Term 2 Judicial Thread ~

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.
 
MSTK said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
 
Civman2004 said:
Aha - the plot thickens!!! The first citizen complaint
Click to expand...

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

Cyc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)
Click to expand...
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.
 
KCCrusader said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
KCCrusader said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Octavian X said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, the first Article of the Constitution states:
Code: 
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 
            [b]and the right to vote[/b].

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.
 
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, prior to either The Public Defender or Ms. Chieftess.

From the Judicial Guide:
Section 8 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lexicus
  • Locked
Gaza Genocide News Thread
Replies
2
Views
300
lymond
lymond
F
Civ 2 save game viewer
Replies
0
Views
133
flatulus
F
amadeus
The Boring Thread
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
2K
Crezth
Crezth
V
  • Sticky
TSG 244 After Actions Thread
Replies
15
Views
769
BuilderFTW
B
V
  • Sticky
TSG 244 Opening Actions Thread
Replies
8
Views
353
raider980
raider980
Top Bottom