Office of the Judiciary - Term 3

This is the official thread of Fanatika's Judicial Office for Term 3.

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 2 Judicial Tread can be found here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33210

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

Chief Justice: Bill_in_PDX
Public Defender: naervod
Judge Advocate: Vacant - donsig (Pro-Tem)

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

Term 3 Active Census: 35**
Term 3 Quorum Level: 18**
Term 3 Full Census: 41

**Actual numbers are 34.4 active, 17.2 quorum. All numbers rounded up as required.

The active census (35) and quorum (18) 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 (41) is only used for constitutional amendments. 21 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.

Bill
Chief Justice

Official City placement poll (part one) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35394). Time is short so please vote as soon as possible if you wish to have your say!

I would like to apply for the Possition of Public Defender :).

Congratulations on your election, Bill. If you require any assistance, let me know.

CivGeneral- Talk to Shaitan he is making the appointmens. There is at least one other person who applied I know of... ME!

CivGeneral and naervod are currently being interrogated...er...interviewed for the vacant position.

Official City placement poll (part two) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35462). This one deals with the city after next, and is a quick poll

Again, time is short so please vote as soon as possible if you wish to influence the end decision!

*donsig puts on poofy wig and long, flowing dark blue robes. Grabs the Three Books and his shiny new gavel.*

The Judicial Department is now in session. Our President has called for a proactive judiciary. I call on citizens to help us make term three a pleasant and productive one. The biggest area where the judiciary can be beneficial in a proactive way is for the justices to review proposed polls before they are posted. I would like to remind our leaders that the proper method of polling includes posting the porposed poll in the discussion thread prior to posting the actual poll. When doing so leaders are free to post a link to the proposed poll in this thread and the judiciary would be happy to make suggestions regarding the proposed poll. :hammer:

Discussion on "landbridge" city sites (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35487) has been posted in the Citizen's Forum.

1000th post... Bugger. From now on I might as well have "Spammer" emblazoned across my forehead! :cry:

Originally posted by Eklektikos
Discussion on "landbridge" city sites (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35487) has been posted in the Citizen's Forum.

1000th post... Bugger. From now on I might as well have "Spammer" emblazoned across my forehead! :cry:

It had to happen someday. You held off longer than many have.

Well it looks like I might be the 3rd Judiciary Member.
Council Vote to Confirm Naervod Public Defender (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35556)

Good naervod, and we look forward to you joining the judiciary team.

2/3 of the Council voted to confirm me so it's official, I am the Public Defender.

Congratulations Naervod :goodjob:

A definitive poll regarding provincial borders (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35586) has been posted.

I have posted quick polls to decide where our next city will be placed (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35602) and where the city after that will be placed (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35605) also. Please vote in these polls as soon as possible if you wish to influence the final decision!

a question:
lets say a poll does not need prediscussion.
but otherwise would not qualify for quickie.
how can that be done? or must it be discussed 24h anyways?

example:
peace with aztecs. they offer all they have. no more to get from them. so the only question is: yes or no or abstain...?

Actually, there already was a discussion for how far we'll push the Aztecs. It's been up for well over 24 hours.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I have posted quick polls to decide where our next city will be placed (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35602) and where the city after that will be placed (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35605) also. Please vote in these polls as soon as possible if you wish to influence the final decision!

It seems those who voted were unable to influence the final decision after all. :(

The cities were founded according to the instructions posted in the chat instruction thread. Note that the first city called for a location on a different map than what was in the instruction thread. Make sure you look at that map before launching the arrows at me.

Originally posted by Shaitan
The cities were founded according to the instructions posted in the chat instruction thread. Note that the first city called for a location on a different map than what was in the instruction thread. Make sure you look at that map before launching the arrows at me.

Yes, you are correct about that and I apologize. Didn't realize there was a link to a different map. Serves me right for getting up at 4:30 in the morning.

However, I expect to let many more arrows fly. I cannot stand idly by, especially since I am now on the bench, and watch our demo game turn into a despo game. I am very curious to know why this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35524) is now closed. I realize the poll is over but I checked one other poll that has closed yet the thread remains open. This leads me to believe that the thread was closed manually by one of our mods. I checked the *Needed Stuff* thread and saw nothing there about closing the thread though I realize instructions there are deleted after completed. That particular poll and thread was an issue dear to me as I am a resident of Tlaxcala. I would hate to think that the thread was closed in an attempt to squash discussion about the starving of the Aztecs in Tlaxcala.

I have the feeling that my rights as a citizen are being dismissed by the current administration. I make no claim of technical wrong doing here as I express my feelings. I would like to remind our leaders that it is quite possible, even under the most well written laws, to abide by the letter of the law while trampling the spirit of the law underfoot. I urge our leaders to always keep this in mind. It would be a shame indeed if this term, which has such great potential for achievement, should end up with a tarnished civil rights record.

Donsig: I requested that those polls be closed. I hadn't intended for the threads themselves to be locked, but since I'm not a mod myself I can't be entirely sure that it's possible to manually close a poll without closing the thread too. I assure you that my intent was simply to preserve the results of the polls as they were at (or as near as possible to) their official closing time.

The threads were closed as they were polls and it's more time conservative to close the whole thread. It's one click to close the whole thing, which has a fairly good chance of working. It's 3 clicks to close just the poll and with the INCREDIBLE NUMBER OF SERVER BUSY ERRORS it's a roll of the dice trying to get through those.

A poll can be closed with the thread remaining open. I reopened the thread that donsig linked and closed just the poll. EK, if you repost the other links I'll go through the process on those as well.

Generally speaking, discussions should be in discussion threads. I'd recommend starting one and linking from the poll thread.

I think everyone is having a bear of a time posting. I know I am become extremely frustrated with the forums.

However, given the way chats will be going this term, it is absolutely imperative that we get good summaries and turn saves posted.

Shaitan, did anyone show up for chat that can help?

wanst exactly that the work of the PR office? i wonder that they do :-)
their work should be going thru polls and request closure of obsolete poll-threads (closed polls or obsolete polls)

Regarding the polls: If the poll writer specifies how long the poll should remain open then the bloody thing will close automatically and leave the thread open, right? There's a little box at the bottom where you put in the number of days the poll is to remain open. If you leave a zero in that box then the poll stays open forever.

Regarding discussions: Yes, there should be discussions but the administration chose to push ahead with a full turn chat schedule right away. This resulted in many quick polls that had no discussion beforehand. The subject of some of the quick polls had been discussed and polled ad nauseum but the actual quick polls, by definition, were not discussed beforehand.

I am thankful that the thread in question was reopened so I can get this off my chest.

The problem with specifying a period of time in the "poll duration" box is that it can result in the poll being closed before reaching quorum, which makes would make the poll useless for demogame purposes. It's no use writing "poll will remain open for x hours or until quorum is met" if the poll will auto-close after x hours regardless.

I have posted the run off poll for the province border definition issue (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35818). The choice is now down to two of FortyJ's proposals: "Capitol Province" & "Strictly Geographic 2". Please vote now to define the shape of our nation and the size of our Senate!

Originally posted by Eklektikos
The problem with specifying a period of time in the "poll duration" box is that it can result in the poll being closed before reaching quorum, which makes would make the poll useless for demogame purposes. It's no use writing "poll will remain open for x hours or until quorum is met" if the poll will auto-close after x hours regardless.

I understand that Eklektikos but the recent polls were Quick Polls and the information was to be used for the upcoming chat there was no sense in leaving the polls open ended. It would have been better to leave them open only until the day of the chat. If the chat were two days away then they polls should have been set to close in two days.

I know that Eklektikos and Shaitan have both done very good jobs on polling dating back to the first demo game and I don't mean to say either is a bad poller. But you can't have it both ways. you can't throw up a bunch of quick polls so you can have a chat and then leave them open ended so they will reach quorum. And you can't do a quick poll without discussion and then tell us we should have discussed the thing beforehand!

Finally, polls that do not reach quorum are not useless for demo game purposes. Such a poll cannot be used as evidence in a PI, that's it. If a leader follows a poll that hasn't reached quorum he or she can't use that poll in his or her defense. It doesn't mean the poll can't be followed. Remember this cuts both ways. Such a poll cannot be used to launch a PI against a leader, whether the leader followed the results of the poll or not.

also, you can specify the hours a poll should be open but only the days ;-)
so if for example you post on monday, 10:00PM a poll for the chat at wednesday, 8:00 AM... which number of days would it be open?
2 days i suppose, but then the poll will still be open until 14 h after the chat started.
and with 1day, it would be closed 10 hours before the chat started.

the "best" way will propably be if we get someone to close the poll-threads which are obsoleted by the chats.
maybe a list of "used polls in the chat" would be good, as they could be directly closed after the chat.
and then a office could take care of all other obsolete polls whichwere not directly used between the chats (yes, i again talk of the PR office here which should do that)

Originally posted by disorganizer
wanst exactly that the work of the PR office? i wonder that they do :-)
their work should be going thru polls and request closure of obsolete poll-threads (closed polls or obsolete polls)

Given that no one (after Cyc gave it up) wanted to volunteer to do the work, I think it will be up to the citizens to do their own work and monitor for closures.

I notice that while many want someone to take the burden of writing, documenting, keeping track of, and closing polls, only one person stepped forward to do the dirty work, and he left basically because of the damn RPG game compensation issue, and I don't blame him.

I am closing the Public Relations Office, and from now on, all citizens will need to track the progress of their own polls.

Bill
Chief Justice

i believe you would have got more volunteers if this ***** forum would be up more than 2 hours in a row for most.
even getting the min posts out is a pain lately.

Dis, I unfortunately have to agree with you. It has been very hard to speak up in this game lately, as every time I click "Submit Reply" I get a $*!%# Server Busy Error!

Hopefully, the added RAM and the new Server this weekend will resolve this!

I have posted Quick Polls to decide the placement of the first (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35978), second (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35979) and third (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35981) cities during the upcoming November 8th turn chat. These polls have been set to remain open for 24 hours only, so please vote as soon as possible to ensure the cities are built in the right place at the right time!

It is with a heavy heart that I tender my resignation as Judge Advocate. Since we are close to defining provincial borders I have decided to place my name in consideraton for the governorship of the new province containing Tlaxcala (my current home city). Given the recent happenings in Tlaxcala I feel I am needed to watch over things there in an official capacity. Since our president has chosen not to consider appointing current leaders I must resign from the judiciary if I am to have a chance at being governor.

Sorry to quit and then increase the workload on the bench, but...

Our President has stated that holding special elections for the governorships of the newly formed provinces would be illegal. I do not agree. Article E of the Constitution lists provincial governors among the offices of the government and Article G states that all offices are filled by election. While we do have appointment mechanisms for filling vacancies that arise mid-term I think a case can be made that these mechanisms were meant to apply to the replacement of officials that had already been elected.
Section D.1.F.1 of the CoL specifies that the President can appoint a governor to a defined province that grows to contain 3 cities. It can be argued that newly created provinces should be handled differently.
Finally, while special elections are not called for under our current laws, neither are they prohibited.
I would like to hear the judiciary members thoughts on this.

I think it is very unfortunate that you have decided to resign as Judge Advocate. The judiciary will miss your contributions.

Chief Justice Opinion

Appointment of Governors

The question posed is: Should the appointment of new governors in this first definition of borders be conducted via special election?

I find that the Code of Laws, Section D, Part 1.A and 1.F directly apply to this circumstance.

The people have (finally!) defined the provincial borders in the properly posted and passed poll. Therefore the President has two provinces that have three cities in them that need to have governors.

The laws allow the President to appoint these governors in accordance with appropriate standards, and in fact this is the method that has been used for the majority of the demo game's existance.

Therefore I must find that the President is within his rights, and is in fact required to, use the appointment method to fill these positions.

