http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Term_2_Judicial.gif

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/DG5_RM_warflag.jpg



http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/Con_button.gif (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94616)

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/JL_button.gif (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94623)

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/T1_button.gif (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95439)

Census for Term 2 is: 49
Quorum for Constitutional Amendment: 32
With a minimum of 67% YES votes over NO votes
Abstain not withstanding.

Quorum for Code of Laws Section: 18
With a 55% approval rate.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/headguide.gif

1. The Judiciary is comprised of three members, the Chief Justice, the Public Defender, and the Judge Advocate.

2. All members of the Judiciary shall share certain rights and responsibilities.
A. Post polls and discussions on interpretations of the Constitution, and any lower laws.
B. Do not have Deputies, but may appoint Pro-Tem officials (Pro-Tem CJ, Pro-Tem PD, and Pro-Tem JA) if they are unable to fulfill their duties. Pro-Tem officials have all the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for, but are a temporary position, and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official. The pro-tem status may be given for individual assigments or for the entirety of the official (this must be declared).
C. Participate in Judicial Review to determine the leagality of proposed Constitutional Amendments and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
D. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing Constitutional Articles and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
E. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to examine whether or not all investigations should be considered as having "No Merit".
F. Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

3. The Chief Justice ~
A. Perform as needed in the positions of Public Defender and Judge Advocate in the absense of either official. This duty shall only apply if said officials have not appointed a Pro-Tem official.
B. Is responsible for posting the current Active Census in the Judicial thread at the begining of the Term.
C. Is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.
D. Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on topic and procedurally accurate.
E. If the situation arises where the actions of a Leader (Advisor) of a Department fall within the parameters of being absent from a postion, as set forth by CoL Section G.3, the Chief Justice may declare said Office vacant.

4. The Public Defender ~
A. Is tasked with ensuring all Citizen's Complaint investigations are performed correctly, with deference to the presumed innocense of the accused.
B. Will ensure that the accused understands the charges brought against them and what rules were purportedly broken so the accused can mount an effective defense.
C. Will perform as defender, unless the accused wishes otherwise.

5. The Judge Advocate ~
A. Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations and trial.
B. Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
C. Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence) for any anonimous accusers.

6. All Judicial Review and Investigations will be held publicly. Communication between the Justices will be posted in the Judicial thread or the Investigation threads.

7. Judicial Review ~
A. A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary.
B. Review of proposed legislation.
1. Any member of the House may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws.
2. The request is posted in the appropriate list in post #4 of this thread.
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict with existing rules.
4. If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the house with detail of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then be edited and resubmitted for Review.
5. If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.
C. Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.
1. Any member of the house may request a Judicial Review for interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. The request must be formatted in a YES or NO question format. If it is not, the Judiciary may reformat the request in order to achieve this goal. The existing Law must also be clearly stated in the request.
2. The request is posted in the appropriate list in post #3 of this thread.
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
4. The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial Log for reference.
D. Dismissal of Investigations deemed as having "No Merit".
1. 3 of 3 Justices must agree that the accusation shows "No Merit".
2. Specific reasoning must be given by each Justice for a judgement of "No Merit".

8. Citizen's Complaint ~
A. If any citizen believes that someone has violated an Article of the Constitution or any other lower form of law, they can report this suspected violation for investigation and trial.
1. The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
2. The allegation can be made privately to the Chief Justice via Private Message.
B. Allegations of misconduct must include:
1. Name of the defendant.
2. The Article(s) or lower Law(s) suspected of being violated.
3. When and where the suspected violation(s) occurred.
C. The Citizen's Complaint is posted in the appropriate list in post #5 of this thread.
D. The Judge Advocate notifies the Public Defender and the accused of the charge(s).
E. A brief Judicial Review of the charge(s) is done (see 7.D above) to determine if the charges have "No Merit".
F. If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the Judge Advocate opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).
1. The first two replies to this thread are reserved for the Public Defender and the accused to respond publicly to the charge(s) (Defense). Either may post first, and both may say what they wish (within forum rules). If their replies/responses have not been posted within 24 hours of the thread's posting, they lose these reserved spots and anyone can post.
G. Citizens can post in this thread their opinions on the charge(s), whether they think the accused is guilty of the infraction or not, and if the case should go to Trial.
H. If the accused pleads guilty, the Trial is skipped and the case moves to the Sentencing Process. The Chief Justice may close the Investigation thread early if this occurs.
I. When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.
1. If the results of the Investigation (defined as input in the Investigation thread) thread are overwhelmingly in favor of the Defendant, the Judge Advocate will submit the case for abrief Judicial Review to determine if the case has "No Merit". If the case is then viewed as having "No Merit" the case is closed.
2. The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent, and Abstain and will remain open for 48 hours.
3. In the event the Trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine if the defendant is innocent or guilty by posting independant and clear Opinions at the end of the Trial poll.
J. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll is posted by the Judge Advocate.
1 The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the following Options:
a. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
b. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
c. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
d. Warning
e. No Punishment
f. Abstain
2. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning for the current offense, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
3. In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independant and clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.
4. The guilty party must abide by the results of the Sentencing poll.

9. The Judicial Log may be referenced for further interpretation or clarification, but may not be used for criteria for review of proposed legislation.

10. For any Judicial Review ruling or issue involved with a Citizen Complaint, each Justices must post independantly their opinion on the matter. In essance, they must answer the question asked by the Judicial Review in a Yes or No fashion (have "Merit" or "No Merit" also applies here). Specifically, there will be no "fence-riding". Each Justice will come down on one side of the issue or the other, clearly.

DG5JR13 ~

complete~ Article G and supporting Sections of the Code of Laws
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DG5JR14 ~

complete~ Code of Laws Section O.1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DG5JR15 ~

complete~ The powers of the Vice President in regards to creating a Turn Chat Instruction Thread
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DG5JR16 ~

complete~ Concerning whether or not Article N of the Constitution requires citizens to obey the Code of Laws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DG5JR17 ~

complete~ Concerning the authority and capabilities of Governors appointed to Office, while a Confirmation Poll has been posted against them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DG5JR18 ~

complete~ Concerning Article N. 2 questions to the Court, first asking about the allowances granted to the People through Article N, and the second asking if said Article grants specific rights to the People in naming their Province.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DG5JR19 ~

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2218670&postcount=121) concerning who has the authority to post Instructions for the route of a Naval transport carrying a Settler. SD3 is referencing Article O for this JR.

DG5CC1 ~

Minister Black_Hole has, as a citizen, filed a Citizen's Complaint (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2214459&postcount=91) against President Chieftess. He claims Chieftess violated Article D of the Constitution by ignoring legally posted Instructions in the Turn Chat Instruction thread (TCIT) in the Turn Chat today. She compounded this act by over-stepping her authority as President/DP in calling a tied Cultural Poll in favor of he option she voted for, even though Minister snipelfritz was present at the chat. When she did this act, it would have meant that Zojoji was changed to a Colosseum (as Deputy-Governor RegentMan has posted), but instead switched it a Swordsman on her own.

This Citizen's complaint has been accepted, and will move onto the next stage. As it is nearing the end of the Term, and I have not heard from the Judge Advocate on the Call for Clarification, if Octavian X doesn't respond to this action and post that he has PM'd the accused, I can step in and assume his duties.

I hesitate to complain, but black letters on red text for the links in post 2 really don't work very well. Otherwise this is starting off as a fairly entertaining thread already... ;)

I hesitate to complain, but black letters on red text for the links in post 2 really don't work very well. Otherwise this is starting off as a fairly entertaining thread already... ;)

I'm sorry, DaveShack. I'll try not to use red text next time. But I'm glad you enjoy the thread.

good job on your fiercly won election :D I hope this term we can get this constitution in tip top shape :)

Nice graphics, Cyc. :)

Just a comment on the procedural list - it'd be easy enough to draw that up into a nice looking list using vb code.
Something
like
this.
If I have time, I could rewrite it to make it a bit easier on the eyes.

Thank you, Gentlemen, for your kind words.

Octavian, I see what you mean. I didn't want to use regular code tags, as they put the text in a box with slide bars. This makes printing a pain. The list option may be a good one, but with all of the [b]olding an letters and numbers, I just didn't think it would work. I thought separating the Sections with a space would suffice. I guess I was wrong. ;)

What font is that Cyc? I want it! Also, is that our national flag?

Cyc,

Consider the (indent) tag - from some testing I did, you can nest the tags as needed.

Example:
1. Heading 1
a. Heading 2
i. Heading 3

-- Ravensfire

Thanks Ravensfire. That Indent Tag worked well. Took a lot of paste work, but I got it done. Thanks to Oct, too.

What font is that Cyc? I want it! Also, is that our national flag?
The font is Utamara. It has been handed down to me generation to generation since the begining of DG5. It is the sacred font. You must pass many a test, grasshopper, before you can use it. :D

And yes, that is our National flag. Hail Japanatica!

Thanks Ravensfire. That Indent Tag worked well. Took a lot of past work, but I got it done. Thanks to Oct, too.

I know - I tried doing it while waiting for everything to reinstall (gah - reinstalling Win XP is a pain, but new vid card and LCD - *drool*), quit in disgust after a paragraph muttering - CJ's job, not mine!

-- Ravensfire

As the Court is aware, there have been ongoing discussions on the creation of an Article G that should pass Ratification.

The most recent proposal has been in Proposed Poll format for over 24 hours. I therefore ask the Court to conduct a Judicial Review of the proposed Article G and supporting CoL sections. Links to each are below.

Article G (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2152252&postcount=114)
CoL Section G.1 - Deputies (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2152257&postcount=115)
CoL Section G.2 - Confirmation Polls (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2152262&postcount=116)
CoL Section G.3 - Vacancies (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2152266&postcount=117)

My thanks,
-- Ravensfire

DG5JR13 ~

Ravensfire has requested a Judicial Review for proposed Article G and supporting Sections of the Code of Laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2156331&postcount=16). All citizens are encouraged to contribute in discussion about this matter. This request has been accepted and posted in post #4 of this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2145824&postcount=4).

:hammer:
This Court is now in session. With this Term's first Judicial matter having been filed, I now call upon my esteemed colleagues, Public Defender KCCrusader and Judge Advocate Octavian X, to join me in the work before us.

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

DG5JR13

After review of the proposed Article of the Constitution and the supporting three proposed Sections of the Code of Laws put forth by Ravensfire (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2156331&postcount=16), and finding no conflicts with existing Law, I recommend that these legislative documents be submitted for ratification by the House.

CJ Cyc

DG5JR13 Proposed by: Ravensfire
Regarding Article G and respective CoL amendments.

Upon review of this legislation, I find that it in no way conflicts with existing laws. The bill has my approval to move to the voting process.

