mhcarver
Newspaper Mogul
I find the propose amendment does not conflict with the constitution in any way
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Term 1 Judiciary - the Areiopagos
- Thread starter ravensfire
- Start date
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Civman2004
Something goes here...
I would like to request a judicial review. Section H.5 of the constitution relates to confirmation polls, and states:
What happens if the action has already occurred (eg a battle has already been fought or a city built)?
Does the majority of citizens clause refer to all citizens registered, all active citizens (at the last census) or all citizens who voted in the confirmation poll?
Thank you in advance
I have two questions:Constitution Section H.5 said:
What happens if the action has already occurred (eg a battle has already been fought or a city built)?
Does the majority of citizens clause refer to all citizens registered, all active citizens (at the last census) or all citizens who voted in the confirmation poll?
Thank you in advance
Gerikes
User of Run-on Sentences.
Civman2004 said:
I'm not too sure about the first, but I'll comment on the second:
Article A of the Constitution declares:
This would seem that "all citizens" would be "all those who registered in the Citizen Registry", rather than all citizens who voted in the poll. Confirmation Polls do not have a simple majority voter turnout requirement, unlike some other polls (e.g. Recall Poll), which could lead to a situation where a majority vote is ignored (see below). However, a Declaration of War poll also does not have a simple majority voter turnout requirement, but has protection against such a case (formatting is mine):
The ambiguity in a Confirmation Poll could lead to a situation where a necessary majority of those who voted pass the vote, but where the vote still fails due to not having enough citizen votes. A Declaration of War poll, however, wont have this problem because it explicitly declares that the Yea votes would be compared to the total voters rather than total citizens. The approach in F.2 (Declaration of War) works well, as it removes the possibility of a situation described above occurring. I would thus recommend it be considered whether a similar approach could be used to solve any potential ambiguities that the Confirmation Poll law may give.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Sorry all - had an unexpected weekend away. I'll catch up immediately.
-- Ravensfire
-- Ravensfire
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Requests for Judicial Review
Civman2004 posted two requests to review section H.5 of the Code of Laws (mis-identified in the request).
His first request: What happens if the action has already occurred (eg a battle has already been fought or a city built)?
This request is found to have merit.
Docketed as DG7JR6 - What happens on a Confirmation Poll if the action has already occurred and is irreversible
His second request: Does the majority of citizens clause refer to all citizens registered, all active citizens (at the last census) or all citizens who voted in the confirmation poll?
This request is found to have merit.
Docketed as DG7JR7 - What does the phrase "majority of citizens" in H.5 mean
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
Civman2004 posted two requests to review section H.5 of the Code of Laws (mis-identified in the request).
His first request: What happens if the action has already occurred (eg a battle has already been fought or a city built)?
This request is found to have merit.
Docketed as DG7JR6 - What happens on a Confirmation Poll if the action has already occurred and is irreversible
His second request: Does the majority of citizens clause refer to all citizens registered, all active citizens (at the last census) or all citizens who voted in the confirmation poll?
This request is found to have merit.
Docketed as DG7JR7 - What does the phrase "majority of citizens" in H.5 mean
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Citizen comments on DG7JR6:
In large part, this is a hypothetical request. Confirmation polls are explicitly limited to "where permitted by law". That's two situations right now - appointment to fill a vacancy and the structure of a game session. The former doesn't have a time period, so I'll ignore it and focus on the latter.
A confirmation poll is a way for any citizen to challenge certain, unilateral decisions taken by another citizen. It's a check on the use of a specific power. It's also designed to be fairly quick and responsive in use - use within 24 hours of the action and run for 2 days.
There is a presumption built into the Confirmation Polls that the action will be approved. If the action takes place before the poll closes, that presumption must take precedence - no poll is final until it closes. I suggest that means that taking an action renders the Confirmation Poll for that action moot if that action is irreversible and happens before the poll closes. Now, using that against somebody in an subsequent election is fair game.
Citizen comments on DG7JR7:
Easy - it refers to the citizens that voted in that poll.
-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatikos
In large part, this is a hypothetical request. Confirmation polls are explicitly limited to "where permitted by law". That's two situations right now - appointment to fill a vacancy and the structure of a game session. The former doesn't have a time period, so I'll ignore it and focus on the latter.
A confirmation poll is a way for any citizen to challenge certain, unilateral decisions taken by another citizen. It's a check on the use of a specific power. It's also designed to be fairly quick and responsive in use - use within 24 hours of the action and run for 2 days.
