Welcome to the Judicial Thread.

Demogame Rules (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51315)
Term 2 Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=54846)

The authority and role of this branch of government is enshrined in Article C.3 of the Constitution.

3. The Judicial Branch will be formed of three Leaders and is tasked with verifying legality of legislation, interpreting rules, and determining when violations occur. Each also has a specific area of additional responsibility.

a. The Chief Justice is the overall head of the Judiciary and can fill in for either lower position. The Chief Justice is responsible for maintaining the legal books of the country and the mechanics of Judicial Procedure.

b. The Judge Advocate functions in a role of prosecution and attorney to the state when allegations of rule breaking have been made.

c. The Public Defendant functions in the role of defence for any and all accused citizens

This Term the Fanatican Judiciary consists of:
Chief Justice: Peri
Judge Advocate: Civanator
Public Defender: Vander

I am pleased to welcome Civanator, our new Judge Advocate and Vander, our new Public Defender to the Judiciary. I look forward to serving with you.

All citizens are welcome to discuss any aspect of the Constitution or raise any query they have regarding the working of the Judiciary

Discussion on proposed Code of Laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=57544)
Discussion on proposed PI procedure (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=58012)
Discussion on proposed new Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=57978)

I am glad to have a fourth term on the PD bench with a highly competent CJ like Peri. I hope this is as good, if not better, than last term, which was my favorite in the Judiciary so far. Congratulations on your victory, Peri! :)

Congratulations to the both of you and welcome back.

Will the Honorable Chief Justice Peri still be making shop calls to the Gorina branch of Peri and Hutz? :D We've moved your things to the appropriate office in the Judicial Building. Everythings ready to go. :goodjob:

Cyc
Mayor of Gorina

I would like to File for a PI for Donsig. First le, He did not follow the instructions that were given to him by the FA and the Military Department. Zarn nor the Citizens of Fanatica have Authorized anything nor did General Falcon02 Drew up the plans.

Here is the Evidence that I am putting forward

[21:46] <@donsig> We declared war
[21:46] <+DX_Zoi> what turn are we on?
[21:46] <@donsig> turn 3
[21:46] <+Noldodan> ?
[21:46] <+DX_Zoi> and why did we declare war?
[21:46] <+Bootstoots> if i weren't PD, id file a PI
[21:46] <@Mara_Jade> DZ!!!
[21:46] <+Noldodan> when did we declare war?
[21:46] <+cyc> hey DZ
[21:46] <+Bootstoots> did you have the citizen's support?
[21:46] <+DX_Zoi> and is the chat still going on?
[21:46] <+RikMeleet> few seconds ago
[21:46] <+DX_Zoi> hello Cyc
[21:46] <+cyc> the hippie is sad...
[21:46] <@Mara_Jade> Whoh
[21:47] <@Mara_Jade> Text over flow
[21:47] <+Bootstoots> why was war declared?
[21:47] <+Bootstoots> and what authority did you have to do so, donsig?
[21:47] <+DX_Zoi> I can deal with a war, as llong as it doesnt mirror our last fiasco
[21:47] <+Zarn> I can change you mind , anarchy. Want me to try?
[21:47] <+Fionn696> lag city
[21:47] <+DX_Zoi> what, CG?
[21:47] <@donsig> Chalco, is no more. Causualties: two veteran legions
[21:47] <@Mara_Jade> Hola DZ :)
[21:47] <+Peri> hurrraahhh
[21:47] <+anarchy> grrr
[21:47] <@Mara_Jade> Is there anyone in the Judicary branch?
[21:47] <+Fionn696> settle that area as fast as possible!
[21:47] <+DX_Zoi> is "the line" in place yet?
[21:47] <+Noldodan> BAH!
[21:47] <+anarchy> Why did we go to war? You had no backing :p
[21:47] <+Curufinwe> niec to see you DZ
[21:47] <+Bootstoots> yes, i am
[21:47] <+DX_Zoi> Boots is
[21:48] <+DX_Zoi> and Peri
[21:48] <+Peri> and me too
[21:48] * @Mara_Jade takes Boots into her office
[21:48] <+cyc> not yet DZ
[21:48] <+DX_Zoi> hi Curu, nice to see you as well
[21:48] <@Mara_Jade> Its nice to see you DZ :)
[21:48] <+Fionn696> no JA yet
[21:48] <+DX_Zoi> we should get that in place and end this war once we have it secured
[21:48] <+Bootstoots> Peri, PCMW
[21:49] <@donsig> Fionn, can I upgrade the three warriors now?
[21:49] <+DX_Zoi> why is everyone so glad to see me?
[21:49] <+Fionn696> yup
[21:49] <@donsig> thanks
[21:49] <+cyc> dunno
[21:49] <+Curufinwe> you're just an overall nice guy DZ
[21:49] <+DX_Zoi> thanks
[21:49] <+Curufinwe> any coments to me, direct through CG
[21:49] <+Curufinwe> Ii'm busy now
[21:50] <+cyc> they must want something DZ
[21:50] <@donsig> ok, is Zarn here?
[21:50] <@Mara_Jade> yes he is
[21:50] <+Peri> May I ask how did we get into this new war?
[21:50] <+DX_Zoi> I don't know what............ o_O
[21:50] <+cyc> j/k
[21:50] <+Fionn696> they irked the domestic deputy ;)
[21:50] <+DX_Zoi> we declared it, I gather
[21:50] <+Peri> was there a citizen vote?
[21:50] <+DX_Zoi> Hey Peri, Pm sent
[21:51] * +RikMeleet is going to sleep
[21:51] <+cyc> yes, donsig went out on a limb and declared
[21:51] <+Peri> the text moved too fast for me to read it all
[21:51] <+DX_Zoi> was there a citizen vote?
[21:51] <+cyc> g'night RM
[21:51] <+Peri> thanks dz
[21:51] <+Bootstoots> was there FA approval?
[21:51] <+DX_Zoi> sweet dreams, Rik :D
[21:51] <+anarchy> Donsig went dictator
[21:51] <+RikMeleet> C U all later
[21:51] <+DX_Zoi> thank you
[21:51] *** RikMeleet has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
[21:52] <+Bootstoots> (zarn) did donsig have your approval?

- Minutes later due to Disconnect -

21:53] <+Bootstoots> is someone going to file a PI against donsig?
[21:53] <@donsig> Babylon and China are building the great wall
[21:53] <+cyc> not me.
[21:53] <+Zarn> k back
[21:53] <+Zarn> what happened
[21:53] <+Noldodan> i don't plan on doing so
[21:53] <@Mara_Jade> Zarn - War has been declared
[21:53] <+DX_Zoi> we are at war with the Aztecs
[21:53] <+Zarn> k
[21:53] <+cyc> not for this anyways
[21:53] <@donsig> we've got an escorted Greek settler 3 tiles NW of Memphis
[21:54] <+cyc> he may piss me off later...
[21:54] <+DX_Zoi> did you ok this, Zarn?
[21:54] <+cyc> j/k donsig
[21:54] <+BlueStrider> Cyc: NRK is banned from CFC and is not a Demogame Citizen... he should have no say in the demogame at all
[21:54] <+Zarn> I am personally fine with it, but I don't know about other citizens.
[21:54] <+cyc> he is not bothering me
[21:54] <+DX_Zoi> Note to President donsig: Take goood care of Gorina..... ;D
[21:54] <@Mara_Jade> There should have been a discussion about this
[21:54] <+BlueStrider> If he joins with one of those DL's he has... I'll be fine with it
[21:55] <+anarchy> anarchy IS a DG citizen and may not be banned for long :p
[21:55] <+Bootstoots> at the very least
[21:55] <+Peri> would anyone have voted against war?
[21:55] <+Curufinwe> China's building te Great Wall, what an absurd thought, only in CivIII
[21:55] <+Bootstoots> i would have
[21:55] <@Mara_Jade> Nrk- may I see the papers
[21:55] <@donsig> Captured the other Aztec settler - it is now two slaves for us
[21:55] <+anarchy> i left them in my other jacket :mischief:
[21:55] <+Bootstoots> as would cyc, curu, nold, and others
[21:55] <+cyc> at least 3 of us were against it maybe 4
[21:55] <+DX_Zoi> I would not have, but if it goes any further than retaking our land, I will take issue
[21:55] <+Noldodan> i would have voted against, but it's okay with me that donsig did it
[21:56] <@Mara_Jade> o_O
[21:56] <+Noldodan> i don't really mind
[21:56] <+Bootstoots> unilaterally?
[21:56] <@Mara_Jade> We should have voted about this War
[21:56] <@Mara_Jade> We should have discussions about it first
[21:56] <+Bootstoots> against an article of the constitution?
[21:56] <+cyc> let's just move on
[21:56] <+Noldodan> meh
[21:56] <+DX_Zoi> I don't like the fact that there was no citizen poll, if that was the case
[21:56] <@Mara_Jade> same here DZ
[21:56] <+Bootstoots> not even a discussion
[21:56] <+DX_Zoi> we are dealing with a more lenient ruleset, though
[21:56] <+anarchy> Impeachent
[21:56] <+Noldodan> we had a discussion
[21:56] <+Zarn> I wanted a vote after this chat to see if a war should be done. There was a discussion about the Aztecs settlements and possible war in the citizen's forum
[21:56] * @Mara_Jade plops a Peach on Nrk
[21:57] <+anarchy> :p
[21:57] <+Noldodan> it just wasn't... formalized
[21:57] <+Peri> dz new pm
[21:57] <+DX_Zoi> what was the discussion?
[21:57] <+cyc> you in deep creek now donsig :D
[21:57] <@Mara_Jade> 6Laugh 6Out 6Loud
[21:57] <@donsig> been there before
[21:57] <+Noldodan> ummm... the war is already started
[21:57] <+DX_Zoi> "Hey, guys.....I declared war on the Aztecs. Discuss."
[21:57] <@Mara_Jade> Battle Plans were not drawn up
[21:57] <+Noldodan> good way to start the term!
[21:57] <+Fionn696> wouldnt be a donsig presidential term without at least one PI ;)
[21:57] * @Mara_Jade shakes her head
[21:57] <@donsig> War is not in FA's jurisdiction
[21:57] <+Noldodan> uh oh...
[21:57] <+Zarn> :LOL:
[21:57] <@Mara_Jade> I thought war is on the grounds of the FA
[21:57] <+Noldodan> PI! RUNNNNN!
[21:58] <@Mara_Jade> Boots, Peri - I have an assignment for you
[21:58] <+Curufinwe> would war be military and foreign?
[21:58] <+DX_Zoi> It certainly is......dealing with other nations is the primary focus of FA
[21:58] <+Curufinwe> and domestic perhaps....
[21:58] <+Curufinwe> trade
[21:58] <+Curufinwe> definitely trade
[21:58] <+Zarn> I don't think the military authorized it, either. Did it?
[21:58] <+DX_Zoi> Solely FA
[21:59] <+cyc> FA was absent
[21:59] <@Mara_Jade> Zarn - The Military... ...let me check
[21:59] <@donsig> war is only mentioned in the constitution in article H.1.a
[21:59] <+DX_Zoi> Well, this will at least spice up the forums.....I should have thought of this
[21:59] <+cyc> hehehe
[21:59] <+Zarn> I was absent when CYC?
[21:59] <+Fionn696> lol@dz
[21:59] <+Peri> if war is the will of the people then there is no foul
[21:59] <+cyc> i thought? were you here?
[21:59] <+Noldodan> hmmm...
[22:00] <+Noldodan> but, if there is no PI, there is no foul
[22:00] *** Ehecatl_Atzin (Ehecatl@3d344119.14012855.1fbd6a28.1e706c24X) 4[joined] #demogame.
[22:00] *** Mara_Jade 4[voices]
[22:00] <@Mara_Jade> EA!!!!


