Welcome to the Term 2 Judicial Thread.

Term 1 - Judicial Branch - Conseil Constitutionnel (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74283)

Sitting at the Stone bench in the Hut of Justice:
Chief Justice: Ravensfire
Associate Justice: Peri
Associate Justice: donsig

The Laws of Fanatica (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70898)
Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74295)

The Judicial Branch gains its duties and responsibilities from Article F of the Constitution and Section D of the Code of Laws.

Official Census of Fanatica: 35

Quorum to Amend the Constitution: 23
Quorum to Amend the Code of Laws: 17
Quorum to Amend the Code of Standards: 0

Current Amendments to our Laws:

Current Docket and schedule of cases:
Active
T2-JR1 Review of Term 1 Special Elections, requested by donsig
T2-JR9 When may leaders post instructions?, requested by donsig
T2-JR11 Legality of Election Reform poll, requrested by donsig
T2-JR12 May a deputy play the save?, requested by zorven
T2-CC4 vs Chieftess, requested by zorven
T2-CC2 vs Rik Meleet, requested by donsig

Active Cases
These are requested Judicial Actions that have their own thread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR1-Special Elections
As requested by donsig
I would like to request a Judicial Review of the special election that was held for Chief Justice in term one. I would like a review of it's legality, specifically in light of (though not limited to) Article G of our constitution.
Link to public discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79178)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR9-May a leader post instruction prior to their term beginning?
As requested by donsig
I would like to ask for a Judicial Review of Section I of the CoL. Specifically, can newly elected leaders legally post game play instructions before their term actually begins?
Link to public discussion thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79180)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR11-Legality of Election Reform poll
as requested by donsig
I would like a Judicial Review regarding the recently *passed* section J.1.d of the CoS. Specifically, was the ratification poll done in accordance with Section N.1 of the CoS?
Link to discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79662)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR12-May deputies play the save
as requested by zorven
Can CoS K.4 allow a deputy to play the save in light of the specific nature of CoL G.3? Put another way, can CoS K.4 expand the Chain of Command beyond what is defined within CoL G.3?
Link to discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80093)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-CC#4-vsChieftess
as requested by zorven
A citizen not authorized to play a chat has done so in violation of CoL G. This violation occurred during the Turn Chat held on Feb 24 20:00 GMT. I might have given some leeway in this matter, but I even listed the CoC in the Turn Chat Instruction Thread. The citizen that played the chat on Feb 24 not only played illegally, but also made an illegal trade of currency and ignored posted build queues.
Status: Determining Advocates
Prosecution: Open
Defense: Strider
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Pending Cases
These are requested Judicial Actions that do not have their own thread yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-CC2-Citizen's Complaint against Rik Meleet
As requested by donsig
I would like to ask that a citizen complaint be initiated against Rik Meleet for violating Article J of our Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Closed Cases
These are Judicial Actions that have been resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR2-Reviewing Previous Judicial Reviews
WITHDRAWN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR3-Is T2-JR1 in correct format?
WITHDRAWN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR4-Were Octavian X and Bootstoots elected to the Judiciary?
As requested by Donovan Zoi
Under our Constitution and CoL, should the AJ positions of Bootstoots and Octavian be considered vacancies and thefore subject to appointment by our President?
Link to ruling (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1588822#post1588822)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR5-Were the Judicial Elections valid?
WITHDRAWN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR6-Provincial Boundaries
As requested by donsig
I request a Judicial Review to determine which cities are in the Province of Berry.
Link to ruling (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1604963#post1604963)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR7-Powers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
As requested by donsig
I would like a Judicial Review of CoL B.2.e7. Specifically, does this section of the CoL give the ministry of Internal Affairs the authority to over-ride gubernatorial and Senate instructions on land use and slider settings.
Link to Ruling (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1616735#post1616735)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR8-Powers of the Election Office
WITHDRAWN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR10-Can the Judiciary strike down an existing law?
As requested by Cyc
I'd like to put a halt to striking down of our law CoS J.1.d with a JR. The Judicial Dept. is claiming they can do this in accordance with Article F of the Constitution.
Link to ruling (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1609075#post1609075)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-CC1-Citizen's Complaint against Bootstoots
WITHDRAWN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-CC3-Citizen's Complaint against Shalashaska
As requested by Chieftess
Ok, I guess by virtue of Shalashaska's very post, a CC is in order. I hearby request a CC against Shalashaska for the following: <Multiple alledged violations of Article M of the Constitution
Prosecutor: Strider
Defense: Bootstoots
Complaint Accepted, remedy agreed to
Closed
Link to resolution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1603862#post1603862)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish to submit my application to fill in the second seat of the Associate Justice seat :). I am an experianced JA in DG3 :).

Originally posted by CivGeneral
I wish to submit my application to fill in the second seat of the Associate Justice seat :). I am an experianced JA in DG3 :).

CG,

Before anything can happen, the Election Office needs to meet with the Moderators and determine the official results of the Term 2 Judicial Election.

Also, your request must be made to the President - he is the only person who may appoint citizens to a vacant office.

-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatica

Originally posted by ravensfire


CG,

Before anything can happen, the Election Office needs to meet with the Moderators and determine the official results of the Term 2 Judicial Election.

Also, your request must be made to the President - he is the only person who may appoint citizens to a vacant office.

-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatica

Gah!!!. The results should be you and Strider since the rest have already won an office already.

Well, I already sent my application to Zorven

I would like to request a Judicial Review of the special election that was held for Chief Justice in term one. I would like a review of it's legality, specifically in light of (though not limited to) Article G of our constitution.

For the record, both eyrei and I agreed to let donsig pursue this matter so feel free to do so once we have a full Judiciary in place. Thank you.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
For the record, both eyrei and I agreed to let donsig pursue this matter so feel free to do so once we have a full Judiciary in place. Thank you.

Thanks DZ, you just saved me from a PM.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Until such time as the full Court is seated, no requests for Judicial Actions will be acted upon.

Steps that need to be taken (01/30 10:57pm):
This is also the order that they will occur
1. Official results posted by Election Office
2. Any vacancies filled by the President.
-- This includes any refusal polls and related actions
3. Any Judicial Actions related to the Term 2 Judicial Election

These actions need to occur as the Court as taken note of possible actions. This will delay some requests, and the Court does apologize for the delay, but it must be done in this order.

Our thanks for your patience during this process.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

No problem. :) I will work with the Election Office on this matter.

I'll keep you posted.

Actualy, I was notified by Plexus via AIM that I am a deputy govenor, so I wish to withdraw my application.

DZ has given me permission to make the call on the electoral matter. As there are no election laws regarding withdrawals, it seems apparent that it can be interpreted as a vacancy because they were already on the ballot, or as removal of that citizen from the ballot. The Election Office has decided that withdrawals should be treated like they were in past DG's as a removal from the ballot, but recommends that a standard be passed to codify this issue one way or the other.

As a result, the current justices are ravensfire (chief justice), Strider, and a vacancy to be filled by an appointment from zorven.

Thank you Bootstoots for handling this situation in a timely manner.

Announcement:

I am honored to hereby appoint Peri as Associate Justice for Term 2 in accordance with Code of Laws Section H.

Request for Judicial Review

I call for a judicial review on the legalities of reviewing, and potentially reversing a previous Judicial Review's results. The specific law in question is Code of Laws Section D.2 b and c.

b. Participate in Judicial Review to determine the
legality of proposed amendments, laws and standards.
c. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to
interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and
standards.


Previous judicial reviews are not mentioned in that list of reviewable areas.

Request for Judicial Review

I call for a judicial review on the legal standing of donsig's request for review noted above. It is not submitted in proper format, as required by Code of Standards, Section M, 1.a.1.A. Specifically that there is no law referenced to be reviewed as required.

1. Any citizen may request a Judicial Review by posting
the request in the Judicial Thread or via PM to any
Justice.
A. The request should contain the question and the
specific law involved.


Article G, as pertains to the elections has already been adjudicated by the Court in term one. Therefore there is no question on Article G.

And now it's time for another round of Justify Your Existence with an encore performance by our Judiciary! :mischief:

Alas, once again it seems we are in a position where electoral confusion reigns for the branch of government that interprets our laws. It seems that two of the three victors in the Judiciary election --- Foreign Advisor-elect Bootstoots and T & T Minister Octavian X --- opted to take positions in the Executive Branch instead, allowing the Election Office to claim victory for the fifth-place candidate, Strider. The fourth-place candidate, zorven, actually claimed the Presidency.

That said, I would like to put the following question up for Judicial Review:

Under our Constitution and CoL, should the AJ positions of Bootstoots and Octavian be considered vacancies and thefore subject to appointment by our President?

I repsectfully submit:

The Constitution

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.

Code of Laws

H. Vacant Positions
1. Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election
shall be filled via appointment by the President.
a. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours
of the appointment.

Unfortunately, I see nothing else in any of the Three Books that suggests that refusing one office in favor of another nullifies the results of that election.

Thank you for your time regarding this matter, and my apologies for increasing the workload so early in the term.

Request for Judicial Review

I call for judicial review on the judicial election just completed. It is a violation of Fanatikan laws for any citizen to hold two offices simultaniously. See a little thing we like to call the Constitution. Article H:

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial
Governor) simultaneously.



There are provisions in the law for accepting multiple nominations, however it is strictly forbidden to hold any office simultaniously.

Therefore, Zorven was either never the President, or never the Associate Justice who could in turn resign his position. He could only legally hold one office at one time.

Citizen Complaint

Pending the results of my requested JR above, I file this citizen complaint against President Zorven.

If the court rules that the judiciary elections are legal, then I file this complaint against the President for violation of Article H of the Constitution. In that the President clearly violated the law by holding two positions, in different branches of government, for a period long enough to resign a judiciary position, giving himself ability to appoint his own replacement.

Oh, and congratulations on winning raven!

I am honestly quite sick of this legal wrangling. If you want to point out a flaw in our laws, please do so with a discussion thread. Filing a CC, or trying to make a mockery out of our laws or any other player is unacceptable for this purpose.

I request a Judicial Review to determine which cities are in the Province of Berry. The relevant sections of the CoL are C.2.b.2 and C.2.b.3. Specifically, since no provincial borders have ever been set, are the cities of Vandelay and Vo Mimbre within the province of Berry?

I'm here, just for you know I haven't died yet.

Looks like were going to have alot to do.

Ok, I'm going to be away for acouple of days, not enough time for I can explain, and I don't know exactly how long I'm going to be gone.

IMHO, I will ask CG to stand in for me while I'm gone.

I would like a Judicial Review of CoL B.2.e7. Specifically, does this section of the CoL give the ministry of Internal Affairs the authority to over-ride gubernatorial and Senate instructions on land use and slider settings given that: 1) article E of our constitution charges our Senators / governors the responsibilty for the care and mangement of our cities; and 2) C.1.c of the CoL grants control of the slider settings to the Senate.? this JR request is filed in the hope of determinig if the recent instructions posted by DaveShack (see below) are legal.

Article E states:

The Legislative Branch will be formed of two houses.
The Senate will be formed of the Provincial Governors, each of whom are responsible for the care, management and use of the cities and lands of a province in addition to legislative responsibilities. The Congress will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws.

Section C.1.c of the CoL:

c. The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and
vote on the slider settings for the next game play
session in a Senate Slider poll.
1. The results of this vote shall be posted by the
Senatorial President in the game play session
instruction thread.
2. Should the Senate fail to determine the slider
settings, the Designated Player shall determine the
slider settings.


originally posted by DaveShack

Under the authority of CoL B.2.e.7 "Monitor overall happiness of COUNTRY_NAME", the Internal Affairs ministry assumes control of that event according to the CoC. If a city is about to riot, or has rioted, and the slider and/or laborer instructions do not cover this event, the DP is authorized to adjust either the sliders, the laborer allocations, or both as needed to minimize the effects of civil unrest. The specific adjustments to make (raising lux, hiring specialists) are left to DP discretion. If more specific instructions are posted either by the Governor or the Senate, those instructions supercede this general instruction.

Originally posted by donsig
I would like a Judicial Review of CoL B.2.e7. Specifically, does this section of the CoL give the ministry of Internal Affairs the authority to over-ride gubernatorial and Senate instructions on land use and slider settings given that: 1) article E of our constitution charges our Senators / governors the responsibilty for the care and mangement of our cities; and 2) C.1.c of the CoL grants control of the slider settings to the Senate.? this JR request is filed in the hope of determinig if the recent instructions posted by DaveShack (see below) are legal.

