Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
that wouldnt be possible, the Code of Laws cannot override the Constitution... The constitution would have to be amendedCivlord said:
DG7JR8 - A Discussion on Capturing Cities
- Thread starter ravensfire
- Start date
greekguy said:
If I were afraid of a challenge would I be trying to challenge the "establishment"? This whole thread is a waste of time because you all are going to be unwilling to be open minded anyway.
No, I want flexibility. Unlike some other masochists, I'm not interested in losing. If we can win strictly by the variant then fine, but if it goes south then we should be able to change our approach. I think we'll cruise no matter what we do -- it's the principle of being flexible, not any expectation that we'll actually need to use it.
Let me put this another way. I'm against extremes and in favor of middle positions.
Civlord
King
But we could ammend it, couldn't we
? If not, then dummy Civlord will shut up.Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
yes we couldCivlord said:But we could ammend it, couldn't we
I'm not sure if I personally would want to however
Donovan Zoi
The Return
DaveShack said:
In order to change our approach, this must be done through our system of law. If you feel strongly enough about this, then you should work toward an amendment that mirrors your goals.
I am being premature, as the Judiciary hasn't even ruled on this matter yet. However, there is a pretty strong consensus that the flexibility you want does not exist under our current law. And no amount of altruistic prose is going to change that.
We are discussing the law as written. Once the Judiciary makes its determination, we can then discuss possible changes.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
hehe "no amount of altruistic prose" haha old Donovan, you hit the nail there, "altruistic prose", "no amount", hehehe, really entertaining that one
Donovan Zoi said:
Unfortunately, 1/3 of the people here (really 1/3 of those voting) can block any change. There are way too many people who wanted a strict 5CC to ever have a chance to amend it.
We're going to be in pretty bad shape if the French really are after Augean Stables. If our hoplite loses we're in a world of hurt, because once we retake it, technically it's our one "capture from the French". Too many people are more concerned about getting out a dictionary and using the definitions of the words in the law instead of taking a common sense approach.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Nice discussion we're having here, one that's actually bringing up some good scenarios. I'm going to expand the questions for this Judicial Review, in hopes of making this JR fairly comprehensive.
Questions for the Judiciary to answer:
1) How should Article C of the Constitution be interpreted - 1 city per civ, or 7 cities total, from any combination of civs?
2) Does recapturing a city we built count as taking a city from a civ?
3) May we abandon a city from a civ to take another city from that civ?
4) 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?
5) 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)?
I think that's all the major questions from the discussion - if there are any others, please let me know and I'll consider adding them.
Justices, my apologies for increasing the number of questions, but I'd rather we handle as much as we can on this Article in one shot.
Thank you,
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
Questions for the Judiciary to answer:
1) How should Article C of the Constitution be interpreted - 1 city per civ, or 7 cities total, from any combination of civs?
2) Does recapturing a city we built count as taking a city from a civ?
3) May we abandon a city from a civ to take another city from that civ?
4) 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?
5) 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)?
I think that's all the major questions from the discussion - if there are any others, please let me know and I'll consider adding them.
Justices, my apologies for increasing the number of questions, but I'd rather we handle as much as we can on this Article in one shot.
Thank you,
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
After much deliberation, and a general petering-out of the relevant discussion over the course of several hours, I feel it is time to make my ruling. Here it is. For those without the time to wade through my arguments to find out the rulings, a summary of my stances is posted below.
1) How should Article C of the Constitution be interpreted - 1 city per civ, or 7 cities total, from any combination of civs?
Article C states, In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. According to the letter of the law, we may take only one city from each civilization. There is no reason to believe that the intent of this law is any different than its text, which is very clear on this particular issue. Therefore, my decision is that only one city may be taken per civilization, and that taking more than one city that originated with any single civ is illegal.
2) Does recapturing a city we built count as taking a city from a civ?
Ill quote Article C in full this time around. It states, 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. My ruling in this case is that recapturing a city we built does not count as taking a city from another civ. My reasoning is threefold. First, the second sentence of Article C begins with in addition, implying that the five cities mentioned in the first sentence do not count in that one city per foreign civ limit. Second, Article C mentions that only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken. A city built by us is not a city from a foreign civilization, but is instead one of our five cities, as it originated with us, despite the fact that it may have temporarily been under foreign control. And finally, Ill make a practical argument that not allowing us to retake our own city would cripple preexisting game progress and is clearly not be the intent of this Constitutional article. Even a strict 5CC would permit the recapture of a city originally founded by the player, and to my knowledge there was no discussion of this when the Constitution was written, thus showing no intent to keep us from recapturing our own cities.
3) May we abandon a city from a civ to take another city from that civ?
My ruling here is that we may not abandon a city from a rival civ to take another one. Quoting the second sentence of Article C yet again, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. Capturing a second city from the same civ would violate this article. The fact that we wouldnt be holding both cities in the same time frame is irrelevant: it is still the capture of a second city.
4) 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?
