show up on that day the first time.
They wont be able to take part in discussions of the game-setup then.

The main difference is that the 'game stats' are for the next game, not this game. It's not like there's much of a choice. :) (Just a few limited options in each one).

There is no difference at all, as term -1 would also have been for the next game and there would be exactly NO choice to take in it.

Dis, it appeared as if you were trying , with the help of a Mod, to stear the creation of the next game away from the citizens with your polls. If you are not able to word them correctly, you should have had Shaitan do it. When you do it there is way too much room for interpretation. The closings were a good thing as they stopped you from precluding discussions on how the creation should be handled. Which is what it seems you were trying to do.

Yes, there is a difference dis.

Game setup - There's a limited amount of choices. What's to discuss? All options were available. Had I done something like:

"Should we play on a small, cold, wet, 5bill, random barb world? Yes or No", that that would be invalid, since I'm pushing an idea without discussion.


You went right ahead with a "Should we do a turn -1?" with out any discussion on what a -1 turn is. There might be people who aren't clear on a concept, but just vote anyway.

There's another thing:

Setup is pregame, and like I said, there's limited options.

Playing a turn -1 is ingame. Someone will have to play the save. The constitution explicitly states that only the Designated Player should play out that turn. Having a mod, or someone in a previous term play it would be unconstitutional.

At the very least, the DP on day one should post a picture of the game save. Just because the game starts on Sept. 1st, doesn't mean the turn chat has to be on Sept. 1st. It could be on the 3rd. Let the DP decide that - it's even tucked in the constitution somewhere! :)

Originally posted by disorganizer
I HEREWITH REQUEST...

closure and declaration of invalidity of ALL game setup and nation choosing polls. NONE of them were discussed beforehand AND it is not stated clearly that they are only informational, so they are official and MUST be discussed beforehand.

As you youself stated before for the turn -1 polls, all official polls must be discussed before polled at.

Find the fitting article in your own posts!
I do not hat the time and will to look thru the whole forum.

I honestly don't think you are asking for review here as much as you wish to protest a decision. Either choice is your right, so:

Judicial Review:

The game settings polls were fine given that it is not an "in-game" function, and all possible options were initially allowed. The poll for "turn -1" would effect in game functions, and secondly assumed quite a few things that had not been discussed.

As I posted in my opinion, it was my hope that Chieftess would come forward and lead a discussion on that concept for the next game.

My criteria is a little less strict than the folks who monitor polls in depth, but my bottom line is in-game versus pre-game. From what I see, turn -1 is a misleading name given that it really calls for playing part of turn one.

Judge Advocate

Originally posted by disorganizer
Find the fitting article in your own posts!
I do not hat the time and will to look thru the whole forum.

EDIT - Removed initial response that was probably inappropriate for this forum.

Calmer response - If you want to protest having your threads closed, please do so in the discussion thread for that purpose that was opened by the Mod who actually closed them. I did not ask for them to be closed.

I did post my opinion that your polls are invalid (something you have spent time doing to others polls by the way), and are not binding.

Originally posted by disorganizer
I HEREWITH REQUEST...
public investigation of the closure of the "turn -1" polls.
all of the polls were inadequately closed for further input and discussion. our constitution does not allow closure of running polls. the polls MAY have been invalidate by informalisms, but the closure of a poll, valid or not, is not allowed if not requested by the one setting up the poll.

if they would have been explicitly declared binding (done with no word), then they would have rendered informational by not being valid. but closing them is not right!

i dont know who requested closure nor who closed them, and so i cant put up a suspect.

the rules violated is the rules where the citizens are allowed to express their opinion freely (i think its somewhere in the constitution... you will find it).

evidence:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29877

EDIT:
there may have been a miswording in the poll text, but for me as non native english speaker it did not mean the poll is binding.
also the closure was in any case invalid as stated above.

I cannot bring a PI forward without being provided the name of an individual charged, and what violations they may have made.

In this case, the rules of the poll format are quite clear, so I would advise you to research that issue.

Once again, it is not the Judiciary's responsibility to hunt down people who disagree with you.

