Leges sine moribus vanae: The Term 5 Yasutan Supreme Court

Lockesdonkey

Liberal Jihadist
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
2,403
Location
Why do you care?
I'm not in the mood to change anything of importance in terms of procedure, so I'm copying the header from the Term 3 Judiciary.

:hammer: The Supreme Court of Yasutan - Term 5 :hammer:

"[wiki]Oyez[/wiki]! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the State of Yasutan, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the court is now sitting. May the ancestors save Yasutan and this honorable court."

Welcome to the opening of the Fifth Session of the Court of Yasutan! After that peculiar epoch in which our existence was barely recognized, we finally got our act together, and have a pleasant building between the chambers of the National Assembly and the State Khural. It's still a little dusty from the construction, but I must say that these leather-covered chairs are amazing...and there's still a little drawer under the Judge Advocate's desk to hide the doughnuts. We still don't have a decent view...the idiot donor who provided the funds insisted on stained glass. You win some, you lose some.

The Justices of the Court welcome all citizens to the bench, whether to ask questions of the law or bring official business before our attention. We hope the serve the citizens of this nation to the best of our abilities.

Members of the Court
Chief Justice: Lockesdonkey
Public Defender: Nobody (by appointment)
Judge Advocate: Ori

Useful Links
The Constitution
The Government Structure
Office Tracker

Archive
The Judicial Log
Term 1 Judiciary, The Honorable Chief Justice ravensfire Presiding
Term 2 Judiciary, The Honorable Chief Justice ravensfire Presiding
Term 3 Judiciary, The Honorable Chief Justice Octavian X Presiding
No judicial decisions were taken in Term 4.
 
You really didn't think that I'd forget to post the procedures, did you?

Spoiler Term 5 Court Procedures :
Term 5 Court Procedures

Common

Rights and Duties of all Citizens
  • Participate in all Judicial discussions
  • Request that any Judicial discussion be moved to its own thread in the Citizen's forum
  • Post requests for Judicial Review of existing law.
  • Post requests for Judicial Review of proposed amendments. This request should contain the exact text to be reviewed and a link to the discussion thread.
  • Post requests for clarification. This is an unofficial question about the rules that does not create a finding or set legal precedent, but may lead to a Judicial Review if any Justice feels one is needed.
  • Post requests for Investigations. This is a request to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. This request must be posted in the Judicial thread. There are no anonymous requests.
Shared duties and responsibilities of all Justices
  • Conduct the business of the court in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner.
  • Review and discuss any questions about our laws.
  • Review all proposed Amendments to our laws.
  • Review all requested Investigations to determine if there is need.
  • Participate in all Investigations in a fair and impartial manner.
  • Post clear opinions on all questions.
  • Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement
  • Discuss and ratify these Judicial Procedures.
  • Recuse themself from any Investigation that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the investigation, or as the citizen under investigation. A Pro-tem replacement will be named by the Chieftain.
  • Recuse themself from any Judicial Review where they feel unable to render a fair, impartial, open or speedy decision. A Pro-tem replacement will be named by the Chieftain.
Rights and Duties of the Chief Justice
  • Post polls for amendments once they pass review
  • Oversee all Judicial Proceedings.
  • Maintain the Judicial Log.
Rights and Duties of the Judge Advocate
  • Post any valid Recall poll if for the Chief Justice.
  • Serve as the Prosecution during any trial of a citizen. In this role, the Judge Advocate need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side.
Rights and Duties of the Public Defender
  • Serve as the Defense during as trial of a citizen, unless requested otherwise by the citizen. In this role, the Public Defender need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side.
Judicial Reviews
Judicial Reviews are used to resolve questions of the law and to validate proposed amendments. The opinion of a majority of the Justices will be used to resolve the Judicial Review.

Reviews of existing laws may be requested by anyone. The Judiciary shall review each request for merit. If any Justice determines the request has merit, it is accepted. The Chief Justice will post each accepted request, clearly denoting the questions for that Judiciary Review. After at least 24 hours, each Justice may post their finding. This post should clearly answer the questions as posed by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may request clarification of these findings as needed.

The Chief Justice may, at his discretion, move discussion on a Judicial Review currently under consideration to a separate thread in the Citizen's Forum, in order to attract attention to an important discussion, or to insure clarity of discussion if multiple requests are simultaneously under review.

