Judicial Discussion JR1 CoL Ratification Poll legality

[Black_Hole]

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



What is exactly what has happened, in hindsight.

What I said was that voting in a non binding poll wouldn't be of use, because the losing side could still try to ratify their CoL, and we would have two CoLs trying to be ratified. Binding polls actually force people to stuff, opinion polls don't do so as strongly

 

[Blkbird]

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

In my opinion, YES, except when the poll is clearly impossible to be non-binding. As an example, an election poll or a Constitution amendment poll is automatically binding without explicitly saying so because they obviously cannot be non-binding. As long as a poll could be non-binding, it is implicitly non-binding unless explictly stated otherwise. The principle here is that no person or decision should have power over others which are not explictly granted to him/her/it.

 

[Black_Hole]

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

I think those two links could be considered "Mandate", because they were posted by elected officials(founding fathers)

 

[Black_Hole]

In my opinion, YES, except when the poll is clearly impossible to be non-binding. As an example, an election poll or a Constitution amendment poll is automatically binding without explicitly saying so because they obviously cannot be non-binding. As long as a poll could be non-binding, it is implicitly non-binding unless explictly stated otherwise. The principle here is that no person or decision should have power over others which are not explictly granted to him/her/it.

Well then we could take back practically every decision from past DGs, we have been violating the WOTP all of this...
Also who gets to decide when is "is clearly impossible to be non-binding."? This is definetly an opinion...

If you read the constitution:

By Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.

According to that, any poll posted by an official of that department is binding, I am not reading anything that says the first post must have the words "This Poll Is Binding"

 

[Blkbird]

What I said was that voting in a non binding poll wouldn't be of use, because the losing side could still try to ratify their CoL, and we would have two CoLs trying to be ratified.

Constitutionally that wouldn't be a problem. The CoL getting ratified first is in effect, and would most probably then make the second ratification illegal.

 

[Blkbird]

If you read the constitution:

By Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.

According to that, any poll posted by an official of that department is binding,"

That is an obviously wrong interpretation. That paragraph says a poll is a Referendum if it is: (1) official AND (2) binding. There is nothing suggesting a causality between "official" and "binding", they are two parallel attributes to the same subject ("poll").

If I say, "I'm getting a ride in form of a big, black limo", would that imply all big limos were black???

 

[donsig]

Another question (or two) from the bench:

Are Founding Fathers considered officials? If so, under what circumstances should polls posted by Founding Fathers be considered referendums?

 

[Black_Hole]

Another question (or two) from the bench:

Are Founding Fathers considered officials? If so, under what circumstances should polls posted by Founding Fathers be considered referendums?

I would say so, they were elected in the following polls:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=136312
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=136310

They should be considered referendums when the poll deals with pregame options, their official title is "Pre Game Council"

 

[Blkbird]

I would also say that members of the Pregame Council are in fact officials.

A poll posted by one of them should be considered a Referum if (and only if):

1. It's posted after the ratification of the Constitution (before that "Referendum" is undefined); AND
2. The poll is regarding "pregame organization and planning", as specified in the polls through which the Pregame Counsil is elected; AND
3. The poll is binding (the creteria for which is obviously disputed between us).

 

[Blkbird]

I'd like to add that there is nothing preventing an official from posting non-binding opinion polls dealing with subjects within the authority of his office. And there *shouldn't* be anything to prevent that, either.

Therefore, a poll by an official dealing with subjects of his office is by far not automatically a Referendum.

 

[Black_Hole]

I would also say that members of the Pregame Council are in fact officials.

A poll posted by one of them should be considered a Referum if (and only if):

1. It's posted after the ratification of the Constitution (before that "Referendum" is undefined); AND
2. The poll is regarding "pregame organization and planning", as specified in the polls through which the Pregame Counsil is elected; AND
3. The poll is binding (the creteria for which is obviously disputed between us).

Well it seems your main argument is that a poll has to specify it is binding to be binding, so I will argue against that point.

First, lets look at the following polls (in spoiler):

Spoiler :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150190
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150219
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150066
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150068
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149895
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149464
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149941
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149894
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149952
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149467

These are all of the enviroment polls, none of them say "This Poll is Binding", so I guess none of these are binding and we must redo all these polls.

And the following links are examples of binding polls in the Civ3 DG, that don't say "This poll is binding"

Spoiler :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=149174
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148509
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=147739
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=147323
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142095
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137947
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=139380
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=132840

And those polls were just on the first page...

The point I am making, 90% of binding polls have never said "This Poll is Binding", why are we changing this now?

 

[DaveShack]

This review seems to come down to a tradeoff between two principles.

• We value fairness
• In the face of adversity we don't go back for "do-overs"

Suppose we were in the middle of the game, and were discussing which of several possible enemies to go to war against. A binding poll is held between Greece and France, with Greece winning the honor of being our next victim by a narrow margin. A subsequent poll to declare war wins by a huge margin, which of course isn't a big surprise. We play a few turns and end the session. Then the unthinkable is revealed, someone with a pathological need to beat up on Alex has rigged the "which victim" poll, and we're at war with the wrong enemy.

