As noted in the second post of the Term 1 Judicial thread donsig has requested a Judicial Review. donsig's formal question is stated below:

"I would like to ask our Judiciary to make a ruling on the validity of the special election for the chief justice."

The law involved in donsig's request would be Article G of the Fanatican Constitution, as stated below by donsig:

"...But, in an effort to resolve this matter quickly, I will state that I believe the special election was in violation of article G of the constitution..."
_______________________________________________

As stated in CoS Section X.1.II.D, "Justices are to post questions, but not conclusions." This would be fact finding questions, such as how, why, when type questions. I ask the Associate Justices not to ask questions that draw conclusions in there very asking.

This public discussion will remain open until the Chief Justice declares arguements over. Until that time please discuss your feelings on the subject matter only. If you are going to reference a law, please post the law in your comment verbatim.

Article G of our constitution states:

Article G: All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All vacant
elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

The election for Chief Justice ended in a tie, thus neither candidate recieved a majority or plurality of the vote and the office was vacant. Our laws give no provision for a special election and the constitution clearly states that vacant offices are to be filled via appointment.

Not only was the special election used to install Cyc as Chief Justice, it was used to oust Peri as an associate Justice after he was duly and legally elected to the judiciary!

I ask my fellow citizens to join me in denouncing the special election as unconstitutional. I ask that we recognize Peri and bootstoots as our elected associate justices and ask our President to appoint an appropriate Chief Justice as called for by our constitution.

As a side note by the Chief Justice, I feel I must make this comment to clarify the situation before anything gets too deep or anyone assumes the wrong thing. In donsig's secong post for this Request, he ended with the following statement:

"I do reserve the right to cite other legal violations regarding this election should it prove that parts of the CoL and/or CoS were in effect at the time."

I'm afraid I must inform you, donsig, that not even the Judiciary can reserve that right. Once a Request for Judicial Review is accepted, changing it in any way or shifting the purpose of the JR midway through it's process, is not supported by any legislation. If you want to do this, you will have to request another Judicial Review.

Originally posted by Cyc

I'm afraid I must inform you, donsig, that not even the Judiciary can reserve that right. Once a Request for Judicial Review is accepted, changing it in any way or shifting the purpose of the JR midway through it's process, is not supported by any legislation. If you want to do this, you will have to request another Judicial Review.

I was merely reserving the right to ask for additional judicial reviews if it becomes evident that laws other than article G were not followed.

donsig,

The article you base this review on covers vacant offices. The election did, in fact, have 2 candidates who tied for the office. Does a tie of all candidates for an office mean a vacant office?

-- Ravensfire, Associate Justice

I have a general question for judiciary members and wanna-be's. If this question is inappropriate I will happily withdraw it, but I think it needs to be asked.

In RL legal interpretations (in particular constitutional review), the intent of the framers has significant, and sometimes even an overriding importance, relative to the actual text of the law. I could give a very good example from U.S. Amendment 1, but it would stray too far into off-topic subjects.

Does a finding of fact in a judicial review depend solely on the objective text of the law (dictionary definitions), or does the subjective meaning of those words to the framers, at the time of framing, come into consideration? If a subjective interpretation is allowed, then we have a wealth of information in the discussion about this article. We also have the luxury of having the framers (ourelves) present. ;)

I will wait to post further evidence on this direction of inquiry until there are some comments on the legality of using that type of information.

I have a question about the impact of Constitutional Article J


Article J: Elected officials must plan and act according to
the will of the people.


If Article G were found to hold the special election as unconstitutional, and require an appointment, would not Article J force the President to take the results of the poll as the will of the people, and appoint the same CJ anyway?

I hope having so many consecutive posts isn't a problem -- they are all independent ideas, and it's not my fault nobody else is jumping in there between them. ;)

Here's another point about this review. The legal point offered as justification for this review is that "vacant" positions must be filled by appointment.

The election must complete prior to the office being considered vacant. Any other interpretation would open the door for the president to appoint officials for all the offices for which the poll has not closed, if the presidential poll closes first. An election is not just the poll, it is the entire process from nominations all the way through any runoff, if needed.

Since the entire judiciary election was invalid, the "special election" was not actually "special" at all. It was, and is, the only valid election for this term, for the judicial branch. A runoff election would only have been valid if the initial election was valid. We even did it the proper way and reopened nominations, resulting in the complaintent for this review being added to the ballot.

You make a very good point in your last post, DaveShack. I was considering that very question myself earlier (not for posting, mind you. :) just talking to myself).

Originally posted by DaveShack

Does a finding of fact in a judicial review depend solely on the objective text of the law (dictionary definitions), or does the subjective meaning of those words to the framers, at the time of framing, come into consideration? If a subjective interpretation is allowed, then we have a wealth of information in the discussion about this article. We also have the luxury of having the framers (ourelves) present. ;)

I will wait to post further evidence on this direction of inquiry until there are some comments on the legality of using that type of information.

