Office of the Judiciary - Term 2

This is the official thread of Fanatika's Judicial Office for Term 2.

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

The Term 1 Judicial Tread can be found here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31088

The Judiciary of Fanatika consists of the following members this term:

Chief Justice: Bill_in_PDX
Public Defender: Danke
Judge Advocate: Bill_in_PDX (acting), donsig (Pro Tem)

In accordance with the Constitution, Article I, the census of Fanatika is set as follows

Term 2 Active Census: 38
Term 2 Quorum Level: 19
Term 2 Full Census: 43

The active census (38) and quorum (19) are numbers normally used in polling for all issues from the simple up to, and including, changes to our Code of Laws.

The full census (43) is only used for constitutional amendments. 22 YES votes are needed to pass a constitutional amendment in the congress, along with a 2/3 approval vote in the Senate.

The duties and responsibilities of your Judiciary are outlined in Code of Laws, Section E. Please use this thread to request any of the following:

1) Judicial Reviews (for Articles, Laws, Standards, and Clarification of existing rules)

2) Requests for Public Investigations**

3) Requests for advice on the rules, how they work, and what options you may have in a given situation.

**Prior to submitting a request for a public investigation, please review the requirements for doing so in the Code of Standards, Section H.

All of the Judiciary members are here to assist our citizenry, please do not hesitate to raise issues for discussion.

I would like to be the first to issue my congratuations to the new Judiciary. Good luck, and may PI's of donsig not bother you!

hmm... more PI of donsig
*cackles evily*

I have made a moderator ruling to temporarily handle the situation in the Science Department. Please see this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=518887#post518887). The Judiciary should immediately begin discussion and formulation of a ruleset to handle ties in run-off elections.

The current Code of Standards states that in the event of a tie in an election a runoff election shall be held.

My official opinion is that there is no legal support for the creation of a shared leadership position under the current code of standards, despite being agreed upon by the candidates and supported by the public at large.

My further interpretation of the Code of Standards is that the only recourse at this time that would be supported by current law is to have another runoff election, as you can interpret the runoff clause to apply to a tie in any election, even a runoff election.

Furthermore, the position is now considered officially vacant as Strider's Term One position has expired. The President is therefore officially responsible for the Science Department until such time that the election is resolved.

Recommendations:
I strongly recommend that President Eklektikos seek the advice of both candidates on Science policy while this matter is resolved. I also suggest that the Code of Standards be amended to state that "In the event of a tied runoff election, the candidates may share the privileges and duties of office if they so agree". I also urge patience for everyone involved, and that everyone remember that it is due to the popular recognition of the obvious strenghts of both candidates that has resulted in this situation. It will be resolved.

Okay, now everyone can have at me :-)

I think that it would be OK for both to share the office. I don't see a need to make the President pick someone. We should act more according to the spirit of the law. Anyway, I haven't heard any dissent against the idea.

Then again, my opinion doesn't official count. :)

Originally posted by Danke

Okay, now everyone can have at me :-)

Actually, I agree with you.;)

We need to implement some form of tie breaker for future situations like this, but for now, I think some arbitary game of chance should be sufficient. How about I pick a number, between 1 and 100, pm it to the members of the judiciary, and then the candidates post their guesses. Whoever is closest wins. BTW, I am serious...

As a citizen, I agree with Danke. I believe another run-off poll would be better than choosing numbers, though. I also think the people who make these election polls a tie for fun should be ashamed of themselves. Ya know, it's been real funny twice now. Let's get serious.

Originally posted by Cyc
As a citizen, I agree with Danke. I believe another run-off poll would be better than choosing numbers, though. I also think the people who make these election polls a tie for fun should be ashamed of themselves. Ya know, it's been real funny twice now. Let's get serious.

Hmm. I wonder if I can lock a thread without locking the poll. That way, noone would post in it, maybe decreasing the chance that people vote to tie it, since they will get no notiriety(sp?). Maybe just ban anyone who posts in it...:D

Chief Justice Opinion

I find no legal ground to support the idea of shared leadership in the Science Department.

Therefore I agree with the Public Defender's published opinion that there is currently no Science Leader in place, and the provisions of the constitution and laws which provide for the absence of a position should apply.

Clearly the Judiciary has no authority to override the orders of a forum Moderator, therefore if Shaitan maintains his order in effect, then my ruling here is moot.

Officially, I think the only current legal solution is to hold yet another run off.

Unofficially one candidate or the other could offer to withdraw from the runoff, meaning the other would surely win as long as they voted for themselves (as quorums do not apply to elections), and they in turn could promise the other the Deputy position.

Bill
Chief Justice

No word from Leningrado but 2 of the 3 judiciary interpret that another repoll is in order. I will start another poll and try to lock it like eyrei suggested.

EDIT: The poll is posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33451). It was not possible to close the thread to posts without closing the poll as well so I simply put in a message that the thread was not to be used for discussion.

Massively off topic-

Bill, did I mention I'm originally from PDX, OR? I know, it has nothing to do with nothing, just thought it funny.

Let me add one more note on the runoff issue. I do not object to Shaitan posting a solution as Mod, and that is fine as a temporary solution for the good of the game.

My post in the other thread, now closed, may have come across too short or tempermental. That can be attributed to being forced to use a hideous AOL dial up connection from a Hotel in Salt Lake City.

I support Shaitan's attempt to keep the game moving and my opinion was based upon the law as it stands today.

Bill
Chief Justice

Chief Justice assumes Judge Advocate role

In accordance with the Code of Standards, Section J, I hereby post Judicial notice that the Judge Advocate, Leningrado has not responded to the request for review within 36 hours.

Therefore, as required by Code of Laws, Section E, Point 3.(a), I will issue the Judge Advocate's opinion regarding the Science Leader Runoff Poll.

Opinion: The Judge Advocate's office agrees with the opinions of the Public Defender and Chief Justice.

I am PM'ing Leningardo asking him to participate in the Judicary forum, and apologize to all for the delay.

Bill
Chief Justice

I am here, i am sorry i coundt answer you sooner, any jobs for me right now, i will be glad to work harder to do what i coudnt do earlier.

I've started a discussion on Dealing with NetSplits (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33576). Maybe it's something we can add to the constitution on dealing with this rare occurence.

This has to be the quietest judicial term in the history of the demo game.

Judicial Notice

The office of the Chief Justice of Fanatika hereby posts judicial notice that the use of population rushing, city razing, or abandonment of cities, is a topic that needs forum discussion and polling prior to use in the game.

For those who are long time citizens, you may recall that this was quite an issue for argument in the first game. See this thread for initial discussion: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34135

Bill
Chief Justice

i herewith request a public investigation against:

suspect
chieftess, our trade leader

reason:
violation of code of laws section F, article 3

F) Forum Moderators
1) Are responsible for handling elections and site maintenance.
2) Are responsible for enforcing Civfanatics Forum rules within the Democracy Game Forums.
3) May not hold elected positions in any governmental branch except the Judicial branch.

ct posted in the rpg forum as forum moderator. but she also holds the position of the trade leader. there are reasons our rules are defined for excluding moderators out of offices.
she violated those rules by using her moddly powers

evidence:
Originally posted by Chieftess
Guys, I'm not sure what this "orgy" thing is supposed to be, but explicit material such as that isn't allowed by CFC's rules.


