View Full Version : Term 3 - The Judiciary - 'The more laws the less justice'


Peri
Feb 29, 2004, 12:53 AM
Welcome to the Term 3 Judicial Thread.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate everyone who was elected this term and to welcome Octavian and Dave to the bench.

The Judiciary reserves the right not to accept as a priority Judicial Reviews which are vexatious. Requests for such Reviews will be dealt with as court time permits.

The objective of this Judiciary is to promote co operation and teamwork and to discourage argumentative and factional behaviour.

Term 2 - Judicial Branch - The Hut of Justice (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=77204)

The Court:
Chief Justice: Peri
Associate Justice: OctavianX
Associate Justice: Dave Shack

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 receives its authority and responsibilities from Article F of the Constitution and Section D of the Code of Laws.

Official Census of Fanatica: 27

Quorum to Amend the Constitution: 18
Quorum to Amend the Code of Laws: 14
Quorum to Amend the Code of Standards: 0

Current Amendments to our Laws:

Current Docket and schedule of cases:
Active - Term 3
T3-JR1 'Under Article D.1 does the Ministry of Internal Affairs have the authority to discuss, poll and order the change of government for Fanatica? - requested by Ravensfire
T3-JR2 Amendment to the CoL and CoS - requested by Bootstoots
T3-JR3 Amendment to the CoL and CoS - requested by Zorven
T3-JR4 'Concerning the disposition of the unfinished term two JRs, who should complete them? ' - Requested by Donsig

Active - Term 2
T2-JR1 Review of Term 1 Special Elections, requested by donsig (Public Discussion is closed. Term 2 Court to produce ruling asap.)

T2-JR9 When may leaders post instructions?, requested by donsig (Public Discussion is closed. Term 2 Court to produce ruling asap.)

T2-JR11 Legality of Election Reform poll, requrested by donsig (Public Discussion is closed. Term 2 Court to produce ruling asap.)

T2-JR12 May a deputy play the save?, requested by zorven (Public Discussion is closed. Term 2 Court to produce ruling asap.)

T2-CC4 vs Chieftess, requested by zorven
T2-CC2 vs Rik Meleet, requested by donsig

Peri
Feb 29, 2004, 12:54 AM
Judicial Discussions
These are Judicial discussions that have their own thread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Peri
Feb 29, 2004, 12:55 AM
Active Cases
These are requested Judicial Actions that have their own thread.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
T3-JR1 - Under Article D.1 does the Ministry of Internal Affairs have the authority to discuss, poll and order the change of government for Fanatica?
As requested by Ravensfire

Link to Discussion Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=80409)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
T3-JR2 - Amending CoL G 3, CoS C, CoS E 2
As requested by Bootstoots

Link to Discussion Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=80220)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
T3-JR3 - Amending CoS J 1 d
As Requested by Zorven

Link to Discussion Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=80346)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
T3-JR4 - Previous Court (Term2) presiding over existing business
As requested by donsig

Link to Discussion Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=80698)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR1-Special Elections
As requested by donsig

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

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

Link to discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79662)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR12-May deputies play the save
as requested by zorven

Link to discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80093)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-CC#4-vsChieftess
as requested by zorven

Status: Determining Advocates
Prosecution: Open
Defense: Strider
---------------------------------------------------------------------[

Peri
Feb 29, 2004, 12:56 AM
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

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Peri
Feb 29, 2004, 12:56 AM
Closed Cases
These are Judicial Actions that have been resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

zorven
Feb 29, 2004, 01:07 PM
I hereby request a Judicial Review for the following CoS amendment:


CoS Section J.1.
d. A citizen is limited to accepting no more than one
nomination in any election cycle.
1. The Election Office is responsible for contacting
citizens that have exceeded the limit.
2. Should the citizen not reduce their acceptances to
the limit, the Election Office shall interpret the
earliest acceptance as the only valid acceptance
when creating the election ballots.

ravensfire
Feb 29, 2004, 02:42 PM
Under Article D.1 does the Ministry of Internal Affairs have the authority to discuss, poll and order the change of government for Fanatica?