**note, I will post the JA opinion following the Public Defender's posting, if the JA position has not yet been filled.

Bill
Chief Justice

Applications for Judge Advocate

In accordance with the Code of Laws, Section H, interested citizens should submit their application to the President.

Public Defender Opinion

Appointment of Governors
I completely agree with Bill on this one. I find that the President may and is required to appoint a Governor if the position is vacant.

Naervod
Public Defender

Judge Advocate Pro-Tem

In the interests of all Fanatikans, I am appointing donsig as Judge Advocate Pro - Tem, until such time as the President appoints a permanent replacement.

This works for many reasons, first donsig's resignation was intended to make him eligible for appointment as a Governor, and he really did not want to leave us short handed.

Secondly, his appointment as a Pro-Tem has already been approved by the people in the past.

Bill
Chief Justice

My schedule for November is turning out to be heavy, but not insurmountable. If the bench is willing to have a Judge Advocate that checks in only once a day, but does so faithfully, I'd like to throw my hat in the ring.

Danke

The Chief Justice endorses Danke's candidacy for Judge Advocate.

Bill
Chief Justice

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Judge Advocate Pro-Tem

In the interests of all Fanatikans, I am appointing donsig as Judge Advocate Pro - Tem, until such time as the President appoints a permanent replacement.

This works for many reasons, first donsig's resignation was intended to make him eligible for appointment as a Governor, and he really did not want to leave us short handed.

Secondly, his appointment as a Pro-Tem has already been approved by the people in the past.

Bill
Chief Justice

Our President has informed me that accepting this temporary decision will not prevent me from being considered for a governorship so I accept the appointment.

Thanks!

Even though the Chief Justice and Public Defender agreed in their review making mine moot I will post a review anyway.

I agree that Presidential appointment of vacant governorships midway through a turn is legal and justified according to our Three Books. However I do not agree that special elections are illegal. Our constitution lists provincial governors among the governmental offices and later states that all offices are to be filled via election. While we do have the appointment process in place in the CoL there is nothing in the constitution, CoL or CoS that specifically prohibits special elections. I therefore find that it would not be illegal for the President to call special elections in place of making appointments.
I base this finding on the constitution's call that offices be filled via election and on an earlier clause in the CoL (or constitution?) that specifically called for a special election to be held when a city grew to contain three cities. This shows that the original intent was for special elections to be held. Given this original intent and our constitution's call for officials to be elected I do not think the CoL should be interpreted to exclude special elections should the President feel they would be appropriate.

donsig, the filling offices terminology was already reviewed and an entry made in the Judicial Log here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=391639#post391639).

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has posted an informational poll regarding the establishment of embassies (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36142).

All citizens are encouraged to participate.

i need a review for the following poll. i want it to be official. and up and done as fast as possible...
please help me for the sake of fanatika:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=582927#post582927

imho, i can post a official bining poll as soon as the above proposal is up for 24h.
the matter was discussed, the pollproposal was up.
if i do it 48h or until quorum with the 18 quorum, would it be valid?

PLEASE help me!
we cant afford wasted time on that one.

I think the poll would be valid, but i believe Shaitan has provided a solution already, and Cyc wanted to be the governor of the Capitol province with one city.

I'd recommend that you let that play out.

In case anyone has been wondering where the Public Defender has been in the last 2 days, I have gone over 40 hours without power.

I have a question on the Code of Laws. Specifically, D-1-f-1 states: When a defined province grows to 3 cities during an election term, a provincial governor may be appointed.

Does this preclude me (as President) from appointing a Governor before a Province grows to 3 cities? That is, if a province is defined, can I appoint a governor no matter how many cities are in that province? Can I appoint a governor if there are no cities in the province?

As a former member of my beloved Judiciary, I'd say no. The law seems pretty clear to me. Once a minimun of three cities we control is in a province, the president my appooint a governor. Otherwise, the domestic department retains control.

But then why did we define 1-2 city provinces in the last DG?
There were definitely governors in the seat for provinces which were yet to be filled...

Danke has been confirmed as Judge Advocate. LINK (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=586745#post586745)

Congratulations Danke!

Chief Justice Review

It is my opinion that a Governor cannot be appointed until there are three cities in the province. Further, that provinces with less than three cities are controlled by the Domestic Leader.

That I believe answers the question.

However, this creates a unique problem given the single city province. We could take this opportunity to throw control of the province to Domestic, or, since the Governor there was not appointed, it is just as legal to keep the office in existance given that the people defined the province.

Since that question has not be asked here, I throw it out for discussion.

Law:
Provinces contain ANY number of cities :-)
Only new provinces must have at least 3 cities for a new governor to be defined.

As such a strange things happen:
if we declare the northern province as bohemia and bavaria as being "separated" from that province (we should maybe post a declaration of independance), then fionn would be governor of the northern province officially and bavaria is a new province, for which no governor can be defined :-)

judical review please?

The requirement for a governor being elected in the monthly cycle is one city in the province.

Nope. If the province does not reach >2 from the beginning, it is definitely NOT a province according the COL :-)

Code of Standards, Section G (Elections).

#3 (Elections) Are held for the Presidency, each of the 6 Executive Departments, the 3 members of the Judiciary, and for Governor of each Province that has at least 1 active city.

Dis, I have to DISagree with you, there. Provinces are supposed to bet set up with defined borders before they are needed for use. If any pre-defined Province gets one of our cities and remains so until the end of the election cycle, then an elected Governors is required. Until that time, it is handled by the Domestic Department unless a situation arises or an arrangement made in which an obvious choice for the position is acknowledged by everyone. IF such a situation arises, then I would think that a Governor could take the helm a little early. (I believe we had a situation similar to that in DG1)

My point being, that Provinces need not have any cities in them, so your last statement is incorrect. If you want to get down to brass tacks, the Domestic Department handles all Provinces until it reaches 3 cities, then as Shaitan said, a Guv can be appointed to serve until the next election. Or I believe, as Donsig says, a special election can also be held to elect a Guv. Provinces should exist on paper long before the are put to use. Cities being placed on a Provincial map start the clock ticking as to when a real life Governor is needed. Unfortunately, as Demogame2 allows us to use our personal wants and whims to strogly influence polls and policy, we've had our head too far up our assessment of border proposals to get anything done in a timely manner. Let's say we pull one out for the "ole Gipper" and get this mess cleaned up.

COL D-1-F:

F The Domestic Leader is the governor of all cities that lack a provincial governor.
1 When a defined province grows to 3 cities during an election term, a provincial governor may be appointed.


the question is: does this imply also to defined provinces at the end of each term?

and a such a strange thing arises:
if we define a province without cities, we will HAVETO get it a governor?!?

now i see here a big flaw in the rules which should be fixed. we should propably try to get a own paragraph in COL or COS about provinces where those things will be better defined. Any volunteers for a first proposal writeup?

the problem with donsigs interim elections is that this election then maybe just get a governor running for a few days.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Danke has been confirmed as Judge Advocate. LINK (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=586745#post586745)

Thank you very much everyone. Now, where did I put the floppy wig and robe? They're around here somewhere, I'm sure.

Looking forward to the rest of the term.

Danke
Judge Advocate

I'll be the first to admit that this is poorly defined in the existing laws. Both the appropriate sections of the CoL and the CoS have already been cited.

My interpretation of the law is that the Domestic Department controls all provinces of less than 3 cities, except if they had at one time been larger and had an active governor. A province does not lose it's governor unless it loses all it's cities.

Therefore, in our current case, my opinion is that Bohemia Province is a one-city province, with it's capital in Bavaria. Its Governor is Fionn, and it will continue to have gubernatorial elections for the foreseable future.

New provinces defined by the recent poll that have 3 or more cities may have governor's appointed and elections in the next cycle.

Provinces of less than 3 cities will be run by the Domestic Department until future settlement or capture increases the number of cities to three or more.

Danke
Judge Advocate

I wish for a Judicial review of the legality of reposting the Province Border Definition run-off poll.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I wish for a Judicial review of the legality of reposting the Province Border Definition run-off poll.

Chief Justice Review

I think reopening or reposting the same poll, without evidence of any wrongdoing in the poll process, would be EXCEPTIONALLY unconstitutional.

I feel that if the citizenry would like to change the borders, they should follow the process for making an official poll and push forward with their alternative proposal.

In other words, I feel it is perfectly alright to change things down the road, but it is not okay to keep taking bites at the same apple after the issue was already resolved legally.

Bill
Chief Justice

Originally posted by Eklektikos:
I wish for a Judicial review of the legality of reposting the Province Border Definition run-off poll.

Public Defender Review

If the first poll was valid, then there was no need to repost it again. The second poll is not valid since the first poll fulfilled the validity requirements as defined in COS-F-1,2,3

I suspected that this would be the case, but needed to be certain that I wasn't passing over a valid option. Thankyou for your assistance.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Chief Justice Review
I think reopening or reposting the same poll, without evidence of any wrongdoing in the poll process, would be EXCEPTIONALLY unconstitutional.

I'm not trying to nit-pick here (after all, I agree that once a poll is done, it should be done) but didn't we re-open the Citizen Honors polls after they had been long since closed? Either way, I look forward to hearing your final decision on this matter as I'm sure many of us will consider it precedent setting.

By the way, this also brings up another good point: should official polls be allowed to run indefinitely? If so, it's entirely possible that a poll that has not yet reached quorum in one term, could conceivably reach quorum in a future term because the active census figures declined. This could be problematic.

Just food for thought. :)

the citizen honour polls were wrongly posted, as they had an inadequate automatic closing time :-)
and that is a reason to reopen them

Originally posted by FortyJ


I'm not trying to nit-pick here (after all, I agree that once a poll is done, it should be done) but didn't we re-open the Citizen Honors polls after they had been long since closed? Either way, I look forward to hearing your final decision on this matter as I'm sure many of us will consider it precedent setting.

By the way, this also brings up another good point: should official polls be allowed to run indefinitely? If so, it's entirely possible that a poll that has not yet reached quorum in one term, could conceivably reach quorum in a future term because the active census figures declined. This could be problematic.

Just food for thought. :)

These are both good questions, and do allow me to elaborate here for clarity.

First, the citizen honors polls were allowed to be reopened because they had been improperly closed and they were not game critical (in my opinion at least). I believe I noted in my opinion above that the borders poll could not be reopened as it was not improperly posted, and had reached binding quorum.

Secondly, official polls are normally posted for a minimum of 48 hours or until quorum is met. As soon as quorum is met, and the 48 hour period has passed, that poll is closed and results are binding.

Also, all polls requiring quorum must do so against the quorum number applicable in the term in which the poll was posted. We actually ran into that problem in Game 1.

Great questions Forty! I hope my responses help.

Bill
Chief Justice

Despite the extensive delineation of what makes a valid poll, there is very little in the laws addressing the issue of subsequent polls on the same subject.

Based on a review of the laws as written, my interpretation is:

A poll, properly crafted and posted, may not be re-opened unless a quorum has not been met (in which case, it should not have been closed).

A poll can be re-opened, as others have addressed, if it was improperly formed, or did not follow other legal requirements necessary to be official.

That is for polls being *re-opened*. The larger issue comes from a situation where a *new* poll is taken, where in the original poll requirements were met, and the poll was official. Basically the "I don't like the first results, so let's do another poll" approach.

I see nothing in the laws to prohibit this type of attempt. In fact, the blocking of this type of "let's try again" poll would likely breach the right of free speech as outlined in the CoL.

To take an example, assuming the original border proposal poll was done correctly and passed by quorum, it is now binding. However, if those who don't want a one-city capital province want to put together a new poll to overturn the existing one, it is their right to do so. However, the proposal must be specific. "Do you want a capital province, y/n" is not specific enough to overturn the current borders, because it offers no substitute plan to use in it's place.