-{added Marker}-

One is his refusal to listen to the orders of the Foreign Affairs department during the chat. Despite the fact that Zarn expressly forbode the signing of a treaty with Greece, donsig signed it anyway. Here is a segment of the chat log. Important phrases are in bold :



[23:36] <@donsig> I offered WM, currency, 154g and 40gpt and Alex won't bite
[23:36] <@donsig> that's all we can muster
[23:36] <+cyc> let's go to Monarchy then
[23:36] <@donsig> unless we sell currency to others cheap
[23:36] <+cyc> no way. we still won't have enough
[23:37] <+Fionn696> manarchy is good enough for now
[23:37] <+Noldodan> donsig: the greeks are notoriously hard bargainers
[23:37] <@donsig> Alex will fight Abe for 3gpt
[23:37] <+cyc> we'll get screwed
[23:37] <+Noldodan> lol
[23:37] <+cyc> that sounds good
[23:37] <+cyc> an ally for 3gpt
[23:37] <+Noldodan> well, seeing as you're doing everything ELSE without hitting the forums, why not this? Full steam ahead!
[23:37] <@donsig> Zarn, would you care to rubber stamp this treaty?
[23:38] <+Bootstoots> how many turns are we playing?
[23:38] <+Zarn> donsig I won't sign. I want to discuss it in the forums.
[23:39] <+Fionn696> fine by me
[23:39] <+Fionn696> cheap cannon fodder hehe
[23:39] <+Fionn696> assuming we had cannons
[23:39] <+Fionn696> but since we dont spear and sword fodder
[23:39] <@donsig> silence from FA
[23:39] <+cyc> it's a good deal Zarn
[23:39] <@donsig> treaty will be signed


Also, I would like to present this, which occured when donsig continued the chat despite a clear majority of the citizenry there being opposed:


[23:00] <+Noldodan> CITIZEN VOTE: Stop the chat? Vote yes, no or abstain.
[23:00] <@Mara_Jade> Curu - Donsig is ignoring the Will of the People
[23:00] <@Octavian_X> Why am I needed?
[23:00] <+Curufinwe> Yes
[23:00] <+Noldodan> Vote=YES
[23:00] <+Bootstoots> yes
[23:00] <+BlueStrider> yes
[23:00] <@Mara_Jade> Vote = Yes, Right now
[23:00] <+Zarn> yes
[23:00] <+cyc> trade cleo some dyes
[23:00] <+Curufinwe> 4/17 so far
[23:00] <+Fionn696> only the DP can call for a citizens vote if im not mistaken
[23:00] <+Bootstoots> 4/15
[23:00] <@Mara_Jade> dang
[23:00] <@Octavian_X> What's she offer?
[23:00] <+Curufinwe> 6/17
[23:01] <+BlueStrider> 4/14
[23:01] <+BlueStrider> 6/14
[23:01] <+Bootstoots> 4/15 two bots
[23:01] <+cyc> dunno yet
[23:01] <+Noldodan> well, joeb, iris mafioso and ehecatl are out
[23:01] <+Curufinwe> Fionn, but elected officials ahve to act out of the will of the people
[23:01] <+BlueStrider> Two ehecatls to
[23:01] <+Bootstoots> 6/14 my bad
[23:01] <+Noldodan> and padma's not here
[23:01] <@Mara_Jade> Padma is here
[23:01] <@Mara_Jade> Look to your Right
[23:01] <+Noldodan> so 6/13
[23:01] <@Octavian_X> Please! Stop this at once!
[23:01] <+Fionn696> but a citizen cannot call for a vote, only the president/DP
[23:01] <+Bootstoots> there is no rule on that
[23:01] <@Octavian_X> Stick to the TC
[23:01] <+Curufinwe> can a leader of a department?
[23:01] <+Noldodan> he hasn;t spoken for 2.5 hours!
[23:01] <+Bootstoots> stop it at once
* Retrieving #Demogame info...
[23:02] <+Noldodan> 7/13...
[23:02] <+Noldodan> Peri?
[23:02] <+Bootstoots> it passes
[23:02] <+Curufinwe> that is majority, though I'd prefer it larger
[23:02] <+Ehecatl> vote -- YES
[23:02] <+BlueStrider> Fionn: That may be true, but it shows in the log and proves that a clear majority of the citizenry wanted the chat stopped
[23:02] <+Fionn696> if ive read the constitution correct, not even a department leader can call for a vote, just the DP/president
[23:02] <+Curufinwe> who's the person here who can interpret the rules?
[23:02] <+Bootstoots> Peri - let him do it
[23:02] <@donsig> ok, we are going to build two canal cities
[23:02] <+Noldodan> 8/13
[23:02] <@donsig> names?
[23:02] <@Octavian_X> the game goes as long as donsig wants.
[23:03] <+Noldodan> peri: you voting?
[23:03] <@Octavian_X> Canal city one and two...
[23:03] <+Peri> what is going on now i was poposting in the forum?
[23:03] <+cyc> name my Palatine
[23:03] <+Peri> please fill me in
[23:03] *** Ehecatl_Atzin has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 360 seconds)
[23:03] <+Fionn696> nice city name cyc
[23:03] <+Noldodan> Peri: should we stop the chat?
[23:03] <+cyc> ty
[23:03] <+Noldodan> that is the issue at hand
[23:03] <@donsig> cyc - do you want the north or south canal city?
[23:03] <+cyc> North
[23:03] <+Peri> well i think that under the circumstances it would be advisable but only the dp can do that
[23:03] <@donsig> ok
[23:04] <+Fionn696> the discussion for ending that chat has to stop, only donsig can stop it and he isnt going to
[23:04] <+Noldodan> is that a yes?
[23:04] <+Peri> if has citizen vote has been called then i vote yes to stop it
[23:04] <+Noldodan> okay
[23:04] <@donsig> Palatine has been founded
[23:04] <+Fionn696> alert me if we need anything domestic discussed
[23:05] <+Noldodan> 9/13 for stopping the chat


Here is the part of the Consitution that was violated
1. The Executive Branch is headed by the President, the overall
Leader of the land, and shall include a Council of Leaders, each of
whom heads a department that is responsible for one major facet of
the country. Each of these Leaders will be generally responsible for
the items found under the respective Advisor in the Civilization III
game and esoteric aspects that fall under their department name.

a. The President shall be the designated player of the game.
The President is responsible for following the legal
instructions of all Leaders during play of the game.


G. Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people.


I would like to point out that Zarn, our FA, was present at the whole Fiasco.

A Public Investigation (PI) has been requested into the events articulated in the previous post.

In the interests of justice and fair play, I, acting as Chief Justice, shall delay formal proceedings until the new Judge Advocate has been elected and sworn in.
When we have a new Judge Advocate I shall post procedural instructions.

I will stand down as PD, take a leave of absence for the PD post only, and transfer power to Peri. I am too opinionated to continue this objectively.

I think that if it is necessary to voice an opinion on this matter it should be done in a citizen discussion thread in the citizen forum rather than here. Thankyou. :)

*Civanator shakes his head

Donsig, donsig, donsig..... What have you done?

Peri, it can't be done in the appropriate forum until the discussion phase begins, which is stalled by the lack of the JA. Therefore, we must post here.

I would think the CJ at this point would stop all discussion on the matter until such time when a JA can open proceedings.

No discussion whatsoever on this matter is best. However there is to be no formal discussion of this matter in this thread at the moment. Informal comments can't be prevented and it is best they are kept separate from the official thread.

I will not be able to carry out my function as PD due to my bias in this PI. I will transfer power to the CJ and he may opt to let Donsig choose his own council for the trial. If the people wish for me to resign as PD due to my inability to perform my functions, I will do so.

Actually, there should just be PI's filed on all elected officials who voluntarily bail out of their jobs for immature, irresponsible reasons. What makes you think what you're doing is any better than what you're accusing donsig of doing? We are all just going from the frying pan to the fire. This is senseless.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I will not be able to carry out my function as PD due to my bias in this PI. I will transfer power to the CJ and he may opt to let Donsig choose his own council for the trial. If the people wish for me to resign as PD due to my inability to perform my functions, I will do so.
If you don't consider yourself able to perform your duties as PD regardless of your personal views on the issue at hand, why on earth did you run for the position?

As it appears that our Cultural Leader and Governor will be returning to their jobs, I will tone down my statement above. I'm glad to see this silliness end. We have work to do.

Cyc, I believe I told you that I'd have that position on this to start off, and then change to whatever the citizenry chose? I hardly see that following the laws and not allowing my opinions to override my resonsibility is immature. Please cease insulting me, I'm acting properly and maturely.

Just so you know, curu, I wasn't singling anyone, especially you, out of the monstrosity. My comment basically reflected the entire mutiny and all its fingers that go every which way. It is these fingers that will entangle the Demogame and strangle it.

Originally posted by Cyc
As it appears that our Cultural Leader and Governor will be returning to their jobs, I will tone down my statement above. I'm glad to see this silliness end. We have work to do.

and

Originally posted by Cyc
Actually, there should just be PI's filed on all elected officials who voluntarily bail out of their jobs for immature, irresponsible reasons. What makes you think what you're doing is any better than what you're accusing donsig of doing? We are all just going from the frying pan to the fire. This is senseless.

I'd like to point out that you first of all called me immature and irresponsible, despite my following the constitution and changing my views becuase of what the citizens want, again according to the constitution. And calling what I did senseless as well, as I'm an actor in the championing of reform. Then you said that what I had done was "silliness." I'd like to request that you rethink what you said. And yes we do have work to do cyc, we must repair the demogame, vote for a JA, repair a constitution, and see if the TC's must halt or go on. Not to mention other duties. I seek to do all of those. I thank you Cyc, for you trying to restore order, but I believe that you may need to rethink how you're doing it. I apologize if I said anything offensive in that, as that was not my goal. I seek to repair things, not entangle and strangle the demogame.

Hey. Please can we not turn this into a discussion thread on this particular issue.
This whole matter needs to be dealt with in the proper manner.
I must respectfully insist that all discussion on this issue cease. I have asked the mods to close the opinion thread in the citizen forum because I believe that everyone has had a chance to vent and if left open will be contrary to good justice. I appreciate that many of you have a strong opinion on this but I believe that continued recrimination will only further damage this demogame.
I hope you all will support me in this.

On another issue. I must formally register my extreme dissapointment that our PD felt that he had to put his own personal concerns above the the requirements of his office. This is a sad day for Fanatica when a citizen can't be offered the best public defence. If the PD can only defend on the basis of his own interest then perhaps he needs to consider his position very carefully.

He refused to defend on the grounds that if he were to it would be unfair to donsig. Donsig has a right to the best possible defense, which boots can not provide, as he would be biased. It is for the good of Donsig that boots does that, not himself.

Disclaimer: I'm sorry if that offended anyone, it was not meant to in any way.

Originally posted by Eklektikos

If you don't consider yourself able to perform your duties as PD regardless of your personal views on the issue at hand, why on earth did you run for the position?
I ran because I didn't expect the president to declare himself dictator and try to run despite the will of the people and several contitutional articles. If his violation of the articles was at all questionable I would throw out my personal views and concentrate on my duties.

NOTE: I will stop posting discussion at this time. If the people want me to step down I will.

boots, checking your PMs might be a very prudent idea right now...

I also have to express my concern and have it noted as a matter of public record that people have already pronounced Donsig guilty before there has been the official investigation process. In all cases, everyone is regarded innocent until proven guilty. May I also remind everyone again that formal proceedings are delayed until the election of a JA and that further discussion on this matter, accusations and condemnations are respectfully forbidden.

I also wish to give fair warning that if people keep ignoring my requests to abstain from discussion then there may be no alternative but to cancel proceedings because if the JA decided that there had been a violation of the Constitutuion, Donsig would have no chance of a fair hearing .

Ok, Peri, I will stop discussing this now. You may abstain from discussion. Donsig is innocent until proven guilty.

@Noldodan, I already have.

Originally posted by Peri
I also have to express my concern and have it noted as a matter of public record that people have already pronounced Donsig guilty before there has been the official investigation process. In all cases, everyone is regarded innocent until proven guilty. May I also remind everyone again that formal proceedings are delayed until the election of a JA and that further discussion on this matter, accusations and condemnations are respectfully forbidden.

I also wish to give fair warning that if people keep ignoring my requests to abstain from discussion then there may be no alternative but to cancel proceedings because if the JA decided that there had been a violation of the Constitutuion, Donsig would have no chance of a fair hearing .

Peri, just a simple note.

We have the right of free speech. Only a moderator can say that we can not talk about this. And Eyrei has already said that we can discuss this as long as it doesn't become a Donsig bashing thing. Simply enough, but by threatening our right of free speech we have the right PI you. (Don't count on it though)

PLEASE do urgently open the PI-thread... just let donsig defend himself or appoint an inerims PD if needed...

i would like to see donsigs defense.... i have seen no word of him yet on this matter.... so i refrain from posting any comments... also i would like the judges to give the mods authority to delete any commenting posts or discussions on that matter which dont take place in the pi thread!

also, the chat office needs official instructions of the judges whether to remove donsig from the op-list of #demogame or not (though i doubt that would be legal before the pi has finished)

Hey Dis - Deleting posts made on a Judicial matter would be a DG sin. The Mods have already posted that they were against deleting posts of any nature, because it would not be in the best interests of the forums.

Also, as long as donsig is President, isn't he entitled to the "Op"ing?

@Strider - Please don't threaten PI to Peri, I don't want this to compound things. Thanks.

cyc: show me the rule where that is stated *rofl* there are no rules on how the chat goes...
anyways, i set the CJ (peri) with the appropriate rights to ban donsig from #demogame if he really is trying to "run away" with the save... i also requested that peri should ask our mods to attend the TC to ensure he does not go rampant with the save until we can pi him properly.

I have received notification that Bootstoots has resigned from his position as Public Defender. This was not an easy decision to make. He resigned on a matter of principle. This decision shows honor and courage and we should respect his integrity.

He has served the country well and should he seek re election in the future to any office then I would be glad to give him my full support. :)

Thank you.

Originally posted by Strider


Peri, just a simple note.

We have the right of free speech. Only a moderator can say that we can not talk about this. And Eyrei has already said that we can discuss this as long as it doesn't become a Donsig bashing thing. Simply enough, but by threatening our right of free speech we have the right PI you. (Don't count on it though)

Actually, if the judiciary rules that discussion on the matter should stop until the official PI thread is opened, I will enforce it.

@peri: and i would nominate him for citizen honours for that if we still had them

@peri+eyrei: will both of you please attend the next tc? just to be save nobody tries to run away with the save :-) [see yourself as policeforce then]

Thank you Peri and Dis for your understanding of my resignation.
@Peri - I assume we will use last game's rules on PI's, given that we have none of our own and this is no time to write new ones.

Unless there is objection I was going to use the procedure used already in this Demogame which dealt with matters up to the initial finding by the JA. Then I am going to be obliged to use the procedure outlined in the DG2 rules and standards to continue and conclude the matter.

If anyone has any comments on this I would be happy to answer questions in #debates or via PM.

The following is the procedure we will be using for this PI.
It is open to discussion and comments are appreciated via pm only please or in a dedicated discussion thread. :) However the final decision on procedure is mine by virtue of my office.
BTW as you can see i dont know how to use format codes. If someone can help me tidy this up, it would be great.

