1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Term 2 Judiciary - The Court at the Big Rock

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Demo Game II: Offices' started by ravensfire, Apr 2, 2007.

  1. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Welcome to the Term 2 Judiciary - The Court of the Big Rock!

    Yeah, that's us sitting under the shade of that really big boulder. Try to ignore the guy off to the side with that big stick next to him. We only use that for "trouble", like the last time the Mob tried to interfere with us. They were reminded that we take Judicial Indepence seriously!

    We're all here to help, so please post any rules related questions here. If you've got something for us to review, please post it! Comments on current matters? Give 'em to us! Ultimately, the court's success depends on the participation of all citizens in its discussions.

    The Court
    Chief Justice - Ravensfire
    Judge Advocate - Lockesdonkey
    Public Defender - Octavian X

    Useful Links:
    Constitution
    Initiatives
    Judicial Procedures
    Current Docket
    Current Initiative/Amendment discussions

    Other offices:
    Chieftain - Methos
    Elder of NoneOfTheAbove - dutchfire
    Elder of Falcon's Haven - robboo

    Previous Judiciary Threads:
    Term 1 - Court of the Big Rock

    -- Ravensfire, Chief Justice​
     
  2. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Spoiler :

    Common

    Rights and Duties of all Citizens
    • Participate in all Judicial discussions
    • Request that any Judicial discussion be moved to its own thread in the Citizen's forum
    • Post requests for Judicial Review of existing law.
    • Post requests for Judicial Review of proposed amendments. This request should contain the exact text to be reviewed and a link to the discussion thread.
    • Post requests for clarification. This is an unofficial question about the rules that does not create a finding or set legal precedent, but may lead to a Judicial Review if any Justice feels one is needed.
    • Post requests for Investigations. This is a request to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. This request must be posted in the Judicial thread. There are no anonymous requests.
    Shared duties and responsibilities of all Justices
    • Conduct the business of the court in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner.
    • Review and discuss any questions about our laws.
    • Review all proposed Amendments to our laws.
    • Review all requested Investigations to determine if there is need.
    • Participate in all Investigations in a fair and impartial manner.
    • Post clear opinions on all questions.
    • Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement
    • Discuss and ratify these Judicial Procedures.
    • Recuse themself from any Investigation that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the investigation, or as the citizen under investigation. A Pro-tem replacement will be named by the Chieftain.
    • Recuse themself from any Judicial Review where they feel unable to render a fair, impartial, open or speedy decision. A Pro-tem replacement will be named by the Chieftain.
    Rights and Duties of the Chief Justice
    • Post polls for amendments once they pass review
    • Oversee all Judicial Proceedings.
    • Maintain the Judicial Log.
    Rights and Duties of the Judge Advocate
    • Post any valid Recall poll if for the Chief Justice.
    • Serve as the Prosecution during any trial of a citizen. In this role, the Judge Advocate need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side.
    Rights and Duties of the Public Defender
    • Serve as the Defense during as trial of a citizen, unless requested otherwise by the citizen. In this role, the Public Defender need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side.
    Judicial Reviews
    Judicial Reviews are used to resolve questions of the law and to validate proposed amendments. The opinion of a majority of the Justices will be used to resolve the Judicial Review.

    Reviews of existing laws may be requested by anyone. The Judiciary shall review each request for merit. If any Justice determines the request has merit, it is accepted. The Chief Justice will post each accepted request, clearly denoting the questions for that Judiciary Review. After at least 24 hours, each Justice may post their finding. This post should clearly answer the questions as posed by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may request clarification of these findings as needed.

    The Chief Justice may also accept a request as one for a Temporary ruling. This process is for questions that may materially delay the Demogame, but would best be answered by an Initiative or Amendment. Once the ruling is made, the Chief Justice will open a discussion on creating an Initiative or Amendment. This ruling is in effect only until a relevant initiative is passed. Temporary rulings may, at the discretion of the Chief Justice, ignore the 24 hour rule above.