Hi there,
Im here to inquire about the law. I know you can't play the save, but i was wondering after a turn chat has happended can you play those turns to find stuff out. For example now were at war with iroquios(whatever) can you play the last few turns to see if any deals could of stoped war (giving them 1gpt or a right of passage) as long as the person didn't go into the future.

Hi there,
Im here to inquire about the law. I know you can't play the save, but i was wondering after a turn chat has happended can you play those turns to find stuff out. For example now were at war with iroquios(whatever) can you play the last few turns to see if any deals could of stoped war (giving them 1gpt or a right of passage) as long as the person didn't go into the future.
i dont think so, as that is a non reversible action

You can only do that at the end of the game, when the game is over. (or, a really long time afterwards where it would make no difference).

ok thanks, i wont do that then

Hi there,
Im here to inquire about the law. I know you can't play the save, but i was wondering after a turn chat has happended can you play those turns to find stuff out. For example now were at war with iroquios(whatever) can you play the last few turns to see if any deals could of stoped war (giving them 1gpt or a right of passage) as long as the person didn't go into the future.
Article M of the Constitution covers your question, Nobody. It states:

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

Simplified, this means with the help of Article K, nobody can play the save outside of an officially authorized public Turn Chat. :D Nooo, this does not mean YOU can play the save. No person, outside of the Official DP may play the save, and that person can only do things like processing Instructions. This is to eliminate problems caused by different machines (computers) playing the save differently.

And don't worry about Black_Hole and CT, Cyc whispers *they just think they're in the Judiciary*. :lol:

And don't worry about Black_Hole and CT, Cyc whispers *they just think they're in the Judiciary*. :lol:
we are all jurors cyc ;)
*BH gets ready to spam judiciary with 500 Judicial Reviews ;) :lol: *

we are all jurors cyc ;)
*BH gets ready to spam judiciary with 500 Judicial Reviews ;) :lol: *
That's my point B_H. Anyone who registers to vote is eligible for jury duty. ;):lol:

/me awaits completing all 500 JR's :)

To: The Office of the Public Defender

KCCrusader, this memo is to inquire about the length of time, if any, we should wait before declaring Octavian X (our current JA) absent. It has been three days since DG5JR13 was opened and we haven't heard a word from him, even though he has posted elsewhere in these forums. Your thoughts?

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

I think three days is more than enough to declare him absent. As far as vacant, that can be dealt with if he doesnt arrive within a few more days.

Really, you know I'm still here, just quite a bit lazier than my judicial counterparts. Send me a PM or something to bug me about it. :p

In regard to the matter of DG5JR13, I find no conflict in the proposed article and laws with currently existing laws/articles.

I wonder, though, if my consent is necessary, as the two other members of the court have already found no problems. In cases where people are downright lazy (like me), perhaps the judicial process could be sped up by removing the quorum requirement for judicial reviews, so long as 2 out of the 3 agree. But, that's another thread.

Sorry, Octavian, the JR quorum will remain. :D This court finds it much more probable to remove "downright lazy people", who can't check the Judicial thread every other day (or when their not posting in the RPG). I hate to say this, Oct ole buddy, but it's your job to stay in focus with Judicial proceedings, it's not our job to kep you focused. Thank you posting your Opinion on DG5JR13. That will save me the trouble of finding a replacement for you. :thumbsup:

heh welcome back oc

Because of certain "rogue actions" taken by people who are not happy with the current law, I would like the Justices' Opinions on whether we should Codify the "Judicial Guide".

This is only semi-formal. (No JRs on this except for the future Proposed Polls...)

May it Please the Court!

I have here submitted for Judicial Review a Proposed Poll for a Section of the Code of Laws under Article O.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2166135&postcount=17

Article O has been included here for reference.

The area contained within the national boundaries of Japanatica shall be divided into areas called provinces, each of which is under the control of a Governor as stated in Article E. of the Constitution. These boundries must be defined and approved by the House well ahead of expansion, and may extend beyond the cultural boundaries. City locations shall be determined by the Will of the People.

I request the Timely (glances at the JA) review of this Proposal so it can go to Poll.

Hmm...

In regard to codifying the juducial code, I'd rather it remain in the hands of the judiciary. The legal code is always troubled, often requiring minute modifications here and there. It seems like a bit of a waste of time in a slow process to make a formal law. Perhaps, for the sake of good government, a citizen override mechanism could be written in to force changes from outside the judiciary...

And, in regard to the proposed laws, I will withhold my review for the moment, just because I just had an additional thought (see the thread).

I agree with the additional thought. Your Honor, I Request that my previous request for a JR in Post #36 be tabled until we can sort out whether a new period is required.

EDIT: Did I say Tabled? Well, change that to Recinded.

Honorable Domestic Minister, Sir Donald III
Your last request shall be granted, until we get word from you that you are ready to move forward in this matter.

May it Please the Court!

I have herewith a Judicial Review Concerning the newly ratified Article G. From section 2:

2. All Executive and Legislative positions shall have a
deputy. The Deputy will be permitted to conduct the
affairs of the office as directed, or during a planned
Absence of the elected official. If no instructions have
been posted for an office within 24 hours of the upcoming
Turn Chat, the deputy for that office may post the official
instructions for the office.

The President did not create the turnchat instructions thread for 8 September's TC until 10:45 PM EDT on 7 September. This was within 24 hours of the TC. An isolated incident, but it gave me, as a minister, a good bit of concern.

The question I would like to pose to the Justices in this Judicial Review is:

Given: The Vice President is considered as the Deputy of the President for the purposes of the VP's current duties. ("All Executive ... positions shall have a Deputy")

and Given: "If no instructions have been posted for an office within 24 hours of the upcoming
Turn Chat, the deputy for that office may post the official instructions for the office."

Does the Vice President have the right to create Turnchat Instruction Threads if the President has not done so within 24 Hours of the Pre-specified time of the TC? (This is given that the President has prespecified a time.)

With the Passage of CoL Section G.3, this Office hereby declares the position of Cultural Advisor VACANT. Cultural Advisor Curufinwe has not posted Instructions once during this Demogame. Nor does he post discussions, statistics, lists, answer requests for information in the Cultural thread. Therefore, his position has fallen into the parameters set forth by the People in CoL Section G.3 as being VACANT. This is a re-occurring situation in the Cultural Department, and also one common to Curufinwe. This Chief Justice has seen this happen almost every Term Curufinwe has been elected to the Culture Department.

As this situation is not just an error or excused absence or a unique, one-time occurance, this Office declares the Cultural Advisor's positon VACANT and requests that the President now appoint snipelfritz to the Advisor's position, replacing Curufinwe.

In accordance with CoL G.3, I second the motion to remove Curufinwe from office. I recommend to the President to appoint the deputy, snipelfritz to the advisor position.

May it Please the Court!

I have herewith the revised Proposed Section O(1) of the CoL in its Proposed Poll form. I request a Judicial Review (my 2nd in 24 hours!) to evaluate whether it can be put before the People.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2174632&postcount=36

Oh, and since I will be officially absent effective Tuesday, I'd like his Honor, the Chief Justice to post the poll.

And I forgot the discussion thread in the post:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=97861

I would like to publicly thank the honorable Public Defender, KCCrusader for his quick response in supporting my call for Curufinwe's position being declared vacant. KCCrusader has shown to be a worthy addition to the Judicial Branch and shall receive my support if he choses to run again.

Honorable Domestic Advisor Sir Donald III, I acknowledge your request for Judicial Review and will make the appropriate postings tomorrow.

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review on the Proposed Poll for amending the Code of Laws with Section O. This request has been accepted and listed in post #4 of this thread, as DG5JR14. It is now open for Judicial Review and comments by the public. This court encourages participation by Japanatica's citizens.

Admittedly, I still have my reservations, mostly because I am unsure as to how the scheme described will play out. This is, of course, and uncomfortable feeling one usually recieves when changes are made to the way one is used to doing things. It only means I've been around here too long. :)

As for the true matter at hand, immeadiately, I find no conflict with any existing regulation (though I reserve final judgement for the moment), and expess my hope that this law may be ratified in an expedient manner.

DG5JR14 Submitted by: DA Sir Donald III

I find that this legislation in no way conflicts with current legislation, and has my approval to move to voting procedure.

I would like to publicly thank the honorable Public Defender, KCCrusader for his quick response in supporting my call for Curufinwe's position being declared vacant. KCCrusader has shown to be a worthy addition to the Judicial Branch and shall receive my support if he choses to run again.

Honorable Domestic Advisor Sir Donald III, I acknowledge your request for Judicial Review and will make the appropriate postings tomorrow.

Thank you for your commendation. I return it in regards to Cyc's prompt and organized procedure of this court!

Your Honor, please also examone Post #40 in this thread, as I have another JR request for you.

Also, once His Honor reviews the Proposed Poll (DG5JR14), I request that he personally deliver it to poll.

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review concerning the powers of the Vice President in regards to creating a Turn Chat Instruction Thread, if the President has not done so within the 24 hour period prior to a scheduled Turn Chat. The Law in question pertaining to this situation that Sir Donald III would like referenced is Article G, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Article G.2. All Executive and Legislative positions shall have a
deputy. The Deputy will be permitted to conduct the
affairs of the office as directed, or during a planned
Absence of the elected official. If no instructions have
been posted for an office within 24 hours of the upcoming
Turn Chat, the deputy for that office may post the official
instructions for the office.

This request has been accepted and has been listed in post #4 of this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2145824&postcount=4) as DG5JR15.

DG5JR14

After review of the proposed Section of the Code of Laws put forth by Sir Donald III (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2174632&postcount=36) , and finding no conflicts with existing Law, I recommend that this legislative document be submitted for ratification by the House.

To Sir Donald III,

Sorry I missed you request for a JR in post #40, and thank you for bringing to my attention. I will honor your request and post your ratification poll for you, as soon as I can get confirmation from Octavian X, in his post above, that he is signing off on DG5JR14.

DG5JR15

Sir Donald IIIhas asked for a Judicial Review of a newly ratified Article of the Constitution. The Section of this Article in question, G.2, is listed below:

Article G.2.
All Executive and Legislative positions shall have a
deputy. The Deputy will be permitted to conduct the
affairs of the office as directed, or during a planned
Absence of the elected official. If no instructions have
been posted for an office within 24 hours of the upcoming
Turn Chat, the deputy for that office may post the official
instructions for the office.

The question that SDIII asks in regards to this Section is:

Does the Vice President have the right to create Turnchat Instruction Threads if the President has not done so within 24 Hours of the Pre-specified time of the TC?

In the eyes of the Chief Justice, the Turn Chat Instruction thread is not seen as "an instruction". It is an announcement with links and guidance to not only the Council Leaders, but to all citizens of Japanatica. It is a thread that allows those Council Members an opportunity to complete one of the most important part of their jobs.