Just to remind people. although I have no Constitutional right to do this we need a procedure to carry out this Investigation. I cite SPQF and Donovan Zoi as precedence. The CJ without opposition laid out a procedure for the PI. No one complained. If you wish to further delay the matter by holding a vote on this then I will be happy to do so.

This has been updated to reflect recent consultations.

Public Investigation Procedure

No current member of the Judiciary is allowed to initiate, draft, or sponsor a Public Investigation under any circumstances.
The accused may only be Investigated once for a particular incident.
The verdict of the Judiciary in all proceedings is final.


1). If a citizen believes that someone has violated an article of the Constitution or a law in the
Code of Laws, they can report this suspected violation for investigation and trial in one of the
following ways only:
i). The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
ii). The allegation can be made privately to the Judge Advocate.
iii). The allegation can be made anonymously through a Moderator who shall pass the
allegation to the Judge Advocate.
2). Allegations of misconduct must include:
i). Name of the accused.
ii). Rule(s) believed to be violated (not necessary to state specific article, law, or standard violated)
iii). When/where the alleged infraction is believed to have taken place.
3). The Judge Advocate then confers with the accuser via pm to determine if there is any plausible evidence that a specific article of our constitution has been violated by the accused.
i). The Chief Justice will then make a post at his discretion giving guidance and explanation on the matter
The procedure cannot formally start until this post has been made.
ii). If the JA finds that there is plausible evidence of a constitutional violation then the investigation will proceed. In this event he files the charges with the Chief Justice via pm. He also posts a copy of these charges in the Judicial Thread specifying in detail the name of the accused, which laws he believes were violated, how they were violated and when/where this alleged infraction is believed to have taken place.
iii). If the JA finds no plausible evidence then these charges will have to be dismissed. In this event, he notifies the Chief Justice and Public Defender via pm and posts his findings and reasons in the Judicial Thread. This must be a full and complete account of his decision giving clear evidence that there was no violation.
iv). From this point the Public Defender should confer with the accused via pm regarding the accusations. It is important for all to remember that the accused is presumed innocent.
v). This entire process must be completed within 36 hours of the original accusation. If this procedure
is not handled within the 36 hour period, it must be noted in the Judicial Thread, with specific
reasons for delay.
4). The Chief Justice opens an investigation thread detailing all necessary information relevant to this trial alone and giving any neccessary guidance.
5). The next post is used by the Judge Advocate to present the evidence and arguments against the accused.
6). The next two posts are reserved for the Public Defender and the accused to post their defence
i). If the accused pleads guilty then move to Step 8 (i). If the accused pleads not guilty then move
to Step 7.
7). Each citizen posts his opinion on the charge in this thread only. This must stay focussed, calm, reasoned and on topic dealing only with matters of law not anecdotes and speculation. The Chief Justice reserves the right to moderate this discussion.
Any flaming trolling or spamming will not be tolerated and this will be enforced by the moderators
8). When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed the Chief Justice will examine the need for a trial poll based on the majority opinion.
i). If the defendant pled "guilty" to the charges, the Chief Justice will proceed to posting a sentencing poll.
ii). If the majority opinion of the Investigation is in favour of the accused then the Chief Justice,
at his discretion, may dismiss the charges and no trial poll will be initiated.
iii). If the majority of opinion is against the accused then a trial poll will be initiated.
This will remain up for 48 hours. (This will include the choices: not guilty, guilty, abstain.)
9). In the event the trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary shall decided if the defendant is innocent or guilty.
If the triumvirate of the Judiciary cannot come to an agreement, the Chief Justice alone will decide the outcome.
10). If the accused is found guilty as a result of the trial poll then Chief Justice will set up a sentencing poll. The sentencing poll will remain up for 48 hours. The Chief Justice will choose the sentencing options.

Peri, that looks very good. In the absence of clear direction, and with the intention to effect the PI ASAP, this must be accepted without a citizen vote. This is an amalgam of donsig's procedure with DZ last term and DG 2 laws and standards.

If accepted without citizen vote, it could be going against the will of the citizens ;) Just stating the obvious ;)

show us the pragraph in the constitution where the pi procedure is defined... if none is defined, the judges are free to use whatever they like until it IS defined... :-)
we cant wait until the lazy citizens decide to make a rule, we need to go forward NOW.

Originally posted by Peri

7) Each citizen posts his opinion once only on the charge
Before I decide whether or not to jump up and down and complain, could you explain to me your rationale for the above "one post per citizen" limit? ;)

The purpose was to avoid spam trolling and flaming but I am working on an update for that part to prevent such things through strict moderation.

Please repeal that rule. I'm sure the mods will do a good job making sure that flame wars and trolling don't happen, and we will want to rebut each other's points (in a civilized manner).

Originally posted by disorganizer
show us the pragraph in the constitution where the pi procedure is defined... if none is defined, the judges are free to use whatever they like until it IS defined... :-)
we cant wait until the lazy citizens decide to make a rule, we need to go forward NOW.

dis, look at C.3.a. That tells you the CJ is responsible for maintaining the mechanics of Judicial Procedure. (b.)The JA is the attorney to the state, meaning he has to adhere to the rules laid out by his boss. (c.) The PD is for the defense of any and all accused, which is pretty straight forward.

Also, I know you were rolling on the floor laughing when I suggested that donsig was entitled to an Op position because he was President, and asked me where that rule was listed. I found it in the Chat Room Rules that YOU posted:

Who will be operators of #demogame?
There are permanent operators:
* Any Chat Office employee
And termly assigned operators:
* The President
* The Vice President
Chatly assigned temporary operators during a turnchat:
* The Designated Player
* Any person which is approoved by the Designated Player to become temporary operator during a turnchat

I would like to point out that if dis listed those chat room rules, he may also repeal them at any time. His is not an elected office, he can do that constitutionally.

Oh, please Boots. I can't see dis doing a wimpy thing like that, can you?

He can if he wants to, though he probably won't.

@cyc: i rolled on the floor when donsig was pres and had to get ops? i cant remember that one, as i was absent at that time, so this cant be... please provide me with a log... otherwise this is only you throwing mud...
i always was opping the president and the vice, and NEVER(!) refused any official being ops there...
and when i cam back to the chat the first time after the election, i found donsig already being ops when i wanted to add him after reading the election results... which shows that the op-system i setup works :-P, even without me!

also, those chat-rules are setup on a consensus with the citizenry, and as such, as booti said, can be changed at any time...
i remember how they were first setup: me and gf decided to put them up to end the chat-chaos in #civfanatics... they were put up without any citizen input and post-authorized with a poll in dg1 (i think term1).
ops for the dp is needed for him to be able to devoice people. for nothing else.

if we were a normal unmoderated channel, we would definitely:
1) not have so many ops
2) not have the pres+vice opped
3) not have the dp opped

as said when this discussion was braught up (was it you?) in dg1 and dg2, the chat is only a technical method to do the turnchat and as such not bound to the demogame rules (thanks to our gods for that!).
if you look closely at our rules, the dp could even decide to just use another chatroom or even another chat-network for his turnchats... it is just for the convienience that we use #demogame...(!!!!!)

and i think #demogame is one of the best maintained channels due to its opship (excluding me) and their devotion to not being to op-pressive but doing their job right!

as long as i maintain the channel, i will ALLWAYS (and i always made that point clear) reserve the right to do emergency changes to the rules at any time. without any approoval.

if you are not pleased with that, go forth and let citizenry decide about going to another channel :-P

I have updated the PI Procedure to reflect recent consultations.

The changes are to Point 3 and from Point 7 onwards.

:) Apparently re-hab isn't working for you dis, so let me go over this slowly for you. You said the Chat office was looking for the Judicial Dept for guidance on whether or not to de-Op donsig.

In the next post, I asked: Also, as long as donsig is President, isn't he entitled to the "Op"ing?

then you came back with this *rofl* like my question had been funny to you and asked for the rule stating that. (see below)

Originally posted by disorganizer
cyc: show me the rule where that is stated *rofl* there are no rules on how the chat goes...
anyways, i set the CJ (peri) with the appropriate rights to ban donsig from #demogame if he really is trying to "run away" with the save... i also requested that peri should ask our mods to attend the TC to ensure he does not go rampant with the save until we can pi him properly.

I was going to let it go as foolishness as you are the Head Chat dude, but when you came back with wanting to know the paragraph in the Constitution about PI's, I gladly answered. I also added on the "Chat rule" that you ask for above.

Now I come back and you've gone off on this rant about god knows what. Talking about things I never brought up and labeling them as mine. Calm down dis, or maybe have another drink...

Cyc and dis. Stop it. Now.

New JA checking in

I was recently confurmed for JA. I am ready to handle all PI charges :).

Congratulations on your election, CG. I'm sure you'll do a very good job in the Judiciary!

Too bad there isn't a statute of limitations on constitutional violations, because donsig would probably get off without even having to go to trial. Will you please start the PI process? This is tiresome, and I want it over with.

*Agrees with Eyrei* I still don't see why there was so much delay in the first place...

Peri, I acknowledge and respect your stance on trying to keep this as fair as possible. However, as eyrei and Veera have said, this has gone on a bit too long. I think you need to call for the beginning of discussion soon, whether Vander is present or not. We are growing tired of this investigation and having to hold our tongues. Please consider this, otherwise Fanatica may grow tired of this PI and justice, whether for innocent or for guilty, may not be served.

At this point, isn't Vander considered absent?

I have received notification that CivGeneral has resigned from his position as Judge Advocate. This was not an easy decision to make. He resigned on a matter of principle. He believed there was a conflict of interest regarding a Public Investigation he has sponsored.
This decision shows honor and courage and we should respect his integrity.

He has served the country well in many offices and should he seek re election in the future to any office then I would be glad to give him my full support.

Thank you.

Since we are lacking 2 out of the 3 members of the judiciary, I am giving Peri the power to appoint a temporary PD and Donovan Zoi will take over as JA. This needs to move along.

Originally posted by eyrei
Since we are lacking 2 out of the 3 members of the judiciary, I am giving Peri the power to appoint a temporary PD and Donovan Zoi will take over as JA. This needs to move along.

I just wish to say: YAY!

Originally posted by eyrei
...and Donovan Zoi will take over as JA. This needs to move along.

Umm, I already gave my JA Possition to DZ :).

I would like to add two more things that were what I believe to be constitutional violations. These both stem from the first donsig turnchat.

The first one is his refusal to listen to the orders of the Foreign Affairs department during the chat. Despite the fact that Zarn expressly forbode the signing of a treaty with Greece, donsig signed it anyway. Here is a segment of the chat log. Important phrases are in bold :
[23:36] <@donsig> I offered WM, currency, 154g and 40gpt and Alex won't bite
[23:36] <@donsig> that's all we can muster
[23:36] <+cyc> let's go to Monarchy then
[23:36] <@donsig> unless we sell currency to others cheap
[23:36] <+cyc> no way. we still won't have enough
[23:37] <+Fionn696> manarchy is good enough for now
[23:37] <+Noldodan> donsig: the greeks are notoriously hard bargainers
[23:37] <@donsig> Alex will fight Abe for 3gpt
[23:37] <+cyc> we'll get screwed
[23:37] <+Noldodan> lol
[23:37] <+cyc> that sounds good
[23:37] <+cyc> an ally for 3gpt
[23:37] <+Noldodan> well, seeing as you're doing everything ELSE without hitting the forums, why not this? Full steam ahead!
[23:37] <@donsig> Zarn, would you care to rubber stamp this treaty?
[23:38] <+Bootstoots> how many turns are we playing?
[23:38] <+Zarn> donsig I won't sign. I want to discuss it in the forums.
[23:39] <+Fionn696> fine by me
[23:39] <+Fionn696> cheap cannon fodder hehe
[23:39] <+Fionn696> assuming we had cannons
[23:39] <+Fionn696> but since we dont spear and sword fodder
[23:39] <@donsig> silence from FA
[23:39] <+cyc> it's a good deal Zarn
[23:39] <@donsig> treaty will be signed

Also, I would like to present this, which occured when donsig continued the chat despite a clear majority of the citizenry there being opposed:

[23:00] <+Noldodan> CITIZEN VOTE: Stop the chat? Vote yes, no or abstain.
[23:00] <@Mara_Jade> Curu - Donsig is ignoring the Will of the People
[23:00] <@Octavian_X> Why am I needed?
[23:00] <+Curufinwe> Yes
[23:00] <+Noldodan> Vote=YES
[23:00] <+Bootstoots> yes
[23:00] <+BlueStrider> yes
[23:00] <@Mara_Jade> Vote = Yes, Right now
[23:00] <+Zarn> yes
[23:00] <+cyc> trade cleo some dyes
[23:00] <+Curufinwe> 4/17 so far
[23:00] <+Fionn696> only the DP can call for a citizens vote if im not mistaken
[23:00] <+Bootstoots> 4/15
[23:00] <@Mara_Jade> dang
[23:00] <@Octavian_X> What's she offer?
[23:00] <+Curufinwe> 6/17
[23:01] <+BlueStrider> 4/14
[23:01] <+BlueStrider> 6/14
[23:01] <+Bootstoots> 4/15 two bots
[23:01] <+cyc> dunno yet
[23:01] <+Noldodan> well, joeb, iris mafioso and ehecatl are out
[23:01] <+Curufinwe> Fionn, but elected officials ahve to act out of the will of the people
[23:01] <+BlueStrider> Two ehecatls to ;)
[23:01] <+Bootstoots> 6/14 my bad
[23:01] <+Noldodan> and padma's not here
[23:01] <@Mara_Jade> Padma is here
[23:01] <@Mara_Jade> Look to your Right
[23:01] <+Noldodan> so 6/13
[23:01] <@Octavian_X> Please! Stop this at once!
[23:01] <+Fionn696> but a citizen cannot call for a vote, only the president/DP
[23:01] <+Bootstoots> there is no rule on that
[23:01] <@Octavian_X> Stick to the TC
[23:01] <+Curufinwe> can a leader of a department?
[23:01] <+Noldodan> he hasn;t spoken for 2.5 hours!
[23:01] <+Bootstoots> stop it at once
* Retrieving #Demogame info...
[23:02] <+Noldodan> 7/13...
[23:02] <+Noldodan> Peri?
[23:02] <+Bootstoots> it passes
[23:02] <+Curufinwe> that is majority, though I'd prefer it larger
[23:02] <+Ehecatl> vote -- YES
[23:02] <+BlueStrider> Fionn: That may be true, but it shows in the log and proves that a clear majority of the citizenry wanted the chat stopped
[23:02] <+Fionn696> if ive read the constitution correct, not even a department leader can call for a vote, just the DP/president
[23:02] <+Curufinwe> who's the person here who can interpret the rules?
[23:02] <+Bootstoots> Peri - let him do it
[23:02] <@donsig> ok, we are going to build two canal cities
[23:02] <+Noldodan> 8/13
[23:02] <@donsig> names?
[23:02] <@Octavian_X> the game goes as long as donsig wants.
[23:03] <+Noldodan> peri: you voting?
[23:03] <@Octavian_X> Canal city one and two...
[23:03] <+Peri> what is going on now i was poposting in the forum?
[23:03] <+cyc> name my Palatine
[23:03] <+Peri> please fill me in
[23:03] *** Ehecatl_Atzin has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 360 seconds)
[23:03] <+Fionn696> nice city name cyc
[23:03] <+Noldodan> Peri: should we stop the chat?
[23:03] <+cyc> ty
[23:03] <+Noldodan> that is the issue at hand
[23:03] <@donsig> cyc - do you want the north or south canal city?
[23:03] <+cyc> North
[23:03] <+Peri> well i think that under the circumstances it would be advisable but only the dp can do that
[23:03] <@donsig> ok
[23:04] <+Fionn696> the discussion for ending that chat has to stop, only donsig can stop it and he isnt going to
[23:04] <+Noldodan> is that a yes?
[23:04] <+Peri> if has citizen vote has been called then i vote yes to stop it
[23:04] <+Noldodan> okay
[23:04] <@donsig> Palatine has been founded
[23:04] <+Fionn696> alert me if we need anything domestic discussed
[23:05] <+Noldodan> 9/13 for stopping the chat

The first charge listed violates article C.1.a of the constitution, which states:
a. The President shall be the designated player of the game.
The President is responsible for following the legal
instructions of all Leaders during play of the game.
and the second violates article G, stating:
G. Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people.

These are not separate PI's, but additions to the current one.

The accusation made by CivGen is the one under consideration by the Judiciary. Additional accusations relating to the same incident cannot be considered simultaneously. You will have to wait until this Investigation process is concluded. Then if you wish to make an accusation you must do so according to the procedure laid out by me in this thread. This decision is final.

Thankyou for your understanding.

Why can't we simply have both investigations at once?

Originally posted by Noldodan
Why can't we simply have both investigations at once?

Because we have had enough trouble getting this one started.

We did have six investigations at once last game, did we not?

That delay was only because we lacked a JA.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
We did have six investigations at once last game, did we not?

And I have never been so pissed off regarding this game before. That was absurd, and I don't want a repeat.

The accusation made by CivGen is the one under consideration by the Judiciary. Additional accusations relating to the same incident cannot be considered simultaneously. You will have to wait until this Investigation process is concluded. Then if you wish to make an accusation you must do so according to the procedure laid out by me in this thread. This decision is final.
Now you're just making up rules Peri. This is getting to be like a game of Calvinball...

I would like a judicial review and clarification of what constitutes 'legal' instructions from the leadership to the DP.

The constitution states:

Any game actions taken by the DP must be documented in a game play log (examples: Notes or chat log). The game play log must be made publicly available in a timely manner.

Since a turn 'chat' is not required, in my opinion, it stands to reason that only instructions posted on the forums are actually 'legal' and binding to the DP.

Also, votes taken in a turn chat are not legally binding, as the turn chat is not a 'legal' entity. This is another subject, but is connected to the subject of the review requested.

Thank you for your timely consideration of this matter.

Yes I am making up the rules but I am doing so fairly and without prejudice. I have already cited the precedent that gives me this authority earlier in the thread.

The scope of this PI is very broad and it is not necessary to detail every accusation. I have spoken to Boots and this has his support. The Judiciary is aware the the there is concern over the turnchat in question and the JA will be asked to examine the whole turn chat thoroughly so once this Investigation is over we can move on and not be frustrated by litigation.

If anyone has any further comments please contact me.
Thankyou. :)

As soon as Dz has accepted his position, the process will begin officially

Originally posted by eyrei
I would like a judicial review and clarification of what constitutes 'legal' instructions from the leadership to the DP.

The constitution states:

Any game actions taken by the DP must be documented in a game play log (examples: Notes or chat log). The game play log must be made publicly available in a timely manner.

Since a turn 'chat' is not required, in my opinion, it stands to reason that only instructions posted on the forums are actually 'legal' and binding to the DP.

Also, votes taken in a turn chat are not legally binding, as the turn chat is not a 'legal' entity. This is another subject, but is connected to the subject of the review requested.

Thank you for your timely consideration of this matter.

Yes, but a Turn Chat "Thread" is also not required. This means that the Instructions can be posted anwhere. Chat or otherwise. As long as Donsig see's them an hears them they are legal.

It is also "not" required for leaders to post instructions publicly at all. They could pm the DP or use any other method to get them to the DP.

Originally posted by eyrei
I would like a judicial review and clarification of what constitutes 'legal' instructions from the leadership to the DP.

The constitution states:

Any game actions taken by the DP must be documented in a game play log (examples: Notes or chat log). The game play log must be made publicly available in a timely manner.

Since a turn 'chat' is not required, in my opinion, it stands to reason that only instructions posted on the forums are actually 'legal' and binding to the DP.

Also, votes taken in a turn chat are not legally binding, as the turn chat is not a 'legal' entity. This is another subject, but is connected to the subject of the review requested.

Thank you for your timely consideration of this matter.

Thankyou for your request for a Judicial Review. Since the subject of this has direct bearing on the current Public Investigation, the review will have to wait until after the investigation has concluded.

Additions to the PI

I have made some Additions to the PI that I have submited.

Link to the PI file (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1082682#post1082682)

Originally posted by CivGeneral
Additions to the PI

I have made some Additions to the PI that I have submited.

Link to the PI file (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1082682#post1082682)

This is preposterous. Have any of you ever paid attention to the PI's that have come before this one? Ever? There are procedures that need to be followed in every PI. CG, when your buddy tries to slide a couple of his charges on to your PI and gets denied doesn't mean you would be allowed to take what he want to do and add it to your PI. This is getting rediculous. At least the PI's I brought against CT were all for different reasons and all had different rules and laws that were broken in each charge.

Erm... I'll agree with Cyc there. Make one, well-written, organized proposal. Not one shoddy proposal and then tack stuff onto it. That's what the *real* government does ;)

Thank you, Peri. I will now accept the position of Judge Advocate.

I would like to commend CivGeneral for making the right choice and ensuring that this process did not become even more of a carnival than it had already become. In the future, I would ask that he consider his options more carefully and realize that he can back away from a position anytime he feels it to not be in Fanatica's best interests.

Regarding the request for a Public Investigation, I recommend we dismiss this case as having no merit. Our Constitution, in its current state and unsupported by a Code of Laws, cannot stand up to likes of those who would negatively affect this game just to prove a point. My congratulations go out to President donsig for his skillful exposure of our constitutional flaws, and his ruination of the game for many, including myself, to meet these ends.

I also suggest that anyone even considering to PI the President on his policy of closed turnchats should save their breath. Once again, donsig's literal interpretation of the Constitution will ensure that many of the traditions we DGers have held so dear will be merely tossed aside because they are not represented in legal print.

With this issue resolved, I am now resigning the position of Judge Advocate. I will soon be resigning from the Democracy Game --- as moderator and participant, and will be issuing a full statement in the near future.

Mr. Chief Justice, I trust that you are currently in search of someone to take over the Public Defender position. I feel that Eklektikos and Veera Anlai would be an ideal candidates for this post, as well as the now vacant JA position. Octavian X should be considered in a pinch, as I believe his skills may be better used in the Judiciary this term.

My apologies for not staying on board, but I have had enough.

Now for new business, I, as a citizen, would like to request a Public Investigation of President donsig. Under investigation will be the very preamble of our Constitution:

We, the people of Fanatica, in order to create an atmosphere of friendship and
cooperation, establish this Constitution of our beloved country. We uphold the
beliefs that each citizen must have a voice in the government and ruling of our
country, 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
citizens.

Some will scoff at this, but the message is clear. We adopted this more lenient ruleset with the purpose that we would all play fair with less restrictions. As you can see from examples from the previous PI, that has not been the case. President donsig has ignored the pleas of leaders and citizens alike in the chats, and is now closing the door on those citizens to further stifle their input. These actions will only broaden the divide between our President and his constituency, and in direct contrast to his wishes, will grind forum participation to a halt.

The evidence I cite is all three portions of CivGeneral's amended PI (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1082682#post1082682), as well as the Gameplay Instruction Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57892) for actions to be taken on Wednesday, July 9th.

EDIT: Added link

OK. Hmmm. This situation is now impossible to resolve satisfactorily. I commend Donovan Zoi for his swift participation in this but I wish he had PMd his acceptance to me as I had asked. I then could have directed him and the people to the PI procedure I wanted to use for this case. In it it requests that the CJ be allowed first post to direct proceedings. However crucially and perhaps now with fatal consequences for this game, it specifies that the decision of the Judge Advocte is final. Also it requests that an accused not be investigated multiple times for the same event. To this effect I asked that the JA on this very page consider the whole turnchat for violation of the Constitution in order to prevent sucessive PIs for the same event. The fact that the JA jumped the gun and now resigned makes it impossible to have further investigation on this matter. We are now back to only 2 members of the Judiciary since the two clear front runners in the election have dropped out.

I have done everything humanly possible to resolve this situation, only 1% of which was publicly posted.I have had many many private conversations with interested parties about the best way to proceed. The contents of which will not be revealed. I am now at a dead end. Since the JA has dismissed the investigation against the accused for that turnchat there can be no further investigation into this matter. Therefore DZ's request is pointless due to his own ruling. This situation will satisfy no-one.

Therefore until a proper PI procedure is implemented and the people have a new JA I can not officiate over any further PIs.I recommend my own draft for consideration by the people which can be found
here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1084464#post1084464)

I am sorely tempted to resign myself as this is ultimately my responsibility. However I am reluctant to take the easy way out and people with an impartial viewpoint in this are in short supply.Nevertheless if the people would like a new broom at the helm then (gotta love that mixed metaphor) then I will stay on until a new CJ is chosen.

The only solution to this I can offer, as a citizen, is that if this entire administration resigns, we take the rest of this term off for real world immersion therapy and restart the game in time for nominations for Term 5. This game is seriously on the verge of collapse.

Thankyou for your patience and cooperation.

In addition the accusation by DZ is invalid and should be dismissed if for no other reason than that the preamble is not an article of our Constitution but an introduction.

If I act as JA in this matter as is my right to fill in, I shall have to dismiss on these grounds. All the other points I have made in the above post are relevant and proper. However I believe that this one salient fact is strong enough to persuade anyone that DZ's request is invalid.

Due to the resignation of Donovan Zoi, Bacon King is elected to this position. I would be grateful if he could confirm his acceptance.
Thankyou.
Now the PIs are over we can attend to Eyrei's request for a Judicial Review

Cool, I was going to dop the chrges anyway.

Eyrei has requested a Judicial Review on Article C.1.a of the Constitution with particular reference to egal instruction during play.

C.1.a
The President shall be the designated player of the game. The President is responsible for following the legal instructions of all Leaders during play of the game.

The Judiciary does not wish to narrowly define the broad scope of the Constitution.

This opinion is in two parts.

It is the opinion of the Chief Justice that the Designated Player is entitled to make key executive decisions which may or may not contradict with another Leader's instruction since the DP is the Leader of the nation for that period of play. Article C.1 itself coroborates this opinion.
'The Executive Branch is headed by the President, the overall Leader of the land...'

However if an instruction is not contrary to the Constitution or beyond the remit of the Leader and is made clear to the DP then it can be considered legal.

The Chief Justice understands that these opinions can be regarded as contradictory themselves. However the Constitution is a broad framework for government and not a meticulously defined body of law.

Pshaw. That's about all I have to say. Justice hasn't been served, and judging by the track record of all previous Demogames, I don't think it ever will.

I find myself to be extremely saddened at the decisions that have been made in this thread. I truthfully believe that donsig has been let off far too easily, and must be impeached. However, the only way of doing this is through proper PI procedure, which has been shot down. However, I move that the decision to drop the PI be overturned, as that decision was made on shaky evidence, as presented here: Regarding the request for a Public Investigation, I recommend we dismiss this case as having no merit. Our Constitution, in its current state and unsupported by a Code of Laws, cannot stand up to likes of those who would negatively affect this game just to prove a point.

