Office of the Judiciary - Term 5

[disorganizer]

I HEREWITH REQUEST...

closure and declaration of invalidity of ALL game setup and nation choosing polls. NONE of them were discussed beforehand AND it is not stated clearly that they are only informational, so they are official and MUST be discussed beforehand.

As you youself stated before for the turn -1 polls, all official polls must be discussed before polled at.

Find the fitting article in your own posts!
I do not hat the time and will to look thru the whole forum.

 

[disorganizer]

I HEREWITH REQUEST...
public investigation of the closure of the "turn -1" polls.
all of the polls were inadequately closed for further input and discussion. our constitution does not allow closure of running polls. the polls MAY have been invalidate by informalisms, but the closure of a poll, valid or not, is not allowed if not requested by the one setting up the poll.

if they would have been explicitly declared binding (done with no word), then they would have rendered informational by not being valid. but closing them is not right!

i dont know who requested closure nor who closed them, and so i cant put up a suspect.

the rules violated is the rules where the citizens are allowed to express their opinion freely (i think its somewhere in the constitution... you will find it).

evidence:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29877

EDIT:
there may have been a miswording in the poll text, but for me as non native english speaker it did not mean the poll is binding.
also the closure was in any case invalid as stated above.

 

[disorganizer]

I HEREWITH REQUEST:
Judical review of the issue that we have binding polls about the game setup of the next game in this games forum. As we officially will start the next game on the 1st, maybe many citizens of that game will show up on that day the first time.
They wont be able to take part in discussions of the game-setup then.

 

[Chieftess]

The main difference is that the 'game stats' are for the next game, not this game. It's not like there's much of a choice. (Just a few limited options in each one).

 

[disorganizer]

There is no difference at all, as term -1 would also have been for the next game and there would be exactly NO choice to take in it.

 

[Cyc]

Dis, it appeared as if you were trying , with the help of a Mod, to stear the creation of the next game away from the citizens with your polls. If you are not able to word them correctly, you should have had Shaitan do it. When you do it there is way too much room for interpretation. The closings were a good thing as they stopped you from precluding discussions on how the creation should be handled. Which is what it seems you were trying to do.

 

[Chieftess]

Yes, there is a difference dis.

Game setup - There's a limited amount of choices. What's to discuss? All options were available. Had I done something like:

"Should we play on a small, cold, wet, 5bill, random barb world? Yes or No", that that would be invalid, since I'm pushing an idea without discussion.


You went right ahead with a "Should we do a turn -1?" with out any discussion on what a -1 turn is. There might be people who aren't clear on a concept, but just vote anyway.

There's another thing:

Setup is pregame, and like I said, there's limited options.

Playing a turn -1 is ingame. Someone will have to play the save. The constitution explicitly states that only the Designated Player should play out that turn. Having a mod, or someone in a previous term play it would be unconstitutional.

At the very least, the DP on day one should post a picture of the game save. Just because the game starts on Sept. 1st, doesn't mean the turn chat has to be on Sept. 1st. It could be on the 3rd. Let the DP decide that - it's even tucked in the constitution somewhere!

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by disorganizer
I HEREWITH REQUEST...

closure and declaration of invalidity of ALL game setup and nation choosing polls. NONE of them were discussed beforehand AND it is not stated clearly that they are only informational, so they are official and MUST be discussed beforehand.

As you youself stated before for the turn -1 polls, all official polls must be discussed before polled at.

Find the fitting article in your own posts!
I do not hat the time and will to look thru the whole forum.

I honestly don't think you are asking for review here as much as you wish to protest a decision. Either choice is your right, so:

Judicial Review:

The game settings polls were fine given that it is not an "in-game" function, and all possible options were initially allowed. The poll for "turn -1" would effect in game functions, and secondly assumed quite a few things that had not been discussed.

As I posted in my opinion, it was my hope that Chieftess would come forward and lead a discussion on that concept for the next game.

My criteria is a little less strict than the folks who monitor polls in depth, but my bottom line is in-game versus pre-game. From what I see, turn -1 is a misleading name given that it really calls for playing part of turn one.

Judge Advocate

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by disorganizer
Find the fitting article in your own posts!
I do not hat the time and will to look thru the whole forum.

