Term 1 ~ Judiciary : Interpereting the Great Experiment!

[Black_Hole]

will this go in the Code of Laws or Constitution?
and what article, if any will it be replacing?

Office of the Chief Justice

 

[Strider]

will this go in the Code of Laws or Constitution?
and what article, if any will it be replacing?

Office of the Chief Justice

Kind of hard to answer any of this, as last time I checked we don't have anything yet. It's just going to replace the election cycle amendment, whichever article it ends up being.

 

[Black_Hole]

Chief Justice's Ruling on DG6 JR#2
Question: Are deputies subject to removal of office if they do not post for 3 days?
Well here is the law in question:

b. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3 days in
a thread related to their area without prior notice, the
Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.

Now the key words to note are "official" and "declare that office vacant"

Now there are 2 sub questions:
1. Would it be right for the Judiciary to declare an office
2. Are deputies officials?

Question one is simple, it wouldnt be just to remove an office holder, becuae his/her deputy isn't posting.

Now number 2 is a bit trickier...
However in the constitution there are multiple referenes inferring official means elected, unless otherwise stated. Some areas say official, 1 says elected official, and others say appointed official. The authors of the constitution meant official to mean elected official as shown above.

Summary:
The Judiciary may not remove deputies that haven't posted for 3 days.

 

[Black_Hole]

Kind of hard to answer any of this, as last time I checked we don't have anything yet. It's just going to replace the election cycle amendment, whichever article it ends up being.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113684
as in article, do you mean CoL article or Constituion article?
I dont want to guess...

 

[Strider]

IT will be replacing Section H.1, H.2, and H.3.

 

[Black_Hole]

I find the legislation does not conflict with any other laws.
It may go on to the polling, if the other 2 justices review it and accept it.

 

[ravensfire]

Strider,

Could you please post your proposal in a fully-formatted version (chop it off around line 70) to make inclusion into the existnig ruleset easier for everyone involved.

I will review this once I get home.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

Strider,

Could you please post your proposal in a fully-formatted version (chop it off around line 70) to make inclusion into the existnig ruleset easier for everyone involved.

I will review this once I get home.

-- Ravensfire

Well, wether I propose it this way or not, it's still going to have to be re-done to be included inside of the existing ruleset. When you copy & paste anything that has to do with the lists and messes the lines up, so it will have to be re-formatted anyway. To put it simply, if I did make it "fully-formatted" it won't make a differance anyway, because someone will have to re-format it again anyway.

That was also my orginal reason for only using underline, bold, and italiac codes. It makes it easier to copy and paste articles of the constitution for Judicial Reviews, CC's, and amendments.

 

[ravensfire]

Strider,

To format it for the ruleset, use a monospaced font and don't let any line extend beyond 70 - 72 characters. The spacing stuff just get from the existing ruleset.

It's pretty easy to do.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

Strider,

To format it for the ruleset, use a monospaced font and don't let any line extend beyond 70 - 72 characters. The spacing stuff just get from the existing ruleset.

It's pretty easy to do.

Once again, I'll repeat this. Inorder to take the amendment and insert it into the constitution, you would have to copy and paste the text. However, when the list commands are used it screws up the line format (of course) when you copy and paste it elsewhere. As such, it will make no differance one way or the other, as it will have to be re-formated to be inserted into the constitution.

 

[ravensfire]

Once again, I'll repeat this. Inorder to take the amendment and insert it into the constitution, you would have to copy and paste the text. However, when the list commands are used it screws up the line format (of course) when you copy and paste it elsewhere. As such, it will make no differance one way or the other, as it will have to be re-formated to be inserted into the constitution.

Once again, I'll repeat this.

The ruleset is formatted as mono-spaced text (that's what the code-tag does). To format this, use any decent text editor set to a mono-spaced font. I prefer Textpad, but Word or Open Office will do perfect. Use the spacing from the ruleset - it's very consistent. End each line at 70 - 72 characters.

It's not that difficult to do.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

Once again, I'll repeat this.

The ruleset is formatted as mono-spaced text (that's what the code-tag does). To format this, use any decent text editor set to a mono-spaced font. I prefer Textpad, but Word or Open Office will do perfect. Use the spacing from the ruleset - it's very consistent. End each line at 70 - 72 characters.

