Office of the Judiciary - Term 4

This is the official thread for the Term 4 Judiciary Department. You can use this thread to post requests for Judicial Reviews, requests for Public Investigations, or to simply have questions answered about the rules, how they work, and what the Judiciary's positions are on the legality of various issues.
Note that if you wish to post a Public Investigation, please use the proper procedure as described in Section H of our Code of Standards.


The following is a list of referenced posts and links:
Term 3 Official Judiciary Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35395)
Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26749)
Constitution of Fanatika (The Three Books) (http://www.civfanatics.net/~demogame/constitution_of_fanatika.htm)


Our current judiciary members are as follows:
Chief Justice - Veera Anlai
Public Defender - Shaitan
Judge Advocate - Naervod


In accordance with Article I of our Constitution, the current census is as follows:
Term 4 Active Census - 32
Term 4 Quorum Level - 16
Term 4 Full Census - 38

The active census (32) and quorum (16) 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 (38) is only used for constitutional amendments. To pass a constitutional amendment, half of the full census (19) must approve the measure, along with a 2/3 approval in the Senate.

The duties and responsibilities of the Judiciary are outlined in Section E of our Code of Laws.

And most important of all, our Judiciary exists to help our citizens avoid and resolve conflicts. If you ever have any legal questions, please feel free to ask, and don't hesitate to discuss any issues with us.

Veera Anlai
Chief Justice
(Do these robes make me look fat?)

Congratulations, Veera. I hope you like the bench.

By the way, if there are any doughnuts lying around the office, there probably mine...

Congratulations Veera!

Congrats Veera :D

It seems that we already have our first Public Investigation of the new term. And I was somewhat hoping for a quiet first day to move into my new office :rolleyes:
This message was submitted to me by Disorganizer in a PM, but he did not request this case to be done anonymously.


I, Sir disorganizer of TSort, herewith request a official investigation of the issue which will maybe soon be know as the shortest TTP (time-to-PI) for any president we ever had."

What happened
Eklektikos changed the chat-time on saturday, 22:00 GMT to be at sunday 00:15.

Not only that he violated the chat-schedule paragraph of our rules, which explicitly stated the chat-times to be posted on sundays(!) for the FOLLOWING week (meaning earliest scheduled time for chat=monday!), he also posted this at a time when the elections were still going (22:05GMT).
This lead to some people not being able to participate at the beginning of the chat, because not all of us lurk around the forum hours before the actual chat.

Violated Paragraphs
COS
I.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.

Evidence
Can be found at the chatlog and every term3-governmental thread

I will notify Shaitan, our Public Defender, of the charges, and will notify the future Judge Advocate as soon as he is appointed by our President. A new Judge Advocate should be appointed soon, and he will create the PI thread as well as notify the defendant of the charges against him.
Please refrain from discussion on the PI until the thread is started.

Have fun Veera! :)

just one addition i forgot: the chat was originally scheduled at sunday-03:00GMT... i dont know whether it matters though... but just to be complete.

so the chat was announced/changed only 2h before it actually took place.

:rolleyes: jeese. this game isn't fun anymore. Pi here, PI there. next thing ya know, everyone in the demogame will have a PI or two. this is more like a totalitarianism.

it looks like Eklektikos will apoint the person to prosecute him.

Due to the absence of a Judge Advocate that will most likely continue overnight, I'll use my right in CoL.E.3.A to take over the duties of the Judge Advocate until one is appointed.
The PI thread has been posted and is located here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38000)

Naervod has been confirmed as the Term 4 Judge Advocate by this council vote (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38073).

Welcome aboard, naervod.

I'd like to point one thing out before you get started. There is a common misconception that the JA is a prosecutor in all PI's. That is incorrect. The JA is responsible for the mechanics of the PI but only functions as a prosecutor when the accusor wishes to remain anonymous.

I request that the Judiciary vote for immediate dismissal of the PI against our President.

By legal definition, the President was following the instructions of the Judiciary when he took the turn chat action. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to violate the law as long as he stayed within the umbrella of that legal review.