    Reviews of proposed amendments may be requested by anyone. The post must include the proposed amendment, and a link to the discussion thread. This post should clearly note all changes, including additions, deletions and changes. The proposed amendment must have been conspicuously posted as a proposed poll for at least 24 hours, and the discussion thread open for at least 48 hours. The Justices will review the amendment for any conflicts with current law, and post their findings. The Chief Justices will post the poll for all proposals that pass Judicial Review.

    INITIATIVES DO NOT NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE JUDICIARY.

    Concurring decisions or rulings by at least two justices will resolve a judicial review. Any justice can request clarification of another justice's decision or ruling. Justices may also request the use alternative means of internal discussion to aid in their decisions. All ruling MUST, however, be posted in the Judicial thread.

    Requests may be deferred to the next term if the Chief Justice deems it likely that the Judicial Review will not finish prior to the conclusion of the current term.

    Poll Invalidations
    Poll Invalidations are used to allow bad polls to be cancelled. To invalidate a poll, any member of the Judiciary posts in the poll thread clearly stating that they are invalidating the poll and the reasons for the invalidation. This must happen within the time limits specified by law.

    If a poll is invalidated, any citizen may request an appeal of that invalidation. This request must be done through a post in the official Judiciary thread. Once an appeal has been made, the appeal will be handled as a Judicial Review, with the sole question being "Should the poll in question be invalidated?". If 2 or more Justices vote to accept the poll as valid, it is immediately considered valid and in force.

    Investigations
    Investigations are used to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. They may be requested by any citizen in a post in the Judicial thread. Except as noted, the Justices must act in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner throughout the process. All citizens are innocent unless determined to be guilty. All evidence, except foreknowledge of the game, must be presented publicly. Evidence of foreknowledge of the game will be reviewed by the Judiciary, and a statement about that evidence posted. Once that evidence becomes irrelevant due to game progress, any citizen may request it to be posted.

    Any citizen who is the defendant of a Citizen Complaint has the right to representation throughout the process. The Public Defender will defend each citizen charged with an offense from the moment the Citizen Complaint is filed until the complaint is concluded, unless another citizen is appointed by the defendant to serve as the Defense, with that citizen's consent, or if the accused prefers to defend him/herself.

    At any time during a citizen complaint, the prosecution and the defense (and accused) may agree to drop the case and implement an alternative agreed to solution, provided the Chief Justice concurs. Likewise, the citizen making the request may drop the request, ending the citizen complaint unless another citizen wishes to continue the process. Likewise, the citizen under investigation may accept the charges, and move immediately to the Sentencing phase.

    If a citizen has been found innocent of a charge or if the citizen has been found guilty and sentenced appropriately, the citizen may not be charged again with the same violation.

    Review
    Each requested Investigation will be reviewed by the Judiciary. Justices will gather and look through the evidence presented, including requests for statements from all citizens. If all Justices posting decisions determine the request to have No Merit, the basis for that finding will be posted by each Justice and the request is denied. If at least one Justice determines the request to have Merit, a trial on the facts will be conducted. The Judge Advocate will review the request and the relevant law, and determine the specific law the accused citizen is alleged to have violated.

    Trial
    The Judge Advocate will create a thread for the trial in the Citizen's forum. This initial post should contain the specific violations and the evidence for those accusations. The next two posts are reserved for the citizen accused and the Public Defender - until they post, or 24 hours from the initial post, no other citizen may post in the thread. All citizens are encouraged to post in this thread, but are reminded to respect the rights of all citizens.

    Once at least 48 hours have passed, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

    The Trial poll will be a private poll, with the options Innocent, Guilty and Abstain. It will run for 48 hours. The option receiving the most votes will determine the result. In the event of a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the result by posting clear opinions in the Trial thread.

    Sentencing
    If a citizen under an investigation has accepted the charges, the citizen, the accuser and the Judiciary may determine and assign a sentence if they all unanimously agree to the arrangement. Failure to uphold that arrangement will result in full sentencing poll posted as if the citizen were found guilty in a Trial.

    If an arrangement cannot be made, or the citizen was found Guilty in a trial poll, the sentence will be determined by the citizens through a poll. The Chief Justice will post the poll, marked as private with a duration of 48 hours. The options for the poll will include:
    Suspension from Demogame
    Removal from Office (if applicable)
    Final Warning
    Warning
    Abstain
    Other options may be included through unanimous consent of the Judiciary.