And from 3. iii of PI procedure: iii). If the JA finds no plausible evidence then these charges will have to be dismissed. In this event, he notifies the Chief Justice and Public Defender via pm and posts his findings and reasons in the Judicial Thread. This must be a full and complete account of his decision giving clear evidence that there was no violation.

Now, I must ask, is simple fear clear evidence that there was no violation? Now, I realize that the decision of the JA is said to be final. But if there must be clear evidence that there was no violation, and there was no such evedence, would not such a decision be invalid? Now I must ask once again, could this decision be overturned? Thank you for your time.

I believe CJ Peri handled this situation in the proper manner. Therefore Justice was served. He laid out the rules of procedure for all to read and when pushed into the situation, responded by reading those rules back to the public. Peri has preformed his job well in my eyes. BTW, thank Chief Justice Peri, for a job well done.

I would also like to thank DZ for his role in this PI. Although it was very brief, it too was handled in an appropriate manner. I can see why he attempted to file another PI in frustration, but again I have to applaud the CJ for dismssing the PI. Thank you too, Donovan Zoi.

Justice has hardly been served, the only thing I agree on is the absolute resignation of the entire administration.

EA

Justice being served? The PI was dismissed by one person, who did not even mention the constitutional article that made them in DZ's opinion legal. We need to have the old unanimous vote system, where all the Judiciary had to agree that a case had No Merit before it could be dropped. If you look back into last term's Judicial thread, you'll see that the PI charges against DZ were dropped by a unanimous vote of the Judiciary, not just one ruling.

Even using the current system, I ask that a new opinion be sought by the current JA, bacon king, and this one thrown out due to lack of the evidence which must be presented under Peri's rules to throw out a case.

Enough! This has gone on long enough, and the desire for satisfaction by certain citizens is not going to be allowed to ruin the game. I do not agree with what donsig did, but there is absolutely no way, given our current laws, that he could be found guilty of anything. So why don't we use this energy to try to fix the problem and move on?

There will be no more posting in this thread unless it relates to the recent judicial clarification regarding what legal instructions mean, or something completely unrelated to the recent PI. I do not like doing this, but this absolutely has to stop now. Ignoring this moderator decree will result in a 3 day ban, as will questioning it other than in a PM. Don't push me. I don't want to ban any of you, but I will do it if pressed.

Now, go make some laws!

C.1.a
The President shall be the designated player of the game. The President is responsible for following the legal instructions of all Leaders during play of the game.


This article of the constitution says nothing of what the DP should do if there isn't a proper instruction from a head of a department. I see that there are three ways to go from here:

1.) Have the DP poll the TC participants as to what to do.

2.) have the DP make the decision based on what s/he thinks is in the best interest of the people.

3.) End the turnchat.

Three is silly and tedious. Ending the turnchat would bog down the demogame and drive people away. I think that, although two sounds good, it can be used improperly. "In the best intrests of the people" is a very general and ambiguous statement.
It is the opinion of the Public Defender that the first option is the best option in reguards to missing/ non-predicted instructions. The DP should take a quick poll of all those listening in the TC as to what to do. He should give two or three options and wait until a majority has answered. This way, the DP cannot abuse his position as the only one playing. This way, there is democracy in the TC; even if it is only among a few.



Edit: Defined opinion

Historically, through the Demogames, there has been one rule concerning Instructions from the leaders. That rule is as follows:

If they are not posted in the Turn Chat Instruction Thread prior to the start of the t/c, then they don't exist.

Once the DP has started the t/c, they play the game according to their game playing style and implementing any posted instructions in the Turn Chat Instruction Thread. If no instructions are posted, then the DP may use their best judgement on just how to handle certain situations. Different DP's have different playing styles, some rely heavily on citizen support during the t/c by casting constant spot votes, others tend to ask for advice during the t/c and make up their own mind on how to deal with these situations.

So when the Constitution says that the President is responsible for following the legal instructions of all Leaders during play of the game, what it's saying is the President reads the "Legal instructions" in the Turn Chat Instruction Thread (posted by the Department Leaders and Governors) before the t/c begins (or at the begining of the t/c)and then follows these instructions during game play. This was the intent when Article C.1.a of the Constitution was written. Any advice given to the President during the t/c is just that, advice. IF the President calls a Spot Council Voteduring the t/c, then he or she is asking for an offical ruling of the Council/Cabinet on a certain matter, and the results of these Spot Council Votes must be carried out. If the President calls for a Spot Citizen Vote on a certain matter, this is informational at best and does not require the President to honor the results. He may still do as the citizens request, but is not bound by any standard. These are the time tested standards that have always been with us. Even when the citizens gave up the Col and the CoS, these were still unwritten standards.

Now it appears that the citizens would like to write new laws and standards to be adhered to. That is fine with me. I'd like to see how the final product turns out. But up to this point, the Standards that I have mentioned above are what we use.

Fionn has requested a Judicial Review into whether the Domestic Leader has the constitutional authority to overrule Provincial Governors.

There is no specific article which clearly outlines the hierarchy in government.
However Article C1 states

The Executive Branch is headed by the President, the overall Leader of the land, and shall include a Council of Leaders, each of whom heads a department that is responsible for one major facet of the country. Each of these Leaders will be generally responsible for the items found under the respective Advisor in the Civilization III game and esoteric aspects that fall under their department name.

Therefore the Domestic leader is responsible for all aspects of the demogame which fall within the remit of the Domestic advisor in the game proper.
This indicates that Provincial governors are in fact subordinate to the Domestic Leader.
Also the terms Province and Provincial Governor are implicitly subordinate to the national government.

new Judge Advocate, reporting for duty.

I have just read in the election thread not more than 2 minutes ago that bacon king had withdrawn from the election for this position.

I must ask the electoral office to examine this situation and determine the best course of action.

You're so right Peri. bacon king did "throw in the towel at the beginning of the election, as found here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=57677) Did Civ bail too?

Shouldn't the President appoint a JA in this instance? Or does DG3 have a new method for filling vacant positions?

We keep going down the line of placement in the elections. For instance, the electoral results were:
CivGeneral: 10 (resigned)
Donovan Zoi: 9 (resigned)
bacon king: 2 (in question)
Civanator: 1
Vander: 1 (already holds the PD position)
If bacon king is denied the office, the position goes to Civanator, who, AFAIK, didn't decline during the election. If the position went to nobody, there would be a special election to determine who holds the seat. Please check out the Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56483) to view the past rulings of the Judiciary (all from term 2).

Our domestic advisor's posted instructions for the next game play session (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1090490#post1090490) contain over-rides for governor's build queues. While our CJ has ruled that governor's orders are sub-ordinate to that of the domestic advisor we have not heard from the PD nor the JA. (Of course we don't even know who the JA is...)

I do not consider this judicial review to be complete as only one member of the judicary has spoken. Therefore I do not consider the Domestic Leader's instructions regarding the over-riding of build queues to be legal instructions and they will not be followed.

I come before the Judicial Bench to ask if there is anything else I must do to avoid prosecution over this matter?

I must find myself agreeing with donsig in this matter. Stating that the Domestic Department can override governor's build queues alone is almost saying that a single department of the Executive Branch can override half the Legislature! I find this to be a flagrant breaching of the Constitution, and ask Vander and the as-yet-to-be-determined JA to rule that the Domestic Leader does not have direct authority over Governorships.

I also agree with donsig here. I will not file a PI against him on this matter if he does not follow Domestic instructions overriding the governor's build queue. Perhaps we should pass a law on a procedure to override gubernatorial build queues.

Originally posted by donsig
Our domestic advisor's posted instructions for the next game play session (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1090490#post1090490) contain over-rides for governor's build queues. While our CJ has ruled that governor's orders are sub-ordinate to that of the domestic advisor we have not heard from the PD nor the JA. (Of course we don't even know who the JA is...)

I do not consider this judicial review to be complete as only one member of the judicary has spoken. Therefore I do not consider the Domestic Leader's instructions regarding the over-riding of build queues to be legal instructions and they will not be followed.

I come before the Judicial Bench to ask if there is anything else I must do to avoid prosecution over this matter?

AFAIK there are NO instructions on the build queue for this city, so technically it is not an override (though my post says it is...). I don't want to forment any further crisis either, so will not press the matter for this sequence of turns, but will expect a ruling prior to the next set. :)

The Domestic page has a list of all cities, and allows each city production to be changed via right click. This constitutes in-game evidence that the Domestic Leader should have control over production. We have governors to simulate the production goals being set "automatically" and to give more people playing opportunity.

My pledge is to only touch queues when it is something obvious like 5-7 turns lost on a settler while waiting for the population to grow. Maybe this should be codified into the new CoL.

Uhh, no DaveShack. I have to disagree with you. The Domestic Screen holds a lot of information on it. That's why it is one of the most importnt postions in the Demogame, but...As I've posted in previous threads, I believe any override of a Governor's build queues should only be given authority by way of a Council Vote. Evenin the t/c's that Shaitan and CT held that had the infamous 1/0/0 Council Votes in them to override instructions were more of a democratic nature than allowing one Leader to hack through the instructions with a pen. The Domestic Leader has never been given this authority as it diminishes the role of Governors. Even if you group the Governors under the cpntrol of the Domestic Dept., WHICH I DON'T AGREE WITH, this would be a bereaucratic move to save office space, :) not one that would require the Governors to bare their bellies to the knives of the Domestic Department. The Governors are in charge of Build Queues. Any override of these should require a Council Vote.

Hey, I'm still here if we need a JA :)

our JA is Bacon King.

Looks to me like it's Civanator...

Boots said something about him declining, or I just read to fast.

I am filing a PI against eyrei for violation of this right:
Freedom to demand satisfaction

Reason being is it involves the PI Filing against Donsig. When satisfaction was demanded to PI Donsig, eyrei violated the right to demand satisfaction. He canceled all efforts to impeach donsig after the dismissal of the PI and publicly posted an anouncement stating that we would have to stop demanding satisfaction.

Quote form the announcement:

Any other attempts to seek satisfaction through whatever means will not be tolerated.


This is in violation of section B of the Constitution.
And in recognition of Section I, no CFC rules have been violated in this PI, or donsig's PI.

B. All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are
citizens of Fanatica. Citizens have the right to assemble, the right to
free movement, the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to
representation, the right to demand satisfaction and the right to vote.
That spells it out pretty clearly. Our constitutional right to demand satisfaction was violated. I encourage this to be done by Peri's PI proceedure, and as no formal ruling has been made as to whether Civanator actually is the JA, he has a right to post it. If he actually is the JA, then I will refile it as it would never have been officially stated in the first place. If my new PI proceedure comes to life in a few hours, please do that instead.
Also, I would like to bring up section I:
The constitution, laws, and standards may never be contrary to the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics forums. Moderators may veto/correct any such items.
Section B was never vetoed or corrected. Also, we were violating no forum rules when the announcement was posted. Therefore, this PI is valid. I will await clear decision on who is the actual JA for this trial to proceed.

I would say that things has gotten a bit out of hand. IMO there was a violation with our rights.

Is Civanator the JA? There's a lot of confusion in the Judiciary with the exception of Peri.

Assuming he is, and assuming that we are using Peri's proposed PI procecdures (PPPP!), the PI in invalid. Rider #1 states that No current member of the Judiciary is allowed to initiate, draft, or sponsor a Public Investigation under any circumstances. In addition, Rider #2 would also probably invalidate this PI under double jeopardy concerns.

C'mon people, let this rest. Please.

If I am the JA, then bootstoots is going to repost it :p

Originally posted by ravensfire

C'mon people, let this rest. Please.

Yes, please! I would also point out that eyrei's statement was (I believe) made in his capacity as moderator. Our constitution states that forum rules always over-ride our constitution.

eyrei has already stated his intent to put a one week hold on the playing of the save (either off-line or on-line) after Wednesday's game play session. If this PI silliness is not stopped we may be on hold longer than that while we debate and pass a whole code of laws. If we can drop the PIs and concentrate on making some laws and discussing plans for our beloved country perhaps, just perhaps, eyrei would let us have a turn chat on Saturday. We're on the verge of becoming even stronger than we were before since we'll have a Forbidden Palace. Let's drop this stuff and play the game!

But no CFC rules were broken, so eyrei didn't have to do anything as a moderator.

it doesnt matter, a moderation super-cedes anything the demogame constitution states.

amen and yes he was getting tired of the infighting and such going on in the game along with the leaders not posting instructions which some still have yet to do

Exactly, let's stop the temper tantrums and get back to gameplay. Moderator actions are completely separate from the game itself and are not confined or restricted by the Constitution.

Originally posted by Immortal
it doesnt matter, a moderation super-cedes anything the demogame constitution states.
Not that either is doing that right now, but if a moderator uses moderator action to declare himself the dictator and suspends the constitution against the will of all the people, they can do that?

*sigh*
i completely lost track now... thanks...

so do we pi donsig now or not? who are the members of our judicacy? which pi's are still in progress? will we use the new or old rules on running pi's?

yes boots. the moderator isa above the demogame. anything decreed by the moderator is official forum business.

no the pi for donsig is over with, unless there is a new one, i also think that the PI for eyeri should be dismissed with a vote of no merit since its really has no merit as cfc rules supercede demogame rules

i agree with fionn.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Not that either is doing that right now, but if a moderator uses moderator action to declare himself the dictator and suspends the constitution against the will of all the people, they can do that?

Yes. The Moderators main duty is to make sure the game functions correctly. If they feel it is necessary to put the game on 'lock down' to let things cool off or to reorganize the game, then it will happen.