I think that the Judiciary should act immediately on this, as discussion is not appropriate given that no laws were violated.

who sais that no laws were violated? you? you also authorized eklektikos to do what he did... as if i remember right... and i posted evidence that it was a very strange interpretation of the laws... and show me the paragraph of the law stating that a judical review is binding... if the review is wrong, and laws are broken because of the law, then the law-breaker has no chance to be not-guilty. he maybe not-punished because of the review, but nevertheless he would be guilty of violating the law.

Dis, I think Bill means binding in a protective way. Actions taken under the authority of a Judicial review or ruling have the High Courts backing or clout or juice, whatever you want to call it. The review or ruling can be appealed or questioned later to find out if it was in deed copesetic (sp?) in dealing with the Law. But I believe any actions taken under this "umbrella" as Bill puts it, can only be reversed, not used as a means to condemn a man.

exactly Cyc.

Well, the judical review even wasnt posted at the log... so how could anyone except eklektikos and the judicacy haveknown it?
Is a review official if its only hidden in the judical thread?
Do us citizens have to subscribe to all those government threads now to prevent such misinterpretations in the future?

*sigh*

The review was in the judicial thread. I posted the instructions and results widely.

You only had need to check the turn chat instruction thread for that chat, or the judiciary thread, or the Presidents thread to find it. Those seemed to me to be the best places to put the data for a short term decision.

I am not sure what the challenge was in finding it, but I am certainly sorry that you encountered such hardship.

The Judicial Log is a permanent repository for the Judicial Clarifications. Those are official once they are decided in the Judicial thread. The log is simply so they don't get lost or forgotten.

Further, a review decision of that nature may not need to be logged, as our decision applied to the specific instance of the prior prez scheduling a turn chat (inadvertantly) into the rightful place of the next Prez.

I know Shaitan disagrees with my view on that, but I felt the scheduled chat was not binding. Not because we didn't have laws that covered this, but because the laws regarding our terms of office and rights and responsibilities should, and did, override the farcical turn chat ceromony standards.

The Private Investigation of Eklektikos (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38000) has been dismissed as having no merit.

Request to the Judiciary

CoS C.3 states: Provinces will be named by the first elected governor of the province.

I propose an amendment of this article to state:

Provinces will be named by the first elected governor of the province. Should this right be waived by the first elected governor, the second elected governor will have a chance to name the province by posting a poll. This can only be done in the first week of the second governor's term of office. The governor will post a poll with the suggested name change in an APPROVED / DISAPPROVED / ABSTAIN format and a 2 day or longer time frame. Popular support will allow or deny the proposed name change.


Please let me know if this is workable.

@Donovan - The proposed change does not conflict with any other part of the rules and would be valid. To make this change you would need a sponsor on the Council to bring it up for a Council Vote.

I concur with Shaitan; this proposal is perfectly alright.

CoL.C.3.C explains how the council amends the Code of Standards, if you need information on how the procedure is done.

I concur (I love that word) with Shaitan and Veera. I think this is a fine proposal and also a good one. It is good to see people proposing changes to make the game even better.

Naervod

I may be in the minority on this issue, but I disagree with such an ammendment.

First, why limit the naming right to the first and second governors? This proposal makes it okay for the second governor to name the province, but not the third? What about the fourth? Why stop at just the first two terms?

Second, how do we define and/or determine if the right was waived by the first governor? In this specific example, it is entirely possible that the governor opted to leave the name as Southwest Province. If I recall, that name was actually proposed during the discussion, albeit quite likely in jest, and could conceivably qualify as a valid name choice.

While I sympathize with Donovan Zoi, what he is actually requesting is the right to re-name this province. Simply because the previous governor accepted the generic, directional "Southwest" name should not invalidate that name. If we are going to grant the right to rename provinces, we should grant this right to all governors regardless of the situation.

However, such re-naming should not be easily accomplished as continuously renaming provinces could lead to massive confusion from one term to the next. I would suggest granting the right to rename a province to all governors pending approval from a 2/3 vote of the citizens, a unanimous council vote, or some similar restriction.

I agree with FortyJ's evaluation. Donovan's rule change suggestion is perfectly legal but the implementation suggested by FortyJ is superior.