We absolutely can recapture that same city. Article C prevents us from taking two or more cities from the same civilization, not taking the same city twice. However, after capturing a city, we may not capture and hold any other city from that same civilization. If we did that, we would have captured without razing immediately two cities from the same rival, which would violate Article C. Again, the time frame in which the two cities are captured would be irrelevant.
5) 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)?
This one is a fairly tough question. Ill begin my response in a rather typical (by this point) manner, by quoting the second sentence of Article C. According to it, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. When I looked at this article, its word order caught my eye. It states that only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken, not that only one city may be taken from each foreign civilization. Theres more to this than may meet the eye at first. Through this word order, it implies that the citys identity, for the purposes of the one city per civ limit, is with its founder (the civ it is from), not with its most recent occupier. If the law was intended to limit us to taking one city directly from each foreign civilization, instead of taking one city that originated with each foreign civilization, it would have been worded in the manner mentioned above (namely, only one city may be taken from each foreign civilization). Therefore, I rule that we would have taken the city from B (the founder), not A (the most recent occupier). This ruling has several implications. We may not, under this decision, have our city-control limit reduced by one for every civilization that falls before we have a chance to capture a city. If Persia falls before we capture one of its cities, we can still take one from another rival at a later date. Additionally, we will have to be careful during war not to take two cities that originated with the same civilization, despite the fact that they may have come from different civs at the moment of capture.
So, in summary:
1. We may have only 1 city per civ, not 7 cities regardless of origin.
2. No, we may recapture our former cities without counting toward the limit.
3. No, we may not abandon a city and then take another city from the same civ.
4. Yes, we may capture the same foreign city more than once, but we may not capture any other city from the same civ.
5. The city comes from civ B (original founder), not civ A (the civ that last occupied the city).
The original copy of this ruling can be found in the judicial thread.
1) How should Article C of the Constitution be interpreted - 1 city per civ, or 7 cities total, from any combination of civs?
Article C states, In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. According to the letter of the law, we may take only one city from each civilization. There is no reason to believe that the intent of this law is any different than its text, which is very clear on this particular issue. Therefore, my decision is that only one city may be taken per civilization, and that taking more than one city that originated with any single civ is illegal.
2) Does recapturing a city we built count as taking a city from a civ?
Ill quote Article C in full this time around. It states, 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. My ruling in this case is that recapturing a city we built does not count as taking a city from another civ. My reasoning is threefold. First, the second sentence of Article C begins with in addition, implying that the five cities mentioned in the first sentence do not count in that one city per foreign civ limit. Second, Article C mentions that only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken. A city built by us is not a city from a foreign civilization, but is instead one of our five cities, as it originated with us, despite the fact that it may have temporarily been under foreign control. And finally, Ill make a practical argument that not allowing us to retake our own city would cripple preexisting game progress and is clearly not be the intent of this Constitutional article. Even a strict 5CC would permit the recapture of a city originally founded by the player, and to my knowledge there was no discussion of this when the Constitution was written, thus showing no intent to keep us from recapturing our own cities.
3) May we abandon a city from a civ to take another city from that civ?
My ruling here is that we may not abandon a city from a rival civ to take another one. Quoting the second sentence of Article C yet again, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. Capturing a second city from the same civ would violate this article. The fact that we wouldnt be holding both cities in the same time frame is irrelevant: it is still the capture of a second city.
4) 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?
We absolutely can recapture that same city. Article C prevents us from taking two or more cities from the same civilization, not taking the same city twice. However, after capturing a city, we may not capture and hold any other city from that same civilization. If we did that, we would have captured without razing immediately two cities from the same rival, which would violate Article C. Again, the time frame in which the two cities are captured would be irrelevant.
5) 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)?
This one is a fairly tough question. Ill begin my response in a rather typical (by this point) manner, by quoting the second sentence of Article C. According to it, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. When I looked at this article, its word order caught my eye. It states that only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken, not that only one city may be taken from each foreign civilization. Theres more to this than may meet the eye at first. Through this word order, it implies that the citys identity, for the purposes of the one city per civ limit, is with its founder (the civ it is from), not with its most recent occupier. If the law was intended to limit us to taking one city directly from each foreign civilization, instead of taking one city that originated with each foreign civilization, it would have been worded in the manner mentioned above (namely, only one city may be taken from each foreign civilization). Therefore, I rule that we would have taken the city from B (the founder), not A (the most recent occupier). This ruling has several implications. We may not, under this decision, have our city-control limit reduced by one for every civilization that falls before we have a chance to capture a city. If Persia falls before we capture one of its cities, we can still take one from another rival at a later date. Additionally, we will have to be careful during war not to take two cities that originated with the same civilization, despite the fact that they may have come from different civs at the moment of capture.
So, in summary:
1. We may have only 1 city per civ, not 7 cities regardless of origin.
2. No, we may recapture our former cities without counting toward the limit.
3. No, we may not abandon a city and then take another city from the same civ.
4. Yes, we may capture the same foreign city more than once, but we may not capture any other city from the same civ.
5. The city comes from civ B (original founder), not civ A (the civ that last occupied the city).
The original copy of this ruling can be found in the judicial thread.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
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.
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:
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
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.
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:
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
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Thanks to all for this discussion!
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
