Hi. :p In previous demgames I have been in Senates, Executive branches, the head of a religion, various citizen groups, and possibly some other things as well; however, I have never entered the judiciary branch. I never had the interest. Now, that I have become the Chief Justice, I believe this is probally the worst job possible in CFC history. Why? It because the law is so complex that it could make the casual CFCer's head spin. I'll take the challenge, though. There is unfinished business, and I will get to the bottom of it.
-Lord Zarn

The Laws of Fanatica (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70898)
Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74295)
Term 4 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83687)

This court is comprised of:

Chief Justice: Lord Zarn
Associate Justice: Zorven
Associate Justice: gert-janl

Official Census of Fanatica: 21

Open Cases:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-CC#4-vsChieftess
as requested by zorven
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-CC2-Citizen's Complaint against Rik Meleet
As requested by donsig
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T5-JR2 – Justice role in CCs
As requested by gert-janl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T5-JR3 – Proposed Amendment ‘Fanatican Sunshine Law’
As requested by Ravensfire
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T5-JR4 – Governors authority outside Provincial Borders
As requested by Ravensfire
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Closed Cases:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR11-Legality of Election Reform poll
as requested by donsig
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR12-May deputies play the save
as requested by zorven
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T5-JR1 - Legality of governor's build queue of great wonder
As requested by Ravensfire
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a question. Will the backlog cases from term 1 ever be handled before the game ends? :p

I thought all term 1 cases were done. Which ones are still open?

Well, besides the outstanding CC, I think nothing. Oops, that was passed on to term 2, almost forgot.

Now, as for term 2 - a few are still there, as well as from term 4.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Chieftess
I have a question. Will the backlog cases from term 1 ever be handled before the game ends? :p

No.:p

It seems the court is slow moving, and I know why (stupid complex rules).;)

To enlarge our workload :D I would like to dig up something from the history of this DG4, which haven't been corrected.

In case T1-JR8 the court decides that:
No Justice may represent a client in a Citizen Complaint
unless they step down temporarily after appointing a Pro Tem
Justice to replace them for the duration of the Citizen Complaint.


Unfortunately our Code of Laws contradicts this ruling in Article CoL D2d, which states:
2. All members of the judiciary share several rights and responsibilities.
d. Participate in Citizen Complaints.

In my opinion this section of the CoL should be amended in accordance with CoL article J which requires a Judicial Review:
J. Amending the Code of Laws
1. Polls to amend the Code of Laws shall be posted by the
Judiciary upon succesful completion of a Judicial Review.

Originally posted by Zarn
Open Cases (As of April 29):
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-CC2-Citizen's Complaint against Rik Meleet
As requested by donsig
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to be trialled soon, or I consider this case "expired".

Don't worry, you'll get your part :D

Originally posted by Zarn
No.:p

It seems the court is slow moving, and I know why (stupid complex rules).;)

Well, it doesn't help when a court is trying to resolve multiple cases and one of the Justices desides to go on strike.

-- Ravensfire

Judicial Review request

In the current TCIT (here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1806170#post1806170)), one of our Governors has posted instructions for the construction of a Great Wonder. There was a confirmatory post by the MIA immediately following.

There was, however, no discussion that I can find on this Great Wonder. It appears the Governor doesn't care for the input of citizens on this matter, nor about trodding through the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who is responsible for Wonders, in the process.

Under Articles D and J (most especially J) of the Constitution, and Section B. 2.e.2 of the Code of Laws, is this a valid instruction?

Due to the timing, I request this matter be handled in an urgent manner.

-- Ravensfire

Question to the Chief Justice -

There is a decent backlog of cases dating from Term 2 and on. Will you (or a member of the Court) be reviewing all old threads looking for unresolved cases, or will you require that all matters be resubmitted to this Court, in this thread?

I too have a CC filed against me that I would like to see resolved, in addition to several JR's and a requested review of a proposed law.

My thanks to the Court.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Chieftess
I have a question. Will the backlog cases from term 1 ever be handled before the game ends? :p

zorven is correct. All of the cases sumitted or requested within the allowable timeframe for Term 1 were handled and recorded in the Judicial Log. The one CC submitted by donsig after that timeframe was not accepted and was merely submitted to the Term 2 Judiciary as a convenience or courtesy to donsig. The Term 1 Judiciary was the only Term of Justices to wade through it's gargantuan workload.

Originally posted by ravensfire
Judicial Review request

In the current TCIT (here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1806170#post1806170)), one of our Governors has posted instructions for the construction of a Great Wonder. There was a confirmatory post by the MIA immediately following.

There was, however, no discussion that I can find on this Great Wonder. It appears the Governor doesn't care for the input of citizens on this matter, nor about trodding through the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who is responsible for Wonders, in the process.

Under Articles D and J (most especially J) of the Constitution, and Section B. 2.e.2 of the Code of Laws, is this a valid instruction?

Due to the timing, I request this matter be handled in an urgent manner.

-- Ravensfire As the Governor whose action is questioned, I very much support Ravensfire's request for swift procedure. To help the court in coming to a fast conclusion, let me give you my point of view:

The Constitution D.1. says "The Minister of Internal Affairs shall be responsible for all domestic and cultural initiatives, as prescribed by law." Nothing concrete here.

The Constitution J. says: "Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people." In this case, the people did not voice their will. So what?

CoL.B.2.e.2 says: "Ministry of Internal Affairs ... Is responsible for wonder building, including prebuilds." It does not say what "is responsible" means. Does it mean "Has to take the blame if we don't get a wonder we want?" Especially it does not say that this paragraph has priority over the next one:

CoL.C.1.b.1 says: "A governor organizes the build queues of the cities in thier province" This is what I did. And as long as there is no poll organized by the MiA and coming to a different result, this is a valid instruction.

q.e.d.

I'm not on strike. I'm going to get everything in order, tomorrow. I'm going to start tonight, after I get home from work. You have to remember that I just really got involved in this demogame, and I work the weekends/ Mondays. Alot of you work on weekdays, but I don't.

Originally posted by Zarn
I'm not on strike. I'm going to get everything in order, tomorrow. I'm going to start tonight, after I get home from work. You have to remember that I just really got involved in this demogame, and I work the weekends/ Mondays. Alot of you work on weekdays, but I don't.

Totally understand - CJ is by far the most unpleasant, time-demanding and least-rewarding position in the DG.

That said - I have every confidence that you'll be a great CJ, Zarn!

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
Question to the Chief Justice -

There is a decent backlog of cases dating from Term 2 and on. Will you (or a member of the Court) be reviewing all old threads looking for unresolved cases, or will you require that all matters be resubmitted to this Court, in this thread?

I too have a CC filed against me that I would like to see resolved, in addition to several JR's and a requested review of a proposed law.

My thanks to the Court.

-- Ravensfire

I will search for cases, but on the other hand, if a case is missed by the Court and one wants it brought forward, it would be appreciated if it was brought back to its attention.

Originally posted by tao

The Constitution J. says: "Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people." In this case, the people did not voice their will. So what?

It's hard to voice, or even determine, the WotP, when you don't even bother to ask about it!

Bah - I'll save the rest of my rant for the discussion thread on this matter.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
Totally understand - CJ is by far the most unpleasant, time-demanding and least-rewarding position in the DG.

