Term 1 - Judicial Thread

[Provolution]

Well, in that sense, with the present mandate as poll taker only, I think we could find some polling secretary to do the job equally well. There may well be an anarchic mob, but then people should not work too hard to become elected. If you look on the threads, some energy went into those platforms. If people want to look away from the results of these elections as invalid to the bearing of this game, I would not recommend people to use to much energy on them. Someone should merely state their polling procedures, and the ability to conduct a poll and post the results, plain and simple, no need to look for other qualifications.

[DaveShack]

Provolution, thank you very much for your thoughts on the role of leaders. I have started a new discussion so we can find out how the people really want the game to run. I'd love to see some suggestions on how leaders can follow the WOTP but have more opportunities to promote their position on the issues.

[Sir Donald III]

May it Please the Court!

As your Honors may know, recently, a poll to determine the next city site ended in a tie. The Opinion of the Justices (Ref DG5JR9) was to grant tie-breaking power to the Advisors. Thus, Noldodan was given authority to choose between the tied sites.

However, new circumstances have presented themselves before the Orders could be carried out. The Presence of the Babylonians has set many citizens, myself included, in a state of insecurity.

I, as well as many others, do not want to just march straight to defeat merely because "we have a set of orders from the People." (At this point, Noldo's final answer would not matter much, the People have said South in general. We did not know about the Warrior until after our Settler set out.)

Therefore, I pose these questions before the Justices:

1. Should a significant event (one on the order of stopping a turnchat prematurely) allow for the reconsideration of orders still standing? And, if so, who should do the reconsideration, the appropriate Minister/Governor, the President, the House writ large, the Judiciary, or any combination of the above?

2. If an event occurs that disrupts or threatens to disrupt standing orders (i.e. Enemy Stack approaching City with minimal or no defense which is building improvemetns, Rival Civ founding a city within a Radius 2 of a determined City Sire, etc.) in the middle of a TC, but is not judged significant enough to stop a TC, can the appropriate Minister/Governor and/or Designated Player reconsider/rescind standing orders with a justifiable reason, posted in a relevant place such as the Turnchat thread?


Note: I am not asking if such reconsideration should be mandated. Merely that the option be there in case we need it. I thank their Honors.

Note 2: Actually, I should probably ask first of all if you have standing to answer these. If you don't on the absence of any previous laws, then I'll take this to the House.

[Provolution]

Sir Donald III , you are one of the more sensible people in this forum, as you go by the issue and not the person, so I respect you..

I agree with you 100 %, that we need contingency plans for every turnchat, to enable it to go for a designated set of turns, with virtually all eventualities covered. If the variables are too many, the people must poll conditional parameters for that TC.

In fact, In Daveshacks thread, excellent initiative President, we need to balance out the relation of election, mandate, law, discussion and polls better. Right now the ministerial positions are merely polltakers.

So, what do you think?

[Cyc]

In response to Sir Donald III, I see no mention of a Judicial Review in your post, nor is any Law or rule mentioned. Therefore, I gather you are presenting these questions to the Court in hopes of getting an informal answer. Please keep in mind that this post is exactly that.

1. Should a significant event (one on the order of stopping a turnchat prematurely) allow for the reconsideration of orders still standing? And, if so, who should do the reconsideration, the appropriate Minister/Governor, the President, the House writ large, the Judiciary, or any combination of the above?

To begin with, I can assume that a Turn Chat has been stopped and that is the premise behind this question. The orders in question were the Instructions posted legally for the Turn Chat (t/c) that was stopped. This is the context for which I am answering. As a t/c was stopped, obviously the next t/c to be conducted will be a new one. For this next t/c a Turn Chat Instruction thread must be posted for Leaders enabled to do so, to post Instructions for the DP in. The time in between the Turn Chats warrants reconsideration by all Leaders in light of new and important information. Those Leaders need to divine the WOTP as to whether new or different Instructions should be posted for the next t/c. Reconsideration is always an option anytime the t/c is not in session. Which brings us to your next question.

2. If an event occurs that disrupts or threatens to disrupt standing orders (i.e. Enemy Stack approaching City with minimal or no defense which is building improvemetns, Rival Civ founding a city within a Radius 2 of a determined City Sire, etc.) in the middle of a TC, but is not judged significant enough to stop a TC, can the appropriate Minister/Governor and/or Designated Player reconsider/rescind standing orders with a justifiable reason, posted in a relevant place such as the Turnchat thread?

