This is the official thread of Fanatika's Judicial Office.

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

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

Chief Justice: Octavian X
Public Defender: Danke
Judge Advocate: Bill_in_PDX

Term 1 Active Census: 41

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

Term 1 Full Census: 53

Note on the census: The active census is needed to pass changes to the CoL, or to approve various officials for office. The full census is only used for constitutional amendments. 27 yes votes are needed to pass a constitutional amendment, along with a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

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 Investigations

Requests for advice on the rules and how they work

To start off, Bill and Danke, what do you plan on naming your cities? I am compiling a list so we won't have a no-name, and to avoid the confusion we had last game over naming rights.

My city would be New PDX

Umm.. I think we may need yet another new rule: How to start the Creation Day Game, or it's procedures. I'll start a thread...

Don't bother, CT. It was started in one thread and then I started another. No one will reply...well maybe 8 of us will.

Also Disorganizer hasn't opted me and Grey Fox for the #demogame room. There was also an incident with a user named Townboy3. I finally warned him, then he left.

[20:47] <Townboy3> 14 14how many more minutes till it
starts
[20:47] <Townboy3> 14 14how many more minutes till it
starts
[20:47] <Townboy3> 14 14how many more minutes till it
starts
[20:47] <Townboy3> 14 14how many more minutes till it
starts
[20:47] <Townboy3> 14 14how many more minutes till it starts
[20:47] <Chieftess> Stop flooding!

[20:49] <Townboy3> 14 ???
[20:49] <Townboy3> 14 wha???????????????????
[20:49] <Townboy3> 14 wha???????????????????
[20:49] <Townboy3> 14 wha???????????????????


[20:54] <Townboy3> 14 oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooo
[20:54] * Townboy3 is really very bored.
[20:55] <Stuck_as_a_mac> but i apeased the masses
n made iron working first
[20:55] <chiefpaco> SAAM, we don't even have a
plan to make the GL
[20:55] <theGreyFox> yes, it includes everything,
moving a unit, settling, whatever
[20:55] * Townboy3 is really very bored.
[20:55] * Townboy3 is really very bored.
[20:55] * Townboy3 is really very bored.

[21:01] <Townboy3> 14 er7777777777777777777777777
[21:01] <Fionn696_> we wouldnt be playing it to
see what happens tho, we would be settleing
[21:01] <Townboy3> 14 srry

[21:02] <Townboy3> 13 yhuttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
cvcvvvvvvvvvvvvvt6rt68u77uyyt7ikhhhrftgjkhg
[21:02] <Townboy3> 13 srry


[21:02] <donsig> Game Creation Chat shouldn't
last too long, As, we'll create the game,
discuss what's on the map (without making any
moves or changes), then "take it to the forums".
[21:02] <Townboy3> 13 srry
[21:02] <Townboy3> 13 srry
[21:02] <bclg> townboy sh
[21:02] <Townboy3> 13 y?
[21:02] <Townboy3> 13 srryy
[21:03] <bclg> cos
[21:03] <bclg> random letter and numbers are
annoying
[21:03] <Townboy3> 13 o
[21:03] <Chieftess> ok, the game has been posted
10 minutes ago.

(note, Townboy's text was in white here)


[21:04] <Townboy3> 0 954674682270983786735699578967
546256527866727868577777777777777777777777777777
777777777777777777777777697927963789060nhvnhh
vgdskhbshdgjntgh tgbgfdbhnertvrwehrtbrd8tuth
[21:05] <Chieftess> Townboy! STOP IT!
[21:05] <neutral> squelch him!
[21:05] * theGreyFox would kill to be an Op right
now


As you can see, there was some senseless spam, but since disorganizer hadn't opt'ed GF and I, we couldn't do anything about it. (Even Falcon is away at school - he's opted in there)

Disorganizer will get to it later tonight, when he gets on.

TheGreyFox and Chieftess are now added. As i was not aware we would have cration day so soon. And as i was not on the chat before (and obviously falcon also) nobody could add those persons. An adding of those persons would not have been allowed before (they were eligable for this position at 00:00 on 1st of september. which timezone was not mentioned ;-).

I am hopeful that if you all need further discussion on the chat room issues that you will take it outside of the Judiciary thread.

Thanks ;-)

I was wondering if the judiciary could give me their opinion on the legality of posting this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=464868#post464868) without the input of the relevant governor. It should be noted that I posted in his thread drawing attention to the poll proposal more than 24 hours ago, but as yet have received no response.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I was wondering if the judiciary could give me their opinion on the legality of posting this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=464868#post464868) without the input of the relevant governor. It should be noted that I posted in his thread drawing attention to the poll proposal more than 24 hours ago, but as yet have received no response.

Opinion - Public Defender

The Poll pertains to the initial Capital Province build queues, which are clearly defined in CoL Article D, Section C as being the express responsibility of the Provincial Governor, except during time of mobilization, or except, in certain circumstances, by presidential decree.

My opinion is that this poll cannot be considered an official poll as it would illegally overide the duties of the provincial governor, and therefore must be informational only. As an informational poll, no CoS mandated discussion is required. The regulations do not require specific parties to be consulted prior to any poll, official or otherwise.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I was wondering if the judiciary could give me their opinion on the legality of posting this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=464868#post464868) without the input of the relevant governor. It should be noted that I posted in his thread drawing attention to the poll proposal more than 24 hours ago, but as yet have received no response.

Judge Advocate Opinion

I had a huge discussion of this typed out, and then the forum crapped out on me as I posted, so here is the condensed version:

First, you are more than legally right to post a poll, but that really isn't your question. It appears to me that you are positioning this as an official poll, and the question at hand is, would it be binding?

Finding: YES it would, assuming you continued to follow the requirements for an official poll, and you achieve a passing vote with quorum met.

Discussion: The Code of Standards, Section F, Point 3, defines the requirements for an official poll. These have been met to date.

The Code of Laws, Section D, Point 1, defines the responsibilities of a Governor, and as noted by our esteemed Public Defender, Point 1, c(3) defines when a build queue can be preempted.

It is my opinion that the c(3) is not applicable here, and applies to a established and approved build queue. No such thing is in place here, as the governor has not posted his builds in his discussion thread, and the President is asking for those builds as of this morning.

It should be noted though, that regardless of that, I would still approve the poll even if build queues existed. Here is why:

Constitution, Article A, guarentees all citizens the right of free speech and the right to demand satisfaction. Those rights are further defined in Code of Laws, Article A, where free speech provides for the right to post a poll on any topic, and demanding satisfaction includes the ability to compel a leader to heed the will of the people through a properly posted poll.

Recommendation: Ek, you have always been an inclusive person in your discussions, and I am sure you wish that AJ would jump in. I would wait until the end of 36 hours later today to post your poll should he not respond. After that point, he will have been provided official courtesy of time to see the discussion and respond, and will instead have moved to absentee status as defined in Code of Standards, Section J.

Bill
Judge Advocate

Was this meant to be a Judicial Review?

Chief Justice Opinion

Technically, this poll would not be binding, even if it met requirements. Technically, to set any sort of build queue, we'ed need the governor himself to give intructions. For any sort of enforceable build queue to be established, a council vote would be needed. It would be good at an informational poll for the so the citizens could express their opinion to the council.

Therefore, the vote would be useless unless it was a council vote.

Judicial Discussion:

The Judge Advocate and I came at this from different directions. I based this on whether content of the poll risked overriding constitutional or legal divisions, and therefore, whether or not it could be legally binding.

Bill rightfully pointed out that the forms for posting an official poll had been met, and he goes on to imply that an official poll, properly implemented can override legal definitions of office. Is there precedence for this? Should we explore this issue? I am curious as to my fellow judicial leaders' opinions.

I'm terribly sorry that I was unable to get to this issue in time, RL elections are getting in the way a little at the moment. I think this is an issue that needs to be citizen polled, and it was always my intention to poll before posting buildques, I just wasn't quick enough.

I'm happy to work with the results of this poll, but it seems that it will need some tinkering to be translated to a working buildque.

My arguement, as it was with other people in the tongihts' turn chat, is that to override an elected official's intstructions, or lack thererof, an administrative council vote is needed, as defined by Section C, Point 3.B of the Code of Laws.

Octavian, no argument there.

My sense of the original question was not how to deal with an absent leader, or how to override a leader's instructions, but rather whether an official poll was a legal means to do so, particularly as it could result in a situation of confusion where the DP was being guided by both a poll and last-minute official instructions from a leader.

This may not be worth debating, quite honestly.

Octavian, surely that interpretation is contradicted by CoL C, 1, A?

This states the the Presidency "Organizes policy, plans and agendas for departments when these have not been set by a department".