That said - I have every confidence that you'll be a great CJ, Zarn!

-- Ravensfire

That's appreciated. You have my ALMOST undivided attention from Wednesday to Friday. On Tuesday, much of that day is free as well.

Please conduct a Judicial Review of the Fanatican Sunshine Law (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84832). Please use the text noted Final Proposal.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

Request for Judicial Review

Please determine if this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1777472#post1777472) is a valid, legal instruction under Section I of the CoL, Section I of the CoS and Section C.1.b of the CoL.

Although the idea is admirable, and I support it, I am strongly opposed to the Governor of one province creating instructions that bind Governors of other instructions. This is far outside the responsibilities of the Governor. The poll used to justify this should have been labeled an Informational poll, as the matter under consideration was not totally within the duties of the Governor. This is in direct contrast to the polls used by the MIA in the previous term for Wonders. Wonders are explicitly within the duties of the MIA, and thus instructions may be issued for them.

Citizen participation is good, and key, but this goes beyond that.

I apologize for the length of this request, but I will be out of town for several days starting tonight, thus must include my arguement. I pray it is found persuasive. The poll for this also includes some remarks from me on this matter that, if possible, should also be considered by the Court.

My thanks, as always, to the Court.
-- Ravensfire

The above post is just a reiteration of this one (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1780028#post1780028) by the same person. Therefore my request (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1780456#post1780456) also applies.

Let's hope the judicial backlog can be cleared soon. You may want to check other judiciary threads in case there are any JR's that were missed.

BTW, post 3000 for me! [party]

Originally posted by ravensfire
Judicial Review request

In the current TCIT (here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1806170#post1806170)), one of our Governors has posted instructions for the construction of a Great Wonder. There was a confirmatory post by the MIA immediately following.

There was, however, no discussion that I can find on this Great Wonder. It appears the Governor doesn't care for the input of citizens on this matter, nor about trodding through the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who is responsible for Wonders, in the process.

Under Articles D and J (most especially J) of the Constitution, and Section B. 2.e.2 of the Code of Laws, is this a valid instruction?

Due to the timing, I request this matter be handled in an urgent manner.

-- Ravensfire

One of the problems with this game, is that instead of having discussions with the people involved, or trying to remedy situations, there are too many here who think the only way to resolve problems is to use the legal process.

DaveShack - I normally would agree, but to me, the very core of the game is under attack. I'm hoping to see the basic ideas and concepts reinforced - that discussions are good, that the input of the People is good.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Cyc
zorven is correct. All of the cases sumitted or requested within the allowable timeframe for Term 1 were handled and recorded in the Judicial Log. The one CC submitted by donsig after that timeframe was not accepted and was merely submitted to the Term 2 Judiciary as a convenience or courtesy to donsig. The Term 1 Judiciary was the only Term of Justices to wade through it's gargantuan workload.

Recorded and then erased in one case IIRC. ;)

Originally posted by ravensfire
Well, it doesn't help when a court is trying to resolve multiple cases and one of the Justices desides to go on strike.

-- Ravensfire

IIRC, there was something about a ruling by said Juduciary that was ignored by the powers that be...

Originally posted by Rik Meleet
I want to be trialled soon, or I consider this case "expired".

Complaint filed in term one.

Complaint passed to term two judiciary. As I was on the bench back then it would have been difiicult to proceed then anyway.

I did volunteer to act as prosecutor in term three, re-volunteered in term four and five.

If this case is allowed to expire I will sibmit CCs against every judiciary member since term three. :hammer:

Maybe we SHOULD do that just to give donsig something to do. ;) But then we'd have to get through the backlog first...


4th term of DG5? :p

donsig has requested the following Judicial Review:




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?



Section N of the Code of Standards:


1. Polls to amend the Code of Standards shall be posted by


The question presented by donsig is whether or not a Judicial Review was performed before this proposal was posted. For this, we must also look to CoS M.2:



2. Judicial Review of a Proposed Law
a. As citizens, the members of the Judiciary should be
active during any discussion of a new law.
b. Once a final proposal has been made and agreed upon
for a proposed Law, the Chief Justice should post in
the discussion thread that the Judiciary will review
the law and the text of the law to be reviewed.
c. The Judiciary will then meet privately to discuss the
law.
d. If the proposed law passes review, the Chief Justice
shall post the poll for the proposed law in the Poll
sub-forum.
1. A majority of Justices must agree that the proposed
law does not conflict with any existing law or
constitutional article for it to pass review
e. If the proposed law does not pass review, the Chief
Justice shall post in the discussion thread the
reasons for the rejection.
1. Should a poll already be posted for this proposal,
the poll is deemed void.



Majority Opinion
CoS N requires a proposed law pass Judicial Review before being posted by the Judiciary. CoS M.2 requires that proposed laws that pass Judicial Reveiw be posted as a poll by the Chief Justice. CoS M.2 lists no other requirements for passed JR's. The fact that the Chief Justice posted the poll is implicit evidence that the Judicial Review passed. The only exception to this would be if both Associate Justices declared that the proposed law did not pass Judicial Review, which did not happen in this case. The poll cited by donsig stands.

This opinion is supported 3-0 by justices Zarn, Zorvan, and gert-janl.

Originally posted by donsig
Recorded and then erased in one case IIRC. ;)

:lol: Dream on, donsig (as usual). A grand total of zip, zilch, zero rulings of the Term 1 Judiciary were erased. :rolleyes:

What the slacker Term 2 Judiciary managed to pump out in it's fury was to strike down a law in the COS, which I opposed in Term 2. Did you take your medication today, donsig?

zorven has requested the following Judicial Review:


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?


Section G of the Code of Laws


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


Section K of the Code of Standards


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.


Majority Opinion
CoL G explicity defines only those Leaders that are allowed to play the save game. It thus excludes all other Leaders, positions, and citizens. While CoS K grants Leader duties and responsibilites to a deputy, this would directly conflict with the explicit listing in CoL G in regards to playing the save game. When a conflict arises between the 3 Books, the "higher" Book takes precedent. In this case that would mean that the explicit list in CoL G cannot be expanded upon by CoS K. Therefore, deputies of Leaders in the Chain of Command may not play the save game.

This opinion is supported 3-0 by justices Zarn, Zorvan, and gert-janl.

Ravensfire has requested a judicial review on the legality of a governor posting a queue to build a great wonder without the consent of the people and disrespecting the Ministry of Interior's responsibilities.

Ravensfire wishes to know if this is covered under Articles D and J (most especially J) of the Constitution, and Section B. 2.e.2 of the Code of Laws, is this a valid instruction.

Governeror's queue (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1806170#post1806170)

Edit: T5- JR1 Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=87158)

I confirm the rulings posted by Zarn for cases T2-JR11 and T2-JR12.

So do I confirm the ruling for case T2-TR11 and T2-JR12

Originally posted by Cyc
:lol: Dream on, donsig (as usual). A grand total of zip, zilch, zero rulings of the Term 1 Judiciary were erased. :rolleyes:

What the slacker Term 2 Judiciary managed to pump out in it's fury was to strike down a law in the COS, which I opposed in Term 2. Did you take your medication today, donsig?

