Discussion in 'Civ4 - Demo Game II: Polls' started by Lockesdonkey, Jul 27, 2007.
OK, I'm horrible with the search function...
At the risk of being banned for publlicly discussing moderator actions, ( j/k !) I'm glad Rik had the thought to have the vote checked in this one. That had occurred to me long ago but the discussion took so long it slipped my mind.
In your judicial procedures (which IIRC were mostly written by DaveShack long ago, who also seems to have forgotten them):
Since the timeline was not precise (I did not see any specific times like, "The delay was on July XYZ at 5pm EDT, and the game was played at Xpm, X hours later."), I am voting Not Guilty.
The fact that there are so many timeszones, it's simply not clear to me when whose 24 hours started. I really couldn't find that in the hearings. So, my vote is not guilty. The evidence just wasn't too clear without having to run through several threads. I found it confusing to say the least.
A clear cut time line would be something like:
July 1st, 5:00pm EDT - Original date of turnchat (link).
July 1st, 3:00pm EDT - Judiciary delayed the turnchat (link to judiciary post) due to the controversy over this poll (link to poll).
July 3rd, 4:00pm EDT - Judiciary determined XYZ issue, and told the DP the turnchat could be played (link to post).
July 4th, 4:00pm EDT - DP played the turnchat.
If we want to be scrupulous about timing, then atleast post the exact timeline with the timezone as to avoid any confusion. (and yes, "...start play on Monday" means I would expect it this Monday.)
All the mods agreed, Rik got the honor due to timezones.
I think it's more likely that Ravensfire wrote them. I've pretty much always cut & pasted from a previous term with minor changes.
The defense included a time line, check the spoiler right at the bottem of my post LiNk
But good decision vote innocent.
It is kind of fun, that the new court would comprise of the one creating this entire situation as the Chief Justice, the accuser in this case would be the Public Defender and finally the Judge Advocate is the one that politically filtered the polls in such a way that this circus came to this ultimate climax.
I think we may see the contours of what justice is to be expected from now on. But hopefully that will change. At least, I see no point in challenging the system, as it is owned and quite preferential. One needs exclusive privileges to stay in this business.
I am also happy that Joe got off the hook, for being thrown into this mess by someone else. I hope his time as Warlord would be much smoother, and I am sure it will be.
EDIT: And ironically enough, the same ensemble will be the ones breaking the tie, that is quite some ending I must say. The election farce of 2000 would be very sane in comparison to this. The German Longbowman has spoken.
Well the poll says it's a tie, now what!
Moderator Action: There will now be a short delay while the poll results are examined for any possible forum bug issues.
As a citizen I have asked the Court a question which should be answered prior to further consideration on this poll.
Hhehehehhe, the many hats at work, love it.
Your question has been answered. Not even god himself is going to slow this case into the next term.
Moderator Action: The result is official, no problems with the vote.
Well, we're not allowed to have a public poll on a private matter. Someone had to ask the question, is a public vote of the judiciary the same thing as a public poll. As I myself said, the intent was to ask the question and get it answered instead of just assuming it didn't matter.
From my understanding, the question has not been answered due to this statement:
I thought lockesdonkey was talking about the trial not the judicial review, for the Review, ori made his decision, locke agreed with him and so i did i.
Right, so now we're only holding on the Justices posting their "votes".
I think regardless of whether the Justices have posted how they voted, that the official ruling should be confirmed as such.
Public Defenders Ruling on the People V Joe Harker
Joe Harker has been accused of breaching the Game Play Scheduling initiative, more precisely section 1 of the initiative which requires all designated players to publicly announce the time and date of the game session at least 24 hours before the game session takes place. This law is in place so that public and officials have adequate time to post instructions for the game session and in the case of an on-line game session citizens know when to be in the chat room for the game session.
Joe Harker claims that the July 6th announcement (link) meets the initiative requirement, the July 6th announcement says that he intended to play the save on “Monday night.”
The Prosecution argues that “Monday night” was too vague, that the law requires a precise date and time (e.g. July 9th 6pm GMT). They argue that even if you could take “Monday” to mean July the 9th then “night” is still to vague as in this international game “night” could mean a very long time.
The Defence argues that any reasonable person understood that “Monday” meant July 9th, and presented posts made by dutchfire and ori which showed they understood this. They also argue that since it is an offline game session and all official instructions were already posted “night” was specific enough.
The Prosecution would then argue that by being vague about time the game session was played, that this poll (link) was not allowed to finish, if Joe had of specified a time, and followed it then the poll could have finished. So in this case the rule demanding an exact time should be enforced.
I here by find Joe Harker innocent of all charges; I find he did not breach the Game Play Scheduling initiative.
The July 6th announcement was valid, it said the day the game was going to be played, and as an offline game session an exact time is not completely necessary.
Any reasonable person could have understood when he was going to play the save as dutchfire and ori clearly did.
This investigation was not about if Joe followed polls correctly it was about if he made a valid Public announcement, as such the poll has no effect apon my decision.
So what is the court's decision?
Judge Advocate's Ruling on the People vs. Joe Harker
Joe Harker stands accused of breaching the Gamplay Session Scheduling Initiative during his Turnset played on July 9th.
The question on whether he is guilty or not comes down to two questions
1) Was the date "Monday night" the defendant gave on July 6th specific enough to give citizens ample notice as required by the Gameplay Session Scheduling Initiative?
2) Was he even allowed to schedule the Session while a stay was in place?
In the absence of any law governing Judicial stays the answer to 2) has to be yes. The answer to 1) comes down to how specific the information given for
has to be.
The said Initiative does not require exact times and the argument that for an offline session an exact time is not necessary is valid. However "night" is very unspecific and it could be argued that the defendant had been obliged to atleast give an earliest time at which he would start the gameplay session.
However this being an offline session I find that the date and time given by the defendant gave sufficient (3 days) notice of the planned start of the session and thus I find
Joe Harker not guilty of breaching the Gameplay Session Scheduling Initiative
With 2 out of 3 justices having voted, do we have a definitive decision?
Separate names with a comma.