Judicial Review - Term 1 - Request 1

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Cyc


Funny you should mention that, eyrei. That was my entire approach to this fiasco in the very begining, but everyone else had a different idea. But now we have the election process complete and rules in place to justify the end result. I see no reason to duplicate this whole process over again. The people have spoken.

Well, in my experience, forum-goers love to vote in polls. Let them speak again. I am not going to make a ruling on an issue as convoluted as this in favor or against any player, and I should think that DZ will feel the same way. Starting the entire judicial election over seems the fairest way to resolve this.

 

[Cyc]

I will not be provoked into responding to the personal remarks of people trying to sway this discussion elsewhere. We have totally left the building on this one.

I know declare that arguements are over and that the Judicial Branch will arrange to meet in a chat room to dicuss a determining decision on this matter.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by eyrei


Well, in my experience, forum-goers love to vote in polls. Let them speak again. I am not going to make a ruling on an issue as convoluted as this in favor or against any player, and I should think that DZ will feel the same way. Starting the entire judicial election over seems the fairest way to resolve this.

I can see and appreciate your point of view, eyrei, but the situation is under control. According to our laws, specifically CoS X.1.III stated below:

III. Judicial Discussion
A. The Judiciary shall then meet privately to discuss review
B. The Judiciary shall produce a Majority opinion, and if needed, a
Minority opinion.
C. The Chief Justice shall post both opinions, including the signers
of each, in the Judicial Thread and the Judicial Log.
1. Each Justice should post a confirmatory message which may also
include an explanatory note. Any such note is not part of the official record.
D. All Judicial Reviews are part of COUNTRY_NAME’s body of Law, and may
be used for future decisions unless overridden by future Laws.
__________________________________________________


The decision determeined by the Judiciary will are part of our body of law, and may be used for future decisions (unless overridden by future Laws).

As such any problems like this in the furture can be dealt with appropriately according to our laws. If we start the entire Judicial Election process over now, that would be denying donsig his rights for a Judicial Review according to the law. In allowing this process to come to fruition, we will legally be preventing any futher problems like this from coming about.

 

[eyrei]

From what I can see, that section was not ratified until after the election in question, and therefore should not be applied when adjudicating.

Forgot how much fun this legal wrangling could be.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
I know declare that arguements are over and that the Judicial Branch will arrange to meet in a chat room to dicuss a determining decision on this matter.

I do hope this declaration has some basis in our laws. Will you be announcing the time of the meeting and the expected time the decision will be handed down.

(And will it be before or after DZ comes back with a decision?!? )

 

[Cyc]

eyrei, that section of legislation that you refer to deals with the Judicial Review process, not the election process. Therefore your comment does not make sens.

Please close this thread as requested by the Judicial Dept. Thank you.

 

[Peri]

Forgot how much fun this legal wrangling could be.

It is also very destructive. Playing Civ seems to be an afterthought in this DG.

 

[Cyc]

See what I mean about the Mods intervening the Judicial process with their personal feelings?

This thread should be closed.

 

[Cyc]

As we can't get this thread closed, it allows me the opportunity to state that PMs have gone out to Ravensfire and Bootstoos over an hour ago, stating arguements over and requesting a joint meeting of the Judiciary to discuss a decision. Niether of the two Associate Justices have read their PMs, even though Bootstoots was sent an email about it.

 

[ravensfire]

PM has been read. One might point out that some of us do have other things to do. A mere hour or so is insignificant.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

I have responded to the PM and have entered the chatroom.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Where to start.........

First of all, I would like to offer my apologies for this entire fiasco. Most of it stems from the fact that I could not keep up with the goings on in the last few weeks of December. Laws were commendably being ratified at a breakneck pace, yet I knew we would not make deadline before our scheduled elections were to take place.

I myself made a personal decision to start the nomination process on schedule anyway, and the whole sad saga began. It became much worse when elections commenced at almost the same time as election law was being ratified. Rather than unfold the entire scenario for you all, let me cut to the chase:

In the interest of expediency, I authorized the Special Election that ultimately placed Cyc(CJ), Bootstoots and Ravensfire in Judiciary roles for Term 1. It is my opinion that to reverse my previous decision now would indeed draw allegations of Moderator bias, and rightly so. Therefore the results of the Special election will stand, with the aforementioned three citizens retaining their office.