This is the type of post that drew me to the game in the first mentioning of it, DS. It has been so long since I have seen one of these. Actually, I know posts like this are around, they just like to hide from me. :) We have many thinker/writers in this game.

3 people can look at a painting and each will give you a different opinion of what its about, in fact, because they can show you the colors and the lines and the use of light, they can prove their opinion is correct. But if you ask the painter what it's about, he'll tell you something totally different. In fact, the real painting is underneath that one and it has the original thought clearly stated in it. He had painted over it trying to improve the real message he wanted to express. This type of situation happens to writers a lot, too. Sometimes writing laws in a hurry can be troublesome at best.

Anyway, back to your question. First of all, there are parts of this game I like to emphasis as in real life. Honor, Integrity, etc.. But the truth of the matter is this is just a game. We do this in our spare time. The fathers of the Constitution of the United States of America knew they were giving birth to a nation in the real world. Oh, to have been there, eh? Anyway...the use of interpretation in defining Fanatica's Constitution, as opposed to defining America's Constitution is basically the same. It's just that in Fanatica's Constitution it takes about 10 minutes (slightly more after a couple of beers), whereas America's Constitution could take you an entire lifetime. So where do we draw the line?

Ok, back to your question. In this particular situation where laws for a nation were written in such haste because of roadblocks and other time consuming anomalies, I would have to say that interpreting the writer's intent would be the main factor, with the actual facts found in the writings thrown in to make it look pretty, plus it would have to have a note pinned to its shirt that explains the details. :) But that's just a personal observation.

In the Term 1 Judicial thread, I tried to lay out the Judiciary's obligation to Fanatica in administering our nation's laws. Fact is, because of deadlines and schedules, courtesies and profit-taking, things rarely go the way we thought they would in the end. So we do the best we can with what we've got. How does all this relate to your question? I guess when you get down to the nitty-gritty and you find a square peg in your hand, but there's only one round hole left, you need to find a way to trim the edges to get the job done.

So we have to go by what the Constitution says, and we have to write the supporting books with those words in mind. We have setup these three books to give us restrictive guidelines on how to play the game. The Constitution is very vague, while as you whittle your way down to the end of the CoS, it becomes very detailed. My friend donsig is relying on an Article of the Constitution to light the way to Justice. This is very difficult to do. Especially if the real message is painted underneath what we see in that Article. Who's going to tells us what it really means? I think we can all kind of figure that one out. But then again, everyone has there own opinion.

Originally posted by DaveShack
I have a question about the impact of Constitutional Article J


Article J: Elected officials must plan and act according to
the will of the people.


If Article G were found to hold the special election as unconstitutional, and require an appointment, would not Article J force the President to take the results of the poll as the will of the people, and appoint the same CJ anyway?

Curious, wouldn't that reasoning affect appointing the deputy of choice? Then imagine the fun situation of a refusal poll being posted and the appointee being refused. Oh the fun!

-- Ravensfire

To all,

Should a law not yet on the book, but in the ratification process, have an impact on a situation?

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
To all,

Should a law not yet on the book, but in the ratification process, have an impact on a situation?

-- Ravensfire

No. Fanatica must only be governed by the laws we have in existence not by ones we may or may not have in the future.

Originally posted by DaveShack
Does a finding of fact in a judicial review depend solely on the objective text of the law (dictionary definitions), or does the subjective meaning of those words to the framers, at the time of framing, come into consideration? If a subjective interpretation is allowed, then we have a wealth of information in the discussion about this article. We also have the luxury of having the framers (ourelves) present. ;)


My opinion is that reviews should be based on an objective interpretation of the text. First, intentions can sometimes be difficult to determine. So if this approach is used and the original intent is not clear, you end up with the Judiciary applying their intent to the interpretation. Second, our language is robust enough to allow for accuratately writing the intent of those that wrote the laws. If they wanted a certain idea or position to be shown in the law, there is ample opportunity to write the text to relfect that. We must assume that the text of the law is as the writers intended and thus use only the text of the law in our interpretations.

Originally posted by ravensfire
Should a law not yet on the book, but in the ratification process, have an impact on a situation?

To do so would bring ex post facto lawmaking to our game and this should not be allowed.

Originally posted by Cyc
My friend donsig is relying on an Article of the Constitution to light the way to Justice. This is very difficult to do. Especially if the real message is painted underneath what we see in that Article. Who's going to tells us what it really means? I think we can all kind of figure that one out. But then again, everyone has there own opinion.

The first thing to address here is the *intent of the framers* which is akin to the *will of the people*. Let's realize from the git-go that the *intent of the framers* like the *will of the people* is not always unanimous. Add to that the interpretations that Cyc writes about and we see the very reason we need laws to begin with. If we all agreed on everything we wouldn't need laws or a constitution for there would be no disputes. The laws are there to settle disputes and we must settle them according to what we have written and not according to what we *tried to write*. When what we have written has failed us we cannot choose to simply ignore what was written for if we ignore some of it now them what is to prevent someone from ignoring another part later?