There is a presumption built into the Confirmation Polls that the action will be approved. If the action takes place before the poll closes, that presumption must take precedence - no poll is final until it closes. I suggest that means that taking an action renders the Confirmation Poll for that action moot if that action is irreversible and happens before the poll closes. Now, using that against somebody in an subsequent election is fair game.
Citizen comments on DG7JR7:
Easy - it refers to the citizens that voted in that poll.
-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatikos
Furiey
No Longer Just Lurking
Now that the ammendment to COL F.2 has passed, I've updated my formatted version and will ask a Mod to put it in the Constitution thread.
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
I completely agree with rf, but won't formally rule until I hear from some citizens
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Furiey said:
Wonderful! Thanks again for the effort on that, Furiey!
-- Ravensfire
Citizen comments on JR's 6 and 7.
On JR6, a confirmation poll (or perhaps more correctly named protest poll) must be opened early enough for it to close prior to the action it is protesting, or the chance to affect that event is lost. This is very clear in the law and it is also common sense that we can't be expected to hold up the game for a last-minute challenge. To allow such a challenge would open the door for malicious road blocks.
On JR7, the only time a percentage of the entire population (or of a specific body) is ever required is when a quorum is explicitly stated. This is not only common practice in the DemoGame, but just about everywhere people vote on anything.
On JR6, a confirmation poll (or perhaps more correctly named protest poll) must be opened early enough for it to close prior to the action it is protesting, or the chance to affect that event is lost. This is very clear in the law and it is also common sense that we can't be expected to hold up the game for a last-minute challenge. To allow such a challenge would open the door for malicious road blocks.
On JR7, the only time a percentage of the entire population (or of a specific body) is ever required is when a quorum is explicitly stated. This is not only common practice in the DemoGame, but just about everywhere people vote on anything.
Here are my citizen comments:
On JR 6, the relevant law is as follows:
JR 7 is fairly obvious. The very clear intent of the law is for "citizen" to mean "citizen who voted in the poll." Only a very strict constructionist could possibly rule otherwise.
On JR 6, the relevant law is as follows:
The way this article is worded, it sounds like any action already taken could be overruled as well. However, if the action is irreversible, this is obviously impossible. Though it could be ruled that a DP must either postpone the game session or risk being held responsible for a decision that was later overturned, this is obviously impractical and could result in the game being held up for malicious reasons. If I were on the court, I would probably rule that the confirmation poll must have closed by the time the action is to be taken in order to be binding. However, this leaves much to be desired. A leader could theoretically get away with posting something unpopular less than 48 hours from the deadline, and the citizenry could do nothing about it, as far as I can tell (other than not vote for that official in the next election cycle). Therefore, I'd also add a provision to the ruling that if the confirmation poll has not finished before the start of the gameplay session, the DP may choose to ignore the instruction even though it hasn't finished. If, however, the confirmation poll ends with a majority supporting the action, the DP could be subject to a CC for not following the instruction. On the other hand, if the poll closes with a majority opposing the action, the DP is immune to prosecution because the Will of the Assembly, as expressed in the poll, is for the action not to take place, thus overruling the official who posted the instruction. This way, if a leader posts something ridiculous (i.e. "raze City X"), the instruction could be ignored as long as it was later overturned in a valid poll.
JR 7 is fairly obvious. The very clear intent of the law is for "citizen" to mean "citizen who voted in the poll." Only a very strict constructionist could possibly rule otherwise.
Civman2004
Something goes here...
You mean a lawyer?Bootstoots said:
I agree. Thank you all for your prompt consideration.
Gerikes
User of Run-on Sentences.
Now my comments on JR 6:
This looks to be clearly written to undo an action made prior to even posting the poll. If officials make a controversial call in their actions for a TC, a poll could theoretically only get them to undo their actions of posting their instruction post. If the TC already happened and the actions done, well, they can't be undone.
If a problem occurs where an action can't be undone and it was largely disapproved, I believe that it's up to the citizens to demand a full explanation, and possibly warrent the punishment of those responsible.
If the mistake is so grave and absolutly horrific (say razing one of our first five cities for no reason) , I would hope that the DP would end the turnchat, even if not one turn is accomplished. The Code of Law declares that a DP may end the TC at any time, and while it shows a list of actions that could cause the end of the TC, this list is purposefully incomplete. This, however, is of course of an unthinkable oversight happening, but there are already guards in place of it's event.