Article E states:

The Legislative Branch will be formed of two houses.
The Senate will be formed of the Provincial Governors, each of whom are responsible for the care, management and use of the cities and lands of a province in addition to legislative responsibilities. The Congress will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws.

Section C.1.c of the CoL:

c. The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and
vote on the slider settings for the next game play
session in a Senate Slider poll.
1. The results of this vote shall be posted by the
Senatorial President in the game play session
instruction thread.
2. Should the Senate fail to determine the slider
settings, the Designated Player shall determine the
slider settings.


Under the authority of CoL B.2.e.7 "Monitor overall happiness of COUNTRY_NAME", the Internal Affairs ministry assumes control of that event according to the CoC. If a city is about to riot, or has rioted, and the slider and/or laborer instructions do not cover this event, the DP is authorized to adjust either the sliders, the laborer allocations, or both as needed to minimize the effects of civil unrest. The specific adjustments to make (raising lux, hiring specialists) are left to DP discretion. If more specific instructions are posted either by the Governor or the Senate, those instructions supercede this general instruction.


As Chief Justice for yet another 4 hours, I would say there is no need for a Judicial Review on this subject. According to DGIVJR11, which was initiated by DaveShack and ajudicated in the Term 1 Judiciary, the above Instruction would not be allowed. Although this Instruction does effect the responsibilities of The Internal Affairs Dept., Dave Shack is over-stepping his authority in demanding actions that are assigned to different bodies of Government, by Law. The Majority Opinion for this Judicial Review can be found in the Term 1 Judicial Thread, later to be posted in the Judicial Log.

Eyrei, I respectfully disagree.

I think violating the constitution is a serious issue. Especially when it enables the leader to select their handpicked replacement. Can you not see the error in that?

I am not making a mockery of the laws. I am trying to follow them, and ask our government to do the same. If we don't like them, then lets get rid of the damn things. It seems a majority of citizens wanted this rule set. Therefore, I reject the idea that following the law, and asking our government to do the same, is making a mockery of the laws.

In fact, it is those who only use the law as a conveinence, when it suits their purposes, but oh, decide it is common sense to bypass them when advantagous, who are making a mockery of the law.

Ridicule me, or even ban me if you must, as that seems to be the threat that hangs over all demo game disagreements. But that is the facts. Shooting the messenger doesn't change the hypocrisy that is in place.

Originally posted by zorven
Thank you Bootstoots for handling this situation in a timely manner.

Announcement:

I am honored to hereby appoint Peri as Associate Justice for Term 2 in accordance with Code of Laws Section H.

You might want to do this after you actually become president. :rolleyes:

Whoa - lot's of stuff happening.

Couple of notes.

First, as Cyc has correctly pointed out, we are technically still in Term 1 - it's 21:30 GMT on the 31st. However, Cyc has also closed the Term 1 court to new business. Stand in line folks.

Assuming that nothing changes, once Term 2 officially starts, the first order of business will be to determine the composition of the Court. Thus. before any other Judicial Request, the JR by Donovan Zoi on the Term 2 election will be dealt with. Only once the members of the Court are firmly defined will further business be conducted.

I will be queuing up the requests in the 3rd post of this thread. Please refer to the initial posts to determine the upcoming docket of this court.

Strider's announcement will delay things slightly, as the individual he designated as his pro-tem appointment is not eligible. Per CoS Section K.4.c, any citizen not already an elected official or deputy may be designated as a pro-tem appointment. CG is the Deputy Governor of Berry.

Folks, be patient - it's going to take some time, but all requests will be dealt with.

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

How is the JR by DZ going to be conducted if we don't have a clear and working Judiciary in the first place?

Originally posted by Bootstoots
How is the JR by DZ going to be conducted if we don't have a clear and working Judiciary in the first place?

For that review, the official results from the Election Office as posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1560382#post1560382) will be used.

Elected to the Court were: Ravensfire and Strider. The vacancy to the Court was filled by zorven by appointing Peri to the bench. zorven's term does not being for about 2 more hours, so the appointment will not take affect until then.

-- Ravensfire

Nevermind - I just saw the post from Boots retracting his earlier post.

Current status of the court - still waiting on the official election results from the Election Office.

-- Ravensfire

In the spirit of cooperation, I will withdraw my CC against President Zorven pending the outcome of election determination.

However the issue, a consitutional violation, presented there remains on the table, and I will file for future JR or CC's are necessary depending on outcome of the election.

As one of my final acts as Chief Justice of Term 1, I am passing onto the Term 2 Judiciary two Citizen Complaints filed just past our deadline for acceptance. As stated by the Term 1 Judiciary, these CCs should entered into the Term 2 Court system as if normally requested during Term 2. Thank you. :)

Citizen Complaint request
I request a Citizen Complaint be initiated against bootstoots for posting instructions in this term one turn chat instruction thread. . Bootstoots is a term one member of the judiciary and is therefore not empowered to post game play instrucitons. I submit that this post violates section I of the CoL.

And the second CC Request:

Citizen Complaint request.
I would like to ask that a citizen complaint be initiated against Rik Meleet for violating Article J of our Constitution. Rik Meleet, in his capacity os President and Designated Player, knowingly and willfully disregarded the will of our citizens as embodied by a legal instruction posted in a turn chat instruction thread. Specifically, Rik Mellet disregarded legally posted slider setting instructions

in this turn chat instruction thread.

The President admits such in said turn chat instruction thread:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the president ignored instructions (slider was to be fixxed at 100% sci, while 90% sufficed and we'd loose 1 gpt.) The slider was set to 90% Sci, 10% tax.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note the link to the TCIT was for the TCIT of the Thursday January 29th Turn Chat.

And with much Joy, the Court accepts them, Cyc.

;)

Thanks, and excellent work on Term 1!

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
In the spirit of cooperation, I will withdraw my CC against President Zorven pending the outcome of election determination.

However the issue, a consitutional violation, presented there remains on the table, and I will file for future JR or CC's are necessary depending on outcome of the election.

Thank you for your spirit of cooperation. However, I don't think there is an issue here being as I never served two offices at the same time. The elections ended about 1 day prior to the new term. During that 1 day is when I declined to accept the Judiciary position. As of Feb 1, I only occupied one office.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Eyrei, I respectfully disagree.

I think violating the constitution is a serious issue. Especially when it enables the leader to select their handpicked replacement. Can you not see the error in that?

I am not making a mockery of the laws. I am trying to follow them, and ask our government to do the same. If we don't like them, then lets get rid of the damn things. It seems a majority of citizens wanted this rule set. Therefore, I reject the idea that following the law, and asking our government to do the same, is making a mockery of the laws.

In fact, it is those who only use the law as a conveinence, when it suits their purposes, but oh, decide it is common sense to bypass them when advantagous, who are making a mockery of the law.

Ridicule me, or even ban me if you must, as that seems to be the threat that hangs over all demo game disagreements. But that is the facts. Shooting the messenger doesn't change the hypocrisy that is in place.

What you are missing, I think, is that I see no reason to believe that the accused had any intent at all. Take a step back and look at it for a minute. There is no conspiracy here, just a minor flaw in our rules. I suggest you focus your energies on making sure it does not happen again.

My mod warning was not directed solely at you. It was a preemptive action to insure that senseless bickering does not ensue.

Asking for a judicial review or citizen complaint is not *senseless bickering* eyrei. It is the system we all agreed on to address these *minor flaws* we have in our rules. You rightly point out that there was no *intent*, no *conspiracy*. I do not think Bill_in_PDX ever implied there was. He is one on of the few who is willing to think things through to their logical conclusion and his citizen complaint is his effort to see that this *does not happen again*.

You should step back eyrei. You've around since DG1 and you know how our citizens like to complain about the things but not write rules to remedy them. It is this system of JRs that will ensure these messes don't happen again. So please let the system work its way through to completion this term.

Originally posted by zorven


Thank you for your spirit of cooperation. However, I don't think there is an issue here being as I never served two offices at the same time. The elections ended about 1 day prior to the new term. During that 1 day is when I declined to accept the Judiciary position. As of Feb 1, I only occupied one office.

I appreciate your position Zorven, however, I disagree, depending on the outcome of the review of the election.

You should not have been able to appoint your own successor. That is a huge flaw in our system. As is the complete joke that is the judicial elections to be begin with.

No matter how we cut it, something was done wrong here, and I shall await the learned judiciary's review of it.

I will also try to assist the Judiciary in with what is becoming a mountain of work, and withdraw my JR request against donsig's JR.

I am not withdrawing the request as related to JR's on JR's. I think we need to get that issue out in the open before our Judicary goes on record and starts writing their own laws.

I would like to make a request that ravensfire and zorven appoint the first AJ and that the ravensfire and zorven plus the new AJ appoint the second AJ ASAP so that the judicial proceedings can go forth in a timely manner. The corrected election results are final; there will not be any more change in that area. Thanks. :)

Originally posted by donsig
Asking for a judicial review or citizen complaint is not *senseless bickering* eyrei. It is the system we all agreed on to address these *minor flaws* we have in our rules. You rightly point out that there was no *intent*, no *conspiracy*. I do not think Bill_in_PDX ever implied there was. He is one on of the few who is willing to think things through to their logical conclusion and his citizen complaint is his effort to see that this *does not happen again*.

You should step back eyrei. You've around since DG1 and you know how our citizens like to complain about the things but not write rules to remedy them. It is this system of JRs that will ensure these messes don't happen again. So please let the system work its way through to completion this term.

No, donsig, it is not going to be citizens complaining about each other breaking the rules that fixes them. The senseless bickering just took place in another thread, but it has produced next to nothing. For the first 20 or so posts of the 'discussion' thread, I was the only one who actually offered a solution. Now, go fix the problem instead of trying to convince me I should let this game degenerate into something that is not a game.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would like to make a request that ravensfire and zorven appoint the first AJ and that the ravensfire and zorven plus the new AJ appoint the second AJ ASAP so that the judicial proceedings can go forth in a timely manner. The corrected election results are final; there will not be any more change in that area. Thanks.

I mentioned in this thread about the Judicial election (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77243) that I intended to treat this situation under CoL Section H.1. I received no comments that this was the incorrect interpretation. Therefore, as far as appointing the Associate Justices, I am sticking to CoL Section H.1 to appoint the Associate Justices. As I posted before I am appointing Peri to the first vacancy. I am awaiting a response on my second choice.

If anybody challenges this interpretation, then here is how it should be handled: I chose Peri for the first vacancy. Ravensfire supports this decision. So even if Section H.3 applies, Peri is still the first Associate Justice. Therefore, we can let them see if they can come up with a majority opinion on whether H.1 or H.3 applies and go from there.

Mr. President,

As the Election Office declared the both Associate Justice offices vacant following the election, you are correct about H.1 applying - both position should be filled via your appointment.

I will, of course, be more than willing to work with those you appoint. Peri will be an excellent member of the Judiciary, and I thank you for that choice. As soon as you have determined your second appointment, please post that so this court may begin to work through the docket before it.

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
I will also try to assist the Judiciary in with what is becoming a mountain of work, and withdraw my JR request against donsig's JR.


Thanks Bill, the Court appreciates your willingness to withdraw your requested JR on this matter.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

During the upcoming sporting event, I will be reviewing the current docket and determining the order in which the Court will be working on them. Several of the requests are related to each other, and the rulings may invalidate a seperate request.

I plan to open no more than 4 seperate actions at any given time, with any Citizen Complaints having priority, excepting only a Judicial Review request directly related to the CC. Sorry it's convoluted, but I can't think of any Court, in any previous Demogame, having so many requests before it prior to the start of the term.

In addition, I will be sending out PM's to the requestors of each JR, confirming both their intention to continue the JR, the specifics of the request and ensuring that wording is correct. Please do not post your response/answer in this thread, please reply with a PM.

I will also be determining the Prosecution and Defense for the CC's that have been filed. Again, this will be conducted through PM's. To speed matters up, if you are interested in serving in either role, for either active CC, please send me a PM indicating such. I don't know if either role will be required, I am trying to save a little time.