But here is the catch. I am not closing this Judicial Review as that falls within the duty of our Judiciary. Since Cyc has made us aware that this process is already underway, I am assuming that we will hear their decision shortly. My hope is that the following will be taken into consideration:

1. What pertinent laws were in place(ie ratified) at the commencement of the first elections(for Chief Justice and Associate Justice separately).

2. What pertinent laws were in place(ie ratified) at the commencement of the Special Elections.

3. If it is determined that no pertinent laws were ratified at the commencement of either election, please determine whether said election was supported by our Constitution.

4. To a lesser extent, the validity of donsig's argument regarding "vacant" offices, should your findings take you to this point.

5. If you reach a point in discovery that invalidates your current position in the Judiciary, you must make that point known.

That is pretty much all I have. I once again apologize to all as I still feel that this situation is almost entirely of my making. I have also learned that the Holiday season is not the best time to enter "crunch time" for the commencement of a new Democracy Game.

Hopefully, the Judiciary will resolve this matter as objectively as I have tried to do for my part. I will allow people to discuss my decision, but it is final. Let's put this past us as quickly as possible.

 

[donsig]

So let me get this straight, DZ...

1) You're saying you were wrong about the special election but you can't right that wrong now for fear someone will say you did something wrong.

2) You're using your mod powers to legitimaize the defacto judiciary.

3) You're not letting the defacto judiciary off the hook but forcing them to decide their own fate (thereby doing nothing to resolve the conflict of interest issue).

4) You want the defacto judiciary to examine what laws were in place when and use that information to decide if any elections were or were not constitutional - even though you've already used the mod powers to invalidate or legitimize said elections.

5) Then maybe (if they get that far) they can decide what vacant really means

and finally...

6) If the defacto judiciary decides they were illegally elected they should tell us. (What we'd do then is anybody's guess!)

Did I get that right?

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Cyc
See what I mean about the Mods intervening the Judicial process with their personal feelings?

This thread should be closed.

What are you talking about? I think you need to calm down, Cyc.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Originally posted by donsig
So let me get this straight, DZ...

1) You're saying you were wrong about the special election but you can't right that wrong now for fear someone will say you did something wrong.

I am not worried about being called out on this one, as I have admitted to most of my mistakes during this process. In my endorsement of candidates during the election, I was pretty judgemental of Cyc. Reversing my decision would reek of bias. This was not the deciding factor by any means but it was considered.

Originally posted by donsig
2) You're using your mod powers to legitimaize the defacto judiciary.

The call for new elections sounded like the most practical solution at the time, and I stand by that ruling. Our Term 1 Judiciary is the result.

Originally posted by donsig
3) You're not letting the defacto judiciary off the hook but forcing them to decide their own fate (thereby doing nothing to resolve the conflict of interest issue).

There is nothing I can do about that. Now that the game has officially started, this game will be run based on the laws of our land and not moderator whim. The conflict of interest is an unfortunate result, but one that I will stand by. Keep in mind that there could just as easily be a conflict of interest if I'd ruled the other way.

Originally posted by donsig
4) You want the defacto judiciary to examine what laws were in place when and use that information to decide if any elections were or were not constitutional - even though you've already used the mod powers to invalidate or legitimize said elections.

This will most likely come up in their review, if they are doing their job correctly. I feel I should stay out of it.

Originally posted by donsig
5) Then maybe (if they get that far) they can decide what vacant really means

Maybe......

Originally posted by donsig
and finally...

6) If the defacto judiciary decides they were illegally elected they should tell us. (What we'd do then is anybody's guess!)

Did I get that right?

Fun, isn't it? I am for your solution, as that best follows our laws.

 

[DaveShack]

I would like to point out to all concerned that if we have a bad law (or several) there is another solution. Make a proposal for a better law, and try to get it ratified.