FortyJ makes a lot of sense. It would be a superior method. :)

If you wish to discuss the idea, please make a discussion on the Citizens Forum. We're discussing the legality of it here, not the merits ;)

I agree with FortyJ as well, even though he did uncover the sinister reasoning behind my proposal. :goodjob: After looking at it, my proposal does seem to be framed with my sole interests at heart and that is no way to enact a law. My apologies to all those I have taken time from in my attempts to push this through. I will try to look at the bigger picture the next time I bring an idea to the judiciary.

What does donsig say about this?

I miss Veera!

I don't believe Veera has gone anywhere, Cyc. It's just been very slow in the department since the PI.

That will curse you now. Any time I said it was slow, that's when all hell broke loose...

Aye, I'm here, and I make sure to check at least once a day. We all should be grateful that I'm not needed here much :cool:

Next to VP, Chief Justice is the easiest if all the other justicies are there...

I would like to propose the addition of a new law (or code) that would require all official polls to include a minimum and a maximum duration as well as the number of votes required to reach quorum.

As it stands now, an official poll never expires and there is no indication of which term determines the quorum requirements for a poll.

Thus, a poll established in Term A (in which 20 votes is quorum) may not reach quorum in that term, but since it never expires under our current rules, it could carry on into Term B or C (in which only 17 votes is quorum) and thereby become binding.

This could cause a poll to become binding, not because somebody voted, but because not enough people voted in the most recent elections. As you can see, this could lead to an obsolete poll becoming legal and binding, simply because there was no expiration date and because the quorum levels were not established when the poll was originally posted.

Thank you, 40J. I proposed a similiar measure last May and it was firmly denounced. Good luck.

Judge Advocate Opinion
I think that is a fine poll and I would definitely vote yess on it.

Chief Justice Opinion
This proposed Code of Standards amendment does not conflict with any existing article in our Three Books.
If there is any discussion about this law that does *not* relate to its legality, please take it into a discussion thread on our Citizens forum.

If you wish to pass a law that adds a maximum duration limit, it would be a change to the Code of Standards, and should be labeled CoS.F.3.B.6 OR
CoS.F.2.B.1 (If you use this one, then the current F.2.B.1 would be renumbered as F.2.B.2)

For a law that would determine which term's quorum applies to a poll, I would suggest it be placed at CoS.F.1.A

Both laws are Code of Standards amendments, and as such, require only approval and sponsorship of the Council.

I find this proposal to be lawful in intent but will need to see the actual proposed changes en minutiae before approving its legality.

I formally request a PI of our FA Minister, eyrei. I accuse him of using quick polls to form alliances, which is against F.4.C.3.b.i of the Code of Standards, which reads:

F. Forum Poll Procedures
4. Quick polls - When topic discussion is unwarranted or poll procedures cannot be maintained due to time constraints, a quick poll may be used.
C. Results may be used to make temporary changes or specific, one time decisions. They may not be used to make permanent article or law changes.
3. The action item should be instantaneous or reversible/correctable.
b. Examples of items that would not meet the criteria are:
1. Deals with a duration (resources or gold/turn involved)

I offer the following in evidence:

FA Poll: Alliances and ROPs vs. the Persians Part 1 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39190) http://
This poll clearly states, in the second line of the first post, that it is a quick poll. The poll was posted to gain approval for (among other things) a deal with China including an ROP and alliance against Persia. Payment for the ROP and alliance included 17gpt.

FA Poll: Alliances and ROPs vs. the Persians Part 2 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39196)
This poll is also identified as a quick poll in the second line of the first post. It was posted to approve an alliance with England against Persia wherein two of the possible options for payment were WM +1gpt or incense.

Should we use this proposal as a solution to the diplomatic issues raised by war? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37559)
This poll is identified as a quick poll in the second line of the first post. This poll was posted, in part, to secure approval for 3 alliances against Japan. While no gpt payments were involved, the poll does cover deals with a duration, i.e. alliances.

I request that the Judiciary Department conduct an investigation of this matter in accordance with Section H of the CoS.

If we are to prosecute eyrei for this, we must open many more investigations for those who used quick polls to place cities.