The Minister of Internal Affairs shall be responsible for all domestic and cultural initiatives, as prescribed by law.

Should the Court determine that the Ministry of Internal Affairs not have the authority, I further request that they determine who does have that authority.

I ask that the court consider this matter with the utmost speed.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

zorven
Feb 29, 2004, 03:45 PM
Please note that I requested a Judicial Review in this thread. This court has not taken office yet, so my intent was that my Judicial Review request become official at the start of the term.

Bootstoots
Feb 29, 2004, 04:40 PM
deleted

Octavian X
Feb 29, 2004, 09:15 PM
I think I speak for all of us when I request that all currently open judicial reviews be closed to public discussion now. They've been silent for long enough, and they deserve a ruling soon.

Besides, the way this is looking, the court will be busy for some time...

ravensfire
Feb 29, 2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Octavian X
I think I speak for all of us when I request that all currently open judicial reviews be closed to public discussion now. They've been silent for long enough, and they deserve a ruling soon.

Besides, the way this is looking, the court will be busy for some time...

Octavian, you are correct - they should have been closed. The T2 Judiciary has been intending to discuss them, but conflicts have prevented that.

Remember, that the active cases will stay with Term 2. Hopefully, this court won't be as busy.

-- Ravensfire

Sarevok
Feb 29, 2004, 11:04 PM
That would certainly be something to hope for RF. :)

donsig
Mar 01, 2004, 06:21 PM
I would like to request a judicial review concerning the disposition of the unfinished term two JRs. Who should complete them? I respectfully ask the court to determine the applicable laws to answer this question. If the court refuses to do so then I will request a judicial review about the judicial review process.

donsig
Mar 01, 2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Octavian X
I think I speak for all of us when I request that all currently open judicial reviews be closed to public discussion now. They've been silent for long enough, and they deserve a ruling soon.

Besides, the way this is looking, the court will be busy for some time...

You do not speak for me. I would certianly like to make some comments in those threads. I was unable to do so during term two because our ridiculous laws forbid a sitting justice to speak his or her mind in JR discussion threads. I have requested a judicial review to determine who is responsible for completing the term two JRs. If the court finds that my responsibility ended when term two ended then I would like to exercise my right to participate in those JR discussions.

DaveShack
Mar 01, 2004, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by donsig
I would certianly like to make some comments in those threads. I was unable to do so during term two because our ridiculous laws forbid a sitting justice to speak his or her mind in JR discussion threads.

Without commenting on the requested JR on who should complete the remaining cases from T2...

Logically, if the T2 court continues to preside over the unfinished cases, then the judiciary rules should continue to prevail over those discussions with respect to the members of the T2 court. The rules are meant to regulate the discussion, not the people. In a separate example to illustrate what I'm trying to say, a justice who is recused from a case must be allowed to speak freely on that case, especially since in many such cases the recused justice is a party to the case. These rules are intended to promote at least the appearance of impartiality.

I also believe that justices should be able to say anything they want about a ruling, after the ruling has been made.

donsig
Mar 01, 2004, 08:11 PM
I respectfully request that the discussions on the outstanding judicial reviews from term two not be closed pending the Judicial Review I have requested in the hopes of ascertaining who is responsible for completing said judicial reviews.

It is commendable that both Peri and Ravensfire want to bring closure to these issues but I would like to point out that while *more laws* may mean *less justice*, *less time* definately means *less justice*. There may well be sound constitutional reasons against the term two justices making rulings in term three. Until my constitutional concerns are aired I cannot in good conscience join Ravensfire and Peri in forming judicial opinions on these outstanding JRs. I also feel that my constitutional right to be heard on these issues is in jeopardy because of the premature closing of discussions on these JRs.