The official constitutional definition of "organize": "Organize – In the context of a leader’s duties, this includes suggesting a plan, discussing it and passing instructions on to the Designated Player"

What else can this mean except that in the absence of instructions from a leader the President is empowered to temporarily take over their role? The council vote seems to me to be clearly intended only for those circumstances where, for whatever reason, the President sees a need to overrule an existing build queue.

Yes, I agree with Ek. What I meant by binding is that in the absence of a build queue, the President would be empowed to impliment one, and Ek's poll would be clear direction on how to do so.

It is the responsibility of all officials to carry out the duties of their office, but the power of those duties still is in the hands of the citizenry, and a properly formated, debated, and quorum reaching poll should not be ignored.

@Octavian - We now have an Active census and a full census. Please adjust post 1 in this thread. Thanks! :)

@ Shaitan: done

@ Ek and Bill: Please notice this:

"Organizes policy, plans and agendas for departments when these have not been set by a department".

The governor's office is not a department. Therefore, the president has no control.

Well... If you insist on going by the absolute letter of the law rather than following the spirit of it then perhaps we should look at amending this particular one to cover all branches of government responsible for posting turn instructions? :)

From section D of the constitution:

The Executive Branch is headed by the President, who shall be the designated player of the game, and shall include a council of leaders, each of whom heads a department that is responsible for one major facet of the country. These departments are Domestic, Foreign, Military, Science, Culture and Trade. Each of these departments will be generally responsible for the items found under the respective Advisor in the Civilization III game and esoteric aspects that fall under their department name.


Leader is defined as:

Leader ? Colloquial expression for the President, head of a Department, member of the Judiciary or a Provincial Governor.

Departments aren't defined but there is nothing written that says provinces cannot be considered departments, especially if governors are considered department leaders. Do we need a judicial review in order to allow the President to set build queues when none are posted?

(Or should we have deputy governors? Now there's a novel idea.)

Originally posted by donsig
(Or should we have deputy governors? Now there's a novel idea.)
AAAAAAAAGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*Shaitan runs screaming to the top of Mount Victory and hides in a cave.

Originally posted by Shaitan

AAAAAAAAGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*Shaitan runs screaming to the top of Mount Victory and hides in a cave.

I don't know that we actually need deputy governors, because I fully intend to request a PI if a governor fails to post more than one set of turn chat instructions during a term. If they have a good reason, we will not find them guilty. If not, I hope we will find someone more responsible.

@Bill - yes, I completely agree. My confusion was on whether a poll could in fact be valid and binding in overturning clear instructions from a leader.

Originally posted by Shaitan

AAAAAAAAGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*Shaitan runs screaming to the top of Mount Victory and hides in a cave.

Maybe we could just name it Mt, Shaitan-Hiding-In-A-Cave? ;)

That's it. I hereby request a judicial review on Section C, Point 1.I and 1.J (presidential duty to set departmental policy), and Section C, Point B.3 (administrative council votes). The question we're trying to answer: Does the DP have the right to set non-existant, or is an administrative council vote necesary to set queues that don't exist?
I encouarage all members of the judiciary to read previos posts on this subject.

Well, if you want my opinion, which you may or may not:p , the president does have a certain mandate from the people, and is therefore qualified to fill in missing build queues. This is the simplest solution, avoiding misunderstanding and bickering: Whoever is DP at the time should have the responsibilty and the power to set temporary build queues for cities with indisposed or irresponsible governors.

Just a side note: in my days as a government official, the domestic leader performed this task, which worked fine as well.

Originally posted by Octavian X
To start off, Bill and Danke, what do you plan on naming your cities? I am compiling a list so we won't have a no-name, and to avoid the confusion we had last game over naming rights.

Okay, sorry for being a little slow in answering this, not that there is any hurry. My current faves are "Hassenpfefferhavn" and "Sturmunddrang".

Any thoughts?

*looks at thread topic*

Yep, this is the 2nd time we've talked about this. Last time, Shaitan said the rules didn't even mention turn chats...

Originally posted by Shaitan

AAAAAAAAGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*Shaitan runs screaming to the top of Mount Victory and hides in a cave.

I hope he didn't forget to take his medication with him!

I go away for an hour, and this is what happens...

Screw the review. We won't need it if our esteem governor keeps his promise and keeps the queues up...

REALITY CHECK
The un-posted build queue, if it had been posted, would have looked like this:
Bavaria: Warrior, Warrior

But I can see how this minor example could represent a bigger problem. We need to decide what to do when a governor does not post/update a build queue.

I will take steps in my own provicnce by appointing an Assistant Governor (when it gets bigger) and giving Mayors a chance to post queues in my absence.

Come to think of it... not quite sure how/if I can do this but...

Could I have a judicial review into:
COS B3c1 pertaining to who can post in the instructions thread and
COL D1c govs setting build ques

I want to create a province specific rule whereby I allow Mayors to propose a buildqueue to myself and if I do not respond in 36 hours then the Mayor can poll it OFFICIALLY (ie binding). If I am still absent when the poll result is concluded then I want the Mayor to be able to post in the t/c thread. This would only be in effect while there are a small number of cities.

Originally posted by Almightyjosh
REALITY CHECK
I will take steps in my own provicnce by appointing an Assistant Governor (when it gets bigger) and giving Mayors a chance to post queues in my absence.


ARRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Got room in that cave Shaitan? (I'll bring the coffee!)

AJ, we've agreed that deputy governors are not needed. Mayors are more ceremonial than official, and need the governor for queues. My only suggestion is that if you can't handle the job of governor by yourself, you should simply retire.

Originally posted by Octavian X
AJ, we've agreed that deputy governors are not needed. Mayors are more ceremonial than official, and need the governor for queues. My only suggestion is that if you can't handle the job of governor by yourself, you should simply retire.

I wouldn't say we've agreed that deputy governors aren't needed. If only I had known that Assistant Governors were more palatable...

As runner up in the gubernatorial election I would gladly step up to the plate if AJ can't hit the ball. :D

Dont we have the "acting governor" in effect? At least we have them on the payment list of the rpg ;-)

In case of mayors: Even if they are not elected, if the elected governor is not able to post a queue, they, who know their cities best, should be able to fill up missing entries. No harm will be done with that. If someone doesnt like the queue, he can speak up and get himself counternominated for mayor :-P
As soon as the governor is there again, he can always override the queues setup by the mayors. Also, the domestic leader can override the mayorial queues. And of course also the DP.
As soon as the governor will be OFFICIALLY absent from the forum (according to our rules), a new one will be appointed! So for how long will the mayors be able to put up queues? 2 days?

i would even propose having a mayorial council which votes about the queues of all cities in the province on absence of the governor. the domestic leader will have the deciding vote on a tie then. also, the DL will represent all cities without mayor in the council.

Originally posted by Octavian X
AJ, we've agreed that deputy governors are not needed. Mayors are more ceremonial than official, and need the governor for queues. My only suggestion is that if you can't handle the job of governor by yourself, you should simply retire.

As I have said before, I'm not going anywhere.
*gives Donsig and his baceball bat a sharp look*

I am making proposals that I want to trial in my province for possible general use.

I have had a previous ruling that to appoint an acting Governor, only one poll is needed, regardless of the number of absences. An assistant governor is merely a standing acting governor. Don't get all stressed already. (what is a depudy other than an acting leader on standby, don't ask me).

About Mayors, my proposal was that Mayor could perform official functions and post official polls for thier city with the Governor's sanction. If the Governor is AWOL for 36hours, the Mayor can take these actions without the explicit sanction of the Governor.

I think I am about to loose three graveled friends...

I am going to write my own Provincial Law for Bohemia!!
In it, I am going to specify how and when the powers of the governor can be delegated. I might throw in some other stuff too. This law will not infringe upon national law.

Originally posted by Almightyjosh

(what is a depudy other than an acting leader on standby, don't ask me).


[old man on a porch voice]Don't you remember the Great Deputy Debates you young whipper-snapper? They started over non-existant build queues. And that's why we don't have deputy governors you nincompoop![/old man on a porch voice]

Originally posted by donsig


[old man on a porch voice]Don't you remember the Great Deputy Debates you young whipper-snapper? They started over non-existant build queues. And that's why we don't have deputy governors you nincompoop![/old man on a porch voice]

Try as I might, I have never been able to locate these great 'depudy debates'. Anyway, I'm not after a Depudy Governor, I'm after an Assistant Governor. It's totally different... in law.

The way you describe it, it's the same.

As a note, you are allowed to appoint an acting governor, who will fill in during you absense.

And you only need an acceptance poll for him. And of course, he can take other "workload" of you ;-)

Originally posted by Almightyjosh
I think I am about to loose three graveled friends...

I am going to write my own Provincial Law for Bohemia!!
In it, I am going to specify how and when the powers of the governor can be delegated. I might throw in some other stuff too. This law will not infringe upon national law.

Well, so much for being bored!

