Term II Judiciary - The Dikastic Court

[ravensfire]

There never was a minimum set - it was always just a maximum. Many session went fewer than 10 turns.

Then, as now, no instructions == DP's discretion.

Then, if a DP posted instructions for only a partial turn. Hmm, I think it depended on the DP. Some would play through, others would stop. It's a potential nightmare, because if leader A posted instructions for 4 turns, and the session went longer, it's almost carte blanche for a useless CC on the DP.

This stuff is all in the CoL, and pretty darn easy to change. Sounds like you've got some ideas on the issue.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Thanks, the latest answer says what I hoped it would say.

 

[Nobody]

I small tired little man walks into the large noisy court house, the little man thinks back to a time when he and his freinds ruled this twobit town, but now that is in the past. Nobody stands in the corner in a small grey suit, soaking wet from the rain outside when no one would share a unbrealla. walking slowly up to the desk of the Judge advocate he places a small file on the desk fileing a Investigation. then he leaves to think more about the joy of past coups and familiy crime movements

I nobody Citizen of Fanatikos here by File an investigation. I claim that the current President Donovan Zoi acted ultra vires (in excess of legal power) by refusing a foreign demand and forcing us into a war.

Donovan Zoi is President of our nation, and therefore has the following powers

The President is responsible for control of the slider, worker allocation and resolving disputes between leaders, such as over use of gold. The President is also responsible for all tasks not assigned to another leader.

I think that he acted in excess of the above legal powers when he advised Designated Player Civgeneral to refuse a foreign demand during the last turnchat. The demand was issued by the Persian Despot Xerxes. The demand was for the Technology of Literature. President Zoi advised the Designated Player during the online turn session held on September the 18th of this year. A transcript of the conversation relating to the Advising in below:

(23:25:11) CivGeneral: And Xerxes demans us to give up literature
(23:25:12) CivGeneral:
(23:25:37) DX_Zoi: ooh, any word from Icmancin on that one?
(23:25:54) Gerikes: "Steer away from all conflicts"
(23:25:59) CivGeneral: Nothing in regards to demands
(23:26:06) CivGeneral: Stay clear of any demands
(23:26:40) Gerikes: I take it we can't ask for some gold in return?
(23:26:44) Gerikes:
(23:27:44) CivGeneral: Cant ask for a counter offer
(23:27:46) TimBentley: Last word on demands was two turnchats ago: he said to give in then
(23:27:47) CivGeneral: Its a demand
(23:28:18) CivGeneral: Well, in his wize words, I should go along with that statement
(23:28:28) DX_Zoi: it seems unclear though
(23:28:33) DX_Zoi: hold on
(23:28:47) TimBentley: nothing for this turnchat though
(23:28:55) CivGeneral: Yeah
(23:28:56) DX_Zoi: persia is a minor threat. we are stronger than them
(23:29:09) CivGeneral: So tell him to take a hike?
(23:29:19) Gerikes: Maybe we could get france to help us out there?
(23:29:22) DX_Zoi: my guess is he will back down for now
(23:29:27) Gerikes: If he declares war.
(23:29:32) DX_Zoi: possibly
(23:29:51) CivGeneral: Ok, shall I tell him to take a hike?
(23:29:54) DX_Zoi: Jerkses is in no position to bargain
(23:29:58) CivGeneral: lol
(23:30:01) DX_Zoi: I say let him walk
(23:30:02) Gerikes: haha
(23:30:05) CivGeneral: Refusing offer

Under normal circumstances the advice given in a turnchat would not be considered the same as making the decision. But this is not a normal situation; Donovan Zoi is President of our nation and a well known former Foreign Leader. Therefore his words have more weighting than a normal civilian. His Advise clearly made the decision for Civgeneral.

CivGeneral: Xerxes demans us to give up literature [sic]… his wize words, I should go along with that statement. DX_Zoi: persia is a minor threat. we are stronger than them…. I say let him walk. CivGeneral: Refusing offer

Also he admitted later that he made the decision

I felt that I was within my rights to personally make this call.

.



By making this decision Donovan Zoi clearly acted in excess of the above legal powers. He is President, not the Foreign Affairs Minister and doesn’t have the legal right to set policy on foreign demands. By doing so he broke the Law of our nation. This is not the first time President Zoi has acted on behalf of the foreign Affairs minister, leading a recent movement for war against Germany.