Ok, I'm posting as a CFC moderator...

Please don't write any explicit material, mainly the "orgy"-related material. The forum rules supercede the demogame and RPG rules. Please try to keep the forum clean.

and a link to it: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=545080#post545080

i request a rule-clarification on that issue/discussion on it and if you conclude the law was violated i want a pi to be started.



side-comments:
what else could she have done to do what she wanted to?
she could have gone the right way of contacting our moderators eyrei and shaitan. or at least let them post this thing.

possible consequences:
if it shows that all forum moderators have the right to mod us, we also must use the above law on ALL forum moderators. even those whom we excluded cause they are no demogame moderators. this will reduce the number of eligabe officials signifficantly.

if i can recommend an action:
i would recommend giving her a final warning and a copy of a english dictionary.

I have notified Chieftess of the potential PI, and await a determination by the Chief Justice on whether a PI is warranted given the evidence presented.

i got a rule clarification request:

a citizen who registered 3 times as demogame citizen was thrown out.

now what do we do with the quorum?
we now have at least 2 bogus citizens being calculated into the quorum. should we change it?

also, what is to be done with the citizen registry?

Disorganizer, I even told Eyrei in chat. I don't have to tell you every time I tell a moderator. Besides, I'm also a moderator, and I have to enforce CFC's rules. Sometimes, mods DO catch things that aren't in their forum. It put me in a tight posistion between being a Demogame participant, and a CFC moderator. (I knew this would happen before the game even got underway, which is why I brought up the issues of all moderators, not just demogame moderators) I viewed that one word as being explicit, so I had to state the rules of this site. If you want to whine about how I'm moderating, then take it to Site Feedback where it belongs.

Well, i see no whining here. And i dont want to know what you told eyrei or not. Or when you talk to eyrei or not.

Also note i did CLEARLY not complain about a site mod to post a mod-comment. I posted a complain about a CITIZEN posting that.

I see clearly a broken demogame rule. And that does not belong to the site-feedback. It belongs into the judicacy thread.

You could have requested your action from any of the 2 dedicated moderators and that would have caused no problem because they are position-restricted.
But i believe we should take discussion to the approriate thread and wait for the review of the judicacy before placing it in here.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F) Forum Moderators
1) Are responsible for handling elections and site maintenance.
2) Are responsible for enforcing Civfanatics Forum rules within the Democracy Game Forums.
3) May not hold elected positions in any governmental branch except the Judicial branch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ct posted in the rpg forum as forum moderator. but she also holds the position of the trade leader. there are reasons our rules are defined for excluding moderators out of offices.
she violated those rules by using her moddly powers

If you remember, I posted about this just as the game was getting underway, if not before. You didn't have a problem with Grey Fox and I being the VP/President, and we're both moderators. And, it says Forum Moderators. It was concluded that this meant the Demogame mods.


side-comments:
what else could she have done to do what she wanted to?
she could have gone the right way of contacting our moderators eyrei and shaitan. or at least let them post this thing.

I did infact contact eyrei in the chat room. Why do you think he told you to clarify?


possible consequences:
if it shows that all forum moderators have the right to mod us, we also must use the above law on ALL forum moderators. even those whom we excluded cause they are no demogame moderators. this will reduce the number of eligabe officials signifficantly.

Which is exactly why I brought up that point in the first place. But no one listened. :) CFC rules supercede the Demogame Rules. And if it also applies to the Demogame RPG, that would put us five mods involved in the game to have to resign, or not run for a posistion (demogame OR RPG).

In the words of the Civ2 military Advisor during anarchy:
"I knew this would happen! You knew this was going to happen! I tried to you tell 'ya!" ;)

if i can recommend an action:
i would recommend giving her a final warning and a copy of a english dictionary.

Ok, I'm going to hold my tounge on that remark...

Ah. We posted at the same time :-)
See my directly above post.

BtW: There was no reason to complain about GF and You being in those position, as you never posted MODDISH in the demogame forum.


EDIT:
just to post here the reason for my last (more or less funny meant) comment:
i used the word orgy in its original sense as also the dictionaries state it.
definition of the word orgy here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=545729#post545729
also with the original link...
just to clarify that that word is definitely NOT explicit and does NOT fall under the mentioned category of the forum rules.

I post his because i dont want to get the PI discussion a discussion about the word orgy. It is because of a lawbreaking of the exclude-mods article. Not about explicit or non-explicit language and the rights of mods in the forum.

Like I said. Not everyone is going to read through dozens, if not hundreds of posts just to find out why you used that word. I certainly wasn't about it. In fact, i didn't even know you put that line in there. It was only when you started talking about it in the chat room, that I knew something was going on in the pub.

The first ruling was that it was only the Demogame mods who couldn't hold a posistion. Secondly, CFC fules supercede all forums and threads. Just look at that thread in C&C for example. A simple 'disclaimer' isn't always going to cut it. It seems to me that this is starting to become a whine about the demogame being 'immune' to other moderators. It's still under the CFC fules. Take it to Site Feedback.

Also note i did CLEARLY not complain about a site mod to post a mod-comment. I posted a complain about a CITIZEN posting that.

Shaitan and Eyrei are also demogame citizens, but they've posted the mod warnings as moderators.

No. The rule is that moderators can not hold position. We defined that with moderators we meant demogame forum moderators.
We did that while assuming no others would use their moddish powers in here.
If they do then this means ALL forum moderators must fall under that law.
Btw: Still, the above word ORGY does not fall under forum rules as it clearly is NOT AN EXPLICIT WORD. and i decline any discussion about that thing (the word being explicit or not) from now on. This case is only about a leader using moddish powers in the demogame forum. It is an example of what can happen but should not happen.

EDIT:
btw, you could have asked normally. no problem. you could have eyrei or shaitan ask, no problem. there was no reason to use mod-powers for you. just a side-comment :-P

CT: i meand leaders there.
if you get picky, i can also change my mood to that one...
you knew what i mean. you know it.
and btw:
the judical positions are open for mods. the leader positions explicitly not.

But if I only knew one meaning of the word, then how would I know the other? And, I did tell Eyrei, and he asked you to clarify. you could have let it drop there.

You people and your semantics. I told you this would be a problem. But you people knew better. You are both right and you are both wrong. So, work this out quickly, as you already flubbed the first opportunity to do so.

Chief Justice Opinion

Public Investigation Request: Chieftess acting as a Moderator

The Constitution, Article L, clearly states that no law or standard we create can override the authority of a Moderator or the rules of Civfanatics itself:

Article L. The constitution, laws and standards of Phoenatica can never be contrary to the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics forums. Moderators may veto any such constitutional amendments, laws or standards.