Actually, there is no restriction in the laws against quick-polling for city locations. Ideally, we should debate and/or discuss this issue at great length, but if necessary, it is permissable to decide these issues in a quick poll in order to get the results in time for the next turn chat.

But this is not the issue here. What's at issue is whether or not Eyrei violated the Code of Standards by issuing Quick Polls for decisions not eligible for such. Clearly he is. Donsig has posted links to three such polls.

However, I believe this is another instance of the Letter of the Law vs. the Intent of the Law. I seriously doubt that Eyrei was trying to accomplish anything underhanded in his polling practices. If anything, these are examples of Eyrei attempting to get citizen feedback on important issues under a strict time constraint.

Furthermore, as the most severe penalty permissable for such an infraction is a warning, I suggest we issue said warning (ie. Don't use Quick Polls for long-term deals) and be done with this. Our current situation is delicate and with the holidays looming, we don't need to have an additional distraction over such a minor offense.

Originally posted by FortyJ
Actually, there is no restriction in the laws against quick-polling for city locations. Ideally, we should debate and/or discuss this issue at great length, but if necessary, it is permissable to decide these issues in a quick poll in order to get the results in time for the next turn chat.

But this is not the issue here. What's at issue is whether or not Eyrei violated the Code of Standards by issuing Quick Polls for decisions not eligible for such. Clearly he is. Donsig has posted links to three such polls.

However, I believe this is another instance of the Letter of the Law vs. the Intent of the Law. I seriously doubt that Eyrei was trying to accomplish anything underhanded in his polling practices. If anything, these are examples of Eyrei attempting to get citizen feedback on important issues under a strict time constraint.

Furthermore, as the most severe penalty permissable for such an infraction is a warning, I suggest we issue said warning (ie. Don't use Quick Polls for long-term deals) and be done with this. Our current situation is delicate and with the holidays looming, we don't need to have an additional distraction over such a minor offense.

I am quite willing to agree to this resolution so that we might spend our time on more important things.

Well, I's have to say Strider's signature sums it all up: The Screwed up Demogame const. Forgive me if I don't actually make a link to that document. So, eyrei is PIed, gets a warning and says ok. Yet there's nothing to prevent him from posting more quick polls for all we could do is PI him and warn him! What a crock!
Well, I have to agree with you eyrie, we should spend our time on more important things. Sad part is none of these important things have anything to do with the demo game. :(

@40J: No, eyrei wasn't underhanded. He just pushed through something he wanted and he did show contempt for the spirit of the law as well as its letter.

Well, I guess the next step is a PI that doesn't involve breaking the CoS.

You're right on the mark with your assessment of the situation Donsig. The current rules do not provide for harsher punishment for individuals that continue to commit offenses against the rules despite warnings. This should be changed.

What about Final Warnings?

Legally, there is no device to skip the trial and such phase after the PI has begun, but if Eyrei accepts an official reprimand on behalf of the judiciary and Donsig wishes to drop the PI before we actually start, then we can end this now and stop the hassles and stress of an investigation.
This offer will be valid as long as my fellow Judiciary agree with the proposal.

Cyc, final warnings are not offered in Code of Standard violation PI's. CoL.H.8.E
Obviously, this should be rectified.

Originally posted by Veera Anlai
Legally, there is no device to skip the trial and such phase after the PI has begun, but if Eyrei accepts an official reprimand on behalf of the judiciary and Donsig wishes to drop the PI before we actually start, then we can end this now and stop the hassles and stress of an investigation.
This offer will be valid as long as my fellow Judiciary agree with the proposal.

Cyc, final warnings are not offered in Code of Standard violation PI's. CoL.H.8.E
Obviously, this should be rectified.

I'm not sure what you mean by an official reprimand but I see no point in pursuing a PI that can only end in a warning. Therefore I do agree to drop this PI. I do hope eyrei will refrain from using quick polls in the manner he has been using them. I do reserve the right, which is due any citizen, to ask for a new PI or PIs if it is determined that these quick polls violated the CoL or our constitution.

I totally disagree with the idea that quick polls are not well defined as to what they can be used for. Just the opposite is the case:

Results may be used to make temporary changes or specific, one time decisions. They may not be used to make permanent article or law changes.