If we cannot agree on that them I see little hope for any of our laws.

Originally posted by DaveShack
I have a question about the impact of Constitutional Article J


Article J: Elected officials must plan and act according to
the will of the people.


If Article G were found to hold the special election as unconstitutional, and require an appointment, would not Article J force the President to take the results of the poll as the will of the people, and appoint the same CJ anyway?

What is the *will of the people* regarding who should serve on the judiciary? Is the *will of the people* embodied in the special election which placed Cyc, ravensfire and bootstoots on the judiciary or is the *will of the people* shown in the original election that placed Peri and bootstoots there?

Originally posted by Peri


No. Fanatica must only be governed by the laws we have in existence not by ones we may or may not have in the future.

Under that concept then, we have elections controlled by an office that has no apparent legal authority or standing conducting the elections. I note that the election polls went up on the 27th. The Election portion of the Code of Laws was posted for ratification on the 28th, and closed on the 1st.

Does that invalidate all elections conducted?

-- Ravensfire

To return to the exact question at hand, although some of the divergences may have some bearing, the issue appears to be about the definition of vacant.

Again, I repeat my question. To be absolutely sure donsig, do you feel that a tie between the candidates for an election represents a vacant office? Would it matter if all candidates were tied, only only a sub-set of the candidates?

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
To return to the exact question at hand, although some of the divergences may have some bearing, the issue appears to be about the definition of vacant.

Again, I repeat my question. To be absolutely sure donsig, do you feel that a tie between the candidates for an election represents a vacant office? Would it matter if all candidates were tied, only only a sub-set of the candidates?

-- Ravensfire

I do not make my definition of a *vacant office* contingent upon the existance of a tied election. It seems to me that an office is vacant if no one is serving in that office. Whether an office is vacant is not similar to deciding if a glass is half empty or half full. It's more like being pregnant - you are or you aren't. How you got that way is immaterial to whether you are or you aren't.

The fact is that this term started without a chief justice. In other words the office of chief justice was vacant. The intent of the framers was that vacant offices would be filled by appointment. That was totally disregarded and an ad hoc special election was devised which not only circumvented the appointment process but invalidated the previous election for associate juctices!

I'm going to have to agree with Ravensfire that a large portion of this matter appears to be about the definition of vacant. But I would also bring back in the notion of the vagueness or ambiguity of the Articles of the Constitution. The first point, which begs detail, and the second point, which begs leniency, need to be combined with interpretation of intent to come up with a well rounded solution.

Originally posted by Cyc
I'm going to have to agree with Ravensfire that a large portion of this matter appears to be about the definition of vacant. But I would also bring back in the notion of the vagueness or ambiguity of the Articles of the Constitution. The first point, which begs detail, and the second point, which begs leniency, need to be combined with interpretation of intent to come up with a well rounded solution.

Do we have some law that prevents members of the judiciary (who are citizens) from participating in this discussion? It's all well and good for ravensfire and Cyc to point out that this review revolves around some definition of *vacant* but isn't that obvious? Are either of these two able (or willing?) to expound upon their definition of *vacant*?

Yourdictionary.com (http://www.yourdictionary.com)

Vacant: Without an incumbent or occupant; unfilled: a vacant position.

I would still like to see a representative from the Election Office post here. I do understand that one of the reps is on the Judiciary, and thus severly limited in the scope of his remarks. However, there are others and their input could be useful.

-- Ravensfire, Associate Justice

As a further note to above, I am aware that various conversations were had with some of the parties involved. Much of this discussion can be found in the initial poll thread.

I would ask of those participating to review those discussions and point out any items of relevance, supporting all sides of this discussion, they might find. I have reviewed this myself, but would like to get the impressions of others.

-- Ravensfire, Associate Justice

@ donsig - I will reiterate what I posted in the first post of this discussion thread. It primarily answers your question about laws restricting the involvement of the Justices in this discussion.

"As stated in CoS Section X.1.II.D, "Justices are to post questions, but not conclusions." This would be fact finding questions, such as how, why, when type questions. I ask the Associate Justices not to ask questions that draw conclusions in there very asking."

This passage is from the CoS, therefore it is fairly straight-forward in its message. The Justices are to post questions about the subject matter, but not write anything that would indicate a conclusion on the approval or denial of the issue in the Judicial Review. These discussion threads were primarily set up for the citizens and of course the person requesting the JR (you). They are not setup for the Judiciary to give a predetermination or a premature decision on the matter.

This is a little tricky, as this sets a precedent for the rest of the game (unless the Standard is changed). I'm doing my best to stay within those guidelines as I'm sure the Associate Justices are. Ravensfire has even mentioned the restriction on Bootstoots comments as Election Office Manager. Being Associate Justice outweighs being an Election Office offical in Judicial procedure. Therefore, the above legislation applies to anything he might say about the election.