I had already taken this step a while back. A discussion on changing the elections process for the judiciary can be found here.
I'll be bumping that thread, and if no further discussion results, will put it to the question.

We now return to our regularly scheduled game of Civ3, already in progress.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

There is nothing I can do about that. Now that the game has officially started, this game will be run based on the laws of our land and not moderator whim. The conflict of interest is an unfortunate result, but one that I will stand by. Keep in mind that there could just as easily be a conflict of interest if I'd ruled the other way.

It doesn't matter which way the conflict of interest goes. If there is one (as you and I seem to agree there is) then perhaps you will join me in my call for Cyc and ravensfire to resign and allow the president to fill the vacated offices by appointment according to our constitution.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I am sorry, but my post should have stated "the possibility of conflict of interest."

Let's see what happens next, donsig. They could still surprise us.

 

[Cyc]

First, I would like to thank DZ for his appraisal of the situation and his final determination that the Judiciary should remain as is.

Secondly, I would like to list the procedure for the Judiciary’s posting of the opinions for the first Judicial Review for Demogame IV.

Because our communication system seems to have broken down, an alternative plan must be put into action. As for Ravensfire’s involvement in the JR Judicial discussion, he proposed an alternative plan of using a Judicial Chat Room/Message Center he has in Yahoo. Unfortunately, he says that because of work, he cannot access any kind of chat room through his proxy. This is understandable, but this leaves only forum posting for discussion of a decision. During the nighttime hour, Ravensfire is too busy with sports and other activities to commit to any kind of chat room time schedule. Bootstoots has finally read my PM to him about “Arguments Over” in which I ask him to reply with a chat room and a time he could attend. This was almost 2 hours ago, and I still have not gotten any kind of reply from him.

It seems I am dealing with a hostile bench, as the Associate Justices, who are normally online throughout the day and night, have found other things to occupy their time now that I have called Arguments Over. Ravensfire has posted a lengthy Analysis/Opinion (along with the information that DZ has asked for) in the Yahoo site, but that is all.

So, in light of all this, in accordance with Article F of the Constitution stated below:

“…The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.”

I will now state the procedure the Judicial Department will use in posting its majority opinion (and minority opinion if needed). Each Justice will post their opinion (with notes, if applicable) in the Term 1 Judicial thread, making clear their opinion on the issue at hand. I will then summarize the natural division (if necessary) of a Majority/Minority decision. If all Justices seem to agree, there will be no Minority decision. I will then post these opinions and summary decision(s) in the Judicial Log.

Unless there appears to be a major problem with the mechanics of this procedure, said procedure will be standard operating procedure for the remainder of the Term, as having Joint discussions seems to be out of the question.

 

[sosocrates]

Having looked at the discussion and previous discussions, I think the situation is as follows:

- When elections where called (and held), no DG4 legislature on election had been ratified.

- The starting point for writing the con+col+cos has been the legislature of DG2 (or 3?).

From a practical point of view, all articles of DG2 laws should apply unless a new (DG4) version has been ratified. Otherwise, playing while still talking about the rules makes no sence.

(tip to mod of future DG: declare laws of previous game as valid for new version, all subsequent changes are just regular changes, no need to start writing laws from scratch.)

- During the first election round for associate justice, Peri and Bootstoots received the highest votes.

- According to DG2 legislature, the candidate with the highest votes wins the elected position.

- Peri and Bootstoots won the elected positions for term 1 of DG4.

- The first election for chief justice ended in a tie.

- According to DG2 legislature, a runoff election would be held
in place of a tie.

- No runoff election was held for chief justice.

- The elections for chief justice have not been finished according to law. The declaration that Cyc has been elected chief justice is unlawful.

My recommendations:

1. Peri should be appointed as associate justice instead of ravensfire asap, as he is the rightful winner of that position according to law. There is no excuse to not do so.

2. A runoff election between the candidates for chief justice should be held.

3. If that isn't feasible, a chief justice should be appointed.


But this is just the conclusion of a simple citizen, of course.

Great, my first day at DG ever, and I had so much fun...