For the record: 1) I am not on medication; and 2) yes, I have had my coffee today Cyc. ;) It is good to see that you are still with us my old friend. I took a look at the judicial log :cringe: and must admit that you are correct - A grand total of zip, zilch, zero rulings of the Term 1 Judiciary were erased. But, one was INVALIDATED a process not only unsupported by our laws but unsupported by common sense as well.

As for term two, the judiciary would have gotten much more done had the moderators taken judicial rulings seriously enough to actually remove the section of the CoS that was found to be conflicting.

I noticed that my proposed amendment wasn't really clear, so I will post it along with the amendment this time.

-----------------------------------------------
Amendment to Code of Laws
Replace CoL D2d, which currently states:
2. All members of the judiciary share several rights and responsibilities.
d. Participate in Citizen Complaints.

according to the ruling, produced by the court in T1-JR8, so that it would read:
2. All members of the judiciary share several rights and responsibilities.
d. Represent a client in a Citizen Complaint after appointing a Pro Term Justice
to replace them for the duration of the Citizen Complaint.
----------------------------------------------

Ravensfire has requested a judicial review:

Under Articles D and J (most especially J) of the Constitution, and Section B. 2.e.2 of the Code of Laws, is this* a valid instruction?

*A governor requested a great wonder to be put on the queue, doing the Ministry of Interior's job. Citizens were not calling for the wonder build, but did not go against it.

The Constitution

Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by thePresident who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of 4 leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread.
1. The Minister of Internal Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic and cultural
initiatives, as prescribed by law.


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


The Code of Laws- Section B. 2.e.

2. (The Ministry of Internal Affairs) Is responsible for wonder building, including prebuilds.


Majority Opinion
Governors do not have the power to change queues to wonders, as that is under jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the governor. Since the Ministry of Internal Affairs has posted a similar instruction, it is allowed in this case; however, if the Ministry of Internal Affairs is against building the wonder, then the governor cannot put it into queue. They both must agree on building the wonder. The only way a governor can override the Minister of Internal Affairs is when the governor has citizen support through a poll as the Ministry of Internal Affairs would not be going by the will of the people.

The people have not voiced approval of the governor’s decision, but the governor has given the people four days to discuss it, and there was not a dissenting voice. If there was a dissenting voice, it would have been appropriate for the governor to poll the queue. A citizen has to dissent to force the governor to open a poll.

Minority Opinion
A wonder build requires both the governor and MIA to post the instruction. It is not illegal for a governor to post the instruction if the MIA does not, it just becomes an invalid order.

The will of the people should be determined in CC’s not through judicial reviews and therefore abstain.

This case was decided in a 2-1 vote with Justice Zarn and Justice gert-janl in the majority and Justice Zorvan in the minority.

I confirm the ruling posted by Zarn for T5-JR1. My opinion text is a bit lacking due to the timeframe of the case and I will post a better explanation of my position later.

I confirm the T5-JR1 ruling

Originally posted by donsig
For the record: 1) I am not on medication; and 2) yes, I have had my coffee today Cyc. ;) It is good to see that you are still with us my old friend. I took a look at the judicial log :cringe: and must admit that you are correct - A grand total of zip, zilch, zero rulings of the Term 1 Judiciary were erased. But, one was INVALIDATED a process not only unsupported by our laws but unsupported by common sense as well.

Then I suggest you cut back on your coffee intake and get back on the medication, old friend donsig. :lol: I have just been through the Judicial Log and the Term 1 Judicial thread. I can not find one instance where any of the Term 1 rulings were declared invalid. Let me put that another way.... No Term 1 Judicial rulings were INVALIDATED!

If you still feel that you have some proof to the contrary, please state so below, quoting the ruling that you say was invalidated plus the ruling that caused the invalidation (please use exact ruling titles). After listing the above rulings, you can give a very detailed summary of why you still think a Term 1 ruling was invalidated. Then we can discuss this fantasy further. ;)

Here's the link to the review in question. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1501264#post1501264) I'm also reprinting the log post here. Please note the final line of the post which you bolded Cyc.

Judicial Review - Term 1 - DGIVJR1
This Judicial Review was requested by donsig, who asked for a ruling from the Judiciary on the validity of the special election for the Chief Justice. Donsig felt this special election was in violation of Article G of the Constitution.

Procedure was followed, a discussion thread was opened, and after Chief Justice Cyc declared Arguements Over (Associate Justice ravensfire concurred), the Judiciary retired to make a decision in the form of a Majority Opinion (and if necessary a Minority Opinion).

As a result of these opinions, this Judicial Review has been declared invalid, as one of the authors involved in writing the Majority Opinion also encapsulated his resignation within it. This brought the decision to a point in which there was no Majority Opinion.

There is no recourse to the invalidation of this Judicial Review, as in his attempt at writing new law with an Opinion, ravensfire, the Associate Justice who resigned, wrote himself out of the Associate's Chair. Therefore, if one claims the Majority Opinion to be legal, then ravensfire has no authority to write an Opinion for the Judiciary.

Final Decision: This Judicial Review has been declared Invalid by the Term 1 Judiciary.

I request a Judicial Review of CoL.B.2.e.2, especially after the ruling T5-JR1: "Ministry of Internal Affairs ... Is responsible for wonder building, including prebuilds."

Does "wonder" refer to Great Wonders or does it include also Small Wonders?

:rolleyes: donsig, the Majority Opinion was illegal in that JR, plus it cancelled itself out. There was no ruling to invalidate. The entire Judicial Review was invalidated.

Here I was thinking that you meant one of the Term 1 Judiciary RULINGS were invalidated. None of those were. The JR you speak of was. :)

Originally posted by Cyc
:rolleyes: donsig, the Majority Opinion was illegal in that JR, plus it cancelled itself out. There was no ruling to invalidate. The entire Judicial Review was invalidated.

Here I was thinking that you meant one of the Term 1 Judiciary RULINGS were invalidated. None of those were. The JR you speak of was. :)

A majority opinion of the judiciary is by definition legal. Furthermore, there is no way an entire judicial review can be invalidated. A judicial review is in essence a mechanism to clarify and / or interpret a given law or laws. It's a question about how the laws should work. You can't invalidate a question. You can invalidate the answer (the ruling handed down) but in so doing you still have to go back and answer the original question. The term one chief justice simply did not want to do that. But, don't worry about it Cyc. A subsequent court FINALLY made a valid ruling on the matter.

Justice gert-janl is temporarily relieving himself of duty for both T2-CC2 and T2-CC4 to become the defender.

Cyc will be his replacement for those cases.

I am truly honored in accepting the Associate Justice duties temporarily for gert-janl. It has been over 3 Terms since I've served on the Bench, but one of the CC's offenses took place on my watch and the other happened when my participation level was still quite high. I will serve on this Bench to the best of my ability and strive for impartiality. Thank you gentlemen, for this opportunity.

AJ Cyc ~ Pro Tem
:hammer:

Chief Justice Zarn, I would like to request that you post an outline of the procedure this Court will use in processing the two CCs I will be assigned to. Will we be using the same "by the book" procedures in each? If not how will they differ? What time schedule will we be using for each? And will you be posting updates as each process is complete?