Okay, there it is then.

Danke
Judge Advocate

Thank you for your prompt response. I really don't have a bone to pick with the citizen honor polls (maybe mine will reach quorum sometime way down the road :)) other than I sincerely believe the whole citizen honor process should be revamped, but that is an entirely different matter.

On the issue of indefinite poll duration, however, the more I thought about it yesterday, the more I believe this is an issue that should be addressed before it causes trouble. Please indulge me as I propose a hypothetical situation:

Let us assume that overall participation declines over the course of the game, or that it drops significantly from Term 3 to Term 4. I hope this never happens, but for argument's sake, let us assume it does.
Someone posts a poll on what to do with a Great Leader sometime in Term 3.
Let us also assume that we do not currently have a Great Leader when the poll is proposed.
The majority of votes cast are strongly in favor of one of the choices, but the poll fails to reach quorum and slowly drifts off the first page of polls.
Midway through Term 4, we do get a Great Leader and somebody digs up that poll and discovers that even though it didn't reach quorum during Term 3, because of the drop in participation, it now has sufficient votes to reach quorum and is therefore binding, regardless of whether or not the will of the people has changed in the time elapsed.

Now, obviously, somebody could re-poll the matter, but then we're re-polling an issue that was previously properly polled (try saying that ten times fast :)) and it could be argued that it had met quorum. I would suggest that we look carefully at this matter and propose some guidelines on official polls, such as:

Quorum levels for official polls are established from the term in which the poll was originally posted and they must be stated in the first post to avoid confusion.
Official polls must contain a minimum and maximum duration which must be included in the first post.
Maximum duration for official polls cannot exceed one (1) term (or three weeks, or whatever we decide is best).

The first item would eliminate confusion about the quorum levels, but the other two would prevent the possibility of a long-since forgotten poll suddenly reaching quorum long after the situation had changed.

Danke
Belated congratulations on your appointment as Judge Advocate from the Cartographic Office. We kindly remind you that you are eligible for City Naming rights. Your previously registered city names are still on file and have been placed into the official registry. Please review them and notify us (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34519) of any changes that should be made.

Chief Justice Notice

The province of Bohemia has been eliminated in this poll: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=589901#post589901

Bill
Chief Justice

I request that an injunction against carrying out the results of the poll mentioned above be granted, pending thorough investigation into the legality of the actions called for by the poll.

Despite the fact that the poll was formatted according to poll standards and was carried to quorum, the premise of the poll itself is fatally flawed. We have no provision or definition for districts, nor any provision whatsoever for "undefining" a province.

The poll cannot be put into effect as it relies on rules that do not exist. The ruleset must be modified BEFORE polls on that ruleset can be carried out. I move that this poll be ruled unlawful and therefore of informational value only.

Constitution, Article G states "All offices will be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month." This was further defined by the Judiciary to mean that a cyclical office position will last for the duration of the calendar month. LINK (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=391639#post391639)

Removal of the province of Bohemia would directly cause the dissolution of an elected office and is therefore illegal and unconstitutional.

We do not disagree with the intent behind this poll but we do disagree with the manner of implementation. The rules that need to be changed must be discussed first (and they currently are being discussed) and then added/altered as needed before polling on items dependent of those rule changes.

Shaitan,

While every member of the judiciary will have their own 'strict' or loose' interpretation of our laws, I believe that our laws are a framework guiding our citizens. While our laws define many actions or processes that are not allowed, they are not meant to be an all-inclusive definition of what actions *are* allowed the citizenry. As the preamble to the consitution says, our laws are "...established to facilitate the active participation of the people and to make possible the dreams and desires of the Fanatiks."

Simply because the laws do not define a one-city Province, labelled as a 'Capital District' does not mean there cannot be one. The laws do provide for the assignment of provinces without governors as well as small provinces to the Domestic Department. The Capital District poll is in accord with those laws.

Several times we have seen examples of citizens who cling to nomenclature in order to spin a legal definition (no offense, disorganizer ;) ). In this case I think that any difference between a 'district' rather than a 'province' is moot. The Capital District is a province, no matter what we label it, in the same way that the Commonwealth of Virginia is a state.

You also claim we have no process for 'undefining' a province. This argument is moot, since the poll takes no such action, and simply defines responsibility for an existing (though recently approved) province. However, even if it were the case, the poll process is our accepted way of undefining provinces; something that occured in Game 1, and can occur anytime the citizenry chooses through an approved official poll.

Lastly, you claim that the dissolution of an elected position is illegal, as it abrogates a promise of a month-long term to that official. This has been discussed many times, with all legal precedent falling on the side of the argument which states that the 30-day term is *not* a right of the elected official, but rather a maximum length of time for that term. There is, in fact, no miminum, and redefining province borders can certainly be expected to result in changes in provincial leadership.

Sorry to be long-winded. To sum up. In my opinion:

The Capital District poll stands as written and is binding. The Domestic Department will assume responsibility for build queues for the Capital District province. There are no legal conflicts with our existing laws.

Danke
Judge Advocate

As previously defined by the Judiciary, the one month term is a guarantee of the office, not the elected official. Regardless, it was upheld as a guarantee of that office being in existence until the next election cycle.

The rules allow for a leader other than a governor to control cities in a province when there is no governor in place. Removing an official from office requires that the official be impeached. This poll is effect an impeachment poll by your colloquial definition of a district being a province by another name. This is manifestly unjust to Plexus who is an elected official.

The effect of this poll, excepting any confusion or sematics of phrase, is to remove an elected official from his elected office. It does so without due process or any opportunity for defense as there are obviously no charges against him. Earlier this game we had a sitting leader who the vast majority of citizens wanted removed. That leader was incompetent and absent. He received the full benefit and protection of Fanatikas laws. Here we have a dedicated and worthy leader who will be removed on the basis of a single poll with no consideration of his rights. This is an extrememly dangerous precedent.

@ Danke - 99% of the time, you call them all right. This one you called wrong.

@ 40J - I'm impressed. Well spoken and in line with the way things should be.

@ Shaitan - Of course, you're right again. You called it right on the money. It was a close until your last statement (I knew all along, but couldn't say it well enough). You tied up all the lose ends and quoted verbatim the results of the long debates. Bravo.

i agree with cyc and shatin in this. Had i not recieved my chance to govern the new province of Taliesin, the citizens would have, effectively with the district proposal, voted me out of office. Just like they did with Plexus. As ive said all along lets just redfine the borders of the notherern province, name it bohemia and include bavaria in it. We have to discuss new provinces anyways with new cities going up and possible taking of american/japanese cities

I'm not sure if this is proper or not (you can clue me in), but I would second the Injunction Request...

Plexus was put into that office DESPITE the knowledge of that poll being up. I notified shaitan of the poll and the obvious tendency of it BEFORE the governors were officially approoved.
So in fact Plexus never should have been appointed to that position, and imho he never was as the poll result was at hand at the moment of appointment.

it was an automatic appointment since i left to fill the SE province, All this wouldnt be neccessary if the citizens hadnt voted for the one city province idea

ah. so he was your deputy? i thought he was appointed. didnt catch that.

anyways, even as deputy governor he was not elected but appointed. so i think only elected leaders get the 1 term guarantee (otherwise a mid-term appointee could insist on going on in his job till the middle of the next term... think about that!).

Chief Justice Response

I also vote to uphold the poll as passed overwhelmingly.

Responses to arguments:

1) A thorough legal investigation has been done, and this poll has been reviewed for legallity, and I tried very hard to find good reason to shoot down this poll , but I can't find reason to do so. As noted by the complaintant himself, the poll is proper and reached quorum.

2) I disagree with Shaitan's interpretation of the Judicial Log. The decision he references deals with 30 day terms for people elected in mid-term. The consensus opinion there was a guarentee of elections for offices every election cycle...this does not preclude the citizenry from eliminating an office.

For example, say we decide to merge the Trade/Science Leaders into one office as was discussed last game. Were we to do it in game, which is more than constitutional if the proper proceedures are followed, then one of the two office holders will lose their job.

Shaitan is advocating that we would have to elect both offices anyway even though the citizens said they wanted something else.

Further, the precedent for elimination of offices was set last game by the elimination of the Councilmembers At Large.

3) To the issue of the rules not existing, unfortunately they do, by default. An area with less than three cities is properly controlled by the Domestic department according to the laws, even if it is defined as a Province. I had to give disorganizer credit for this one, it was a brilliant work around.

Really the use of the term District is moot. It doesn't matter what you call it, the rules cover it....as long as it is the Domestic Leader controlling the queue. I do agree that were the solution proposed be the VP take control of the province/district for example, then this would be unconstitutional.

4) This is not an impeachment or investigation of Plexus or his governorship. Therefore the arguments related to due process and such are strawmen of the highest order, and have nothing to do with the poll at hand.

The same argument here works as the one that applied to Fionn. The citizens vote is not a personal indicator of how they feel about you...as far as I know. It is the citizen's rights to define borders and provinces.

5) Extremely dangerous precedent????

I'll tell you what is an extremely dangerous precedent, that being the consistent message being given by the minority on this topic from the beginning, which has been that we should ignore the properly expressed wishes of the majority of the people.

This is a democracy, and the people have spoken very clearly on this issue. My job is to uphold the properly expressed wishes of the people (even when I disagree with it, as in this case), as should be all of our jobs, including our President.

By a 2 vote majority, the Judiciary supports implimenting the outcome of the poll. The control of building queues in the province of Bohemia are passed to the Domestic Department.

Bill
Chief Justice

Tis a sad day indeed when the judiciary cant issue an injunction to this poll that passed, at least until terms end. Just because in the history we have implemented poll decisions doesnt mean we have to this time around. I relaize im in the minority on this one but lets think about this. Had the first approvaol process had gone thru what would the situation had been. Would this injunction had been granted? I would like to think so.

But enough of that. A new proposal to at least offically name the northern province bohemia since it was deleted by the citizens

The soon to come governor of that province can set it as he likes.
And not using a poll which passed and is valid is aganst the constitution. If not we would surely have ignored some other more obscure polls before.

I considered that possibility Fionn, that being delayed introduction of this change. However, I didn't see what purpose that served. It still screws over Plexus.

I don't doubt that there will be yet another border proposal brought along here any day now, so this is all a bunch of wasted effort.

To your point on the first approval process, I don't know what you mean by that. So far the single city district/province idea has won every poll it has been in....perhaps if we quit trying to unsurp the majorities opinion, Plexus would still have a job.

i mean donsig and cyc were the first to be in the approval process as governors. Had that have gone thru i would have been out of a job

And i disagree dis, since the citizens killed the name of bohemia we should at least honor the name and name the northern province Bohemia

Note that there has NEVER been a poll put in place and in effect in midterm that ever removed an official from office.

it has now. democracy at its worst right now

That is incorrect Shaitan. In game one the councilmembers at large were eliminated...mid-term in fact.

I ask everyone complaining now, where were you in the poll and discussion thread for this? I hear lots of good arguments now, but they don't work once the poll is already approved.

this is why polls like this should go thru senate approval as well. If we truly are a democracy then it works. Checks and Balances. The citizens are the congress and any bill or proposal goes thru both houses and must pass so if one approves and the other doesnt then it must be re-worked. Plus this gives the senate some more to do

Perhaps so, I encourage you to sponsor a change to the law.

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall
it has now. democracy at its worst right now

If enforcing the will of the vast majority of citizens in a poll is democracy at it's worst, I would welcome hearing what your definition of democracy is?

If you like it bill help write it up. I couldnt word a law proposal if my life depended on it :)

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall
If you like it bill help write it up. I couldnt word a law proposal if my life depended on it :)

I'll be glad to help.

Why don't you open a discussion thread on it in the citizen forum, and we'll get the process rolling.