Originally posted by disorganizer
I HEREWITH REQUEST:
Judical review of the issue that we have binding polls about the game setup of the next game in this games forum. As we officially will start the next game on the 1st, maybe many citizens of that game will show up on that day the first time.
They wont be able to take part in discussions of the game-setup then.

There are no laws covering issues outside of the game, or pre-game in this case. Game setup is a matter I would expect to be handled via simple polls in the forums.

I HEREWITH REQUEST
That Dis be PIed for over-using the word HEREWITH.
j/k, but only just ;)
I would also note that I have no idea what a turn -1 is and I have been playing the demogame longer than alot of people. (though I appreciate shorter than alot too).

it was explained in the poll... just a sidenote.

i also protest handling of this, as a simple retyping of the 1st post by a mod would also have done a great job.

EDIT:
if we would need a wording guy for every poll this is ... *strange, originally word censored*.

EDIT2 (picky. dont take it serious).
if your dont comply to a wording, you should maybe try to ask in the poll before getting picky. some people do not natively speak english, so if you want them out of the game for speaking/writing english worse than others please state so ;-)

EDIT3:
*deleted*

for review of turn-1:
just one discussion i found in a short-search:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=431311#post431311

* i admit we didnt have a seperate discussion thread, but this is also nowhere defined that i would need one.
* it is only informational, and so the discussion rules does not apply
* there is only a rule non-informational polls must be setup to tell what they are, not for informational polls. also no review is needed for informational polls

i cant think of more as im tired of it and dont have so much time to spend hours at the forum... to make everything perfect. maybe we should get more impulsive on some things and make our decission making more flexible.
if we play on a higher difficulty level, this slow decission base will become disaterous imho.

@bill: there is no exception in the ruleset for any binding poll from the discussion rule. so a 24h pre discussion is also needed for the gamesetup poll to be valid, even if it is senseless.

@bill: if it is not a game issue, it should not be polled here. my words. but as the info is critical and the info must be binding, those polls are not normal citizen polls but binding polls, also for the new games rules. i dont see your point here except that you want to handle those polls differently than others for no reason

@bill: i reviewed my polls (turn-1) and found all imho not stating that they are binding. we should not start getting picky on wording. if we do, it is no wonder over 50% of our citizens never say a word in here.

@bill: if nowhere it is stated who requested it, how could i put in a suspect? this is a pretty silly way of making a judical system work.

@josh: dont pi me for using @bill so often ;-)

There are no laws covering issues outside of the game, or pre-game in this case. Game setup is a matter I would expect to be handled via simple polls in the forums.

What you say here is that the president can handle the game setup at will!
So the new des.player could also just ignore all polls being held in this game, as they do not belong to the next game because they were done before 1st of september, the official start of it?
As you see the game setup as out-of game thing, we could also use any option and mods and any patch we like, because yeah, its not game related :-P

REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION REGARDING POLLS:
Code of Standards.

F-2
All polls should have the following information:
Poll type in the header and first post.
Poll start and end dates/times in the first post.
End dates/times can be conditional. (Example: poll ends at the beginning of the next chat turn)
Link to relevant discussion threads in the first post.
Inclusion of an "Abstain" option.
F-3
Official polls
Quorum level is 1/2 of the census.
Poll should proceed as follows:
Discussion thread, up for 24 hours minimum (48 hours plus is preferred). Then,
Proposed poll, up for 24 hours minimum. Then,
Poll posted with link from discussion thread.
Poll duration is a minimum of 24 hours (48 hours plus is preferred).
If the poll runs into the weekend it is advised that the duration be extended by 24 hours for each weekend day. Forum participation is much lower on the weekends.
Link to the poll in the Poll Registry and/or Department Thread (if appropriate).
F-5
Information polls - Do not have restrictions and cannot be used to justify policy, plans or actions.
All polls posted by Leaders are considered Official unless specifically noted to be informational in the header and first post.


Note the should on most parts of the formalisms! No must here! Polls are free of formalism!

* So as im not a leader my poll is to be taken as informational until stated otherwise.
* Even if my poll is considered official, i only have to get the quorum. The other parts are "should" and do not justify invalidation.