These questions (and more) have been running through my mind and by answering them, you will help me in fulfilling my responsibilities. Thank you,

AJ Cyc ~ Pro Tem
:hammer:

OK, so a sitting member of the judiciary opts to defend these open CCs thereby *disqualifying* him or her from hearing tha cases. Then all of a sudden we have a replacement (i.e., non-elected) justice whom God only knows who installed (i.e, was it the CJ or the AJ that opted to be the defender?) and we're supposed to continue on like everything is hunky-dory.

Give me a break people!

I thought the judiciary had reached the pinnacle of conflict of interest with the first two judiciaries sitting in judgement of the validiaty of their own elections. Now I'm not so sure. I think this justice swapping is on the same level. I am (and have been) disgusted, no - make that Disgusted (with a capital "D") at the way the judiciary has been handled this whole game. Furthermore I am ashamed to be a part of this farce.

As prosecutor I formally ask that Cyc not act as a justice in these cases. Given the history between Cyc and myself this game I have concerns about his ability to remain objective. :(

OK, so a sitting member of the judiciary opts to defend these open CCs thereby *disqualifying* him or her from hearing tha cases. Then all of a sudden we have a replacement (i.e., non-elected) justice whom God only knows who installed (i.e, was it the CJ or the AJ that opted to be the defender?) and we're supposed to continue on like everything is hunky-dory.

Give me a break people!

I thought the judiciary had reached the pinnacle of conflict of interest with the first two judiciaries sitting in judgement of the validiaty of their own elections. Now I'm not so sure. I think this justice swapping is on the same level. I am (and have been) disgusted, no - make that Disgusted (with a capital "D") at the way the judiciary has been handled this whole game. Furthermore I am ashamed to be a part of this farce.

As prosecutor I formally ask that Cyc not act as a justice in these cases. Given the history between Cyc and myself this game I have concerns about his ability to remain objective. :(

A justice is allowed to let someone take his place, if need be. It is within the law.

As for Cyc being impartial, he has to give Zorven and I reason for his verdict, else we would not agree with him. I don't hold long grudges, and I doubt Cyc does, either.

A justice is allowed to let someone take his place, if need be. It is within the law.

Yes, it is with in the law. One more example of just how really bad our laws are. :(

Once again,as prosecutor, I formally call for Cyc to recuse himself from these cases.

I have made a request (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=1836846#post1836846) that the governorship of Province #8 be declared vacant. Please send a PM to the office holder, anarchywrksbest, in accordance with CoS K.2.

You beat me to it Bootstoots. I agree with this request.

Once again,as prosecutor, I formally call for Cyc to recuse himself from these cases.

:lol: Too funny, donsig. Once again, as a friend, cut back on the coffee and increase your medication. :rolleyes:

Donsig, I will not have this behavior in my courtroom. You have to the 22nd this month to gather what you need.

Since this request (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1817236#post1817236) was not yet addressed, I want to expand it with actions from the 1490AD turnchat. In this tc, the DP decided to build a (Small) Wonder, The Pentagon.

The argument was "the governor failed to give building instructions; thus the DP is free to act and decided to queue The Pentagon.

Was it allowed, because it was only a Small Wonder? Or is the DP also allowed to start building a Great Wonder without MIA instructions, if no instructions are given for a city?

Since this request (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1817236#post1817236) was not yet addressed, I want to expand it with actions from the 1490AD turnchat. In this tc, the DP decided to build a (Small) Wonder, The Pentagon.

The argument was "the governor failed to give building instructions; thus the DP is free to act and decided to queue The Pentagon.

Was it allowed, because it was only a Small Wonder? Or is the DP also allowed to start building a Great Wonder without MIA instructions, if no instructions are given for a city?

Isn't this a bit like asking if a brown horse is a horse?

Donsig, I will not have this behavior in my courtroom. You have to the 22nd this month to gather what you need.

For your information I did my work on this about three terms ago. :rolleyes:

But, since you've given me till the 22nd I will use the time to request a judicial review of this silliness. This judicial seat swapping is disgraceful, makes a mockery of the demogame's judicial process and it can't be too difficult to show how unconstitutional it is.

For your information I did my work on this about three terms ago. :rolleyes:

But, since you've given me till the 22nd I will use the time to request a judicial review of this silliness. This judicial seat swapping is disgraceful, makes a mockery of the demogame's judicial process and it can't be too difficult to show how unconstitutional it is.

We have a judicial review on justices taking a different role in CC's, but the justices agreed to hold that after these two trials, because participation is far too low.

We need another Judicial review on this subject? What about DGIVJR8 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1536139&postcount=10) from Term 1? Shouldn't that still be a suitable ruling?

Since this request (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1817236#post1817236) was not yet addressed, I want to expand it with actions from the 1490AD turnchat. In this tc, the DP decided to build a (Small) Wonder, The Pentagon.

The argument was "the governor failed to give building instructions; thus the DP is free to act and decided to queue The Pentagon.

Was it allowed, because it was only a Small Wonder? Or is the DP also allowed to start building a Great Wonder without MIA instructions, if no instructions are given for a city?

I understand what tao is getting at here - if he is unable to queue a wonder without the MIA instruction, should I have done? In this case though there were both no instructions from a governor and no instructions from the MIA (at all, not just on this subject) If there had been instructions from MIA, even if they did not mention the Wonder (great or small), I would not have been able to queue it - this was the situation in the previous session, we did have MIA instructions, they didn't mention building the pentagon when we could, so I didn't.

We have a judicial review on justices taking a different role in CC's, but the justices agreed to hold that after these two trials, because participation is far too low.


So you are saying we have laws in place but the judiciary has decided of its own accord to ignore these laws? :confused:

So you are saying we have laws in place but the judiciary has decided of its own accord to ignore these laws? :confused:

The Chief Justice is expressly granted the power to organize the affairs of the court. In no way would choosing to hear one case before another be a violation of that right.

Furthermore, as former CJ and current AJ pro-tem Cyc points out, there has already been a JR on the question of whether sitting justices may serve as prosecution or defense in a CC, and the unanimous opinion of that JR was that a justice must appoint a pro-tem in order to accept a prosecution or defense role.

Others were considered for the pro-tem position besides Cyc, but were not eligible to serve because they are already elected leaders.

I have a review (or question). Last demogame, Furiey conscripted some units. Does the constitution even state if that's allowable? Or who can give that order? I would assume Military...

I have a review (or question). Last demogame, Furiey conscripted some units. Does the constitution even state if that's allowable? Or who can give that order? I would assume Military...

CoL B.1.f says of the President:

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.

So, if this is not addressed (my quick skim did not reveal it) in the laws as a falling under another leader, then it would be up to the President.

CoL B.1.f says of the President:

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.

So, if this is not addressed (my quick skim did not reveal it) in the laws as a falling under another leader, then it would be up to the President.

So, what then, prevents the president from disbanding all troops? There are no instructions from me that state, "The DP must disband all troops". (Granted, Tao might be overjoyed at the income...). So, Furiey could techincally start disbanding troops.

Here we go again with having to state every possible outcome. So, maybe I just stumbled onto a loophole.