Originally posted by Cyc

This is a little tricky, as this sets a precedent for the rest of the game (unless the Standard is changed). I'm doing my best to stay within those guidelines as I'm sure the Associate Justices are. Ravensfire has even mentioned the restriction on Bootstoots comments as Election Office Manager. Being Associate Justice outweighs being an Election Office offical in Judicial procedure. Therefore, the above legislation applies to anything he might say about the election.

A little tricky? Is that like being a little pregnant, Cyc? ;)

Let me get this straight. You and ravensfire were not elected to the judicary in the original term one elections since your election for CJ ended in a tie. Then you and Ravensfire came up with a compromise special election which ended up placing both of you on the judiciary at Peri's expense. Then when a citizen tries to go through channels and show that the special election was illegal, not only is it up to the two who made the *compromise* to pass judgement on the legality of their own election, they can't participate in the judicial review discussion? We can only sit and wait and wonder which way they will vote on the legality of their own creation?

Come on you two, look at this situation for what it is. It certainly is not democracy or justice. The conflict of interest here is apalling. You two should do the right thing and resign now. Then there would be no question of the two offices being vacant and our President could fill the vacancies with constitutionally approved appointments.

EDIT: Here is the compromise post from the original CJ election thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1479663#post1479663)

I have to refer you to the post above your last post, donsig. Procedure must be followed here in order to give you a fair shake, so to speak. I will resign from my efforts in not bringing up the effectiveness of donsigism on our rule making process, although I will refrain from any lengthy comments at this time. :)

Originally posted by Cyc
donsigism :)

Smiley or not, Cyc, the specific comment/phrase above has both no bearing on this discussion and is somewhat prejudicial.

donsig, your comment about the two parties invovled being unable to speak because they are on the Judiciary is correct. I honestly didn't envision such a situation when crafting the procedure. I tried to create a process where the citizens and the Judiciary could participate without the Justices discussing their eventual ruling in the midst.

With Cyc's and Boots' permission, I would like to post my thoughts *at that point in time*, no more, no less. These may, or may not, be my opinion at the moment. As one of the principals involved in the eventual decision, I feel that must post my viewpoint at that point in time, and be availble to answer specific, direct questions about that point in time. Such statements will not violate the proscription above as they are statements of fact.

-- Ravensfire, Associate Justice

To me, this is all a exercise in circular logic.

If donsig considers the sitting CJ, and by definition, the associate justices to be holding office illegally, then why are we turning to those same offices to rule on the matter? In theory, if they rule that they are qualified to hold office, donsig can still say they hold office illegally, and that is implied with the comment saying that he reserves the right to bring other laws into this. If, on the other hand, the Judiciary rules that indeed they do hold office illegally, then their ruling itself is not valid.

This is a massive waste of time, and only promises to throw this game into judicial chaos yet again.

This was a problem generated due to the start of a game, and not having rules in place. Those who know me, know that I would not normally ask for this, as I am a big advocate of the Judiciary, however, I now call upon the forum moderators to validate, or invalidate this election so we can more forward either way.

I say again, it is legally impossible to answer donsig's question in a way that is not going to lead to weeks of pointless arguing.

The original elections for the Judiciary were already declared invalid by a Moderator. This took place after the elections, obviously but prior to the start of actual game play.

This Judicial review is taking place within the actual game. If we allow the Moderators to step in now and abort Judicial procedure, we would not only be disallowing donsig's rights to a Judicial Review on subject matter he feels strongly about, but we would also send a strong signal to the ciizens of Fanatica that their Constitution has no bearing in legal matters. We have one Moderator that strongly suggested to the public who deserved to be in the Judicial Branch and one Moderator that claimed the original elections invalid. At this point I feel it would be a travesty of Justice to allow either one of them (or someone outside the Demogame) to come in and trash Judicial procedure here. If the majority of citizens fell that continuing this process is pointless, I can call arguements over, at which point the Judiciaries can retire to a discussion for determining a decision.

And Ravensfire, as far as my comment about donsigism, the court feels it did have bearing on the subject matter as dogsig continually discusses the rule making process. If you read back (although I'm sure it's not necessary) you will find that intentional roadblocks and side issues were a major factor in the rule making process. It matters not if they were beneficial to the rulemaking process or not. They were still a major part. As far as prejudicial, that phrase was used extensively through the rulemaking process. True, it was coined by me to represent a short cut of expressing the same idea over and over again, but it was not meant to be prejudicial.

Originally posted by ravensfire


With Cyc's and Boots' permission, I would like to post my thoughts *at that point in time*, no more, no less. These may, or may not, be my opinion at the moment. As one of the principals involved in the eventual decision, I feel that must post my viewpoint at that point in time, and be availble to answer specific, direct questions about that point in time. Such statements will not violate the proscription above as they are statements of fact.

-- Ravensfire, Associate Justice

I will not give my permission Ravensfire, as even though it would help console donsig with his problems about the Judicial Review process, it would also have you posting illegally in the JR. There is no way really, for you to express your initial intent in writing the law without stating what may look like a pre-determination on your part. Let's just stick to the program and hope other citizens post their feelings on the subject matter. Otherwise, we may just declare arguements are over.

