Judicial Discussion JR1 CoL Ratification Poll legality

[Blkbird]

It was posted by an official responsible for the area covered by the poll.

You were an official back then? By what authority?

 

[ravensfire]

You were an official back then? By what authority?

He was chosen as a Founding Father by a poll of all citizens.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Question for the citizens:

The ruleset presented for ratification was based on two polls later found to be fraudulent. Does this matter?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[Blkbird]

He was chosen as a Founding Father by a poll of all citizens.

I cannot find that poll. Would you care to give me the link?

 

[Blkbird]

The ruleset presented for ratification was based on two polls later found to be fraudulent.

This statement is incorret. The ruleset was not "based on two polls", the acceptance of the ruleset as a CoL draft was. The ruleset itself was based on no polls at all, but a number of discussions.

 

[ravensfire]

This statement is incorret. The ruleset was not "based on two polls", the acceptance of the ruleset as a CoL draft was. The ruleset itself was based on no polls at all, but a number of discussions.

And those discussions, the final tweaking of the Tri into its final form, were based entirely on the result of two polls.

Poll 1 - tie between Tri and Flex (Flex wins with DL accounts removed)
Poll 2 - Reolves tie, Flex wins with DL accounts removed.

You can do a quick search in the poll for the Founding Father polls - there should be two of them. When you are looking, can you find a single poll where an explicit preference for Triumverate over Flex was the final result?

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Let's start by looking at government style poll #1, which is copied into post #17 in this thread.

1. Was this a binding poll?
2. If it was binding, what does it say to do, specifically?
3. Given the apparent outcome (tied), what was the correct action to take at that time?

 

[Blkbird]

Let's start by looking at government style poll #1, which is copied into post #17 in this thread.

1. Was this a binding poll?
2. If it was binding, what does it say to do, specifically?
3. Given the apparent outcome (tied), what was the correct action to take at that time?

In my opinion, that poll was not binding as it does not only lack the specification of being binding, it increases the impression of non-bindingness by explicitly saying the CoL is *not* being ratified by it.

 

[DaveShack]

We don't want to rush this case, nor do we want to hold it up if we have enough information.

Each Justice should post a notice in this thread when sufficient information has been gathered to move to a ruling.

 

[ravensfire]

Mr. Chief Justice,

I'd like at least one more day to allow for possible discussion. There's only a few people debating in this thread, which concerns me as this decision will likely determine the course for the immediate future.

Also, as an advisory, I will also be considering points made in the thread Rik created on this matter.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[Swissempire]

being a citizien, i will answer Ravenfires question. I tdoen't matter because the CoL was still ratified. While mostg of the pubnlic has turned out to support the Flexible, the pubvlic still ratified a binding CoL that made the Tri the law of the land. Then after that they were happy under it and content, holding elections and getting ready for the game. After that the scandal appeared and out of the woodwork came those who would have us forget the law because they don't like it. The tri worked, has worked, and will continue to work.

 

[DaveShack]

I agree with the principle of using comments from Rik's thread, and information from other sources as well. Another day won't kill us at this point.

 

[Black_Hole]

Question for the citizens:

The ruleset presented for ratification was based on two polls later found to be fraudulent. Does this matter?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

This is a very strong point, the ratifacation was based on two other 2 binding polls
Now, that I have been thinking about this, I am going to change my opinion... I don't think the ratification was legal, because first offthe preceeding polls were binding...

Second 48 hours did not pass between the mock poll and the posted poll:
Check this link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149494&page=2
The mock poll was up for 21 hours before the actual poll, which going by the CoL's standards isn't legal, but do the CoL standards have to be followed in its ratifacation? This can be argued for awhile, I think so because otherwise there are no requirements for its ratification

 

[Blkbird]

I don't think the ratification was legal, because first offthe preceeding polls were binding...

The question if those polls were binding has been asked by DS and answer by me (as a citizen) negatively (see above). If you would answer to it positively, you need to present some evidence and/or arguments why they were in fact binding.

 

[Black_Hole]

The question if those polls were binding has been asked by DS and answer by me (as a citizen) negatively (see above). If you would answer to it positively, you need to present some evidence and/or arguments why they were in fact binding.

and ravensfire already has, they were posted by an official responsible for that area, which was a founding father, if it were posted by a non founding father, it would not be binding

just because it doesn't ratify the CoL doesn't mean it can't be binding, which is your argument...it binds us to work on the winning selection instead of the other one... If it wasn't binding why would we have voted on it? If it was an opinion poll, it holds little power. The losing side could have posted a ratifiacation for the losing one then

 

[ravensfire]

In my opinion, that poll was not binding as it does not only lack the specification of being binding, it increases the impression of non-bindingness by explicitly saying the CoL is *not* being ratified by it.

So for a poll to be binding, it must explicitly state that it is not binding?

What is required for a poll to be binding?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[ravensfire]

In my opinion, that poll was not binding as it does not only lack the specification of being binding, it increases the impression of non-bindingness by explicitly saying the CoL is *not* being ratified by it.

So for a poll to be binding, it must explicitly state that it is binding?

What is required for a poll to be binding?

To be more specific to this situation, is any poll that decides between two approaches that will require additional work to be finalized a binding poll?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[Black_Hole]

In my opinion, that poll was not binding as it does not only lack the specification of being binding, it increases the impression of non-bindingness by explicitly saying the CoL is *not* being ratified by it.

To add to ravensfire's argument:
The actual ratificaation poll, did not state it was binding... it said it was to ratify the CoL, but thats the same as saying "This poll is binding"

Plus when was the last time you saw a poll say: "This Poll Is Binding"? I almost never have

 

[ravensfire]

To throw a few more questions out there ...

At the time, the Constitution was in place, so there was a basic framework of law. There were also the general guidelines the Founding Fathers (see here and here for some FF threads) used.

What aspects from those two works should be applied here?

I guess my question is trying to get at one of my personal questions - law versus right versus fun. That's proving to be my big sticking point right now in framing my thoughts.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[Blkbird]

If it wasn't binding why would we have voted on it? If it was an opinion poll, it holds little power.

That's just ridiculous. I wouldn't have vote in polls if they weren't binding?!

The losing side could have posted a ratifiacation for the losing one then

What is exactly what has happened, in hindsight.