As such, all actions you took are not justified by our ruleset.

If you insist on the parts in the "should" invalidating my polls, then i must also insist on all of our polls being invalid, as none of them stated the poll-type in the title as requested by a should-paragraph in F-2.

dis,

It would help me greatly if your arguments would be posed in one response, you are jumping all over the board here with your arguments.

First you say you did have discussion thread so the poll is valid, now you say you didn't have one, but it doesn't matter because your poll wasn't intended as binding. Do you see the change there?

You want me to do your dirty work for you, and find someone to PI. That is your job, to stand up and stand behind your charges, the system is that way on purpose so that people shouldn't be able to randomly point fingers whenever a vote goes against them.

Let me respond simply though:

My review said that they results of your poll would not be binding because it was not properly set up as such. You are now saying that you meant those to be informational polls.

Are we not agreeing on the same thing then?

Yes, they were never intended binding... i dont know where some citizens got this info from... and i dont say there was no discussion. I say there was discussion, just it was not dedicated.
I didnt post i had a discussion to make the poll binding though. I posted it because cyc (again) complained about that there was no discussion and spoiled the whole poll with this whining (again) and so i wanted to show that this was not exactly true.

My arguments to the judges go directly in here btw.

I dont have any dirty work, the closure of a poll was just a thing nobody seemed to have requested (at least nobody stated so). So it is impossible for me to tell who to PI. I will nevertheless put eyrei on an ultimatum to reveal who requested closure of the poll, and if he does not i will put him into the request as suspect for misusing his powers and closing a poll nobody requested him to and without any obvious reason and not based on our rules.

Btw: I never randomly point at persons. But what sense does our judical system make if i have to bring in the suspect, even if it is impossible to bring him in for me? Maybe a pi to anonymous would work best sometimes, as the suspect may be given during the investigation....?

EDIT:
there was still no response to the things in the standards which i noticed: all rules you draw out here are only "should" rules. so my poll even would have been valid as binding poll. dont pull the brake here, state your comment on that one!

btw:
a invalid binding poll becomes a nonbinding poll. no reason to close it even in that case....

now i finally found him >-):
the suspect for my pi!

and for the protocol:

i request a public investigation on EKLEKTIKOS!

Evidence:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=435030#post435030

He requested closure of a poll. He is not in the position to do so, as this violates the constitutional article which guarantees the citizens a free speach.
Even if a poll is invalid (which it is not btw.) he could have requested a change or stated that it is invalid, but the right for closure of any kind is not in our ruleset.

If you want more detail, see my post before...
Any further things you need?

You know, dis, that this could be much more simply settled by asking the new president, in the first turn chat, to stop playing after the game was created, and post it for review. Extensive polling was not needed.

As to my opinion, my thought is that these were informational polls, not binding in any way. Also, the closure of the polls was action against what was considered an atttempt at an official, binding poll.

The closure was illegal also if a poll would have beed declared bindig. A notice in there of invalidity and maybe a mod-edit of the 1st post would have been far enough.
Instead, eklek overexteded his powers.

I wonder if "requesting" to close a poll is restricting free speech. He is not the one that stopped the poll. OTOH, did the mods reserve anything for judgement on the closure?

The poll that I closed was closed because two members of the judiciary stated that it was definately invalid, and one requested that it be closed. This particular poll also assumed a result from another poll started at about the same time. The poll was going to have to be run again, anyway, so to avoid confusion, it was closed.

I am taking no further actions as a moderator on this forum until all of you stop squabbling, and begin to prepare for the next game in an orderly and polite fashion. This is mostly because, no matter what actions I take right now, someone is going to raise a fuss. Other members of the game feel the same way, and this attitude is extremely detrimental to the game itself.

We should anyways discuss the matter of closures for the next game to prevent confusion there.

Anyways, the poll presumed a result of another poll, yes. But this is normal if you want to poll on details at the same time that other things... how else could we do that?
Imagine a situation like this:
Poll1: Do we want to plant spies?
Poll2: If yes to poll1, to whom?
They could be started together without confusion. This would reduce polling times to 3 days for both, which will fit into a chat schedule. If both polls would be held one after another, it would take 6 days to complete them, which will run over a chat and may render them to late.