It's not that difficult to do.

The purpose of that would be? Why format it when it will need to be re-formatted no matter what I do?

 

[DaveShack]

I would like to note that Strider's proposed amendment has not gone through the process of posting it as a mock poll and waiting 24 hours for citizen comment, prior to requesting a JR. In particular, I may wish to comment on the final form and have not been given that opportunity.

 

[Strider]

I would like to note that Strider's proposed amendment has not gone through the process of posting it as a mock poll and waiting 24 hours for citizen comment, prior to requesting a JR. In particular, I may wish to comment on the final form and have not been given that opportunity.

It just requires "each of the following" and doesn't need to happen in any certain order.

Edit: I did this hoping the Judiciary might find any repetive statements, for those can be amended later. It seems fairly stupid to post a proposed poll, just to have the Judiciary change it later.

 

[ravensfire]

Strider,

Once again, THIS HOW THE RULESET IS FORMATTED.

Please, give us your proposal formatted as it would be in the ruleset. You can even copy the existing ruleset into an editor and use that as your template.

Formatting guidelines:
-- Monospaced font
-- Lines end at 70 - 72 characters
-- Avoiding chopping words up
-- Two spaces after periods
-- If a clause exceeds one line, indent it to the same starting point as the first line.
-- Outline format: X.1.x.1.i.1

-- Ravenfire

 

[Strider]

Strider,

Once again, THIS HOW THE RULESET IS FORMATTED.

Please, give us your proposal formatted as it would be in the ruleset. You can even copy the existing ruleset into an editor and use that as your template.

Formatting guidelines:
-- Monospaced font
-- Lines end at 70 - 72 characters
-- Avoiding chopping words up
-- Two spaces after periods
-- If a clause exceeds one line, indent it to the same starting point as the first line.
-- Outline format: X.1.x.1.i.1

-- Ravenfire

Once again, copying anything with the codes screws up the line format. It gets even worst when you use this in conjunction with [quote*] tags. This is a section of the constitution copy and pasted directly from it, with the [quote*] tags.

A. Citizen Rights
1. Naming Rights
a. City Names
All cities founded by Fanatannia will be named by citizens
using a rank-based system. The President will maintain
this list in a thread. Should a citizen fail to provide a
city name, they will be skipped until they provide a city
name. The Director of Expansion will include the city name
to be used in the instructions to found that city. No
citizen may name more than one city until all citizens
have named a city.
1. Ranking Order - elected officials
The rank order is based on the term and the Chain of
Command. All officials of an earlier term have priority
over officials of a later term. Within a term, the
Chain of Command will determine who has priority.
2. Ranking Order - citizens
Once all elected officials have named cities, the
Citizen Regsitry will be used to name cities, using the
order citizens were registered.

Doesn't look anything like it does it? As I said before, the lines get messed up. It makes it harder to read, and even harder to make it readable. As such, when whoever inserts this into the constitution, goes to do it, They will have to reformat it into the correct format anyway. Get my point yet?

 

[Black_Hole]

Even though I find that the law doesnt violate the constitution, I am removing my approval until it is formatted. I just realised I can do this:

Article G. The Citizens make up the General Assembly. The General
Assembly is tasked with the creation of laws and leading
the elected officials. After a law is created or changed
by the citizenry, it is presented to the Judiciary to
ensure it is in the correct format and does not violate
the constitution.

And I wrote that article too

P.S. We seem to be missing the article that deals with amending the constitution in our ruleset... I can't seem to find it....

 

[Strider]

P.S. We seem to be missing the article that deals with amending the constitution in our ruleset... I can't seem to find it....

I don't think it was approved, I tried looking for it about 3 minutes ago.

 

[ravensfire]

Strider - use the CODE tages, not the QUOTE tags. That will correct the problem you are seeing.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

Strider - use the CODE tages, not the QUOTE tags. That will correct the problem you are seeing.

-- Ravensfire

Same problem . Tried it already, there was a thread in site feedback awhile ago about this. Let me see if I can find it.

As I said before... the

tags screws up the

 tags. There is something you can do to fix it, but I have no earthly idea how.

Edit: It's actually a browser related problem, but my point still stands. It doesn't work.