Since I never mentioned the Draft, nor was there any citizen input, then the DP acted on their own, and it was NOT of the will of the people!

disclaimer: I don't mean to sound sarcastic....

Yes, there will probably always be loopholes. Again, we can change the law to fix it. But how about his: ask the Pres not to do that anymore without consulting you. Maybe cooperation can work out the kinks in the laws. (How did we ever survive in DG3?!?)

I ordered some drafting for Audiac Province after evaluating that it would not cause happiness problems
the cities grew immediately back to size 12
production was not affected.
I thought of it as "productiuon"; may that was wrong. I look at the constitution and did not see it in any other official's responsibilty.

Production can be affected in cities with less corruption and more shields... besides, I didn't see any discussion threads on drafting citizens... If that's the case that we can do anything that there's not a discussion on, then what good is the WoTP?

Production can be affected in cities with less corruption and more shields... besides, I didn't see any discussion threads on drafting citizens... If that's the case that we can do anything that there's not a discussion on, then what good is the WoTP?I posted a preliminary version of my tc instruction (including the intended drafting) for discussion in the Audiac Province thread on May 13th 10:05 AM. I posted the instructions in the tc thread 2 hours after it was opened 10:41 PM on May 13th.
I posted my intent to do the drafting in your Military Status Thread on May 13, 10:50PM the latest.

The tc started on May 15th 13:00 PM. There were 2 days available for comments, but none were made.

IMHO drafting is not "anything", but a sort of "production" and thus in the Governor's purview. Furthermore, CoL C.1.b.4 assigns the decision on pop rushing to the Governor. And drafting IMHO is the pop rushing of industrial and modern times. :goodjob:

I saw drafting as a form of production and as such followed the Governor's orders. Once the units were built they come under Military, as such I would not disband them without orders to do so from Military.

Furthermore, as former CJ and current AJ pro-tem Cyc points out, there has already been a JR on the question of whether sitting justices may serve as prosecution or defense in a CC, and the unanimous opinion of that JR was that a justice must appoint a pro-tem in order to accept a prosecution or defense role.

Others were considered for the pro-tem position besides Cyc, but were not eligible to serve because they are already elected leaders.

The main point that should be considered here is the ability to have a fair trial. It matters not whether Cyc was appointed by an AJ, CJ, president or elected to the bench. What matters is whether he can remain objective. Look back over this thread and one cannot miss the insults he has directed towards me. Cyc's remarks are not those of an impartial jurist. Someone, anyone, please tell me what recourse I have under our laws to ensure the people get a fair shake in these CCs? Any other appointment is subject to a refusal poll. This one isn't?

The main point that should be considered here is the ability to have a fair trial. It matters not whether Cyc was appointed by an AJ, CJ, president or elected to the bench. What matters is whether he can remain objective. Look back over this thread and one cannot miss the insults he has directed towards me. Cyc's remarks are not those of an impartial jurist. Someone, anyone, please tell me what recourse I have under our laws to ensure the people get a fair shake in these CCs? Any other appointment is subject to a refusal poll. This one isn't?

Donsig, you were starting with him. I promised you that Cyc will have to back himself up on his claims like both Zorven and I would. Don't make an issue of something that shouldn't be an issue. This is a game, Donsig. Don't take it so seriously. Calm down. Get a glass of water. I assure you the judiciary will conduct these trials, impartially.

donsig, if anyone has paid attention this entire Demogame they would see that it is not me that has a problem with you, but you having a problem with me. Sometimes people are not always happy with the positions they find themselves in. Sometimes they can do something about it and get things changed they way they want it, other times they can't. Just because you're not happy with me on the Bench doesn't mean that this Judiciary has to search for an Associate Justice until you're happy as Prosecutor. That's not the way it works. :eek:

I would guess if you put as much time into the prosecution of these cases as you do your dislike of me on the Bench, you stand a good chance of winning. Concentrate on winning your cases, donsig, not making life easier for yourself. I'm hear to stay. In the words of ravensfire - deal with it. :lol:

I would like to request a judicial review of the constitutionality of CoL D.2.a, specifically, does CoL D.2.a violate Articles A and G of the constitution?

It is my contention that the appointment of a pro-tem justice by a justice so that said justice can participate in a CC is unconstitutional.

Article A confirms our citizens the rights to a fair trial and to seek the redress of grievences. Both of these rights are intimately tied to the judicial review and citizen complaint processes. When a sitting justice opts to act as either prosecution or defense in a CC he or she takes a definate stand on the case and has a vested interest in the case. Allowing this justice with a vested interest in the case to summarily appoint someone to the bench to hear the case is akin to having the mouse guard the cheese. Are we naive enough to think that a justice who opts to act as prosecution or defense in a CC will not (at least subconsciously) appoint a pro-tem replacement justice who will be (at the very least) favorable to the side the appointing justice has taken? No, we are not naive little children here. We can see clearly that this process inherently undermines both the right to a fair trial and the right to seek redress of grievences which are confirmed in Article A.

Article G calls for the appointment of a citizen to *fulfill the remainder of the term* when an elected office is vacant. It has already been determined by a previous judicial review that a justice should be allowed to participate in a CC but that by doing so said justice cannot also sit in judgement on the case. The same JR also declared that said justice must also relinquish the right to sit in judgement on other cases during the time he or she is participating in the CC. In other words, by participating in a CC a justice vacates his or her office. As a vacant office it should be filled by appointment according to Article G *for the remainder of the term*. Yet, CoL D.2.a contradicts Article G by allowing for the temporary appoinment of a justice.

If the intent of CoL D.2.a is taken into account it is clear that this law was not written merely to allow justices to participate in CCs. This law was written to allow the judiciary to continue operation when a justice is unavoidably absent. Other elected positions have deputies to step in and keep things going. Justices do not and CoL D.2.a was written with this in mind.

Yes, sitting justices should have the option to participate in CCs. But they should not be allowed to choose their own replacement to hear a case they themselves have a vested interest in. Nor should they be allowed to repudiate their duties as justices so easily. If a sitting justice wants to act as prosecutor or defence in a CC then they should resign from the bench. This would allow the replacement justice to be appointed by either the President or the President and Chief Justice (depending on which justice was resigning).

I call upon this court to complete this judicial review before proceeding with the outstanding CCs. I also call upon this court to throw out CoL D.2.a as it contradicts both Article A and Article G of the Constitution.

Sounds like a good law or rule for DG5, donsig. Maybe you could start writing it up for the next Constitution. In the mean time, as a Judicial ruling has already be applied to this situation and logged as such, I would think the current legislation would remain the same until the soon to be ending of DG4. Even if this Court were to postpone these CCs to accomodate your request for a JR, I would probably be appointed as the pro tem Associate Justice by whatever means we could finally find that would satisfy you. :rolleyes:

Overall, I would also think that this Court would see your request as an attourney's slick move to manipulate the Court in accepting your plea. Are you unable to plead your case by accepted methods? Should this Court be seeking new Council for the Prosecution? We are trying to move this case forward in an appropriate and timely manner, while you keep throwing up roadblocks. As far as I'm aware, the first of these two CCs will start in two days. Please be prepared.

why dont you just scrap these CC's? some of them are several terms old and the game is soon to be over anyways. Why are these long-dead CC's still an issue to be discussed?