Thanks again for your patience,
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would like to make a request that ravensfire and zorven appoint the first AJ and that the ravensfire and zorven plus the new AJ appoint the second AJ ASAP so that the judicial proceedings can go forth in a timely manner. The corrected election results are final; there will not be any more change in that area. Thanks. :)

Whoa!

Back up here a second. Who specifically made that determination?

As far as I can see, we just ripped the constitution in half, and yet I see no declaration anywhere supporting that result.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


Whoa!

Back up here a second. Who specifically made that determination?

As far as I can see, we just ripped the constitution in half, and yet I see no declaration anywhere supporting that result.

As noted by both zorven and myself in posts following the one you quoted, the power of appointments rests soley with the President.

As for the election results, the official results have been posted by the Election Office in the Election Results thread.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

Yet there is not two positions in the Judiciary open. Strider won his spot thanks to the withdrawls of Octavian and Bootstoots.

There are not two positions open.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Yet there is not two positions in the Judiciary open. Strider won his spot thanks to the withdrawls of Octavian and Bootstoots.

There are not two positions open.

Bill, the official results from the Election Office is otherwise. Review this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1562189#post1562189) and the followup posts.

-- Ravensfire

I am sorry, but this post:

Bootstoots said: I changed my official ruling on this in light of a standard brought up by donsig that seemed to make it fairly apparent that the second and third place nominees are to be declared Associate Justices.



has no basis in fact. The law clearly states that the citizen... not the nominee... wins by votes, and further, I restate again that bootstoots and Octavian withdrew from the ballot.

Mr. Chief Justice, will the Judiciary recuse the two new appointees and immediately review this clearly unconstitutional election?

EDIT to add the code of laws clearly states "citizen".

Judicial Review Request

Legitimacy of the Election Office in overriding citizen votes.

I request that the Judiciary review the right of the "Election Office" to override the will of the people, and declare positions vacate in clear violation of the following laws, and others:

Constitution, Article B - No rule (lower level law or standard) can contradict an Article.

Constitution Article A - Specifically the right to Vote. The election office claims, via their actions, the right to override the vote of the people.

Further, the election office holds this power to override the people, yet is not subject to routine elections as is any other position in the game.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Judicial Review Request

Legitimacy of the Election Office in overriding citizen votes.

I request that the Judiciary review the right of the "Election Office" to override the will of the people, and declare positions vacate in clear violation of the following laws, and others:

Constitution, Article B - No rule (lower level law or standard) can contradict an Article.

Constitution Article A - Specifically the right to Vote. The election office claims, via their actions, the right to override the vote of the people.

Further, the election office holds this power to override the people, yet is not subject to routine elections as is any other position in the game.

Bill, if this request is related to the Judicial Elections, there is already a JR for that election.

If it is more general in nature, please let me know

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

No, this is really intended to question the authority of an unelected position to hold this much power over the people.

I was probably unclear. I apologize. Please advise if I should resubmit the request.

How, exactly, was the Election Office overriding citizen votes? Just because we elected two candidates who later pulled out doesn't mean that citizen votes were overridden. In fact, it seems that this may follow the will of the people more than your method, because, instead of placing the candidate who placed last with 2 votes on the judiciary, the seats are being declared vacant because the rightful winner declined to accept the office by withdrawing from the race. The way this election was worked out is as follows:

ravensfire - 1st place, CJ
Bootstoots - 2nd place, withdraws from the election
Octavian X - 3rd place, withdraws from the election
zorven - 4th place, elected President
Strider - 5th place

Yielding:
ravensfire - CJ
vacancy (due to my withdrawal)
vacancy (due to Octavian's withdrawal)

Your method yields:
ravensfire - CJ
Strider, who placed dead last with 2 votes - AJ by default
vacancy

I fail to see how the Election Office is overriding any votes by doing it this way instead of your way, or is somehow doing it in a manner contradictory to the will of the people who voted in those elections.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
No, this is really intended to question the authority of an unelected position to hold this much power over the people.

I was probably unclear. I apologize. Please advise if I should resubmit the request.

No, your clarification helps - I wanted to make sure that there were not multiple requests for the same situation.

For right now, your request will be part of Group 4.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Bootstoots
How, exactly, was the Election Office overriding citizen votes? Just because we elected two candidates who later pulled out doesn't mean that citizen votes were overridden.

This is the problem. The candidates did not "later pull out". How can you claim that is what happened? It is clearly NOT what happened.

The candidates withdrew before the election completed.

There is a difference.

Further, my request still stands. At a minimum, if the election office will hold this kind of power, it needs to be an elected position.

I meant later as in after the poll was posted, not after the election closed. Other than that misunderstanding, can you point out what was illegal about how the Election Office handled this?

Regarding the Election Office's power, I did not expect or want to be given the decision making power on this issue. The Election Office normally only coordinates elections by posting nomination and election threads as well as election results, nothing more. Normally, we wouldn't decide what happens in a case like this, but as there is no judiciary to rule on it, the ruling seems to have been thrust upon us (or more appropriately me, as the de-facto spokesperson for this office).

Boots. This is not about you. it is about the office.

I have pointed out repeatedly through this thread how it is illegal what you did. Two people withdrew. They were no longer in the election. Period. One position is not vacant.

Should Strider win with only a few votes? Maybe not, but don't twist the laws to prevent it. It is not Strider who disregarded the trust of those who voted for him. it is those who withdrew in the middle of the race who did so.

I understand there is room for disagreement here, I really do.

But I feel I have stated clearly througout where the violations have occured, and to continue doing so here is only going to get me slapped around by mods.

Well, you can really interpret this both ways, and CoS J.3.d.1.c states:C. The nominees with the 2nd and 3rd most votes shall
be the Associate Justices.
Given that it says nominees, which it cannot be denied that Oct and I were, it seems fairly clear that this should be the method chosen.

Of course, it is still open to interpretation.

Folks - please move the discussion to a Citizen thread, or hold it for the JR. The request has been made, it will not be acted upon immediately, or anytime in the next few days in all probability.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

I have decided to appoint donsig as the second Associate Justice.

Let the fun begin :lol:

congratulations to donsig

I have reviewed the last month of this game, and decided that I am not going to contribute any further to the legal crap going on.

I withdrawl all Review requests, and any outstanding issues I have brought up.

I am going to go back to playing the game. I wish all of you the best of luck.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Well, you can really interpret this both ways, and CoS J.3.d.1.c states:C. The nominees with the 2nd and 3rd most votes shall
be the Associate Justices.
Given that it says nominees, which it cannot be denied that Oct and I were, it seems fairly clear that this should be the method chosen.

Of course, it is still open to interpretation.

Once again, and this time perhaps even more clear. I agree there are multiple interpretations.

As noted above, multiple times, the standard says that, the law does not. The law says citizen. The law overrides the standard. The interpretation that someone who withdrew is still a citizen involved with the election doesn't pass the giggle test.

However, good news. As noted above, I am withdrawing all complaints and reviews. The poor court is overburdened as is.

Back to the game.

Originally posted by zorven
I have decided to appoint donsig as the second Associate Justice.

Let the fun begin :lol: I ask that a pro-tem justice be appointed to fill in for donsig in the CC's of Rik Meleet and myself, as he is the accuser in those cases.

I have a request of the Judiciary. I would like to see our 3 Books annoted for any Judicial Reviews that clarified a section or caused it to become void. For example,

CoL Section C.1.d.


d. The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and vote
on all cash requests in a Cash Request poll.
1. These requests should be made in the Senate thread,
or another designated thread indicated in the first
post of the Senate thread.
2. Each request should be considered individually
unless the requestor specified otherwise.
3. Each request should be voted on seperately.
4. Should more requests be approved than funds
available, requests shall be conducted in the order
determined by the Designated Player.

Note: Judicial Review DGIVJR12 has ruled that cash requests
approved by the Senate to not need to be posted by the Senate
in the Turn Chat Instruction Thread.

Originally posted by zorven
I have a request of the Judiciary. I would like to see our 3 Books annoted for any Judicial Reviews that clarified a section or caused it to become void. For example,

CoL Section C.1.d.


d. The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and vote
on all cash requests in a Cash Request poll.
1. These requests should be made in the Senate thread,
or another designated thread indicated in the first
post of the Senate thread.
2. Each request should be considered individually
unless the requestor specified otherwise.
3. Each request should be voted on seperately.
4. Should more requests be approved than funds
available, requests shall be conducted in the order
determined by the Designated Player.

Note: Judicial Review DGIVJR12 has ruled that cash requests
approved by the Senate to not need to be posted by the Senate
in the Turn Chat Instruction Thread.


:) DGIVJR12 did not change or make void CoL Section C.1.d. in any way, shape, or form, all it did was answer a question about the particulars of Cash Requests.

I can see putting a link to a JR below a rule that has been referenced in a Judicial Review, but strictly just for reference. If we want to amend a rule of any kind, we would need to follow procedure, as determinations made in a JR affect future Laws, not existing ones. This is not saying an interpretation of an existing Law can't be made by the Judiciary (I know some of you legal types started drooling when I said that ;) ), it's saying you can't just CHANGE an existing law because of an interpretation or determination. Again, let's do things the right way.

Originally posted by Cyc

:) DGIVJR12 did not change or make void CoL Section C.1.d. in any way, shape, or form, all it did was answer a question about the particulars of Cash Requests.

Sure, my one example did not addresss a JR that changed or made void a section of law. It did clarify the law as I mentioned was one of the objectives of my proposal.


I can see putting a link to a JR below a rule that has been referenced in a Judicial Review, but strictly just for reference. If we want to amend a rule of any kind, we would need to follow procedure, as determinations made in a JR affect future Laws, not existing ones. This is not saying an interpretation of an existing Law can't be made by the Judiciary (I know some of you legal types started drooling when I said that ;) ), it's saying you can't just CHANGE an existing law because of an interpretation or determination. Again, let's do things the right way.

I am not advocating that my proposal amends rules or changes them. It just adds reference to Judicial Reviews that have an effect on how those laws are implemented within the game. I suppose a note that just included a hyperlink would be fine, but I would rather have in in-line, short, succinct note rather than pointing to a page of text.

My whole point is for users to be able to reference the 3 Books and not have to search elsewhere to be able to have all the info they need to use and implement the laws.

I suppose a note that just included a hyperlink would be fine, but I would rather have in in-line, short, succinct note rather than pointing to a page of text.

My whole point is for users to be able to reference the 3 Books and not have to search elsewhere to be able to have all the info they need to use and implement the laws.

Well, good, zorven I guess we can agree with the link reference. Adding any additional notes to a Law will only be seen as an addition to the law. The entire reason for the Judicial Log is so people can go to one place to review decisions about the Law. A link to the specific JR or JR's that pertain to a Law would be the best way to go about this. I believe adding notes under Laws would just confuse some of our Citizens who are not used to reading legislation. :)

Public discussion on T2-JR4 (Review of the Term 2 Judicial Election) has started here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77572)

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

Originally posted by ravensfire
Public discussion on T2-JR2 (Review of the Term 2 Judicial Election) has started here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77572)

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

Umm, that's the link for T2-JR4. :p

Originally posted by DaveShack


Umm, that's the link for T2-JR4. :p

You'd think someone with an Accounting degree and who's a jsp developer could actually use the keypad without typos. Or at least know when he's fat-fingered an entry.

Fixed! Thanks for the correction, DS.

-- Ravensfire

This is a request for a Judicial Review of a proposed amendment to the Code of Standards in accordance with CoS N. This proposal would replace, in its entirety, Code of Standards J.3.d


1. Judiciary exceptions:
A. There shall be only 1 multi-select poll for the Judiciary branch.
i. This poll will list all the candidates and instruct the citizens that
only the recipients of the three highest vote totals will be elected.
B. The nominee with the most votes shall be the Chief Justice.
i. Should a tie exist for 1st, the nominees tied for that
position shall be listed in a poll to determine who shall be
the Chief Justice. This poll shall last for 2 days. The person
receiving the 2nd most votes in the poll if there are two
candidates tied shall be an Associate Justice. If there are
three or more candidates tied, the 2nd and 3rd place shall
be Associate Justices.
C. The nominees with the 2nd and 3rd most votes shall be the Associate
Justices, unless a tie existed for 1st most votes. If there
are two tied for 1st, the 3rd place from the original multi
choice poll shall be Associate Justice. If three or more tie
for 1st in the multi-choice poll, the associate justices shall
be determined as specified in foregoing section 1.ii.a.
D. Should a tie exist for either Associate Justice position, where
there are more candidates tied than positions available, a run-off
poll shall be posted. This poll shall list only the tied candidates
and the number of positions available. This poll shall be a single-
select poll (standard format), and be open for 24 hours. The
candidate(s) with the most votes shall be elected to the position(s).
This poll shall run for 2 days.