Peri
Mar 02, 2004, 12:03 AM
May I draw your attention to CoS M 1 d 2
All proceedings started under one Court shall
continue with that Court through the conclusion of
that proceeding.

This is a pretty clear explanation of the procedure to be followed.

Judicial Reviews exist to clarify confusion and to provide clear guidance on the rules. Since in this case there is that clear guidance, a review on the matter, although acceptable to the court, cannot be given top priority.

I hope this helps. :)

Peri
Mar 02, 2004, 12:17 AM
In response to Zorven's request for a JR I would like to draw the attention of our citizens to the discussion concerning his proposal.
J.1.d. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1632968#post1632968)
The court will be conducting this review as soon as the discussion has ended (no new posts for 48 hours)

donsig
Mar 02, 2004, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Peri
May I draw your attention to CoS M 1 d 2
All proceedings started under one Court shall
continue with that Court through the conclusion of
that proceeding.

This is a pretty clear explanation of the procedure to be followed.

Judicial Reviews exist to clarify confusion and to provide clear guidance on the rules. Since in this case there is that clear guidance, a review on the matter, although acceptable to the court, cannot be given top priority.

I hope this helps. :)

There is quite a bit of confusion. I am quite confused as to how the term two court can still be a court since term too is obviously over. Can we begin by examining this standard against article G of the constitution? After that we can examine it against article F. Then there's articles C and B. I'd also like to examine the Chief Justice's post quoted above against article A.

Since the proper handling of the unresolved term two cases hinge on the JR I requested it should be given TOP priority.

donsig
Mar 03, 2004, 03:41 PM
T3-JR2 Amendment to the CoL and CoS - requested by Bootstoots is listed on the docket but I see no request in this thread. Where is the request and what amendment does this JR concern?

Peri
Mar 03, 2004, 03:52 PM
According to the procedure for Judicial Review for a proposed law it does not appear to be necessary for a request to be made in this thread. I willl provide a link to the discussion thread for you. :)

donsig
Mar 04, 2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Peri
According to the procedure for Judicial Review for a proposed law it does not appear to be necessary for a request to be made in this thread. I willl provide a link to the discussion thread for you. :)

Thanks. You might want to consider getting the request posted here. I'm curious as to how the judiciary is supposed to know they are to do a JR when one is not requested inthe judicial thread....

Peri
Mar 04, 2004, 02:14 PM
I am just on the ball ;)

donsig
Mar 04, 2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Peri
I am just on the ball ;)

It's too bad that the writer of the CoS wasn't. :(

donsig
Mar 15, 2004, 08:35 PM
Hellooooooooooooooooooooo.....................

Did we lose the gavel or something? Isn't there work to be done here? Or is everything happening behind the scenes? :confused:

Or is our CJ AWOL?

Sarevok
Mar 15, 2004, 11:13 PM
interesting... the Judiciary is for once inactive...

Octavian X
Mar 15, 2004, 11:20 PM
I submitted my reviews on some subjects privately to him some time ago...

Octavian X
Mar 15, 2004, 11:38 PM
Peri's not posted since the 7th. Unless I'm very much mistaken, I don't believe there's prescedant for the CJ's temporarily replacement during his absence.

Sarevok
Mar 15, 2004, 11:40 PM
perhaps he is absent but didnt say he was?

donsig
Mar 16, 2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Octavian X
Peri's not posted since the 7th. Unless I'm very much mistaken, I don't believe there's prescedant for the CJ's temporarily replacement during his absence.

And isn't it up to the CJ to contact any missing officials in order to have their office declared vacant? Could this be another problem with our rules?:hmm:

ravensfire
Mar 16, 2004, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by donsig


And isn't it up to the CJ to contact any missing officials in order to have their office declared vacant? Could this be another problem with our rules?:hmm:

Strangely enough, that exact scenario was considered, and dealt with.
3. Should a Judicial leader fail to respond to an official
post or message within 96 hours, without posting in
the official absence thread, any member of the
Judiciary may request that the office be declared
abandoned by creating a thread in the Citizen forum.
a. A member of the Judiciary shall then send a PM to
the office holder, notifying them of the request.
b. The Justice that made the request shall then post in
the request thread that the PM has been sent.
c. Should the office holder fail to reply by posting in
the request thread within 96 hours of the PM, the
office holder is removed and the office is
considered vacant.