The Chief Justice may also accept a request as one for a Temporary ruling. This process is for questions that may materially delay the Demogame, but would best be answered by an Initiative or Amendment. Once the ruling is made, the Chief Justice will open a discussion on creating an Initiative or Amendment. This ruling is in effect only until a relevant initiative is passed. Temporary rulings may, at the discretion of the Chief Justice, ignore the 24 hour rule above.

Reviews of proposed amendments may be requested by anyone. The post must include the proposed amendment, and a link to the discussion thread. This post should clearly note all changes, including additions, deletions and changes. The proposed amendment must have been conspicuously posted as a proposed poll for at least 24 hours, and the discussion thread open for at least 48 hours. The Justices will review the amendment for any conflicts with current law, and post their findings. The Chief Justices will post the poll for all proposals that pass Judicial Review.

INITIATIVES DO NOT NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE JUDICIARY.

Concurring decisions or rulings by at least two justices will resolve a judicial review. Any justice can request clarification of another justice's decision or ruling. Justices may also request the use alternative means of internal discussion to aid in their decisions. All rulings MUST, however, be posted in public, either in the Judicial thread or in designated Judicial Review discussion threads.

Requests may be deferred to the next term if the Chief Justice deems it likely that the Judicial Review will not finish prior to the conclusion of the current term.

Poll Invalidations
Poll Invalidations are used to allow bad polls to be canceled. To invalidate a poll, any member of the Judiciary posts in the poll thread clearly stating that they are invalidating the poll and the reasons for the invalidation. This must happen within the time limits specified by law.

If a poll is invalidated, any citizen may request an appeal of that invalidation. This request must be done through a post in the official Judiciary thread. Once an appeal has been made, the appeal will be handled as a Judicial Review, with the sole question being "Should the poll in question be invalidated?". If 2 or more Justices vote to accept the poll as valid, it is immediately considered valid and in force.

Investigations
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.

Any citizen who is the defendant of a Citizen Complaint has the right to representation throughout the process. The Public Defender will defend each citizen charged with an offense from the moment the Citizen Complaint is filed until the complaint is concluded, unless another citizen is appointed by the defendant to serve as the Defense, with that citizen's consent, or if the accused prefers to defend him/herself.

At any time during a citizen complaint, the prosecution and the defense (and accused) may agree to drop the case and implement an alternative agreed to solution, provided the Chief Justice concurs. Likewise, the citizen making the request may drop the request, ending the citizen complaint unless another citizen wishes to continue the process. Likewise, the citizen under investigation may accept the charges, and move immediately to the Sentencing phase.

If a citizen has been found innocent of a charge or if the citizen has been found guilty and sentenced appropriately, the citizen may not be charged again with the same violation.

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 Justices posting decisions 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.

Trial
The Judge Advocate will create a thread for the trial in the Citizen's forum. This initial post should contain the specific violations and the evidence for those accusations. The next two posts are reserved for the citizen accused and the Public Defender - until they post, or 24 hours from the initial post, no other citizen may post in the thread. All citizens are encouraged to post in this thread, but are reminded to respect the rights of all citizens.

Once at least 48 hours have passed, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

The Trial poll will be a private poll, with the options Innocent, Guilty and Abstain. It will run for 48 hours. The option receiving the most votes will determine the result. In the event of a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the result by posting clear opinions in the Trial thread.

Sentencing
If a citizen under an investigation has accepted the charges, the citizen, the accuser and the Judiciary may determine and assign a sentence if they all unanimously agree to the arrangement. Failure to uphold that arrangement will result in full sentencing poll posted as if the citizen were found guilty in a Trial.

If an arrangement cannot be made, or the citizen was found Guilty in a trial poll, the sentence will be determined by the citizens through a poll. The Chief Justice will post the poll, marked as private with a duration of 48 hours. The options for the poll will include:
Suspension from Demogame
Removal from Office (if applicable)
Final Warning
Warning
Abstain
Other options may be included through unanimous consent of the Judiciary.