2. At-Large Governors
A. There shall be only 1 multi-select poll for all At-Large Governor
positions.
i. This poll will list all the candidates and instruct the citizens that
only the recipients of the X highest vote totals will be elected,
where X is the number of At-Large Governor positions for the election
cycle.
B. The top X candidates, where X is the number of At-Large Governor
positions for the election cycle, shall be the At-Large Governors
C. Should a tie exist between two or more citizens for the final
At-Large Governor position, a run-off poll listing only those
citizens shall be posted. This poll shall last for 2 days.

Ok, I am back, or should be home tommorow. Though I am sorry to say I will be unable to fill my duty has associate justice. This has been just to much on me at once, and to soon after my brother died. My heart problems have popped back up, and I'd be better off, health-wise to resign.

For anyone who may have been worried, Doe is fine, otherwise I wouldn't have left like I did.

Under any ordinary circumstance's I would be happy to take the challange of this job and I would be honored even more if at a later date I am deemed able to do the job again, but hopefully under better circumstance's then these. I was not expecting everything just to happen at once, and I just need to relax and calm down some.

I'm also sorry about leaving on such short notice, and my ill-deemed appointment. I had just gotten a phone call that one of my friends who moved to Colorado a few months ago had died. I knew her family pretty well, and we were close friends. So of course, I got up there as soon as possible. I'm sure you could understand the circumstance's.

Strider!

Welcome back - glad to hear your g/f is well, very sorry to hear of your loss.

Hopefully we'll see you in the Judiciary next term - and may it be a quiet one!

-- Ravensfire

The Court shall conduct a Judicial Review of a Proposed Law under Section M.2 of the Code of Standards. The text of the proposed law to be reviewed is below. Note that this proposal will replace J.3.d.1 and J.3.d.2.


1. Judiciary exceptions:
A. There shall be only 1 multi-select poll for the Judiciary branch.
i. This poll will list all the candidates and instruct the citizens that
only the recipients of the three highest vote totals will be elected.
B. The nominee with the most votes shall be the Chief Justice.
i. Should a tie exist for 1st, the nominees tied for that
position shall be listed in a poll to determine who shall be
the Chief Justice. This poll shall last for 2 days. The person
receiving the 2nd most votes in the poll if there are two
candidates tied shall be an Associate Justice. If there are
three or more candidates tied, the 2nd and 3rd place shall
be Associate Justices.
C. The nominees with the 2nd and 3rd most votes shall be the Associate
Justices, unless a tie existed for 1st most votes. If there
are two tied for 1st, the 3rd place from the original multi
choice poll shall be Associate Justice. If three or more tie
for 1st in the multi-choice poll, the associate justices shall
be determined as specified in foregoing section 1.ii.a.
D. Should a tie exist for either Associate Justice position, where
there are more candidates tied than positions available, a run-off
poll shall be posted. This poll shall list only the tied candidates
and the number of positions available. This poll shall be a single-
select poll (standard format), and be open for 24 hours. The
candidate(s) with the most votes shall be elected to the position(s).
This poll shall run for 2 days.

2. At-Large Governors
A. There shall be only 1 multi-select poll for all At-Large Governor
positions.
i. This poll will list all the candidates and instruct the citizens that
only the recipients of the X highest vote totals will be elected,
where X is the number of At-Large Governor positions for the election
cycle.
B. The top X candidates, where X is the number of At-Large Governor
positions for the election cycle, shall be the At-Large Governors
C. Should a tie exist between two or more citizens for the final
At-Large Governor position, a run-off poll listing only those
citizens shall be posted. This poll shall last for 2 days.


-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

Mr. Chief Justice,

I have noticed that when preparing the proposed law for posting here, that one typographic error remains. Please replace the text "1.ii.a" at the end of Section 1.C with the text "1.B.i".

Thank you.

Public Discussion on T2-JR6 has begun here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77911) .

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

Out of curiousity, when are the proceedings on Rik's and my CC's going to take place?

I will be willing to help with some judiciary precedings. I resigned because I won't have the time (nor the health) to do it full time, but I will help out if you need anything.

Though, this might change.. right now I think this is the Soup and Bread bowl talking. (St. Louis Bread Company is good...)

Very smart Shalashaska... Since no one's here, I'm editing this thing.

You must stop!!! You are going to ruin the game of you haven't already!!!

I Know i just posted somethings that might be slightly against the rules like -
Article M of the Constitution.
Commission of any game action by any person other than the Designated Player while carrying out their duties that is not instantly reversible without reloading the save is strictly forbidden. 1. Exception: Determining options in the renegotiation of Peace agreements requires an action of acceptance or war to exit the bargain screen. This may be done but the game must be immediately closed without saving.

well i guess it could "spoil" the game a little. oh well.
My bad. if you angry or upset i wont take it personally if you punish me. *puts hands out for cuffs* oh well lets just assume for now iam innocent-
Right to a Fair Trial a. A citizen accused of a crime is considered innocent unless proven otherwise
bye :mischief:

IMHO, you've already ruined the game for 3 people. Unless you want to have everyone mad at you, I would suggest not to do that again.

CT..should we give this guy a trial or not???

Well, as far as I can tell, he is not a citizen, so does not have the right to a fair trial.

Outside forum mod intervention -- since no one else is online, I have split the posts that Shalashaska made. They made not 1, but 5 spoiler posts, containing the same message! (one I deleted before I discovered the extent of it). For the time being, Shalashaska was banned so that they couldn't do anymore damage.


Just to note, their 2 non-offending posts were in the Citizentry Registry, and the OT forum.

well he was in the resitry (how ever you spell it)


EDIT: oops I posted the same time as CT..sorry

Originally posted by truckingpete
well he was in the resitry (how ever you spell it)


EDIT: oops I posted the same time as CT..sorry

ahh, he was? He must've registered soon then, because normally I PM new people and see if they need any help with the concepts.

Ok, I guess by virtue of Shalashaska's very post, a CC is in order. I hearby request a CC against Shalashaska for the following:

1 - Retiring and looking at the replay.
2 - Taking a screenshot of the replay.
3 - Playing until atleast 900BC (evidence is in the evidence room -- a.k.a., the Recycle Bin) and saw future gameplay actions.
4 - Made atleast 4 posts (one post was deleted before I saw the extent) in 4 seperate threads that contained the spoiler info. (Judiciary, FA, Defense, and Presidential I believe).
5 - Posted spoiler comments in all threads about other existing civs, about the map, and about a certain, future gameplay action.

He also had apparent knowledge of the rules, as shown in his post above.

What is a CC??? Little new at the short word terms...

Citizen Complaint. It used to be "PI" -- Public Investigation.

EDIT: BTW -- just incase he edits his post, here's what he wrote above:


I Know i just posted somethings that might be slightly against the rules like -
Article M of the Constitution.
Commission of any game action by any person other than the Designated Player while carrying out their duties that is not instantly reversible without reloading the save is strictly forbidden. 1. Exception: Determining options in the renegotiation of Peace agreements requires an action of acceptance or war to exit the bargain screen. This may be done but the game must be immediately closed without saving.

well i guess it could "spoil" the game a little. oh well.
My bad. if you angry or upset i wont take it personally if you punish me. *puts hands out for cuffs* oh well lets just assume for now iam innocent-
Right to a Fair Trial a. A citizen accused of a crime is considered innocent unless proven otherwise
bye :mischief:

Well then I agree with CT...

I think I was the first one to notice him,,I reported it to a modertor and the President..so I can help anyway I could...

I'll post more later if you want more info..

Right now I got to go...

Here's a chatlog discussion I had with Shalashaska.

i am innocent.

This Majority Opinion was unanimous.

The Term 2 Judicial Elections results were ambiguous as multiple citizens declined the position of Associate Justice. Responding to requests, the Election Office stated that Ravensfire was elected as Chief Justice, Bootstoots as Associate Justice and Octavian as Associate Justice. The Election Office then determined that Bootstoots and Octavian resigned from the office, resulting in both positions being vacant.

We find that this determination is invalid. The Election Office is there to ensure the election process functions smoothly, by determining the dates, creating threads, tracking nominations, determining the vote totals and posting them. The Election Office has no mandate to interpret election results.

The question then becomes which citizens were elected to the Judiciary. From Section F.5 of the Code of Laws, “The citizen gathering the most votes in an election is deemed the winner of that election.” (Also, note Section J.3.d from the CoS.) There are no exceptions to this rule, nor are there any provisions within Fanatican law to support withdrawing from an election once the Election Poll has been posted.

We therefore find that Ravensfire, Bootstoots and Octavian X were elected to the Judiciary. We note that this does match what the Election Office determined.

The elected Associate Justices subsequently declined the office. There is no provision in our laws for the election winner to be chosen from the next highest vote winner on the ballot. This resulted in a vacancy according to Section H.1 of the CoL, “Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election shall be filled via appointment by the President”. The President, in accordance with Section H.1 of the CoL, then filled these vacancies.

The Judiciary for Term 2 is therefore found to be: Ravensfire as Chief Justice, Peri as Associate Justice and donsig as Associate Justice.

The need for this review came in part from multiple candidates being elected simultaneously to other positions by receiving the most votes for that election. The law stipulates that only the person with the most votes is the winner. (Section F.5 of the CoL). This puts those citizens clearly in conflict with Article H of the Constitution. It is Section J.1.d of the CoS which allows this conflict to happen and encourages electoral confusion. It allows citizens to run for multiple offices simultaneously and does not provide a mechanism to relieve this conflict within the election process.

Therefore, Section J.1.d of the Code of Standards is stricken from the laws of Fanatica.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

Originally posted by Chieftess
Ok, I guess by virtue of Shalashaska's very post, a CC is in order. I hearby request a CC against Shalashaska for the following:

1 - Retiring and looking at the replay.
2 - Taking a screenshot of the replay.
3 - Playing until atleast 900BC (evidence is in the evidence room -- a.k.a., the Recycle Bin) and saw future gameplay actions.
4 - Made atleast 4 posts (one post was deleted before I saw the extent) in 4 seperate threads that contained the spoiler info. (Judiciary, FA, Defense, and Presidential I believe).
5 - Posted spoiler comments in all threads about other existing civs, about the map, and about a certain, future gameplay action.

He also had apparent knowledge of the rules, as shown in his post above.

T2-CC3 has been filed.

The advocates for each side are being determined. Once both advocates are determined, they will investigate the charge and present their findings to the Court.

At that point in time, the court will determine to accept the charges or dismiss them. If you have any evidence you wish the advocates to consider, please PM them or myself (if they have not been determined yet).

I remind all citizens that Shalaskaska is innocent unless he is found guilty. Please continue to extend him your friendship and knowledge of the game as you would any other citizen.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

I am disappointed that the Court did not address at all the issue of individuals withdrawing from the election prior to completion. This remains an open area that will continue to invalidate elections going forward.

That's what you're disappointed in Bill? I was extremely disappointed in the notion that out Judicial Bench feels it can modify any of the three books with the wave of a pen (or keyboard, whatever the case may be). I'm having serious problems with that, as I believe only the Congress has that ability.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
I am disappointed that the Court did not address at all the issue of individuals withdrawing from the election prior to completion. This remains an open area that will continue to invalidate elections going forward.

On the contrary - ... nor are there any provisions within Fanatican law to support withdrawing from an election once the Election Poll has been posted.

Third paragraph, last sentance.

-- Ravensfire

I would like to address the following section of the court's ruling and get some feedback from the Justices.

The need for this review came in part from multiple candidates being elected simultaneously to other positions by receiving the most votes for that election. The law stipulates that only the person with the most votes is the winner. (Section F.5 of the CoL). This puts those citizens clearly in conflict with Article H of the Constitution. It is Section J.1.d of the CoS which allows this conflict to happen and encourages electoral confusion. It allows citizens to run for multiple offices simultaneously and does not provide a mechanism to relieve this conflict within the election process.