@ dis - the donsig PI's are over, done, kaput. They were dismissed. As far as I'm aware of the situation at hand, Peri - CJ, Civ - JA, and Vander - PD. Other than this last silly attempt to PI a Mod for actions outside of the Demogame there are no PI's active. The PI procedures are still being debated.

@boots - read post #116.

@cyc: so why was donsigs pi dismissed?

Originally posted by disorganizer
@cyc: so why was donsigs pi dismissed?

Read page 4 - You'll see the JA determined the case had no merit, resigned, filed his own PI which was subsequently determined to have no merit.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough


Yes. The Moderators main duty is to make sure the game functions correctly. If they feel it is necessary to put the game on 'lock down' to let things cool off or to reorganize the game, then it will happen.
But is their duty to side with one side in a dispute and use moderator action against the other side?

@ boots - Both sides were penalized. If you read eyrei's post again you will see that there will be a one break with which we are to work together in solving our problems. If we can stop the nonsense, maybe we can get that lifted and play Saturday. Filing more PI's is not the way to go about it. Mod eyrei did not side with President donsig.

Originally posted by Cyc
@ boots - Both sides were penalized. If you read eyrei's post again you will see that there will be a one break with which we are to work together in solving our problems. If we can stop the nonsense, maybe we can get that lifted and play Saturday. Filing more PI's is not the way to go about it. Mod eyrei did not side with President donsig.
There was a slight concession for our side, even though I would not mind if we played on Saturday, provided it was in a turnchat. But we were silenced in these matters in return. This was not an even compromise.

Both sides of the argument were silenced. Also note that public defiance of or persistant arguing with moderator actions frequently results in a visit to the CFC equivalent of Mingapulco. I'd really recommend you drop this for your own good, since I don't see it having any kind of a positive outcome for anybody.

It seems I need to clarify my ruling.
I said that C.1 points to the Domestic Leader being in charge of all domestic matters. Also the implication is that the National Government is superior to Provincial Government. There is no indicatin in the Constitution that Provincial Governors are equal in status to members of the Executive with special reference to the Domestic Leader.
No other member of the Judiciary has ruled on this so this Judicial Review is incomplete and can not be used to justify action.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
But is their duty to side with one side in a dispute and use moderator action against the other side?

It sounds to me like the situation that started all this has been resolved, so the game aspect of it has ended. By people continuing it, it becomes a situation that the Moderator needs to control.

So, yes, the Moderators can resolve the initial conflict and then act to control those who do not abide by it.

I wouldn't be surprised that those who continue to try and disrupt the game because they feel the decision was not what they wanted start finding themselves banned.

Has the Election Office determined who is the JA?
Can the new JA please file his rulings on the 2 outstanding Judicial Reviews.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no outstanding PIs.

Originally posted by eyrei
Enough! This has gone on long enough, and the desire for satisfaction by certain citizens is not going to be allowed to ruin the game. I do not agree with what donsig did, but there is absolutely no way, given our current laws, that he could be found guilty of anything. So why don't we use this energy to try to fix the problem and move on?

There will be no more posting in this thread unless it relates to the recent judicial clarification regarding what legal instructions mean, or something completely unrelated to the recent PI. I do not like doing this, but this absolutely has to stop now. Ignoring this moderator decree will result in a 3 day ban, as will questioning it other than in a PM. Don't push me. I don't want to ban any of you, but I will do it if pressed.

Now, go make some laws!

I am posting this again for all to see, as I think we have snapped the last straw. Moderator actions are final and are only done in the best interests of the game. If this nonsense is not dropped immediately in all the DemoGame forums, the bans will begin.

Originally posted by Peri
IThere is no indicatin in the Constitution that Provincial Governors are equal in status to members of the Executive with special reference to the Domestic Leader.

Actually, IIRC, the Legislative Branch is on an equal footing with the Executive Branch, and as such, neither Branch has implicit authority over the other.

Originally posted by disorganizer
*sigh*
i completely lost track now... thanks...

so do we pi donsig now or not? who are the members of our judicacy? which pi's are still in progress? will we use the new or old rules on running pi's?

The members of the Judiciary are as such. The CJ is Peri of course, the JA is baconking, though as he seems to be absent I'm ont sure whether this counts. PI's in progress are again, debateable though their merits are, and are thus not, in my view, considered true PI yet. Rules for running them, again we're unsure of as votes are either unfinished or unstarted. If you have any more questions I'd be happy to help ou dis.

Thank you, DZ.

What's the saying? "If morale doesn't improve, the executions will continue!" Good to see you back :)

Originally posted by Noldodan


Actually, IIRC, the Legislative Branch is on an equal footing with the Executive Branch, and as such, neither Branch has implicit authority over the other.
That is true and I have never indicated otherwise.
Provincial Governors, although elected leaders, do not enjoy the status of heads of autonomous regions. I make this statement with confidence because the Constitution makes no reference to Fanatica being a confederation of independent states. Therefore I mantain my opinion that the Domestic Leader has overall control of domestic issues.

Originally posted by Peri
Provincial Governors, although elected leaders, do not enjoy the status of heads of autonomous regions. I make this statement with confidence because the Constitution makes no reference to Fanatica being a confederation of independent states. Therefore I mantain my opinion that the Domestic Leader has overall control of domestic issues.

From C.1 of the Constitution: Each of these Leaders will be generally responsible for the items found under the respective Advisor in the Civilization III game and esoteric aspects that fall under their department name.

And from C.2.a of the Constitution: The Senate will be formed of the Provincial Governors, each of whom are a Leader responsible for the care, management and use of the cities and lands of a province.

As you can see, C.1 states that Leaders may or may not have authority over things in their Advisor screen, while C.2.a explicitly states that Governors are the total rulers of their individual provinces. Thus, in your ruling, you are stating that a mere maybe has precedence over a definite.

Originally posted by Bootstoots

Not that either is doing that right now, but if a moderator uses moderator action to declare himself the dictator and suspends the constitution against the will of all the people, they can do that?

Yes. Obviously I don't do it very often, but when the need arises, I will.

Oh. And one more thing. The next person who tries to file a PI against me for doing my job, is likely going to get banned. In fact, the next person who feels the need to bring up the subject of the recent PI charges again is definately going to get a 3 day vacation.

eyrei - Is it acceptable to bring up a PI against you acting as a citizen? I do not wish to do so, but if this is acceptable, what defines acting as a citizen versus acting as a moderator? I know that you were acting as a moderator in the case brought up, but where does acting as a citizen end and a moderator begin?

Also, is it acceptable to pass a law allowing for impeachments without trial (with a two-thirds majority or other similar safeguard) or to pass one targeting one or two specific citizens (note that I do not plan to do so again for the previous charges)? I would like you to clarify that.

Note - This was only posted on the forums instead of by PM so that all could see your response rather than just me and know what is acceptable to post and what is not.

Well, according to the JA poll, bacon king "threw in the towel", so I guess I am the JA.

Domestic over-ruling Governor Review:
The constitution doesn't make any reference to Fanatica being a confederation, so the Domestic Leader has authority over all domestic areas.

Peri - I do believe that the governors are not subordinate to the domestic leader. It is stated nowhere in the constitution that governors may have their build queues overruled by one single department leader. It does however state that the queues are a responsibility of a governor, and therefore the domestic leader has no right to override build queues.

Congratulations, Civanator! You just gave the Domestic Leader authority over half the Legislative Branch, and in doing so, made him more powerful than the President! Bravo!

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Peri - I do believe that the governors are not subordinate to the domestic leader. It is stated nowhere in the constitution that governors may have their build queues overruled by one single department leader. It does however state that the queues are a responsibility of a governor, and therefore the domestic leader has no right to override build queues.

That may be the intention of the Constitution, I do not know. I was not here when it was drafted. However the Constitution does not establish Provinces as independent states within the nation. It does establish that the Domestic Leader controls domestic issues. It also establishes that Provincial Governors are responsible for the cities under their jurisdiction but it does not establish that they are sovereign and independent of the Domestic Leader. I am not prepared to rule and give Provinces such a staus. If the people wish Provincial Governors to have absolute and independent authority over their Provinces then the people should amend the Constitution accordingly.

If people can demonstrate where my argument is flawed then I shall be happy to reconsider. I never wish to define narrowly an area which is broad in nature. However to me it was clear that the Domestic Leader has control over all domestic matters.

Originally posted by Noldodan
Congratulations, Civanator! You just gave the Domestic Leader authority over half the Legislative Branch, and in doing so, made him more powerful than the President! Bravo!

Civanator did not write the Constitution and can not be blaimed for its failings to make things clear and unambiguous. BTW the President is the Leader of the Land and unless a law was passed to the contrary is the Head of Government.

I request that the judiciary review the 'new CoL (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1093014#post1093014)'. I simply wish to know what would be needed to under the current constitution to create a new CoL. Would this be considered something like a constitutional amendment, because it effectivel adds on to the CoL, or would it be considered passed under it's own definition of an amendment to itself?

Originally posted by Noldodan
Congratulations, Civanator! You just gave the Domestic Leader authority over half the Legislative Branch, and in doing so, made him more powerful than the President! Bravo!
Though I do not support Civanator's actions regarding the review, I would like it if you did not post inflammatory comments against him.

I have had a look at this and although I find it incredibly scary that there are enough holes in the PI procedure to make it a sham, I cannot see why there is any reason why this cannot be formally adopted at put on the statute books. May God have mercy upon us.

Although I shall be bound to follow this PI procedure, I question its fairness and submit that since there is no regard for evidence it is nothing more that the legalisation of a 'kangaroo court'

Peri - The idea is for the procedure under consideration in the citizen forum to replace any PI procedure found here, this is to be only temporary.

Well then I suggest something is done pretty sharpish because now while it is law anyone can bring a PI and not need any evidence at all.

Originally posted by Octavian X
I request that the judiciary review the 'new CoL (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1093014#post1093014)'. I simply wish to know what would be needed to under the current constitution to create a new CoL. Would this be considered something like a constitutional amendment, because it effectivel adds on to the CoL, or would it be considered passed under it's own definition of an amendment to itself?

Section E gives a detailed account of how to pass a law. Since this has been passed this procedure must be followed to pass future laws. Neither B nor E affect articles of the Constitution so can not be classed as ammendments. This is my opinion only.

Edit. Can I please urge the other members of the Judiciary to post their findings soon. Three Judicial Reviews have been requested and none of them are complete

Originally posted by Bootstoots
eyrei - Is it acceptable to bring up a PI against you acting as a citizen? I do not wish to do so, but if this is acceptable, what defines acting as a citizen versus acting as a moderator? I know that you were acting as a moderator in the case brought up, but where does acting as a citizen end and a moderator begin?

Also, is it acceptable to pass a law allowing for impeachments without trial (with a two-thirds majority or other similar safeguard) or to pass one targeting one or two specific citizens (note that I do not plan to do so again for the previous charges)? I would like you to clarify that.

Note - This was only posted on the forums instead of by PM so that all could see your response rather than just me and know what is acceptable to post and what is not.

Boots, when the text is written with some hue and starts mentioning 3 day bans, you just might be looking at a moderator post. :lol: Upon seeing said post, it is advisable to heed the warnings therein so that you may continue to enjoy uninterrupted the fun that the Democracy Game provides.

I think you know that since eyrei hasn't even held a position this term, he is free from the threat of PI's. But in fairness(and at this point I think we have been more than fair), I will give you the benefit of the doubt this one last time. So, please PM myself or eyrei with any further questions that even have a hint of dealing with this PI.

Quite simply, a moderator can receive a PI due to any alleged misconduct in an office he holds. A moderator cannot receive a PI for acting in his capacity by keeping the peace.

Regarding your second paragraph, you would need to start a discussion on bringing forth such a law and then go through the proper channels to have it accepted. And I am not sure what you mean by "targeting" one or two individuals, but it sure doesn't sound like a good start.

Hopefully this public response has helped everyone. If any citizen still needs further clarification on any matter that stems from the recent PI of our President, the question must be submitted to eyrei or myself by PM or else.

Woa, can I finish my review please? That was late at night here, and I only wrote half :rolleyes:

Finishing my review:
While the Domestic Leader does have authority in all domestic areas, Governors are responsible for their own build queues, and the Domestic Leader should post a citizen poll to make an over-ride of the queue, because he could be acting against the will of the citizenry by over-riding in a different way.

Well then I suggest something is done pretty sharpish because now while it is law anyone can bring a PI and not need any evidence at all.

But... That's how we always did it in DG2! Anyone remember how much fun we had with PIs back then? :lol:

Judiciary Review #3/Term 3

JA review on CoL:
Section E does give a detailed account on how to get a law passed. Since It was passed, future laws will have to be passed as it states, but I feel, the rest of the CoL should be excluded, as they are new Articles of the CoL, and not amedning Sections B or E.

OT: Where is Vander. Also, I have to look at the first review.

Originally posted by Civanator
Woa, can I finish my review please? That was late at night here, and I only wrote half :rolleyes:

Finishing my review:
While the Domestic Leader does have authority in all domestic areas, Governors are responsible for their own build queues, and the Domestic Leader should post a citizen poll to make an over-ride of the queue, because he could be acting against the will of the citizenry by over-riding in a different way.

Tactful way of changing your ruling, Civ! :lol:

It is the opinion of the Public Defender that the Governers need to be independent of control from the Domestic Department. It would give the Domestic leader almost autocratic power over the governers if s/he had control over the queues.
Now, if there were some form of a check on the domestic leader's override of governer's build queues, then I would be all for it. Checks and Balances are what's used in the US government to keep the three branches in check. Let's have one for this.