Let me think about this for a few hours. I have read this entire discussion thread and plan to take everything into account from the moment the nominations threads were posted to today.

Thank you to Bill_in_PDX for so deftly illustrating the enigmatic situation we find ourselves in at this point in the most objective way possible. Your skills here are missed. :)

I will return with 4 hours with my decision. You can continue to post here, but I may have already made up my mind by the time I read it. ;)

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
To me, this is all a exercise in circular logic.

...

I say again, it is legally impossible to answer donsig's question in a way that is not going to lead to weeks of pointless arguing.

Which is why I called for both Cyc and ravensfire to resign. By doing so the President could make appointments to refill the CJ office and we could have a judiciary whose legitimacy would be unquestioned.

The biggest travesty in all this is that a duly elected associated justice has been deprived of his rightful office. I am loath to involve mods in this dispute. We must learn to settle our disputes on our own without looking to some sort of divine intervention. While it does not make sense to petition the judiciary to (in effect) dissolve itself, it would make even less sense to encourage Peri and bootstoots to stake their claim as associate justices and work to get the president to appoint a CJ while we have a de facto judiciary in place.

The solution to the mess is clear. Cyc and ravensfire should resign. Peri and bootstoots should be recognized as associate justices and the appointment process used to fill the CJ spot. If that had been done in the first place the president would have surely looked to either Cyc or ravensfire for the appointee. Whether he would do so now is entirely up to him.

Originally posted by Cyc
The original elections for the Judiciary were already declared invalid by a Moderator. This took place after the elections, obviously but prior to the start of actual game play.

This Judicial review is taking place within the actual game. If we allow the Moderators to step in now and abort Judicial procedure, we would not only be disallowing donsig's rights to a Judicial Review on subject matter he feels strongly about, but we would also send a strong signal to the ciizens of Fanatica that their Constitution has no bearing in legal matters. We have one Moderator that strongly suggested to the public who deserved to be in the Judicial Branch and one Moderator that claimed the original elections invalid. At this point I feel it would be a travesty of Justice to allow either one of them (or someone outside the Demogame) to come in and trash Judicial procedure here. If the majority of citizens fell that continuing this process is pointless, I can call arguements over, at which point the Judiciaries can retire to a discussion for determining a decision.

And Ravensfire, as far as my comment about donsigism, the court feels it did have bearing on the subject matter as dogsig continually discusses the rule making process. If you read back (although I'm sure it's not necessary) you will find that intentional roadblocks and side issues were a major factor in the rule making process. It matters not if they were beneficial to the rulemaking process or not. They were still a major part. As far as prejudicial, that phrase was used extensively through the rulemaking process. True, it was coined by me to represent a short cut of expressing the same idea over and over again, but it was not meant to be prejudicial.

I will repost this for you DZ as you were probably writing your above statement while I was posting this one. I feel thiat the Moderators coming in at this point would be a huge mistake. It would also be the Moderator's blanket statement that they didn't care what the citizens wanted, only what actions they felt they could exercise at any point in the gme.

Originally posted by Cyc
And Ravensfire, as far as my comment about donsigism, the court feels it did have bearing on the subject matter as dogsig continually discusses the rule making process. If you read back (although I'm sure it's not necessary) you will find that intentional roadblocks and side issues were a major factor in the rule making process. It matters not if they were beneficial to the rulemaking process or not. They were still a major part. As far as prejudicial, that phrase was used extensively through the rulemaking process. True, it was coined by me to represent a short cut of expressing the same idea over and over again, but it was not meant to be prejudicial.

Cyc, the taking of a person's name, their identity, and using it a derogatory sense is wrong. Period. It's a reason I have lost respect for you. For you to use it as the Chief Justice in this matter is both disrespectful and rude.

Please consider this the next time you are inclined to do this to another person's name.

-- Ravensfire

Although I am loathed to post in this thread for obvious reasons, I must agree that Mod action now is not in keeping with our ruleset. However there is absolutely no way that this is going to be resolved by 'us' satisfactorily. Whatever decision 'we' make there will be appeals and further discontent. No one will be happy with it and it will sour the game. If the Mod makes the decision it is final and there can be no appeals and no discontent. We may not like it but we have to accept it. The focus of resentment becomes the Mod and not each other. This is a brave decision by DZ and we should support him because he knows that this will make himself 'unpopular' with some citizens yet he still pursues this course of action. Falling on your sword for the sake of the game is highly commendable.

Originally posted by ravensfire


Cyc, the taking of a person's name, their identity, and using it a derogatory sense is wrong. Period. It's a reason I have lost respect for you. For you to use it as the Chief Justice in this matter is both disrespectful and rude.

Please consider this the next time you are inclined to do this to another person's name.

-- Ravensfire

You see? Now we have been led astray once again, discussing issues that do not pertain to the issue at hand.