    Once the poll closes, the Chief Justice or Judge Advocate will determine the sentence imposed using cumulative voting. The most severe option that a majority of citizens support will be imposed. If a Warning is issued, a warning will be posted by the Chief Justice in the Judicial thread, sent via PM to the citizen, and posted in that person’s government thread, if they hold an office. If a citizen is given a Final Warning, the above procedure will be used, but with stronger language. Additionally, the options “Warning” and “Final Warning” will not appear on a sentencing poll if that citizen is charged with a similar offense in the future. If a citizen is sentenced to a Public Apology, a thread apologizing for the actions taken must be posted by the defendant within 48 hours of the close of the sentencing poll. If the citizen is removed from office, they are barred from holding that office for the remainder of the term. The length of any suspension is to be determined by the moderators.

    Changes to Judicial Procedures
    The Judicial Procedures may be changed at any time by a concurring decision of at least two justices.
     
  3. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
  4. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Reserved for other court matters ...
     
  5. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    :hammer: Court is now in session! :hammer:

    I'd like to welcome both Octavian X and Lockesdonkey back to the bench! May we have another boring term!

    Justices, please review the procedures for this term. They are the same as last term except for the section on poll invalidations, as that initiative has passed.

    Thanks!
    -- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

    -------------------
    Proposed Procedures

    <Deleted to save space!>
     
  6. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    Looks good, ravensfire - though, according to the first post, we're still the term 1 judiciary. :p

    As for the procedures - they look fine as well. I would only suggest one change, at the moment. I think that we should keep a record of poll validation/invalidation decisions (with appropriate links to the poll and subsequent judgements in question) in a (preferably sticky) thread in the polls sub-forum - both for ease of record-keeping, and for the sake of setting an example for future polls by showing what the judiciary has found to be acceptable in past polls.
     
  7. Lockesdonkey

    Lockesdonkey Liberal Jihadist

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,403
    Location:
    Why do you care?
    Hello again. Honestly, I hope that this term is more boring than the last one. The judiciary is like a voyage: uneventful is pleasant.
     
  8. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    *whistles innocently*

    Can do - I've updated the CJ duties to maintain a log of all poll invalidations and appeals.

    With those changes, do the Judge Advocate and Public Defender find the procedures acceptable?

    -- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
     
  9. NKVD

    NKVD Cossack

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,686
    Location:
    Stalingrad, Québec
    so here I am with another request. I did a discussion for naming the elements of our empire. It's open since more than 4 days, never been closed.

    only 4 people participated at suggesting names giving only a few. Since i'm the cartographer and needs to name geographical elements of my maps i need names. Usually cartographers would give names they would choose without asking. Of course I did make a poll for the naming of the oceans.

    2 things: Could the judiciary make some sort of process so things cannot go un-named? like a poll with all suggestion without the "none of the above" option.

    second: Actually in the amended constitution of the naming initiative absolutely nothing tell us to include "none of the above" in the polls. for the future can I make polls without that? Also if only one name is being seconded it would then become the only name in the poll right? if the none of the above option is not there it means the only seconded suggestion is the automatic winner... Am I right?
     
  10. Gaidynne

    Gaidynne Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    30
    To All Members of the Court:

    I do hereby request a Judicial Review on the conduct (past and future) of the Designated Players for the Nation of Yasutan.

    Specifically, what is required of a Designated Player following a game play session and have those requirements been complied with in the past? How can Designated Players comply with any requirements in the future?

    I believe the pertinent portion of The Playing the Save Act is as follows:

    "The game session may last for as long as there are relevant instructions, until a posted instruction says to hold the session or when the DP decides to end the session. Once a game session is over, the DP must post a summary of that session, a detailed log of their actions, and a save in the instruction thread and in the summary thread."
    [Emphasis added.]

    The Court might address points such as:

    (A) Is the Designated Player required to post both a summary and a chatlog?

    (B) What is required in a summary?

    (C) What is required in a chatlog?