In this situation we are still in the active t/c session, and you ask if that same real time reconsideration only with "on the fly" implementation is allowed. This is a very tricky question to answer, as you ask about Ministers AND the President/DP. I believe it's common knowledge (or common law ) that Minister's are unable to recind (or change) their posted Instructions during a t/c. They may present advice to the President/DP for situations that fall within their jurisdiction, but they niether demand action or justify such action by the means of their Office.

I have answered this question about the DP before, and still believe my answer to be correct. Regardless of what happens in a t/c, the DP needs to follow the legally posted Instructions in the Turn Chat Instruction (TCI) thread (some people call this the TCIT). It doesn't matter if the Instruction is for a pre-turn move or for something on the 5th turn. Legally posted Instructions need to be followed if gameplay is to continue. That's the key. The DP has the authority to stop the t/c before the 10 turn limit. Anytime a justifiable t/c stopping event occurs, the DP may halt the chat. At this time, my answer to your first quetion would apply (time in between t/cs used for possible new Instructions). But if the DP chooses to go on and proceed taking turns in the t/c, all legally posted Instructions need to be followed. It's this occurance when one (the DP) must tread lightly, as there are consequences for not following legally posted Instructions. Having a CC filed against you when you are Preident is not good resume material . Niether is making a serious mistake due to unforeseen circumstances.

I hope this helps.

[donsig]

Originally Posted by KCCrusader

I'm tending to favor a strict interpretation of what is written right now.

I respectfully ask the justice to re-read article N.

I would also like to point out that our beloved constitution (well, the one we had before the tinkering that was done for DG5) was intentionally written in a general and vague manner to allow flexibility in interpretation. (The idea was to make a document that could be reused demogame after demogame while the lower laws changed from game to game as we saw fit.) It makes no sense to try to strictly interpret something that is vague to begin with!

Frankly, my contempt for this court is almost as much as I had for the term one court last game. Now before you all go beserk I am not talking about the justices. I think you three are doing as best you can under the circumstances. It is a shame though that we started two games in a row with only a partial ruleset in place only to needlessly overwork our judiciary members.

[Sir Donald III]

I thank His Honor for his insight. (I cannot refer to it as an Opinion in this thread because that would require a JR ) I am now glad that I did not specify to have a JR for this because it might have provoked some ill-fated battles over Question 1. Now your insight on Question 2, I may have to think about for a while. It can probably be summed up in one of two sentences:

1. Be ready to Save and Quit at any time, for you know not when the Barbs, (or the Babs,) will pop up from nowhere. Or

2. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

[Black_Hole]

Originally Posted by donsig

I respectfully ask the justice to re-read article N.

I would also like to point out that our beloved constitution (well, the one we had before the tinkering that was done for DG5) was intentionally written in a general and vague manner to allow flexibility in interpretation. (The idea was to make a document that could be reused demogame after demogame while the lower laws changed from game to game as we saw fit.) It makes no sense to try to strictly interpret something that is vague to begin with!

Frankly, my contempt for this court is almost as much as I had for the term one court last game. Now before you all go beserk I am not talking about the justices. I think you three are doing as best you can under the circumstances. It is a shame though that we started two games in a row with only a partial ruleset in place only to needlessly overwork our judiciary members.

i beliebe donsig was right in saying that the constitution should have as little laws as possible, and leave any additional laws in the CoL or something of that such

[Cyc]

Thank you for your comments, Black Hole. I think we can all agree with that point. It is always a goal to have a minmal Constitution, although sometimes that goal is hard to achieve. Right now, we're just trying to get a complete document posted. Once that is done, we can refine it until we get our desired product. Also, as the CoL grows in content, it will help us in clarifying what goes where.

[DaveShack]

With respect to contingency plans for changes in circumstances during the chat, the preferred way to handle this is to have the instructions be general in nature.

Some examples would be "Attack city name using the available tactics and units best suited for this mission" or "Explore generally to the west. Specific moves and direction changes at DP discretion depending on what is uncovered". The instructions used by the Domestic Minister in setting sliders are also a prime example, "use the lowest percentage which results in the minimum turns of research, without going negative gpt."

We also get into conditional instructions when responding to demands "If Babylon asks for less than 10g, give it to them. If they ask for a tech or anything valued more than 10g, refuse."

Stopping is often the best way when conditions change during a chat, though some would argue we should just take some risks and play on.

[Cyc]

As a citizen, I present this proposed poll for an Amendment to the Code of Laws to the Court for Judicial Review. I have prematurely posted the poll and would appreciate any expiditing possible. Thank you.

Proposed Poll for an Amendment to the Code of Laws.