Organizing Turn Chats is one of the most important parts of the President's job. One of the main aspects of this is the timely posting of the TCIT. Even though the Vice President follows the President in the Chain of Command, and can be seen as the President's Deputy, posting a TCIT is not comparable to posting Instructions in a TCIT. There is a separation of protocol, so to speak, when go from a Leader position to the Chief Executive position. The latter having more complex responsibilities.

So, to answer SDIII's question in regards to Article G, Section 2, no. The Vice President does not have that right.

DG5JR14

I find no conflicts of the proposed laws with existing regulations, and ask that the law be submitted to the people in a timely and expedient manner.

DG5JR15

Reading the Chief Justice's reasoning, I am inclined to agree with him, though not entirely. In contrast to the his opinion, however, I do feel that a Turn Chat Instruction Thread does qualify as an 'instruction.'

I think that a TCIT, which always mentions the specific time of a chat, it is an instruction in that is specifies when and where a chat will be taking place.

I also find in this way for reasons of plain common sense. It would be rather difficult for a Minister, Governor, or Deputy otherwise, to post any instructions 24 hours before a turn chat if there is not a TCIT.
Since chats are scheduled ahead of time, anyway, it's a matter of convience for everyone charged with posting instructions. The TCIT gets up if the President is unable to do so in situations where he is absent due to circumstances beyond his control. Leaders are able to do their job without worrying about an absent President. Quite frankly, we save a lot of hassle, and no one gets hurt.

To directly answer the question at hand, yes, the Vice President, as deputy and assistant to the President, has the right to create Turnchat Instruction Threads if the President has not done so within 24 Hours of the Pre-specified time of the TC.

even though i agree with cyc on most legal things, on this one i must agree with oct

The Deputy will be permitted to conduct the
affairs of the office as directed,
that plain and simple states it right there

well thats my attempt to start discussions in the judical thread :D

DG5JR15 Submitted by:Sir Donald III

If no instructions have
been posted for an office within 24 hours of the upcoming
Turn Chat...

Because this Article refers to the instruction posters as "an office" I am inclined to believe this includes the office of the President. The wording as is suggests that all offices have a deputy that can take over if instructions are not posted. If there is no instruction thread, instructions cannot be posted, and the game could face delays or stoppages. In order to preserve the tempo of the game and to uphold the usefullness of the Vice Presidency to fill in for unexpected absences, I find that it is within the VP's purview to create the turn chat instruction thread if it has not been posted 24 hours before the turnchat is schedueled to begin.

even though i agree with cyc on most legal things, on this one i must agree with oct

"The Deputy will be permitted to conduct the
affairs of the office as directed,


that plain and simple states it right there

well thats my attempt to start discussions in the judical thread :D

....or during a planned Absence of the elected official.

Well, there ya go, Black_Hole. You said it yourself, "as directed", although you left out the other allowable time, a planned Absense. Now that the Judicial Review is over, we (I) can explain my Opinion a little better. The question asked was referred to the above Article. It did not say that the VP was given direction by the President to create the TCIT, nor did it say there was a planned Absense. In fact, by its wording, it suggested that niether situation was present; "...does the Vice Presiden have the right to create..."

So, sorry, but I based my Opinion on the Article and the question. I would really like to thank you for voicing your opinion in this matter and would like to hear more about my response. Please keep it up! :thumbsup:

Sorry to say, but I disagree with all of you on a technicality:

"Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread. The President
shall be tasked with control of worker actions."

Nowhere in article D does it say who shall be in charge of establishing the turn chat instruction thread. I take it from Article N that this right is then maintained by the citizens - ie anyone can set up the TCIT, since any citizen can perform any action "not forbidden by the forum rules, or by this constitution."

Please forgive me if I have missed part of the constitution that is relevant, and it does actually expressly say that the president is the only person allowed to set up the TCIT.

Also, we should ammend article N to restrict citizens from disobeying the code of laws, on the basis that the constitution does not forbid it? My understanding is that the COL is a "governing law," not part of the constitution itself, and thus not expressly included in article N. I thus request a judicial review on whether the constitution (article N) actually requires citizens to follow the code of laws.

Thanks in advance

Sorry to say, but I disagree with all of you on a technicality:

Nowhere in article D does it say who shall be in charge of establishing the turn chat instruction thread. I take it from Article N that this right is then maintained by the citizens - ie anyone can set up the TCIT, since any citizen can perform any action "not forbidden by the forum rules, or by this Constitution."

Please forgive me if I have missed part of the constitution that is relevant, and it does actually expressly say that the president is the only person allowed to set up the TCIT.

Thanks in advance

In my opinion, Civman2004, you technical point resolves our disagreement. In quoting Article D of the Constitution, you you posted:
It is headed by the President who shall be the primary Designated Player.
It says the President shall be the Primary Designated Player. It is not the responsibility of the President to post the TCIT. It is the responsibility of the Desinated Player. Let's say the President had a death in the family, and therefore asked the VP to take over her duties for a while. Then the VP would be the Primary Designated Player and would be responsible for posting the TCIT. This is because it's the responsibilty of the DP. That is why you or I don't post the TCIT. It's that easy. Because this is a responsibilty of the DP, once the Constitution states that the President is the Primary DP, the TCIT issue is resolved.

If the President has not posted that she has a planned Absense and/or has directed the next person in charge to attend to her duties, then she still retains all of her duties during said period of time. Being Primary DP is one of those duties. In having that duty, posting the TCIT falls under the list of all the items required of the Primary DP.

If we wanted to be so technical, we could make a Law stating the requirements of the DP. Would you like to write it up?

Also, we should ammend article N to restrict citizens from disobeying the code of laws, on the basis that the constitution does not forbid it? My understanding is that the COL is a "governing law," not part of the constitution itself, and thus not expressly included in article N. I thus request a judicial review on whether the constitution (article N) actually requires citizens to follow the code of laws.

Thanks in advance


Civman2004 has requested a Judicial Review of Article N of the Constitution in regards to the question of amending said Article to include the Code of Laws as part of the ruleset referred to in it.

His actual question is, "whether the constitution (article N) actually requires citizens to follow the code of laws".

This request has been accepted and is listed in post #4 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2145824&postcount=4) of this thread as DG5JR16. This Court encourages all citizens to participate in discussing this matter before and/or after the completion of Judicial Review.

this is an easy one:
Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the
Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower
forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be
valid that contradicts these Articles. The Constitution
amendments can be added/modified/removed when the
need arises.

lower laws includes code of laws in my opinon
thus the constitution does require it

this is an easy one:

lower laws includes code of laws in my opinon
thus the constitution does require it

Before we close the book on this one, Black_Hole :) , we may want to re-consider what the request for Judicial Review was for. The Article you quoted was Article B of the Constitution. To reiterate:

Article B. Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the
Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower
forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be
valid that contradicts these Articles. The Constitution
amendments can be added/modified/removed when the
need arises.
Civman2004 requested Judicial Review of Article N, as its wording is restricted to forum rules and the Constitution. It reads:

Article N: Rights reserved to the people
As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions not
forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to
be within the right of every citizen. Actions prescribed by this
Constitution may be substituted by other similar actions, provided
such substitution lies within the spirit of these rules.
As stated in the Article you quoted, Constitutional amendments can be made/modified/removed when the need arises. So now, by way of this JR request, we must ask ourselves, "has the need arisen?" :mischief:

good point cyc, i got a big confused reading his post(please quote the articles civman next time, if possible)


all actions not
forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution,
u can think of it as the constitution being extended, because of article b
basically what i am saying is it could be thought that if an article in the constitution calls on lower laws then those lower laws could be classified as actions prohibited by the constitution

*my head is spinning*

Thank-You civman for bring forth this JR , as this really needs to be clarified

It is my understanding that all CoL laws and amendments are all additions to the Constitution. Therefore they must be followed aspart of the constitution. I'll write this up formally later tonight.

DG5JR16 Submitted by:CivMan2004
Regarding the Purview of the CoL

All CoL laws and amendments are addendums to the constitution in it's entirety. Basically the CoL is a collection of footnotes at the end of the constitution further clarifying the document and/or adding new rules. With this view of lower law, and as Article N states:
As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions not
forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to
be within the right of every citizen.

It is my judgement that citizens are indeed required to abide by the CoL as if it were the constitution.

DG5JR16

I must disagree with my esteemed colleague. The Constitution and the Code of Laws have ALWAYS been separate documents. We have different posts for each document, different rules for amending each document, and different Polls for ratifying each document. In fact we used to have the Three Books, the Constitution, the Code of Laws, and the Code of Standards. Each was a separate document with a separate purpose. This Judicial Review is to consider amending Article N so that it is not restricted to only the Constitution and Forum Rules. It is not to define the purpose of the Code of Laws, which is a separate document in its entirety regardless of its purpose.

As this Judicial Review is about Article N, we need to focus on the intent of this Article. It now states that citizens have the right to do actions not forbidden by Forum Rules or the Constitution. This Article was drawn up before the creation of the Code of Laws. If we neglect to "update" this Article, it could be seen as saying that citizens doing the actions prescribed in the Code of Laws are not within their rights. Plus, by not adding it a second time (to the last line), actions prescribed by the Code of Laws may not be substituted by other similar actions, provided such substitution lies within the spirit of these rules. Which means no lee way in its implementation. No substitutions, regardless of the spirit of the Law. Actually, leaving the second one out may not be a 'bad thing'. But regardless, the first instance is what the primary reason of this JR is about. Fine tuning an amendment can be done later.


Because of Article B of the Constitution, citizens are required to follow all lower forms of Law ratified by the people. So whether they must or not is not my concern here. What we should be looking at is the rights of the citizens and the permissiveness the government uses in viewing their actions. I believe the Code of Laws, as a separate document from the Constitution, should be included in legislation concerning the rights of the citizens. Therefore, I submit the following Opinion:


Chief Justice Opinion: Article N does not actually require the citizens to obey/follow the Code of Laws, in answer to your question. That is done by Article B, as shown above. But in answer to the intent of the request for Judicial Review, to protect the integrity of the Code of Laws, an amendment should be drawn up for Article N with the Code of Laws included in the rules that may forbid citizen actions. Because it is a separate document, otherwise we would not be having this JR, if we exclude it from Article N, 1. it would send a confusing message to the public (as shown here) and 2. It would allow the citizens the right to perform actions forbidden in the Code of Laws.

It's late, so I'll keep this short and sweet.

DG5JR16

I agree with Cyc's judgement, and find in the same way he does.

On the JR regarding whether the VP has the right to post a TCIT if the President has not posted one, by 24 hours before the TC, consider this:

If the VP (or others in the CoC) does not have such a right, it would run the risk of essentially giving the President carte-blanche to do anything, by failing to post a TCIT but then running the chat anyway, and then claiming that no instructions means anything goes. Given this dire potential consequence, the best way to handle the situation would be to allow someone in the CoC to post the TCIT -- or maybe allow a member of the judiciary or a mod to do it.