(dusts off his copy of the constitution, just in case)

:)

Originally posted by Almightyjosh
REALITY CHECK
I want to create a province specific rule whereby I allow Mayors to propose a buildqueue to myself and if I do not respond in 36 hours then the Mayor can poll it OFFICIALLY (ie binding). If I am still absent when the poll result is concluded then I want the Mayor to be able to post in the t/c thread. This would only be in effect while there are a small number of cities.

I was always under the impression that any poll posted by any citizen, if done in the correct manner, was binding, with or without the governor's approval. The only change here would be that the mayor would be allowed to post the instructions in the turn chat thread, which isn't that big of a deal.

Originally posted by eyrei


I was always under the impression that any poll posted by any citizen, if done in the correct manner, was binding, with or without the governor's approval. The only change here would be that the mayor would be allowed to post the instructions in the turn chat thread, which isn't that big of a deal.
I recommend a dedicated discussion thread be started for this.

AP&N is available to argue either side. ;)

AJ,

Your own delegation rules will indeed impact the national law if those rules are intended to impact build queues. I advise you to tread carefully there.

Bill

Judge Advocate Notice

Due to a business committment I cannot get out of, I will be out of town and generally out of touch for the next 7 days. Rather than allow my office to fall into decline, I am appointing a Judge Advocate Pro Tem.

In accordance with Code of Laws, Section E, Point 2.b., I hereby appoint donsig as Judge Advocate Pro Tem, for a term of 6 days, or until I return and reclaim my office, beginning immediately.

Bill
Judge Advocate

May your trip be safe, Bill. Hope to see you soon.

*Octavian X dreads though of donsig on bench.

Great, now Donsig gets to prosecute himself ;)

Now, where's my gavel? There must be some burning judicial issues out there somewhere. What's the fun if I just get to prosecute myself?

OK, tell me what you think of Provincial Law?

I was wondering, in regard to
COS C1
COS C5
Can a Governor use his name change rights to change the name of a city named by another player?

Provincial Law: Completely out of the question

Renaming: You can, during the first week as governor, request that a city be renamed, in a yes/no/abstain poll.

Octavian: Why? Please state reasons with rule-quotes. I see no conflict in the proposal. Just using undefined areas.

I do not think provincial law is out of the question but it must surely be subordinate to our constitution, CoL and CoS.

I see two conflicts:

1. Giving mayors authority to set official queues. Mayors are completely unofficial posistions, and as such do not have any sort of authority. Only governors may set queues.

2. Assistant governors are, in essance, deputies, and the CoL speficically states that governors do not have deputies.

Originally posted by Octavian X
I see two conflicts:

1. Giving mayors authority to set official queues. Mayors are completely unofficial posistions, and as such do not have any sort of authority. Only governors may set queues.

2. Assistant governors are, in essance, deputies, and the CoL speficically states that governors do not have deputies.

In response,
1. Mayors no longer have the right to post build ques directly but must go so through the Gov or the Acting Gov in the Provincial Council.

2. Assistant Governors are appointed by the governor and ratified by the people to be acting governor during any absence of the Governor. They may also be assigned roles as an advisor or somesuch. Niether of these roles are in conflict with the National Law. In fact, the Acting Governor is specifically sanctioned by the Law.

@Donsig - Yes, Provincial law is in all ways subordinate to the big C, COL and COS and may not ever conflict. If it does, there is no debate, the National Law has all the trumps and the joker (including the bowers for you 500 players).

I think it is a little foolhardy to call provincial law out of the question on these grounds. At very worst it needs a small re-work in some of the sections. It does not seem that there is any opposition to the consepts themselves, merely the legallity.

Originally posted by Almightyjosh
I was wondering, in regard to
COS C1
COS C5
Can a Governor use his name change rights to change the name of a city named by another player?

There doesn't seem to be a law against doing so. However it is generally accepted practice that governors only rename foreign cities that are acquired.

Originally posted by Almightyjosh

2. Assistant Governors are appointed by the governor and ratified by the people to be acting governor during any absence of the Governor. They may also be assigned roles as an advisor or somesuch. Niether of these roles are in conflict with the National Law. In fact, the Acting Governor is specifically sanctioned by the Law.


Your Assistant Governor would be subject to a serious legal challenge. Section D, 1, B of the CoL clearly states Governors do not have Deputies but may appoint an Acting Governor when unable to fulfil their duties. It could be argued that by appointing an Acting Governor when you are able to fulfill your duties is tantamount to having a deputy governor. It would be in everyone's best interest if you opened a discussion thread about changing the wording of this clause in the CoL.

As I see it, appointing a acting governor while you are active is very prudent. It shows one is looking ahead. I am sure that no one would argue if you specifically said 'acting' governor, rather than 'assistant.' Also, if you notified the public that the acting governor was taking over in the provincial thread, this would be fine. However, if you assume that the acting governor would take over in an unannounced absence, we have a problem.

@donsig:
no, we have a practive of them not naming cities named by other people.
but AJ has a problem now: he may not be able to name a city at all, because he is not in the COC to do so and his 1st week will be over till we get city#2. He will have to be reelected to rename a city after his wishes, and propably no city not already named by someone else will be in bohemia forever! So he MUST rename a already named city to get to his right.
now that will get to a problem:
ct named bavaria. now if AJ renames bavaria, is CT eligable for another naming? she is only allowed to name once according to our rules, so she will not be allowed to do so until all of us named cities :-)

@octavian: I think no, as AJ could state a rule for when the AG takes over. Like if the provincial laws says that the AG takes over after a 1 day absence without a notice, that is a kind of implied notice. See it as an automatic out-of-forum notice ;-)

Well, I still see no rule preventing the governor from renaming a city named by someone else. Only tradition (and citizens?) may prevent it. So AJ cannot name a city. Neither can I. It is a small price for him to pay to have veto power over constiutional amendments.

When you get right down to it the Assistant Governor is a Deputy Governor except the deputy would be appointed by the winning governor instead of being the runner up from the gubernatorial election. I can tell you right now that there will be a legal challenge if the governor appoints an assistant. It would be much better to change the CoL first.

I agree with donsig here. There has traditionally been a great deal of resistance to deputy governors. Abusing the laws to manufacture one would be a bad, and most likely short lived, precedent.

I've suggested that he rename the position to 'acting' governor. That way, the resistance to it will likely be much less.

I seriously doubt that AJ would get the citizen approval to rename anything. We've only ever renamed captured cities. As a note, Josh is on the CoC, just on the bottom.

Can we announce PIs in here? Ipris admited in the turn chat that he was playing along with the game. I will have the turn chat up at the end of turn 10 tonight.

Here's the turn chat: Chat Log (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads2/sept_9th.zip)

In the turn chat Ipris said this:


[19:54] <ipris> i dont know if i can say..
something interesting just happened in my
game.. while playing along

Fionn was suspicious and mentioned it to me in private chat. So, I asked further...


[19:57] <Chieftess> Ipris - are you playing
another game at the same time?
[19:57] * eyrei2 slaps donsig around with the
constitution to wake him up
[19:57] <ipris> yeah
[19:57] <neutral> where is aj?
[19:57] <ipris> well the same.. just to follow
along
[19:57] <Chieftess> the same what?

Then the lynch mob followed...


[19:58] * eyrei2 bangs his head on his desk
[19:58] <ipris> i downloaded the save.. and
followed along
[19:58] <neutral> fool!
[19:58] <neutral> he must die!
[19:58] * Octavian_X gets stake ready
[19:58] <Chieftess> that's against the rules...
[19:58] <ipris> is that agains the law?
[19:58] <neutral> lynch him!
[19:58] <Chieftess> yes.
[19:58] <eyrei2> ipris, you must have missed the
warning, please exit the game you are playing
[19:58] <ipris> why ?
[19:58] <Fionn696_> no lynching just a PI
[19:58] <neutral> call the judiciary
[19:58] <Octavian_X> i wanna use my stake...
[19:58] <sike1> uh-oh
[19:58] <eyrei2> play another if you like
[19:59] <neutral> stake! stake! stake!
[19:59] <eyrei2> just not this one
[19:59] <stuck_is_watching> someboddy say PI?
[19:59] <ipris> okie
[19:59] <sike1> donsig has competition
[19:59] <Chieftess> haha
[19:59] <Fionn696_> yes sadly me
[19:59] <stuck_is_watching> for who and for why
[19:59] <Chieftess> Ipris, for playing the turn
chat.
[19:59] <Chieftess> game
[19:59] <sike1> you can't follow along...
[19:59] <Octavian_X> shouldn't have said that
while i was here...
[19:59] <neutral> death to traitors!
[19:59] * stuck_is_watching inhales quickly, like
in those movies
[19:59] <neutral> lol
[19:59] <CivGeneral> lol
[19:59] <Chieftess> Plus, randomness is on.
[20:00] <Chieftess> Things won't be the same.
[20:00] <ipris> hmm, i knew you couldnt play ahead
[20:00] <ipris> but i thought you could play along

Do you wish for this to be an actual PI? It sounds like a newbie mistake... However, if it is, I request that Judge Advocate Pro Tem donsig begin the PI process imeadiately.