We have left the purpose of the Judicial Review to discuss matters of little importance in this regard. Simple bickering among the proponents here will not get this issue solved.
Because even the Justices can not seem to remain on course, I am really tempted to end this dicussion.

The Judicial process is still in control of this situation and will continue until the final resolution. I must insist that everyone adhere to the rules setup at the begining of this thread and stick to the subject matter.

Originally posted by Peri
Although I am loathed to post in this thread for obvious reasons, I must agree that Mod action now is not in keeping with our ruleset. However there is absolutely no way that this is going to be resolved by 'us' satisfactorily. Whatever decision 'we' make there will be appeals and further discontent. No one will be happy with it and it will sour the game. If the Mod makes the decision it is final and there can be no appeals and no discontent. We may not like it but we have to accept it. The focus of resentment becomes the Mod and not each other. This is a brave decision by DZ and we should support him because he knows that this will make himself 'unpopular' with some citizens yet he still pursues this course of action. Falling on your sword for the sake of the game is highly commendable.

DZ will not be falling on his sword, Peri. He will be making a decision based on his personal view of who deserves to be in the Judiciary. We already know what his personal views are, and they include you. I can see why you'd support his actions as you would clearly benefit from them.

Regardless whether you loath to post in this discussion or not, your last post is dripping of self-interest.

Why don't we just restart the judiciary elections from the beginning. We can go without a judiciary for 4 days, I think...

I do agree with you Cyc but since the Judiciary itself is under scrutiny, the intervention of a Mod will produce a result which cannot be disputed. I think we should all just accept his eventual decision and move on.
The rules are there to help us enjoy the game. They are not the game itself.

Originally posted by Cyc


DZ will not be falling on his sword, Peri. He will be making a decision based on his personal view of who deserves to be in the Judiciary. We already know what his personal views are, and they include you. I can see why you'd support his actions as you would clearly benefit from them.

Regardless whether you loath to post in this discussion or not, your last post is dripping of self-interest.

Sorry Cyc. That is not my take on the situation. It is my opinion that DZ will rule that we stay as we are with me not being in the Judiciary. DZ is only worried about the game not individuals. I really think you misjudge him if you feel he will give me special consideration. You also misjudge me if you think I am so obsessed with Office that I would corrupt the game. Shame on you Sir. If I could call you out I could. ;)

Originally posted by eyrei
Why don't we just restart the judiciary elections from the beginning. We can go without a judiciary for 4 days, I think...

:lol: Funny you should mention that, eyrei. That was my entire approach to this fiasco in the very begining, but everyone else had a different idea. But now we have the election process complete and rules in place to justify the end result. I see no reason to duplicate this whole process over again. The people have spoken.

Originally posted by Cyc


:lol: Funny you should mention that, eyrei. That was my entire approach to this fiasco in the very begining, but everyone else had a different idea. But now we have the election process complete and rules in place to justify the end result. I see no reason to duplicate this whole process over again. The people have spoken.

Well, in my experience, forum-goers love to vote in polls. Let them speak again. I am not going to make a ruling on an issue as convoluted as this in favor or against any player, and I should think that DZ will feel the same way. Starting the entire judicial election over seems the fairest way to resolve this.

I will not be provoked into responding to the personal remarks of people trying to sway this discussion elsewhere. We have totally left the building on this one.

I know declare that arguements are over and that the Judicial Branch will arrange to meet in a chat room to dicuss a determining decision on this matter.

Originally posted by eyrei


Well, in my experience, forum-goers love to vote in polls. Let them speak again. I am not going to make a ruling on an issue as convoluted as this in favor or against any player, and I should think that DZ will feel the same way. Starting the entire judicial election over seems the fairest way to resolve this.

I can see and appreciate your point of view, eyrei, but the situation is under control. According to our laws, specifically CoS X.1.III stated below:

III. Judicial Discussion
A. The Judiciary shall then meet privately to discuss review
B. The Judiciary shall produce a Majority opinion, and if needed, a
Minority opinion.
C. The Chief Justice shall post both opinions, including the signers
of each, in the Judicial Thread and the Judicial Log.
1. Each Justice should post a confirmatory message which may also
include an explanatory note. Any such note is not part of the official record.
D. All Judicial Reviews are part of COUNTRY_NAME’s body of Law, and may
be used for future decisions unless overridden by future Laws.
__________________________________________________


The decision determeined by the Judiciary will are part of our body of law, and may be used for future decisions (unless overridden by future Laws).

As such any problems like this in the furture can be dealt with appropriately according to our laws. If we start the entire Judicial Election process over now, that would be denying donsig his rights for a Judicial Review according to the law. In allowing this process to come to fruition, we will legally be preventing any futher problems like this from coming about.

From what I can see, that section was not ratified until after the election in question, and therefore should not be applied when adjudicating. ;)

Forgot how much fun this legal wrangling could be. :lol:

Originally posted by Cyc
I know declare that arguements are over and that the Judicial Branch will arrange to meet in a chat room to dicuss a determining decision on this matter.