This does not trample the President's perogative to set the turnchat schedule, just say a TC must have already been scheduled in the Turnchat Schedule thread before anyone else can create a TCIT.

It wasn't really clear what the judiciary's ruling was on this matter, please clarify.

Honorable Vice-President Daveshack,
All Judicial ruilings are posted in the Judicial log on the Main Demogame board. I will happily place the information regarding that JR here:

Sir Donald III's question was :
Does the Vice President have the right to create Turnchat Instruction Threads if the President has not done so within 24 Hours of the Pre-specified time of the TC?

Majority Opinion: This Court has ruled that the Vice President does indeed have the right to create a Turn Chat Instruction thread under normal and abnormal circumstances. Normal being under the direction of the President or a planned Absense. Abnormal being if the President failed to post a TCIT prior to the 24 hour deadline before a scheduled Turn Chat.

For the full ruling, check the judicial log here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2182828&postcount=16

In addition, I like the amount of citizen participation in the Judicial system! It's going up.

*donsig streaks up to the bench and grabs the gavel*

:hammer:

*donsig drops the gavel on the bench and runs out of the courtroom with nothin' on but a smile on his face :D*

Judicial Log updated.
:hammer:

May it Please the Court!

I am requesting a JR regarding an issue that has come up with the New Appointments.

As CoL Section G(2) reads:

A. Confirmation polls are used to challenge the appointment
of a citizen to an elected office. Any citizen may
create a confirmation poll, should one not already exist.
This poll must be created within 24 hours of the
appointment, and ask the question "Do you approve of the
appointment of <citizen name> to the office of <office
name>?", with Yes, No and Abstain option. This poll is
to be private, as it is a form of an election. The poll
will run for 2 days. At the end of the time, if a
majority of the citizens vote "No", the appointment is
overturned. Any other result approves the appointment.

The issue here is that, 90% of the time, there would be a Turnchat occurring over the 72 hour "Confirmation Period."

My questions for this Review are:

A: With the exception of Deputy Promotions, (to the full office, given the Article G Section 2 of the Constitution,) would the Apointees under Confirmation be allowed to write instruction threads for any Turnchats during the "Confirmation Period"?

B: And if not, then who would make instructions for Vacant or Newly Established positions?

As for my Second Question, I would like to file an Amicus Brief.

Firstly, there is this bit from Section O(1) for newly established Governorships:

1: Once a Territory has at least three (3) towns or has at least 50% of the land within the entire territory under Japatanica's Cultural Borders, then it becomes a Full Province with its own Governor.
a: Until this happens, administration of towns within the territory
are retained by the Governors of their respective former
Provinces. Administration of New Towns formed before the limit
is achieved will be under the control of the Domestic Minister.

Now, this would cover probably 90% of the cases where the questions in this JR apply. (i.e. Establishment of New Governorships.)

For the Remaining 10%, i.e. Vacancies in the Executive or Judicial when any applicable Deputies have been exhausted, I seem to recall a precedent for the DP having defacto control of those "vacant" offices.

The Justices may consider this Amicus at their individual discression. (Or reject it at said discression.)

Comment on the JR for Confirmation Polls.

I wish to draw the Court's attention to the final 2 sentances - "At the end of the time, if a majority of the citizens vote "No", the appointment is overturned. Any other result approves the appointment."

The key word there is "overturned", that is, the section presumes that the appointment is valid, allowing the citizen to hold the office with the rights and responsibilities of that office. Should the confimation poll result in a strong negative vote, the appointment is overturned.

As the primary author of that section, that was my intent. When an office is declared vacant, we must quickly fill that office with a citizen. Without a citizen in the office, performing the duties of that office, we lose some of the balance within our government.

-- Ravensfire

Sir Donald III has requested Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2198410&postcount=72) of the authority and capabilities of Governors appointed to Office, who have Confirmation Polls filed against them. He is referencing Article G.2 of the Constitution for this request.

His request has been accepted and listed in post #4 of this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2145824&postcount=4) as DG5JR17.

This Court seeks input from the public on this matter and wishes to thank the Honorable Ravensfire for his timely contribution.

i agree with ravensfire here

i think they should definetly be able to, as the confirmation poll is putting someone out of office if it passes
otherwise the president has a nice little blank check(which is less democratic then someone else posting instructions)

This was prompted by the discussion on naming provinces.

After a search of our laws, I can find no direct law that states that a Governor names their province. As a long time player, I recognize that there is a tradition of such actions. However, most people know my opinion of unwritten traditions - they're worth the paper they're printed on! Not to mention the obvious problem of including such unwritten traditions, everything from old games caries over ...

I did, however, find myself intrigued by that most innocent of Constitutional Articles - Article N

Article N: Rights reserved to the people
As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions not
forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to
be within the right of every citizen. Actions prescribed by this
Constitution may be substituted by other similar actions, provided
such substitution lies within the spirit of these rules.

Hmmm, the catch-all article that apparently grants unto the People all powers not forbidden to them.

So, I have two questions.
1. Does Article N grant unto the People all rights and responsiblities not forbidden to them and not granted to specified leader?

2. Does Article N soley grant unto the People the right to name Provinces and Cities, or does that right lie with the Domestic Minister, under Article D.1 (resonsible for all domestic initiatives...)

I would note two sections from Article E on the duties of Governors:
They will advise the citizens of the state of their individual
provinces, any concerns there may be for said provinces,
and enumerate any goals they envision for their provinces.
b.Governors are responsible for the care, management,
use of the cities, and use of lands of a province through the
setting of build queues, allocation of laborers on tiles,
population rushes and drafting of citizen soldiers.

Missing from either are any mention of naming rights. Indeed, section B is quite specific about HOW the duties of the Governor may be carried out.

Hopefully the Court will be able to provide at least a short-term resolution to this debate.

-- Ravensfire

DG5JR17 Submitted by: Sir Donald III
Regarding nominated officials.

Because of the wording of the use of confirmation polls, as pointed out by ravensfire and others, any appointed leaders retain their powers until the close of a confirmation. CoL G.2 states:
At the end of the time, if a
majority of the citizens vote "No", the appointment is
overturned. Any other result approves the appointment.

Therefore, ANY other result of a confirmation poll is an approval. Therefore, considering that not having a result is not the same as having a result of a majority "NO", the position retains all powers. Upon the closing of the 2-day poll in which the candidate recieved a majority of NO votes the position will be vacated.


Thank you and goodnight.

DG5JR17

My Opinion matches all those posted here thus far. In the eyes of the CJ, when any kind of government official is "appointed" to a position, that individual has a job and responsibilities to manage. Just because someone files some paperwork in hopes of removing them from said position, doesn't mean they can kick back until the polls are closed. That's just silly. If I were ever to appoint someone to a position in my Department (if I were to be a Leader) or to my bench, and they told me they could do anything until the Confirmation Poll closed, I would fire them myself and find someone else.

Chief Justice Opinion: Any person legally appointed to a position may exercise, with full authority, all duties, responsibilities, perks, etc. associated with that position, regardless of any paperwork filed against them. Negative Confirmation Polls (ones that have completed and show a negative result), Court Orders, or job plain getting fired would be ways of not allowing someone to do their work.

I realize your second question does not need to be answered now, but I will say that the DP is, in the eyes of this Court, very restricted in the use of "free-lance" moves on the part of another Official. Everyone has a job to do and most of the guidelines for what these jobs entail can be found somewhere in our ruleset.

Some further comments on my most recent request -

Unwritten rules and traditions - yup, same dead horse. I hate 'em. Passionately. Why? Easy - people that know that just follow then, and just accept that everyone else will as well. It's more than just a belief that these will be followed, it deeper, stronger than that. Changing or challenging such things is grounds for ridicule, sometimes without a reason other than "Because!" And yes, I am guilty of this as well.

I can see at least two times these unwritten rules/traditions have caused on concern. Both of these involve citizens new to the game who are eager to participate in more than pure mechanics. Besides the province names, the other situation was city naming.

I challenge you - find me something in our ruleset that clearly defines who names cities. Ahh, perhaps the Domestic Minister clause (D.1 "...responsible for all domestic initiatives...") applies. Sorry - I'm looking for a clear statement. We've had it in previous rulesets.

Unwritten rules and traditions are fine, so long as they don't affect the game. When they begin to affect in-game actions, you suddenly have people that don't know, and cannot possibly know, the rules. That's not fair to them. Oh, but they can just ask! Or, but we can just explain it to them and that will make everything all right!

Buzzzz - wrong answer. You cannot expect people to accept things not written down as "law". Memory has a funny thing of changing, and not being the same for everyone. While the written word is always subject to interpretation, it is written down for all to see. When it's not written, you cannot expect someone to question it. How can they - they don't know about it!

These events support my belief that we (once again) rushed into this game before we were truly ready. The reasons for this are many, and irrelevant to this discussion. I would ask everyone that, as we continue to run tinto the situations, please DON'T use the "We've always done it that way!" excuse, without taking a quick look to see if that's currently in the ruleset. If it isn't, temper your comments, and suggest that we ought to add to the rules and have a discussion about it.

Not everything old should be carried forward. Not everything new works (DG4 Senate, anyone?). All we should be basing our actions and rules on is the written word, and only those found in our Constitution as interpreted in Judicial Rulings.
[/soapbox]

-- Ravensfire

A special note here to Judge Advocate Octavian X. When and if you post Opinions for our JRs, please post individual Opinions. Posting two or more Opinions together makes documentation difficult. Also, please refrain from posting the "I agree" Opinions. Explanations of your rulings are sought by other members of the Court, as well as the public. ;) Thank you,

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

Ravensfire has requested a Judicial Review on matters dealing with Article N of the Constitution. The basic questions ask about allowances granted by the Article. This request has been accepted and has been listed in post #4 of this thread as DG5JR18. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2145824&postcount=4)

This Court welcomes any citizen input on the two questions asked by Ravensfire.

DG5JR18

This JR reminds me of standing on a cold and windy mountaintop, skies strapped on, poles in hand. As I look down the long and slippery slope, I figure I’ll get to the bottom of it eventually. It may be a quick trip or it may hurt, but let’s push off and see what happens…

Let’s look at Article N first. It starts out saying that “provided by Article A…all actions…are presumed to be within the right of every citizen”. Article A does not provide this. Article A defines a citizen of Japanatica and lists common rights granted all citizens. There are not a lot of avenues possible for one to take in the way of actions with only a keyboard in a Forum-based game. But those listed in Article A are certainly within those options. Then Article N goes on to say “Actions prescribed by this Constitution (Article A and others) may be substituted by similar actions provided it lies within the spirit of the rules.