It probably is a newbie mistake. Just issue a warning. :)

Originally posted by Chieftess
It probably is a newbie mistake. Just issue a warning. :)

I agree. There was no indication that Ipris was attempting to gain knowledge about our future. I ask that the members of the judiciary act unaminously to give Ipris a slap on the wrist, so that we can avoid a full blown PI.

*Octavian X slaps Ipris wrist, but disappointedly puts away stake*

Just don't do it again.

We should investigate whether he played in ADVANCE first. I believe we have no rule against playing ALONG (which means not hitting enter before the DP does). It would be like a parallel-universe.

Originally posted by Octavian X
As I see it, appointing a acting governor while you are active is very prudent. It shows one is looking ahead. I am sure that no one would argue if you specifically said 'acting' governor, rather than 'assistant.' Also, if you notified the public that the acting governor was taking over in the provincial thread, this would be fine. However, if you assume that the acting governor would take over in an unannounced absence, we have a problem.

Listen, guys, seriously, get OVERRRRRR the naming. As I have explained, 'assistant' is just an easy-to-use name to represent a group of legally sanctioned positions that I have combined.

1. Acting Governor
I am appointing an acting governor in advance. In the event of an advised absence, this person will become the acting governor (COL D1B, COL H4A, COL H4B). In the case of an unannounced absence the acting governor is appointed by the prez and council (COL H1A), and may consider the governor's choice of Acting Governor (though they are not bound by it).

2. Turn Chat Rep
I am appointing a turn chat rep. In the event I am not at the turnchat, this person will be the province's representitive (COL H3A, COL H3B).

3. Provincial Authority + RPG
There are other priviliges that are unofficial and cannot directly effect the gameplay. See teh Provincial Law proposals for details. These are not as yet set in stone but will most likely involve sitting on a provincial council.


I am combining these three functions into one position to be given to one person. This position I have given the title of Assistant Governor. It is not a new position with new rights, but a combination of existing rights. So far, the only objection has been to the name, which is inconsiquential and superficial.

The reason I don't want to use 'acting governor' is that the person won't be the acting governor most of the time. If I take a leave of absence THEN they will become the acting governor. Until that point they are the Assistant Governor. Please stop picking on the naming.

You know, I agree with AJ (much as it pains me to say it ;)).

He has the constitutional right to appoint an acting governor, and when discussed last term the Judiciary concurred that confirming an a citizen in the position pre-emptively would be perfectly acceptable.

He has the constitutional right to appoint a turn chat rep, since we expanded the definition of "leader" to include governors.

The other aspects of the role are not covered by the constitution at all, so there is no plausible rule based objection to them.

As far as I'm concerned the actual name assigned to any provincial role is the business of the governor provided it does not cause confusion with an existing governmental role.

So where's the problem?

I think it's a fine idea, except for the name. :p

Seriously though, how about Lt. Governor. That's generally what their title is in the real world.

Originally posted by Shaitan
I think it's a fine idea, except for the name. :p

Seriously though, how about Lt. Governor. That's generally what their title is in the real world.

Look, I'm glad that this is gaining more support, but WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE NAME???

Assistant governor, person who assists the governor, person assisting the governor, assisting with governance. argh....

What is the problem guys
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????

Not a problem. I just like Lt. Governor better.

We could also name it Second Governor... Or provincial secretary, or Undergovernor. Or Hugo.

He could name the position "Beer drinking doughnut fetishist" if he wanted, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. The naming of the position is, IMO, at the discretion of the governor, and I do not see that the Judiciary has any jurisdiction over that particular non-issue. If it's not against any actual rules then I say it should be allowed to fly.

Frankly, I think AJ should go with "Beer Drinking Doughnut Fetishist".

Originally posted by Danke
Frankly, I think AJ should go with "Beer Drinking Doughnut Fetishist".
What? Is Octavian going to be the assistant then?

:lol:

(Sorry, X. Couldn't resist. ;) )

I was thinking mentor ;-)

Let us not denounce the good name of the doughnut!

Seriously, though, 'assistant' governor is what rang my 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL' bell.

Now what if we call it "unconstitutional assistant governor"? (uag)

Right, like JAG, if you're swedish.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
He has the constitutional right to appoint an acting governor, and when discussed last term the Judiciary concurred that confirming an a citizen in the position pre-emptively would be perfectly acceptable.

So where's the problem?

The constitution says nada about deputies, assistants, acting what-evers and chat reps. there is no constitutional right for a governor to appoint anything. Any such right would have to be inferred from the CoL or CoS.

The CoL specifically states that governors do not have deputies. I don't care what you call it, it's still a deputy. An acting governor can be appointed when the governor is unable to fulfill his or her duties not before. Acting Governor is specifically a temporary position. There was no talk about a governor being able to appoint an acting governor in advance. In fact, Section J of the CoS was passed becasue governor's don't have deputies.

AJ has a great idea. I argued for gubernatorial back-up during the section J discussions but the idea was roundly defeated. I have no problem with deputy governors (or what-ever you want to call them) as long as we do it legally by changing the wording in the CoL that says governors do not have deputies.

The difference of the deputy governor and AJs proposal is that the deputy governor would have full governmental rights even if the governor is there, as in AJs proposal the position has a bit less rights until the governor is absent, in which case it automatically takes over.

@dis - Actually, due to the messed uppedness of getting around the laws that are in place, AJ's proposal has the assistant governor powerless if the governor is absent. It specifically says that the assistant does not automatically take over if the gov goes missing.

But couldnt we interpret the posting of a absentee rule and the explicit will of the governor to have the acting governor take over after this rule as posted absenteeism?

@disorganizer - No, not the way the rules are written.

Like donsig said, if you want a deputy governor (no matter what you want to call the position) get the rules changed to allow it. donsig and I both strongly support deputy governors and have tried to get them several times. Each time the idea is defeated but gathers a bit more support. Maybe this time it would pass.

Thankyou, thankyou to Eklektikos for the revelation (sarcasm) that it matters not one bit what I call this bundle of positions. Accordingly, I am going with Beer Drinking Doughnut Fetishist Governor (BDDF Gov) for now so stop whining about the name.

Sorry Dis, I am afraid that to be in accordance with the current law, the BDDF Gov would only assume acting Gov status when an absence is announced. In the case of an unnanounced absence, the Prez and council make the call on appointing someone. This is the major difference between the BDDF Gov and a Depudy Gov.

The council and prez have complete control over this and may (if they wish) totally ignore who is the BDDF Gov at the time.

AJ - Work on the law change. Make it all solid and official. You'll get help and support. Heck, you could even hire AP&N (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30300) to do it for you.

What is truly important here is that at the end of the day, working through our existing laws and democratic structure, we have a solution with a totally cool and ludicrous title.

And *that's* what constititional government is all about my friends. ;)

The Governor of Bohemia has posted a poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31912) to confirm the appointment of Neutral Leader as Acting Governor of Bohemia. Under Section E.6.D of the CoL, I hereby request an interpretation and clarification of existing amendments, laws and standards as they pertain to this appointment. I specifically request an interpretation and clarification of Section D.1.B which states:

Governors do not have Deputies but may appoint an Acting Governor when unable to fulfil their duties. The Acting Governor has all powers and responsibilities of the Governor but is a temporary position and must surrender their acting status upon the request of the governor.

Brief from petitioner:
The wording of this clause clearly states that an Acting Governor may be appointed when the Governor cannot perform his or her duties. The fact that the clause states that Governors do not have deputies implies that there is to be no governor-in-waiting. In light of this, the petitioner claims that this appointment violates the intent of the CoL Section quoted above.

I take it that this is an offical Judicial Review.

In that case, I present my own.

I find that this law specifically states that, first of all, under no circumstances may a governor have a deputy.

If a governor does decide to appoint an acting governor, after approval is passed with the normal 21 vote poll, the acting governor would take power when the governor announces his absence, taking all powers normally held by that governor. The acting goveror, then, would surrender power to the governor upon his return.

Originally posted by disorganizer
We should investigate whether he played in ADVANCE first. I believe we have no rule against playing ALONG (which means not hitting enter before the DP does). It would be like a parallel-universe.

I am not able to send Ipris a pm or e-mail so there seems to be no way short of a PI to investigate this. The concensus seems to be to leave it at the warning already issued by the Chief Justice. Unless someone wishes to formally re-open this I'm declaring the case closed. (BTW - is Bill_in_PDX back yet?)