The specific action item must be noted.

The action item must be applicable to the upcoming turn chat.

The action item should be instantaneous or reversible/correctable.

Note the final point. The action must be reversable or correctable. I don't think that city placement meets that criteria.

But, is there anything about who it's done by? In this case, FA didn't write the China poll as being the only option... (if that made any sense).

Bill_in_PDX
You are both right and wrong. The final point is the key: "The action should be instantaneous or reversable/correctable."

The wording is clear, and I believe it to be intentional. By stating that the action should be a certain way is quite different than saying it must be.

Of course, I would prefer to not settle city placements via a quick poll as well, but unfortunately, time constraints often interfere and I don't believe that people want to have turn chats cancelled or stopped early just because a settler poll needs another 24 hours to be considered official.

Well, I think in the bigger picture the issue is not waiting for a extra 24 hrs for a poll, it is instead the ability to use a smaller number of votes to drive public opinion.

The argument is academic. If a poll fails to reach quorum or has not been completed then the decision rests on the Leader, who is free to use his discretion. Instead of taking this route, eyrei at least tried to get a binding poll.

Bingo.

Agreed Shai. His intentions may have been good, but you know what they say about those... The way to down-below is paved with good intentions. It was just an honest mistake, he won't make it again, so let's drop the issue.

I have a discussion which I believe should be immediately reviewed by the Judiciary so as to hopefully sew up a massive loophole in our constitution.

Definitions: Organize
In the context of a leader’s duties, this includes suggesting a plan, discussing it and passing instructions on to the Designated Player.

According to the semantics of this law as written, the concept of organizing does *not* include polling the citizens. It is entirely possible for a Department Leader to finish his entire term, making massive changes in his area of the DG, and never make a single poll. As an example, see CoL.C.1.H.1
(Foreign Affairs Department) Organizes decisions on declarations of war.
According to this wording, it is perfectly legal for the Foreign Affairs Department leader to declare war on another nation with no polling from the citizenry whatsoever. This action may be political suicide, but is still feasible. On smaller scales, this would allow the President to use Great Leaders without polling the populace, or the Domestic Department to build cities or wonders without citizen approval.

It is my opinion that the phrase "discussing it" in the definition of organizing implies that the decision *must* be polled.
This is a Judicial Review case, and as such, requires the assent of two of our three Judicial Members before it can be entered into the Judicial Log.
be a temporary change OR be a specific, one time change.

Judge Advocate Opinion

I agree that this needs to be changed. We have already had one PI because one of our past presidents didn't post a poll on it. I believe it should be mandatory to have organize include polling, or else 4/5 of the people could theorectically have no say and just sit by and watch while 1/5 of the people run the game. Then, the game would be no fun and we would not have that much membership or everyone would just participate in the RPG.

I was also wondering if this would be a good amendment to the Code of Standards, as I have also found a loophole. Theoretically (ilove that word), someone could resign their post at the last time possible in order to be eligible to run for two elections. I think we should stop something like this from happening so we don't have a huge argument in our hands. Here is my proposed amendment:

COS.G.6.B.3:
If a citizen is elected or appointed to any Leader position in or after any election cycle, then he/she may only run for one position in the following election.

I have already made posts in the citizens subforum about both of these topics. Veera, I think because of your inexperience in the Demogame, you are unaware of what you're really going here. But, rave on.

I strongly disagree, Veera. It is most definitely not always necessary to poll on a subject. Take your example of organizing the decision on a war. If the FA Leader posts a discussion thread and the feedback is prodigious and overwhelmingly for or against the war then a poll is not necessary. Requiring polls would force this leader to post a rubber stamp poll simply to satisfy a rule.

As polls may be posted by ordinary citizenry as well as the Leaders there is no real need to collar them into this particular action for all circumstances. Especially when it does not apply to all circumstances.

Originally posted by naervod
I was also wondering if this would be a good amendment to the Code of Standards, as I have also found a loophole. Theoretically (ilove that word), someone could resign their post at the last time possible in order to be eligible to run for two elections. I think we should stop something like this from happening so we don't have a huge argument in our hands. Here is my proposed amendment:

COS.G.6.B.3:
If a citizen is elected or appointed to any Leader position in or after any election cycle, then he/she may only run for one position in the following election.
I don't think this is necessary. If somebody cheats this obviously they will not be elected for any office.