EDIT - Removed initial response that was probably inappropriate for this forum.

Calmer response - If you want to protest having your threads closed, please do so in the discussion thread for that purpose that was opened by the Mod who actually closed them. I did not ask for them to be closed.

I did post my opinion that your polls are invalid (something you have spent time doing to others polls by the way), and are not binding.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by disorganizer
I HEREWITH REQUEST...
public investigation of the closure of the "turn -1" polls.
all of the polls were inadequately closed for further input and discussion. our constitution does not allow closure of running polls. the polls MAY have been invalidate by informalisms, but the closure of a poll, valid or not, is not allowed if not requested by the one setting up the poll.

if they would have been explicitly declared binding (done with no word), then they would have rendered informational by not being valid. but closing them is not right!

i dont know who requested closure nor who closed them, and so i cant put up a suspect.

the rules violated is the rules where the citizens are allowed to express their opinion freely (i think its somewhere in the constitution... you will find it).

evidence:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29877

EDIT:
there may have been a miswording in the poll text, but for me as non native english speaker it did not mean the poll is binding.
also the closure was in any case invalid as stated above.

I cannot bring a PI forward without being provided the name of an individual charged, and what violations they may have made.

In this case, the rules of the poll format are quite clear, so I would advise you to research that issue.

Once again, it is not the Judiciary's responsibility to hunt down people who disagree with you.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by disorganizer
I HEREWITH REQUEST:
Judical review of the issue that we have binding polls about the game setup of the next game in this games forum. As we officially will start the next game on the 1st, maybe many citizens of that game will show up on that day the first time.
They wont be able to take part in discussions of the game-setup then.

There are no laws covering issues outside of the game, or pre-game in this case. Game setup is a matter I would expect to be handled via simple polls in the forums.

 

[Almightyjosh]

I HEREWITH REQUEST
That Dis be PIed for over-using the word HEREWITH.
j/k, but only just
I would also note that I have no idea what a turn -1 is and I have been playing the demogame longer than alot of people. (though I appreciate shorter than alot too).

 

[disorganizer]

it was explained in the poll... just a sidenote.

i also protest handling of this, as a simple retyping of the 1st post by a mod would also have done a great job.

EDIT:
if we would need a wording guy for every poll this is ... *strange, originally word censored*.

EDIT2 (picky. dont take it serious).
if your dont comply to a wording, you should maybe try to ask in the poll before getting picky. some people do not natively speak english, so if you want them out of the game for speaking/writing english worse than others please state so ;-)

EDIT3:
*deleted*

 

[disorganizer]

for review of turn-1:
just one discussion i found in a short-search:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=431311#post431311

* i admit we didnt have a seperate discussion thread, but this is also nowhere defined that i would need one.
* it is only informational, and so the discussion rules does not apply
* there is only a rule non-informational polls must be setup to tell what they are, not for informational polls. also no review is needed for informational polls

i cant think of more as im tired of it and dont have so much time to spend hours at the forum... to make everything perfect. maybe we should get more impulsive on some things and make our decission making more flexible.
if we play on a higher difficulty level, this slow decission base will become disaterous imho.

 

[disorganizer]

@bill: there is no exception in the ruleset for any binding poll from the discussion rule. so a 24h pre discussion is also needed for the gamesetup poll to be valid, even if it is senseless.

@bill: if it is not a game issue, it should not be polled here. my words. but as the info is critical and the info must be binding, those polls are not normal citizen polls but binding polls, also for the new games rules. i dont see your point here except that you want to handle those polls differently than others for no reason

@bill: i reviewed my polls (turn-1) and found all imho not stating that they are binding. we should not start getting picky on wording. if we do, it is no wonder over 50% of our citizens never say a word in here.

@bill: if nowhere it is stated who requested it, how could i put in a suspect? this is a pretty silly way of making a judical system work.

@josh: dont pi me for using @bill so often ;-)

 

[disorganizer]

There are no laws covering issues outside of the game, or pre-game in this case. Game setup is a matter I would expect to be handled via simple polls in the forums.