When it comes to things like that i get tougne tied in what to say, im merely coming up with an idea. If i could word things right id be able to write better polls :D

Originally posted by Shaitan
The effect of this poll, excepting any confusion or sematics of phrase, is to remove an elected official from his elected office. It does so without due process or any opportunity for defense as there are obviously no charges against him. Earlier this game we had a sitting leader who the vast majority of citizens wanted removed. That leader was incompetent and absent. He received the full benefit and protection of Fanatikas laws. Here we have a dedicated and worthy leader who will be removed on the basis of a single poll with no consideration of his rights. This is an extrememly dangerous precedent.

Shaitan, I happened to be the first member of the judiciary to respond, and I think that you believe I was using my position to forward a personal political agenda.

I am personally opposed to this poll, to the concept of a single-city province, and feel badly about pulling the gubernatorial title and responsibility away from Plexus. But don't take it out on me, take it out on the people who sponsored this iniatiative and who voted for this action.

I think both Bill and I feel strongly that a democratic society can only be a society of law if the judiciary is willing to impartially rule based solely on an interpretation of the law, even when it means going against their own personal wishes as well as those of colleagues they respect.

That, frankly, is our job.

Does anybody honestly think that poll would have been successful if the actual results of its implementation were noted in the poll options? If the options had been:

A: let it be a district under rule of the domestic department (remove Plexus from office)
B: let it be a province with its own full qualified governor (allow Plexus to remain in office)

THAT would have been fair and honest polling.

I don't know, but perhaps if someone had made those arguments in the thread it would have made a difference....perhaps not, the vote was overwhelming.

The poll posted was fair and honest. I disagree with implications made otherwise. I didn't see disorganizer on a crusade to go after Plexus, so I assume this wasn't personal.

Public Defender Response

I know this is a little late but I'll post my opinion on this issue.

I agree with Bill here. I tried very hard to find something that made this poll illegal but couldn't find anything. I feel it is extremely unfair that Plexus had to lose his governorship but the poll was by all means legal and met the requirements set by the Code of Standards.

This is by no means an impeachment of Plexus. If this was the goal of someone supporting the poll I am very dissapointed that someone had to use an underhanded trcik such as that to get Plexus out of office although I'm sure no one here would have done that and am by no means accusing anyone.

It is my opinion that the results of the poll shall stand.

Naervod
Public Defender

The point is it should not be permissible to divorce an elected leader from their office with a simple poll. We have NEVER allowed this in the past and this is a precedent not only dangerous to the game, unfair to Plexus, but also against the entire concept of this game.

Yes, we did remove provinces in the first game. This was done between terms so no leader lost his position. Yes, the Councils at Large seats were removed mid-term. That was the result of a change to the Constitution. Those positions were transitioned to the Judiciary and the Councils themselves became the first officers of the Judiciary.

There has never been a precedent to simply kick a sitting leader out of their office on the basis of a simple poll and this, to put it plainly, stinks.

No, I do not think disorganizer was targeting Plexus. I think everybody was caught up in the excitement over the Fionn getting stiffed issue and the few posters who were verbose in saying how useless a one city province seemed to them. I think most people who voted to disolve the province assumed Plexus didn't care or didn't even think of the effect of the rule on Plexus.

I propose the following poll:

Should Plexus be allowed to finish his term as Governor of Bohemia?
A. Yes. Wait until the term change to declassify Bohemia as a province.
B. No. Disolve Bohemia immediately and remove Plexus from his elected office.
C. Abstain

This topic has been discussed for well over 24 hours so I will post this poll tomorrow.

That poll seems reasonable to me.

I just realized as I was reviewing the contested poll that there is nothing in the poll that sets a time for when the changes take effect so it is my opinion that the poll Shaitan will post will in fact be legal, so long as he follows the procedures as outlined in the Code of Standards. The people may decide whether to dissolve the Province of Boheimia now or at the end of the term in a little less than three weeks.

i dont think we should be dissolving the province of Bohemia at all. We should be keeping it and incorporating bavaria into the northern province

Originally posted by Shaitan
The point is it should not be permissible to divorce an elected leader from their office with a simple poll. We have NEVER allowed this in the past and this is a precedent not only dangerous to the game, unfair to Plexus, but also against the entire concept of this game.

Dangerous to the game????

Gee that's a bit dramatic compared to the crap we routinely allowed to go on last term.

If this is so bad, where were you and the rest of the gang making these arguments while the poll was active?

You know, what is ironic about this is that the very same problem plaqued this poll as the one that led to the problem in the first place. No one pointed out the implications until after the poll passed. I would think we would learn someday to argue ahead of time.

There is a citizen in this thread posting who was a leading champion of the "single city province is worthless" cause who now feels it is a travesty that Plexus will lose his job. I would argue that perhaps this poll sailed through in near record time and overwhelming numbers due just to this type of attitude. It is pretty disingenuous now to say otherwise.

Further, it is a real danger to the game that we have scatterbox decisions and polling going on. Yet everyone wants to dump it on the judiciary to fix.

Well guess what, the judiciary is duty bound to enforce the will of the people....and doing anything else is the ONLY real danger to the game I have seen in this entire process, no matter how hard some people attempt to find justification for overriding the people's voice.

People who want to b*tch about these series of decisions need to look in the mirror and blame themselves.

The screwed up provincial polling and timing was a function of inept leadership and a complete lack of attention to the matter from the entire cabinet in term one. There is ZERO excuse for not knowing the impact of the single city province, we discussed it for a fricking month and a half.

The disorganizer poll was discussed, and then further points were added in the poll discussion. Yet it passed overwhelmingly.

The idea that we can't do something because we never have is pretty absurd on the face of it. By that standard we would not even have this discussion here because the entire judiciary would not even exist.

The idea that Plexus cannot lose his job because he hasn't served his term is a bit odd given that a former Chief Justice was the primary mover in the Judicial Review that established that no citizen is guarenteed a term of office. Further, he hasn't been removed from office...there is no office anymore, quit trying to turn this into something it isn't.

The judiciary has voted 3-0 in favor of the poll being valid. I voted in the poll as one of the few people against the proposal to remove the province.

Quit blaming the judiciary for problems created by other departments and citizens. I am tired of people not putting in any effort toward influencing decisions, and then trying to use the courts to overturn the majority rule. Make no mistake, that is what is being attempted here, and I find it disgusting. I guess we should be proud that we accurately simulated the US court system in that regard.

Bill
Chief Justice

and sometimes the court can overturn the majority but thats why i think the senate should be able to review polls, besides that it is the job of the judicary to police the polls, with that new office that was created but never used.

I also think for one that dissolveing a province and removing plexus from governorship is a travesty. I keep saying put yourself in his shoes or in my shoes for that matter. Just think if the previous confirmation poll had passed, and then this recent poll had passed. I would have been out of a job, no thanks to citizens who for better of a lack of words were uneducated to the consequenses of said polls. Instead of implememting the district of bavaria and rendering the province of bohemia dead lets WAIT til the end of term or until we rewrite the borders to move bavaria into the northern province and then take a final vote. Lets discuss the consequenses of the polls instead of implemeting them. I know that you can do this and i hope some of the citizens will support me on this. Save Bohemia, and save Plexus's job.

The judiciary did police the poll, it was legal and passed.

There is a big difference between policing a poll and overturning the outcome because a minority doesn't like it.

I have thought about what it must be like to be Plexus, (who was screwed worse than yourself Fionn), and I too think it is a very unfortunate thing. This is not the fault of the Judiciary, nor do my feelings of how it must be for Plexus have anything to do with what is right given the poll.

Does anyone here understand the idea of the majority rule?

Or is the will of the people something that we only pay lip service too when it is something agreed with?

The poll passed...overwhelmingly...and not just a little in my opinion because of all the *****ing about a single city province and that this bad thing had to be addressed.

disorganizer stepped in with a solution that a vast majority of citizens endorsed. Perhaps some of the folks who were spending their time lamenting the demise of Bohemia as the super province should have gotten involved with the process before the poll passed and educated these great uneducated masses that you speak of.

Regarding the idea of discussing the implications of polls before implimenting them, I agree. BUT THAT SHOULD BE DONE BEFORE THE POLL ENDS..not dumped in the lap of the judicary to save.

Bill
Chief Justice

you and i have diiferent views on what the judiciary should and shouldnt do. If i was Cheif Justice id have killed the poll to EDUCATE the masses what happens if these polls get passed. And as noted i didnt say not to vote for the single city province and i abstained in the last poll because none of the options were there that i wanted to see, thats why i think it was illegal. It didnt include no to the all the above options. Second there wasnt citizen discussion on making a district just an automatic poll, so i tell you this IF i was Cheif Justice i would have determined the poll illegal but thats me.

The problem is very multi-faceted. But most of the responsibility for this endless enigma is firmly placed on the shoulders of the Fanatikan public.

Not enough foresight is put into the planning of our nation. I still see a lot of discussion threads that follow popularity trends more than logic and fact. Everyone thinks they're a lawyer, but everyone runs to the pen of the Judiciary to hide behind. It is really difficult not to type the word SHEEP in this post.

This Province and border problem has so many different sides and loopholes and places to hide in it that it may never be resolved. Fionn now has a killer Province. He is taking in Plexus as his Lt. Governor again. This is fantastic. So this end of the problem is working itself out. The rest of the problem can be straightened out over time. Let's quit whining and complaining and finger-pointing and slowly look at our options and discuss which way we'd like to go. What do we REALLY want. Let's talk about it. who cares who screwed it up. As it's been pointed out, we've been doing a lot of that lately. Let's STOP and become one again. Remember? Like before the game started? And leave Bill alone, he has enough to do :)

Alright, I'm gonna speak up before enemies are made... the citizens don't want a capital "province" they want a capital "district"... they simply didn't think of the implications of their decision (a bad decision to cover up a bad decision). I have been shoved out of office, simply put, the citizens don't want me in office. If the citizens wanted me in office, they wouldn't have voted in that dang poll the way they did.

Well, I'm kinda angry at this whole deal (newbies voting in polls and they don't understand why they are voting that way [and oldbies just being plain mean]). Well, hopefully I'll be reinstated, if not, I could always break away and form my own Taiwan... now to find a suitable island... :)

BTW: Quit picking on the justices, they are just trying to uphold the law and do their jobs...

*sigh*
why do you all take this so serious and personal?
plexus:
do you really think people voted you OUT OF OFFICE? they just voted for a provincial border. if we deny ideas just not to put people out of office or because it counters the personal preference of an individual, we can delete the democracy from this game completely.
you seem to put personal preference before the states needs here.

and: you should NOT think just because you think its a bad idea that it really is one. i heard NOONE giving me evidence this is really a bad idea (despite the fact i myself voted against the proposal).

and btw: show me the poll where the citizenry elected you :-P
in fact, you werent even approoved as deputy governor by the citizenry and only appointed to that positon. so there is exactly NO reason to be angry about, as the promotion of you to governor was exactly as illegal as giving you the status of a deputy governor without an approval poll (which somehow slipped through our eyes)(sorry fionn, but i really had to put this up after i saw the above post)

@disorganizer: Plexus was elected here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35180). By the people of Fanatika, as Deputy Governor of Bohemia. He advanced to Governor of Bohemia when Fionn left that office to take his new province.

@Bill - I'm not blaming the judiciary at all. I'm simply arguing my points and right now the judiciary is the host of the argument. You are correct and this all should have been explored before the poll was up. Unfortunately, it slipped under my radar as I was concentrating on the game issues and not the demogame issues.

@Everybody - I have absolutely no problem with a single city province. I voted for that border system. I do have a serious problem with this last poll that evaporated a Leader's office. By the same method, I could put up a poll that undefined Taliesin. Fionn would lose his job and all of the cities would revert to the Domestic department. Is this right? I say NO. It is a horrible loophole and we do not need to be slaved to loopholes.