[Cyc]

Cyc, as a citizen has presented a proposed poll for an Amendment to the Code of Laws to this court for Judicial Review. This Judicial Review as been posted in post #3 of this thread as DG5JR10.

[Cyc]

DG5JR10

In reviewing this Proposed Poll, I as Chief Justice, find that it in no way conflicts with existing law. The Legislation passes review.

[KCCrusader]

DG5JR10 Requested by: Cyc
Regarding the establishment of CoL

Opinion on DG5JR10: This legislation in no way violates our standing laws, and should move to the ratification process.

[Cyc]

DG5JR5

This Judicial Review still appears as "OPEN" in the list of Reviews before the Court in post #3 of this thread. It is still "OPEN" as this JR was seen as pending due to an Amendment to Article H of the Constitution. This JR was filed during the time when the original Article H had wording that was applicable. The JR reads as such:

DG5JR5
Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review concerning the legality of a Citizen holding two Offices at once by virtue of winning two elections simultaneously. The question wraps around the issue of a Candidate running for more than one Office at a time. If a Candidate wins two elections simultaneously, is this a violation of Article H (posted below).

"May it please the Court, I am petitioning for Judicial Review of the following situation which has arisen. Is it constitutional for a citizen to hold two offices simultaneously, yes or no? The offices in question are Vice-President and Deputy Culture Minister. Article H states:

Article H.  No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership 
            (President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial 
            Governor) simultaneously.

While neither the Deputy position nor the Vice-President are specifically named, it might be considered to be implied, and should the Culture Minister be unable to carry out their duties, the Deputy may then be required to fill that position

Therefore, I feel that a Judicial Review is in order so that we may proceed in a forthright manner."

As an Amendment to Article H has a Judicial Review pending, prior to being polled, the Majority Opinion for this Judicial Review may be delayed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Because of the passage of the Amendment to Article H, wording for that Article eliminates the possibility of the above mentioned situation from happening. Article H in its current form is posted below:

Article H.
              No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership 
              (President, Vice-President, Department Leader, 
              Judiciary, Provincial Governor, Deputy) simultaneously,
              nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
              commencement of the general election.

Because of the change in legislation, this Judicial Review is closed.

[KCCrusader]

Originally Posted by Cyc

Because of the passage of the Amendment to Article H, wording for that Article eliminates the possibility of the above mentioned situation from happening. Article H in its current form is posted below:

Article H.
              No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership 
              (President, Vice-President, Department Leader, 
              Judiciary, Provincial Governor, Deputy) simultaneously,
              nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
              commencement of the general election.

Because of the change in legislation, this Judicial Review is closed.

This won't be enforced until the next term I imagine since the law did not specifically name the deputy or VP positions when the election took place.

[Immortal]

DG5JR10
Requested by:cyc

Review: CoL

Opinion: In reviewing this Proposed Poll, I find that it in no way conflicts with existing law. The Legislation passes review, although I may have reservations about the COL later after I give it some longer thought, it is legal.

Judge Advocate 13(Happy Friday Everyone)/08/04

[Provolution]

Dear Judicial Leaders

I am sorry to inform that our beloved Deputy of Foreign Affairs, Bootstoots San, has been MIA for more than a week. Search parties could not find his whereabouts.
I will therefore humbly ask the Judiciary to promote my loyal Foreign Assistant Blackheart to become the new Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Please PM both of us to inform on the decision.

Yours sincerely
Provolution

[Black_Hole]

Originally Posted by Provolution

Dear Judicial Leaders

I am sorry to inform that our beloved Deputy of Foreign Affairs, Bootstoots San, has been MIA for more than a week. Search parties could not find his whereabouts.
I will therefore humbly ask the Judiciary to promote my loyal Foreign Assistant Blackheart to become the new Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Please PM both of us to inform on the decision.

Yours sincerely
Provolution

4 Problems Provulation:

1. Article G never passed(http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94833)
2. Bootstots may not be considered an elected offical(since he is a deputy)
3. You say it has been only 1 week(must be 2)
4. Unfortunately blackheart wouldn't become the new deputy, unless u get to decide who the new deputy(it may be up to the citizens, i dont know)

of course problems 2-4 depend on article g which hasnt passed...

[Provolution]

Well negative again Mr blackhole, who purposedly misspelled my name

WEll, he has been gone for 2 weeks now, and we may well deputize our deputy if the runner up does not show up. We are not going to have subsidary mid term elections anyways, and Blackheart knows what the Dept has been doing. In fact, the Judiciary is working on this issue right now. As a citizen, you sould rest your little head and let the Judicary do the process. Well Blackhole, you are about to use up your quota for insults without me getting back...