Article G calls for the appointment of a citizen to *fulfill the remainder of the term* when an elected office is vacant. It has already been determined by a previous judicial review that a justice should be allowed to participate in a CC but that by doing so said justice cannot also sit in judgement on the case. The same JR also declared that said justice must also relinquish the right to sit in judgement on other cases during the time he or she is participating in the CC. In other words, by participating in a CC a justice vacates his or her office. As a vacant office it should be filled by appointment according to Article G *for the remainder of the term*. Yet, CoL D.2.a contradicts Article G by allowing for the temporary appoinment of a justice.


No, this position is completely wrong, both factually and in common sense. The ruling in question said that the sitting justice who is taking part in a CC may not participate in cases related to the CC the justice is participating in. Neither the ruling nor CoL D.2 says that the office is vacant, so article G does not apply. This concept corresponds very closely to the real world. A judge who recuses himself/herself from a case steps aside for that case only and does not give up the bench.

Constitutional Article F specifically allows lower laws to organize the judiciary:

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.


On a separate note, I'll second the question asked by Sarevok: why don't you do us all a favor and just dismiss the charges. This game may not outlast the trial if you insist on pressing it, so why waste anyone's time by pursuing it? I know, you'll say you're defending the people's right to hold officials accountable -- but when you've been on the receiving end of PI's you say they're always political. Why grind that axe when you argued against having a PI / CC concept at all?

why dont you just scrap these CC's? some of them are several terms old and the game is soon to be over anyways. Why are these long-dead CC's still an issue to be discussed?

Because some of our players seem to love red tape... :undecide: Maybe we should add a "right to a speedy trial". There's bound to be a lot of PI's/CC's for the judicary for that. ;)

Folks, whether or not you like the CC's(in fact - I still have one filed against me as it hasn't been withdrawn), calling for dismissal soley because of time is reprehensible. If an action is wrong, does time make it better? These actions are months old - but the evidence is still there, preserved for the eventual decision of if a law was violated or not. Is punishment mitigated by time - perhaps, but that's a seperate issue.

Sarevok and CT, you're calling for a citizen to give up their right to seek a redress of grievances soley because of time? Bah, I say! Bah! I will admit that I was not, and am still not, happy with my term as CJ soley because I could not get all issues resolved. There were some complications, and some delays, but I still am displeased with the end result. Haven't seen me in the court since, have you?

With regards to the CC process - I am primarily responsible for creating it. The one failing it does have (and this became evident in Term 2) is finding citizens to serve as Prosecutor and Defense when/if needed. We were ready to try these cases in Term 2, except for a Prosecutor. It got to the point that I was ready to step down as CJ, appoint a replacement and serve myself. Why? I feel that the CJ is ultimately responsible for the progress of all cases. Should a case not be progressing, it is the role of the CJ to do whatever is needed to make it happen. Yes, it didn't happen. Yes, I'm displeased about it.

I do understand donsig's concern about Cyc, but disagree. Through past history, donsig has a perception of bias against him. Would I feel the same (and up until a short time ago Cyc was on my ignore list), probably not. I don't like Cyc's views, and dispise his style, but I trust his impartiality. Likewise, I would trust most people. The key point is can a person, in deciding a case, put aside personal feelings and render a decision based soley upon the facts presented and the law.

Cyc was elected CJ in the first election - that doesn't happen by a fluke. Nope - don't try it donsig. You were heard, your points made, the JR was decided. End of story. Cyc has as much respect for the laws of this game, even the ones he doesn't like, as anyone else here. Perhaps more than anyone else.

I, for one, feel this is an excellent court, more than capable of rendering a just decision. I further commend gert-janl for serving where nobody else would.

-- Ravensfire

If you take a look at the archives, and look at the DG1 and DG2 PIs, you will see they they were done in a speedy manner. A post was posted in the PI thread (then judiciary), and a PI thread would be made within a few hours. That thread would be up for a certain amount of hours (I think 72?), then a guilty/innocence poll was put up. If they were guilty, then a sentencing poll.

No, this position is completely wrong, both factually and in common sense. The ruling in question said that the sitting justice who is taking part in a CC may not participate in cases related to the CC the justice is participating in. Neither the ruling nor CoL D.2 says that the office is vacant, so article G does not apply. This concept corresponds very closely to the real world. A judge who recuses himself/herself from a case steps aside for that case only and does not give up the bench.


According to the previous judicial review:

Therefore, in answer to the question, NO, this Court feels that allowing a sitting Justice to take an advocate role in the case, and then vote on the outcome, is a basic violation of the principles outlined in Article F, requiring impartiality by the Court. If the Justice wishes to take an advocate role in the case, they should appoint a Pro Tem for the entire Citizen Complaint process. Once the entire process is completed, and the final outcome known, the Justice returns to fulfill his normal duties. According to the same Article F of the Constitution of Fanatica, there shall only be one Chief Justice and two Associate Justices at any time. Therefore if a Justice appoints a Pro Tem to fulfill their duties in a Citizen Complaint process, they relinquish their position until the Citizen Complaint is complete.

Read the last sentence. Now explain to me the difference between *relinquish their position* and vacating their office.

Well, we're arguing the JR case which we ought not do here, but it is necessary to attempt to convince you of the erroneous assumption under which you're pursuing the JR, to keep us from getting wrapped around an even bigger tarball.

According to the previous judicial review:
Read the last sentence. Now explain to me the difference between *relinquish their position* and vacating their office.

You're trying to say that temporarily relinquishing the position is in conflict with permanently vacating the office, such that the office has to be vacated permanently and the vacant office apopintment process has to be followed.

I'm saying that this ruling, as well as CoL D.2, by making the pro-tem position temporary, means that article G does not apply. A Law (CoL) is allowed to clarify an Article (Constitution) in the cases where provisions for such a clarification are present. Article F makes exactly the provision which is needed. Appointing a pro-tem does not vacate the justice position under Article G.

Please, just present the prosecution, let justice be done, and we can all move on. :hammer:

If you take a look at the archives, and look at the DG1 and DG2 PIs, you will see they they were done in a speedy manner. A post was posted in the PI thread (then judiciary), and a PI thread would be made within a few hours. That thread would be up for a certain amount of hours (I think 72?), then a guilty/innocence poll was put up. If they were guilty, then a sentencing poll.

Ah yes, everything in the good old days was so much better.
:rolleyes:

Like that's never been heard from you before...

-- Ravensfire

Our current CC system would work if we had an active judiciary (which we were lacking in terms 3, 4, and to some extent 2). We could finish these CC's quickly with the remedy phase, given the right judiciary, but that doesn't seem to be happening. However, if we're constantly unable to fulfill the CoS requirement for the proceedings to be carried out in an expedient manner, we may want to look to going back to a system similar to the DG1 and 2 PI systems.

I'm saying that this ruling, as well as CoL D.2, by making the pro-tem position temporary, means that article G does not apply. A Law (CoL) is allowed to clarify an Article (Constitution) in the cases where provisions for such a clarification are present. Article F makes exactly the provision which is needed. Appointing a pro-tem does not vacate the justice position under Article G.