Therefore, Section J.1.d of the Code of Standards is stricken from the laws of Fanatica.

I understand that Article H prohibits one from holding more than one office. What definition of "hold" did the court use in its ruling? My interpretation would have been to define "hold" as beginning on the first of the month after the election. Thus, during the period between the end of the election and the beginning of the month there is no conflict with Article H if a citizen has won 2 elections. As long as the citizen declines one before the first of the month, the citizen will continue to not be in violation of Article H.

Originally posted by ravensfire


On the contrary -

Third paragraph, last sentance.

-- Ravensfire

Using lack of a law as reasoning to slide by a issue is dangerous in the long run, in my opinion.

Using that logic, there are no laws on the books that say I cannot declare myself the acting President of the nation, and as such, grant myself full power and authority to do whatever I please. There are no laws on the books that say we cannot do many things. After all, we have elections and all, but hey, there are no laws saying we cannot do this, so I think I will.

Under your ruling. Someone could run for President, and withdraw prior to the election ending. If they got the most votes, they win anyway, even though they withdrawn.

How does that pass even the simplest of logic tests? It doesn't.

No matter, the ruling is made, and as always the court will guide things the way they wish too. Good luck on that.

Correct me if I am wrong Bill but I did not think the court could make laws where none exist, only interpret/validate the ones that do exist. The implication of the ruling is that Congress need to pass a law which deals with withdrawls and not rely on the Court to do its work.

Re: Withdrawls: We have a system whereby a candidate has to actually accept a nomination to be placed in an election poll. Once a citizen accepts a nomination and is placed on the election poll ballot he or she is in the election. Period. Recall what General Sherman once said: "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve." It is the voters who decide who wins an eleciton, not the candidates.

Re: Modifying the Three Books: We have a system wherein there area multitute of laws in several levels. Since it is quite possible that some of these laws may be contradictory a method is needed to resolve the conflicts. The Judiciary has resolved one with this Judicial Review in accordance with our laws. It is also within our laws for Congress to enact new laws to further modify the interpretation made in this JR. I hasten to point out that the Congress would have to get off its lazy duff in order to do so.

Re: Definition of hold: We have a system wherein we choose our leaders through an election process. This JR was about the election process and not about the whens and wherefores of a duly elected official refusing to serve in the office he or she was elected to. Demogame players pay a lot of lip service to the *Will of the People* yet we all tend to forget that the *Will of the People* can itself be contratictory. As citizens we want to have our cake and eat it, too. But we cannot. So with wanting to elect leaders and allow citizens to run for more than one office. We cannot do both.

BTW, I did concur with the posted majority opinion.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX

...there are no laws on the books that say I cannot declare myself the acting President of the nation, and as such, grant myself full power and authority to do whatever I please.

Under your ruling. Someone could run for President, and withdraw prior to the election ending. If they got the most votes, they win anyway, even though they withdrawn.


Yes, you can declare yourself acting President but if you play the save you would be violating the constitution.

Yes, again, but so what? What if the President resigned on day one of his term before doing anything - even appointing a VP. We'd have a big mess wouldn't we. But that's the way the system is set up and the way the rules are written. :crazyeye:

Originally posted by donsig


Yes, you can declare yourself acting President but if you play the save you would be violating the constitution.

Yes, again, but so what? What if the President resigned on day one of his term before doing anything - even appointing a VP. We'd have a big mess wouldn't we. But that's the way the system is set up and the way the rules are written. :crazyeye:

Which is why I'm wondering why we did away with the "runner up = VP" rule anyway...

Originally posted by Chieftess


Which is why I'm wondering why we did away with the "runner up = VP" rule anyway...

CT, don't even bother to think about it. Not worth the effort.


To be perfectly honest, I don't agree with the judiciary's decision on this either? So if someone saws they withdraw, but still wins the office, we have someone who doesn't want to do bullcrap in a poistion? If they withdraw, they should be out.

Both citizens involved in the recent Citizen's Complaint (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1587895#post1587895) have requested that advocates be found for them.

If anyone is interested in filling either position (Prosecution or Defense), please PM me.

EDIT: Both advocates have been appointed - my thanks to all!

Prosecution: Strider
Defense: Bootstoots

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

:crazyeye: You guys must be on some great drugs.

You're bizarre ruling on withdrawls was way out in left field. You're basing that ruling on a lack of Law.

You used the wrong Law for replacing a Judicial Member when a spot in the Judiciary is vacant. :rolleyes:

And for the second time, ravensfire wants to create/modify a Law. I don't care what your baloney reasons are, there are LAWS that tell us how to modify the Three Books. You can't do this because it is convenient in your Judicial Reviews.

Not only is this JR bizarre, but if you insist in keeping with the rulings and actions of this JR, it will have been the second time you've broken the Law doing your job, ravensfire. Deal with it.

Cyc, you will not turn this into another ugly judicial thread. This is not a personal matter. If you wish to object to the ruling made, you will do so in a civil manner.

OK, eyrei. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Strider

To be perfectly honest, I don't agree with the judiciary's decision on this either? So if someone saws they withdraw, but still wins the office, we have someone who doesn't want to do bullcrap in a poistion? If they withdraw, they should be out.

Well, Strider, I suggest we ask ourselves two questions here. If someone doesn't want to do bullcrap in a position then

1) Why did that person take the trouble to accept the nomination

and

2) Why did that person get the most votes for the position?

In any event, we cannot force a person to accept an office. We can elect him or her to the office. If the person doesn't want the job they can decline it, but once a person accepts a nomination and the election poll is posted, that person is in the election, come what may. The judicial ruling is simple here: If you don't want the job don't accept the nomination.

Originally posted by Cyc

You used the wrong Law for replacing a Judicial Member when a spot in the Judiciary is vacant. :rolleyes:


If you'd like to request a judicial review on this you are welcome to do so. The relevant sections of the CoL are H.1 and H.3 I think.

I request clarication on the Ruling of the last Judicial Review. Specifically, where it states that CoL has "been struck down". The following verbiage was given as a lead in to the phrase in question:

The need for this review came in part from multiple candidates being elected simultaneously to other positions by receiving the most votes for that election. The law stipulates that only the person with the most votes is the winner. (Section F.5 of the CoL). This puts those citizens clearly in conflict with Article H of the Constitution. It is Section J.1.d of the CoS which allows this conflict to happen and encourages electoral confusion. It allows citizens to run for multiple offices simultaneously and does not provide a mechanism to relieve this conflict within the election process.

Therefore, Section J.1.d of the Code of Standards is stricken from the laws of Fanatica

It appears that the court has deem this Law to be conflicting with Section F.5 of the CoL, and there fore has struck it from the Three Books. Is this the case?

Associate Justice donsig has given the following reason for this Court modifying the Three Books:

Re: Modifying the Three Books: We have a system wherein there area multitute of laws in several levels. Since it is quite possible that some of these laws may be contradictory a method is needed to resolve the conflicts. The Judiciary has resolved one with this Judicial Review in accordance with our laws. It is also within our laws for Congress to enact new laws to further modify the interpretation made in this JR. I hasten to point out that the Congress would have to get off its lazy duff in order to do so.

While this seems to make a logical point, it simply states that this Court made the ruling because it was convenient, not legal. He also says that the Congress can get off their lazy duffs to enact new Laws. I suggest that the Judicial Branch get off their lazy duffs and follow the lawful procedure needed to "strike a Law from the Books of Fanatica".

Originally posted by Cyc
You're bizarre ruling on withdrawls was way out in left field. You're basing that ruling on a lack of Law.


The ruling is not based on a lack of laws. F.5 of the CoL and J.3.d of the CoS clearly and explicitly state who wins elections in general and judiciary elections in particular. Section H.1 of the CoL specifies how the vacancy should have been handled. This decisi0n is in no way based on laws that are not written.

Originally posted by donsig


The ruling is not based on a lack of laws. F.5 of the CoL and J.3.d of the CoS clearly and explicitly state who wins elections in general and judiciary elections in particular. Section H.1 of the CoL specifies how the vacancy should have been handled. This decisi0n is in no way based on laws that are not written.

See, donsig. You anser me with one line and ravensfire answers Bill with another, both trying to cover the same point. It's called doubletalk or misdirection. Please get your stories straight.

Originally posted by donsig


If you'd like to request a judicial review on this you are welcome to do so. The relevant sections of the CoL are H.1 and H.3 I think.

Well, you're half right donsig. The specific Law dealing with the Judiciary is CoL Section H.3.

Your Judicial Review based the decision on CoL Section H.1. Gee, you were close anyway...

Thank you for validating my point.

Originally posted by Cyc


Well, you're half right donsig. The specific Law dealing with the Judiciary is CoL Section H.3.

Your Judicial Review based the decision on CoL Section H.1. Gee, you were close anyway...

Thank you for validating my point.

Here are the two clauses in section H of the CoL:

H. Vacant Positions
1. Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election shall be filled via appointment by the President.
3. Leader positions that become vacant mid-term shall be filled by appointing the deputy for that position as Leader.
a. A mid-term vacancy in the Judiciary shall be filled by a triumvirate vote between the President and the other two Justices determining and approving the replacement.


I have bolded a phrase from each clause. Since the AJ positions remained ufilled after the election the judiciary ruled that H.1 of the CoL was applicable to this case.

Originally posted by Cyc
I request clarication on the Ruling of the last Judicial Review. Specifically, where it states that CoL has "been struck down". The following verbiage was given as a lead in to the phrase in question: ...

Therefore, Section J.1.d of the Code of Standards is stricken from the laws of Fanatica

It appears that the court has deem this Law to be conflicting with Section F.5 of the CoL, and there fore has struck it from the Three Books. Is this the case?


No, the judiciary found section J.1.d of the CoS to conflict with article H of the constitution.

Originally posted by Cyc
Re: Modifying the Three Books: We have a system wherein there area multitute of laws in several levels. Since it is quite possible that some of these laws may be contradictory a method is needed to resolve the conflicts. The Judiciary has resolved one with this Judicial Review in accordance with our laws. It is also within our laws for Congress to enact new laws to further modify the interpretation made in this JR. I hasten to point out that the Congress would have to get off its lazy duff in order to do so.

While this seems to make a logical point, it simply states that this Court made the ruling because it was convenient, not legal. He also says that the Congress can get off their lazy duffs to enact new Laws. I suggest that the Judicial Branch get off their lazy duffs and follow the lawful procedure needed to "strike a Law from the Books of Fanatica". [/B]

The judiciary did not strike down section J.1.d of the CoS for convenience. It was stricken because it conflicts with article H of the constitution. The point I was trying to make about Congress getting off its lazy duff is that if it so chooses Congress can amend article H of the constitution and also reinstate J.1.d of the CoS afterwards. What the Congress chooses to do or not do from this point on will not affect the legality of the ruling just made. The striking of J.1.d is authorized by article F of the constitution.

edited

Originally posted by donsig


No, the judiciary found section J.1.d of the CoS to conflict with article H of the constitution.

You people like to quote Laws without posting them so people can read them. I will post them. To start off with J.1.d of the CoS posted here:

d. A citizen is limited to accepting no more than 3
nominations in any election cycle.
1. Each accepted nomination must be in a different
branch of Government.
2. The Election Office is responsible for contacting
citizens that have exceeded the limit.
3. Should the citizen not reduce their acceptances to
the limit, the Election Office shall interpret the
earier acceptances as having priority over the later
in creating the election ballots.


does not conflict with Article H posted here:

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial
Governor) simultaneously.

There are people who want to find a way to get rid of CoS J.1.d now that they realize it causes problems, but the court can not strike it down. 1. because there is no direct conflict here. Article H says no person shall hold Multiple positons, it doesn't say a person can not run for multiple positons. 2. Article F does not give the Judicial Branch to strike down Laws. It says below:

Article F. The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice
and two Associate Justices. These three justices are
tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting
laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed
by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional
responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the
Judicial Branch.

that the Judicial Branch are tasked with upholding the Constitution and supporting laws in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by Law. Here are the Laws that prescribe your course of action:

CoL Section D. Judiciary
1. The judiciary is comprised of three members, the Chief
Justice, and 2 Associate Justices

2. All members of the judiciary share several rights and
responsibilities.
a. Do not have Deputies but may appoint Pro-Tem
officials if they are unable to fulfill their duties.
Pro-Tem officials have all of the rights and
responsibilities of the officials they are filling
in for but are a temporary position and must
surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of
the official.
b. Participate in Judicial Review to determine the
legality of proposed amendments, laws and standards.
c. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to
interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and
standards.
d. Participate in Citizen Complaints.
e. Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial
Review.
3. The Chief Justice
a. Is responsible for posting the current census at the
beginning of each term.
b. Is responsible for updating and maintaining the
Judicial Log.
d. Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads
to keep them on topic and accurate.