Donovan Zoi claims it was his “right to make this call” because there was “no clear directions for the FA department.” I think that there was sufficient direction on the matter of Demands. In the turnchat thread the official Foreign Affairs instructions were “Steer away from all conflicts” I don’t think that giving the Persians a case for war, was steering away from conflict. If this wasn’t clear enough, it has been a Foreign Ministry policy for the past 2 terms to give into all demands. As stated here in the first ever instruction thread

Border Control Policy: Ask foreign land units leave our nation. Do not demand they leave.

and by the current minister 2.

Give in all demands.

President Donovan Zoi coerced Designated Player Civgeneral into refusing a demand; Donovan Zoi admittedly made the decision himself. He acted in excess of legal power, ultra vires and caused a war. For a technology of little value to anybody, We already have the great Library.

 

[ravensfire]

Nobody has requested that the Court investigate President Donovan Zoi regarding his actions during the recent game session. All such requests will be investigated by the Judiciary.

This request for investigation has been accepted.

Docketed as DG7CC1 - Donovan Zoi

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[ravensfire]

Review Phase:

The Judiciary is now investigating the actions of Donovan Zoi during the most recent game session.

Process:

Investigations are used to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. They may be requested by any citizen in a post in the Judicial thread. Except as noted, the Justices must act in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner throughout the process. All citizens are innocent unless determined to be guilty. All evidence, except foreknowledge of the game, must be presented publicly. Evidence of foreknowledge of the game will be reviewed by the Judiciary, and a statement about that evidence posted. Once that evidence becomes irrelevant due to game progress, any citizen may request it to be posted.

At any time during an investigation, the citizen making the request may drop the request, ending the investigation unless another citizen wishes to continue the process. Likewise, the citizen under investigation may accept the charges, and move immediately to the Sentencing phase.

Review
Each requested Investigation will be reviewed by the Judiciary. Justices will gather and look through the evidence presented, including requests for statements from all citizens. If all three Justices determine the request to have No Merit, the basis for that finding will be posted by each Justice and the request is denied. If at least one Justice determines the request to have Merit, a trial on the facts will be conducted. The Judge Advocate will review the request and the relevant law, and determine the specific law the accused citizen is alleged to have violated.

The Judiciary hereby requests that any citizen with additional evidence concerning this matter please post such evidence in this thread.

Please do not post your opinion of this matter here!

Citizens, these matters can be contentious and divisive. We're trying to gather the facts and determine if there's a chance a law was violated. Help keep the matter calm and keep the Judiary thread (relatively) clean.

Fellow Justices, please begin your review of the matter. If you feel there is a reasonable chance a violation of the law occured, find that the request has Merit. If you do not think there is a reasonable chance a violation occured, find that the request has No Merit.

Thank you,
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[Gerikes]

The Judiciary hereby requests that any citizen with additional evidence concerning this matter please post such evidence in this thread.

I submit the evidence of the exact instructions that the Minister of Foreign Affairs Icemancin gave for the turnchat in question, that of September 18th.

Edit:

Also, in case they are needed, the following are the previous three turnchat instructions from the Minister of Foreign Affairs Icemancin, in reverse-chronological order with their date of Turnchat included.

Sept 15th
Sept 10th
Sept 3rd

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Honorable Judiciary,

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present further evidence to your court. Since the majority of evidence collected against me involves the instructions of our current Foreign Minister, Icmancin, I feel I should present the history of FA instructions for Term 2.

During the first two game sessions, the instructions of the FA minister were quite clear:

Session 1

Foreign Affairs

1. Remain neutral in the conflict between Germany and France
2. Give in to all demands

Ic

Session 2

Foreign Affairs

1. Remain neutral in the war between France, Rome and Germany. If war is declared on Fanatikos stop the chat.
2. Give in all demands.
3. Build an Embassy with Germany ASAP. Build an Embassy with France sometime during the chat. These actions were confirmed Here

Ic

What is important to note about these first two sessions is that we had not reached a state of tech superiority yet. Therefore, the most we could have gievn away is gold.

Then came the instructions for Session 3, where no direction whatsoever is given regarding the acceptance or refusal of demands. As far as I am concerned, this lack of instruction negates the precedence set by the previous two.

Session 3 is also important due to the fact that we now found ourselves launched to the forefront of research, thanks to the volumes of information kept by the Great Library of Aristotle. If there were any time to protect what was ours, now would be the time. Yet those instructions were unclear, clouded by the bigger issue of a possible pre-emptive war with Germany.


Session 3

I don't know if my "Polls" will end in time. Before you start the chat, look at the "Polls" for a war with Germany. which ever one is leading, do it. Follow Defense Minsters plan for gearing up and battle plan. Ic, out.