So in summary, no need to change the law. If the poll shows majority didn't like an undoable action, I would hope that it would serve as grounds for the initiation of recalling that official.
This looks to be clearly written to undo an action made prior to even posting the poll. If officials make a controversial call in their actions for a TC, a poll could theoretically only get them to undo their actions of posting their instruction post. If the TC already happened and the actions done, well, they can't be undone.
If a problem occurs where an action can't be undone and it was largely disapproved, I believe that it's up to the citizens to demand a full explanation, and possibly warrent the punishment of those responsible.
If the mistake is so grave and absolutly horrific (say razing one of our first five cities for no reason) , I would hope that the DP would end the turnchat, even if not one turn is accomplished. The Code of Law declares that a DP may end the TC at any time, and while it shows a list of actions that could cause the end of the TC, this list is purposefully incomplete. This, however, is of course of an unthinkable oversight happening, but there are already guards in place of it's event.
So in summary, no need to change the law. If the poll shows majority didn't like an undoable action, I would hope that it would serve as grounds for the initiation of recalling that official.
I've seen several posts on JR6 which seem to have missed a critical point. Confirmation polls must be enabled for a kind of action before they apply to that kind of action. To quote the illustrious Chief Justice:
Let's say that again. The only actions which can be challenged by a confirmation polls are appointments and game session structure.
What does this mean in real terms? Appointments have received so little interest this game that they are not worth mentioning. Therefore what other use does a confirmation poll have?
If someone schedules an on-line play session (chat), an anti-chat person could post a confirmation poll. If 2/3 voting say NO, then the chat is cancelled and the play session must be offline.
Likewise, if someone schedule an offline session, a chat supporter can force a confirmation poll, and 2/3 would have to vote NO to force the session to be played online.
These (online vs offline, and appointments) are the only things you can challenge with a confirmation poll.
Now, on the timeframe question... A game session must be scheduled 3 days in advance. The confirmation poll must be posted less than 24 hours after the session is scheduled, to be valid. The confirmation poll must be open 2 days. This means a valid confirmation poll must close before the play session is scheduled to begin -- if it closes after the play session then by definition it is invalid.
ravensfire said:
Let's say that again. The only actions which can be challenged by a confirmation polls are appointments and game session structure.
What does this mean in real terms? Appointments have received so little interest this game that they are not worth mentioning. Therefore what other use does a confirmation poll have?
If someone schedules an on-line play session (chat), an anti-chat person could post a confirmation poll. If 2/3 voting say NO, then the chat is cancelled and the play session must be offline.
Likewise, if someone schedule an offline session, a chat supporter can force a confirmation poll, and 2/3 would have to vote NO to force the session to be played online.
These (online vs offline, and appointments) are the only things you can challenge with a confirmation poll.
Now, on the timeframe question... A game session must be scheduled 3 days in advance. The confirmation poll must be posted less than 24 hours after the session is scheduled, to be valid. The confirmation poll must be open 2 days. This means a valid confirmation poll must close before the play session is scheduled to begin -- if it closes after the play session then by definition it is invalid.
Furiey
No Longer Just Lurking
I agree with DaveShack's last post, however the timescales for the confirmation poll and the requirement that the TCIT goes up only 2 days before the scheduled session, with no requrement for advanced planning means that if the TCIT were posted at the last moment (as they often have been this term) it would not be possible to get up a confirmation poll which closed before the session took place. In this case the timescales for the confirmation poll seem to have been written for when the TCIT was required to be up 3 days before the next session not 2.
shh.... that was the ace in the hole to make sure we never have a valid confirmation poll...
mhcarver
Newspaper Mogul
due to time constraints , the fact that the term ends in a few hours, and that their is a new public defender elect I am deffering the public defenders ruling to the next court. It has been an honor to serve in the judiciary this term and I hope to return in the future
-mhcarver
-mhcarver
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
As the Public Defender is deffering rulings, I will too as there is no use in me ruling. Thank-You ravensfire and mhcarver for a great term!
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
<gavel>BANG!</gavel>
As Chief Justice of Fanatikos for Term 1, I hereby declare this Court adjourned!
I thank all citizens that participated in this session, and my fellow justices. All accomplished this term is due to your wisdom, willingness and patience.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
As Chief Justice of Fanatikos for Term 1, I hereby declare this Court adjourned!
I thank all citizens that participated in this session, and my fellow justices. All accomplished this term is due to your wisdom, willingness and patience.
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
Similar threads