Hmmm, guess the problem isn't with the rules. :hmm:

-- Ravensfire

Peri
Mar 16, 2004, 04:49 PM
I am not absent, I am still here but enjoying the lack of attention that the Judiciary is getting at the moment. I have some correspondence to catch up on I admit due to teal life comittments. Since this thread is bumped there can be no harm in posting the formal ruling on JR T3 - 1

Peri
Mar 16, 2004, 04:54 PM
Article A of the Constitution guarantees the right of any
citizen to discuss any issue. Similarly anyone may post a poll on
any topic. However the crucial aspect of this Judicial Review
is 'who may order the change of government in the TCIT'?
Responsibility for this is not specified in the 'Three Books'.
However it is an issue which is solely 'Domestic' in nature. Article
D.1 of the Constitution provides for this. Also the preamble for
Article D articulates that the President takes instruction from the
4 Leaders. Nevertheless CoL B.1.f is clear that the President
assumes responsibility for all initiatives not specified as the
responsibility of another leader.

This court rules that the the Minister of Internal Affairs has the
authority to post turn orders, in accordance with the will of the
citizenry of Fanatica, specifying when a revolution may be held,
and the type of government that should be chosen when that
revolution is over.

Peri
Mar 16, 2004, 04:58 PM
JR 4 is still open until I am advised that there is no more to be said on the matter.
Also may I please ask my colleagues to send me their opinions on JR3 as soon as is convenient.
Thanks

donsig
Mar 16, 2004, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Peri
JR 4 is still open until I am advised that there is no more to be said on the matter.
Also may I please ask my colleagues to send me their opinions on JR3 as soon as is convenient.
Thanks

Do you want everyone to make a post in that thread signifying that we will make no more posts in that thread?

donsig
Mar 16, 2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by ravensfire


Strangely enough, that exact scenario was considered, and dealt with...
Hmmm, guess the problem isn't with the rules. :hmm:

-- Ravensfire

I've been looking for that official absence thread ever since term one. :wallbash:

ravensfire
Mar 16, 2004, 06:50 PM
Ahhh, this one (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76734).

-- Ravensfire

Sarevok
Mar 16, 2004, 10:06 PM
irs in the main forum.

Octavian X
Mar 17, 2004, 08:58 PM
I need a replacement to serve as Pro-Tem Assoc. Justice for about a week after March 19. Any volunteers? :)

DaveShack
Mar 18, 2004, 09:17 PM
I confirm the ruling in T3-JR1.

Bootstoots
Mar 23, 2004, 06:57 PM
I have two requests for judicial reviews.

First, I request review on this proposed amendment (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81663) to the CoS as required by CoS N.1. Discussion has ended a week ago, so I think it's time for it to move on to the polling stage.

Second, I would like to request a judicial review on what defines "an expedient manner" in terms of our long-outstanding judicial reviews and CC's. Are the items that have remained on the court's docket for weeks in violation of CoS L.5.b or CoS M.1.d, which both state that "all proceedings shall go forth in an expedient manner?" I'm especially curious as to this definition in regards to the CC's; for instance, Rik's CC has been outstanding since the end of Term 1, almost two months ago. Should it (and Chieftess's month-old one for that matter) be dismissed on the grounds that it has violated CoS L.5.b?

tao
Mar 24, 2004, 07:31 AM
I would like to get a judicial review on how and when poll results need to be obeyed.

I base this question on the following circumstances:

In this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80916) the quota did not meet or exceed 50%. The first alternative was not adopted by the DP and he argued, that it did not get the absolute majority of votes.