I do hope this declaration has some basis in our laws. Will you be announcing the time of the meeting and the expected time the decision will be handed down.

(And will it be before or after DZ comes back with a decision?!? :eek: )

eyrei, that section of legislation that you refer to deals with the Judicial Review process, not the election process. Therefore your comment does not make sens.

Please close this thread as requested by the Judicial Dept. Thank you.

Forgot how much fun this legal wrangling could be.
It is also very destructive. Playing Civ seems to be an afterthought in this DG. :lol:

See what I mean about the Mods intervening the Judicial process with their personal feelings?

This thread should be closed.

As we can't get this thread closed, it allows me the opportunity to state that PMs have gone out to Ravensfire and Bootstoos over an hour ago, stating arguements over and requesting a joint meeting of the Judiciary to discuss a decision. Niether of the two Associate Justices have read their PMs, even though Bootstoots was sent an email about it.

PM has been read. One might point out that some of us do have other things to do. A mere hour or so is insignificant.

-- Ravensfire

I have responded to the PM and have entered the chatroom.

Where to start.........

First of all, I would like to offer my apologies for this entire fiasco. Most of it stems from the fact that I could not keep up with the goings on in the last few weeks of December. Laws were commendably being ratified at a breakneck pace, yet I knew we would not make deadline before our scheduled elections were to take place.

I myself made a personal decision to start the nomination process on schedule anyway, and the whole sad saga began. It became much worse when elections commenced at almost the same time as election law was being ratified. Rather than unfold the entire scenario for you all, let me cut to the chase:

In the interest of expediency, I authorized the Special Election that ultimately placed Cyc(CJ), Bootstoots and Ravensfire in Judiciary roles for Term 1. It is my opinion that to reverse my previous decision now would indeed draw allegations of Moderator bias, and rightly so. Therefore the results of the Special election will stand, with the aforementioned three citizens retaining their office.

But here is the catch. I am not closing this Judicial Review as that falls within the duty of our Judiciary. Since Cyc has made us aware that this process is already underway, I am assuming that we will hear their decision shortly. My hope is that the following will be taken into consideration:

1. What pertinent laws were in place(ie ratified) at the commencement of the first elections(for Chief Justice and Associate Justice separately).

2. What pertinent laws were in place(ie ratified) at the commencement of the Special Elections.

3. If it is determined that no pertinent laws were ratified at the commencement of either election, please determine whether said election was supported by our Constitution.

4. To a lesser extent, the validity of donsig's argument regarding "vacant" offices, should your findings take you to this point.

5. If you reach a point in discovery that invalidates your current position in the Judiciary, you must make that point known.

That is pretty much all I have. I once again apologize to all as I still feel that this situation is almost entirely of my making. I have also learned that the Holiday season is not the best time to enter "crunch time" for the commencement of a new Democracy Game.

Hopefully, the Judiciary will resolve this matter as objectively as I have tried to do for my part. I will allow people to discuss my decision, but it is final. Let's put this past us as quickly as possible.

So let me get this straight, DZ...

1) You're saying you were wrong about the special election but you can't right that wrong now for fear someone will say you did something wrong.

2) You're using your mod powers to legitimaize the defacto judiciary.

3) You're not letting the defacto judiciary off the hook but forcing them to decide their own fate (thereby doing nothing to resolve the conflict of interest issue).

4) You want the defacto judiciary to examine what laws were in place when and use that information to decide if any elections were or were not constitutional - even though you've already used the mod powers to invalidate or legitimize said elections.

5) Then maybe (if they get that far) they can decide what vacant really means

and finally...

6) If the defacto judiciary decides they were illegally elected they should tell us. (What we'd do then is anybody's guess!)

Did I get that right? :confused:

Originally posted by Cyc
See what I mean about the Mods intervening the Judicial process with their personal feelings?

This thread should be closed.

What are you talking about? I think you need to calm down, Cyc.

Originally posted by donsig
So let me get this straight, DZ...

1) You're saying you were wrong about the special election but you can't right that wrong now for fear someone will say you did something wrong.

I am not worried about being called out on this one, as I have admitted to most of my mistakes during this process. In my endorsement of candidates during the election, I was pretty judgemental of Cyc. Reversing my decision would reek of bias. This was not the deciding factor by any means but it was considered.

Originally posted by donsig
2) You're using your mod powers to legitimaize the defacto judiciary.

The call for new elections sounded like the most practical solution at the time, and I stand by that ruling. Our Term 1 Judiciary is the result.

Originally posted by donsig
3) You're not letting the defacto judiciary off the hook but forcing them to decide their own fate (thereby doing nothing to resolve the conflict of interest issue).