So we know Article N is using Article A as the basis for citizen rights and explains in a vague manner that citizens rights go beyond the confines of the Constitution. After reading the initial proposal for Article N, Bill_in_PDX stated, ” I love the concept, and the idea is something very important to keep in mind during the game. In practice, I think this clause alone will be good for 40 or so PI/CC's during the game. It basically opens the window for every internet lawyer around to jam up the demo game.” Which could be true, but judging from the amount of CCs we’ve had this game, could be wrong. Article N does open a Pandora’s box in a sense that it is too open ended, but having been around when the law was being written, I remember how it was well liked, as it allows for a “less restrictive game” for some players. It allows those players not to be confined or restricted by minute details within our ruleset, but it opens up the situation raised by Bill_in_PDX above. When I read the initial proposal, I posted, ” I basically agree with this Article. Unfortunately, it would require a restrictive Constitution, which you people had and refused to read. Basically, if the rules written do not cover an action, it is not illegal. If there is anything in the rules that forbid an action, it is illegal. It's that easy.” In essance I was agreeing with Bill, while suggesting a means of keeping the reins on the peoples actions. Ravensfire’s comment on the piece was, ” Clear and straightforward statement of the idea. The second sentance is both vague and redundant, so scrap it. By stating this as "forum rules, or by the laws of COUNTRY_NAME", it covers all laws/ruling/etc that we might come up with. After all, the Constitution is also a law.” I was all for his rewording of the Article, but it was never changed. It would have precluded Judicial Review here and at least one other instance. So this paragraph defines Article N for me, let’s move on to Naming Rights of a Governor.

Ravensfire is correct, Naming Rights are not specifically mentioned in our ruleset. Because they are not, does this mean that naming actions are within the rights of every citizen? I think not. What do I base this on? Common Law and the wording of other Articles in the Constitution. Common Law in Demogames dictates that one of the perks for registering as a citizen is the right to name a city. That’s a well known fact. Is it written in the ruleset yet? No. Will I, as Chief Justice, uphold a citizens right to name a city if they register properly? Yes, I will. So there’s an example of Common Law in Naming Rights. In the first Demogame, it was written in the ruleset that “The first elected Governor would name the Province”. In the second DG, that rule was relaxed and written as “The first Governor shall name the Province.” Why the change? It was noted that the approval of borders were not consistant with the elections. Sometimes borders would be approved at the begining of the month, a Governor appointed, and that person would work the reminder of the month. Should that appointed Governor be denied naming the Province they founded and developed for the nation? No they should not be denied, thus the rule change. In our last Demogame, the Code of Standards in our “Three Books” opened it’s rule on Naming Rights with:

DG4 CoS Section H. Naming Rights
1. The first Governor for a province shall name that
province.
So by merely carrying over the ruleset from last game, that question is answered in a Common Law way.

And finally, we have to look at the wordings of other Articles in our ruleset, and how they effect Article N. This has to do with the responsibilities portion of the JR more than the actions portion. Ravensfire brings up Article D.1 (responsible for all domestic initiatives...).

Let’s look at the word initiative. 1. plan: a plan or strategy designed to deal with a particular problem. 2. POLITICS - proposal of legislation by citizens: a process valid in many U.S. states and in Switzerland that allows citizens to propose legislation by petition.

Both of these definitions fit in our description of “responsibilities” assigned to the Domestic Minister. Responsibility of setting up a nation plan for our lands, to include Provincial borders, and the responsibility of polling (petitioning) national Domestic matters. When I look at these definitions in regard to Article D, I don’t see naming of an individual Province as a responsibility. Ravensfire also brings up two sections from Article E, which I believe do hold weight in this matter. “They will advise the citizens of the state of their individual provinces, any concerns there may be for said provinces, and enumerate any goals they envision for their provinces.” Right there the Constitution calls the Provinces “their individual Provinces”. Like a child or a posession, one should be able to name it. The name of a Province is definitely a concern for everyone, and the Governor may want to select a name for the Province that envelopes the vision he or she has for the Province. In the B section of Article E, where it states specific duties and responsibilities of a Governor, it says “Governors are responsible for the care of a Province”. I can also see choosing the name of a Province as caring for one of it’s basic needs. And Article O states: ” The area contained within the national boundaries of Japanatica shall be divided into areas called provinces, each of which is under the control of a Governor as stated in Article E.” It backs up Article E in claiming the Governor controls the Province.

When you put all this together and step back, you see that the Constitution is telling us that a Governor controls a Province. A Governor is responsible for it’s care and is tasked with keeping the citizens informed of it progress and activities in the nation’s history. The Governor is responsible for the Province. Common Law tells us that the first Governor names that Province with it’s permenant name.

Taking all of this into consideration, my Opinion below answers both of Ravensfire’s questions:

Chief Justice Opinion: 1. No, Article N grants rights to to citizens in the form of actions not forbidden by Forum rules or our own ruleset. It does not ALSO include granting responsibilities of any kind to the People as a whole. There is a major difference between having the right to perform an action and having the ultimate responsibility for that action. As an example, any citizen may claim the Law, as seen in the thread that inititiated this JR, but only the Court holds responsibility for upholding our ruleset.

2. No, Article N does not soley grant any single right to the People. It is an open ended Law that grants freedom to do things not forbidden by others laws, with an entire ocean of possibilities. But, to get to the meat of your question, again no. The responsibility of naming a Province has been shown to be that of the first Governor. Common Law tells us each citizen names a city in due time by the matter of their registration. So Article N does not cover this area, nor does Article D.1 cover a Domestic Minister’s alledged right to name Provinces.

Is the Judiciary going declare The Military Minister position Vacant? Provolution has not posted any instructions for at least 2 turn chats.

Is the Judiciary going declare The Military Minister position Vacant? Provolution has not posted any instructions for at least 2 turn chats.

We can most certainly do that for you, Deputy Minister Civanator. I, personally, was under the impression that both you and Provolution had worked out some kind of agreement, similar to the one you mentioned when you posted Instructions on the 5th of the month. I'm glad you came forth to alert us of this situation.

This Court hereby finds Minister Provolution absent from his position. Provolution has not posted Instructions once during this Term, relying on his Deputy Minister to fulfill his responsibilities. Provolution has also neglected other duties, such as initiating discussion and posting polls.

This Court hereby calls on the President to elevate Deputy Minister Civanator to the position of Minister for the Ministry of War.

DG5JR17

Again, my lines of thinking run along common sense. To put it frankly, we can save ourselves a lot of time by just accepting that yes, a person is allowed to post valid instructions during the confirmation period. An appointee is chosen to fill the vacant job so as to minimize any pains that may or may not be suffered during this switch.

And, yes, the wording of the article, if one wishes to dive deeply into the details, mentions that confirmation polls exist to 'overturn' appointments, reasonably inferring that the appointment took place beforehand.

To directly answer the questions: Yes, Apointees under Confirmation are allowed to write instruction threads for any Turnchats during the "Confirmation Period."

The second question need not be answered at this time.

DG5JR18

This is a very interesting question indeed. I will first suggest that, after any rulings this Court makes, that this subject be brougt up again in the Citizen's Forum.

It is quite clear to me that the specific issue of provincial and city naming is not mentioned anywhere, at all, in our present ruleset. No question about it. From my point of view, this is OK. Personally speaking, I don't like a rigid ruleset. This was the original intent of the constitution, as indicated by the open-ended nature of Article N.

Article N clearly states that "...all actions not forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to be within the right of every citizen." Perhaps my own thinking is flawed, but I've always had the idea that with rights, come responsibilities. For example, we are given the right to vote. It is implied that, with this right to vote, comes the responsibility of voting intelligently (for example, the difference between voting to elect a candidate you like, agree with, and trust, versus voting for a houseplant). I exted this concept to assume that the article does indeed imply that the People are granted rights, as well as responsibilities, not specifically forbidden or given to someone else.

The matter of city and provincial naming follows along this path of thinking. Chie Justice Cyc has demonstarted that Common Law, Domestic Initiatives, the responsibilities of Governors, and so and so forth, provide for the right of Governors to name provinces and the Domestic Office to look after the naming of cities. Governors, defined as Provincial caretakers, it seems clear to me, are given this right to name provinces, and common law provides for the right of a first governor to name a province. Again, common law provides also for the right of the People to name cities via the registry list. Using holdover law, of course, is something I hate doing.

I will, however, disagree with the Chief Justice's reasoning. I remember nothing in the old laws that states that said names are permanent. I think it is reasonably implied that governors, again under the reasoning that they are caretakers of the province, may name a province any name they so wish, giving later governors the flexibility to change. The same holds true for city names - they are indeed changable. Governors and Domestic Ministers, of course, as elected officials, must plan and act according to the will of the people, as is our charished tradition and law (Article J). Thus, if it can be demonstrated that the will of the people is to rename a province or city, the renaming must be done.

To summarize:
Yes, Article N does grant unto the People all rights and responsiblities not forbidden to them and not granted to specified leader. Responsibility, though not mentioned specifically, is implied as part of a Right. As the U.S. Bill of Rights grants the freedom of speech, it is implied that one will use this freedom responsibly.

Yes, Article N does grant unto the People the right to name Provinces and Cities. Article N does this, in conjunction with Article E (“Governors are responsible for the care of a Province”), Article D ("The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be responsible for all domestic initiatives..."), and Article J ("Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people.")

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

One other note: it appears the forum, in attempted to be nice, is combinding my once seperate posts for each review. My apoligies, but none of you post when I do. :p

Considering naming issue I think we should follow tradition and let governors name their provinces. The name doesn't have to be permament but if the names are going to be changed than a poll should be made. I don't see why would each governor have the power to change the province and city name at any time. (That would be like i decide right now i want to name 4 cities in my province AO, BO, CO, DO just because i can do it).
If governor, mayor or any citizen wants to change province, city or even country name than all Japanatican citizens should have right to vote and express their opinion.

i will post a response to the lates JR tommorow night. sorry, time constraints :D

DG5JR18 Submitted by:ravensfire

As far as the first question is concerned, I may be misinterpreting what you are asking. My simple answer is yes. Article N does indeed grant any powers not granted to any specific leader to the people. But you must also consider the vague language used in assigning responsibilities. Because of the encompassing language in some articles (the executive branch article specifically), the "all actions" clause really grants less than it seems.

Question 2: The right to name cities is left to the people. On my last check (Haven't looked at the save for last 2 TC's) The names come from a list compiled by the citizens in order of registration. Although it is not specifically described that that is to be the only method of naming cities, there has not been strong opposition to the system, therefore it works to get the citizens' city names on the map.

As far as provinces go, Article E does not specifically grant the right to name the province to the governor. However, the general language in the article suggests that governors have a sort fo "supreme control" over the province. In this since the governor may name his province what ever he pleases. Ofcourse, if a mass of the people dislike the name, they can invoke their WOTP power (Article J) In this way, the people do retain control over the province name. With the people retaining the power of the recall vote, elected officials shall be inclined to listen to the people...

Opinion on Question 1: Yes, Article N does grant all non-listed powers to the people.
Opinion on Question 2: The naming of cities is reserved for the people, and the current system (based on my last check) satisfies this method. Naming provinces is reserved by the governor of the province due to the "supreme control" language in article E, but it is in their best interest to find out the people's choice first.