Whereas in this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82308) the first alternative also failed to achieve 50%, but the DP nonetheless executed it.

Alternatives I see are:[list=1] Only alternatives getting at least 50% of the votes are accepted.
Votes cascade from most stringent to lesser alternatives and the first with 50% is executed.
If no alternative gets 50%, nothing is done.
The alternative getting the most votes is done.
The DP is free to do as (s)he damn well pleases.
[/list=1] Please note that I do not want to question the actions of the DP, but I want clarification for the future.

tao
Mar 24, 2004, 07:42 AM
I would like to get a judicial review on how contradicting polls need to be evaluated.

I base this issue on the following circumstances:

In this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82308) then decision on whether to build the Forbidden Palace was combined with the method on how to do it. The first alternative was adopted and implemented. A different way to implement the building was voted on in this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82349) and got overwhelming support from the people.

Alternatives I see are:[list=1] polls labeled official take precedence of other polls
polls started earlier get precedence
polls finished later get precedence
polls with more participants get precedence
the DP is free to do as (s)he damn well pleases.
[/list=1]
Please note that I do not want to question the actions of the DP, but I want clarification for the future.

donsig
Mar 24, 2004, 05:30 PM
I offered awhile ago to act as prosecutor in the two outstanding CCs. I believe I've been accepted in this role by our CJ. In accordancewith section L.1.f of the CoS here are the results of my investigation into these cases:

In the CC against Rik Meleet I find that there is sufficient evidence that the accused violated Article J of the constitution and section C.2.c of the CoL by knowingly and willfully disregarding the legally posted instructions of Senate concerning slider settings. I reccommend the court accept this CC.

In the CC against Chieftess there are two parts:

1) I find that there is not sufficient evidence that Chieftess made and illegal trade. As there were no posted instructions regarding trades Chieftess, as DP, acted well within her legal rights in making trades; I reccommmend that this portion of the CC be dismissed by the court.

2) I find that there is sufficient evidence that Chieftess violated Article J of the constitution and C.1.b.1 of the CoL by wilfully and knowingly disregarding a governor's legally posted build queue. I reccomment that this portion of the CC be accepted by the court.

Sarevok
Mar 24, 2004, 08:42 PM
werent these CC's months ago? why arent they over yet?

zorven
Mar 24, 2004, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by zorven
I hereby request a Judicial Review for the following CoS amendment:


CoS Section J.1.
d. A citizen is limited to accepting no more than one
nomination in any election cycle.
1. The Election Office is responsible for contacting
citizens that have exceeded the limit.
2. Should the citizen not reduce their acceptances to
the limit, the Election Office shall interpret the
earliest acceptance as the only valid acceptance
when creating the election ballots.

I guess since this was never done that there is now no limit on accepting nominations for Term 4.

Octavian X
Mar 24, 2004, 11:21 PM
Take a four day break, and get blindsided by a sudden surge of activity....

Since, to be frank, I'm in no mode to start tackling any of this now, I'm gonna wait for Peri to initate the procedures. If he hasn't started this tomorrow, though, I will.

donsig
Mar 25, 2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Sarevok
werent these CC's months ago? why arent they over yet?

The answer is simple: the citizens elected members of the judiciary who advocated a less active judiciary. Said judiciary members have certainly lived up to their campaign promises. :rolleyes:

Sarevok
Mar 25, 2004, 04:15 PM
well... it worked in that sense. Either way, both were cases in the last judiciary. Isnt it their duty to handle it?

zorven
Mar 25, 2004, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Sarevok
well... it worked in that sense. Either way, both were cases in the last judiciary. Isnt it their duty to handle it?

Well, yes...but T3-JR4 of this term called into the question the legality of the rule that allows for that to happen. And since it appears that T3-JR4 was never decided, we have gridlock.

Octavian X
Mar 25, 2004, 09:25 PM
The holdup, I believe, is an absent DaveShack. He's not posted since the 18th.