Edit: As for the Judicial Review of the CoL, I fully agree with Peri: Because the CoL is not ammending the Constitution, it does not need to follow the same procedure as an ammendment.

Peri - Please summarize all Judicial Reviews so far completed, make a note of those that haven't, and post the summaries of completed ones plus the individual opinions of each person in the Judicial Log. Thanks.

I ask our esteemed Judicial dept. to clarify and confirm the ruling regarding approval requirements for the CoL. Since the subject of this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58613) valid forms of instructions does not appear in the current CoL, can it be passed by a simple majority of a quorum of the citizens, or does it also need Senate approval?

To streamline the process, a Senate manual poll has been appended to the same thread, just in case the ruling is that new laws are now amendments. I would argue that 'amendment' in this context is changing a law which is already there, and not passing a new law, but will defer to our elected specialists in this area ;)

The CoL, which was passed over a week ago, states the following:
B. Code of Laws Amendments
1. Amendments to the Code of Laws must receive the vote of a
plurality of the citizenry that choose to vote and the vote of a majority
of the full Senate before they take effect. The quorum for a citizen poll is
1/3 of the citizens who voted in the most active poll in the most recent full elections.
a. If the number of votes divided by 3 is a decimal, it is
rounded up if the decimal is above .5 and down if it is .5 or smaller.
2. A Code of Laws amendment may also pass by receiving superplurality
(double the votes for Yes than in any other option) support by the citizenry.
If this happens, the Senate poll is skipped and the amendment goes into
effect immediately.
3. A CoL amendment citizen poll must be open for at least 48
hours for the amendment to take effect.
The vote in favor was 12-8, therefore, a senate poll must take effect.

Looking for rulings from the other two members of the judiciary, on the issue whether new laws are amendments, or if the CoL is currently incomplete and thus they are not amendments... :)

Apologies for my enforced absence. I shall update the Judicial Log asap :)
Regarding the above.
The Code of Laws is the body of legislation posted by Eyrei in the Constitution post in the main forum. Therefore any alteration to this can be regarded as an amendement. New laws amend the Code.

Uh, ya. Similiar to the Bill of Rights.

I am requesting a PI against donsig for actions in the previous turnchat. This PI accuses him of violating the governor's build queues for Quirnial Province, of not following instructions for Laborers, and not following Worker instructions. The instructions for Quirnial Province were as follows:
Build queues
Bootia: Library (17), Settler
Gingerbread City: Continue building the temple until connected by road to the rest of Fanatica, then switch production to Legionary
South Bootia: Spearman (18), Settler
South Gingerbread City: Spearman (20), Temple
Yet Another City: Settler (20)

Worker instructions
Worker near Gingerbread City: Continue building road from Yet Another City, then start road linking Gingerbread City and South Gingerbread City.
Workers near South Bootia: Use roads to link South Bootia, then link Gingerbread City through the hill containing Iron. After that, assist the worker near Gingerbread City in linking South Gingerbread City.[b]
Worker near Bootia: Continue mining
After South Gingerbread city is linked, send all 3 workers (the one that started near Gingerbread City and the two starting near South Bootia) to build a mine at the hill with Iron near Gingerbread City

Laborer Instructions
[b]Gingerbread City's next laborer should be assigned to the Iron near the city.
Bootia's next laborer should be assigned to the grassland tile with shield at the extreme southern tip of the City Radius
Yet Another City's next laborer should be assigned to the roaded grassland SE of the city.
The instructions that were violated that are of clear importance to this PI are bolded.

However, donsig ignored these instructions. He instead continued building a Temple in South Gingerbread City instead of a Spearman and the Laborer produced in Gingerbread City was assigned to a coast square instead of the hills square with iron it was supposed to work. Even worse is that he violated two separate worker instructions, one being that he did not continue having the worker start connecting South Gingerbread City (DePaolo) but had the worker start mining instead; he also violated the instructions for the workers near South Bootia. He was supposed to use two workers to link South Bootia, and then link Gingerbread City by road, but he instead built two unauthorized road tiles to the SW and S of South Bootia and then used only one worker to start on building a road toward Gingerbread City, which is still 4 turns from completion.

Here is the constitutional article that this PI alleges him of violating:
a. The President shall be the designated player of the game.
The President is responsible for following the legal
instructions of all Leaders during play of the game.

I posted my instructions well before the turnchat began. I am also well within my right to instruct all that was requested, as defined by this constitutional article:

a. The Senate will be formed of the Provincial Governors, each
of whom are a Leader responsible for the care, management
and use of the cities and lands of a province.

Care and management of the lands defines my authority to use workers to care for and manage the land, use defines the right of a governor to assign Laborers. Use of the cities defines my right as governor to post build queues.

This PI is to be performed under the present Article A of our Code of Laws, which defines PI procedure at this time. I would appreciate if our CJ Peri would notify the JA and PD of these charges if they haven't seen them already so that they may confer with the appropriate people.

Here is the link to the instruction thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58894
Here is a screenshot of Quirinal Province, 710 AD:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/number1.jpg

last time i checked the president gets to decide what the workers do not the governors(i could be wrong tho). The governors can make suggestions but i think its ultimately up to the president here

You know boots, you should try talking directly to me if you see a problem. First of all, governors can REQUEST worker actions but what the workers do is up to the DP. Second, South Gingerbread City was an oversight but a good one. We do not need these cities producing spearmen anymore! We have enough to go around. Once we no longer need the line we will have garrison units galore. Take a chill pill. Third, I had to do alot of micromanaging of cities in order to keep science up at 70% without running a deficit (per domestic instructions). Do us all al favor and give the PIs a rest. I suggest yo run for president next term. I've already announced that I'm not running for re-election. Can I please serve out the rest of my term without PI hassles?

Well, the constitution spells out that care and management of the lands within a province is a governor's responsibility, so this would extend to worker actions within a province. Why else would that clause be in the constitution?

I wish to file a Judicial Review on the legality of pre-acceptance and pre-nomination. Both Rik Mileet and I are going to be absent during the nominations, and would like to have some means of being in the elections.

I'm back but have only seen very recent posts. I'll catch up tomorrow, it is late where I am.

Originally posted by Noldodan
I wish to file a Judicial Review on the legality of pre-acceptance and pre-nomination. Both Rik Mileet and I are going to be absent during the nominations, and would like to have some means of being in the elections.

There is also a poll on this issue here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59154)

I apologise from my absence. this was beyond my control.

Judicial Reviews 1,2 and 3 have been posted in the Judicial Log. However 1 still requires the findings of the JA.

d. If the Judge Advocate does not believe that the
charge has merit, he/she may move to dismiss the charges. If the
charges are found, either by the JA or by review, to have merit,
the Judge Advocate must start a PI discussion thread.


This section is taken from the Code of Laws.
I have grave reservations about conducting a PI under this procedure. There is no requirement for evidence to either dismiss charges or to proceed with a trial.

Well, a trial without evidence would obviously fail miserably; I would have trouble believing that the people would allow a PI with no evidence to continue past the trial phase. Also, dismissal of the charges requires the consent of all 3 members of the Judiciary. As far as dismissal, the JA would have to present a strong case for there to be no merit to get all 3 Judicial members to agree (for instance, no evidence). This is similar to the DG2 PI system, which, although it had its flaws, did work and had plenty of checks and balances. Plus, in this case, evidence is provided.

I disagree with you completely. In the first attempt to PI Donsig there was insufficient evidence but no lack of people willing to convict him.

The fact that it is similar to the much criticised DGII PI system is cause for concern in itself. I would recomend that we wait until we have a proper procedure. I cautioned weeks ago that the procedure currently in place would not be in the best interests of justice but I was assured that this would not be a problem because we would have a new procedure in place soon.

Edit: There is no mention of the procedure you outline in the procedure for Public Investigations.
As far as dismissal, the JA would have to present a strong case for there to be no merit to get all 3 Judicial members to agree (for instance, no evidence). This is similar to the DG2 PI system, which, although it had its flaws, did work and had plenty of checks and balances.

Insufficient evidence? Actually, there was plenty of evidence, the real issue was whether instructions given in the turnchat were legal or not (I still find no reason why they could be considered illegal). And as for dismissal of charges, the CJ doesn't have to agree with the PD and JA, and it requires all three of them to dismiss charges.

The fact that it is similar to the much criticised DGII PI system is cause for concern in itself. I would recomend that we wait until we have a proper procedure. I cautioned weeks ago that the procedure currently in place would not be in the best interests of justice but I was assured that this would not be a problem because we would have a new procedure in place soon.
And we will, but not before this case is filed.

Peri, I would like to say that simply because this wasn't written by you or based off your procedure doesn't mean it won't work. This may not be the best procedure, ravensfire's looks better, but this will work in a PI. There is evidence in this case, and I think it will work well in the interest of justice. Though this may be based off the old DG2 system, which did receive complaints, however, you have to agree with me that it did work and that justice was served in many cases. I would also challenge you to find a case last game in which there was injustice.

Please start the PI proceedings.

Will do

A PI has been requested by Bootstoots against Donsig.
The accusation has been made in this thread post #165.
The procedure to be used is outlined in Section A.2 of the Code of Laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1104593#post1104593). We now await the findings of the Judge Advocate

Here we go:

I have found this PI to have merit, so it will continue. Violations are in red. Non-violations are green

Regarding the build queue-
As it was posted in the game instruction thread at least 1 hour before the game session started, the instructions were legal and should have been followed. If the president wanted to change something, he should have posted on the forums.

Regarding worker instructions-
Governors may request worker actions, but not appoint the actions. The President is not at fault here, but maybe Domestic should fulfill the worker requests of governors, and have Domestic assign them.

Regarding laborer tile usage-
From my calculations, the Iron Hill being used would have made no difference on income than any other tile being used in the city. It would have added another shield to the city production, halving the time for the Temple. This was also in the Governor's instructions which were at least 1 hour before game play, making them legal.

This is the findings of the JA.

JA review on C.1.a:

The President shall be the designated player of the game. The President is responsible for following the legal instructions of all Leaders during play of the game.

This says that the President is DP of the game, but he will listen to the legal instructions of Leaders or their representatives during game play. But it does not say what the DP should do if a proper instruction was not given. I see multiple ways to handle this:

1) Ask the Leader of the department concerning the matter what he/she would want to be done. If the Leader is absent their Deputy will be asked. If both Leader and Deputy are absent the Chat Rep will be asked. That person should also listen to the citizenry. The DP should then follow the instruction.

2) In the case that all three of the above are absent, there should be a vote of the all the citizenry present at the turn chat and the majority for a option will be taken.

2a) If it is a closed turn session, the president has these options:

A. Stop game play

B. Go to the forum and post for an answer. If there is no reply in 15 minutes procede to C.

C. Make a decision based on what he/she best thinks is the will of the citizenry.
---

3) Stop the chat

Stopping the chat is an extreme situation and should only be done if the DP sees that no decision can be made with the citizenry.

According to procedure the JA must now start the PI discussion thread.

I have been out of touch for quite a bit, and just finished reading the five pages of this stuff.

I just have to say that the consequences of throwing out all the laws from the past have come home to roost, and the game is in chaos. I hope that the structure that was developed over multiple games previously is brought back.

I have to agree with you, Bill. I even started a discussion on reviving the old CoL and CoS, but it failed miserably and wasn't even brought to poll. I do wish we had kept our previous CoL and CoS, and wish we could have done what Oct suggested at the end of the last demogame, to keep our laws and standards until we could write new, better ones. Then again, we voted to do this, so I guess that's what we do.

BTW, Civanator has started a PI discussion here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59213).

I have not heard from the Public Defendant. Am I not entitled to his help with this public investigation? A PI discussion thread is already up which states the PD and I have only 24 hours to post our defense. If the PD is not around am I to be hung out to dry while this kangaroo court continues? Also, (and here is the problem with setting time limits) RL does get in the way of even PIs. I've been on vacation this past week and tomorrow I go home. It's a 14 hour drive from North Carolina back to New York so I will not be able to post till late tomorrow night. I may also not want to deal with a silly PI after driving all day. Is it too much to ask that the defense be given more time under these circumstances?

I'm afraid that you are by law allowed only 24 hours to post a reply once the discussion thread is up. You can post a reply to the discussoin thread after this, but this will be after the citizens have had a chance to reply. I suggest that you reply now, so that this will not conflict with your travel plans, and Vander will be given the rest of the time to check back and make a defense.

Perhaps Donsig you might ask the Judiciary as a whole to consider allowing you extra time. I understand that RL gets in the way and there is nothing to be gained from rushing this through. If the Judiciary unanimously grant you extra time then I cannot see any reason why this should not be allowed. Perhaps you should request a Judicial Review on this.

There is no question of constitutional or legal interpretation here, therefore, a Judicial Review would not be able to carry weight. Though RL can certainly get in the way, I think we need to follow the law on this issue. Donsig can either post in his defense now or he can wait and post later after the thread has been opened to the citizens.

I would like a Judicial Review of section A.2.e of the CoL.

Article B of our constitution gives citizens (among other things) the right to a fair trial, (and) the right to representation. By giving only 24 hours for the Public Defendant and accused to post a defense, the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial is compromised. Also, the same time limit compromises the accused's right to representation should the PD not be available during the 24 hour period.

The constitutional rights of our citizens should outweigh the desire by some for the speedy resolution of public investigations, especially when minor infractions are involved. Swift justice is needed only when our country is placed in grave danger by an official in power. In those cases where immediate removal from office is required to avert said danger then our moderators should be appealed to since they have power above and beyond even our constitution. Since we have moderators that can act as a safety valve when need be there is no need for us to rush to judgement in our public investigations especially when doing so is unconstituional!