Chieftess, by everyone's admission, was acting as a Civfantatics moderator when she took the actions she did. Therefore, I find that we have no legal grounds to investigate this action.

Bill
Chief Justice

Chief Justice Opinion

Quorum Issues Related to Banning of a DL User

disorganizer raises an excellent point.

However, I require further information from our moderators on this action, as apparently it happened in RPG, and I have no evidence that it was occuring outside of that area.

Shaitan? Eyrei? What do you know?

Bill
Chief Justice

Originally posted by Cyc
You people and your semantics. I told you this would be a problem. But you people knew better. You are both right and you are both wrong. So, work this out quickly, as you already flubbed the first opportunity to do so.

I agree, Cyc, so I am going to solve this quickly.

First, I will say that I am about an inch away from removing the stipulation forbidding mods to hold leader positions, due to low participation in the actual demogame. While I personally do not have the time to run for a cabinet post, Shaitan might, and as everyone knows, he is very dedicated to the game.

Second, Chieftess, please refrain from acting as a moderator in this forum unless it is being spammed or there is an obvious flame war going on and Shaitan and I are not available.
The word 'orgy' is not against CFC rules, as you can see by what passes in OT and Site Feedback.

Third, dis, please drop this PI. Enough attention is already diverted from the demogame already.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Chief Justice Opinion

Quorum Issues Related to Banning of a DL User

disorganizer raises an excellent point.

However, I require further information from our moderators on this action, as apparently it happened in RPG, and I have no evidence that it was occuring outside of that area.

Shaitan? Eyrei? What do you know?

Bill
Chief Justice
It was discovered in the RPG but that doesn't really matter. The situation was a single person with several logon accounts. Specifically, VHS, diabloinex and DMX666 were the same person.

The DMX666 account was started well after the elections. The diabloinex account seems to have been used exclusively in the RPG.

I doubt that there is any problem here. I do not think that the effort required to find the answer here is worth the return. At the very worst the quorum is off by 1/2 vote.

To Judicacy:
I would drop the PI request IF the judicacy start discussion on either removing that paragraph or especially defining the word "moderator" clearer. which would mean excluding all cfc moderators(!).

@bill:
the PI is NOT about CT taking moderator action, it is about her as moderator holding a demogame leader position.
you can see that in the article i stated to be violated. i have no and have never had a problem with moderators modding, but i have a problem if rules are bend. clarify them or live with them. in the first case we have to start an urgent change, in the second we have to throw ct and all other cfc-mod-leaders out of office.

Originally posted by disorganizer
To Judicacy:
I would drop the PI request IF the judicacy start discussion on either removing that paragraph or especially defining the word "moderator" clearer. which would mean excluding all cfc moderators(!).

@bill:
the PI is NOT about CT taking moderator action, it is about her as moderator holding a demogame leader position.
you can see that in the article i stated to be violated. i have no and have never had a problem with moderators modding, but i have a problem if rules are bend. clarify them or live with them. in the first case we have to start an urgent change, in the second we have to throw ct and all other cfc-mod-leaders out of office.

Dis,

I apologize if I seemed to overstep your intent, regarding the PI, I was merely pointing out that given a moderator action was taken, there is nothing the Judicary can do.

I will open a discussion on the topic if you wish, but my personal opinion would be that moderators should be allowed to run for any office, and I think that means I would not be the advocate you may be looking for here.

As to your point that a moderator is not allowed to hold a leader position, I respond two ways:

1) This status was known about Chieftess prior to the elections.

2) Our laws state in Code of Laws, Section F, that democracy forum moderators may not hold leadership positions. My view is the context of that law is focused entirely on the Demo forum, and Chieftess is not a moderator assigned to this forum.

Everything else around this issue involves a Poster - Moderator dispute, and as I clearly established last term, I will no longer allow the judiciary to get pulled into situations that should be resolved by two people outside the game.

Bill
Chief Justice

Well, so from your post its the interpretation of what a "forum moderator" is. Is a CFC moderator posting in the demogame forum as such to be considered a "demogame forum moderator"?
in my opinion, yes!
We allowed the non-demogame moderators to be excluded because we assumed nobody would post here because it is definitely NOT their responsibility to do so.
If we now have other moderators to act in here, than we must rediscuss.

I dont care what the outcome of that discussion will be, but it must be decided before it gets out of hand. As you know from me, i will give into the decission taken there.

As such, this whole thing is a PURE demogame rule-discussion and has nothing to do outside the demogame forums.

Of course, ct is allowed to take mod action and it is her right as cfc mod, but she should also respect the rules here and the SENSE behind those rules to not get mod-disputes into the game.

Edit: deleted, duplicate post. Move along now.

Originally posted by disorganizer
i got a rule clarification request:

a citizen who registered 3 times as demogame citizen was thrown out.

now what do we do with the quorum?
we now have at least 2 bogus citizens being calculated into the quorum. should we change it?

also, what is to be done with the citizen registry?

VHS only registered one of his personalites in the Citizen Registry.

Ok. Thanks for the clarification of the VHS issue.

RE: VHS and the quorum

We don't even know if VHS/Diabloinex/DMX666 ever even voted in the elections so he may not even have impacted the quorum at all. In two weeks we will have another one anyway. :)

RE: Mods

I was in on the orignal debates about mods holding demo game positions. We did decide that demo games mods could not hold office. Why did we put this restriction on only demo game mods and not all mods? Because we thought non-demo game mods would not use their modly powers here. If we had all thought that a mod was a mod was a mod then there would have been no reason to restrict just demo game mods. Yet one more example of how poor our COS and COL is. ;) CT should accept the fact that she is not a demo game mod and if she sees anything in the demo game forums that she feels is inappropriate then she should report it to eyrei or Shaitan and wait for them to handle it.

Originally posted by donsig
RE: Mods

CT should accept the fact that she is not a demo game mod and if she sees anything in the demo game forums that she feels is inappropriate then she should report it to eyrei or Shaitan and wait for them to handle it.

Agreed, and I believe eyrei has already posted this same resolution in this thread.

I consider the issue closed.

Bill
Chief Justice

Discussion - Moderators and Office Participation

As requested by disorganizer, I have opened a discussion of this topic in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34431

Call for Judicial Review

All Judiciary members should post their findings on the official and binding nature of this poll: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34180

I have posted my opinion in the thread.

Bill
Chief Justice

as the discussion was posted, i herewith officially withdraw my PI on ct. we will have to wait for the outcome of the discussion before any action could be taken.
depending on the outcome and the eventual new law, i preserve to open a new PI later on ;-) but i doubt that would be needed.

In the absence of any decisive action on the part of the Military & Foreign Affairs departments I have posted a Quick Poll on the plan of attack and timing of the declaration of war for the Aztec invasion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34493). Please could you review this poll ASAP to ensure that it is valid?

Note that a declaration of war has already been mandated, and that this poll is merely determining the timing of that declaration.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
Please could you review this poll ASAP to ensure that it is valid?

Note that a declaration of war has already been mandated, and that this poll is merely determining the timing of that declaration.