Please, just present the prosecution, let justice be done, and we can all move on. :hammer:

CoL D.2.a cannot nullify Article G. (When you say article G does not apply. you are attempting to have a law over-ride the constitution and that is a :nono: Of course it is quite obvious that many of you out there in demogame land just don't get it. :(

And don't accuse me of holding things up. I did my investigation in term three when Peri was CJ. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: :lol: Well, I'm glad we got that squared away... :crazyeye:

Personally, I don't see why we're waiting 9 days after my opointment as Associate Justice pro tem to start these proceddings. But there must be a good reason.

:thumbsup: On to the CCs.

AJ Cyc pro tem
:hammer:

Because of this ramble The Following is a Joint Plan between the Department of "Defense" and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
This plan calls for the following:
Increased output of defensive units by all able cities. Definition of "able"- Ability to create a shield per turn output of 30 shields (a 3 turn infantry). If there is not a drastic increase of defensive units, MIA will begin a draft, drafting units in every major (greater than or equal to size twelve, or an "able" city) city if need be for three consecutive turns.
as Governor of Audiac I urgently request a Judicial Review on who is allowed to order drafting. CoL C.1.b.4 assigns the decision on pop rushing to the Governor. And drafting IMHO is the pop rushing of industrial and modern times. Thus it is NOT within the perview of DoD and/or DP.

The issue is urgent, because it should be clarified before the next turnchat. Thank you.

I would actually like to second this review. I was speaking with Chieftess in the chat (sorry. no transcript) and neither of us knew whose job it was, hers, mine, the DPs or the governors. A review would actually be helpful here as it would help in the determining of what MIA can actually do.
PS- tao: request for units still stands, regardless of the outcome of this review.
SaaM

I was in error on the 19th of this month, when I said "I didn't see why we were waiting 9 days (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1852120&postcount=87) after my appointment as Associate Justice pro tem (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1829292&postcount=47) to start these proceedings. What I should have said was "I don't see why we're waiting 12 days to start the proceedings."

I can also see why Chief Justice Zarn never gave the outline of procedure or time schedule for these CCs, that I requested on the 13th. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1833564&postcount=48) He never intended to hold court on these CCs. This Judiciary has just been a repeat of the Terms 2-4 Judiciary. Nothing ever gets done. Thanks for wasting my precious time.

AJ Cyc ~ pro tem
:hammer:

I was in error on the 19th of this month, when I said "I didn't see why we were waiting 9 days (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1852120&postcount=87) after my appointment as Associate Justice pro tem (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1829292&postcount=47) to start these proceedings. What I should have said was "I don't see why we're waiting 12 days to start the proceedings."

I can also see why Chief Justice Zarn never gave the outline of procedure or time schedule for these CCs, that I requested on the 13th. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1833564&postcount=48) He never intended to hold court on these CCs. This Judiciary has just been a repeat of the Terms 2-4 Judiciary. Nothing ever gets done. Thanks for wasting my precious time.

AJ Cyc ~ pro tem
:hammer:

That's bull. This demogame like always is full of people that never itend to play a game but to kill one another. Why should I wastes any more time on the prosecution or defense, if neither one is willing to do anything or even talk to me? I came in the Judiciary to help out, yet no one wants to go theough these CC's. All everyone wants to do is complain about who is going what on the Judiciary. There was a schedule, but I shouldn't have to take these attacks from people. I have enough stress in my life. I try to help, people try to make it hard on me, wht should I stay. I came back to the Demogame in hpes that people got into the actual spirit of the game. How foolish was I to believe that people would try to actually enjoy the game.

That's bull. This demogame like always is full of people that never itend to play a game but to kill one another. Why should I wastes any more time on the prosecution or defense, if neither one is willing to do anything or even talk to me? I came in the Judiciary to help out, yet no one wants to go theough these CC's. All everyone wants to do is complain about who is going what on the Judiciary. There was a schedule, but I shouldn't have to take these attacks from people. I have enough stress in my life. I try to help, people try to make it hard on me, wht should I stay. I came back to the Demogame in hpes that people got into the actual spirit of the game. How foolish was I to believe that people would try to actually enjoy the game.

No, that's not bull, Zarn. You guys did not do these CCs because you claimed lack of participation. You claimed you couldn't find people to fill the positions. Well, we had all of the needed positions filled almost 2 weeks ago. Even though I specifically posted in this thread for a schedule and an outline of procedures, you ignored the request. If we had started these 10 days (or even a week ago) we'd be done by now. But nothing was ever done about them. Well, except for donsig's latest display of donsigism, which should have been ignored. He should not be able to throw up roadblocks anytime he wants. I supported you as CJ up until recently, Zarn. All you had to do was post a thread in the citizen's forum and post a notice here. That's it...

But just like Peri and ravensfire, nothing ever gets done. Period. I'm sure there are a lot of good excuses, most of which we've all heard before. But those still don't get the work done. Bottom line, another ineffective Judiciary. No bull about it.

So you still choose to be ignorant about this. I gave the defense time to investigate. Solve your own problems for now on. If you didn't get the hint, I resigned (in protest of the way people are acting here). Like I said, I have enough stress as it is. Why did I even bother rejoining this game? It's not even a game, it's like an anger fest.

Edit: Also, your approval really means nothing to me. No one likes me at all (at least on CFC), so what's the approval of just one man of a 'job' in the Demogame?

I gave the defense time to investigate.

The investigation of the defense is completed, so I would like to ask the Court to start the CC proceedings.

The investigation of the defense is completed, so I would like to ask the Court to start the CC proceedings.

Too late, gert-janl, Zarn has quit. It's obvious Zarn didn't want to run the CCs because of political reasons, so now that he either has to start them or defend his actions (did you really need two weeks to prepare the defense?), he's decided to ship-wreck the entire process by resigning.

:rolleyes: Life at CFC...

Thanks for trying to get me on board, gert-janl.

it wasnt because of political reasons cyc, he has had a whole lot of stress yet he has gotten the most done since term 1. he needs some slack. Sorry to see you go Zarn.

it wasnt because of political reasons cyc, he has had a whole lot of stress yet he has gotten the most done since term 1. he needs some slack. Sorry to see you go Zarn.

Maybe he's gotten the most done since term 2... :)

Cyc -- a simple "when are we getting these CC's moving" would have sufficed. Now they're stuck in limbo yet again. :( Perhaps a softer touch next time. :rolleyes:

Cyc -- a simple "when are we getting these CC's moving" would have sufficed. Now they're stuck in limbo yet again. :( Perhaps a softer touch next time. :rolleyes:


DaveShack, these CCs were never going to be addressed. As I stated above, I asked for a schedule and outline of procedures. The CJ ignored my request. I expressed my concern about waiting so long to get the CCs under way, the CJ ignored my statement. Both times, I figured he was busy, so I didn't push it. Then he finally tells donsig that the CCs will start on the 22nd. Then the CJ completely ignored that set date.

All this time, I'm checking the Judicial thread for any activity at all, as I felt it was part of my job as pro tem Associate Justice. A complete waste of time. Plus I had to sit through insults from donsig. CJ Zarn had two weeks to do ANYTHING! He did nothing. I did as you say and asked politely, I held my tongue. But to no avail, he still did nothing and still neglected to address my concerns. You can blame Zarn's quiting on me, but I'm not to blame. His quiting just ensures his goal of not holding court on these CCs. Say what you will. :rolleyes:

Cyc and donsig, that will be quite enough. Eyrei.