4. Associate Justices
a. Aid the Chief Justice as requested.

Nowhere does it say that you have the authority to strike down Laws. When it comes to existing Laws, you merely interpret and clarify them. This is just like the original Judicial Review where ravensfire tried to create Law with a Judicial Review. As I pointed out then, these rulings may only be used in future Law, unless superceded by a future Law.

You people simply can't get rid of Laws because you don't like them.

The judiciary did not strike down section J.1.d of the CoS for convenience. It was stricken because it conflicts with article H of the constitution. The point I was trying to make about Congress getting off its lazy duff is that if it so chooses Congress can amend article H of the constitution and also reinstate J.1.d of the CoS afterwards. What the Congress chooses to do or not do from this point on will not affect the legality of the ruling just made. The striking of J.1.d is authorized by article F of the constitution.

Congress does not have to reinstate CoS Section J.1.d. You are incapapable of striking down Laws with a Judicial Review. Nowhere in our Three Books are you given this authority. Period.

Here are the two clauses in section H of the CoL:

H. Vacant Positions
1. Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election shall be filled via appointment by the President.
3. Leader positions that become vacant mid-term shall be filled by appointing the deputy for that position as Leader.
a. A mid-term vacancy in the Judiciary shall be filled by a triumvirate vote between the President and the other two Justices determining and approving the replacement.


I have bolded a phrase from each clause. Since the AJ positions remained ufilled after the election the judiciary ruled that H.1 of the CoL was applicable to this case.

In the Majority Opinion, ravensfire explained the reasons for using Article H. He states that the positions were vacated after they were won. This causes a mid-Term vacancy. Had they been vacated prior to being won, then there would not have been a winner, meaning that they did not hold the Office. Because this situation deals with the Judiciary, CoL H.3.a would be used. CoL H.1 would be used in any other situation. That's why H.3 was written in the same Law as H.1.

Well, as I can't get an answer from the Judicial Dept. on this clarification, I'll file a Judicial Review.

I'd like to put a halt to to striking down of our law CoS J.1.d with a JR. The Judicial Dept. is claiming they can do this in accordance with Article F of the Constitution. Article F does not give them this right. As a citizen I demand you stop this process until you can prove that Article F gives the Judiciary this right. This right is not prescirbed by Law anywhere in the Constitution. Therefore, how can you strike down any Law basing Article F as your reasoning?

Okay. I realize that what I have to say is a day late and probably quite more than a dollar short, but for some sick reason, I feel compelled to amplify the pounding headache I have this morning.

I freely admit that I have not kept up with the topics in this thread and all related judicial threads. I don't have the energy nor the desire to become entangled in this mess. In my opinion, it is why there are so few dedicated players left in the game. I, myself, was quite content to observe the remainder of DGIV from afar until that no good Cyc told me about my city being founded and suckered me back in.

Regardless, I offer this opinion for everyone's benefit in the hopes that it can help resolve this matter quickly so that we can enjoy the game part of the demogame. I hope that my assumptions with respect to our current laws are accurate and that my arguments are not repetitive of previous arguments.

-----

A candidate generally doesn't withdraw from an election once the election is underway. It's just not done. Of course, in the real world, elections generally occur in a single day. Even when the tallying of the votes drags on for many days after the official election, the candidates do not withdraw from the election. How can they? The election is done. It's history. You can't undo your participation in it.

However, what does happen and with amazing frequency, is that candidates concede the election, which can be done despite having a vote lead at the time of concession. This action should not invalidate the election process, nor should it be considered a withdrawal from the election. It is merely a way for a candidate to acknowledge his/her opponent as the correct person for the job.

Quite frankly, if there are no rules prohibiting a candidate from conceding an election, and considering that a citizen can only serve one leadership position per term yet run for more than one, then we should, by all that is holy, permit them to concede elections while they are ongoing.

If we are not going to permit concessions simply because there is no rule allowing them, then that sets a bad precedent in which no action can be made without the law allowing it. That is most certainly not the basis of a free society. Freedom implies that people within the nation are empowered to take actions provided that they are not disallowed by the laws. Not the other way around.

That's my piece of mind on the subject. I hope it doesn't inspire further divisiveness on this or any other legal matter currently under review.

I think, FortyJ that the problem is that the reason people dropped out of elections was that they had essentially won another one. So, people will not longer be allowed to run for more than one position, as that is the only way to avoid having this problem in the future.

The judiciary can not remove a law, they can only apply it to a specific case and rule on that case based on what the law says in relationship to other laws. Such a ruling sets a precedent that other cases will receive the same ruling in similar circumstances, but a ruling does not change the law.

On the point of the specific law (standard in this case) that the judiciary is attempting to invalidate, this standard limits the number of offices a citizen can accept nominations for. It does not grant the right to accept nominations, which is guaranteed in higher law. I'm in a hurry right now so will not quote that law, it is given as an exercize for the student.

The constitutional prohibition on holding multiple offices has not been tested by a specific case. I could imagine a CC if a person won more than one position and refused to resign all but one, but that is the furthest it can go.

If a JR is held on the legality of striking down a law, I will expect the entire current judiciary to appoint pro-tem justices, as it is a clear conflict of interest to rule on the legality of their own ruling.

Eyrei -

True, allowing everyone to run for only a single office would solve the problem, but could we not skin this cat another way, by simply allowing individuals to concede an election (even if they are winning at the time of concession)?

Personally, I don't see the problem with this. What I do see a problem with is the fact that we seem obsessed with writing laws detailing what can be done and then limiting everyone to actions permitted by law. This is a dangerous policy and one that is inconsistent with a free society.

Essentially, we're upset about people withdrawing from an election because there is no law that says it can be done. This is ludicrous. We should let everyone do just about everything they want, provided there are no laws that say it can't be done.

One more point with respect to the judiciary writing laws. They shouldn't be permitted to do so (except for the fact that they too are citizens and thus entitled to the right to propose new laws, etc.).

However, this does not mean that they are powerless to change the shape of our laws. They should be entitled, if not already, with the right to declare a law, existing or proposed, unconstitutional or otherwise in violation of another, higher law. If this ruling pertains to an existing law, then that law should be stricken from the books.

Of course, the people can always petition to re-insert that law, which can lead to a rather vicious cycle of passing the law only to have it struck down over and over again.

In short, the court should not be permitted to draft legislation or even modify existing legislation, but it should be empowered with the authority to declare both proposed and existing laws illegal and remove them from the books.

Thank you FortyJ for your opinion. It's that no good Cyc. ;) I'm glad to have you back reading in these forums again. The Demogame needs you. I agree with the general premise of your post, but eyrei is correct in his post too. The people in question won two elections, they had to withdraw from one. That's the Law.

I see now you've written a second post 40. Again I agree with you. The only reason I can see that this Court would use the reasoning you mention, is a convenient way of ending their problem. It was not a well planned or well backed (legally) move. There shouldn't be strict adherance to the Law for every move made, as you say. But my main point here is there are Laws that prohibit the Judiciary from creating Law or amending the Three Books on a whim. ravensfire has tried to do this twice now. Once as an Associate Justice and once now as Chief Justice.

DaveShack has hit the nail on the head. He is aware of the Law in question. He understands that only the Congress as a whole can do the things ravensfire is trying to do by himself. ravensfire was elected Chief Justice, not proclaimed God. He must follow the same rules that we all must. Why is this so difficult to understand.

I'd like to hear what Associate Justice Peri has to say about this (posted here in this thread). I'd also like to hear what our esteemed Chief Justice has to say about this Court's straying from the Law.

Damn yer chatty today, 40. :lol: No you're wrong. The Judiciary may not strick down Laws because their interpretation of them is that they are not constitutional. They may only make a ruling on an issue based on the Constitutionality of those Laws. That's their job as prescribed by the Three Books.

Sorry FortJ, by striking Laws from the Books, they are modifying them. They are changing the Law. What you saying is like if removed all stop signs in the US, that wouldn't actually by modifying the Law.... that would be removing the Law. It would not work. OK, kind of a bizarre example, but you get my point. Removal is modification.

Let me clarify one thing from my previous post....

I do believe the Judiciary should have the power to strike legislation from the books, provided that the legislation being struck down is in violation of another law or is found to be unconstitutional.

After a more careful examination of the most recent JR findings, I would not agree that the rule in question meets this criteria and therefore should not have been removed. Bad. Very bad. :tsk

I agree with you that the law does not meet this criteria, 40J. You are correct. There is a need to change this law to make our elections more efficient, but the Judiciary can not do this. So I have to disagree with your first statement. :) Even the Judicial Branch must follow the rules.

I really don't understand why this is an issue. Let people run for multiple offices and if they win more than one decline one, and let the person with the next most votes have that position. We did it that way for the whole duration of DG3 and it did not cause any problems.

Edit: BTW you ignored one of the points of my previous post (or maybe didn't see it at all). The standard in question limited the number of positions someone can run for. There is no need to grant anyone the right to run for an office, that right is guaranteed by higher law. Effectively this means that without the standard which was "sticken", someone could run for every position and there would be no law to prevent it.

As all of us expected, a rather lively debate has sprung up over this ruling.

As you all should be aware, there is nothing I despise more than the concept of "tradition" equaling "law". The mere concept that unwritten rules should govern some of our most important procedures is repulsive, foolish and will always be a trouble-maker.

A significant part of our decision was the chaos and madness that results from a citizen being elected to multiple offices. Essentially, J.1.d forces a conflict between Article H and Article J of the Constitution. The People have elected the same person to multiple offices - expressing their will. That same act is forbidden by Article H. Oops - trouble. AND the source of the JR.

I'll not rehash the arguements made on both sides. I will point out a one small little thing that many of you missed in your blind rage. What are the restrictions currently in place for nominations, assuming J.1.d is gone?

We very simply could have crafted a replacement J.1.d - and we gave that exactly zero thought - it's not our place. We identified a problem. We now expect Congress (that's YOU, btw) to fix that problem.

There are several ways this could be done. First, as zorven has done, create a replacement J.1.d that allows one nomination. Second, and I've not seen this mentioned, codify this cascade thing. That's it - just fix the law.

It is, however, much easier to complain and whine though, rather than see the problem and fix it. Until the problem is fixed, issues will continue to arise, chaos will rule and uncertainty will triumph. Take this energy and effort you are all expressing and MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK THE WAY YOU WANT IT TO.

It's a easy thing to do - Article I of the Con, Section J of the CoL and Section N of the Cos all cover amendments. If all you manage to do is complain, moan and cast disparaging notes about, you are part of the problem. Exercise some thought and some concern for the game and be part of the solution.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

:lol: Thank you for all the kind words, ravensfire. It is the right and the responsibility of Citizens to raise the issue of Government employees breaking the Law. This is not whining and moaning, or whatever phrase you used. You did not say to the Congress, "Fixing this Law is recomended", you said"We are striking this Law from the Laws of Fanatica". There's a big difference there. One you can do and one you can't. One is repulsive, foolish and will always be a trouble-maker, one is not.

If you want the Congress to act in the appropriate way, I suggest you lead by example. The points have all been made here. There is no back door. I have received youe PM accepting my JR and I hope it's not too far back on the docket (like Term 3 ;) ). Thanks, can't wait to see the ruling.

Originally posted by DaveShack
I'm in a hurry right now so will not quote that law, it is given as an exercize for the student.

If a JR is held on the legality of striking down a law, I will expect the entire current judiciary to appoint pro-tem justices, as it is a clear conflict of interest to rule on the legality of their own ruling.

I agree with your first statement in the quote abve DS, but sometimes the Laws should be posted. When someone quotes a Law just by it's reference, such as Article H or Article F of the Constitution and then misrepresents the meaning of those Articles, THAT is a student's mistake. Posting the Law could help in reducing these mistakes.