I therefore ask that the Judiciary find that section A.2.e of the CoL is not consistent with our constitution and said section be stricken from the CoL.

I also humbly request that while said Judicial Review is in progress, the Judiciary issue a stay of the current public investigation so that the defence be allowed to post first after having adequate time to formulate the defense.

How long should the trial be open before the citizens can post, then? I see the need for a stay of charges, but at what point do we allow the citizenry to post a response? There comes a time where a fair trial would be compromised by indecisive action by the defendant and/or the PD. I would not be opposed to allowing an extra 24 hours to conduct the PI (so that the thread would be open until 3 PM EDT Tuesday, giving donsig ample time to post a reply after his trip), but we must set a limit.

what about this:
48hours.
24hours for the public defendant, then additional 24hours for the accused.
this will give the accused 48 hours to work out defence

on that, we should also define a "emergency clause" where the judicacy can demand a stop to all game actions (=turnchats) before the pi is finished (for example if cheating happened or someone urgently needs to be removed)

If we are to assure the best possibile defense for the accused, I would advocate that the thread be closed ENTIRELY to public comment until the either the public defender or the accused parties have posted their own adequate defense.

Of course, this assumes an active PD, or at least an active CJ to fill in.

From the Chief Justice

Posted by Donsig

I would like a Judicial Review of section A.2.e of the CoL.

Article B of our constitution gives citizens (among other things) the right to a fair trial, (and) the right to representation. By giving only 24 hours for the Public Defendant and accused to post a defense, the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial is compromised. Also, the same time limit compromises the accused's right to representation should the PD not be available during the 24 hour period.

Until this Review is Complete this PI and the 'timeclock' is suspended from the moment the Review was requested. It will resume when all members of the Judiciary have posted. However I think it is proper that this review be complete within 36 hours of this post to avoid tactical delays.

Regarding the subject of the review, my ruling applies to this case alone. My ruling is based on the circumstances of this request for Review.

The law is very clear in this matter. Any attempts to delay proceedings may not always be genuine which is why there is a time limit. However during the summer months people do go on holiday and RL gets in the way.
I am inclined to show leniency here for this reason and grant an additional 24 hours for the defence to prepare its case starting from completion of this Review. A fair trial is more important to me than a fast one.

While everyone else is getting hyped up over this PI, another matter has been glossed over that I would like to be resolved. From earlier in this thread: I wish to file a Judicial Review on the legality of pre-acceptance and pre-nomination. Both Rik Mileet and I are going to be absent during the nominations, and would like to have some means of being in the elections. I would greatly appreciate it if someone would at least reply to this. Thank you.

I am sorry for not posting on this earlier.

There is nothing in either body of law which regulates the conduct of elections so it would be difficult to rule. Therefore I suggest a law is drafted to regulate this matter. Then if there is still a need for clarity the Judiciary can rule on this.

However since the problem won't be resolved in time for this election, perhaps one of the Moderators would consider acting on behalf of those who wish to stand in absentia.

I would like the JA to make it clear whether he will allow the discussion thread, once re-opened, to continue until there is nothing left to be said or will he close it at a set time.

I have posted the discussion thread, and it has been open for about 20 hours now, unless you want it to be reposted. It is open for 48 hours.

Cvanator,
The timer on the discussion thread is suspended until the Review is complete.
Please can you post your findings on the Judicial Review requested by donsig.

Thanks

As a citizen, I request the Civanator edit his post in the PI thread to include the following:
-- A definitive charge at the top of the post
-- Evidence supporting the charges

I also request that he remove the charge that was invalidated and the evidence supporting it.

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Civanator
I have posted the discussion thread, and it has been open for about 20 hours now, unless you want it to be reposted. It is open for 48 hours.
Does this mean for 48 hours after donsig and Vander post? I would at least want it open for 24 hours after they make their posts.

Also, ravensfire, he included evidence that I provided when filing the PI. What other evidence should he include?

Originally posted by Peri

However since the problem won't be resolved in time for this election, perhaps one of the Moderators would consider acting on behalf of those who wish to stand in absentia.

If you wish to have me accept a nomination on your behalf, please send me a PM.

Well I hope this satisfies everyone who has an interest in this.

I feel that the CJ should appoint a PD pro tem to represent the President if the PD in office is not performing their duties.

At the moment there is no indication that the PD's absence is anything other than temporary. If the PD has not contributed to the JR within the time frame then I shall act in that role for this PI.

I would like to drop my PI against donsig. I did go a bit too far for a trivial matter. I will continue to ask that my instructions for laborers and build queues be followed as closely as possible, but he apparantly made an honest mistake. In the future, I will not go this far for minor offenses. However, I would like donsig to admit that he made a mistake with the build queues.

Also, please close the PI discussion thread.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would like to drop my PI against donsig. I did go a bit too far for a trivial matter. I will continue to ask that my instructions for laborers and build queues be followed as closely as possible, but he apparantly made an honest mistake. In the future, I will not go this far for minor offenses. However, I would like donsig to admit that he made a mistake with the build queues.

Also, please close the PI discussion thread.

Thank you. :)

Since this PI has been withdrawn, there is no further Judicial business as of this post. :)

I recognize the PI as closed. Eyrei, lock it up. ;)

Another PI, Droped. Oy, where is the world comming to.

I would like to call a Judicial Review on the ability of leaders to appoint deputies. Should a leader be allowed to appoint a deputy, with a confirmation poll, when the position of deputy becomes vacant and there is nobody to fill the position, or when it is unfilled during an election process? I am calling this because of Octavian's CoL proposals; I would like to find out if that is constitutional.

There has already been a Judicial Review on this issue.
Anyone who may be required to exercise constitutional power must be elected. Since Oct's proposals are not laws they are not relevant here. Sorry Boots. :)

@Peri - I think what boots might be talking about is if a Leader wins unopposed during the elections. In witch leaves the Leader, Deputyless.

I know what he means but the Consitution says what it says. Anyone who may be required to exercise constitutional power must be elected. It may need to be amended to sort this out.
I am sorry I cant be more help.

@Peri - Thank for your help anyway, I was kind of drifting out of the Judicary Dept after all this PI Fiascos. Now that the dust has settled, I would like to submit my application for Judicary Intern :).

Ok, I thought there had been reviews on it when I was in the Judiciary, but I wanted a reclarification. This review does not have to be completed as others have already occurred.

I would like to call a second Judicial Review. This has to do with a clarification of an article that was brought up during my recent PI. Here is the text of article C.2.a, the part to be clarified is in bold.
a. The Senate will be formed of the Provincial Governors, each
of whom are a Leader responsible for the care, management
and use of the cities and lands of a province.
What exactly does care and management mean? I included lands in bold as well because it appears that the only way to care for or manage lands is for the governors to have control over the workers of a land. How else can land be cared for or managed? Does the constitution allow governors to control worker actions, according to that clause?

The previous review #2/3 I believe gave a majority decision that Governors have ultimate authority within their province.

So myself and all other governors have ultimate authority over workers in our own province? Please review this, as Civanator posted something different in my PI of donsig, and authority over workers hasn't been reviewed yet. The constitution does say that we have control over the care and management of the lands in our province, so I would think that we have power over the workers, but I'll leave it up to the Judiciary to decide.

The review only covers the Domestic Leader so to make things transparent we will have a new review.

I know what he means but the Consitution says what it says. Anyone who may be required to exercise constitutional power must be elected. It may need to be amended to sort this out.
I am sorry I cant be more help.

no we dont need to ammend to sort this out. the deputy can appoint someone and run him/her through an acceptance poll like in dg1 without violating the constitution.
a acceptance poll also qualifies as election.

Last term's Judicial Review cant be ignored just because it is inconvenient. If people want to have a system where appointments are allowed then the people should put in in the rules. The people said that all officials have to be elected so that is the way it is until the people change it.

I would also like to add that this thread has an unbelievably large number of posts in it. it shows that people are more interested in bickering about rules than actually having fun playing the game.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Ok, I thought there had been reviews on it when I was in the Judiciary, but I wanted a reclarification. This review does not have to be completed as others have already occurred.

I would like to call a second Judicial Review. This has to do with a clarification of an article that was brought up during my recent PI. Here is the text of article C.2.a, the part to be clarified is in bold.
a. The Senate will be formed of the Provincial Governors, each
of whom are a Leader responsible for the care, management
and use of the cities and lands of a province.
What exactly does care and management mean? I included lands in bold as well because it appears that the only way to care for or manage lands is for the governors to have control over the workers of a land. How else can land be cared for or managed? Does the constitution allow governors to control worker actions, according to that clause?


It is not the role of the Judiciary to limit the broad scope of the Constitution.
This article is not specific about the control and direction of workers, I suggest that this is an issue which requires the co operation between all parties to ensure that the provincial lands are managed and cared for.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Ok, I thought there had been reviews on it when I was in the Judiciary, but I wanted a reclarification. This review does not have to be completed as others have already occurred.

I would like to call a second Judicial Review. This has to do with a clarification of an article that was brought up during my recent PI. Here is the text of article C.2.a, the part to be clarified is in bold.

[code]a. The Senate will be formed of the Provincial Governors, each
of whom are a Leader responsible for the care, management
and use of the cities and lands of a province. [/code
What exactly does care and management mean? I included lands in bold as well because it appears that the only way to care for or manage lands is for the governors to have control over the workers of a land. How else can land be cared for or managed? Does the constitution allow governors to control worker actions,


As Peri said, this issue needs the co-operative attention of all parties to make sure lands in the provinces are managed and cared for resonably.

I would like to call Judicial Review over an issue that came up during the turnchat. In the turnchat, GBM said that he was overriding Noldodan's build queue instruction, which had a Courthouse in a place that it shouldn't be built, near the Forbidden Palace. Noldodan is absent, but he had already posted Aventine build queues, which included that courthouse. I ask the Judiciary this: Does a deputy have any right to override an absent governor's build queues? Also, keep in mind that this was during the turnchat, which has been ruled that official instruction cannot occur in.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would like to call Judicial Review over an issue that came up during the turnchat. In the turnchat, GBM said that he was overriding Noldodan's build queue instruction, which had a Courthouse in a place that it shouldn't be built, near the Forbidden Palace. Noldodan is absent, but he had already posted Aventine build queues, which included that courthouse. I ask the Judiciary this: Does a deputy have any right to override an absent governor's build queues? Also, keep in mind that this was during the turnchat, which has been ruled that official instruction cannot occur in.

We had this issue before, a long time ago. Deputies should not be exercising any authority if the leader posted instructions. If the leader posted, and there was nothing in the instructions about overriding the queue, the deputy (who in most cases is simply the person who 'lost' the election) has no power to change it.

That's my opinion on it too, eyrei, but I'd still like the Judiciary to make a ruling.

Regarding this issu, thatbuild queue was change by me. GBM did advise t be done but it was my decision to do it. I do not know if I had the constitutional authority to do this but it needed to be done so I did it.

The reason we used to allow overrides of build queues during the turn chat was primarily because governors do tend to make mistakes. It is almost a Catch - 22. Their instructions need to be followed, but when they are not in the best interest of the nation, and were never really discussed with the citizenry, there should be some method of changing them.

But Presidents make mistakes too, so they shouldn't be able to unilaterally override a build queue, and the natural bias of an override council vote makes so that 90% of the time when they want to override a build queue, they get to do it. The governors should be given a bit of trust and some authority, even if they post build queues that are not quite the best possible build queues, they should have the ability to do so. Otherwise, a President could theoretically invent his own build queues for all the cities and pass them through the council, which will almost certainly accept, during a turnchat. In an extreme case, such as if a governor knowingly posted an absurd queue, a moderator could override it.

In regards to Bootstoots' issue, the current constitution or code of laws makes no provision for the President to override the legal instructions of leaders. This issue appears to be very straight forward.

Is there a chat log of this available yet?

Before we all work ourselves into another legal frenzy, I think it would be sensible to ask whether Noldodan has any problem with how the situation was handled. If he agrees with the action taken by the DP then we should let this one go in my opinion. :)
This term has been so litigious that the focus of the demogame is now law making and law breaking. We are supposed to be co-operating here to win the game.

I'm not planning on filing any PI's, I just want it made clear that the President cannot override any leader instructions.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would like to call Judicial Review over an issue that came up during the turnchat. ... I ask the Judiciary this: Does a deputy have any right to override an absent governor's build queues? Also, keep in mind that this was during the turnchat, which has been ruled that official instruction cannot occur in.

There is nothing in either body of law which gives the Deputy Leader the authority to override the provincial Governor.

Originally posted by zorven
In regards to Bootstoots' issue, the current constitution or code of laws makes no provision for the President to override the legal instructions of leaders. This issue appears to be very straight forward.

It also makes no provision that he or she cannot.

That blade cuts both ways.

Though it does not directly say that the president cannot override the governors, it does say this:
a. The President shall be the designated player of the game.
The President is responsible for following the legal
instructions of all Leaders during play of the game.

This shows that the President is responsible for following the legal instructions of all leaders, which would include the governors. If the President must follow the legal instructions of all leaders, the President would not be able to override the legal instructions of leaders, including governors, posted in the turnchat thread.

Wow, how did I miss this one :D! Well, it is clear that Donsig has broken no laws. Sure what he did can be construed as unethical, but remember alot of you voted to get rid of the old rules which would have seen donsig landed in the dog house. Anyways, good work donsig on having the perfect crime.