In any case, I am confident the "when to implement" poll I will post later today will rectify the situation and I will live by its results regardless of what they are.

nope. the rules dont allow runner-ups to be deputies automatically :-P
so an approval poll would have been needed acording the rules.

The rules absolutely place the runner up in the deputy position for a leader election.

please quote then.

Code of Standard
G) Elections
9) Election polls
a) The candidate with the highest votes wins the elected position.
1) For governorship, departmental, and Presidential elections,
the candidate with the second highest votes wins the Deputy
position.

when did that one slip in?

That's been there forever. The governor part was included when we did the rulechanges for Deputy Governors.

Well, i was accessing it through this link:
http://www.civfanatics.net/~demogame/constitution_of_fanatika.htm

and it was definitely not in there. only the other leaders were mentioned, but not the governors. now i can not access that page any more...?
could it be that we had some inconsistent copies of the constitution floating around?

hehe. found a flaw:
article H of the COL states that deputy governors are APPOINTED!!!

H-4: Deputy Governor
1)Appointed by Provincial Governor
2)Confirmed by a poll of the citizenry. Simple majority required.

and as the COL overrules the COS :-)

but to be serios:
i just stopped when reading from the top at that point. but this is a flaw which should definitely be deleted!
did the COS-change for deputy governors also pass COL rulechange-quorum/requirements?
if no we have to repoll it :-(

Yes, the rule changes went through all of the hoops and ladders.

The only copy that has been updated since before this game started (by me, anyway) is:
http://www.civfanatics.net/~demogame/constitution_of_fanatika.htm.

This should be the link from everywhere that calls on the Constitution.

yeah. as seen in my last post the problem is that the COL is defining it different than the COS.
so the COS statement is useless as the COL overrides the COS.

i spawned that topic to a citizen discussion...
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36550

it would be nice to also have a kind of judical review on the issue.
or at least some comments on it :-)

I believe that the code of laws area deals directly with the election process of selecting leaders and the code of standards area you are referring to deals with appointments after the fact, but let me check once I get to work.

Bill
Chief Justice

Other way around, Bill. The COL handles vacant positions and the COS handles election procedures.

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall
you and i have diiferent views on what the judiciary should and shouldnt do. If i was Cheif Justice id have killed the poll to EDUCATE the masses what happens if these polls get passed.

That is not the job of the judiciary. It is the job of the people pushing a proposal and those who are against it to do the educating by posting in the discussion and poll threads.

In fact, I think it is imperative that the judiciary stay relatively neutral (unfortunately we don't have enough people participating in the non-RPG threads anymore for me to not participate at all) on these topics. They may need to rule on issues related to the topic after the fact.

Frankly how would you know that the people who are voting are uneducated on the issue? That is a pretty arrogant attitude. You are assuming that anyone who votes against your preferred outcome is uneducated....I don't think I can fully express just how sad I think that attitude is.

Bill
Chief Justice

Originally posted by Shaitan
Other way around, Bill. The COL handles vacant positions and the COS handles election procedures.

That's what I get for posting without having the three books open :lol:

I think what I meant to say was that the apppointment clause dis is referring to was in the context of a appointment....i.e. if an appointment is needed for whatever reason.

They don't necessarily conflict.

But again, I will check it from work.

we should take this into the citizen thread. If the COL would handle vacant positions, then we would not have any chat-reps, as they are only mentioned there :-P
You were completely right, COS handles absentiism and promotions, COL handles elections and offices.

I formally requested a poll on the question of Bavaria, Valhalla and Kuhkaff being combined into one province (Bohemia). I made the request in the domestic thread and it was seconded by CivGeneral and thirded by SAaM two days ago.

Must we have a discussion thread before the poll is posted in order to make the poll valid? Also, must I initiate a PI in order to get this poll posted?

donsig,

I believe that if the discussion occured in the domestic thread, than an additional discussion thread, while preferred, is not required. It is only required that discussion occurs.

Further, you could post the poll yourself as a citizen and have it binding as official as long as you follow the proceedures for official polling.

Finally, if several citizens have expressed support for the poll, then I shall ask the Domestic Leader to post the poll. You are also in your rights to bring forth a PI for this situation, but I would certainly wait a bit longer myself before I would choose that route.

Bill
Chief Justice

I have absolutely no enjoyment anymore with this game. In fact, it has gone from being fun, to a minor chore, to down right frustrating. I shouldn't have to log in here to find abuse, especially in recent incidents where moderators from other forums have piled on.

I feel that too many people are focusing the majority of their energies on the fake RPG game rather than the real DEMO game, and only showing up here long enough to cast about misguided and misinformed complaints that they expect the judiciary to fix.

I am fed up with being the bad guy for defending the rights of the majority.

It is a simple concept people, just because you think you know more than everyone else doesn't mean you do, and rather than sit and b**** about it, get out and convince people.

I am shocked by the number of people, who by their experience with the game should know better, that are constantly looking for ways to better their virtual careers, further their own power base, or loopholes to support their version of events.

In the past two terms, we have had a leader subvert a poll through secret balloting, a DP consistently use loopholes in the law to justify actions that are clearly against the spirit of the law, and several leaders actively look to block the CLEARLY expressed majorities desires.

More energy has been spent worrying about what is a silly issue of a governor losing cities in his province, than has been expended on the very issues that really are proving to be long term problems.

That's inexcusable.

Some of you may certainly feel that I have no idea what I am talking about, and that's fine. I'm just telling you now....those who don't see it yet, will soon enough.

EDIT: Removed resignation portions. I left the narrative of reasons, for I feel this information is still valid.

Bill
Chief Justice

What was the secret balloting? Anyway, I agree with you. It does appear that a lot of the vets are using their experience and status against the newer players because a vote doesn't go their way. (gee, it's a good thing I retired this term. ;))

CT, the balloting issue occured last term when a leader used votes PM'd to them after polls were closed in order to manufacture a tie, and then cast the tie breaking vote themselves.

I should add to all here that it is not my intention to cast a light on my decision as being driven by Shaitan. Nothing could be more incorrect.

Shaitan is a person I respect greatly, and all the comments in my note are not directed at him.

I am just not having any fun at this at all, and I think it is mostly because everything is being piled on the judiciary this game for resolution, vice people taking charge of issues and leaders earning consensus from the people. Such as was common before the introduction of the RPG game.

For an example of good things, I commend the efforts of FortyJ, who's work in the cartography office and with the FA discussion threads has been OUTSTANDING.

I always like the opinions of first Eklektikos and now Danke. All citizens would do well to learn from their excellent examples.

I have admired Cyc, donsig, eyrei, and Shaitan from the beginning. We have a game now because of their hard work and dedication.

Even though I have been on the disagreement side often with him, I have always encouraged disorganizer who is invaluable to this game.

I am becoming more and more impressed with the relative calm and efficiency of the Chieftess regime from the past.

There are a lot of good things that used to happen in this game that still can. I am just tired of being policeman,

Shaitan has asked me to take 24 hours to reconsider my decision. I will do so. However, I am bit shocked that there isn't already a line of people who want to do the CJ job. It seems that nearly everyone had an opinion on it :lol:

Bill

Well, I do agree with your views, Bill. I am just really sorry to see you go, it will be really tough to imagine the DG w/o you. Hopefully you will reconsider and come back to us within 24 hours.

Bill, Bill, Come back, Bill!!!
Ill change my penguin to opus if you do

Bill,

I hope you do reconsider. You have always been one of the more rational and competent players in this game. Maybe you should try another post other than in the judiciary. Those law books do get rather dry after awhile....

Bill dont leave. What fun would the game be if we didnt have a fair impartial CJ for which we could have good arguements with. I enjoy the debates, because you put me back in place most of the time :)

I'm sorry to hear that you're leaving Bill... In the short time I've been here, I've really valued your opinion, and I feel that your knowledge would've been helpful in the upcoming week or two. Out of all the denizens of this Demogame, it's your opinion I value most.
That being said, I won't ask you to do something that you simply don't enjoy. The whole concept of this game is having fun, and if you feel serving as a citizen rather than a judge would be better for you, I encourage you to do so.

Now on to the nasty business...
---
I am posting in this thread today because I would like to officially open a Private Investigation against our current president Shaitan.

I accuse him of violating the following articles, laws, and standards...

Preamble to our Constitution
"...that government itself is a construct of and servant to the people, that rules, regulations, and laws should be established to facilitate the active participation of the people and to make possible the dreams and desires of the Fanatiks."

By scheduling Turn Chats at 4 AM in the morning EST, our President is clearly not 'facilitating the active participation of the people,' and indeed, due to the lack of citizens at these chats, he is using this to impress his will over the people without their opinions being heard, or with only the opinions of a few.
This has occurred at all turn chats scheduled since his election.

COL.C.3.A
"A quorum (of a Council Vote) requires the attendance of 2/3 of the Council. "

In a recent turn chat, Shaitan declared a Spot Council Vote official when the vote count was officially 0-0. He cast the deciding vote. This is clearly against COL.C.3.A of our laws.
For further clarification, a Spot Council Vote is clearly considered an official Council Vote as the clause COL.C.3.G is clearly placed under the heading of "Council Votes."
In addition, a quorum is defined as "The number of participants required to ensure that a substantial portion of the decision makers are represented." A substantial portion of the decision makers were not represented in this decision, further establishing the fact that this was not a valid poll because it did not meet the participation requirements to be considered one. (See definition of 'valid' in our Three Books)
This incident occurred in our last Turn Chat on Wednesday, November 13. (490 B.C. TC)

COL.C.1.F
"Organizes decisions on what to do with Great Leaders"

Organize, as defined in our Three Books... "Organize – In the context of a leader’s duties, this includes suggesting a plan, discussing it and passing instructions on to the Designated Player."
This would include polling, or at *least* discussing with the citizens, what to do with the Great Leader. Shaitan did neither.
This incident occurred in our November 4th Turn Chat (825 B.C. TC)

CoS.I.1
"The President will post a fixed schedule of game times. "
CoS.I.1.C
"This schedule may be updated each Sunday for the following week’s games. "

President Shaitan has not posted a fixed weekly schedule of game times (Turn Chats.)
---
Unfortunately, there are no ethics laws in our Three Books, nor is there anything requiring us to behave in a democratic manner. There are many other, smaller events our President has committed that, although not against our laws, are definitely unethical and against the spirit of our Democratic Government. Not least among these is the scheduling of our Turn Chats at ungodly hours in which very few people can attend. With six players or fewers, any spot votes that are made will *certainly* not be representative of the wishes of Fanatika, and at best, will be unreliable.
Council votes, with *no* council members president, would be even less reliable.
Our president should not be making decisions that are meant for our Citizens or Council to make. Despite his belief that he knows more than the people, and that his actions may be for the best, that is against our very principles as a Democracy. It is not for him to say what is right, and what is wrong. That's the first step to a dictatorship. It is for this that I'm calling a private investigation, and not truly for the minor laws he couldn't include in a loophole.

I would agree to adding something about this is a democracy game maybe a defenition of democracy etc.

Also I thought when he put the turn chats at 4:00 a.m. I thought this would mean more polls, not less polls.

:sad: Bill, sorry to see ya go. Hope ya stick around to voice your opinion. You were perfect for the CJ position :goodjob: .

How does the command go...?

HOIST ANCHOR!