Do we:

• Carry on the game, possibly with some wailing and gnashing of teeth that we really wanted to stick it to Napoleon this time?
• Drop everything and go back to the save before we declared war, plan for a different war, rerun the war declaration poll, and replay the turns?

But we haven't played any turns, you might say? Is this the same thing or different? This is the dilemma I face in trying to rule on this case.

 

[Black_Hole]

This review seems to come down to a tradeoff between two principles.

• We value fairness
• In the face of adversity we don't go back for "do-overs"

Suppose we were in the middle of the game, and were discussing which of several possible enemies to go to war against. A binding poll is held between Greece and France, with Greece winning the honor of being our next victim by a narrow margin. A subsequent poll to declare war wins by a huge margin, which of course isn't a big surprise. We play a few turns and end the session. Then the unthinkable is revealed, someone with a pathological need to beat up on Alex has rigged the "which victim" poll, and we're at war with the wrong enemy.

Do we:

• Carry on the game, possibly with some wailing and gnashing of teeth that we really wanted to stick it to Napoleon this time?
• Drop everything and go back to the save before we declared war, plan for a different war, rerun the war declaration poll, and replay the turns?

But we haven't played any turns, you might say? Is this the same thing or different? This is the dilemma I face in trying to rule on this case.

I thought you weren't ruling on those decisions, but on whether the CoL is actually ratified

 

[Blkbird]

These are all of the enviroment polls, none of them say "This Poll is Binding", so I guess none of these are binding and we must redo all these polls.

These poll are in fact all non-binding, in my opinion. However, I don't understand how you jumped to the conclusion that "we must redo all these polls" at all.

Non-binding polls still have relevance because they are one kind of decision making process, as defined by the Constitution. They're significant as long as not overruled by a nothing decision of higher priority, again as defined by the Consitution.

 

[Black_Hole]

These poll are in fact all non-binding, in my opinion. However, I don't understand how you jumped to the conclusion that "we must redo all these polls" at all.

Non-binding polls still have relevance because they are one kind of decision making process, as defined by the Constitution. They're significant as long as not overruled by a nothing decision of higher priority, again as defined by the Consitution.

What I am trying to point out, is there polls were all considered binding and always have been

 

[Swissempire]

Daveshack, that is a very good metaphor( not the right word for it, maybe situation). I say that we must keep going in that situation, and that we cannot turn back in the face of adversity. While it is unfortunate that the polls were rigged(in our game and your situation), we have already begun down the path, engaging in war, or in the real case, holding elctions and getting everyhting ready for the demogame. We shouldn't just drop everything and turn back!

Also since the people overwhelmingly voted for war, they may not have originally liked the choice of enemies(or governemnt systems) but they did approve the outcome and set it into motion(ratifing the code of Laws), and assuming we were winning the war in your situation, you can draw a direct parrall to our current situation.

Why illegally get rid of a good thing for somehting else that may/may not be better. Why get rid of the conquered cities(elected officials)? Who knows if you get trounced by france or not. Then if you do get trounced to you go back to the older save? This cowards way out opens up a whole new can of worms!

 

[Blkbird]

I thought you weren't ruling on those decisions, but on where the CoL is actually ratified

I have to agree with him, DS. Even though your example seems fully equivalant to our current situation, your question is the wrong one, in my opinion. Something cannot be illegal just because declaring it legal would be bad for the game - and vice versa. As I've said before, justice knows no price.

Besides, we have, at any time, the final tool of Constitution/CoL amendment - in extreme case a retrospective amendment. As far as I know, it is possible for most justice systems to retrospectively declare an action legal (a pardon, if you will). Of course the reverse - retrospectively declaring an action illegal - is not possible in any sane justice system.

 

[Black_Hole]

Daveshack, that is a very good metaphor( not the right word for it, maybe situation). I say that we must keep going in that situation, and that we cannot turn back in the face of adversity. While it is unfortunate that the polls were rigged(in our game and your situation), we have already begun down the path, engaging in war, or in the real case, holding elctions and getting everyhting ready for the demogame. We shouldn't just drop everything and turn back!

Also since the people overwhelmingly voted for war, they may not have originally liked the choice of enemies(or governemnt systems) but they did approve the outcome and set it into motion(ratifing the code of Laws), and assuming we were winning the war in your situation, you can draw a direct parrall to our current situation.

Why illegally get rid of a good thing for somehting else that may/may not be better. Why get rid of the conquered cities(elected officials)? Who knows if you get trounced by france or not. Then if you do get trounced to you go back to the older save? This cowards way out opens up a whole new can of worms!

this discussion is about the constitutionality of the CoL ratifacation

 

[Blkbird]

What I am trying to point out, is there polls were all considered binding and always have been

Do you have any evidance that those polls "were all considered binding" or is that just your personal impression?

 

[Black_Hole]

Do you have any evidance that those polls "were all considered binding" or is that just your personal impression?

For one thing, whenever someone didn't want a poll to be binding, they either stated: "This poll is non binding" or "This poll is informational only"

Second lets talk about the defintion of "binding", in my opinion it means elected officials are forced to follow them, in the past informational polls would guide the elected official but they wouldn't be forced to follow them