Originally posted by Shaitan

I don't think this is necessary. If somebody cheats this obviously they will not be elected for any office.

Hmmm, one man's loophole is another man's key to success. Is there much difference between resigning at the last minute to run in two races and getting appointed to a position at the last minute to run for president?

Originally posted by Shaitan
I strongly disagree, Veera. It is most definitely not always necessary to poll on a subject.

I agree with this but I also think there isn't near enough discussion and polling going on in Fanatika, especially regarding medium and long range planning. I do not think a rule change is the answer though. It is tough enough to find the proper balance between polling for citizen support and giving our leaders the flexibility to run the government. I think the answer lies more in the leaders we choose.

I tend to agree that it isn't necessary to poll on all subjects, but the wording of our law makes it unnecessary to poll on *any* subjects.
Leaders do need a certain degree of latitude to make decisions, but it seems to me that many recent troubles have been caused lately by department heads pushing their bounds and causing a few citizens to cry foul. After a good night's sleep, I think the problem is not with the definition of 'organize,' but with the fact that 'organize' is applied to nearly all issues, big and small.
You're right Shaitan and Eyrei; forcing all clauses with the word Organize in them to necessitate polling would be a mistake. I was a bit rash in my thinking last night. Instead, what would be better would be to change many of the important laws (Especially declarations of war and foreign treaties) so that they *must* be polled, while keeping the smaller issues under the generic 'organize' statement. However, that proposed change is beyond the scope of the Judicial Department to handle.

I started this Review, but I'll have to disagree with my proposed interpretation of the law.

Originally posted by donsig


Hmmm, one man's loophole is another man's key to success. Is there much difference between resigning at the last minute to run in two races and getting appointed to a position at the last minute to run for president?
Yup, it's different. As a single person can only hold one office there is no reason except speculation for a person to resign in order to run for two offices.

Also, I worked my buns off as Deputy Governor, something I think people recognized. :p

I will have to agree with Shaitan there is a difference, although both things are loopholes that need to be fixed. You have seen my first proposal, and my second proposal to fix up the other loophole is as follows:

COS.G.6.B.4
If a citizen is appointed to a position that would make him or her eligible for the Presidency during the middle of an election cycle, he or she may not run for President in that election cycle.

Feel free to post any comments/revisions you think are necessary.

I would rule that as an illegal standard as it directly contradicts another standard.

As biased as these last two posts may seem, the issue is not a loophole. First off, I think donsig's post was more humor than anything else. Second, I was required to appoint a Deputy Governor. Who received the nod for that position was automatically eligible to run for the Presidency. That's the rules. There was nothing done illegally. You all know Shaitan to be a shrewd lawyer. He just worked the system to the best of his particular advantage, and actually enabled the majority of the citizens of Fanatika to get what they wanted, Shaitan as President.

Shaitan is correct about the first Naervod amendment, but it is a loophole. Surely the citizens would not elect some one who resigned late in a term to run for two positions, but it is still leagally possible. So:

"If you are elected to a position in any election cycle, you are in eligible to run for more than one position in the following election cycle."

That should cover it.

Good thinkinking Cyc, although I still feel that last minute appointments to be able to run for President aren't right and should be corrected.

ILLEGAL ELECTIONS

I call for a Public Investigation of Shaitan.

The opening of election polls early is a violation of Code of Standards, Section G, Point 10.

Election Schedule
Nominations begin on the 24th (22nd in February)
Debates begin on the 26th (24th in February)
Polls open on the 29th (27th in February)

Your request has been noted Bill, and I have sent a private message to Naervod, the Judge Advocate, asking him to begin the Investigation.

Until the investigation thread has been posted in the Citizens' forum, please refrain from discussion of the matter in this thread.

I plead overindulgence of eggnog, desire to support the demogame and memory lapse due to general holiday exhaustion. I admit my error and accept a warning, which is the highest punishment permitted under the law.

I will drop my request for PI given Shaitan's comments.

Term 5 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40523)