I understand what you're saying Bill. Don't worry about the RPG. Even that is getting to be work! If you do decide to hang around (whether you remain CJ this term or not) I do hope you will reconsider and run for a leadership role in one of the departments. I know you've always demurred on this as you've felt that leaders should be able to attend the chats. We now know we can have chats without leaders present. personally I prefer a leader who can write a decent poll over someone whose only qualification is he can be at the chat. So if you stick around don't be afraid to run for office in term 4! :goodjob:

Two comments. First of all, I was kinda hoping I would mentioned in Bill's Resignation as a person whom he respects. Oh well.. :lol:

Also, Bill, I must protest your resignation. I do take to heart to what you're saying, and completely agree. However, is resignation and leaving the answer? I absoulutely hate it when people resign in protest. This will do no one any good. If you want to make the democracy game fun again, start, well, working. There will never be any improvement if no one fights to make it better.
Please, Bill, reconsider. If we are to change things, we need someone to lead the change!

I don't think Bill's resigning in protest. I think it's because he's not enjoying the demo game. Telling Bill to *start working* is not the answer Octavian. He has been working very hard on the bench. He has been leading by example but unfortunately you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. (A little RPG/FRLA humor there.) :)

Bill-
Although you and I never eally got to know each, I want to say I always looked up to you. You are an exemplary leader and Judiciary member and I implore you not to resign. If you resign I do hope you stick around as a citizen and encourage you to run for election in term 4. I am sad to see you go.
-Naervod

One more thing: I would like to second some of Veera Anlai charges against Shaitan. His little self-override vote wasn't exactly ethecal.

It is up to the Judge Advocate to decide if the PI is warranted.

I have notified Danke and Naervod of the PI charges filed.

It was my hope that this discussion would occur outside of the PI arena, but the charges are now posted. The Judge Advocate will shortly post the PI thread.

Please refrain from further discussion of the PI issue until such time the thread begins.

Thanks!

Bill

I'll miss having you here, Bill. Why not take a little break and re-invent yourself as a governor in the future? Perhaps a change of roles might get things exciting again.

I have started a PI thread addressing the charges brought against Shaitan. I have PM'd both Shaitan and the Public Defender with the charges.

The thread can be found here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36634

Danke
Judge Advocate

I asked (maybe begged is more accurate?) Bill to reconsider his resignation and I am very happy to announce that he has withdrawn it. I now officially and cheerfully toss the resignation paperwork into the circular file. :D

Thank you, Shaitan, for asking (or even begging) Bill to stay. :)

And thank you, Bill, for agreeing to stay! :D

I appreciate the feedback from all.

I have decided to remain in office the remainder of this term. There is too much going on to leave everyone, especially my fellow members of the bench, shorthanded.

I probably will consider running for another office at the end of this term, and I think that advice is good.

Thank you Shaitan for your graciousness in handling the situation.

Bill
Chief Justice Still

Chief Justice Opinion

Public Investigation of Shaitan

The Chief Justice agrees with the Judge Advocate's opinion regarding validity of Charge #1. This charge should be dismissed.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36634

Bill
Chief Justice

Welcome back, Bill_in_PDX..

DROP ANCHOR!

Originally posted by Cyc


DROP ANCHOR!

:lol:

Ay matey!

Subs have anchors? :) I never noticed.

Anyway, glad you're back!

Actually they do CT....we just rarely used it....like once a year. Plus, they are hidden in the back. There is a little trivia for you.

Glad to have you back Bill. I for one am glad to have you back at the helm of the Judicial Branch.

I would like to redirect your attention back to my post concerning the inclusion of time limits on official polls (Post #71, pg 4 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=589596#post589596)).

I realise that this issue was lost in the shuffle with all the recent events, but I still feel concerned about this issue. It also could be a healthy and constructive issue for you to chew over - surely a pleasant change from recent events.

Good point FortyJ.

I am sorry I let that drop. I will open a discussion thread on that topic. I feel there should be a maximum time length as well.

Bill
Chief Justice

I request an official Judicial Review on whether there is a quorum requirement for Spot Votes in the chat.

As Veera has pointed out, the layout in the COL seems to indicate that Spot Votes have the same requirements as Forum based Council Votes.

As evidenced by the comments in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36551) there is no public recognition of a quorum for Spot Votes. Spot Votes were never assigned a quorum requirement. I maintain that an editing error (by me, unfortunately :( ) is the culprit. In the old Phoenatican constitution, the Spot Vote was defined separately from the Council Vote. When the 3 books were combined there was a lot of moving things around to put them in a logical, grouped format. Spot Votes were put into the Council Vote section as they were also a vote from the Council.

There was never any intent to apply the forum based requirements to the chat based Spot Vote and the current appearance of applicability is simply an editing error.

I believe that even with the current, less than clear, organization of the Books, that Spot Council Votes, which take place in chat, are not subject to the same quorum requirements of Council Votes, which take place in the Forums.

Throughout our laws we recognize the significant difference between chat and forum activity and treat them separately.

I opine that they are clearly different things, and the quorum requirement does not apply.

Danke
Judge Advocate

Chief Justice Opinion

Spot Votes

I concur with the Judge Advocate. Spot votes of any kind during a chat are not subject to quorum levels associated with the Forum polling and voting.

Other laws effecting when such chat votes are allowed and appropriate are not impacted by this opinion.

Bill
Chief Justice

Thankyou, gentlemen. 3 down, 1 to go...

Please don't forget to update the Judicial Log after Naervod posts his opinion.

I concur with the Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate, the quorum rules for a Spot Council Vote and a forum Council Vote are different

Naervod
Public Defender

I need to know if it is legal for me to declare war on the japanese with our current save game to find out what will be required for alliances. Since we are not at war with the Japanese, noone will even discuss it, even if I offer them everything we have. If this cannot be done, the next chat should be a short one, or we may find ourselves alone and surrounded by enemies.:eek:

my personal thinking here is that he is not allowed to do it. but i second the motion for a SHORT chat with just declaring war and then going to the forum.

Chief Justice Opinion

I believe that it is NOT legal to declare war to check follow on trade/alliance costs.

I do agree with your logic though. It will be easier to recruit allies once we have committed.

This is gonna make eyrei cringe, since I KNOW he hates what's coming...

But, for the sake of the demogame! During the chat, we were discussing the amount of time it might take for Izumo to finish Sun Tzu. While I was estimating shields and production based on city size, Stuck went ahead and used the embassy to cheat! There's also something about CG's remark (CivGeneral) that just seems odd... Did he move a unit?
Yes, a PI might be in order.

[17:07] <CG_ReadingDGCL> And dont tell me, THe persians are building the Sun Tzu too
[17:08] <CG_ReadingDGCL> We defenatly need to make some more GLs
[17:08] <XPenguin> yup
[17:08] <XPenguin> war, anyone?
[17:08] <gunning1> with the japs
[17:08] * XPenguin smiles devilishly
[17:08] <XPenguin> no
[17:08] <XPenguin> their army is still bigger then ours
[17:08] <XPenguin> i just reviewd the save
[17:09] <XPenguin> America, however...
[17:09] * CG_ReadingDGCL looks at the Japanese army
[17:09] <gunning1> :evilgrin:
[17:09] <gunning1> :)|
[17:09] * CG_ReadingDGCL sends a scout out to the japanese base
[17:10] <XPenguin> isnt that playing the save....
[17:10] <CG_ReadingDGCL> nope
[17:10] <CG_ReadingDGCL> jusr RPG thing
[17:10] <@Chieftess> Japan and Persia are building the Sun Tzu...
[17:10] <CG_ReadingDGCL> *just
[17:10] <CG_ReadingDGCL> And I am also reading the Chat Logs
[17:11] <@Chieftess> Sun Tzu in Izumo.
[17:11] <@Chieftess> Their border town!
[17:11] <CG_ReadingDGCL> ;evilgrin: Excelent
[17:11] <XPenguin> how many turns?
[17:12] <@Chieftess> I don't know. ;)
[17:12] <@Chieftess> But, I think they just started it
[17:12] <CG_ReadingDGCL> I dont know eather :)
[17:12] <@Chieftess> And, it's definately going to have corruption.
[17:13] <CG_ReadingDGCL> Should we let them fishish the Sun Tzu and then take that city, if they finished building it.
[17:13] <@Chieftess> cost is 600 shield
[17:13] <@Chieftess> *shields
[17:13] <@Chieftess> How much faster is the AI production on emperor?
[17:13] <@Chieftess> (i.e., 80shields instead of 100)
[17:13] <@Chieftess> or, is it 60?
[17:14] <@Chieftess> There doesn't seem to be any improvements...
[17:14] <XPenguin> edited out the spoiler info
[17:14] <XPenguin> i just checked
[17:14] <@Chieftess> How can you tell?
[17:14] <XPenguin> just checked
[17:14] <XPenguin> embasy
[17:14] <@Chieftess> ?
[17:14] <CG_ReadingDGCL> How did you checked :)
[17:14] <@Chieftess> you're not supposed to do that!
[17:14] <XPenguin> there is nothing, i believe, which states that you cannot check embasies while reviewing a save
[17:14] <@Chieftess> That's playing a turn..
[17:14] *** disorganizer (~x@=A98Okht34.tnt3.fft4.deu.da.uu.net) [joined] #civfanatics.
[17:15] <CG_ReadingDGCL> Hi Strider
[17:15] <XPenguin> not if its still flashin "press enter"

Also later in the chat..

[17:17] <disorganizer> @stuck: even before you press enter
[17:17] <chronoz> hi =)
[17:17] <XPenguin> hi
[17:18] <XPenguin> i assumed embasy checking was defined as a
plausable action during preturn
[17:18] <disorganizer> xp: im sorry to say, but this is
classical for WHY it is not allowed :-P it is definitely
cheating
[17:18] <XPenguin> also- gimme a break
[17:18] <XPenguin> its my first time using the save
[17:18] <disorganizer> checking yes. but nothing which is
ireversable ;-)
[17:18] <chronoz> i just don´t know if i am just to dumb
or...but in ptw - how can u switch off that everytime you
take ONE city of an opposing civ the whole nation is
destroyed?
[17:18] <XPenguin> no money was used
[17:18] <XPenguin> no game was saved
[17:18] <XPenguin> nothing
[17:19] <@Chieftess> chronoz - turn off elimination
[17:19] <disorganizer> xp: if you for example plant an embassy
with a nation, you cant continue play if you dont want it.
you would have to reload. that is what is not allowed in the
rules
[17:19] * CG_ReadingDGCL noticed that BCLG has made a realy
good trade deal :)
[17:20] <disorganizer> xp: for example: checking trades (not
hitting accept!) is ok. play could just be continued without
reloading. but if you hit accept to see a cascaded trade, you
are busted!
[17:21] <XPenguin> thus i shall reload
[17:21] <XPenguin> even though i never saved
[17:21] <chronoz> ok, i been to dumb...tnx =)
[17:22] <disorganizer> xp: what i am saying is: the action you
took would have been ireversible. this is what is not allowed
(see trade example)
[17:22] * CG_ReadingDGCL noticed that Shaitan, Eklektios, Cyc
were the only ones in the chat
[17:22] <XPenguin> okay..
[17:22] <XPenguin> im sorry ant it wont happen again
[17:22] <XPenguin> really/
[17:22] <disorganizer> xp: if i understood you right, you
planted an embassy. if we would play according to the rules,
we would have to plant this embassy now :-)
[17:22] <XPenguin> no
[17:23] <XPenguin> there already is an embasy in japan
[17:23] <disorganizer> ? so what did u do ?
[17:23] <XPenguin> i used it to conduct a city investigation
[17:23] <XPenguin> of the border town, to see how long it would
take them for Sun Tuz
[17:23] <disorganizer> so save. we maybe must continue with
your save then to keep the timeline going!
[17:23] <@Chieftess> Good going Stuck!
[17:23] <BlueStrider> Dis: Why did you have to take Strider's
Haven?
[17:23] * XPenguin smacks himself
[17:24] <disorganizer> you should REALLY ask for judical review
and take a good atorney!
[17:24] <XPenguin> really really hard...