Finally, in Session 4, the nation was treated to the following instructions from the FA Minister:

Session 4

Remain Neutral in the Romani-German War. There is no point in joining, France has left. Steer away from all conflicts.

Nowhere in these directions does it mention the acceptance or refusal of demands, just like Session 3. And for all I know, "steer away from all conflicts" could just as easily mean to have all military units hang a U-turn before entering the Berlin war zone. After all, we have had possession of the Wheel for quite some time now.

What it all comes down to is a lack of clear instruction from our FA Minister during an extreme change in the value of what could be lost in tribute to a rogue nation such as Persia. Ever since we have had tech available for tribute to other nations, there has been no clear instruction on how to handle this. Section L1 of our CoL requires this:

Section L1 (partial - pertinent only)

All official instructions must be posted in the current game session instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined. Officials must post their instructions at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session. However, officials may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the chat, so long as those changes are clearly noted. Officials that do not post instructions for a game session are considered to have given the DP complete control over their area for that game session.

It should also be noted that as influential as I may be, I do not possess the right to infer the validity of instructions during a game session. That distinction goes to the DP. But do we really want to put a dedicated citizen through the ringer for taking the advice of the President? I should hope not.

Therefore, I take full responsibilty for the decision I made and will let the Judiciary decide whether there is enough evidence for this to go to trial. Due to the relative distance between ourselves and Persia, I have a strong feeling that this war could be over before we even see battle. I certainly hope that we can say the same about this Citizen Complaint.

Thank you for your time.


Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatikos

 

[Bootstoots]

Acting as Public Defender of Fanatikos, I have reviewed the charges brought against Donovan Zoi and have made a ruling on them. I hereby find that they have No Merit and should be dismissed. Specific reasoning is mentioned below.

First of all, the only action that the defendant, President Donovan Zoi, did was advise the Designated Player to refuse the demand by Persia. He was well within his rights to say so. Under Article A of the Constitution, citizens are given the right to free speech, among other rights. Nobody mentions that DZ's advice, as it was coming from the President and former Foreign Advisor, somehow carried more weight and that it somehow made the decision for CivGeneral; therefore, it should not be allowed. However, this reasoning is completely flawed. Whether or not Donovan Zoi held those positions is irrelevant under the law; he still had every right under the principle of free speech to advise the Designated Player. And, though CG took in DZ's advice, he did make the final decision. DZ's acceptance of responsibility for advising CG is duly noted, but he still had the right to advise, whether or not he accepts responsibility for the outcome.

Additionally, the action taken by CivGeneral in accordance with DZ's advice was within his rights as DP as well. Minister of Foreign Affairs Icemancin stated to "steer away from all conflicts." This could be interpreted as a desire to give in to all demands, but it is sufficiently vague as to allow us to reject tribute demands from nations that are unlikely to declare war. Persia is a weak nation that is probably not going to last much longer, and it was quite likely that they would not have declared as a result of this. The instructions say nothing specifically on tribute demands, so under Article L.1, CG had the ability to choose for himself.

For these reasons, I rule that these charges have no legal basis and should be thrown out of court.

 

[Strider]

Donovan Zoi, a lack of instructions does not give you the right to interpret a instruction whichever way you like. Yes, I do believe that the refusal of this demand was the correct action. However, you seem to believe that just because someone leaves out the bottom line of there copy & paste, it allows you to make what choice you want.

No, in this circumstance you should have looked at past instructions and current discussion threads. Yes, if for some reason we got a demand from a Civilization we were planning to declare war on soon anyway, your comments (or actions) may be excuseable. However, this action was not an attempt (even misguided) to further a current goal.

The lack of specific instructions does not give anyone the right to do whatever they <snipped> well please. This goes for every single DP, you had better use your <snipped> head when something like this comes up. You've got a brain for a reason, use it.

However, you were well within your right as a citizen to advise the DP. If you had not posted your "defense" above, you would have been saved this rant. Your actions inside of the turnchat were legal, and I see no fault of yours. It is every citizens right, correction... it is every citizens duty to advise our elected officials. As such, I rule that this case has No Merit.

I would stress, once again, that while your actions inside of the turnchat were legal.. I do find your comments above inexcuseable and misguided.

Moderator Action: Watch your language, Strider. - Rik

 

[Nobody]

But do we really want to put a dedicated citizen through the ringer for taking the advice of the President? I should hope not.

