Term 2 Judiciary - Clockwork Orange Court

[eyrei]

That's part of a moderators duties, and he's been reported already. Usually harrassment earns a ban.

Why don't you leave that up to the moderators and learn to leave your personal grudges out of it? As you said to someone earlier tonight, you should speak for yourself and noone else. This should not have been brought up in the judiciary, or in public at all, for that matter.

 

[classical_hero]

I shall with draw my JR, because it is blatantly obvious, according to the Constitution, that every ministry needs to have a thread associated with it. Dave Shack

 

[Black_Hole]

I have already ruled on your amendments DS, they are valid.
the other 2 justices havent yet

 

[ravensfire]

Request for review:

Please review the following amendment polls conducted towards the end of Term 1 to see if they were approved or not. This was not, unfortunately, done despite requests. If they do pass, please request that they be added to the laws.

Poll 1: Constitution: Articles on Census and Amendments

Poll 2: Code of Laws: Amendments and Confirmation of Deputies

Poll 3: Code of Laws: Naming captured cities

Please note that the first two polls are, in fact, circular references. That is, they define the criteria for their acceptance. The discussion on them notes the reasons for this (lack of time, haste and missed sections by myself during chaos and madness).

My personal interpretation is that poll 1 failed, poll 2 passed and poll 3 passed.

My thanks,
-- Ravensfire

 

[Provolution]

I am ok if there are some weak souls over-reporting statements for political reasons in order to ostracize political opponents. That is weak, pathological, inferior and not worthy a man. A grown up debater would answer in kind and quit asking for big daddy to interfere. I am not in that tribe.

Ravensfire
I concur with your opinions on the merited polls, and I rule Poll 2 and Poll 3 ot have merit, and Poll 1 Failed.

Daveshack
Your proposals do have merit, go ahead and poll them

MOTH
Current cencus is based upon the poll with the most votes during the election, I will look into that right away.

 

[Provolution]

CENSUS

Chief Justice election was most contested, 38 votes is now the official cencus.
36 became the average contested, after reviewing numbers.
18 votes is the average votes needed for majority, and 24 votes needed for 2/3.

 

[DaveShack]

Daveshack
Your proposals do have merit, go ahead and poll them

A member of the judiciary has to do it for them to be valid.

 

[DaveShack]

Ravensfire
I concur with your opinions on the merited polls, and I rule Poll 2 and Poll 3 ot have merit, and Poll 1 Failed.

On what grounds would poll 1 fail? BTW, at least one other member of the judiciary has already ruled that these polls passed.

 

[Black_Hole]

All polls passed, requirements are:

4. To pass, the proposal must meet one of the following
criteria:
a. A 2/3 majority of all votes cast.
b. A simple majority of all votes cast and the total
number of votes exceeds 60% of the Census.

It must pass one of the following, of which it had 80% of votes, which is more than the 66% needed.

I find that all three polls passed

 

[Black_Hole]

CENSUS

Chief Justice election was most contested, 38 votes is now the official cencus.
19 votes is the average votes needed for majority, and 23 votes needed for 2/3.

its not most contested, its average of all contested...

 

[Provolution]

On what grounds would poll 1 fail? BTW, at least one other member of the judiciary has already ruled that these polls passed.

Poll 1 got too few votes.

 

[Black_Hole]

Poll 1 got too few votes.

read the article provo, it says either you need a simpler majority + 60% of census voting OR 2/3(66%) of all votes, it received 81% of votes. 81 > 66

 

[Provolution]

ok, on a closer read I also pass Poll 1, but would like someone to post an amendment with a minimum Census number to pass a law. Or we may get situations where 9 citizens may approve a law.

 

[Ashburnham]

Indeed. All three of ravensfire's polls passed. Glad we got that out of the way.

 

[DaveShack]

Still waiting on a judiciary member to post my latest amendment poll so it will be valid. I'm beginning to wonder why it isn't posted yet.

 

[zyxy]

CENSUS

Chief Justice election was most contested, 38 votes is now the official cencus.
36 became the average contested, after reviewing numbers.
18 votes is the average votes needed for majority, and 22 votes needed for 2/3.

nitpick: 2/3 of 36 is 24, not 22.

 

[Provolution]

zyxy, Census corrected. The amendments is still needed IMHO, as the political culture of this demogame does not allow us to develop planning and decision interchange in certain ways. In finality, we need the reform for creating better procedures in general.

 

[MOTH]

Submission for Judicial Review for conflicts with existing law:
The constitution is clear that naming of cities and units lies with the President.
From article D. 1. President:

He/she has the following 
                responsibilities, and may appoint a citizen to oversee 
                a responsibility: Naming of Cities and Units, 
etc.

The Code of Laws conflicts with this article in parts A.1.a (city naming) and A.1.c (unit naming). The following proposed poll has sat for greater than 24 hours for comment.

Proposed Poll
Do you approve of the following changes to Code Of Laws sections A.1.a and A.1.c?

Discussion Thread

Yes/No/Abstain choices.

The poll will run for at least 96 hours.

OLD relavent parts of current law (unchanging sections replaced with ... )

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 [B]Director of Expansion [/B] 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.       

...
     
      c.  Unit Names
          The [B]Commander of Armed Forces [/B] will utilize the unit naming 
          preferences within the Citizen Registry thread to rename all 
          military units.  
...

Proposed changes to strike reference to director of expansion in A.1.a. and replace references to Comander of Armed forces with president in A.1.c. Changes are in Bold

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.  [B]The President (or appointee)[/B] 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.       

...
     
      c.  Unit Names
          The [B]President (or appointee)[/B] will utilize the unit naming
          preferences within the Citizen Registry thread to rename
          all military units.
...

 

[Provolution]

MOTH, go ahead. the proposal is very valid.

 

[MOTH]

I temporariliy withdraw my request for a review of proposed legislation. It is apparent from reading comments in the last TCIT that more sweeping reforms need to be made in regard to unit naming to make the game play proceed more smoothly. I will resubmit after appropriate proposals and review.