The turn-1 polls were done in the same fashion, and they are even only informational.

The point here: Of course it is senseless to pi someone at the endgame. Of course it may be confusing and the polls maybe wouldnt have met binding standards.

BUT I STRICTLY RESIST THIS GAME BECOMING A POLL-CLOSURE GAME! If citizens cant express their will any more, even in polls, this is bad. If only 2 citizens decide over closure of things, this is even worse.
We didnt need it before, we wont need it in the future!

And another thing: If we close one poll which is invalid, why not almightyjoshs rebel-poll? It does in no way tell which type it is nor meet ANY standards.

Same measure for all things, i say. And no closing of any threads without need for it!

EDIT:
*joking*:
hey eyrei! if you dont do your mod-work, you will be pi'ed for not fullfilling your duty! remember rain!

I'm going to interupt discussion here to say: Hello. After an appointent by Chieftess, and subsequent council approval, I am the new Chief Justice.

*feels intimidated by the fact other members of the judiciary are much older then him*

Oh, and Shaitan, can I have the gavel? :D

Originally posted by Octavian X
Oh, and Shaitan, can I have the gavel? :D
You may have a gavel. MY gavel shall serve only as an object of desire for you. Heartachingly close yet never to be touched. ;)

Seriously though, If you'd like a gavel I have an excellent backup gavel that you could use.

disorganizer, please submit your request for PI in the proper format (I held the two people who charged you to the same standard).

I will tell you now though that I will move for immediate dismissal on no merit. I can't see how REQUESTING to have a poll closed is a violation, or extending of powers that Ek doesn't even have. Your only charge could be against Eyrei who is the person who actually closed the thread, and that was a moderator action which I cannot prosecute in the game.

What may surprise you is that I personally don't mind you stepping up and putting forward ideas, especially in the vacuum that exists with no leadership being shown between games. Some of your ideas I don't like, and others I think are quite good, but you might find more success if you attempt to convince others of your plan prior to jumping right into the vote.

I'd suggest that you simply take the advice of the many people who have asked you to simply discuss your ideas first

Judge Advocate

Public Investigation Vote -

donsig's vote is held here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30099

Vote early...vote often... ;-)

And finally a request to all...

Please stop using the Judiciary to get back at others. The purpose of our game is to push for majority opinions and consensus. Not to turn to PI's each time a group of others disagrees with you.

If I had the power (and I don't dis...so don't be calling for my PI ;-), I would place ban on all PI's until the next game begins.

I agree with Eyrei. Lets focus our discussions and energies on preparing for conquest...errr...I mean victory(!) in our next game.

Oh, and congratulations to Octavian on his appointment to our Chief Justice position.

Bill
Judge Advocate

Personally, I'm also surprised that we're still PI'ing people when the game is clearly over. I don't think the Civ2 demogame had this much chaos at the endgame. :)

I don't think the Civ2 demogame has a investigation mechanism. I'm just glad this turmoil occured at the end of the game, not during it. Perhaps this could've been avoided if we started right after we won...

This could propably have been avoided if we would discuss changing some things rather than sitting there and doing nothing.
Most of our leaders left obviously because of what? no interest?
Well, and the last few days showed we still have some laws to finetune.
So officials, START WORKING!

I think there should be a law that states that in cabinet and senate votes, no discussion is allowed by citizens, if a citizen wants to be heard he should PM his respective official, this would cut down on anyone who make the wrong comments or cause any problems like it seems to have done at the end of demogame 1. It needs some fine tuning and if anyone is keen on this idea dont hesitate to maybe add your two cents worth. We need something in place to stop the madness that has and is occuring. i think we all know what i mean. :)

Discussion has been allowed in Cabinet/Council/whatever votes at least since term 2 (I can't speak for term 1 - that was before my time :)), and this is to my knowledge the first time it's resulted in this kind of situation. Hopefully the last, too :rolleyes:

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall
I think there should be a law that states that in cabinet and senate votes, no discussion is allowed by citizens, if a citizen wants to be heard he should PM his respective official, this would cut down on anyone who make the wrong comments or cause any problems like it seems to have done at the end of demogame 1. It needs some fine tuning and if anyone is keen on this idea dont hesitate to maybe add your two cents worth. We need something in place to stop the madness that has and is occuring. i think we all know what i mean. :)

I am against making ANY more new laws especially ones that would restrict free speech. I would also point out that we do not have a federal representative democracy. All of our officials are elected nation-wide. In order to get the answers I sought I would have had to post in every province thread or pm every senator. It is much easier to ask the question and get the responses right in the vote thread. If we are to protect citizen's rights then we should be making it easy to get answers from elected officials. That said I do agree that the discussion thread would have been the best place for the question but with over one hundred posts in that particular thread only two senators made a post there and one of those posted afterr the senate vote began. If you ask me that is the madness!

We have been hampered and distracted by rules since term one. The answer is not to make more rules but to get rid of many of the one we have now.

I didn't think of this before but the Senate has it's own thread too. That can serve as a single point to address all of the governors.

But the senate thread is not official. It was built by the personal initiative of one senator. Though the idea is good.

I also second donsig here (i must be ill. i seconded him for about 20 times in the last days) for that we need more rules on other things which are not yet covered, but delete many others. and i also must strictly deny and attack on the free-speach-artilce. it would be discussable if any law or standard could be enforced if it would restrict speaking right though... maybe a streamlineing of our rules is needed.
what about going back to a really basic ruleset and evolve "how-to's" over time by citizen vote?

Originally posted by disorganizer
what about going back to a really basic ruleset and evolve "how-to's" over time by citizen vote?

I think we should do that but we already brought that up when the game ended and we decided via poll to keep the current rules in force. :(

The choice was made. Let's move on and get the second game going.

k' nevertheless we should try the oposite way, like destroy laws from inside be deleting them law by law or refining them law by law.
(uups, did i speak that out loud?)

Hmm... I may have a cunning plan for a more streamlined, efficient and less bulky constitution, but since I haven't tried putting it down in writing yet I may find it doesn't actually work or is simply a very stupid idea. Think I'll have a go at writing up a first draft this week to see if it's even worth consideration. If it is then I'll post it up for discussion. If it isn't then this post will be edited to cheat people of concrete evidence that I'm a fool ;)

@disorganizer - That is a perfectly viable option. If you have a law that you specifically don't like, start a discussion on getting rid of it.

eklek: we already know you are a fool ;-) so go forward and post the proposal.... see my thread in citizen forum :-P

On another note, in accordance with the passage of the amendment to change Article I of the constitution, I hereby post the new census.

The current census of the Phoenatican Nation is 41.
Therefore, the qurourm for the passage of new laws shall be 21. I ask Shaitan to update the first post if this thread with the new number.

It was the bells on my Public Defending hat that gave me away, wasn't it... :p :crazyeye:

Census and quorum updated in 1st post.

Please review the set of 4 polls in this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=440392#post440392).

If approved through review all except the Cabinet Vote will be posted by the Judiciary. Please note that there should be no closure date set in the poll options for the two standard polls.

Thank you. :)

Judge Advocate review posted here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=442647#post442647

A review is needed for this Council Vote (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30243).

Thanks :)

The Office of Chief Justice has posted its reviews for the proposed polls that change the census, (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=442962#post442962) and the forum re-organization change to the CoS. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=442962#post442962)

Judge Advocate Review -
Proposed Change to Code of Standards - Section A

Forum Organization

In accordance with Section E, Point 6, multiple subsections, of the Phoenatican Code of Laws, I submit the Judge Advocate review of this proposal.

Findings: The JA office has determined that this format would not be a violation of the Constitution, Code of Laws, or Code of Standards.

Therefore I cast my vote in favor of allowing a vote for passage.

The Senate Vote for this measure is here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30243

Explaination: None required. The format of these forums is within the rights of the moderator to determine, and is largely built upon the existing structure with welcome enhancements made via citizen input.

Other Comments: I take Judicial note that this is a vote, not a poll, and therefore the failure to link to relavant discussion is not enough to invalidate this vote.