DaveShack
Mar 27, 2004, 02:03 AM
Sorry, I haven't even looked in that long :( Several all-nighters at work, and instead of things getting easier they got harder. I'll send Peri and Octavian a simply worded draft opinion on the key JR regarding old cases.

Sarevok
Mar 27, 2004, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by zorven


Well, yes...but T3-JR4 of this term called into the question the legality of the rule that allows for that to happen. And since it appears that T3-JR4 was never decided, we have gridlock.

great... just what we need in the judiciary.

zorven
Mar 27, 2004, 12:15 PM
I hope the Judiciary will make all efforts to resolve as much as possible in the remainder of the term.

Peri
Mar 28, 2004, 08:56 AM
I have not finished the text for JR-T3-4 but just so everyone knows it was a 2-1 majority in favour of the sitting court handling all reviews.

zorven
Mar 31, 2004, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Peri
I have not finished the text for JR-T3-4 but just so everyone knows it was a 2-1 majority in favour of the sitting court handling all reviews.

PLEASE PLEASE post this opinion before your term ends!!

donsig
Mar 31, 2004, 06:41 PM
:rotfl:

DaveShack
Apr 01, 2004, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Peri
I have not finished the text for JR-T3-4 but just so everyone knows it was a 2-1 majority in favour of the sitting court handling all reviews.

For the record, I confirm this ruling.

tao
Apr 03, 2004, 10:26 PM
I herewith want to file the following 3 Citizen Complaints against President Bootstoots for his actions in the 720AD turnchat:
[list=1] The President acting as DP ignored the explicit order "Buto: Please starve Buto to size 1 after capturing it. Check each turn!"
The President acting as DP ignored important parts and acted against explicit instructiuons of the worker actions plan.
New Falcon's Heaven should build a temple, but the President acting as DP started a pikeman instead violating my build queue order.
[/list=1] I am aware that the second point may be be open to discussion as to who is responsible for worker actions. the Governor, the DiA, or the DP: Nonetheless IMHO, this point has to be finally settled.

tao, Governor of Audiac


See here for the instructions. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1730957#post1730957)

donsig
Apr 04, 2004, 06:31 PM
I think this request should be in the term four judicial thread.

Sarevok
Apr 05, 2004, 03:43 AM
ouch... not again...

Black_Hole
Apr 05, 2004, 09:50 AM
Code of Laws:
B. The Executive Branch
1. Presidency
a. The Leader of the Executive Branch is the President.
b. The Deputy of the Presidency is the Vice President.
c. Is responsible for determining what to do with Great
Leaders.
d. Is responsible for worker activities.
e. Is responsible for policies, plans and agendas for
departments when these have not been set by a
department.
f. Is responsible for policies, plans and agendas for
items and activities that have not been defined as a
task of an individual department or leader.

The President is in charge of worker jobs or the VP when the president is absent

tao
Apr 05, 2004, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Black_Hole9
Code of Laws:
The President is in charge of worker jobs or the VP when the president is absent I would be happy to accept this as the official position.

And the President/DP would be target for a lot of CCs for incompetence in handling worker tasks. ;)

And what about the DoI giving bad advice? Is there any responsibility and accountability?

donsig
Apr 05, 2004, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by tao
And what about the DoI giving bad advice? Is there any responsibility and accountability?

Since the DoI is an informal (i.e., non-elected position) there is no legal mechanism for accountability. But advice is advice and not legally binding instructions anyway. So, accountability rests with the DP - who is not bound to take bad advice.

ravensfire
Apr 05, 2004, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by tao
And the President/DP would be target for a lot of CCs for incompetence in handling worker tasks. ;)

Incompetence, right or wrong, is not against the law ...

A leader has to do a task, they don't have to do it well. Accountability for that is the responsibility of the citizens by not electing them again.

-- Ravensfire

Sarevok
Apr 05, 2004, 03:31 PM
but shouldnt all of this be in the Term 4 thread?