In the countless millennium I have been involved with the Justice system for our Demogames, two words keep surfacing that I have grown quite fond of. I get to use both of those words in this “Interim Majority Opinion/Call for Clarification” post. Those words are quagmire and convoluted. The quagmire we find ourselves in with this Judicial Review is mainly caused by the fact that we started DGV before our ruleset was complete. Because of this, there are not a lot of hard answers to fall back on for the Judicial Branch. We cast our nets out into this sea of few words to see if we can glean the sustenance needed to make a decision. This scenario is brought to a pitch when a question as convoluted as either of those asked by Ravensfire in DG5JR18 is asked. In reference to Article N of the Constitution, shown below:
Article N: Rights reserved to the people
As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions not
forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to
be within the right of every citizen. Actions prescribed by this
Constitution may be substituted by other similar actions, provided
such substitution lies within the spirit of these rules.
Ravensfire asks the following questions:
1. Does Article N grant unto the People all rights and responsiblities not forbidden to them and not granted to specified leader?
and
2. Does Article N soley grant unto the People the right to name Provinces and Cities, or does that right lie with the Domestic Minister, under Article D.1 (resonsible for all domestic initiatives...)

Thus far, in answering these questions in the form of legal Opinions, the members of the Judicial Branch have post different answers the mean basically the same thing, while trying to hold true to reasonings that differ in context. Because of the complex nature of the questions, with their vague (if not misleading wording) and the lack of definitive laws in our ruleset, this JR can be paralleled with the argument of “which came first? The chicken or the egg?”

Here are the answers to question 1:

Chief Justice: No, Article N grants rights to to citizens in the form of actions not forbidden by Forum rules our our own ruleset. It does not ALSO include granting responsibilities of any kind to the People as a whole. There is a major difference between having the right to perform an action and having the ultimate responsibility for that action. As an example, any citizen may claim the Law, as seen in the thread that inititiated this JR, but only the Court holds responsibility for upholding our ruleset.

Judge Advocate: Yes, Article N does grant unto the People all rights and responsiblities not forbidden to them and not granted to specified leader. Responsibility, though not mentioned specifically, is implied as part of a Right. As the U.S. Bill of Rights grants the freedom of speech, it is implied that one will use this freedom responsibly.

Public Defender: : Yes, Article N does grant all non-listed powers to the people.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________

Right away, I see a problem with the definition of the words people/citizens, responsibilities, and powers. In Article N, the word citizen (or people as two of the Justices prefer to use) means everyone in the Demogame legally registered. It does not single out any one person or Office. Ravensfire specifically stated that this JR was initiated by the naming of the Provinces discussion, it could be inferred by the Judge Advocate’s and Public Defender’s answer that all citizens had the right to name Provinces, whether they were a Governor or not. Currently, that would mean about 20 or so citizens could submit a name for a Province, and none of them would have priority. Polling wouldn’t work, as the results of the poll would nullify the Constitutional rights of the other 19 or so citizens. So I believe in context to the question asked and the Law referenced, the intent of Ravensfire may have proven to be misleading to my colleagues. As Article N grants the rights to the “citizens”, the discussion was about Governors and their specific Office. As the privilege of naming a Province is not specifically authorized to a Governor in the Constitution, then according to the JA and PD Opinion, ALL citizens have that right. Not a good situation.

Responsibilities is the next word. Our JA uses the word in context of a standard of acting or participating in an activity. What he’s saying is that responsibility means the way a young man might drive a car. Does he obey the speed limit? Does he sit at stop signs eyeing the pedestrians that pass in front of his car with the gleam of Charles Manson? I’m sorry, but this is not consistent with the intent of the Constitution. The Constitution defines what a citizen is and gives certain citizens authority in areas granted by their position. The Constitution does NOT dwell on whether you’re a crappy citizen or an outstanding citizen. Just that you are a citizen, some with more authority. Therefore, in the analogy of the young driver, the Constitution does not dictate how well the young man drives (or even what well means) in it’s use of the word responsible, it states who’s responsible for the monetary damages if that young man gets into an accident. So, it’s not the act of driving responsibly, it’s who’s responsible for the damages. Two different things. Responsibility = Accountability.

The last word is powers. Powers isn’t used anywhere in the Request for Judicial Review or the Laws referenced. Powers, because there is no definition stated, is kind of a “loose cannon” word that comes closer to the Constitution’s meaning of responsibility than the actions granted by Article N. So this word is not really appropriate in the PD’s one sentence answer.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________

Here are the answers to question #2:

Chief Justice: No, Article N does not solely grant any single right to the People. It is an open ended Law that grants freedom to do things not forbidden by others laws, with an entire ocean of possibilities. But, to get to the meat of your question, again no. The responsibility of naming a Province has been shown to be that of the first Governor. Common Law tells us each citizen names a city in due time by the matter of their registration. So Article N does not cover this area, nor does Article D.1 cover the Domestic Minister’s right to name Provinces.

Judge Advocate: Yes, Article N does grant unto the People the right to name Provinces and Cities. Article N does this, in conjunction with Article E (“Governors are responsible for the care of a Province” , Article D ("The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be responsible for all domestic initiatives..."), and Article J ("Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people.")

Public Defender: The naming of cities is reserved for the people, and the current system (based on my last check) satisfies this method. Naming provinces is reserved by the governor of the province due to the "supreme control" language in article E, but it is in their best interest to find out the people's choice first.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________

If the right to name a Province has been stated in the wording of other Articles, then this “action” is not covered by Article N. Because the naming of cities is not listed in or implied in any other law, that action is a right of every citizen, according to Article N. Another quagmire, as every citizen has the right to name every city. I don’t understand the JA’s use of #8221 or Article D in conjunction with Article N and E and J. And if, as the JA states, the right to name Provinces is granted to the People, then Governors are out of the picture altogether. This problem is understandable, as the question did not include Governors and only asked about the People as opposed to the Domestic Minister. Thus, the “misleading” portion of the question. This seems to have confounded the PD so well that he chose to give an Opinion empty of any legal reasoning for cities, and the Provinces portion of his answer appears to be a NO, although this contradicts the cities portion of the answer, in that no legal basis is stated to justify the citizens naming the cities. It’s a never ending cycle. This is why I believe the answer to both questions is a NO.

Therefore, I ask for a reconsideration of the terminology used in these Opinions as well as the questions themselves. I believe we’ve all come up with the same answers in essence, but the wording used make a Majority Opinion seem embattled. Let’s try to get this thing wrapped up before the end of the Term. Ravensfire is also welcome to clarify, if he so wishes.

I am formally filing a CC against Chieftess.

Chieftess illegally went against the deputy governor of zarnia's instructions:
Great Lighthouse Pre-build (If the above poll changes before the chat, change this to a colosseum (Mayor Cyc's preference))
In Governor Zarn's absence, I am posting the queues. For reference, here is the pre-build poll, which shows Zojoji gaining support to build a wonder (as of this post).
Fanatikku
Colosseum (Will waste 29 shields)
(TC Post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2212978&postcount=10)
As you can see in the poll regarding prebuilds:
As of now, it's a 6-6 tie. Turnchat time.
(Poll: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=100705)
The only way she could have gve against this, was if snipelfritz(who was present at the chat) broke the tie, and she did not give him the oppurtunity to do that.
She even went against RegentMan'sinstructions in Fantikku to build a colloseum, and instead built a swordsmen.

Save: http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/DG5_AD310_fued.SAV
TC Log: http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/DG5_sep26.zip
She has broken article D of the Constituion:


Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread. The President
shall be tasked with control of worker actions.....



From chat log:
[13:01] <+SaaMSAT> whats the prebuild poll result?
[13:02] <!Chieftess> It's tied!
[13:02] <+SaaMSAT> grr
[13:02] <!Chieftess> 6-6
[13:02] <+SaaMSAT> who gets to decide (if its you, i know how it
goes)
[13:02] <!Chieftess> And I've voting we need swords instead of a
giant spotlight
[13:02] * @RikMeleet is now Playing:4 Queen & David Bowie -
Pressure
[13:02] <!Chieftess> *yeah! Let's blind our enemies with a huge
spotlight!*
[13:03] <+Furiey> or put them under pressure with swords instead
[13:03] <@RikMeleet> I broke the tie ....
[13:03] <!Chieftess> yay! :D
[13:03] <@RikMeleet> CT: Tie is briken
[13:03] <@RikMeleet> ok
[13:03] <!Chieftess> ok, on with the first queue
[13:04] <+SaaMSAT> whats the vote now? (need i ask?)
[13:05] <+Furiey> poll's still open?
[13:05] <@RikMeleet> Free the slaves ! oh, I mean: Stop the
prebuilds !
[13:05] <@RikMeleet> poll is open


<+Civanator> prebuild poll is now 8-6 in favor of
stopping both prebuilds

Just incase here are the images:
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/zojoji_-_310_AD_Updated.JPG
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/tc_thread.JPG
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/poll2.JPG
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/poll1.JPG

I would like to thank the court for its time in this matter.

May it Please the Court!

As a side issue, which has nothing to do with any possible CCs, I am requesting a Judicial Review on this question:

Who is in control of a Naval Transport containing a Settler?

Is it the War Minister, who "shall be responsible for all military strategy and troop activities"

Or is it the Domestic Minister, who is in charge of all "Domestic Initatives".

Or is it someone else entirely? Or does it depend on the conditions?


I have these to offer as precedent: Over the past 2 terms, all Settlers going on Land have been directed by polls initiated by the Domestic Minister, as per Article O.

However, in said period, Exploration was handled by the War Minister. And going out to unexplored areas, even with a Settler aboard, might be considered Exploration.

Links to Relevant Threads:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96850

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=99315

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95589

And, of course... (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94616)

If the Justices may find time to take up this matter soon, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

Maybe if we just worked together when there is a settler in the galley. I'm willing to, it's really not that hard :).

Umm.... BH, Fanatikku has a colosseum so i don't know why you're filing a CC... Make sure you have all of your facts straight before filing a CC, or you just embarass yourself...

Maybe if we just worked together when there is a settler in the galley. I'm willing to, it's really not that hard :).

Umm.... BH, Fanatikku has a colosseum so i don't know why you're filing a CC... Make sure you have all of your facts straight before filing a CC, or you just embarass yourself...

Not to mention actually looking at the correct save...

Minister Black_Hole, as a citizen has filed a Citizen's Complaint against President Cheiftess for violating Article D of the Constitution. This CC has been accepted and listed in post #5 of this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2145939&postcount=5) as DG5CC1.

We will now move forward with this action.

And I don't know why everyone still thinks I voted just then when I said I didn't. :/

And I don't know why everyone still thinks I voted just then when I said I didn't. :/

Thank you for your input, CT.