Once the poll closes, the Chief Justice or Judge Advocate will determine the sentence imposed using cumulative voting. The most severe option that a majority of citizens support will be imposed. If a Warning is issued, a warning will be posted by the Chief Justice in the Judicial thread, sent via PM to the citizen, and posted in that person’s government thread, if they hold an office. If a citizen is given a Final Warning, the above procedure will be used, but with stronger language. Additionally, the options “Warning” and “Final Warning” will not appear on a sentencing poll if that citizen is charged with a similar offense in the future. If a citizen is sentenced to a Public Apology, a thread apologizing for the actions taken must be posted by the defendant within 48 hours of the close of the sentencing poll. If the citizen is removed from office, they are barred from holding that office for the remainder of the term. The length of any suspension is to be determined by the moderators.

Changes to Judicial Procedures
The Judicial Procedures may be changed at any time by a concurring decision of at least two justices.
 
Judge Advocat is on board and subscribing to this thread. :salute:

The Yasutan Supreme Court has not even yet been in session and we have already received a request for Judicial action on this thread:

I object!

"Change civics" without any kind of indication of what to change them to is not an actionable instruction. As a citizen I request it be marked invalid.

For a review:
The Poll Invalidation Act is not very specific on the grounds for invalidation, just on the procedure. We do not as of now have rules about what constitutes an unfair/invalid poll, so we are left with rather subjective decisions.

I'll summarize my thoughts here:
The poll in question asks whether a change in civics is to be done, without specifying which civics are to be changed. This is left to another poll.
Now this in itself is not an actionable poll, however citizens are asked to poll on a major game choice without being given a chance to weigh different civics choices against no civics change, thus depriving them of an important choice once the specific civics changes are polled.

I tend towards seeing merit in the request for invalidation, but would ask the other members of this court for their review as well.
 
The Yasutan Supreme Court has not even yet been in session and we have already received a request for Judicial action on this thread:

After reviewing the DaveShack's request I deemed the said poll to be invalid and have decided to go on without further input from either of my esteemed colleagues, since the invalidation would only have been possible for a further few hours.

After reviewing this request I declare this poll invalid.

Reason: This poll is written in a way that deprives citizens of
important choices in a matter that can have great impact on the further game. By just giving a choice between change or no change this poll could be used to force changes in a subsequent poll that are not desirable to the majority of citizens.
Also by itself this poll does not allow for a choice for any game action ("Change Civics" is not actionable, "Change Civics to XXX" would be), so that citizens cannot decide on a choice and know in what game action this choice will result. Overall this poll seems to be unfairly worded and thus should be invalidated.

Now, the Poll Invalidation Act does give specific instructions on how to invalidate a Poll, but what constitutes an invalid poll has never been specified (neither have we rules on what a valid poll would be). A broader discussion about this might be in order.

The Poll Invalidation Act stipulates that any citizen who does not agree with the invalidation of this poll may appeal this decision to the full Judiciary within 24 hours of this post. Such an appeal has to be posted in the Judiciary thread for this term.
 
Sorry, I got busy today...you know, the day before the Fourth and so on...lots of family in town...

Retroactively, I approve ori's decision.
 
I would like the judiciary to review the Kill the longbow poll for invalidation and or interpretation of its results.

Specifically, I think this poll should be invalidated because killing the longbow is not something that can be guaranteed, especially by one unit. (The poll specifies the available full-strength keshik.) An instruction to attack the longbow is valid but one to kill the longbow is not.

Now, if the court decides that in the context of this poll that kill means attack and upholds the validity of the poll I further request a ruling on what exactly it is that is required by the poll. Specifically, does the poll require just an attack by the the available full-strength keshik or must other available units also attack the longbow in an effort to kill it? Finally, who is (or is not) allowed to post any required instructions pertaining to this poll if its validity is upheld?

Thank you,
donsig
a concerned citizen

Edit: I have also asked for a delay in the game play session (here) and so would appreciate a timely ruling in this matter.
 
Did you really have to do this on the Fourth...? ;)

This is really a confusing point of law, because as I see it, there are two issues. The first issue is whether the title of the thread, the question in the box immediately on top of the poll options, or the question in the text of the first post takes precedence, because the OP does in fact specify the Keshik. In other words: Do we trust our citizens to read the OP before making the vote? I think the answer is yes, though no doubt when the time comes to actually issue a ruling, I will enter a warning into the decision to ensure that future polls are not so ambiguous.

The second issue is whether the votes should be invalidated on account of Dave_Shack's uncharacteristically poor choice of words in describing that was being voted on. While at first this seems like semantic nitpicking, it is possible that some voters expect that the Keshik will, rather than might, kill the Longbowman, thus providing grounds for invalidation.