I see your gray area there Mr. President, and I too wish we could get this campaign underway, but Quick Polls that impact a Declaration of War are specifically forbidden in the Code of Standards.

I find no way around that from the legal perspective, and must rule that your poll is not valid.

Other judiciary members should post their opinions.

Bill
Chief Justice

I posted a reply to your review in the poll thread before I saw your post in here. Here's a link to it (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=548207#post548207).

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I posted a reply to your review in the poll thread before I saw your post in here. Here's a link to it (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=548207#post548207).

I think we have a good plan of action now.

Note that my request in the FA thread will hit 36 hours at 4AM Pacific Time on Saturday morning. You should be free to take action at that point.

Bill
Chief Justice

I recently took over the duties of the Cartographic Office of Fanatika and as such, I began familiarizing myself with the rules concerning Naming Rights.

As stated now (COS-C-6), "Naming rights must pass through all citizens before a citizen is given a second naming right... "

Should this not read "all eligible citizens"? Certainly, the rule is not intended to prevent someone from naming a city until all 70+ citizens of Fanatika have done so.

I realize this is a minor issue, but I'd hate for it to become a problem down the road. I appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

Originally posted by FortyJ
I recently took over the duties of the Cartographic Office of Fanatika and as such, I began familiarizing myself with the rules concerning Naming Rights.

As stated now (COS-C-6), "Naming rights must pass through all citizens before a citizen is given a second naming right... "

Should this not read "all eligible citizens"? Certainly, the rule is not intended to prevent someone from naming a city until all 70+ citizens of Fanatika have done so.


Chief Justice Opinion

City Naming Rights

As noted, our Code of Standards, Section C, deals with naming rights in detail.

This office feels that the intent of this law is to indeed ensure that no citizen receives the honor of naming a second city in our nation before that option has been provided to all citizens.

Eligible citizens in that note refers back to Article 1 [sic], which is a reference to Article A of the Fanatikan constitution that reemphasizes that someone must register to be a full citizen.

In the real life application, where we historically have rarely renamed captured cities, this is not impractical.

Bill
Chief Justice

We should also review the honours. What is the naming queue now at the moment?
Are the honours given by the honour office valid?

If so, in which order will the honoured persons be naming cities, as they go before the actual COC...?

we had major arguments on what can be "quick polled" and what not in the chat.

i believe our populace needs clarification on which occurences a quick poll can be used, and in which it can NOT be used and a official poll is definitely needed.

please give us many examples!

tnx in advance

Dis- What i posted on borders is my definiton of a quick poll. please correct me if im wrong.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


Chief Justice Opinion

City Naming Rights

As noted, our Code of Standards, Section C, deals with naming rights in detail.

This office feels that the intent of this law is to indeed ensure that no citizen receives the honor of naming a second city in our nation before that option has been provided to all citizens.

Eligible citizens in that note refers back to Article 1 [sic], which is a reference to Article A of the Fanatikan constitution that reemphasizes that someone must register to be a full citizen.

In the real life application, where we historically have rarely renamed captured cities, this is not impractical.

Bill
Chief Justice

So, does this extension of "all citizens" include those that do not currently have such rights (ie. not an elected official, not a deputy, not an honored citizen, etc...)?

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
This has to be the quietest judicial term in the history of the demo game.

Methinks you spoke too soon? :)

Originally posted by FortyJ


So, does this extension of "all citizens" include those that do not currently have such rights (ie. not an elected official, not a deputy, not an honored citizen, etc...)?

In my opinion, what it means is that even though someone like Ek has jumped several places in the CoC over the years, he would not be allowed to name another city until all individuals who hold either an honor and a CoC spot have had a chance to name one.

Alternatively, if Ek had named a city, and then received an honor for his service as President, he would still not be able to name another city until all citizens who are in the CoC, and haven't named a city have done so.

Regular citizens, who have not received an honor, are not on the hierarchy list for naming rights....though sometimes I think we should change that too.

Your clarification question was excellent, and i hope this helps.

Bill
Chief Justice

Originally posted by disorganizer
we had major arguments on what can be "quick polled" and what not in the chat.

i believe our populace needs clarification on which occurences a quick poll can be used, and in which it can NOT be used and a official poll is definitely needed.

please give us many examples!

tnx in advance

I will provide the examples given in the laws of our nation. I will not give you a list of when it cannot be used as I know full well that the chatters will use that as license to poll on anything else that they can fit in.

The principle of the quick poll is straight forward, it is for topics that need to be resolved BEFORE chat begins, and that time doesn't allow for. Topics that have been discussed over many, many days, are not quick poll eligible in my opinion as they could have been handled in a normal poll

The use of quick polling as a method of getting around the quorum rules is an example of something not allowed.

Here is the law:

Point 4 Quick polls - When topic discussion is unwarranted or poll procedures cannot be maintained due to time constraints, a quick poll may be used.

a Quick polls do not have to follow the time conditions of Official Polls.
b Quorum level is 1/3 of the census.
c Results may be used to make temporary changes or specific, one time decisions. They may not be used to make permanent article or law changes.
(1) The specific action item must be noted.
(2) The action item must be applicable to the upcoming turn chat.
(3) The action item should be instantaneous or reversible/correctable.

(a) Examples of items that meet the criteria are:
(i) City name change
(ii) Change of tiles worked in a city
(iii) Tile development
(iv) Purchasing a technology
(v) Upgrading troops
(vi) Changing a build queue

(b) Examples of items that would not meet the criteria are:
(i) Deals with a duration (resources or gold/turn involved)
(ii) Declaration of war
(iii) Disbanding troops

(4) These actions may be reversed, changed or overruled by any subsequent Official Poll.


Bill
Chief Justice

may i take the time to ask where our public advocate is? i am yet to see him post an opinion on a single issue...

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
may i take the time to ask where our public advocate is? i am yet to see him post an opinion on a single issue...

You mean the Judge Advocate? Or Public Defender?

Danke has posted timely opinions in this thread as Public Defender.

If Leningrado does not post soon, I will post the JA opinion for him in accordance with the laws.

Bill
Chief Justice

I'm not asking for a PI on Strider (Darn it!) :), but after reading the Science Dept. thread, I would like to request some sort of writing posted about the misuse of Ghost votes and Leader tie-breaking tactics. I believe now would be an appropriate time to have a precedent set for future reference.

Originally posted by Cyc
I'm not asking for a PI on Strider (Darn it!) :), but after reading the Science Dept. thread, I would like to request some sort of writing posted about the misuse of Ghost votes and Leader tie-breaking tactics. I believe now would be an appropriate time to have a precedent set for future reference.

I too am not looking for a PI, but I think we do need to reemphasize the rules in this area. I will write something up.

sorry. i meant public defender.
did he take this job thinking there would be nothing to do?
seriously...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34514
i need a ruling on wether or not this made quick poll quorm.
also- Zarn abdicated his position to me. Does that bump me on the COC or not?

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34514
i need a ruling on wether or not this made quick poll quorm.
also- Zarn abdicated his position to me. Does that bump me on the COC or not?