As a Citizen's Complaint has been filed on the matters mentioned above, the Chief Justice requests that no further discussion take place about this matter in this thread. There will be a new Citizen's Complaint thread posted if this moves to the Trial phase. You may speak your mind then. Moderators please delete any further discussions about this. Thank you,

CJ Cyc

Testing. I can't seem to post in my own thread.

This is totally unfair. I have been denied the right to post in my own thread. Another travesty of Justice.

Nothing to see here.....just testing the acoustics of the courtroom.......

EDIT: Works fine for me, Your Honor. care to try again? :)

As the defendant (accused) is already aware of the filing of a Citizen's Complaint against her, I am removing that step in this Court's CC Procedure. If the Judge Advocate pleases, in a speedy fashion, PM Chieftess about the CC explaning her rights, and then post here stating that fact. But this step in the procedure has been removed from the chronological order of steps to be taken.

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

Cyc, I think that earlier this day there was some glitch that could not let anybody post in their own topics (not even me), and it was edited onto the end of the previous topic.

It's been fixed now, I think.

Thank you, DZ. As you can see from the post above yours, the two extra lines below where I signed were attempts to post. They were about 1 half hour apart. Really irritating. But typical.

Cyc, I think that earlier this day there was some glitch that could not let anybody post in their own topics (not even me), and it was edited onto the end of the previous topic.

It's been fixed now, I think.
Actually, posting in a thread without anyone replying since your previous post will automatically edit the post onto the previous post (that will be annoying when term 3 threads open). That happened to me in some other thread.

That is a useless rule in a Demogame. What if a Leader needs to make a consecutive post? I had an official post to make that couldn't/shouldn't be pasted on to the previous post. Dumb forum option.

Actually, it happened in the SGOTM forum. Oddly, when I posted in my provincial thread, it created a new post (maybe it has a time limit?). Ah, I posted again, and it was edited into the previous post. Check my thread to see the results if you want. That will still be annoying since I, for example, started off my thread with three straight posts, and you started with five.

DG5CC1

I find that this Citizen's Complaint has Merit and should move on to the Investigative phase.

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

Aha - the plot thickens!!! The first citizen complaint

Aha - the plot thickens!!! The first citizen complaint

<donsig>One which will surely fall once everyone sees the evidence.</donsig>

That is a useless rule in a Demogame. What if a Leader needs to make a consecutive post? I had an official post to make that couldn't/shouldn't be pasted on to the previous post. Dumb forum option.

That's a new 'hack' Thunderfall used. There's already a thread on it in Site Feedback if you want to comment on it.

CJ Cyc:
According to your post in post #5 of this thread you stated the colloseum was suppose to be in zojoji, but it was really was suppose to be in fantikku. Also the colloseum has been completed, but i must first look at the saves to make an offical retraction/edit of part of my filed CC

Thank-You

According to the discussions we via PM, Black_Hole, your main concern seemed to be with Zojoji. According to RegentMan's Instructions, Zojoji was supposed to be switched to a Colosseum if it was not to work on a Wonder. Zojoji was switched to a Swordsman instead. That is the issue that was concluded from our discussion.

Zojoji
Great Lighthouse Pre-build (If the above poll changes before the chat, change this to a colosseum (Mayor Cyc's preference))
Swordsman (If the above poll changes)
Swordsman (If the above poll changes, produce these until end of chat)
I was wrong about it being in fanatikuu, but thanks to cyc(who can read italics) it should have been a colloseum in zojoji.
Thank-You

Clarification of DG5JR18

After I reread my decision after being prompted to do so, I have found how egregious and ambivalent the laguage is. Here is my clarification:

Article N DOES grant all non-listed rights to the people as previously stated. However the non-listed rights may in some cases not be excercised DIRECTLY by the people, but from an indirect standpoint.

I have also Noted that I was not clear in my ruling, and that, although I mean the same ruling, and stand the same on the issue, I issue a NO Ruling on question 2. Citizens do not bear the right to DIRECTLY name the provinces and cities. Their opinions are heard and translated by the domestic advisor, who translates the will of the people into the names of cities and provinces. The Domestic advisor, at least in this game, has allowed the governors to choose the names of provinces. Also, the system of city naming using the list of proposed names shall be supervised by the Domestic Advisor.

So far, the DA has not had to impose any sort of changes to the naming system, although he/she reserves the right to do so.

ON a final note, I quite frankly think this court should have proposals presented regarding things that actually effect the game. While I understand the importance naming has to some players, it is irrelevant to gameplay. While I respect your right to present cases such as this one, I feel that this issue could be handled more effectively in a Citizen's discussion thread. Perhaps the honorable Ravensfire would be obliged to open the discussion regarding naming?

Sorry if you have to search for my ruling, here is the short form:

Question 1: Yes, Article N does grant all unlisted rights to the people. (see above for explanation)
Question 2: The right to name cities and provinces is ultimately the responsibility of the Domestic Advisor, and this official may set up a naming system as he/she sees fit. This is the same principal behind my last ruling, but it is more easily understood in this manner. The naming rights are ultimately INDIRECTLY in the hands of the people, since the DA must act in accordance with the WOTP.

I also approve of the merit of the CC, and will begin working a defense soon.

Clarification of DG5JR18
ON a final note, I quite frankly think this court should have proposals presented regarding things that actually effect the game. While I understand the importance naming has to some players, it is irrelevant to gameplay. While I respect your right to present cases such as this one, I feel that this issue could be handled more effectively in a Citizen's discussion thread. Perhaps the honorable Ravensfire would be obliged to open the discussion regarding naming?

My intention with the request was twofold. First, a debate had been growing over naming, and had the potential to get ugly. Rather than deal with acrimony and accusations after the fact, I took the initiative to resolve the situation the best way possible - a JR.

During my review of the law, I had several interesting questions come into mind, thus adding them to my review. I also saw some of the worst written, most ambiguous clauses, so tossed those in there as well!

Cyc shares my philosophy that laws, and rulings, need to be clearly and simply stated. His request for clarification was greeted by relief by myself, and hopefully others. Our laws should be written clearly and succienctly, we've done that in a few cases. We aren't lawyers, we don't have piles of books defining, in precise legal terms, what "must" and "will" mean, and the difference.

By this review, the naming rules are much better defined. I'm happy with the current process, and see no reason to change it.

-- Warmaster

I will always be more than happy to clarify something. This IS still only my second term even being involved in the demogame, im still trying to figure out the last bits of procedure of just playing the game :D

I will always be more than happy to clarify something. This IS still only my second term even being involved in the demogame, im still trying to figure out the last bits of procedure of just playing the game :D

Sometimes, when there is a question about the rules, the best way is to toss it to the Judiciary, and let them figure it out. That was this case - the best way was to JR the issue. Ya'll did just about what I figured.

-- Warmaster

DG5JR18

Seven Blunders of Man Mahatma Gandhi
Wealth without Work
Pleasure without Conscience
Knowledge without Character
Commerce without Morality
Science without Humanity
Worship without Sacrifice
Politics without Principles

Rights without Responsibilities (Arun Gandhi)

These words have always inspired me, and the ideas I expressed in my JR related to the eighth, added by his grandson, Arun Gandhi. I was attempting to imply that citizens, who are granted the right to do everything not forbidden to them and not delegated to someone else, are also delegated the right to do something that is not forbidden to them and not delegated to someone else. For example, citizens are not specifically given the right to vote in polls, so the right is implied to be given to them. And, since the constitution does not specifically delegate the duty of voting to anyone, the citizens are assumed to have this duty.

Following this, since the constitution makes no specific prohibition on the naming of provinces or cities, nor does it specifically delegate this duty to anyone, it is assumed that the citizens retain this right and responsibility. Therefore, if the will of the people dictates it so, a name must be changed. The various governors and the Domestic Ministry have the ability to interpret the will and have it done.

DG5JR18

Seven Blunders of Man Mahatma Gandhi
Wealth without Work
Pleasure without Conscience
Knowledge without Character
Commerce without Morality
Science without Humanity
Worship without Sacrifice
Politics without Principles

Rights without Responsibilities (Arun Gandhi)

These words have always inspired me, and the ideas I expressed in my JR related to the eighth, added by his grandson, Arun Gandhi. I was attempting to imply that citizens, who are granted the right to do everything not forbidden to them and not delegated to someone else, are also delegated the right to do something that is not forbidden to them and not delegated to someone else. For example, citizens are not specifically given the right to vote in polls, so the right is implied to be given to them. And, since the constitution does not specifically delegate the duty of voting to anyone, the citizens are assumed to have this duty.

Following this, since the constitution makes no specific prohibition on the naming of provinces or cities, nor does it specifically delegate this duty to anyone, it is assumed that the citizens retain this right and responsibility. Therefore, if the will of the people dictates it so, a name must be changed. The various governors and the Domestic Ministry have the ability to interpret the will and have it done.
Well, the first Article of the Constitution states:
Article A. All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to
representation, the right to seek to redress grievances
and the right to vote.

So that right is given by the Constitution, right up front. ;) But I like your passage from the Gandhis. I still think you missed my point about the responsibilities doled out by the Constitution. But that point aside, I was looking for two definite answers to the question.

I realize this is a very difficult situation/Judicial Review, but if I read your clarification correctly, you're saying that because the Naming Rights are not covered specifically by the Constitution (ruleset) then the right and responsibilty of changing the name of a Province lies with the People. Then you follw with "The various governors and the Domestic Ministry have the ability to interpret the will and have it done". 1. Where is that stated, and 2. Who names the Province in the first place and why? I believe that was the nature of the questions. Can you please give a YES or a NO for each question? It now appears like your saying all citizens have the right to name a Province, without having a firm footing on who has priority, as Article N grants these rights to every citizen. Then you contridict that by saying that the Constitution states the various Governors AND the Domestic Advisor have the ability to determine this "will" granted to all citizens without priority and make a change.

I believe I'll just post the Majority Opinion with the wording of the first two Opinions. Thank you for the effort, Judge Advocate Octavian X.

DGCC1

I, too, find the charges have merit.

President Chieftess has been notified via PM of the charges against her, and her rights.

Lastly, in accordance with currently definded procedure, an investigation thread has been posted. Please move all relevant discussion of DGCC1 here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=100935)

I would like to thank the members of the Bench for their timely work in the CC process and the Call for Clarification on DG5JR18. I would also like to thank everyone involved lately for their input, especially Ravensfire ans Sir Donald III. Sir Donald III, I have not forgotten about your Request for a Judicial Review. I have been very busy with these other matters, and now that we are moving in the right direction, I will be able to get to it. But that will be later today. Thanks again,

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

May it Please the Court!

I would like to file a CC against any Citizen that posts replies or has posted replies in the Investigation Thread for DG5CC1 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=100935), prior to either The Public Defender or Ms. Chieftess.