Therefore, I take full responsibilty for the decision I made

Judges Preisdent Donovan Zoi has taken responsability for the action. Therefore the issue of him advising the DP isnt relavent. You should consider when ever the decision was legal not if he made it or not. As he has taken responsability for it.

 

[DaveShack]

I see both the JA and PD say "no merit" on the current CC before the court.

We could have a CC against the Minister of Foreign Affairs for posting instructions which violate the CoL phrase "Instructions must be clear and defined", however it would have little point other than to rake a little more muck. This, obviously, is not a CC request and I'd recommend against anyone else asking for one.

I think I'll be proactive in the next TCIT and ask for clarifications in the government threads ahead of time.

Note: the following does not represent a comment on the President himself -- it is merely a question about proper procedures.

And now for a little actual judicial material, I request a JR on the President's duties. Specifically, does the President have any power to give instructions in areas for which the elected leader has provided none? CoL L says the DP gains power over any area without instructions. Article E says the President may handle tasks not assigned to another department, but does not say anything about assuming the duties of absent leaders. Not a CC request but it seems we have had some cases where Governors delegated their responsibilities to the President, which does not seem legal to me...

 

[ravensfire]

Ruling on DG7CC1

Request: Investigate the actions of Donovan Zoi during the most recent game session

Citizen Comments: Thanks to Nobody, Gerikes and Donovan Zoi for their presentation of evidence and testimony.

Ruling: The request for investigation is found to have No Merit.

Explanation: The evidence on this matter is clear, for the game session in question, there were no instructions from the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning demands from other nations.

Remain Neutral in the Romani-German War. There is no point in joining, France has left. Steer away from all conflicts.

A situation presented itself to the Designated Player where an action must be taken. There was no opportunity to take the decision back to the forums. The DP asked for advice from the citizens attending the chat. President Donovaon Zoi was attending the chat, and offered his advice. The DP took his advice, rejected the demand and halted the chat after the declaration of war.

The question centers around did Donovan Zoi violate a law. In the request, a comment is made about Donovan Zoi being both the President and a former Foreign Affairs leader, and that his words would carry more weight. The Designated Player is also an experienced citizen who has served in many capacities in the past. He is more than capable of making his own decisions.

The instruction contains the phrase “Steer away from all conflicts.” All instructions are required to be “Instructions must be clear and defined.“ (CoL L.1). These instructions fail that test. Indeed, previous instructions by this leader over this matter were clear on what to do. The mere fact that the DP asked how to handle the situations demonstrates the need for clear instructions.

For these reasons, I find this request for investigation to be without merit.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[ravensfire]

Judiciary Ruling

DG7CC1 – Donovan Zoi

By a 3-0 decision, the Court dismisses the request for investigation as No Merit.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Note: the following does not represent a comment on the President himself -- it is merely a question about proper procedures.

And now for a little actual judicial material, I request a JR on the President's duties. Specifically, does the President have any power to give instructions in areas for which the elected leader has provided none? CoL L says the DP gains power over any area without instructions. Article E says the President may handle tasks not assigned to another department, but does not say anything about assuming the duties of absent leaders. Not a CC request but it seems we have had some cases where Governors delegated their responsibilities to the President, which does not seem legal to me...

I am a bit curious about this myself, and therefore humbly await a ruling from the Judiciary.

I would like to point out that my deal with the Governors is voluntary on their part, and is only offered to those who do not have the time to monitor their micromanagement to avoid riots or "one shield off" misbuilds. In a sense, the authority still technically lies with the Governor to make this happen.

"How convenient for you, Mr. President," one may muse. But know that I also request that said governors grant authority to the DP to make such changes as well. Besides, I invite you to find an instance when this method was not used in the best interest of Fanatikos. A ruling against this harmless tactic would certainly ensure that we have no recourse whatsoever against such unfortunate events.

The above may sound defensive, but it is certainly not meant to be. There should be a bit of room in our laws for federal assistance if everyone benefits from it. I certainly hope that the Judiciary feels the same way.

 

[ravensfire]

Request for Judicial Review

Daveshack has come before the Court with a question on Section L.1 of the Code of Laws and Articlse E and L of the Constitution.

If a leader posts instructions that are not complete or too vague for a reasonable person to discern direction, does the President have any power to give instruction cover that area?

This review is found to have merit.

Docketed as DG7JR9 – May the President issue legal instructions if a leader posts incomplete instructions?