Bill'll post here when he wants donsig to surrender the gavel:D

Originally posted by Octavian X
I take it that this is an offical Judicial Review.

In that case, I present my own.

I find that this law specifically states that, first of all, under no circumstances may a governor have a deputy.

If a governor does decide to appoint an acting governor, after approval is passed with the normal 21 vote poll, the acting governor would take power when the governor announces his absence, taking all powers normally held by that governor. The acting goveror, then, would surrender power to the governor upon his return.

Yes, I have asked for a Judicial Review.

Would the Chief Justice be so kind as to include in his interpretation whether or not Section D.1.B of the CoL allows for a governor to appoint an Acting Governor when the governor is quite able to fulfil his duties?

As I see it, the only time one can get his deputy approved is when he is active. I see it as comlpetely legal.

Originally posted by Octavian X
As I see it, the only time one can get his deputy approved is when he is active. I see it as comlpetely legal.

But, but, but, but g-g-g-g-governor's c-c-c-c-can't have d-d-d-d-deputies!:crazyeye:

Hee, hee, just seein' if someone would catch that. Yeah.....

As I see it, the only time one can get his acting governor approved is when he is active. It is comlpetely legal.

And nobody can sue a governor for giving his future acting governor additional administrative work :-P@donsig

Oh mighty justices, please give feedback on the proposed office most lately described here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=472594#post472594).

If you folks like the refined version you will see in that link, please consider opening said office.

Originally posted by Octavian X
Hee, hee, just seein' if someone would catch that. Yeah.....

As I see it, the only time one can get his acting governor approved is when he is active. It is comlpetely legal.

You are correct in realizing that a governor can only get an Acting Governor approved when the governor is active. The Acting Governor position is like the pro tem positions in the judiciary. In both these positions the office holder appoints someone to take over his or her duties for a specified time while the former is away from the forums completely. Like when Bill_in_PDX goes on a business trip.

A deputy is someone who is always waiting in the wings to take over the official duties of the leader whenever the leader is absent and decisions are needed. Our citizens have decided that governors do not need these permanent stand-bys and passed a law that says governors do not have deputies. In order to adhere to the spirit of this law we must do more than ensure we never have a position called deputy governor. We must be sure to keep in mind the distinction between deputies and acting or pro tem positions.

The Governor of Bohemia is trying to appoint a deputy under the guise of acting governor. I call on our Judicial Department to recognize this and put a stop to it until such time as the CoL is changed to allow deputy governors.

According to the Constitution, Article D, Section 1, Part B:

"Governors do not have Deputies but may appoint an Acting Governor when unable to fulfil their duties. The Acting Governor has all powers and responsibilities of the Governor but is a temporary position and must surrender their acting status upon the request of the governor. "

According to the constitution, there is no official position supporting the Governor's office, except an acting replacement for times when the Governor cannot fulfill his duties. As this is the definition of the role of a deputy, I see no difference between and Acting Governor and a Deputy Governor, except that the Acting Governor is appointed, as opposed to being the runner-up in an election. It is my opinion that this method of selection is the *only* differentiator between an acting governor and a deputy governor.

That being said, I see nothing unconstitutional in a sitting Governor creating an unofficial assistant position to whom the governor would delegate duties, as this assumes the governor is approving the actions of his/her unofficial assistant. I would further say that the Governor can call this position whatever they want, including "deputy governor" as it still would not be an official position per the constitution.

I also consider that it is expressly written in the constitution that the Governor can appoint an Acting Governor to take over when the Governor cannot fulfill his/her duties.

Lastly, I see nothing to prohibit the combination of the Acting Governor position with this unofficial assistant position.

To sum up, in my opinion, AJ is within his rights to name an acting governor, to give that position extra duties within the scope of the responsibilities of the Governor's office, and to call that position anything he wishes. However, this is an appointed position and unlike true Deputy positions is not filled by election, or continues other than at the whim of the Governor.

Well, Danke, are you then saying that this current appointment is unofficial? If so then the Acting Governor has no official powers what-so-ever whether the Governor is absent or not. We can't have it both ways.

Danke, you have also side stepped the timing issue of appointing an Acting Governor. Apparently you are saying that the reason governor's don't have deputies is because our citizens did not want the runner up of the gubernatorial election to be deputy. It seems you are saying the citizens prefer to have the governor appoint a deputy. As one who was involved in the debates leading to the passage of Section D.1.B (which is in the Code of Laws not the constitution) I can assure you that this was not the intent behind this clause.

Donsig,

My apologies, you are correct in that this stems from D.1.B of the Code Of Laws. Not the constitution, as I had written. However, there we end in agreement.

No donsig, what I am saying is that the Acting Governor appointment *is* official, and the sole official duty of an Acting Governor is that they take over if the Governor is unable to fulfill his duties. Any *additional* duties that are ascribed to this or any other individual working for the Governor are unofficial, in that they are legal, but not described specifically in the rules.

As to timing, there is nothing in the rules that says that an absence by the governor has to be imminent before naming an acting governor, and I would find that counter-intuitive to best practices in emergency planning.

I am not saying that the reason the rules are as they are stem from the public not wanting runners up to be Deputy Governors. However, I am saying that is where the document ended up, according to my interpretation. My opinion is based on whether the actions taken at this time are legal under our current laws. I find that they are. This in no way means that I think that the current D.1.B section makes sense, or that it is what I personally want, or that it best serves the public.

Maybe I should skip school to keep up on this...

To throw my opinion back into the fray, I see the acting goveror as having no power whatsoever in times when the governor is present. When the goveror has beforehand has announced his absence, then the acting governor assumes all powers.

Now, here is the key difference, as I see it, between acting and deputy governors. In the event the the governor is absent, but has not announced his absence, a deputy, if one was allowed, would take over. The only circumstances in which the acitng governor takes the duties of the governor is when the current governor announces his absence. It is possible for the president to appoint the acting gov. as the permanent.

If the intent of the laws matters at all, here's what the directive was:

Absolutely no deputy governors were to be allowed. Acting governors were to be appointed specifically to cover an absence by the governor and would be relieved of their duties and title when the governor returned. It was specifically intended that there be no "ready" backup to the governors.

Note that this was not my (or donsig's) choice but it was the only way we could get any sort of backup whatsoever in place against the firm resistance against deputy governors. We two have been fighting for deputy governors for quite some time.

To reiterate, the position was to be an "acting" governor. Not a "waiting to be acting" governor. Preappointment is not detailed because it was specifically voted against by the populace.

I want very much for there to be deputy governor positions but I don't like the way these laws are being interpreted contrary to their intent.

You should have banged the gavel down on the bench at the end Shaitan!:hammer:

Octavian X - you're drawing a fine line between deputies and acting governors. As you can infer from Shaitan's post I'm arguing more from the intent of the law. I'm very familiar with the intent because I argued against it!

Danke - Once again I am arguing from the intent of the clause but the wording is such that it implies the appointment of an acting governor will be done for specific absences that the governor knows about in advance of the appointment.

I think the Governor's proposal is fine and a good thing to do. All I'm saying is that it is currently illegal. I'm not proposing that we shoot down the proposal just that we modify the CoL to make the proposal legal without having to interpret the CoL to such an extent.

Originally posted by Danke
Donsig,

My apologies...

No need to apologize. Remember, I must stay on the good side of the Public Defender. Never know when I might need his services. ;)

PI! PI! PI!

Ah, well, my post was my interpretation of the law. Actually, I believe deputy governors to be a good idea, especially after the fiascos we had in the last game's term 5.

One more thing: I will be absent on Friday, and most of Saturday. Therefore, I hereby appoint Cyc as Chief Justice Pro Tem.

Remember, Cyc, you can have some of the doughnuts in my desk, and the stash behind the bench, but don't touch the ones in the vault behind Shaitan's portrait, under the rug, beneath to floorboards, in the closet, in the chair stuffing, behind the toilet, above the ceiling fan, or anywhere else I might've hidden them.

Where did you get those from ;-)

Anyway, even if its not the intention of the law, pre-appointing is not illegal as it is not even mentioned in the law. So we again discovered a hole in there which is used in favor of bohemia!

The only way to make it illegal would be to change the law to explicitly deny this :-P.

I would like to take my hat off and thank Octavian X for the temporary appointment to Chief Justice Pro Tem. It was a great experience while it lasted.

In my opinion, a deputy governor, governor-waiting-in-the-wings, assistant governor, whatever you want to call them, is one of the more important things this game lacks. Soon after winning the election to the Governor's Office, one should appoint such a person. Illness or injury can take one from their responsibilities with warning. We should, as a society, have an appointed representitive waiting to step in when needed to be acting Governor. This should be an appointed position as a perk to the Governor, and the Governor should be able to give this person on-going responsibilities to keep them active and visible in the Province. The law that prohibits such an appointment is by far one of the most useless writings of the three books. I think the reason it was put into action was poorly written polls and an uninformed public. The sooner we get the law changed, the better.