From the Judicial Guide:
F. If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the Judge Advocate opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).
1. The first two replies to this thread are reserved for the Public Defender and the accused to respond publicly to the charge(s) (Defense). Either may post first, and both may say what they wish (within forum rules). If their replies/responses have not been posted within 24 hours of the thread's posting, they lose these reserved spots and anyone can post.

The timestamp on the Top of the Investigation Thread was 28 September, 0633 GMT. It is currently 1433 GMT 28 Sept. As of the time of this writing, neither the PD nor the accussed have yet posted.

In fact, the JA specifically states:
The first two posts are reserved for the accused and the Public Defender. They forfeit this right if they do not post here in a 24 hour period beginning at the posting of the thread.

The list of violators currently includes Rik Meleet and Invy, but may grow before the relevant period expires, and I would like this CC to encompass all those who violate the listed procedure. EDIT (1510 GMT): For example, add Ravensfire, who has recently posted.

In order for Justice to be properly served, established procedure must be followed.

Thank you, and good day!

(Off the record, I would admonish the Justices to Officially Codify the Judicial Guide as soon as possible.)

It appears that, in an attempt not to CC the President for ignoring his Instructions in the last Turn Chat, Domestic Advisor Sir Donald III has chosen to defuse the situation by filing a Request for Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2214567&postcount=92) concerning the authority for determining the route taken by a naval transport carrying a Settler. SD3 is referencing Article O for this JR and his question is:

Who is in control of a Naval Transport containing a Settler?

This request has been accepted and listed in post #4 of this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2145824&postcount=4) as DG5JR19.

Sir Donald III HAS chosen to CC several citizens of Japanatica for posting in the Investigation thread of DG5CC1, prior to the posting by the Public Defender and defendant Chieftess or the expiration of the 24 hour period reserved for them.

Unfortunately, SD3 in order to file a Citizen's Complaint against another citizen properly, you must state the Article of the Constitution (or lower form of Law) that the accused have alledgedly violated. You have not done this. The perps, as you call them :) have only gone outside of this Courts procedures and nothing more. It is my duty to correct this situation and I have done so. As DG5CC1 is the very first Citizen's Complaint for a lot of Japanatica's citizens, we may want to be a little lenient in filing Court actions against these people, as they have no experience in CCs and some are not native English speakers.

Therefore you filing of this Citizen's Complaint has been rejected. Hopefully, in the near future, the Codification of Court Procedures will standardize these actions and hold the citizens accountable for their actions.

I was actually hopping you'd go ahead and accept my CC and Ravensfire (or someone else) would respond with a JR as to whether or not a CC pertaining to violations of the "Judicial Guide" would be valid given that the Guide had not been codified.

I'd better get the ball rolling on possible codification procedures. Especially since I'm not contesting for Reelection or against possible Impeachment...

I was actually hopping you'd go ahead and accept my CC and Ravensfire (or someone else) would respond with a JR as to whether or not a CC pertaining to violations of the "Judicial Guide" would be valid given that the Guide had not been codified.

I'd better get the ball rolling on possible codification procedures. Especially since I'm not contesting for Reelection or against possible Impeachment...
the way i see it, all that needs to happen is a vote on this and if it wins then it can become a 'lower law', and thats all thats really needed, or it could become hardcoded somewhere

I was actually hopping you'd go ahead and accept my CC and Ravensfire (or someone else) would respond with a JR as to whether or not a CC pertaining to violations of the "Judicial Guide" would be valid given that the Guide had not been codified.

I'd better get the ball rolling on possible codification procedures. Especially since I'm not contesting for Reelection or against possible Impeachment...

Actually, it would be a very interesting discussion that probably would fail.

However, I'm pretty sure (since they did) that the mods would be willing to ensure that the procedures are being followed.

-- Ravensfire

I was actually hopping you'd go ahead and accept my CC and Ravensfire (or someone else) would respond with a JR as to whether or not a CC pertaining to violations of the "Judicial Guide" would be valid given that the Guide had not been codified.

I'd better get the ball rolling on possible codification procedures. Especially since I'm not contesting for Reelection or against possible Impeachment...
The matter you wished Ravensfire (or someone else) to respond to should be a discussion, possibly followed by a Judicial Review, just like the issues we've had involving naming rights. Filing a CC is not a good way to initiate a JR. Citizen Complaints are filed when someone breaks the Law, not for discussing one's philosophy. I know you understand that your CC couldn't be filed because there was no Law from our ruleset broken, that's not my point. My point is, no one should use the CC as a stepping stone to a JR. I want to call that a backwards approach but that doesn't quite fit it. ;) Let's call it a totally incorrect approach.

DG5JR19

In response to Sir Donald's request for Judicial Review, I have read his question and searched for help in the links he provided. The only link that helped me was the last one to the Constitution. The only help I really found in the Constitution was the Article that SD3 referenced with his request, Article O, stated below:

Article O
The area contained within the national boundaries of Japanatica
shall be divided into areas called provinces, each of which
is under the control of a Governor as stated in Article E. of the
Constitution. These boundries must be defined and approved by
the House well ahead of expansion, and may extend beyond the
cultural boundaries. City locations shall be determined by the
Will of the People.

The last sentance seemed to be the answer. As the Domestic Advisor normally gathers the input from the citizens for City Placement as part of his job (Article D), and the Military Advisor controls the activities of our units, as part of his job (Article D), Article O seems to hold the key.

As the WOTP determines the City locations, and the Domestic Advisor gathers this information, then a pre-determined area is designated for a Settler's use in creating a City. In such a case where the WOTP decide to utilize a Naval Transport in bringing a Settler to a desired location, even as a matter of exploration, I believe the DA would post instructions for the Transport once the Settler was aboard. The Military Advisor would probably take control of the Transport once it reached the blackness of the Fog of War, as that would be the extent of the DA's knowledge of the transportation. Therefore:

Chief Justice Opinion: The Domestic Advisor should give Instructions for a Naval Transport carrying a Settler, but only to the extent of his knowledge. Once the Transport entered unknown seas, that vessel would be come under the authority of the Military Advisor, until such time that the WOTP chose to land and settle or land and pursue some other course.

I ask this court to close the current Investigation thread for the CC on Chieftess. There is insufficient time remaining in the term for this case to conclude. Please continue this to the next court.

-- Ravensfire

You are correct in stating that the Term will soon be over, Ravensfire. This Citizen Complaint was filed around four days ago (88 hours ago), therefore we were given ample time to prep for the case and get the ball rolling, so to speak. In this Court's opinion, closing this case now, after the Investigation Thread has reached a point of rehashing evidence given in the opening statements, would be a travesty of Justice. It would also be denying Black_Hole his Constitutional rights according to Article A of the Constitution:

Article A. All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to
representation, the right to seek to redress grievances
and the right to vote.

As Chieftess has already presented evidence to her defense, closing this case now would also be infringing on the President's rights afforded to her by the same Article of the Constitution. (the right to a fair trial, the right to representation)

This Court, nor ANY Court, should be in the practice of denying citizens the rights they are gauranteed in the Constitution. No Chief Justice should be breaking the Law according to Article A of the Constitution, and I will not place myself in that position.

Therefore this case will continue on into the next Term and hopefully, our next Chief Justice, gert-janl will sufficently provide Black_Hole and Chieftess their rights in this matter. The Trial poll will bridge the two Terms and the Sentancing Poll will be generated in Term 3, should the defendant be found guilty.

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

You are correct in stating that the Term will soon be over, Ravensfire. This Citizen Complaint was filed around four days ago (88 hours ago), therefore we were given ample time to prep for the case and get the ball rolling, so to speak. In this Court's opinion, closing this case now, after the Investigation Thread has reached a point of rehashing evidence given in the opening statements, would be a travesty of Justice. It would also be denying Black_Hole his Constitutional rights according to Article A of the Constitution:

Article A. All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to
representation, the right to seek to redress grievances
and the right to vote.

As Chieftess has already presented evidence to her defense, closing this case now would also be infringing on the President's rights afforded to her by the same Article of the Constitution. (the right to a fair trial, the right to representation)

This Court, nor ANY Court, should be in the practice of denying citizens the rights they are gauranteed in the Constitution. No Chief Justice should be breaking the Law according to Article A of the Constitution, and I will not place myself in that position.

Therefore this case will continue on into the next Term and hopefully, our next Chief Justice, gert-janl will sufficently provide Black_Hole and Chieftess their rights in this matter. The Trial poll will bridge the two Terms and the Sentancing Poll will be generated in Term 3, should the defendant be found guilty.

CJ Cyc
:hammer:

You aren't denying the president her rights. She can have a fair trial next term. You wouldn't be denying her that, if she still gets it, anyway.

You aren't being impartial here, Cyc. That's a trait the Chief Justice must have despite personal views. In other words, don't show your bias so much.

You aren't denying the president her rights. She can have a fair trial next term. You wouldn't be denying her that, if she still gets it, anyway.

You aren't being impartial here, Cyc. That's a trait the Chief Justice must have despite personal views. In other words, don't show your bias so much.
Sorry, Governor Zarn. I disagree. For a Chief Justice to close a Citizen's Complaint that has been on going for over 4 days (Black_Hole had come to me via PM for help a while before he posted the actual CC) would be an overt act of trouncing someone's rights. The Complaint has been made, the Investigation has been done, and the people have spoken. Ending this now for scheduling reasons would be a violation of Article A of the Constitution. Period.

It seems my PMs are not being returned by the PD and JA. Maybe they're the kind of Leaders that like to take the last days of a Term off. Regardless, as we have an active Judicial Review, which niether have acted upon in almost 2 days (47 hours) and an active, 4 day old Citizen's Complaint, for which my PMs go unanswered, I must assume this is such. Earlier in this Term, the Public Defender and myself were on the brink of claiming Judge Advocate Octavian X absent from his position for similar reasons. Taking all this into consideration and in order to correctly process the current Citizen's Complaint, I will now assume the duty of the Judge Advocate in posting the Trial Poll. I will supply a link when finished.

though this appears to have been cleared up I would like to state that I feel the trial should be turned over to the term 3 court. CT will still have the same public defender,the evidence will remain the same and regardless of the verdict I feel that it would be better to get this trial over with so the game can continue one way or another. BTW cyc if you end up declaring Octavian X absent in the next few hours feel free to give me an early start at my new position.

-Mhcarver
Judge Advocate Elect

So noted, Judge Advocate (elect) mhcarver. And thank you for the offer.

I would like to thank my learned and esteemed colleagues, KCCrusader and Octavian X, for their participation in Term 2 Judicial matters. I would also like to thank the citizens who became involved in not only the discussions about these matters, but in the filing of them too. :)

By working our Judicial system, we have enhanced our game in countless ways. The Courts can help fine-tune the rough edges of a Demogame, as long as procedures are abided by.

I wish the Term 3 Judiciary good luck!

Term 3 Judiciary (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=101138)