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Judiciary Ruling

DG7CC1 – Donovan Zoi

By a 3-0 decision, the Court dismisses the request for investigation as No Merit.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Honorable Judiciary,

My humble thanks for a swift and true verdict! In the future, I shall try to make a point of addressing less than adequate instructions before our DPs have to act on them.

I must also thank the vigilant citizen Nobody for taking the time to bring this issue to the court. Our nation is richer for having brought this matter to light.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
President of Fanatikos

 

[ravensfire]

Citizen's comment on DG7JR9:

The President has no authority to issue any instructions of any type save those expressly granted to them. The President is granted "control of the slider, worker allocation and resolving disputes between leaders, such as over use of gold. The President is also responsible for all tasks not assigned to another leader." (Article E of the Constitution). The other leaders are given explicit areas they are to control and issue instructions for.

Should they fail to post instructions, Section L.1 of the Code of Laws clearly states “Officials that do not post instructions for a game session are considered to have given the DP complete control over their area for that game session.” Thus, the President may not issue instructions in that case as the task of creating instructions, even ad-hoc ones, falls to the DP. The “Catch-All” authority only covers those scenarios where nobody has authority. However, that is not the scenario in question.

The question deals with incomplete or vague instructions. The “catch-all” clause clearly fails here – a leader has authority, but did not post the instructions. Therefore, the President does not have the authority to issue legal, binding instructions.

But, what should be done? The DP is caught in a quandary – halt the chat, and face complaints of not playing enough turns, make their own instructions and face complaints by the leader for “not doing what they wanted” or ignore the matter, and face complaints of doing nothing. The answer is all three, depending on the situation. The DP must rely on their own wisdom and knowledge, and the advice of those attending the chat if on-line. Although the ultimate decision rests with the DP, consulting those at the chat is appropriate, helpful, but not binding.

EDIT:
I wish to comment further on something DZ said. There is nothing wrong with a leader delegating some of their authority to another citizen, including another leader. Leaders cannot, however, delegate their responsibilities away except as expressly permitted. An example of this is during an known absence, the deputy is responsible for posting the instructions.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Citizen comment on DG7JR9.

As noted when the question was posed, this is not a question about whether previous incidents were good or bad for our country, but a mechanism for determining how it should work so that future operations can proceed correctly.

I notice that the current law differs markedly from the last game. Yes, I know that the previous games should not be used as precedent, but it does have me thinking. What should happen if an official is absent and there is no deputy? What about long term absenses? Should we expect the DPs to make something up for the 2-3 chats it would take to replace a leader who is not performing? If enough people think this is a problem which needs to be addressed, then we should probably draft a law to fix it.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Citizen comment on DG7JR9

In response to DaveShack's post, I see this as a definite problem. Our laws currently dictate that a gap in instructions (whether by absence or negligence) cannot be fixed until one of a rotating list of designated players notices or, more likely, is confronted with an unforeseen dilemma in session. DPs do not leave instructions for themselves, so there is currently no way to legally rectify a glaring problem until a game session has started.

Without bias to my current position, I strongly feel that the President should have the first opportunity to rectify a situation before it even reaches the game session. Of course, all opportunities to communicate with the absent/negligent leader should be exhausted first. Ultimately, the Office of President should be able to exercise a "buck stops here" mentality for any instructional lapses from the other leaders.

Perhaps that is not how the law is set up now, but that is how it should be. With all due respect to the two gentlemen next-in-queue , a once-a-term gameplayer should never be able to pull rank on the President as the former is far less accountable to the nation's citizens. The accountability of necessary decision making needs to return where it belongs --- with the President.

I am thinking of sponsoring an amendment here, but won't have time for a day or two. I am also wary of further accusations of a Presidential power grab.

 

[Strider]

DPs do not leave instructions for themselves, so there is currently no way to legally rectify a glaring problem until a game session has started.

Maybe we should make it to where DP's do leave instructions? Okay, well not instructions, but something along the lines of Goals or Guidelines. Basically, the DP that is up for the turnchat launch's a discussion on the goals for his/her turnchat.

These goals should be a general idea of all major policy's (Domestic, Foreign Affairs, etc.). They should not go into extreme detail, for flexibility reasons, but in the absense of clear or defined instructions from a leader the DP should then use the discussed/polled goals to make his decision. Of course, the DP is still allowed to do whatever they want to to achieve that goal, but that's part of the perks of the job.

This way, we know how the DP should react. We also have a general idea of how the turnchat should go, and that will allow for more planning.

Edit: Or we can just tack this onto the Presidents duties also.