The poll did reach quorum.

The issue of if a poll was needed at all is another thing. But it has reached quorum.

Bill
Chief Justice

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
sorry. i meant public defender.
did he take this job thinking there would be nothing to do?
seriously...

I have PM'd him again asking for participation.

Bill

With the turn chat looming, and the possibility of new cities high, do we have any ruling on the issue of citizen honors? If the citizen honor polls reached quorum, in what order shall they be granted naming rights in the CoC?

Your prompt response is greatly appreciated.

Originally posted by FortyJ
With the turn chat looming, and the possibility of new cities high, do we have any ruling on the issue of citizen honors? If the citizen honor polls reached quorum, in what order shall they be granted naming rights in the CoC?

Your prompt response is greatly appreciated.

The rules already in the constitution apply. honors are placed in the CoC, at the top, in the order in which they were approved.

I see only one poll which reached quorum for honors, and that would be Chieftess.

Thank you for the clarification. Some had proposed that more citizens had received them as well.

Well, in fact all of those are listed. The poblem here is that you, bill, yourself stated they should have been quick polls.
Now do we punish the honoured citizens just because the honours office leader did not setup the polls right? They all would have passed the quick poll quorum.

So start advertising those polls!

Well, they are closed, and as our rules say then the citzens have to be renominated :-(

I don't believe so, dis. There is no restriction on the length of polls for citizen honors approval and I don't see a requirement to renominate.

Just reopen the polls.

I agree. Although I don't put much weight into this "Honored Citizen" thing, it needs to follow the same rules as everything else. Personally, I think term 2 is a little too early to Honor our citizens, but that's just me. Well, eyrei and Shaitan have earned their wings this game, but in general, being put at the top of the COC should be at the end of the game.

Originally posted by disorganizer
Well, in fact all of those are listed. The poblem here is that you, bill, yourself stated they should have been quick polls.
Now do we punish the honoured citizens just because the honours office leader did not setup the polls right? They all would have passed the quick poll quorum.

dis,

I am not sure what you are saying here. Please elaborate.

double post.

Chief Justice Assumes Role of Judge Advocate

In accordance with the Code of Laws, Section E, and the Code of Standards, Section J, I hereby assume the duties of the Judge Advocate due to absenteeism.

I have PM'd Leningrado requesting his resignation so that our government can move forward.

Bill
Chief Justice

Bravo.

Will you please open a (hopefully) fast paced PI against NL for failing to perform as governor. Unfortunately, the runner up in the election was 'abstain', so we do not have a deputy. I would prefer to simply remove him, and have Cyc, one of our most responsible citizens govern for a few days while we hold emergency elections, but there were a couple objections to this. The reason I want to do it unilaterally and without a PI is because a PI takes several days, and then an election takes several more, during which time we are without a governor.

Originally posted by eyrei
Will you please open a (hopefully) fast paced PI against NL for failing to perform as governor. Unfortunately, the runner up in the election was 'abstain',

ouch!!!! :) I know Trader/Warrior would have been deputy had we excluded abstain, but then he was banned for a week...

so we do not have a deputy. I would prefer to simply remove him, and have Cyc, one of our most responsible citizens govern for a few days while we hold emergency elections, but there were a couple objections to this. The reason I want to do it unilaterally and without a PI is because a PI takes several days, and then an election takes several more, during which time we are without a governor.

What about deputies? Most of the deputies have been pretty quiet, too. (mainly Great Iguanaman, even curufinwe - I know he's in school, Raven1er...). Of course, there's not much for deputies to do though.

Sure, I'll do it. I am amazed at how someone can boast about being a responsible Leader or Governor for so long, and then when you hand them the ball, they just throw it back at you.
I know, some more strange wording...

Anyway, I'd like to open my first P.I.
This is against Neutral Leader.
The charge is deriliction of Duty and abandonment of Office. Even if she does pop in occasionally just before the chat, there are no instructions posted, no discussions started, and no polls posted. Something needs to be done about this. If the CJ wishes to reword the charges to make them more compliant with standard Judicial wording, this is fine by me.

@bill: i think you posted on a question that honours are eligable for quick polls, and stider just failed to declare them quick polls.

nevertheless, i will collect all honour polls later and request reopening of them...

no rules against that?

We can have nominations right now, regardless of whether neutral leader retires or is forcibly removed. That way the slate is ready as soon as it's legal to post the election.

Judges, do you agree with my thought there?

Forget that last post. I don't know what I was thinking. This is already handled by the Constitution. The President will appoint a new governor and the choice must be ratified by the Council.

Would it not be more time effective for me to nominate a deputy governor, who would then be automatically promoted once NL has finally been kicked out of office?

so close to elecetions why no let domestic run the province (again) till elections are held. talk about deja vu, ive said this before :)

EK - I don't see how you can appoint a deputy. That is done by the applicable leader. I could be wrong though, I've been out of the Justice department for a while now. ;)

Nope, you're quite right... at least you stopped me before I posted yet another abortive poll... :rolleyes:

Next question: can I appoint a new governor when I believe we still legally have one? NL is not exactly absentee, just lazy, with little or no apparent commitment to his duties - which means that the normal absentee removal procedure probably won't work.

Vote him out? People can revolt and ask for his removal or with a PI he could be impeached.

I wonder if I could simply request his resignation via PM... Then if he fails to comply, kick him out under the absenteeism standards... :satan:

I suspect not, but it's a nice idea anyway ;)

Eklek: Well, that exactly is your job

I have sent Neutral Leader a PM requesting his resignation. Hopefully he will choose to take the more honourable way out of office, but for the time being I believe PI proceedings should go ahead regardless.

I will officially call for a PI on neutral leader. The items that I accuse him of violating are Code of Laws, Article D) Legislative Branch, Section 1) Senate, items c and d:

c) A governor organizes the production (building queues) of the cities in a province.
d) A governor organizes the tile use in his province.

neutral leader has not once organized anything to do with his office. He has arbitrarily put up building queues and buckled under citizen and government pressure to change them. He has never led a discussion on any aspect of his province. He has never polled on any aspect of his province.

Please review this quick poll on provincial borders. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34514)

According to Section F.4 of the CoS:

Quick polls - When topic discussion is unwarranted or poll procedures cannot be maintained due to time constraints, a quick poll may be used.

Provincial borders do warrant discussion and there is time for normal polling procedures. We have mechanisms in place for governing cities that are not within a province. There is no pressing need for a quick poll. The fact that previous border proposals have not reached quorum is not a valid reason for holding a quick poll in this case. The quick poll is not intended to be a way around the quorum.

@donsig: the discussion was done far before, the quick poll was chosen because the official polls posted before were malicously formed and thus downed to infopolls.
so a discussion in unwarranted (it was overdiscussed even!)
the options in the quickpoll were the 2 mainly supported options of all those other polls.

The correct method would then be to post a poll that was legal. Maybe ask for help or something to make sure all of the bases were covered?

which is tried for about almost 2 terms now *sigh*
well do what you want, but this way we will never come to defined provinces.