I will not, of course, hand down a ruling until the remainder of the Court has seen the case. Nor am I unwilling to ultimately decide that the case has no merit...I just know that ori, at least, is not going to be online today (I wouldn't be either, but for a few bizarre occurrences), and I think it best to have his opinion, as well.

donsig, I agree to grant the stay of gameplay pending the resolution of this matter, though I'm not sure that it will matter.
 
I would like the judiciary to review the Kill the longbow poll for invalidation and or interpretation of its results.

Specifically, I think this poll should be invalidated because killing the longbow is not something that can be guaranteed, especially by one unit. (The poll specifies the available full-strength keshik.) An instruction to attack the longbow is valid but one to kill the longbow is not.

Now, if the court decides that in the context of this poll that kill means attack and upholds the validity of the poll I further request a ruling on what exactly it is that is required by the poll. Specifically, does the poll require just an attack by the the available full-strength keshik or must other available units also attack the longbow in an effort to kill it? Finally, who is (or is not) allowed to post any required instructions pertaining to this poll if its validity is upheld?

Thank you,
donsig
a concerned citizen

Edit: I have also asked for a delay in the game play session (here) and so would appreciate a timely ruling in this matter.

You know what he meant with the poll, He meant should we send the available full-strength keshik to attack and hopefully kill the longbow outside berlin.

Finally, who is (or is not) allowed to post any required instructions pertaining to this poll if its validity is upheld?

thats a real question, lets have a judical review.
 
Frankly, I do not have a problem with the said poll itself.

Poll Question said:
Kill the Longbow?

is not the best choice of words, but people should understand that it means "attack", also the OP for this poll specifies the way of attacking the Longbow:

Should we immediately send the available full-strength keshik to kill the longbow outside Berlin?

Yes
No
Abstain

This poll will be open 3 days or until the next play session, whichever comes first.

Link to discussion thread.

Thus this poll asks "Should we immediately send the available full-strength keshik to kill the longbow outside Berlin?" Yes/No/Abstain
The result (unless there is tie) should be simple and the DP will get the instruction accordingly "Attack the Longbow with the Keshik immediately / Don't attack the Longbow with the Keshik".
So regarding the question whether this poll is invalid without looking at the ensuing discussion: I'd say no it is not.
That said: I do not like the discussion about how to interpret the poll in the poll thread:
Any tactical move which results in the longbow's death prior to the current EOT is acceptable. Any move which allows the longbow a path to the city at EOT is not acceptable. A poll's originator is free to issue binding instructions which implement the poll's result, and such instructions would overrule any other instructions on the same subject.
Here the poll's originator tries to rephrase his OP and thus the poll question:
"Should we attack the Longbow immediately?" is NOT "Should we attack the Longbow with the Keshik immediately" I don't bother to quote the rest of the discussion but in effect this lead to a dispute on who has the right to interpret a badly worded poll - or in other words: If the poll question and the poll OP are not identical and can be interpreted differently, which one takes precedent?

This should be reviewed by this court
Spoiler for lack of... :
a citizen's initiative that defines what is a good poll...
.

But first to donsig's other request: this is simple (and not simple ;) ) the Playing the Save Act clearly states that a citizen may issue a directive pertaining to a completed initiative. The Constitution clearly states that such an initiative supersedes all other decisions by anyone (aka Officials ;) ).
Now neither of them limits the power of issuing directives derived from a poll to the citizen who posted the poll. Thus any citizen can post directives and should those directives be in conflict with each other they may call for a judicial review of those different interpretations of a poll result.

Now for my view on interpreting a poll question:
A poll question often is an abridged and/or paraphrased form of the question put forward in the OP for a poll. Forms like "Do you agree with this and that in the OP?" are easy, since they do not open other ways of interpreting a poll. In the case of the poll in question this is not as easy, since "kill the longbow" can be achieved in different ways, while "attack the longbow with the healthy keshik immediately" cannot. If asked what an affirmative poll result would be, I would argue that the poll clearly states that:

The Longbow is to be attacked with the healthy keshik immediately. NOT the Longbow is to be killed by any means and the keshik is just an example on how to do this.
(Thus I think the poll poster posted a bad poll in content - but that is up to the citizens to decide).