There is nothing I can do about that. Now that the game has officially started, this game will be run based on the laws of our land and not moderator whim. The conflict of interest is an unfortunate result, but one that I will stand by. Keep in mind that there could just as easily be a conflict of interest if I'd ruled the other way. ;)

Originally posted by donsig
4) You want the defacto judiciary to examine what laws were in place when and use that information to decide if any elections were or were not constitutional - even though you've already used the mod powers to invalidate or legitimize said elections.

This will most likely come up in their review, if they are doing their job correctly. I feel I should stay out of it.

Originally posted by donsig
5) Then maybe (if they get that far) they can decide what vacant really means

Maybe...... ;)

Originally posted by donsig
and finally...

6) If the defacto judiciary decides they were illegally elected they should tell us. (What we'd do then is anybody's guess!)

Did I get that right? :confused:

Fun, isn't it? I am for your solution, as that best follows our laws.

I would like to point out to all concerned that if we have a bad law (or several) there is another solution. Make a proposal for a better law, and try to get it ratified.

I had already taken this step a while back. A discussion on changing the elections process for the judiciary can be found here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74086)
I'll be bumping that thread, and if no further discussion results, will put it to the question.

We now return to our regularly scheduled game of Civ3, already in progress. :p

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

There is nothing I can do about that. Now that the game has officially started, this game will be run based on the laws of our land and not moderator whim. The conflict of interest is an unfortunate result, but one that I will stand by. Keep in mind that there could just as easily be a conflict of interest if I'd ruled the other way. ;)


It doesn't matter which way the conflict of interest goes. If there is one (as you and I seem to agree there is) then perhaps you will join me in my call for Cyc and ravensfire to resign and allow the president to fill the vacated offices by appointment according to our constitution.

I am sorry, but my post should have stated "the possibility of conflict of interest."

Let's see what happens next, donsig. They could still surprise us. ;)

First, I would like to thank DZ for his appraisal of the situation and his final determination that the Judiciary should remain as is.

Secondly, I would like to list the procedure for the Judiciary’s posting of the opinions for the first Judicial Review for Demogame IV.

Because our communication system seems to have broken down, an alternative plan must be put into action. As for Ravensfire’s involvement in the JR Judicial discussion, he proposed an alternative plan of using a Judicial Chat Room/Message Center he has in Yahoo. Unfortunately, he says that because of work, he cannot access any kind of chat room through his proxy. This is understandable, but this leaves only forum posting for discussion of a decision. During the nighttime hour, Ravensfire is too busy with sports and other activities to commit to any kind of chat room time schedule. Bootstoots has finally read my PM to him about “Arguments Over” in which I ask him to reply with a chat room and a time he could attend. This was almost 2 hours ago, and I still have not gotten any kind of reply from him.

It seems I am dealing with a hostile bench, as the Associate Justices, who are normally online throughout the day and night, have found other things to occupy their time now that I have called Arguments Over. Ravensfire has posted a lengthy Analysis/Opinion (along with the information that DZ has asked for) in the Yahoo site, but that is all.

So, in light of all this, in accordance with Article F of the Constitution stated below:

“…The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.”

I will now state the procedure the Judicial Department will use in posting its majority opinion (and minority opinion if needed). Each Justice will post their opinion (with notes, if applicable) in the Term 1 Judicial thread, making clear their opinion on the issue at hand. I will then summarize the natural division (if necessary) of a Majority/Minority decision. If all Justices seem to agree, there will be no Minority decision. I will then post these opinions and summary decision(s) in the Judicial Log.

Unless there appears to be a major problem with the mechanics of this procedure, said procedure will be standard operating procedure for the remainder of the Term, as having Joint discussions seems to be out of the question.

Having looked at the discussion and previous discussions, I think the situation is as follows:

- When elections where called (and held), no DG4 legislature on election had been ratified.

- The starting point for writing the con+col+cos has been the legislature of DG2 (or 3?).

From a practical point of view, all articles of DG2 laws should apply unless a new (DG4) version has been ratified. Otherwise, playing while still talking about the rules makes no sence.

(tip to mod of future DG: declare laws of previous game as valid for new version, all subsequent changes are just regular changes, no need to start writing laws from scratch.)

- During the first election round for associate justice, Peri and Bootstoots received the highest votes.

- According to DG2 legislature, the candidate with the highest votes wins the elected position.

- Peri and Bootstoots won the elected positions for term 1 of DG4.

- The first election for chief justice ended in a tie.

- According to DG2 legislature, a runoff election would be held
in place of a tie.

- No runoff election was held for chief justice.

- The elections for chief justice have not been finished according to law. The declaration that Cyc has been elected chief justice is unlawful.

My recommendations:

1. Peri should be appointed as associate justice instead of ravensfire asap, as he is the rightful winner of that position according to law. There is no excuse to not do so.

2. A runoff election between the candidates for chief justice should be held.

3. If that isn't feasible, a chief justice should be appointed.


But this is just the conclusion of a simple citizen, of course.

Great, my first day at DG ever, and I had so much fun... :D

I agree that there should be new Judiciary Elections ASAP!

This Judicial Review is closed.