BTW, Octavian X, thanks for the doughnuts.

As far as AJ's proposal, I see nothing wrong with. It should be welcomed as a model or prototype (I can't think of the correct term at the moment, lack of sleep). We need to get this taken care of.

Originally posted by Octavian X

Now, here is the key difference, as I see it, between acting and deputy governors. In the event the the governor is absent, but has not announced his absence, a deputy, if one was allowed, would take over. The only circumstances in which the acitng governor takes the duties of the governor is when the current governor announces his absence. It is possible for the president to appoint the acting gov. as the permanent.

Indeed, this is one of the major two differences between a depudy governor and a BDDF governor (yes, I am sticking with this name). If I were to suddenly up and leave without warning (we are talking in hypotheticals) then the BDDF Governor WOULD NOT become the governor. A new Governor with full powers would be appointed by the executive.

On a side note, I can't quite keep up with the new judiciary and all the pro-terming (oh the irony, so easy for you guys), but am I right in thinking that with the support of Danke and Octavian I can proceed?

Wow, the forum was down while I was gone. What a coincidence...

I have returned, and as such retake my powers of Chief Justice of Fanatika.

Hey, there's a jelly doughnut missing...

Achhtbahn, eh memphin' forn (chew, chew) en jetty-fid mumble....
(swallow), but I swear, I never found those...

just discovered this thread. if anyone has a concern about me playing along previously during chat feel free to put it in the open. feel free to look through the chat logs, at my suggestions during chat. I NEVER played ahead. my innocent intentions were to have the MAP (because it is a constant isnt it?) in front of me rather than waiting to download the save a few turns later.

Originally posted by Almightyjosh
If I were to suddenly up and leave without warning (we are talking in hypotheticals) then the BDDF Governor WOULD NOT become the governor.
Doesn't this seem a bit silly? If the rules have to be end arounded to the effect that the governor's backup can't backup the governor, doesn't that scream "HELLO! PROBLEM HERE!"

Judge Advocate Returns

Actually I returned several days ago, but the forums have been down...

I thank donsig for his fine service to our nation, and as of now, officially take back control of my office.

Bill

Welcome back, Bill! I hope you made it back to the Wilderness of Orygun safely.
The only thing you've missed is endless debate on AJ's Acting, assistant, deputy, BDDF, or whatever governor.

i request a review of poll
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32129

as not all proposals being discussed were put up for voting.

Originally posted by Octavian X
Welcome back, Bill! I hope you made it back to the Wilderness of Orygun safely.
The only thing you've missed is endless debate on AJ's Acting, assistant, deputy, BDDF, or whatever governor.

Yes, returned to the wilderness from the likes of Atlanta, NY, and SLC.

I have reviewed the mindnumbing debates on double secret deputy governors, and I concur with donsig's official interpretations....afterall, that is why I appointed him. ;-)

Two things:

1) Someone should reproposal the deputy law change, it would appear that there is support for this long overdue measure now. In the meantime, there is NO way for us to allow skirting of the law in place, as the proposal for deputies (or any other kind of assistant) was soundly defeated, and the will of the people was made abundantly clear.

Let's do things right, not necessarily what is easiest.

2) My view of the term "appoint" as it applies to governors, justices, and others where that specific phrase is used, is that there is no confirmation vote necessary. No need for a vote is defined, and the word appoint itself implies that the office holder decides who their temp stand-in will be.

Bill
Judge Advocate

My arguments have all stemmed from my belief that the rules are a framework that defines the official nature and interaction of the game, but that is not meant to be a strict definition of all that is allowed in the game.

I think that any department or office is allowed to create unofficial positions to assist in the exectution of that office. These unofficial positions last only while the appointer is in office and are not permanent. For example, we have an office of the census that operates at the will of the Chief Executive. It can be undone, or not, at the whim of a new Chief Executive. It is a (hopefully) helpful office to the populace, but is not officially defined, and does not need to be.

All this is leading up to my answer to Bill, which is that just because the people voted against an official Deputy Governor position, regardless of their arguments for or against such a position, does not mean that it is illegal to create an unofficial assistant position as long as it does not overide the current rules (such as how a missing governor is replaced, or who has the right to provide Governor's orders if the Governor is missing). I do not believe that the "no deputy governor" clause means "the governor can not utilize any external help".

And I'm pretty sure this is the last I'm going to say on this subject :)

Originally posted by Danke
All this is leading up to my answer to Bill, which is that just because the people voted against an official Deputy Governor position, regardless of their arguments for or against such a position, does not mean that it is illegal to create an unofficial assistant position as long as it does not overide the current rules (such as how a missing governor is replaced, or who has the right to provide Governor's orders if the Governor is missing). I do not believe that the "no deputy governor" clause means "the governor can not utilize any external help".

Actually we don't disagree on this point.

My opinion is just that if someone is a deputy governor, but is specifically banned from having any power or greater than average citizen input on governor business, then why have one? Why not get the law changed so that they have real duties?

The reason you see resistance on this issue is (in my opinion) that the original supporters of this idea were defeated at ballot, so they are frustrated that now people are potentially looking to skirt the issue without going through the efforts they were required to...

And secondly, these unofficial positions have a way of growing into semi-official positions without setting clear standards up front.

Mayors are a good example of this. Mayors have NO official standing, and yet, in the last demo game, multiple debates raged because a governor did not accept the mayors opinion at face value.

Maybe we should have mayors. I definately think we should have deputy governors. But until we change the law, there should be no grey areas, or clouded duties, etc...

Bill
Judge Advocate

What about my review request?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=487280#post487280

PI-Request:

i request an investigation of the fact that our executive office (presidents office) does not post the chat information in time. the chat index has not been updated since thursday, and no new chat-instruction thread has been generated till now from sunday.

this is a mayor breach of the trust the citizenry put into our president and the vice president.

i believe the judicacy should issue a warning letter to remind them of their duties. but of course this would be up to the judicacy to decide.

That's an informational poll. Technically, it isn't official without he discussion, but it can be used as a basis for citizen input. Since it isn't a change to a law, no review needed.

One last thing, Almightyjsoh has started a thread on deputy governors in the citizen's subfourm. Please redirect all discussion on the topic of deputies to that thread. More requests may get buried in this debate.

But it also is the job of the judicacy to state comment on obviously misstated polls (see last game :-P). As discussed options miss in the poll which refers to a discussion where those options are mentioned, it is extremely unfair to just leave the options the poll posted does not like out of the poll. It is the job of the judicacy to also take action in those matters, not only in validation of official polls.
I will surely come back to this issue if nothing is done when one of my polls is closed in the future!

Hey! I just found out Bill and I violated the CoL. Those whom we appointed while we were out needed to be confirmed by the citizens in a poll.

@ dis's PI request: Please point out spefically which Constitutional article, Law, or Standard you accuse the president of breaking.

Dis: Five words. Real Life and slow forum.

I've been busy today. Plus, if you mean for last Sunday, I couldn't even access the forum due to a forum outage. I've asked Grey Fox to put this one up. (It takes me 5 minutes to load a page, and I only have a 56k modem). And, I don't always have all day. :)

I'm still surprised that people here are forgetting that this is a game, and real life takes precedence.

Originally posted by Chieftess
I'm still surprised that people here are forgetting that this is a game, and real life takes precedence.

I thought we put in the constitution that real life has to take a back seat to the demo game. Did that amendment get defeated or vetoed?

I don't remember reading about real life in the constitution... :) (atleast last time I re-read the entire thing)

I don't think the problem is the president's office, but the rest of the government. Turn chat instruction threads tend to remain empty until a couple of hours before the chat anyway, so why does it matter if it is put up the day before...

I do agree that these threads need to be posted promptly, but the point I am trying to make is that unless the leaders also post promptly, it makes little difference.

Leaders need time to get feedback from the citizens before posting instructions so they should be posting close to the turn chat itself. However, the turn chat instruction thread is really more than that. It should contain links to the last turn thread, the current save and when the chat is to be held. It would be nice if it included a little synopsis of what has happened and what is coming. This thread should be up soon after the previous chat is done. I do beleive there is a relevant clause in the CoS. (I vaguely remember it being vetoed as a constitutional amendment. ;) )

I join dis in urging our President to post the turn thread early!

Originally posted by donsig
Leaders need time to get feedback from the citizens before posting instructions so they should be posting close to the turn chat itself. However, the turn chat instruction thread is really more than that. It should contain links to the last turn thread, the current save and when the chat is to be held. It would be nice if it included a little synopsis of what has happened and what is coming. This thread should be up soon after the previous chat is done. I do beleive there is a relevant clause in the CoS. (I vaguely remember it being vetoed as a constitutional amendment. ;) )

I join dis in urging our President to post the turn thread early!

