Term 4 Judiciary-the carver court

Well, since conflicts of interest have been raised, it does not make sense for the PD to be able to represent him/herself in a CC. While it is true the PD could easily prepare the defense, the court is also responsible for ruling on guilt/innocence in the case of ties, and for breaking ties on sentencing polls. Clearly being able to take such actions on the case against oneself is a conflict of interest.

On the subject of anonymous CC's, my interpretation would be that if an anonymous CC is allowed to be filed, then the provision cited takes effect -- but the wording does not explicitly say that an anonymous CC must be allowed. I think this leaves the matter up to the court to decide on a term by term basis, unless someone uses a legal procedure to force a decision which makes precedent.

Black Holes appointment as pro-tem chief justice has been confirmed by the president, black hole will assume the office of chief justice on 6/11 and hold it until the beggining of 6/20

There's a question I've had for some time, but never thought to ask it, involving what constitutes a "reversible action". Since we're apparently going to be getting railroads soon, I'd like to call a Judicial Review on it.

If I, as a citizen with no claim to the position of Designated Player, choose to open up a save and move a unit along a railroad, in our territory or in the territory of an ally with whom we have an ROP, is this action considered a violation of Article L of the Constitution, which forbids "commission of any game action by any player other than the Designated Player...that is not instantly reversible without reloading the save"? Additionally, can the DP move units on a railroad offline before the start of a turnchat, or would Article J be violated?

Bootstoots said:

There's a question I've had for some time, but never thought to ask it, involving what constitutes a "reversible action". Since we're apparently going to be getting railroads soon, I'd like to call a Judicial Review on it.

If I, as a citizen with no claim to the position of Designated Player, choose to open up a save and move a unit along a railroad, in our territory or in the territory of an ally with whom we have an ROP, is this action considered a violation of Article L of the Constitution, which forbids "commission of any game action by any player other than the Designated Player...that is not instantly reversible without reloading the save"? Additionally, can the DP move units on a railroad offline before the start of a turnchat, or would Article J be violated?

Click to expand...

Hmm, this one is a strange scenario. Though at first glance it would forbid Article L of the Consitution. But since the unit is being moved on a railroad with unlimited movement points, it would still be considered a reversable action so long as the unit remains on the tracks and return to it's original spot and thus would not violate Article L.

I deem that Bootstoots Judicial review has merit and will be added to the docket as DGVIT4JR1

and on a more technical note the Judge Advocate has yet to ratify the court procedures, CG could you please do so or state your objections since technically nothing the court does is official until the procedures have been agreed upon?

and on another note:
I just read DS message(sorry dave) and I agree and wish to add the public defender to list I submit these new changes to the court for ratification.,

mhcarver said:

and on a more technical note the Judge Advocate has yet to ratify the court procedures, CG could you please do so or state your objections since technically nothing the court does is official until the procedures have been agreed upon?

Click to expand...

Almost forgot about that, I have edited my first post in this thread to include that . In short I do approve the procedures. The Cybornetic Judge Advocate approves the court procedures.

ooooo..... Nice Judical Review, and my first i will get back to you.

the article being questioned reads

This case is (in my mind) rather easy because the law cleary states that an reversible action is any action that can be undone without having to re-load the saves. In the scenario mentioned by bootstoots then the action is perfectly legal because of it can be reversed completely. Therefore I rule that movements on railroads through our own territory or nations by which a ROP exists by anyone other than the demoplayer are not illegal as long as the unit(s) in question return to their point of origin

-Mhcarver

mhcarver said:

the article being questioned reads

Code:

Article L.  Commission of any game action by any person other than the 
            Designated Player while carrying out their duties that is 
            [B]not instantly reversible[/B] 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.

This case is (in my mind) rather easy because the law cleary states that an reversible action is any action that can be undone without having to re-load the saves. In the scenario mentioned by bootstoots then the action is perfectly legal because of it can be reversed completely. Therefore I rule that movements on railroads by anyone other than the demoplayer are not illegal as long as the unit(s) in question return to their point of origin

-Mhcarver

Click to expand...

I agree with the CJ's statement. Since the unit is being moved on a railroad with unlimited movement points, it would still be considered a reversable action so long as the unit remains on the tracks and return to it's original spot and thus would not violate Article L.

DGVIT4JR1

have broken the Judicial Review into two parts as he asked two questions.

The first part of this Judicial Review asks if moving a unit along the rail road is considered a violation of Article L of the Constitution. I find that it is a violation of Article L. “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.” So the key to this question is whenever or not the movement of units along the rail road is considered an “Instantly reversible” action. Moving units along a rail road is not “Instantly reversible” because you are not reversing the action you are just making another action of moving the Unit back. So it is two actions not just one which is then reversed. It is no different than moving it along a road it is just faster. Because this is not a instantly reversible action to do this would be a violation of Article L.

The second part asks if the DP moves units on a railroad prior to the start of a turnchat is this a violation of Article J. The constitution says “all irreversible game actions must progress during a scheduled game session.- The Constitution Article J” As I have stated above I think that movement along railroads are not instantly reversible because it is not like pressing ‘Undo’ you need to move back and forth. A reversible action is like setting queues. Therefore I find that if the DP moves units along a railroad prior to the start of a turnchat they are in violation of Article J.

I would like to bring the following to the attention of the court regarding the JR requested by Bootstoots.

Moving a unit on a rail through enemy territory will reveal the presence or absence of units on that rail, and in that sense cannot be reversed. On a more technical level, it will flag that unit as "having moved this turn", and that too cannot be reversed.

Nonetheless I would argue that this type of game action is harmless.
Both are technicalities and just require a minor amendment of the law. Maybe Bootstoots would like to take the initiative?

zyxy said:

I would like to bring the following to the attention of the court regarding the JR requested by Bootstoots.

Moving a unit on a rail through enemy territory will reveal the presence or absence of units on that rail, and in that sense cannot be reversed. On a more technical level, it will flag that unit as "having moved this turn", and that too cannot be reversed.

Nonetheless I would argue that this type of game action is harmless.
Both are technicalities and just require a minor amendment of the law. Maybe Bootstoots would like to take the initiative?

Click to expand...

Thank you for you're input, what you have just stated is correct, however in bootstoots request for Judicial review the only scenario he mentioned was moving units within our territory and those we have a right of passage with, though I did not make this clear in my ruling I will do so now, that is if the JA will agree with me.

you're right, I should not have said "enemy territory" but "territory of the ROP partner".

I have a JR for this Court. I was wondering I the President must have a discussion about the use of MGL's. I see there is little discussion about this, but there is another army and clearly the MGL has been used before it was discussed. Here is the part of the Constitution for this JR. I have bolded the most important part of this discussion. For reference, here is a "discussion" on the subject. Military Great Leaders A back up question. Is a few hours, enough time to be considered to be called a discussion? For reference, here are two images about the time taken between opening the thread and most probably when the decision was made.



I'll assume that the time was when the decision was made. You must remember that the times are GMT+8.

After looking over Classical Heroes request for Judicial review I find that this is the primary question


1.What constitutes a valid discussion?

I find that this judicial review has merit and is to be added to the docket as DGVIT4JR2

I shall withdraw the first part of my JR, because the answer is yes, but the second one is still valid.

classical_hero said:

I shall withdraw the first part of my JR, because the answer is yes, but the second one is still valid.

Click to expand...

so noted, I'll be ruling sometime tommorow afternoon

another JR, i will comment soon.

Nobody said:

another JR, i will comment soon.

Click to expand...

Just hope that it will come before the three hour blackout of CFC .