If on the other hand I had to rule on what a negative result would mean, Id still say:

Do use the healthy keshik immediately to attack the Longbow. NOT do not attempt to kill the Longbow by any other means.

In conclusion:
1) The poll in question is badly phrased, but the poll question and the accompanying OP give a clear, simple and fair choice in a very specific question. Thus I would deem the poll valid.
2) The Rules of this Demogame are clear on who can post instructions pertaining to this poll: Any citizen can.
3) If a poll question and a poll OP are worded in a way that allows conflicting interpretations between them, the OP should take precedence
Spoiler Disclaimer :
I would uphold 3) only if the OP has not been significantly edited after posting the poll - in fact the fact that only mods can alter a poll question is a very valid argument for the poll question and not the OP taking precedence, but I am inclined otherwise.


ceterum censeo: we need a binding ruling by the citizens on what is and/or is not a valid poll ;)

Spoiler one more thing... :

Anyway we haven't had many serious legal problems since "Naming-Gate", so your job shouldn't be too hard.
@dutchfire: don't make soothsaying your profession :p
 
@dutchfire: don't make soothsaying your profession

That has been noted, I leave for a week and there's a dozen polls waiting for me, including some "dubious" ones.
 
The Justices have posted their views on the longbow poll, but there is an indefinite stay of play until it is ruled on. Perhaps this can be finished off?

None of my esteemed colleagues has deemed the said poll to be invalid and now that it has closed, the time specified for invalidation has lapsed.
I would therefore argue that this part of the review has been concluded by the court not taking any action. Thus this court deemed the said poll valid.
I do not believe that the TC should be stayed any longer.

With regards to the rest of the review:
I vote for affirming the rules set down by the Playing the Save Act, namely that any citizen may issue an order pertaining to the results of a valid poll.
I vote for affirming the precedence of the (unedited) OP over the poll question, thus the poll in question requires the DP to
immediately send the available full-strength keshik to kill the longbow outside Berlin

I ask my esteemed colleagues to post their views on this and ask the Chief Justice to lift the stay on the current TC.
 
I definitely vote to lift the stay.

I believe that since the question of invalidation is moot, the Court does not need to actually rule on this matter.
 
I definitely vote to lift the stay.

I believe that since the question of invalidation is moot, the Court does not need to actually rule on this matter.

Now, if the court decides that in the context of this poll that kill means attack and upholds the validity of the poll I further request a ruling on what exactly it is that is required by the poll. Specifically, does the poll require just an attack by the the available full-strength keshik or must other available units also attack the longbow in an effort to kill it? Finally, who is (or is not) allowed to post any required instructions pertaining to this poll if its validity is upheld?
Since the request for a review specifically asked about
a) who may issue an instruction regarding this poll
and
b) how this poll should be interpreted

I would argue that we should still rule on this even if only to clarify matters for future polls...
 
Our current DP recently moved a keshik outside of the turnchat and learned the correct % chance of winning versus the longbow. Due to this being against the rules, the mod Dave Shack (not the citizen) removed the post so as not to contaminate the game. Unfortunately, it appears to have already happened.

I therefore bring it before the courts the request, that the move that Joe Harker made with the Keshik be made mandatory as his first move when playing his turnchat. This will make it so that any information we have already learned not contaminate the game any further, as it appears it already has.

I am not seeking legal action against citizen Joe Harker. I am merely seeking that his move be forced upon us.

Thank you,
citizen Methos

Edit: I apologize that I cannot link the post, as it has been removed by a mod. There are currently many other posts that are based off of that information throughout several threads.
 
Yes, Joe Harker is a good man, and should not be punished.
Knowing the exact odds, we would have learned in a turnchat anyways.
 
IMO this issue has been solved, there has been NO spoiler information, everything could have been learned in world builder too.
 
everything could have been learned in world builder too.

You are correct, but the problem is, it wasn't. During the discussion and poll no one attempted to research it using WB. It wasn't until after the poll was closed and illegal actions were taken that the information was learned. Now that it has come out this information was learned illegally, players are seeking legal ways to learn it. This isn't even legal in a court of law (at least here in the US).

We're already seeing players seeking alternative moves even though they go against a binding poll that was recently made.

Let us let our courts decide.
 
I suggest setting up a new poll, undoing the infamous longbowman poll.
 
Top Bottom