I also agree with your second comment. Pro-Tems should be appointed. ;)

Originally posted by ravensfire
As you all should be aware, there is nothing I despise more than the concept of "tradition" equaling "law".Pity, and quite shocking coming from someone who played a major part of drafting the legal system which was based primarily on the way we have always done things. ;)

Remember, tradition is another way of saying precedence, which, combined with a little ethics is a major influence on every successful legal system employed today.

----

Consider the following questions raised by a reporter after your most recent ruling: "Chief Justice ravensfire, could you please clarify the reasons behind your conclusion that the article you struck down is illegal? Furthermore, on what legal grounds do you exercise the right to remove a law from the books? The people want to know."

Originally posted by FortyJ
Pity, and quite shocking coming from someone who played a major part of drafting the legal system which was based primarily on the way we have always done things. ;)

Remember, tradition is another way of saying precedence, which, combined with a little ethics is a major influence on every successful legal system employed today.

Not exactly. I don't have a problem with tradition, but with unwritten tradition that is accepted as gospel. That's bad law. Precedence is a combination of written law and written rulings. Even the theories used as precendence are written down or extended from written rulings.

Tribal, or unwritten, knowledge is a poor excuse for law. It relies upon the memory of every person to be the same, and to have the same expectations. A new citizen does not have, nor can be expected to have, the same knowledge that you do. I'm quite far behind you in that respect, and willingly admit it.

Law needs to be written down, to be defined for all to see. Tradition that is not written down provides a shaky surface for which to stand. My efforts during the creation of our laws was to put down those traditions I was aware of, and to work with the others to create the best ruleset we could.

Consider the following questions raised by a reporter after your most recent ruling: "Chief Justice ravensfire, could you please clarify the reasons behind your conclusion that the article you struck down is illegal? Furthermore, on what legal grounds do you exercise the right to remove a law from the books? The people want to know."

To reply in kind,

"Excellent questions! In reverse order, as there is a pending action on that matter, I defer all answers to the discussions and results of that review.

This was a difficult decision for us to make. Peri, donsig and myself talked far more than we initially thought. We kept coming back to the same concept - that our most sacred law is the concept that the Will of the People must be followed. It's a nebulous concept, and one that has and will continue to cause discussion.

Relevant to this case, the Will expressed by the People is that Citizen A should be elected to Office X. Under the laws prior to the JR, Citizen A could be elected to Office X, Y and Z. Under our laws, that is patently illegal, Citizen A may hold only one office. The will of the people has then been thwarted - their preference for office cannot hold that office, by law.

It's a situation that is not covered under the laws allowing multiple nominations, or any other section of Fanatican law. The Judiciary cannot create new law, tempted though we were. By striking down a law conflicting with a higher law, we resolved that conflict the only means we had available to us.

Our expectation is that the Congress will recognize the inherent conflict, and work to resolve it. President zorven has already created one proposal to correct this situation, for which we commend his speedy action. There are alternate ways to correct this situation, including codifying some of the unwritten laws held dearly by some citizens. We hope that the citizens use the energy and emotion from this to create the solid framework of law upon which Fanatica may stand proudly. Thank you."

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

I would like to withdraw the Citizen Complaint I filed against Bootstoots.

I would like to ask for a Judicial Review of Section I of the CoL. Specifically, can newly elected leaders legally post game play instructions before their term actually begins?

The Citizen's Complaint filed against Shalashaska by Chieftess has been resolved.

Sort of.

After examining the results of the Investigation, the Court determine that there was enough evidence for a reasonable chance that the Accused did break Fanatican law as detailed in the Complaint, thus the Court has Accepted the Complaint. The Court did have reservations about the possible knowledge of future or alternative events that would be part of the trial. With this in mind, a remedy was discussed that would have forbidden Shalashaska from communicating any information gained from playing the save.

Unfortunately, all means of communication have been disabled by Shalashaska. Even the efforts of a moderator were met with no results.

Therefore, the case against Shalashaska is hereby postponed indefinitely. Should he wish to continue to participate as a Citizen of Fanatica, and the Court sincerely hopes he does, this case will be reopened by the Court at that point in time. The Complaint has been Accepted, so the next step will be to determine if a remedy is acceptable to all involved. As a starting point, the following Remedy was accepted by the Prosecutor, the Defense and the Court. We offer this merely as a suggestion.
1. Shalashaska will promise to never, ever, play any non-reversible action in any Demogame save.
2. Shalashaska will promise to not reveal any information gleaned from playing ahead in the save.
3. Shalashaska will create a new thread in the Citizen’s sub-forum and apologize for playing the save, and posting game-related information.

Should Shalashaska abide by these restrictions, the complaint will be considered dismissed. Should Shalashaska fail to do so, he will immediately be considered guilty of the accusation and will be sentenced accordingly.
The Court gratefully thanks Strider and Bootstoots for serving as Advocates in this case. We also thank those citizens serving as witnesses for their honesty and willingness to act without the use of the knowledge gained in participating in discussion.

This matter is now closed, pending the return of Shalashaska to the DG.

This Majority Opinion was unanimous

I request a Judicial Review to determine which cities are in the Province of Berry. The relevant sections of the CoL are C.2.b.2 and C.2.b.3. Specifically, since no provincial borders have ever been set, are the cities of Vandelay and Vo Mimbre within the province of Berry?
This judicial review was made much easier by the recent establishment of provincial borders by the Congress:

Provincial borders ratification poll. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78377)

Using the newly set borders the judiciary finds that the city of Vandelay is not in Berry province while Vo Mimbre is indeed in Berry province. Other cities in Berry province at this time are Dieux Rivieres, Montpellier, Huntington and Santa Lucia.

The judiciary also finds that Vandelay and St. Octaviansburg are in Province #2 and all other cities (Groton, Sanction and Mûre) are outside our established provinces and therefore under the auspices of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA).

The judiciary would like to point out that any cities subsequently founded that fall outside of established provincial borders will also fall under the direction of the MIA.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

On a personal note for the above review, I am still concerned about the use of "tradition" as law. As most of you know, I have trouble with that, and have tried to put many of these traditions in our law. New players do not know these traditions, creating confusion.

In this case, by tradition, the first province is everything. Yet, there is nothing within the law to support such a conclusion, nothing that defines a "default" set of borders. Adding something like that would have taken a single sentance "Until such times as provincial borders are defined, all land discovered is considered part of the first province.", and this review would not have existed.

I'm adding this to the Bugs thread, in hopes that when we craft a ruleset for DG5, those doing so will review that thread and correct the problems remaining.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatica

Just a moderator side-note about Shalashaska. He changed his email, and the forum is waiting for an email validation... only Shalashaska doesn't know he got an email, and can't find it. So, he can't post. I've told Thunderfall BTW.

Cyc filed a Judicial Review on the question if the Judiciary has the power to invalidate an existing law. The Judiciary affirms that it has this power, and details what actions should be taken when an existing law is invalidated.

This review was unanimous for the first part, and divided for the second part.

The Judiciary derives it’s powers from the Constitution and the Code of Laws. From Article F of the Constitution, “…tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws…” From Section D.2.c of the Code of Laws, “…participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and standards.”

The conflict creating this Judicial Review is over the actions of the Judiciary in T2-JR4 in invalidating Section J.1.d of the Code of Laws. As Article F states, the Judiciary is charged with upholding the laws of Fanatica. However, Article B of the Constitution states that “No rule shall be valid that contradicts these Articles, excepting an Amendment specifically tasked to do so.” Clearly, the Articles of the Constitution are the primary source of Law for Fanatica – all other laws must prevent conflicts with those Articles.

In T2-JR4, the Judiciary found that J.1.d did create a conflict with a higher body of law, and did not have a means to resolve that conflict. A lower body of law cannot create a conflict with a higher body of law without a means existing within law to resolve that conflict. Given the conflict, the decision to invalidate the law was both proper and within the powers of the Judiciary.

We affirm that the Judiciary has the power to invalidate existing law if the existing law is interpreted to conflict with an higher law where no means exists within law to resolve that conflict.

The second, ancillary question concerned the actions that should be taken once a law is invalidated.

The Court differed in its opinion on this matter. Per the request of the dissenting Justice, both opinions are detailed here.

All Justices concur that once a law is invalidated, it no longer has any power over Fanatica. We further agree that this information needs to be clearly made noticeable to the Citizens of Fanatica. Part of the duties of the Judiciary from Section D.2.c is to clarify existing law. By extension, this includes the presentation of the books of law for the Citizens of Fanatica.

Justices Ravensfire and donsig prefer the removal of any invalidated law from the books of Fanatica. The primary reason for this is clarity – a citizen should be able to review the books of law, and know that all laws listed are in force. Any other method could leave open the chance of a mis-interpretation by a citizen.

Justice Peri prefers that all laws remain on the books of Fanatica, including invalidated laws. All invalidated laws should be clearly and conspicuously denoted as invalid.

By a 2-1 vote, dissenting opinion above, the Court clarifies that all invalidated laws should be removed from the books of Fanatica.

Unbelievable, legally sanctioned breaking of the Constitution. This game is going to hell in a handbasket...

Hi all,
sorry i changed my email adress and got lost. :crazyeye:
ummm... yes i agree to the thing.

1st. I promise to never, ever, play any non-reversible action in any Demogame save.

2nd. I promise not to reveal any information gleaned from playing ahead in the save. also one of the post that cheiftess made show a chatlog desrcibed some of the things i learnt from the future. So maybe that log should get destroyed.

3. here is the thread I created in the Citizen’s sub-forum.
Here is the thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79499)

With Shalashaska's acceptance of the remedy, and apology, the CC against him his now closed.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

Good to see this case end with a reasonable solution. :)

Indeed :)

I would like a Judicial Review regarding the recently *passed* section J.1.d of the CoS. Specifically, was the ratification poll done in accordance with Section N.1 of the CoS?

Here is section N.1 of the CoS: 1. Polls to amend the Code of Standarsd shall be posted by the Judiciary upon succesful completion of a Judicial Review.

Here is the ratification poll. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79406)

I unable tp supply a link to the successful Judicial Review.

I respectfully ask that the court give this priority on the docket.

Thank you,
donsig
A Concerned Citizen

The Judiciary is seeking a citizen to serve as the Prosecutor for the Citizen's Complain filed against Rik Meleet by donsig. After many delays and hopes of settlement, the case is proceeding.

Please PM me if you are interested in this matter.

Link to CC (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1562088#post1562088)

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

This Majority Opinion was unanimous
I would like a Judicial Review of CoL B.2.e7. Specifically, does this section of the CoL give the ministry of Internal Affairs the authority to over-ride gubernatorial and Senate instructions on land use and slider settings given that: 1) article E of our constitution charges our Senators / governors the responsibilty for the care and mangement of our cities; and 2) C.1.c of the CoL grants control of the slider settings to the Senate.? this JR request is filed in the hope of determinig if the recent instructions posted by DaveShack (see below) are legal.

Where confusion exists, it is appropriate to give priority to the higher authority of law. In this case Article E is clear that Provincial Governors are responsible for the care, management and use of the cities and lands of a province. CoL C.1.b supports this.
Also CoL C.1.b-d specifies that the Senate alone is responsible for Slider Instructions.

Col B.2.e specifies the roles and responsibilities for the Internal Affairs Minister. Items 1-4 specific duties that are to be undertaken. Item 5-7 outline areas where the IAM has a supervisory interest. Although this section of the CoL is clear that the IAM is tasked with monitoring happiness, he is not tasked with acting upon his observations.

Therefore it is the opinion of this court that the Provincial Governor has the sovereign rights of care, management and use of cities and land within the province. Correspondingly the Minister of Internal Affairs cannot post legal instructions to change slider settings nor to reallocate city laborers or hire entertainers.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

I as much as I don't want to see more litigation, I feel I must file a compliant. A citizen not authorized to play a chat has done so in violation of CoL G. This violation occurred during the Turn Chat held on Feb 24 20:00 GMT. I might have given some leeway in this matter, but I even listed the CoC in the Turn Chat Instruction Thread. You can view the evidence here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79557)


G. Chain of Command
1. Determines the Designated Player if the President is
unavailable for the turn chat.
a. If no citizen in the CoC is present at the game play
session, the session shall be ended.