Edit: Confused if he had been blamed.

And thus the Penguin PI will begin. I will admit to my crime. I did accidently conduct a city investigation of the city Izumo. This cost 25g. If need be, I have made a save where after this has been done. If need be, I will hand over this save. I just hope that this isnt too big of a deal and once this is done we can move on.
SaaM
Also- Lawyer needed.

By whom was the red comment in the CG post?!?
A moderator?

I think CG edited it. All you have to do is this

Originally posted by disorganizer
By whom was the red comment in the CG post?!?
A moderator?

Sorry about the confusion Dis. That Red comment was from me I am just used to seeing the Red in the Chat Rooms. Ill change it to Blue ;).

Edit #2: Still Confused if He had been blamed due to the RPG Misunderstanding

Edit: Noticed Chieftess's post

Or I can use the Blue Underline ;).

this isn't good...

Orriginaly posted by Chieftess
There's also something about CG's remark (CivGeneral) that just seems odd... Did he move a unit?

I would like to say something on my Defense before this thing bellys over. I did not downloaded the save and I did not touched the save. This is my Honest defense
This is a case of a Misunderstanding about a RPG Topic. I know I should have left it in the RPG room, But I have learned my lesson of keeping the Demogame separate from the RPG.

Personally, I don't want to know what happened. Please keep all pertinent information to yourselves. I would rather not use Stuck's save. No telling what else he did to it. Please, let's stay away from Stuck's save. Stuck, you have been hanging around here long enough to know not to play the saves. I don't care if you just got a Winbox, doing complex moves such as city investigations and then bragging about information gained from it in the chatroom is stepping way across the line. Think Stuck, think.

On the other hand, I don't think CG moved any units. It reads to me like he was just verbalizing his thoughts.

I would like to post the save, just to show the people that all I did was investigate the city.
inclosed in this link you will find the save. All that has been done is the removal of 25g from a city investigaton.

Link removed. There is not need to give this save out.

Okay. But if the Judiciary needs it, I am willing to give it.

I agree with Cyc. I don't think that CivGeneral actually moved any units in the save. I don't even think he downloaded the save...I think he was just talking about the RPG.

Chief Justice Notes

My understanding of this situation is that Civ General is NOT accused of playing a turn improperly, someone correct me if I am wrong. If so, let that go and keep focus on the issue.

SaaM admits to having made a move that clearly violates the Code of Laws, (Section B, Game Play Restriction).

On the one hand, SaaM should be relieved to know that in Game 1, early before we established our much maligned three books, that violation would be given a permanent ban from the demogame as punishment.

Now, there are defined punishments for violations of the CoL, but none of them are permanent bans.

This is a significant violation. I have no choice but to take action as required by law.

Chief Justice Actions

1) The use of the save file generated by Stuck as a Mac is strictly forbidden.

2) That file shall NOT be loaded to this site, nor shall the information gained from that espionage be discussed as part of plans for our nation.

Obviously, the bell is already rung as they say. All we can do at this point is minimize the impact of that action.

Finally,

3) I am referring this matter for immediate PI by the Judge Advocate. While plea bargaining is forbidden, if SaaM will admit guilt and save us all time in the thread, I will encourage the Judge Advocate and Public Defender to make sentencing recommendations short of a game ban.

Let me emphasize again the critical nature of this violation. It is imperative that we take appropriate action from this point forward.

Bill
Chief Justice

EDIT: Ok, I think you edited it just as I posted...

Good thing this isnt DG1. Bill: I have already confessed my guilt, on various occasions. Currently, there is a chatroom full of 9 people who can say i have admitied guil at least five times. I am currently Nixon, out of joke.
I am glad Game Ban is not being considered. Also- I urge for my guilt to be known and to let me serve as a "What Not To Do".
SaaM

Originally posted by Chieftess
It was Stuck as a Mac, not Strider.

Well.... I'm honored..... really.....

Also Although stuck did do something wrong I agree with Bill.... If stuck just agree's that he is guilty we can get this over quickly.

Yes, I am in the chat room and SaaM has said he is guilty many times. I am glad that he will not be banned from the demogame though.

Said about 5 minutes ago by him: I, Stuck_as_a_Mac, am of guilty of COL violations and the playing of a turn.

He will probably say it again here to make it official.

I appreciate Saam being so forthcoming. It reflects well on his character and integrity.

I am only sorry that we will need to follow through on this process, but I am guessing that SaaM understands the need for it.

Bill

I was at the Chat with Stuck, I was reading the Chat Logs of the morning of Nov 20th 2002, I also noticed that Stuck said that he is guilty.

As stated by Stuck himself [Stuck_as_a_Mac] am of guilty of COL violations and the playing of a turn. -Stuck_As_A_Mac

Though I am glad that stuck is going to say with us :).

Assume I should say it again.
Let All bear witness to the following statement.
"I, Stuck_as_a_Mac, am guilty of violation to the COL, Section B, Game Play Restriction. I am aware of the consequences of my actions. I accept all punishments for my actions and hope that this will not have to happen again, to me or anyone else."
Therefore I am placing the Seal of the City Penguin on this post (imagine it, theres no seal).
Stuck_as_a_Mac

@CG's part:
well, as long as demogame matters are discussed in the civfanatics chatroom and not in the demogame chatroom, it must be allowed to discuss rpg matters there. ct has no right of telling us to take them to another chatroom, as the cfc-room is a general room for ALL users!

btw: ct was explicitly told many times that it was rpg-stuff afterwards, but obviously refused to see it :-P
even a signle word of discussion about that topic is a kindergarten-topic.

@saam's part:
i request a judical review of the situation: should we use his save? of course he will at least get a slap, but the question is whether we risk a discontinuity of time and space by ignoring his info or just using his save.

There is no discontinuity of time by ignoring SAAM's save. He was not a DP and therefore his save is not valid in any case.

but he maintained information and posted it which nobody knew, and this information will stick in our heads like a virus and will spead like such.
therefore for the sake of the spirit of the game, i think we should continue with his save (if nothing else was changed of course) or redo what he did with the official save and make that information official.

I disagree. That would set a precedent where anybody could do game actions and we would have to use them. You want to declare war on England? Just do it and talk about it, then we'll have to do it in the official game. Bad idea.

Dis, there may be plenty of viruses stuck in your head and spreading. Just push them aside and make room for this one. With Stuck's apparent disregard for the rules, there's no telling what else he might have done to his save. His disclosure of information may be seen as speculation and nothing more, as his save was done on a personal venture, as Shaitan implied. Even though the information is accurate according to gameplay, it can be discarded as immaterial. It does not affect the save used by the DP's.

What is at issue here is not how his actions affected the save, as you see it, but what he did with the information he acquired from his actions (posting in the chat room). That is where you should be looking, Dis.

I personally dont want to use my save. and cyc: for the last time. all that was done was the spending of 25g on a city check through the Japanese embasy. I would give you the save, but that would violate the resolution. And dis- go ahead with your review. I just want it to be known that I made one mistake and am willing to pay the price.
Shaitan: can we find anything anywhere to make it so we dont have to use the save?

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
Shaitan: can we find anything anywhere to make it so we dont have to use the save?
We will not be using the save. Unless somebody passes a law in the next 2 days, the save used will be the one posted by the last DP for the next DP in the chat instruction thread.

Originally posted by Shaitan

We will not be using the save. Unless somebody passes a law in the next 2 days, the save used will be the one posted by the last DP for the next DP in the chat instruction thread.

You know, I think that could be exploited... some one could go ahead and play 100 turns, and we'd have to have the save...

Originally posted by eyrei
I need to know if it is legal for me to declare war on the japanese with our current save game to find out what will be required for alliances. Since we are not at war with the Japanese, noone will even discuss it, even if I offer them everything we have. If this cannot be done, the next chat should be a short one, or we may find ourselves alone and surrounded by enemies.:eek:

I concur with the chief justice. Declaring war in a save to determine alliance possibilities is not allowed under the constitution.

@ CT - ??? We'd have to have the save? Can you put that in english?

The official PI thread can be found at:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37212

And a reminder that the first two posts are reserved for Stuck and the Public Defender. Both parties have been notified of the PI

Danke
Judge Advocate

The poll to switch to Monarchy in the upcoming chat is overwhelmingly in favor. LINK (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37117). All Leaders and citizens should make plans with the knowledge that we will be entering anarchy en route to Monarchy during the next chat.

Chief Justice Note

The CJ's office will vote any attempts to use the illegal save generated by SaaM as unconstitutional. There are too many reasons to count for that opinion, but suffice to say that we need to stay on focus with the save game we have.

One counter solution that is easier than all of these steps would be to vote to spend 25g and espi the city ourselves in the next chat.

Request for Review

I would like all judiciary members to weigh in on this issue:

A citizen has pleaded guilty to the charges brought forth in a Public Investigation. Should the need for a discussion period and/or guilty/innocent poll be waived, and instead proceed immediately to a sentencing poll?

My view is that the discussion period should go forth as required, but that no 72 hour trial poll is required.

Bill
Chief Justice

I agree with Bill, that the discussion period should go on, but the trial poll is not needed.

Naervod
Public Defender

As the trial poll is strictly to determine guilt/innocence and the defendant pleaded guilty there is absolutely no need for that poll.

I disagree and believe that this should follow the course as outlined in our laws. There is no leeway anywhere in the laws allowing us to skip the trial poll, and our only options are to continue with it or dismiss the case as having "No Merit."
As it is, let's use the laws we have written rather than use the laws as we think they should be. If we want to change the laws, do it officially, and not on a whim.
...the trial poll is not needed.
The trial may not be necessary, but it *is* required by our laws. We can't ignore that simply because it is convenient.

Originally posted by Shaitan
As the trial poll is strictly to determine guilt/innocence and the defendant pleaded guilty there is absolutely no need for that poll.
And while we're at it, let me say that the Trial poll is to determine the Public's opinion of the defendant's innocence or guilt. It's a subtle difference, but one that must be noted ;)

Veera (as usual ;) ) makes a good point. I don't believe the poll is required for due process but it is required by literal interpretation our laws.

Much like in real life, the public's opinion on guilt or innocence has no bearing on a case once the accused pleads guilty. No trial is held.

Since the result of the poll is to determine guilt or innocence, there would be no need for that poll given the admission.

However, I will wait for the Judge Advocate's view on the matter.

ok then lets go on to the sentencing phase. Stuck pleaded guilty so i dont think we need a trial poll. We dont have to follow the letter of the law to the t. He said hes guilty now get the rope so we can hang him ;) just kidding

Just to keep things moving, I have posted the trial poll.

Judical Review Please:
We had a small discussion at #civfanatics about the following:
Imho, Plexus is still a governor, as he has a provincial thread and posts instructions. As such a governor, he is considered as incumbant leader by our laws.
His province and thus his job will be obsolete at the last day of the term.
Now the dispute was about whether plexus is allowed to run for 2 elections or not.
IMHO and in my understanding of the law, he is a leader at the beginning of the nominations until the elections finish. As such he is an incumbant leader during election and according to our laws only able to run for 1 position.
Am i right?

The restriction is that current leaders may run for only one office. He's a Leader until the elections are over, same as all of the other current Leaders.

Chief Justice Opinion

Plexus is a current leader and is therefore only allowed to run for one office.

Bill
Chief Justice

Public Defender Opinion
I agree with Bill, he is a current leader and can only run for one position.

Also, I have accepted two nominations (Chief Justice and Trade Leader) but am not sure which one to run for since I am only allowed to run for one. When do I have to decide which I am running for?

Public Defender Opinion
I think I should have to decide when the debates begin.

@naervod - You should only accept one.