Bill
Judge Advocate of Phoenatica

I request Judical Review of Code of Standards, Section H, Point 8.b.

The wording is a bit vague, but my interpretation is that the poll for punishment is meant to be multiple choice, with a single selection. Not multiple select.

I'd like my fellow Judiciary members to post their reviews, given that we have a possibility of this poll being used in the next several hours.

Here is my official review:

Judge Advocate Review -
Code of Standards - Section H

Sentencing Poll

In accordance with Section E, Point 2.a., of the Phoenatican Code of Laws, I submit the Judge Advocate review of this Standard.

Issue: The CoS calls for posting of a poll with "multiple choices" when sentencing is held. This review is needed to determine if that phrase requires a multiple select poll or multiple choice.

The Standard reads:

Point 8 If the suspect is found guilty through the trial poll, a sentencing poll is held.
a The sentencing poll will remain up for 72 hours
b The polls for Constitution and Code of Laws violations will be set to allow multiple choices.

The follow on points then list specifically what those choices are to be, based upon the violation the offender has been found guilty of.

Finding: This office finds that the requirement outlined in subsection b is calling for a multiple choice poll with only a single select vote.

Explaination: This format matches the intent of Sentencing, that being selecting the punishment mandated by the people.

Multiple simultaneous sentencing options are not logical in this case, as they may conflict with each other, or simple add up to a higher sentence than is originally intended by voters.

Bill
Judge Advocate of Phoenatica

Public Defender's Review -
Code of Standards - Section H

I concur with the Judge Advocate's review above. I'm pretty certain the idea was to offer a multiplicity of choices from which the citizens must pick one. An actual "multiple choice" poll would not appear to make sense, given the intent of a sentencing poll.

Vice President donsig has been convicted of violating the Code of Laws in this poll: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=443594#post443594

We will now move to the Penalty Phase.

Judge Advocate

Office of Chief Justice
Judicial Review
Section H, Point 8, paragraph b

The Office of Chief Justice agrees with the other two offices. The idea was to make offer multiple choices, from which the citizens were to chose one.

I've got a lot of updating to the Judicial Log to do...

The sentencing poll for donsig is located here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30347

The Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26749) has been updated with the last three Reviews.

I request a Judicial Review for Section G, Point 6, Item A, paragraph 2, and Section G, Point 6, Item C.
Section G, Point 6, Item A, paragraph 2 states:
(presidential eligiblity) This restriction is lifted in the first term as there are no current officials
Section G, Point 6, Item C states:
Incumbent leaders may run for 1 position in each election cycle. Other citizens may run for 2 positions in each election cycle.

Section A indicates that there are no leaders at the beginning of term 1. Does that mean that the incumbentcy does not apply in the first term?

Chief Justice Review
Section G, Point 6, Item C

My thought is that, being a new game in term one, that these two standards mean that first of all, everybody may run for two positions, and that anyone can run for president.

Notes: I wanted to call for this review to avoid any confusion that may occur in the upcoming elections.

Public Defender's review
Section G, Point 6, Item C

Simply put, I completely agree with Octavian X's above review. It's a new game, nobody has a position in it yet, so thus nobody can be considered to be an incumbent.

Judge Advocate Review -
Code of Laws - Section G

Elections in Term 1

In accordance with Section E, Point 2.a., of the Phoenatican Code of Laws, I submit the Judge Advocate review of this Law.

Finding: This office finds that the term 1 laws described in this section do apply to the start of a new game, and therefore should be in effect for the next election cycle.

Explaination: The clear intent of this section is to start new each game, therefore the law applies as if it were day one.

Bill
Judge Advocate of Phoenatica

Requesting Judicial Review:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=445197#post445197

Thank you.

we have a prison in FANATIKA now:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30484
please review it. we could make some nice things together with the judges there ;-)

Close of Public Investigation and Sentencing

The citizenry have spoke. While donsig was found guilty of violating the code of laws. Overwhelming sentiment dictated that no punishment be given for this violation.

All polls are closed and further discussion moot.

Bill
Judge Advocate