What you say here is that the president can handle the game setup at will!
So the new des.player could also just ignore all polls being held in this game, as they do not belong to the next game because they were done before 1st of september, the official start of it?
As you see the game setup as out-of game thing, we could also use any option and mods and any patch we like, because yeah, its not game related

 

[disorganizer]

REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION REGARDING POLLS:
Code of Standards.

F-2
All polls should have the following information:
Poll type in the header and first post.
Poll start and end dates/times in the first post.
End dates/times can be conditional. (Example: poll ends at the beginning of the next chat turn)
Link to relevant discussion threads in the first post.
Inclusion of an "Abstain" option.
F-3
Official polls
Quorum level is 1/2 of the census.
Poll should proceed as follows:
Discussion thread, up for 24 hours minimum (48 hours plus is preferred). Then,
Proposed poll, up for 24 hours minimum. Then,
Poll posted with link from discussion thread.
Poll duration is a minimum of 24 hours (48 hours plus is preferred).
If the poll runs into the weekend it is advised that the duration be extended by 24 hours for each weekend day. Forum participation is much lower on the weekends.
Link to the poll in the Poll Registry and/or Department Thread (if appropriate).
F-5
Information polls - Do not have restrictions and cannot be used to justify policy, plans or actions.
All polls posted by Leaders are considered Official unless specifically noted to be informational in the header and first post.

Note the should on most parts of the formalisms! No must here! Polls are free of formalism!

* So as im not a leader my poll is to be taken as informational until stated otherwise.
* Even if my poll is considered official, i only have to get the quorum. The other parts are "should" and do not justify invalidation.

As such, all actions you took are not justified by our ruleset.

If you insist on the parts in the "should" invalidating my polls, then i must also insist on all of our polls being invalid, as none of them stated the poll-type in the title as requested by a should-paragraph in F-2.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

dis,

It would help me greatly if your arguments would be posed in one response, you are jumping all over the board here with your arguments.

First you say you did have discussion thread so the poll is valid, now you say you didn't have one, but it doesn't matter because your poll wasn't intended as binding. Do you see the change there?

You want me to do your dirty work for you, and find someone to PI. That is your job, to stand up and stand behind your charges, the system is that way on purpose so that people shouldn't be able to randomly point fingers whenever a vote goes against them.

Let me respond simply though:

My review said that they results of your poll would not be binding because it was not properly set up as such. You are now saying that you meant those to be informational polls.

Are we not agreeing on the same thing then?

 

[disorganizer]

Yes, they were never intended binding... i dont know where some citizens got this info from... and i dont say there was no discussion. I say there was discussion, just it was not dedicated.
I didnt post i had a discussion to make the poll binding though. I posted it because cyc (again) complained about that there was no discussion and spoiled the whole poll with this whining (again) and so i wanted to show that this was not exactly true.

My arguments to the judges go directly in here btw.

I dont have any dirty work, the closure of a poll was just a thing nobody seemed to have requested (at least nobody stated so). So it is impossible for me to tell who to PI. I will nevertheless put eyrei on an ultimatum to reveal who requested closure of the poll, and if he does not i will put him into the request as suspect for misusing his powers and closing a poll nobody requested him to and without any obvious reason and not based on our rules.

Btw: I never randomly point at persons. But what sense does our judical system make if i have to bring in the suspect, even if it is impossible to bring him in for me? Maybe a pi to anonymous would work best sometimes, as the suspect may be given during the investigation....?

EDIT:
there was still no response to the things in the standards which i noticed: all rules you draw out here are only "should" rules. so my poll even would have been valid as binding poll. dont pull the brake here, state your comment on that one!

btw:
a invalid binding poll becomes a nonbinding poll. no reason to close it even in that case....

 

[disorganizer]

now i finally found him >-):
the suspect for my pi!

and for the protocol:

i request a public investigation on EKLEKTIKOS!

Evidence:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=435030#post435030

He requested closure of a poll. He is not in the position to do so, as this violates the constitutional article which guarantees the citizens a free speach.
Even if a poll is invalid (which it is not btw.) he could have requested a change or stated that it is invalid, but the right for closure of any kind is not in our ruleset.

If you want more detail, see my post before...
Any further things you need?