Term 1 Judiciary - the Areiopagos

[Black_Hole]

But it says nothing of what happens if they don't get to play. We can only assume that they're out of luck.

the article says they are DPs for that term
however if they get reelected they are put at the top of the list

 

[Furiey]

It's not so much those that don't play are put to the top of the list for the next term, more like those that do play are put to the bottom of the list. Otherwise the order is in the number of votes received. This all of course assumes that they are re-elected to the DP pool. If they don't play and are not re-elected then they are just out of luck, just like the governors who do not get a city founded.

 

[Black_Hole]

It's not so much those that don't play are put to the top of the list for the next term, more like those that do play are put to the bottom of the list. Otherwise the order is in the number of votes received. This all of course assumes that they are re-elected to the DP pool. If they don't play and are not re-elected then they are just out of luck, just like the governors who do not get a city founded.

exactly

 

[RegentMan]

If they don't play and are not re-elected then they are just out of luck, just like the governors who do not get a city founded.

That's what I was looking for. I withdraw my first question, but do still maintain my second.

 

[ravensfire]

DG7JR4 - Who controls the actions of workers?

Ruling: By a 3-0 decision, Governors may assign tasks to those workers allocated to them by the President.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[ravensfire]

Requests for Judicial Review

RegentMan posted a request to review H.2 of the Code of Laws. Do citizen's in the DP Pool that don't get a chance to play go into the next term's pool?

This request for Judicial Review is found to have No Merit. Section H.2 of the Code of Laws is clear on this point - "Each candidate that receives a vote from more than ½ of the citizens that vote in the poll will be accepted as a DP for that term." Citizen's in the DP Pool that do not play in that term do not automatically go into the next term's pool. They must apply and receive enough support from the Assembly.

RegentMan posted a request to review H.2 of the Code of Laws. Do special, zero-turn chats count as a DP's playing session?

This request for Judicial Review is found to have No Merit. Article L of the Constitution is clear on this point - "A special session to accomplish a specific, short goal may be held by the President ..." Special sessions are run by the President.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[ravensfire]

That's what I was looking for. I withdraw my first question, but do still maintain my second.

I hope you don't mind if I toss 'em out! So you know - the first version of the message did find merit, until I happened to think about looking in the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire

 

[RegentMan]

I hope you don't mind if I toss 'em out! So you know - the first version of the message did find merit, until I happened to think about looking in the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire

Meh, they were answered. Tossed out or not, I'm happy.

 

[ravensfire]

It looks like admiral-bell has complied with this silly law, so as a citizen I would like to see this matter dropped.

If we are going to crack down on premature governors, shouldn't we put a gag order on all references to premature city names? These include the unofficially named city threads in the Government forum, as well as any references to illegal city names in the Citizens Forum. These threads actually go against a ruling from the court and nothing seems to be getting done about those.

This is not a request for a Judicial Review, as a ruling has already been made. But who is going to enforce this ruling against the premature governors of Civatonia, Styx and the Augean Stables?

I'm not going to disagree that there are "silly" parts to this situation. The flip side, of course, is equally silly. Trying to appoint multiple governors in one term - that's just as bad.

We're almost certainly going to found a city next turn chat, and possibly found 1 or 2 more this term. The focus is on those cities, the 5 that we found. We're giving those Governors more control than ever before. So yes, elect them. All of them. Elect them up front, and let THEM drive discussions about THEIR cities. Where to found it, what to name it. I'd rather have too many discussions than not enough. At that point, this discussion is entirely moot.

Do I consider this matter dropped? I do. I'm certainly NOT going to halt "premature" discussions. Why? With some luck, they won't be. We're founding city two this game session, and have a chance at getting one or two more founded this term. I would have loved to have seen them all, but knew that was a risk.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

I want to amend Section F.2 of the code of laws. The discussion thread has been opened for the minimum 24/48 hour mark.

Do this for me: "Amendments to the Code of Laws must be posted as a Proposed Poll in the discussion thread for at least 24 hours prior to submission to the Judiciary."