I'm confused. I thought Plexus' office was abolished because of disorganizer's capital district poll. I realize that there was a poll on whether or not Plexus should be allowed to continue his term, (which I just saw) but am not sure that would legally override the abolishment of the office.

Bill, thoughts?

My thinking was that, Plexus was *not* a sitting governer and therefore is entitled to run for two offices.

if it was so, we should PI him for posting instructions when not being a governor. and for inapproprieate usage of an official title :-)

The poll you are thinking of was modified by a subsequent poll that postponed the effects of the first one until the end of the term. Until the end of this term, Plexus is a governor and Bohemia is a province.

Thank you Shaitan, I had a feeling I missed a piece in there.

OK, I'll decline one.

Chief Justice Note

The trial of Stuck_as_a_Mac has resulted in a conviction.

Sentencing Poll is now posted at http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37662

I would like a ruling regarding my rights as a citizen while on my *ehem* "vacation". I am inquiring regarding my voting rights for the election. If I vote, but do not post, would that violate the regulations of my "vacation". I feel that it is in Fanatika's interest to have the quorum reflect the active population, and that being that I am part of this population, I feel I should be alowed to vote.
In short terms: Can I or Cant I vote?

i think ban means you can read but not do much of anything else

Public Defender Opinion

I think you should not be able to vote. To me, ban means what Fionn said, you can read but do nothing much of else. Think of it as being a US citizen in jail on Election Day in the real world. Would they let you out to vote? Probably not. I am sorry to have to say this to such a loyal and active member, but it is the law.

However, I believe an alternate solution can be found by impsoing the suspension after election day.

I believe that the Sentencing Poll won't close until 6:39 PM on the 29th, and the election polls open on the 29th. So unless someone is really late on opening the polls, or really early on executing the sentencing, you should have a chance to vote Peng. Just don't procrastinate. ;)

Good job for noticing that Veera. Maybe the polls will open late tonight, because the nominations opened late on the 23rd when they were supposed to be open on the 24th. Maybe that is because I live on the West Coast. However, the debates were not posted until the afternoon of the 26th, so if the debates are late, maybe the elections will be. Hopefully they aren't late. :)

true. I also just noticed that. 72 hours from original posting of poll puts me into tomorrow at 7:16 pm. by then, all of the elections should (hopefully) be posted and my vote will count.
Also: naervod, good analogy with the cons and election day, but cons dont get voting rights back when they return. nor can they read chat logs...

Chief Justice Opinion

I agree with the Public Defender. A suspension means that you cannot post or vote.

However, until such time sentence is imposed, should it be that, you are more than encouraged to get your votes in.

question:
if the sentencing poll sais suspend, how will we know for how long?
shouldnt a second poll follow with the length?

The sentence length is imposed by the moderators. As eyrei is out of town it falls to me. I would like to hear the recommendations of sentence length from the three Judiciary members. Please PM these to me.

Originally posted by Shaitan
The sentence length is imposed by the moderators. As eyrei is out of town it falls to me. I would like to hear the recommendations of sentence length from the three Judiciary members. Please PM these to me.

I actually do have internet access, just not enough time to fulfill my duties as FA leader until I return Saturday. ;)

Anyway, I think a short suspension is most appropriate, with a warning to all citizens that the next person to violate this law will be punished more severely

Just to make a note that Stuck at times has tried to sway the punishment vote. Not that I have anything against Stuck, but as the Chatroom Op. :)


[19:47] <XPenguin> oh, spy!
[19:47] <@Chieftess> wow, not much spammail
today. :)
[19:47] <XPenguin> youre yet to vote!!!
[19:47] <XPenguin> you havent voted in the trial
procedings!!!
[19:47] <@Chieftess> Penguin, don't coerce the
spy. :)
[19:48] <Grand_Moff_CivGeneral> lol
[19:48] <XPenguin> just vote, thats all Im asking
[19:48] <Veera> If he can't coerce him, can I?
^_^
[19:48] <spyc> gah!
[19:48] <spyc> I'm not a him!
[19:48] <Veera> Oh?
[19:48] <Eklektikos> hehe
[19:49] <XPenguin> her
[19:49] <XPenguin> one of the few Fanatikan
Females
[19:49] <Veera> But everyone kept telling me
that CT and I were the only gals here!
[19:49] <@Chieftess> Well, there's 3 of us. :)
[19:49] * Veera glares at everyone that told her
that ¬_¬
[19:49] <Eklektikos> you're obviously very
flexible Veera
[19:49] <XPenguin> and Becka, on ocasions
[19:49] <Eklektikos> and Finvola, too
[19:50] <XPenguin> yea
[19:50] <XPenguin> so thats 5
[19:50] <XPenguin> a very small part of the
population to get angry over the word "geshia"
[19:50] <@Chieftess> I used to think Ohwell was
a girl because of the anime avatar. :)
[19:51] <Eklektikos> not even CT would get angry
at the word "geshia" :-p
[19:51] <@Chieftess> :p
[19:51] <Veera> I thought Padma and Eyrei were
both girls... Very feminine names
[19:51] <XPenguin> i mispelt it, didnt i...
[19:51] <Eklektikos> Eyrei's just his userID at
work
[19:52] <spyc> I was just reading the trial
thread after I read stucs PI thread...
[19:52] <XPenguin> ok
[19:52] <Veera> And you misspelt 'misspelt' ;-)
[19:52] <spyc> I'm gonna vote nothing you know
why?
[19:52] <XPenguin> lol
[19:52] <XPenguin> no!
[19:52] <spyc> I_HATE_RED_TAPE
[19:52] <spyc> :evil:
[19:52] <XPenguin> dont.... i need that warning
vote
[19:52] <XPenguin> please
[19:52] *** Octavian_X has quit IRC (Ping
Timeout)
[19:52] <spyc> Only for you :roll:
[19:52] <XPenguin> if i get this vote, it will
be tied
[19:52] <@Chieftess> Stuck, don't force a vote
[19:52] * Grand_Moff_CivGeneral watches as Stuck
start beging to Spy
[19:53] <XPenguin> another one swings it in my
balance
[19:53] <XPenguin> im not...
[19:53] <Eklektikos> stuck, quit harrassing the
voters
[19:53] <Grand_Moff_CivGeneral> Stuck: j/k ;)
[19:53] <spyc> Chill out
[19:53] <spyc> ppl
[19:53] <Eklektikos> I'm chilled
[19:53] <Eklektikos> I'm ice cold
[19:53] <spyc> If this was real life this would
be the most inefficeant govt that ever
exsisted! I dreamt that spy's avatar was walking around
and waved at me! :scared:
[19:57] <XPenguin> i wonder if that no
punishment vote can count as a warning vote.?
[19:57] <XPenguin> lol
[19:57] <Falcon02> lol
[19:57] <XPenguin> i have various dreams
regarding avitars
[19:57] <Grand_Moff_CivGeneral> News Aleart:
Shaitan has to leave due to emergency baby
duty ;)
[19:57] <Falcon02> spend less time in the
forums....
[19:57] <spyc> LoL Ct :p
[19:57] <XPenguin> i once drempt that my linux
penguin was beating up the flag of asphinxia
[19:58] <Grand_Moff_CivGeneral> Strange dream
Stuck
[19:58] * Grand_Moff_CivGeneral tries to
interprate Stuck's dream

ct: Please dont tell me what I think youre implying... there is nothing against campaigning. I just campaigned, thats all.

I have posted a quick poll regarding rushing settlers to counter AI insurgency in the NW (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37883). Please vote ASAP if you wish to have your say on this issue! :goodjob:

I have an issue that needs your immediate attention. It should not result in a PI, but merely a judiciary ruling.

Our current president, Shaitan, has set the date for our next turnchat at December 1st. As he is President of Term 3, I don't believe he is within his rights to set the schedule for Term 4. Please discuss as the turnchat in question is only two days away.

Actually, it 1000 PM EST(Nov 30); 300AM GMT(Dec 1) so I guess that would be allowed? Not trying to cause trouble, just looking for clarification.

Public Defender Opinion
I think that the current datefor this particular turn-chat should stand, although he should not have done this since all official times are timed to GMT. He could have any time up to 11:59:59sPM GMT. Another way to solve this is to have Eklektikos schedule the t/c after polls are officially closed, but before the t/c starts, which would be somewhere between 12 and 3 AM GMT.
Naervod
Public Defender

As we appear to running on Greenwhich Mean Time, the scheduled start of the turn chat would be 3 hours after the beginning of Term 4. Therefore, this chat should either be cancelled, or held by the incoming President (I'm trying to be optimistic).

Hopefully it can be held by the incoming President, although that is 3 AM his time(providing he wins). I think we should let the T/C time stand for just this once because the time it was scheduled for would be in Term 3 in Shaitan's time zone.

The schedule will stand as nobody (myself or the T4 President) is allowed to change it. As it is in T4 GMT it should be run by the T4 President. This was a scheduling snafu on my part as my overloaded grey matter wasn't wrapping around the time/date difference.

Shaitan can schedule the chat at that time, however the new President is free to set the schedule as they wish, and may well wish to announce in advance that they will not be using that time.

This Sunday the new Pres will be able to set the schedule for the following week. He will not be able to alter the already scheduled chat for this week.
I. Game Schedule
1. The President will post a fixed schedule of game times.
a. Example: 23:00 GMT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
b. This schedule may be updated each Sunday for the following week’s games.
c. If not updated, the existing schedule carries over week to week.

I could easily interpret that section as saying that the incoming President has the authority to set those times in the first place.

Just as you were able to impose the times you wished during your term, you are specifically not able to impost times on the next term.

Of course he does. For the next week. There is nothing that allows any president to change a schedule that has been set. The Pres can only change future schedules and can only do that on a Sunday. If it was otherwise, I would have corrected the time myself and we wouldn't have a problem.

This schedule may be updated each Sunday for the following week’s games.

Sorry Shai, but that little 'may' allows him to set the schedule at whenever time he wants, according to the wonderful world of semantics ;) Otherwise, it would be 'must.'

My opinion as Chief Justice elect would be that the December 1st Turn Chat is not legal, as it impinges on the right of our Term 4 President to set the schedule for Turn Chats and to be the DP of Turn Chats. However, if the Term 4 President wishes to adopt that schedule and follow it, that's entirely up to him.

Edit: Changed Term 5 to Term 4. Thanks for pointing that out Stuck :crazyeye:

Veera: Were entering Term 4. Other then that, I agree with every thing you said

I want to wish Veera good luck as she takes over the role of Chief Justice.

I am confident that the Judiciary will be in good hands.

Bill
Almost a Governor of a Soon to be Named Province

Originally posted by Shaitan
Of course he does. For the next week. There is nothing that allows any president to change a schedule that has been set. The Pres can only change future schedules and can only do that on a Sunday. If it was otherwise, I would have corrected the time myself and we wouldn't have a problem.

Conversely, there is nothing that allows the current President to impose his or her will on the incoming President, as you did inadvertantly by scheduling the chat into Ek or Octavians term.

That is an illegal order, and not valid in my opinion.

* Cyc steps in *

The way I see it, people who want to attend the t/c have already set the scheduled time as THE time. Therefore it would be unwise and maybe inconsiderate to change the t/c schedule at this time. I really don't care who's legally correct here, that's the way I see it.
I think the t/c was scheduled at this time to make it convienent for the VP to play. That same person MAY be VP again. So if this occurs, I don't see a major problem. If the President elect wants to make a formal announcement about how he is going to bump up the t/c time to an earlier time, that may be workable, again I don't see a major problem. If someone here wants to cancel the t/c, then i can see a major problem.

People, we are talking about a time line here. It's an imaginary line on a map to determine the time of day in a certain location. Earlier in the week we were arguing over the name of a city, now we're arguing over the time of day. Let's stop and take a deep breath, FIND OUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT-ELECT HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT, and play the game.