I see your point, but one way to get peoples attention is to make an official post on a decision. Then, they will actually discuss it...

Just the way I would do it (did it)...;)

The very least that could be done is updating the the chat list. Past the Sept. 18th chat, we don't know when the next one will be. Could this information please be posted in the chat registry thread?

My opinion is that it would be very prudent of the Madame President to post a new instruction thread after the a chat was finished, that way we would know for sure when the next one was. It would make it easier to find the most recent save, also.

CT: The Sunday chat wasnt even announced in the schedule. Nor was the inofmation needed accessible in time.
You had time to play the game, so there would have been enought time on sunday to update the list and links and the forum was definitely up on thursday and sunday. I was even able to post a request in your office thread.
The problem is that the index should contain a few chats in advance, which is exactly what you proposed in your own proposal for this chat index.

If we continue to build on our beurocracy to protect some people and not to work in the will of the citizenry nor to give the citizenry a chance at all to take part in critical decissions, we will (Again) loose citizens due to (understandable) lack of interest in watching those few leaders play their game.

The purpose of the judges is PROTECTION of the rights of our citizens and PROTECTION of the spirit of the game, not enhancement of beurocraty.

In CT's defense dis you do remember the forum was done on friday and saturday, so therefore she wasnt able to post it in enough time. Plus we had a small TC. I dont think we were originally going to have a turn chat on sunday but CT changed her mind and wanted to see how many people would show to it as it is my understanding. I think others asked her if there was to be a TC that night as well, She does give ample enough time in her schedules ive read that she has posted. Plus lately Governors and Leaders alike havent been posting their instructions because so early in the game its almost impossible to do so (due to making them so huge), and their have been the people who have called for a judicial review of each poll posted because they are unhappy with it. Personaly i think we should stop that and play the game.

For someone who hurt his hand he sure types alot ;)

I dont complain about her having the chat nor about not having posted the turn-thread.
I definitely complain about the fact that her index-thread is not changed. It is the only index we have for the chats, and as such she must(!) take care of it.
The last chat in there is thursday (up to now=tuesday) and even the thursday chat is not correctly reflected there.

The only source of information we have for the chats must be kept in a good order! And Sunday+Monday should have been enough time, especially if there was enough time to take care of a chat on sunday at all (she even posted a turn-thread, so there would have been time to edit the index also).

And the thursday entry was put in there only after i complained in her office, and there was no forum outage at all to explain that one :-P

And im typing left-handed right now...-P

And i only complained about one poll.

And if she has RL-Timing Problems, she can always appoint an office or give her vice the work :-P

I believe a lot of the frustration surround this weekend's turn/chat and accompanying information was due to the site outtage. I would recommend that the President consider suspending or delaying turn/chats in response to extended outtages as a consideration to players who may not be able to access the forums during the brief window of opportunity prior to the turn/chat. I also applaud the decision to end the turn/chat when we met the English.

Now then, I need to get back to chasing ambulances or sleeping under my desk.....

There is a clause in the constitution that states that the president and leaders are responsible for making all decisions in the event of a forum outage. There was absolutely nothing illegal about playing the turns. Personally, I would have no problem with removing this clause...

Besides, the next turn chats where in the Upcoming Turn Chat thread. ;)

We can solve this problem simply.

Chieftess, could set a certain amount of advance time we know about a chat? Perhaps in a thread somehwhere, post the times for the chats of the next two weeks.

In addition to that, after the final save of a chat is posted, put up the next chat thread.

We all know in advance, all are happy. It's about as hard to post a thread as upload a save.

Originally posted by disorganizer
What about my review request?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=487280#post487280

I have reviewed the poll, and see no legal problem with it.

The poll reflects the discussed proposal by the author. I do not believe that a poll has to include every idea posted in a thread, just a discussion of the ideas, and hopefully a concensus of the best ones, but that is difficult to enforce.

I personally, would have included the spot 2 tiles nw of #1, but that is personal preference and why I voted "other".

I disagree with the Chief Justice, in that I feel this poll is meeting all requirements for an official poll.

Bill
Judge Advocate

Originally posted by Octavian X
Hey! I just found out Bill and I violated the CoL. Those whom we appointed while we were out needed to be confirmed by the citizens in a poll.

As I noted in the post above, I disagree with this statement.

I believe that the term appoint means that the office holder can appoint their stand in. No where in the laws does it indicate that such a vote is needed for the temporary stand in.

Bill
Judge Advocate

When I mentioned we needed a poll, I was refering to Section H.5 of the CoL.

5. Pro-Tem Justice, Defendant, Advocate
A. Appointed by the Public Defender, Judge Advocate, and Chief Justice respectively.
B. Confirmed by a poll of the citizenrey. Simple majority required.

I'm just saying that the pro-tem official counldn't do anything that the acutal official legally.

Doh! You are right.

I swear I seached everywhere to find that, but couldn't.

Well, I suppose I have to self-report myself to the court for violating the code of laws.

Bill
Judge Advocate

PI's for everybody! :beer:

j/k

Bill, in the last turn chat, donsig was banned from it. As the Judge Advocate, you need to investigate this action by Chieftess (reference: CoS Section H.8). In fact, I'm not even sure if this occured during or after the actual chat. If it was afterwards, no actions need to be taken. If it was during the actual chat, you need to investigate.

Please look into this further, as I don't have much time to do so.

Thanks,
Octavian

It did occur after the turn chat. The game save and log were up, and the chat ended. I was merely doing my duties as a chat op.

what CT said. And donsig wasnt the only one banned but i welcome my vacation from chat to concentrate on other things see ya in the forums :)

OK, then, there is no need to investigate the matter, unless donsig wants to bring up specific charges for a PI (or vice-versa :D)

Originally posted by Octavian X
OK, then, there is no need to investigate the matter, unless donsig wants to bring up specific charges for a PI (or vice-versa :D)

I do not want to initiate a PI. Anyone who wants to PI me is welcome to do so.

I would like to know how I can get this ban lifted. Chieftess has decreed that the ban would be lifted if I apologize to Fionn and I refuse to do that for there is nothing to apologize for! Am I at her mercy on this?

Originally posted by donsig


I do not want to initiate a PI. Anyone who wants to PI me is welcome to do so.

I would like to know how I can get this ban lifted. Chieftess has decreed that the ban would be lifted if I apologize to Fionn and I refuse to do that for there is nothing to apologize for! Am I at her mercy on this?

Chieftess has shortened the ban to 1 day, so it should not inconvenience you too much.;)

Sorry, but all of this is out of the hands of Fanatika. You will need to take this up with either CT, of the mighty Thunderfall himself.

If anyone wishes to call for a PI of myself or Octavian for inadvertantly violating the code of laws with our temporary appointees, please say so now, or I will close the matter.

Bill
Judge Advocate

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
If anyone wishes to call for a PI of myself or Octavian for inadvertantly violating the code of laws with our temporary appointees, please say so now, or I will close the matter.

Bill
Judge Advocate

[halfway joking]If someone calls a PI for this, I will likely ban them for being pointlessly disruptive.[/halfway joking]:eek:

Oh, I agree, but I figured I had better post something semi-official lest I be accused of bias....;-)

Looks like you're in the clear :)

*sigh*

First of all, I ask the members of the Judiciary to review the proposed Office of Public Relations. This office will become one of the Judiciary, and I feel that the members of it should post their thoughts, and wheter or not they accept it. Link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=496122#post496122

One more thing...

Request for Judicial Review

As I am sure the members of the judiciay are aware, Governor Almightyjosh has resigned. In addition to that, it is very likely Chieftess' appoint for governor, neutral leader, will not be approved by the council.

The conflict lies here. Bohemia had a governor, who's gone. Who now controls the build queues for that province, the old governor, nobody at all, or, as our domestic leader says, the Domestic Department?

Applicable laws: CoL: Section C.2.F, D.1, H.1

I will wait to post my own review.

i do, octavian.

you do what? control bohemia? i think not, not til you either win an election or are appointed to the position

In the absence of a Provincial Governor, with no named Acting Governor named by the elected Provincial Governor, build queues become the responsibility of the Domestic Leader, per the CoL, D:1:F:

"The Domestic Leader is the governor of all cities that lack a provincial governor"

Should the Domestic Leader, or his/her Deputy, be unable to create build queues, this responsibility falls to the President, per CoL C:1:I:

"[the President] Organizes policy, plans and agendas for departments when these have not been set by a department."

There it is then.

I totally agree with FM and Danke. As a former Domestic Department Leader, I have been over the laws enough to see that the D/L steps in here until the end of the month.

Judge Advocate Opinion,

I concur with the Public Defender regarding the build queues in Bohemia.

Clearly the Domestic Leader is now responsible for those queues until such time as a new governor is installed.