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[Bootstoots]

Does the proposed poll in the first post of that thread count? It states:

Do you approve? Options will be:
Yes
No
Abstain

 

[ravensfire]

Does the proposed poll in the first post of that thread count? It states:

Personally, I'm going to say no. The idea of starting the discussion with a proposed poll just sets wrong with me. There isn't any discussion, and the clock already starts. I also like to see the phrase "Proposed Poll" in there - something concrete. Basically, though, that post does have everything else.

Black_Hole, mhcarver - thoughts?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Black_Hole]

well it says it must be posted in the discussion thread, not be the discussion thread...
I would just repost it

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I'm not going to disagree that there are "silly" parts to this situation. The flip side, of course, is equally silly. Trying to appoint multiple governors in one term - that's just as bad.

We're almost certainly going to found a city next turn chat, and possibly found 1 or 2 more this term. The focus is on those cities, the 5 that we found. We're giving those Governors more control than ever before. So yes, elect them. All of them. Elect them up front, and let THEM drive discussions about THEIR cities. Where to found it, what to name it. I'd rather have too many discussions than not enough. At that point, this discussion is entirely moot.

Do I consider this matter dropped? I do. I'm certainly NOT going to halt "premature" discussions. Why? With some luck, they won't be. We're founding city two this game session, and have a chance at getting one or two more founded this term. I would have loved to have seen them all, but knew that was a risk.

-- Ravensfire

Thanks for the response, Ravensfire. The "silly" part was addressed mostly to forcing the fifth governor to open a thread, but as Black_Hole noted: that is the law.

As long as these governors know that the name of their city is not a foregone conclusion until it is founded, then we are cool. But after reading their sponsored threads, I tend to think otherwise.

C'est la vie. I just decided to rant to make it a bit interesting. Things are a bit too "Kumbaya" for my tastes this time out, so I have to find my issues where I can.

 

[RegentMan]

I'm so confused... I saw Black_Hole say repost, so I'm reposting my request...

I want to amend Section F.2 of the code of laws. The discussion thread has been opened for the minimum 24/48 hour mark and the proposed poll has been opened for the minimum 24 hour mark.

Here's how it stands now:

Section F.2 Declaration of War
To declare a war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will create a normal poll for the House, and a thread poll for the Senate. If more than 50% of the voters, not counting abstain, in both polls support the declaration, war can be declared. If either poll gains a 67% majority in support of war, war may be declared regardless of the other poll.

I wish to change the 67% majority to a 2/3 majority. That was the way it was originally intended to be, but rounding has made this technically not the case.

Changes are in bold and italics.

Section F.2 Declaration of War
To declare a war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will create a normal poll for the House, and a thread poll for the Senate. If more than 50% of the voters, not counting abstain, in both polls support the declaration, war can be declared. If either poll gains a two-thirds majority in support of war, war may be declared regardless of the other poll.

Do you approve? Options will be:
Yes
No
Abstain

 

[Civlord]

When will they post the polls?

 

[Black_Hole]

I'm so confused... I saw Black_Hole say repost, so I'm reposting my request...

I want to amend Section F.2 of the code of laws. The discussion thread has been opened for the minimum 24/48 hour mark and the proposed poll has been opened for the minimum 24 hour mark.

Here's how it stands now:


I wish to change the 67% majority to a 2/3 majority. That was the way it was originally intended to be, but rounding has made this technically not the case.

Changes are in bold and italics.


Do you approve? Options will be:
Yes
No
Abstain

repost as in repost in the thread at the end, which ravensfire did for you, now we can rule on it

 

[RegentMan]

Okay.

 

[ravensfire]

DG7JR5 - Review of Proposed Amendment - CoL F.2

Having reviewed the changes, I find no conflict in the proposal with current law. I recommend that these changes be presented to the Assembly.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[Black_Hole]

I find the the proposed law does not conflict with any current law and should be forworded to the people.

P.S. ravensfire your title above your avatar still says public defender