Originally posted by disorganizer
@donsig: the discussion was done far before, the quick poll was chosen because the official polls posted before were malicously formed and thus downed to infopolls.
so a discussion in unwarranted (it was overdiscussed even!)
the options in the quickpoll were the 2 mainly supported options of all those other polls.

That is not a proper reason for chosing a quick poll. I have looked through tis judicial thread and only found the Chief Justice's opinions that both border polls were invalid. The first (which hasb't reached quorum anyway) was not posted by the domestic department. The second was put up as a quick poll to get around the quorum.

the first was posted by domestic, as it was posted by order of the cartographic office, which IS domestic. and by request of more than 3 citizens, which also makes it official.

btw:

COL C.2

D. Department Leaders share several powers and responsibilities, regardless of department
3. Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas based on citizen feedback.
4. Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas of their own in the absence of citizen feedback
(forum outage, low participation, etc).

F. Domestic Department
7.Organize mapping of Provincial Borders.

Also appendix, explanation of "organize":
"In the context of a leader’s duties, this includes suggesting a plan, discussing it and passing instructions on to the Designated Player."


No word about a forced polling there. Also low participation will even allow him to go for his own :-P
So why dont we just let saam decide it on himself... ;-P

D-3 Says he can't simply decide by himself.

There is also an overriding manifesto that elected leaders are to serve the will of the people.

Appointment - Judge Advocate Pro Tem

I have also sent a PM to Leningrado encouraging him to resign as he clearly has a lot of real world stuff going on. In the meanwhile I am legally the Judge Advocate, per the rules on absenteeism.

Since we have a lot of issues going on, and my recommendation for appointment to JA should the position become vacant soon is donsig, and we need an additional individual in the position now.

Therefore, I am appointing donsig as Judge Advocate Pro Tem, until such time as I make a post in this thread taking back the position. I am not anticipating that occuring.

The poll for this appointment requires simple citizen majority in accordance with CoL, Section H. Please see the poll here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34681

Bill
Chief Justice

Public Investigation - Neutral Leader

As requested by Cyc and Shaitan, a PI has been opened in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34683

Chief Justice Opinion - Border Polls

I agree that quick polling for border definition is not valid.

Dis, I fully agree that there has been a ton of discussion and that we should have solved this long ago. The problem lies not with the law, but with the polls. If I were the Domestic Leader, I would simple set up an official poll, and let it run to quorum...this could have been done three weeks ago.

Bill
Chief Justice

Mayb a judical explanation of "how to setup an official poll?" should be sent out to all new government members at the beginning of the legislation period?

This way nobody will again post a poll with set ending date and instead use the right determination with "2 day or until quorum reached, whichever comes last".

Another small question:
Lets say:
* quorum is 18 (19 votes needed)
* a poll has 15 yes and 1 no.
* no changes in the votecount occur
now if our system is over-burocratized, we could say the poll is invalid as not reached quorum
if our system is flexible, we would say that the no's could never outnumber the yesses even if all votes until quorum are no's (there would be 3 more votes, if all were no it would stand 15 against 4) and as such the poll would be valid even if it did not directly but indirectly reach quorum...
now how flexible/burocratic are we ?
do we have a chance to implement the later in a fine-worded ammendment as it would help many polls out of the quorum-"problem"?

Originally posted by disorganizer
This way nobody will again post a poll with set ending date and instead use the right determination with "2 day or until quorum reached, whichever comes last".

Another small question:
Lets say:
* quorum is 18 (19 votes needed)
* a poll has 15 yes and 1 no.
* no changes in the votecount occur
now if our system is over-burocratized, we could say the poll is invalid as not reached quorum
if our system is flexible, we would say that the no's could never outnumber the yesses even if all votes until quorum are no's (there would be 3 more votes, if all were no it would stand 15 against 4) and as such the poll would be valid even if it did not directly but indirectly reach quorum...
now how flexible/burocratic are we ?
do we have a chance to implement the later in a fine-worded ammendment as it would help many polls out of the quorum-"problem"?

Now this is an interesting idea....

Tony Gwynn won a batting title under a similar arrangement. He needed like 30 more AB's to qualify for the title, so they game him an 0-30 and he still won it....

However, the idea you have, while pretty good in my opinion, would require a change to the laws, and I can't stretch that far in judicial interpretation to get you there.

As we have seen even recently, polls can reach quorum quite quickly if they are pushed.

Bill

It is a valid poll, Dis. A valid informational poll. It can be used by a Leader to help make a decision, but can not be used as an officially binding poll by the Leader or anyone else.
This was all discussed at great length last game. It doesn't matter how "enlightened" we are, the polls currently follow a documented procedure. A poll will always fall into one of the categories listed for polls.

Call for Judicial Review

Please review the proposed change to the CoL in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=553079#post553079

The Chief Justice has posted his opinion there.

FYI:
My Honour Poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33188) finally reached quorum and i claimed the top of the naming-coc. I just didnt know where to request it so i did multiple posts :-)

I am happy to see the PI finally got underway. Please don't wait so long next time (I am not referring to the judiciary, but to the entire citizenry). I don't like having to threaten to violate the constitution to get things moving...

well, but it seemed to have worked :-)
threatening always works.

Bill- I need a review. Donsig made an interesanting point in the latest border poll. Please review.

Bill heres the link-
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=553214#post553214

If the President is looking for someone to appoint, I strongly recommend Cyc, as he will certainly do the job and do it well. Maybe we can even convince him to run for governor next term...:cool:

I agree cyc would be great as a governor.

Saam, see my notes in the thread you reference. I recommend you post the proposed poll in your thread as soon as possible.

Bill

hy judicacy,

one question, again polls:

our code of standards only sais "should" in all sentences concerning the formatting of a poll, including those about discussion links, discussion times. the only fixed thing there is the quorum level.

we lately rendered some of our polls invalid because of formatting errors (no pre discussion, no link to it, etc.). imho, this was wrong as our rules do not explicitly say we must use those formatting standards.

of course this is stupid and must be changed, but at the moment i think its definitely so that we have no rule at all to enforce anything about polls except quorum levels.

now whats you humble opinion about that?

Originally posted by eyrei
If the President is looking for someone to appoint, I strongly recommend Cyc, as he will certainly do the job and do it well. Maybe we can even convince him to run for governor next term...:cool:
Cyc would have been my choice even without the lobbying :goodjob:

I'll be happy to make the appointment as soon as the Judiciary informs me that it is legal to do so.

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
sorry. i meant public defender.
did he take this job thinking there would be nothing to do?
seriously...

Hopefully you mean Leningrado, the judge advocate ;)

Danke
Public Defender

Sorry, I missed this conversation earlier.

