Chief Justice's ruling on DG7JR8
Question: How should Article C of the Constitution be interpreted - 1 city per civ, or 7 cities total, from any combination of civs?
Citizen Comments: Thanks to Donovan Zoi, RegentMan, Nobody, Bertie, zyxy, Provolution, greekguy, Daveshack for your comments and discussion on this matter.
Ruling: The nation of Fanatikos may capture and hold only 1 city from each civilization.
Explanation: Article C is clear on this matter - 1 city per civilization may be taken. 1 from German, 1 from Babylon, etc.
Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.
The following questions were posed by various citizens throughout the discussion. To help in the creation of a comprehensive review over all questions raised about Article C, the Chief Justice requested the Judiciary also answer those questions.
To draw from the first clause of Article C:
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time.
I'm going to create a consistent theme throughout this JR the doctrine of creation. A city is considered owned by the Civ that founded that city, not the civilization that currently owns the city.
It's been pointed out that this is a game, that we are here to have fun. The 5BC variant is a compromise variant between a 5CC and an Epic game. The restrictions are there to primarily force our focus on those first 5 cities. This is born out in great latitude that we give our Governors in control of their cities. We view the conquered cities with much less interest, placing all of them under control of 1 Governor. These cities might be the only opportunities we have to acquire some resources through land we directly control. Colonies are nice, but can be limited by lack of port access and the threat of a civ simply walking over the colony. Only a city provides permanence.
There is also no reason to punish the players of DG7 for the actions of another civ any more that necessary. Nor should the Governor of cities that we've conquered see their duties reduced because of a war-mongering civ on another continent that we did not know about.
Question: Does recapturing a city we built count as taking a city from a civ?
Ruling: No, it does not.
Explanation: Per the doctrine of creation, a city founded by Fanatikos is considered our city, now and forever. Our retaking of that city is considered a return of rightful property, not of conquering foreign territory, regardless of how long that takes.
Question: May we abandon a city from a civ to take another city from that civ?
Ruling: No, we may not.
Explanation: Aside from the obvious gamesmanship and poor sportsmanship, the instant we conquer a city, those citizens become members of our civilization. We would no sooner burn down Olympus as we would a city we have liberated from another land.
Question: If we capture a city, then the civ recaptures that city back, may we recapture that city, any other city the civ has, or no city from that civ?
Ruling: We may reconquer that city, and no other from that civilization.
Explanation: As in the question above, when we conquer a city it is our. We have the right and the duty to protect that city from harm, and are lessened by its loss. Reconquest of that city is always permitted.
Question: If we capture a city from Civ A that was founded by Civ B, and we keep that city, which civ did we take that city from, A (who we conquered it from) or B (who founded it)?
Ruling: The city comes from Civ B, the city that founded it.
Explanation: Again, the doctrine of creation comes into play. We place many burdens on our shoulders, this is not one we should bear. Cities draw their heritage from the civilization that founds them we should not forget that.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
about the rabid part... but they are pretty adament about it 