So...nothing is going to happen here untill demogame IV is over? :eek:

This is really an insult to both the demogame and our constitution. Just because of a small, though ongoing for some time..., argument between donsig and Cyc, the judiciary is doing nothing? Come on...we have around 10 days left to restore the reputation of the judiciary. Let's see what we can do!

Back in DG1 and 2, the process was simple (and I said it before).

1 - A user puts in a PI request.
2 - The judiciary member in charge (or whoever was in charge at the time in DG1) would set up a PI thread stating, "User X has issued a PI on user Y. Both parties will find someone to represent them, if they wish, and User X will state their arguments, then user Y".
3 - After the two posted, discussion would start in that thread.
4 - After 48 hours, a guilty/innocent poll was put up (lasted 72 hours IIRC).
5 - If found guilty, a sentencing poll was put up (another 72 hours).

Yes, the process was a week long, but it was a lot better than this.

Back in DG1 and 2, the process was simple (and I said it before).

1 - A user puts in a PI request.
2 - The judiciary member in charge (or whoever was in charge at the time in DG1) would set up a PI thread stating, "User X has issued a PI on user Y. Both parties will find someone to represent them, if they wish, and User X will state their arguments, then user Y".
3 - After the two posted, discussion would start in that thread.
4 - After 48 hours, a guilty/innocent poll was put up (lasted 72 hours IIRC).
5 - If found guilty, a sentencing poll was put up (another 72 hours).

Yes, the process was a week long, but it was a lot better than this.

Oh why bother. You'll always bring up the glorious, grass is greener past.

I give up - stay in the past, dreaming of the glories of yesteryear.

-- Ravensfire

Oh why bother. You'll always bring up the glorious, grass is greener past.

I give up - stay in the past, dreaming of the glories of yesteryear.

-- Ravensfire

I think her point is that it used to work pretty efficiently...

I think her point is that it used to work pretty efficiently...

True, but under entirely different circumstances. In addition, it was more than anything, a popularity contest. If you were liked, you could get away with quite a bit. If you weren't liked, you couldn't.

The new system, that CT is so disparaging of, has something that DG1/2/3 never thought of - a remedy, agreed by the parties, before any trial happens. Nope! Gotta have the whole thing in DG1/2/3.

Sorry, the problems currently encountered would have been mitigated only slightly under the old system. The first cases were delayed in part because there was a chance of being dropped and in part from finding representation. Nothing in the old system would have prevented that. Nothing.

I cannot comment on any other court's term, just Term 2.

CT, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. There is more at fault than the system. If you want a great example of how it CAN work - look at the case you brought in term 2, and the case against CG in term 1. Both were handled far, far faster than the DG1/2 system you are so fond of.

Don't blame the CC system for failings outside of it.

-- Ravensfire

We don't need to use the PI system of DG1 and 2, but we need to work on the efficiency of ours. Borrowing some ideas from those games may help. We need to make this CC process more efficient for next DG.

The remedy system is a great idea, if only we could find a court that would handle CC's using that system in an expedient manner. As it is, they've done virtually nothing since Term 2.

Ok, RF, then tell me. How is this system better at handling reviews and PIs/CCs in DG4 than it was in DG1 and 2?

Apparently, all the DG1 and 2 PIs and reviews were completed on time. Something obviously worked then.

Ok, RF, then tell me. How is this system better at handling reviews and PIs/CCs in DG4 than it was in DG1 and 2?

Apparently, all the DG1 and 2 PIs and reviews were completed on time. Something obviously worked then.

CT, you seemed to have missed some of my points. I'll try again.

In term 1, there was one CC filed. It was handled quickly via a remedy. In that particular case, representation for both parties, if needed, was found quickly.

At the end of term 1, 2 CC's were filed, and requested to be handled by term 2.

In term 2, there were 2 CC's pushed from term 1, plus one cc filed. The first 2 cc's were initially delayed to handle the JR over the elections and to establich firmly the members of the court. Once that was done, the first two CC's were delayed at first from hope they could be resolved without the CC process. Indeed, one of them became a JR.

Once the decision was made to press the case forward, representation could not be found for some time. So tell me, how would the DR1/2 process handle that? The same way - it would get delayed.

The last CC in term 2 was handled quickly - you should remember that one.

CT - there is nothing wrong with the process. Period. We had a sitting justice volunteer to step down for a case to ensure a citizen had representation that they have a right to. How would this have been handled in DR1/2? Through the JA/PD - god, I hope not. We've had some spectacularly incompetant citizens in those offices, which is why they don't exist anymore. That system was broken - and badly. Expediance is not a substitute for justice. Speed is not a substitute for fairness. The old system was a farce of justice, where popularity ruled the day. Under that old, antiquated system, certain citizens could not get a fair trial - and the bias would go both ways.

Yes - I'm unhappy with the delays. I was unhappy when I couldn't resolve every case brought up in term 2. Heck - I still have a CC on my head that you filed. There are problems - but it's with participation of citizens. What is a court supposed to do if nobody wants to represent another citizen? Having a justice step down is a solution, but it stinks.

You want things to move faster? Get off your tail and volunteer to represent one side or the other. Stop being part of the problem.

-- Ravensfire

In my opinion, the reason DG1 and 2 worked was that the time limit was imposed on the case, and representation was provided by the court itself (JA was prosecutor and PD the defense council unless the accused wanted someone else to defend them). The timeline forced the process to complete.

Is that better or worse? I don't know. The grass was greener in some ways, but in others, it was worse because you could file a PI for just about anthing.

However, it is clearly a problem if either side can use "lack of representation" to stall the process itself.

Just my view.

Just my $0.02 on how to prevent the delays we are seeing with the current CC system. Our system allows for the defendent and plaintiff to have someone else represent them. This fine, but if nobody can be found to do this, the defendent and plaintiff should be forced to represent themselves rather than continuing to delay the case hoping that one day someone might step forward and volunteer.

I think her point is that it used to work pretty efficiently...

That's not how you or CT felt back during PI6 or when CT was PIed a few times by Cyc. The old process did not work well and that's why we tried something new. The new CC system doesn't work as well as we'd like it to so we should try something new (not something old).

Sorry about leaving guys, but I didn't see any other choice.

Cyc: We were at this point (as far as my knowledge goes about the case):

CoL L.1.
f. The Prosecutor and the Defense then present the
results of the investigation to the Court.
1. The Court should be skeptical of all allegations,
requiring a reasonable chance the allegation is
true and determining that, if the allegation is
true, a violation of Fanatican law has occurred.

Only later do I set up a polls and threads. I don’t think we were at the same point in the process.

I don't know what you were talking about with political purposes.

As for the schedule, you were only Justice for those cases, so there was no need for you to ‘wait around.’ You knew that it was the 22nd as did the Defense, Prosecution, and I but had no idea what they were doing at the time (22nd). I simply didn’t hear from them. I could have had EVERYTHING done by terms end, even after the silent defense and prosecution.

Why would the legal clutz volunteer for the defense or prosecution? ;)