Bill, I actually disagree that this only refers to citizens in the CoC or who have citizen honors, as I believe you said in an earlier post. The Code of Standards (C:6) says:

"Naming rights must pass through all citizens before a citizen is given a second naming right in the chain (from Article 1). That is, if you've already named a city you do not get to name another one because you moved positions in the Chain of Command. "

I think all citizens means *all* citizens. While I think that we can skip inactive players who don't respond, I do think that we need to run through the CoC, honorees, and the entire Citizen Registry before someone gets a second shot.

Danke

Originally posted by disorganizer
hy judicacy,

one question, again polls:

our code of standards only sais "should" in all sentences concerning the formatting of a poll, including those about discussion links, discussion times. the only fixed thing there is the quorum level.

we lately rendered some of our polls invalid because of formatting errors (no pre discussion, no link to it, etc.). imho, this was wrong as our rules do not explicitly say we must use those formatting standards.

of course this is stupid and must be changed, but at the moment i think its definitely so that we have no rule at all to enforce anything about polls except quorum levels.

now whats you humble opinion about that?

Here's my .02gp, dis:

When interpreting the laws I look at what can reasonably be interpreted as intent given the law as written (and without reviewing the arguments leading up to the law). I tend to rule using should=must, so my interpretations would not change even if the wording did.

However, your point is well taken and I would support a poll to clean this up as it does open the door for judicial latitude in areas where that is not intended.

Danke

Originally posted by Danke
I think all citizens means *all* citizens. While I think that we can skip inactive players who don't respond, I do think that we need to run through the CoC, honorees, and the entire Citizen Registry before someone gets a second shot.
That was definitely the intent. ALL citizens were to be given the opportunity to name a new city before ANY citizen named a second one.

i second that and i witness that was the intend.

@danke:
thats my thought, thank you. would the judicacy please step forward to post discussion+poll to exchange "should" with "must" there?

Originally posted by disorganizer
@danke:
thats my thought, thank you. would the judicacy please step forward to post discussion+poll to exchange "should" with "must" there?

Actually dis, the judiciary are the last people to step forward on this one. We interpret the law. The legislature (citizenry) make the laws. I encourage this action and your arguments driving it, but cannot instigate it.

Danke

A formal review on the "should" = "MUST" should suffice. Once it's added to the Judicial Log there shouldn't (mustn't? ;) ) be any more question about it.

Therefore, I request such a review.

Well, in fact that is exactly what i critize about our judges. They should indeed step forward and start discussions if such obvious topics arise.
They are our constitutional watch, and if bugs are in there and must be fixed but nobody steps forward, our judges should do this.

Originally posted by Danke


Here's my .02gp, dis:

When interpreting the laws I look at what can reasonably be interpreted as intent given the law as written (and without reviewing the arguments leading up to the law). I tend to rule using should=must, so my interpretations would not change even if the wording did.

However, your point is well taken and I would support a poll to clean this up as it does open the door for judicial latitude in areas where that is not intended.

Danke

I agree with the Public Defender that in most legal cases, should is equivalent to must.

Therefore, the judicial opinion is that for polling, the words should imply a requirement.

However, I think we should clean that up, and as soon as I can post a message without having to try submitting it twenty times in a row, I will open a new discussion, as I think some parts of that law could well be optional (such as posting a poll announcement).

Bill
Chief Justice

I second you bill. The review should sufice till the forum works better (hopefully saturday?)

Originally posted by Danke
Bill, I actually disagree that this only refers to citizens in the CoC or who have citizen honors, as I believe you said in an earlier post. The Code of Standards (C:6) says:

"Naming rights must pass through all citizens before a citizen is given a second naming right in the chain (from Article 1). That is, if you've already named a city you do not get to name another one because you moved positions in the Chain of Command. "

I think all citizens means *all* citizens. While I think that we can skip inactive players who don't respond, I do think that we need to run through the CoC, honorees, and the entire Citizen Registry before someone gets a second shot.

Danke

Acting Judge Advocate Opinion

Naming Rights

I find Danke's arguement compelling, and will cast the JA vote in favor of the the Public Defender's interpretation.

Therefore, by a 2-1 vote, the Judiciary rules that city naming must pass through all citizens before a citizen is allowed to name a second city.

===============
Need only three more votes to confirm donsig for JA Pro Tem...please vote!

The Judicial Log has been updated here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=554588#post554588

I do humbly think that this log entry is some of my best work :lol:

On a serious note, should the Judicial Log be made sticky?

Quoting Bill_in_PDX:
Therefore, by a 2-1 vote, the Judiciary rules that city naming must pass through all citizens before a citizen is allowed to name a second city.

===============
Bravo1

Bill, I love that you voted against yourself, overturning your own opinion. You are, indeed, the Chief Justice :)

Also I love the judicial log and support a poll that it be made mandatory reading for all citizens, or short of that, made sticky.

Hmm.. how about a PI for Great Iguanaman and Raven1er for absenteeism? (i.e., for not stepping in when their department leaders were absent, or requested something)...

That's a new one CT. I must be losing my touch. No one wants to PI me. ;)

Originally posted by donsig
That's a new one CT. I must be losing my touch. No one wants to PI me. ;)

Yeah, let's give you an honorary one for being an all around pain at times. :p

I'd like to request a Judicial Review...

Section J.2. of the CoS. Do turn chat threads count as required inquries? The purpose of this question deals mainly with our current discussion over absenteeism.

Originally posted by Danke
Bill, I love that you voted against yourself, overturning your own opinion. You are, indeed, the Chief Justice :)



Well your argument was quite compelling, and it was the right arguement too, so I really had to agree. Don't ever let it be said that I am not fair :D I thank you for posting a well reasoned dissenting point of view.

@OctavianX: I'll post my review in the morning, but I am inclined to believe that a office with duties in the turn chat thread would be held to that thread as a "request in their thread" as we treat the law.

@Chieftess: Do you mind waiting until we get donsig confirmed as JA? He really needs a chance to live life on the otherside :lol:

More to follow tomorrow...time for bed.
Bill

Appointment of Judge Advocate Pro Tem

I am noting here officially that the Judge Advocate's office is now occupied by donsig, Judge Advocate Pro Tem,

This poll confirms his appointment: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=556061#post556061

Congratulations to donsig.

Bill
Chief Justice

Call for Judicial Review

I call upon all judiciary members to post there opinions on this topic:

Does Fanatika law allow for only Department Heads to post official polls in matters that are outlined under their responsibilities in the Code of Laws?

The laws as related to Official Polls do not outline who is allowed to post an official poll. There is common public sentiment that only Leader may post official polls, however I question that being the case within the law.

I think this is an important matter to resolve. The Chief Justice will post his opinion following the those submitted by the Judge Advocate Pro Tem and the Public Defender.

Bill
Chief Justice

The original intent, well debated and polled in DG1, was to allow citizens to post polls on any aspect of the game. For the poll to be binding it had to be by, or under the direction of, the applicable Leader.

Here's how it was designed to work:
Leaders were given the specific mandate to organize decisions on the areas appropriate to their departments. Organization included launching binding polls.
Citizens were specifically not given this mandate thus weakening their claim to post such polls.
Citizens were also specifically not denied the right to post such polls to handle the case of absentee and incompetent leaders.
Therefore, a good leader who stays on top of the game and polls appropriately will always take precedence over and halt polls by normal citizens. When a Leader fails to do the job, the citizens are able to "take over" for the benefit of Fanatika.