2. Settles departmental jurisdiction conflicts.

3. COC
a. President
b. Vice President
c. Minister of Internal Affairs
d. Minister of Defense
e. Minister of Foreign Affairs
f. Minister of Trade and Technology

A second compliant. The citizen that played the chat on Feb 24 not only played illegally, but also made an illegal trade of currency and ignored posted build queues. Who know what else was done illegally.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/CT_eyrei.gif This is a completely farcical CC cerimony! (to rephase a famous phrase) The only people present at the start of the turnchat were deputies. I was the military deputy, being the highest in the list. In prior demogames, the save was always passed to the next in CoC, which included deputies, then chatreps, governors, then citizens. Little to no slider instructions, people who aren't at the chat, and governor instructions which threaten to end the chat before it even starts! And why? ALL BECAUSE OF THIS ULTRA-TIGHT RULESET!!!!http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/CT_eyrei.gif

The game should continue to move. Had we stopped this past week, then just look at the progress we would have made over the past 2 terms! All because 67% of the time, everyone's wound up in their legal battles that they INSIST they must have every time a turnchat pops up! :mad:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/CT_eyrei.gif

As for currency, the Trade Deputy gave me his ok, and assured me that I wouldn't be PI'd/CC'd.

Fine, if you want it this way, then I'll tell you what! I'll RUN for presidency in term 3, and stop for every little detail. If a governor's queue is one off, I'll stop the chat. If a city's gonna riot, I'll stop the chat. If a trade is off, I'll stop the chat. These rules just don't allow the game to CONTINUE! Why, I'll even make the chat a such an odd-ball hour, that NO ONE will be able to attend, then, I just won't show up saying in the instructions, "I won't be able to make this chat. Hopefully someone else will...".

And, while we're at this farcical fiasco, how about I CC those involved for assuring me that I could play, AND for assuring me that I could make the trade? This is a DEMOgame! Not a Beuro-game!

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/CT_eyrei.gif Another walk in the quagmire. IMO, this game has become just a game of Bureaucracy not a game of Democracy. I would have to agree with Chieftess. Were making no progress in this game. Just stopping at every little insignificant thing. Back in the old days the CoC consisted of the President, then the Vice President, then the Leaders, then there Deputies, then the Governors, then to the Judiciary (I don’t remember on this one) and finally to the Chat-reps.

As Cyc said “Let's drop this thing, and back away. Slowly”

If anyone needs me, Ill be doing my katas in Huntington to get rid of this headache http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/CT_eyrei.gif

zorven,

Both of your complaints will be in the first one - we'll handle everything at once - CC#4.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

For any further records, I will be defending CT if this ever does turn into a CC.

I support Chieftess' position. Shouldn't we be grateful that she stepped forward instead of giving in to governmental inaction?

I will also support my deputy's position fully. This is completely pathetic.

CT, you should put that note up saying you could do the currency thing as an elimination of that as an issue or get them to post the authorization.

Again, this is absolutely pathetic.

- Sarevok

Posting as a citizen

The Chain of Command is listed quite conveniently in the first post of the turnchat instruction thread, so there should have been no room for doubt. If you are not one of the parties listed, you do not play.

If you want to participate in a game where anyone can do what they want and not abide by any rules, then it might not be a bad idea to head on over to the Stories and Tales forum, and click on Succession Games. There you can do whatever you please.

However, in this Democracy Game, we are a nation ruled by laws. It is the one thing that sets this game apart from the Succession game. Our President has every right to file a complaint on any citizen who he feels breaks those laws.

Granted, there are several legitimate gripes about our ruleset. In my opinion, this is not one of them. So my apologies, disgruntled ones, but this CC is truly a no-brainer.

And the charged action was so easily avoidable. :(

Just one thing to note - I didn't even realize that we had done away with the whole CoC until this CC. I saw Zorven's post, and I thought that was only a part of it (i.e., assuming some leaders would be there). I've read the rules twice, and maybe I missed that part.

Just to add, too. I was also taking advice from those in the chatroom, and not only that, I wanted the game to progress. If you take a look back in DG1, even DoM didn't want many game stoppages. The game should continue, otherwise users WILL lose interest. I've been doing a survey of why people left the demogame. The 2 main reasons so far are:

1 - no time.
2 - the ruleset.

I like the fact that people vote on issues. What I don't like is having to stop the chat for 1 small issue that's out of place. If we choose to expand our civ, we're only going to get more governors, which means more instructions that could go wrong. Take a look at the recent slider vote. 0-0. NO ONE VOTED!!! IMHO, this whole system is messed up. It was fine at the end of DG1 and start of DG2. Simple. Easy to understand. Then we went ahead and changed everything.

this constitution needs serious editing. Mabye I should pull a napoleon and write this constitution for these people...

I found a whole bunch of people who probably voted on the ruleset back in December, who haven't even set foot in the demogame in a month... (or more)

which is utterly ridiculous in my opinion.

Let's not clutter up the law offices with discussion. If the case proceeds there will be ample opportunity then.

If you don't like the ruleset, it is always possible to start a discusion on rule changes and try to get a majority to support your ideas.

Please take this conversation to another thread in the Citizens forum.

I agree with CG and Chieftess- and i was actually there to prove it. (read the log, i was making dumb comments :) )

In light of CoS K.4 and Minister Sarevoks posting of his absense in the Turn Chat Instruction Thread being brought to my attention, I would like to withdraw the portion of my CC that addresses the playing of the save illegally. Reading the following 2 sections of law, I can see how it could be interpreted as allowing a deputy to play a save in certain circumstances. I do not believe this was Chieftess' justification for allowing her to play, but it does seem to legally back up her actions. I still believe some of her actions during the save were illegal, and those complaints should continue. I would like to apologize to Chieftess for the accusation that she illegally played the save.

I would also like to request a judicial review.

Question: Can CoS K.4 allow a deputy to play the save in light of the specific nature of CoL G.3? Put another way, can CoS K.4 expand the Chain of Command beyond what is defined within CoL G.3?


CoL
G. Chain of Command
1. Determines the Designated Player if the President is
unavailable for the turn chat.
a. If no citizen in the CoC is present at the game play
session, the session shall be ended.

2. Settles departmental jurisdiction conflicts.

3. COC
a. President
b. Vice President
c. Minister of Internal Affairs
d. Minister of Defense
e. Minister of Foreign Affairs
f. Minister of Trade and Technology


CoS K.
4. Should an office holder post that they will be absent
for a certain time period, the Deputy is empowered
with all duties and responsibilities of the position
for that period.
a. The Deputy shall relinquish all such powers upon
return of the office holder.

ahh, now what we were discussing in the forum is now getting reviewed. Now this issue can be resolved.

Originally posted by zorven
A second compliant. The citizen that played the chat on Feb 24 not only played illegally, but also made an illegal trade of currency and ignored posted build queues. Who know what else was done illegally.

I see that this request was not sufficient as a complaint under our rules. Let me be more specific.

An illegal trade of technology was made by the DP. There were no orders issued by the Minister of Trade and Technology to initiate such a trade.

Build queues were changed from those posted by Governor Plexus.

EDIT: Both of the above charges are in violation of Article D of the Constitution.

And for the record, I would not have initiated this process if these were honest mistakes. These actions were known by Chieftess to be illegal and she did them anyway. We have rules so that they are followed and we must enforce them when they are intentionally and knowingly violated.

Relevent quotes are below:

Here (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_turnchat_feb24.zip) is the log. Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79557) is the Turn Chat Instruction Thread.

not a contiguous section of the log
[15:45:56] <!Chieftess> Governor Plexus maked the same mistakes in 2 cities
that stopped the turnchat last time - Having a worker in the 2 jungle
cities be built before the cities can even hit size 2. The chat was stopped
last time, and to stop it again is only stalling the game. Because of the
rules, Plexus can't even change the queues even if he were at the turnchat.
CC me if you must, but I'm not going to let the demogame stall turnchat
after turnchat because someone wants to build a worker in 2 turns, and the
game won't let it. I am adjusting the orders as a protest against the
governor's orders in the two cities. GAME ON!!!
[15:47:10] <!Chieftess> Huntington goes to warrior->worker->galley
[15:47:41] <!Chieftess> Because of the rules, Plexus can't even change the
queues even if he were at the turnchat. CC me if you must, but I'm not
going to let the demogame stall turnchat after turnchat because someone
wants to build a worker in 2 turns, and the game won't let it.
[15:47:46] <!Chieftess> I am adjusting the orders as a protest against the
governor's orders in the two cities. GAME ON!!!
[15:48:45] <!Chieftess> Santa Lucia switched to Warrior->Worker



[16:27:12] <@RikMeleet> Furiey, CT: What do you think in selling Germany
Currency ?
[16:27:28] <!Chieftess> Well, they're gonna get it anyway.
[16:27:40] <!Chieftess> Might as well take a world map and 22g from them.
[16:27:50] <+Furiey> for what? map + gold
[16:27:53] <@RikMeleet> No human player with the GL would buy currency now
....
[16:27:55] <!Chieftess> yep
[16:27:55] <@RikMeleet> Music update
[16:28:04] <+Furiey> true
[16:28:07] <!Chieftess> AI is dumb. :)
[16:28:15] <@RikMeleet> Music Update: "Circle of Life - Elton John"
[16:28:15] <!Chieftess> "France will win because Germany is dumb"
[16:28:26] <+Furiey> yep
[16:28:46] <@RikMeleet> I think you can safely sell it now, without being
CC-ed; it's unexpected and very smart to do.
[16:29:06] <!Chieftess> Anyone from trade here?
[16:29:36] <@RikMeleet> I am trade and tech deputy
[16:29:58] <!Chieftess> ok
[16:30:18] <!Chieftess> Ich werde Bismarck anrufen. :)
[16:30:19] <+Furiey> if we don't sell it they get it anyway from the GL
[16:30:32] <!Chieftess> WM, 22g, and TM for Currency.

[16:28:46] <@RikMeleet> I think you can safely sell it now, without being
CC-ed; it's unexpected and very smart to do.

Well then, I guess someone told me the wrong thing though... It was still an instruction from trade.

Zorvan, I still need an exact quotation of which law you are CCing CT for, for I can fully begin my investigation (in reality all I have to do is make one or two adjustments).

There are several laws that deals with this.

Originally posted by Strider
Zorvan, I still need an exact quotation of which law you are CCing CT for, for I can fully begin my investigation (in reality all I have to do is make one or two adjustments).

There are several laws that deals with this.

Sorry, it has been a long day. I will get them shortly.

Originally posted by zorven


Sorry, it has been a long day. I will get them shortly.

If need be, I will be willing to list a one's that has anything to do with this matter. Then you can close your eye's and poke the screen if you really want to ;).

Ok, I edited my post to include the specific law.

Can we CC Rik for playing pop Elton John instead of his good stuff?

:lol:

-- Ravensfire (budding music critic, never mind the Scatterbrain playing)

Originally posted by ravensfire
Can we CC Rik for playing pop Elton John instead of his good stuff?

:lol:

-- Ravensfire (budding music critic, never mind the Scatterbrain playing)

No, unless he broke an instruction in playing it, which for some strange reason, we didn't receive any instructions from that department.

Originally posted by Strider


No, unless he broke an instruction in playing it, which for some strange reason, we didn't receive any instructions from that department.

And that would be culture, which we don't have. ;)

Originally posted by Chieftess


And that would be culture, which we don't have. ;)

We do have it, it's just located within the the Department of Interior, who (not to blame them) doesn't care about culture all to much. (well, they do have more important things to take care of)

Edit: Prolly better to stop now, though this game is in desperate need of some "fun" were likely to get into trouble for this ;).

well... I can say that mine is the only department to yet have put up the instructions for tommorow's TC, and some havent put instructions up for a while.

I'm calling for a judicial review... :eek: (yes, I am!). Zorven made a new posistion, "Worker Czar". Where would any department appointed "helper posistion" be made?

Originally posted by Chieftess
I'm calling for a judicial review... :eek: (yes, I am!). Zorven made a new posistion, "Worker Czar". Where would any department appointed "helper posistion" be made?

CT,

Good request - but I've got a comment and a request. Comment - JR's are about a question of law, and we can't determine what law your request concerns. Request - bounce this to Term 3's court, please?

Pretty please?

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica (Term 2)

I simple "yes/no, post it here" would've sufficed. :)