Bill
Judge Advocate

Chief Justice's Opinion

I do agree with the Judge Advocate and Public Defender.

However, I believe in our current position, the Domestic Department's control must not last very long. A new governor should be appointed immieadately. And yes, I am aware the NL's appointment was rejected.

One more thing, I want the opinions of the judiciary on the proposed PR office. Please post in this thread.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=496122#post496122

I think the D/L should cover the Governing of the cities in the Capital Province until the end of the month. It would take up a lot of extra time and effort of people who have a lot to do already, if we were to appoint a new Governor, then run an approval poll. Your newly appointed Governor MIGHT get build queues post for the last turn chat of the month. But with nominations, debates, and elections starting tomorrow, why bother with an appointment when it's already covered by the Domestic Department. Octavian, take Donsig's gun and shoot yourself in the foot.

i would like to launch a public investigation against the user known as trader/warrior for the code of laws violation found at: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32657

for the violation of article c. of the col as stated here:
The Code of Laws

A. Citizen Rights

1. Right to Assemble

A. Citizens may form civilian agencies/groups to perform specific tasks or promote specific agendas.

1. Examples include a history tracking group and activists for or against war.
2. Citizen groups may lobby for candidates and agendas.

C. Political parties (slate polling) are not permitted.

as iguanaman so eloquently stated in the thread i linked, the use of bribery to secure votes is tantamount to a forced selection of the proposed candidate. i would appreciate an investigation by the judiciary of this back-door organisation which violates if not (as its leader claims) the letter, at least the spirit of the law. thank you.

I have asked trader/warrior to end the group. Please reconsider this request. He wasn't sure if he was breaking the law of not.

Originally posted by neutral leader
i would like to launch a public investigation against the user known as trader/warrior for the code of laws violation found at: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32657

for the violation of article c. of the col as stated here:
The Code of Laws

A. Citizen Rights

1. Right to Assemble

A. Citizens may form civilian agencies/groups to perform specific tasks or promote specific agendas.

1. Examples include a history tracking group and activists for or against war.
2. Citizen groups may lobby for candidates and agendas.

C. Political parties (slate polling) are not permitted.

as iguanaman so eloquently stated in the thread i linked, the use of bribery to secure votes is tantamount to a forced selection of the proposed candidate. i would appreciate an investigation by the judiciary of this back-door organisation which violates if not (as its leader claims) the letter, at least the spirit of the law. thank you.

I don't think there is any need for a PI in this case. If the judiciary finds that this qualifies as a political party, the thread will be closed. No punishment should be issued here...

if the judiciary is already taking action regarding the thread then there will be no need for an investigation. thank you much. youve probably already seen my message but just in case, here goes:

SPAM deleted

This seems like it has been resolved, and this is simply an opinion on the status of the issue, and not in anyway the beginnings of or an argument for a PI.

The only part of the rules that trader/warrior's TCOP thread appears to violate is the section on the ban on political parties. As the TCOP's sole aim is to enhance the chances of TCOP members to be elected through voting as a bloc, I find that the TCOP is a defacto political party and should be banned according to our laws.

Ironically, had it been as simple as bribery, there would be no problem, as we have no laws against that (though I question the chances of a candidate who takes that route).

Judge Advocate Opinion - TCOP and Political Parties

neutral leader has withdrawn his request for PI, therefore, none will be conducted.

The TCOP clearly is a political party per se, and the evidence is in the opening paragraph of t/w's post: "if you vote for us we will vite [sic] or you!"

The whole concept of it not being a party because people were going to be "asked" to vote is a strawman arguement, as all parties involve people being asked to vote...well, actually the Bathe party in Iraq may well be a little more direct about it.

I think it is impossible to determine in advance what all of the possible laws against parties would be. Instead it is far better to focus on the end result desired of such groups. This group may well have not been intended as a party, but it's end result would clearly violate the law. As such, this group should be prevented from implimenting it's star plan, or any other bonus for votes type plan.

I differ from Danke's well stated opinion in that I feel a true bribe, such as gold for votes, would be against the constitution and code of laws regarding free and open elections, and had this mode of party been implimented, this office would have opened it's own investigation immediately.

Bill
Judge Advocate

Originally posted by Octavian X
One more thing, I want the opinions of the judiciary on the proposed PR office. Please post in this thread.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=496122#post496122

Judge Advocate Opinion

This is an informational poll that effects no law or standard in Fanatika, involving an unofficial position.

Therefore, the JA's office feels that no opinion is necessary, and that the Chief Justice has the power and mandate to set up this unofficial office at his/her descretion.

Bill
Judge Advocate

i request again(!) that ct should be warned!
the chat index is AGAIN not properly maintained:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30401

Dare I slap CT on the wrist?

We've already discussed this before. I ask that you please take this up with Chieftess herself.

As it appears all 3 members of the judiciary agree that the "Circle of Power" is a political party, I will close the thread.

A message from the Chief Justice will carry much more weight than that of a regular citizen. That thread is part of her responsibilities, one she herself started.

I second shaitan. The judges are not only here for clarifying constitutional issues or denying pi's (:-P). They also have to take care that the game runs in a way which is intended and in the spirit of the game.
I even see the judges work in proposing changes to the constitutions which they see to be needed.

Hey, denying PIs is hard work!

I have to agree with disorganizer on this. I believe that the Judiciary has a responsibility to respond to the chat thread/index issue.

I note that no PI's are denied right now as none have been asked for. ;-)

Bill
Judge Advocate

Bill:
well, none have been asked for because judical burocracy sets the hurdle for starting a pi so high :-P
if the pi-startups would be more "customer friendly" we would surely have more of them

It seems to me it is pretty clear how to start one.

Just say who is accused, and what they did wrong by referencing the law. If someone can't do that, then it probably isn't a PI matter.

bill: hey, im just joking! did u see the simley? :-P
i believe the judges do good work as a barrier and enforcement of good pi's.
but i also believe they should do more to push forward
* warning of people "on the edge of breaking a law"
* coming up with law proposals to improove the ruleset
* proactively starting to investigate suspect matters
and those things should of course also be done without a citizen to be needed to post a request (sometimes the change to the worse comes slowly and unnoticed by the populace, and thats where the judically elite must step in)

Oh, well in that case, I apologize ;-)

I do try to warn people of things, but I am just one opinion of many, and I would prefer to avoid imposing judicial ideas on everything that goes one.

I can help with the wording of laws and polls, but I think it is much better if the citizenry themselves promote the laws and ideas that they would like to see.

I think you may well be on to something with your comment: "(sometimes the change to the worse comes slowly and unnoticed by the populace, and thats where the judically elite must step in)"

I don't consider myself elite, but I can see where you are coming from on this, and so far, I have limited my comments to pointing out that the turn chat / forum relationship.

If I am fortunate enough to win the right to serve Fanatika again next term, perhaps I will spend some time looking into other things as well.

Bill

i hope that... and also that you can continue your work... btw: if you need a vote, you could buy mine :-P
see the rpg bulletin board for details.

I'd like to state that, even though I intend to leave the judiciary, I will continue the work of improving Fanatika's laws, and enforcing them as well.

Otherwise, everything else that I could've said was already said.

BTW, I spoke with CT. She say's she's very busy between the demogame, the tournement, and RL. She is semi-retiring for this reason. This is why the index isn't as up-to-date as it should be.

Ok, so i believe the mods should take over that index. Can someone post a well-worded poll for that?

Please review this proposed poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=506413#post506413) for changes in the Code of Laws and post the poll when review is completed.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Please review this proposed poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=506413#post506413) for changes in the Code of Laws and post the poll when review is completed.

Thank you.

Judge Advocate's office approves of the new poll in this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=507132#post507132

I have also posted my review of this law, and I approve of it as does the Judge Advocate.

I have posted my approval as well.

Thank you for your timely attention, gentlemen. I have posted the poll.

Excuse me, but I believe it is the responsibilty of the judiciary to post polls. Not that I care...

It is but the poll wasn't posted so I did it myself.

Congrats to Bill, Danke, and Leningrado. All of the judiciary elections went uncontested, and they will be members of this esteemed office next term!

Chief Justice: Bill_in_PDX
Public Defender: Danke
Judge Advocate: Leningrado

Bill, I'll have the office cleaned out here soon. It's no easy take moving a couple million doughnuts, and an industrial doughnut machine...

Originally posted by Octavian X
Congrats to Bill, Danke, and Leningrado. All of the judiciary elections went uncontested, and they will be members of this esteemed office next term!

Chief Justice: Bill_in_PDX
Public Defender: Danke
Judge Advocate: Leningrado

Bill, I'll have the office cleaned out here soon. It's no easy take moving a couple million doughnuts, and an industrial doughnut machine...

Leave the doughnuts! That's why I ran for the damn job! ;-)

Bill

Term 2 thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33210)