I agree with the honorable Shaitan's interpretation of the intent of the law.

However, given the nature of what is actually in writing, I feel the judiciary must determine the application.

Of course, I doubt that Shaitan is posting here in an attempt to influence those reviews before they are posted.... :lol:

Bill

There are a few areas in our laws that affect the formation of polls in general, and specifically official polls. Without quoting verbatim, the Constitution guarantees the Right of Free Speech, the Code of Laws defines free speech to include the right of any citizen to post a poll, and the Code of Standards defines the steps necessary to make a poll official.

While there are conventions that must be met for a poll to be official, nowhere does it state that an official poll *must* be created by a leader, however any poll that is created by a leader is deemed official unless stated otherwise.

One could make the argument that there is implied in this statement the reverse that any poll *not* created by a leader is *not* official, but I cannot support that interpretation, even if that was the intent of the creators of the law as it violates the spirit of the Code of Laws and the constitutional right to free speech, and does so in a manner that would have the Code of Standards supercede our other laws, also a no-no.

Sorry Shaitan, I have to say that anyone can post an official poll.

@Bill - Of course I'm trying to influence the Judiciary. That's what lawyers do for a living! :lol:

Seriously though, I wanted to make clear what the original goal was because this particular area of the law went through several revisions, was hotly debated and took quite some time for a consensus to be reached.

@Danke - Correct. As I said, the rules were specifically framed so citizens could write binding polls. The mandate was given to the Leaders to give them the stronger claim to writing the binding polls. Where there is a conflict, the Leader's poll overrules the non-Leader's poll. This was necessary so multiple polls on the same subject could be struck in favor of the one with the greatest claim (the Leader's poll). Otherwise, any time a poll turned out in a manner someone didn't like they could put up another one designed to overrule the first one.

Perhaps I should start posting my opinions as a former judge.

An even better way for me to get on the judiciary's nerves :mwaha:

Maybe a strange idea, but what about if one of the members of the judicacy would be at the turnchats? Or maybe one of the pr-office?
Why:
Because maybe some judical questions arise, and maybe some polls must be evaluated to take decission there. This way the DP could be pretty sure to not break a law without noticing.

Sorry dis, my schedule simply doesn't allow me to attend. This might be something you want to emphasize in the next round of elections, if you feel it is important.

MODERATORS ARE NOW ELIGIBLE FOR ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICES

The change to the Code of Laws has been passed by a 73% approval rating (Quorum and 67% is required). Shaitan has been notified and will update the CoL.

Bill
Chief Justice

I'm afraid I cannot post my review of the polling question tonight. This issue requires careful consideration and a thourough reading of the Three Books. I hope to have an opinion posted tomorrow.

There is a Confirmation Vote here, (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=34917) to confirm Shaitan to the appointment of Deputy Governor of Bohemia. PLEASE VOTE!

i request closure and reposting of the poll:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=560655#post560655

again, the poll was not properly posted as not all discussed proposals were setup as options of the poll.

i request the judicacy to invalidate that poll because of the above reason as the impartiality of the posted poll options in not given any more.

I request a judicial review over the alegations. If it is found to be invalid, i will close it.

Section F.3 of the CoS deals specifically with official polls. Part A sets the quorum and part B defines the format of an official poll. This section offers no restrictions on who can post official polls.

Section F.5 automatically makes polls posted by leaders official unless said polls are specifically designated as informational.

Since Section F.3 is silent on who can post official polls we must look to the CoL and Constitution for guidance.

Section A.3.D of the CoL makes it legal for citizens to post polls on any topic. It offers no restrictions on, nor does it even mention, official polls.

The Constitution is also mute on official polls but does guarantee freedom of speech (article A). It also mandates that leaders must follow the will of the people (article J).

Given:

1) the absence of explicit CoS restrictions on the posting of official polls by citizens,

2) the CoL acknowledgement that citizens can post polls on any topic, which would include those topics within the domain of department leaders, and

3) the fundamental constitutional right of free speech and the constitutional guarantee that the will of the people will rule,

it is my opinion that citizens can post polls that are official, assuming said polls adhere to the format laid out in section F.3 of the CoS.

Chief Justice Opinion

Official Polls

I thank both the Public Defender, and Judge Advocate Pro Tem for their opinions.

I think I have made it obvious through other comments in poll threads where my thoughts on this topic are.

I believe that the constitutional guarentee that allows our citizens to poll without restriction as to topic: "Citizens may create polls on any topic. ", would allow a citizen to post an official poll.

As noted by the Public Defender, any restrictions implied by Code of Standards, Section F.5, (where official polls by default for leaders is noted), would be overriden by definition of the law, as the rights spelled out directly in the Constitution, Article A, and defined in Code of Laws, Section A clearly lay out rights guarenteed to the citizenry, and the Code of Standards can never override the Constitution or Code of Laws.

As noted by the Judge Advocate - Pro Tem, such official polls must adhere to all requirements noted in Code of Standards, Section F.

I feel that further discussion as to the future of this law is warrented, however, for now, the right of all citizens to properly post official polls is confirmed by a 3-0 vote.

Bill
Chief Justice

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
I request a judicial review over the alegations. If it is found to be invalid, i will close it.

Chief Justice Opinion

My opinion is that the poll is valid.

As always, I would have preferred that the duration be noted, and the poll properly posted, but I find that SaaM corrected this data within the thread itself.

Finally, dis, I think that the data that tipped the scaled in SaaM's favor was the knowledge that he had a passed poll already advocating the position properly referenced, as well as your discussion thread and others. The data from the first poll, and the overwhelming passage of that position in the second poll is more that adequate to satisfy SaaM's burden to be responsive to the will of the people.

It is not necessary for a leader to post every idea submitted into a poll, and frankly I found your ideas dis to be pretty darn good, but the end results in this case clearly demonstrate that SaaM correctly identified the majority opinion.

Bill
Chief Justice

A poll on Fanatika's future direction (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35065) has been posted.

Just a quick note to announce that while I will fulfill my duties through the end of the term, I will not be seeking re-election to the judiciary for Term 3. November is going to be a killer month for me and I don't see a way to do the job justice (so to speak ;) )while meeting my other commitments.

Thank you everyone, and in particular Bill, for making this job so immensely rewarding.

Danke

It is truely a loss that we will not have you sitting at the Judiciary table, Danke.

Whomever fills your shoes will need to have big feet indeed.

I hope that you will be able to stay involved with the game.

Bill

This is very sad news for me, Danke. You were a true credit to the Judiciary and to the Government of Fanatika. I understand how R/L can intrude, and hope that you will soon be able to return to the political scene. All I can really say is...Danke.

Thanks guys. I hope to return to an active role in Dec. In the mean time I will continue handling the census reports and at least try to keep up with events.

Term 3 thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35395)