    (D) When must the Designated Player comply with the post-session requirements?

    (E) Can the Court point to any prior Designated Player post-session postings as adequate or inadequate?

    Many thanks for the Court's attention to the request.

    Respectfully,

    Gaidynne
     
  11. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    OK - Let's get going!

    My initial reaction is: no, this is beyond the authority of the judiciary alone. Nothing requires us to name every single geographic element we happen to see; in fact, that would be an unnecessarily onerous requirement, though useful with those who have an interest in cartography. In my view, this isn't a particularly urgent matter either, so what power that the judiciary might have for temporary legislation is unneeded. There is nothing we can or should do, so I find this first request to have no merit.

    If you want to change the law on this matter, your course of action is clear - sponsor an initiative to that end.

    This isn't an official opinion, but I think the laws are pretty clear. Nothing forces anyone to include a 'none of the above' option in any polls. It is, however, an optional regulatory option placed in the polls to prevent the citizenry from being stuck with a bad name - an option that citizens such as myself appreciate, and the lack of which some may find unfair.
     
  12. dutchfire

    dutchfire Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    13,480
    Location:
    -
    And some might want to repoll things when they find the polls unfair.
     
  13. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    Now, as for Gaidynne's questions - this is an excellent list, which probably requires greater public attention then is often given to this thread. If my fellow justices would consent, I suggest that we move the discussion to a new thread in the citizen's forum.

    Oh, and one more thing - I approve of the procedures as posted. :)
     
  14. NKVD

    NKVD Cossack

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,686
    Location:
    Stalingrad, Québec
    well then they should go suggest some names...people called me unfair for my polls about Oceans...If I would have followed the constitution only one name was seconded. It means it would have been the only one in the poll, thus making it the instant winner.
     
  15. NKVD

    NKVD Cossack

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,686
    Location:
    Stalingrad, Québec
    this is what i'm saying...I dont need to change the law to come to my goal...I just have to follow the procedures and dont include "none of the above" so then people will probably be angry
     
  16. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Hey look - court business!

    Sorry, NKVD, but as Octavian pointed out, that's beyond the powers of the Judiciary. Naming can be a pain at times, but things will eventually get named. As such, I find no merit for a Judicial Review in this request.

    Again, I'll concur with Octavian. It's not required to be present. So yup, if there's just one name seconded, that's it if you so choose.

    Again, I find no merit for a Judicial Review in this request.

    Gaidynne also posted an excellent list of questions and concerns, many of which surely sent donsig whirling in delight that someone else shares some of his worries. My view for this Judiciary is to keep any efforts through Judicial Review to create "new law" to an absolute minimum, especially when the areas involved are broad or important. Clearly, matters around the save are important. Rather than use a Judicial Review that ultimately results in a few people answering the questions and concerns, I'll be starting a thread in the citizen's forum, with the intention of addressing those issues.

    Thus, I find Gaidynne's requests to have no merit for a Judicial Review, but that a discussion on them should be started.

    -- Ravensfire, Chief Justice
     
  17. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Honestly, some people will find ways to be angry! Be firm, polite and respectful, and don't let their anger affect you too much.

    If they truly don't like the name or the process, they can use an initiative to force a change in the name or the process.

    -- Ravensfire
     
  18. NKVD

    NKVD Cossack

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,686
    Location:
    Stalingrad, Québec
    thank you...thats exactly wht I want...I want them to participate...The first names given on maps to certain places were rarely their definite one
     
  19. Gaidynne

    Gaidynne Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    30
    Raven:

    First, let me thank you for acknowledging my request for Judicial Review. I posted it a few days ago and while Octavian mentioned it on April 3rd, I was beginning to worry because none of the Judiciary had actually done anything yet. I am aware that there is no strict timeline imposed on Judicial Reviews but I think letting a Request for Judicial Review sit for more than a couple of days is dilatory.

    Second, I respectfully disagree with the sentiment you state above (I quoted for easy reference). Or more accurately, I think that the principle you state is generally sound, but that it is inapplicable here. I would like the Judiciary to review what the Designated Players to date have done and to determine whether their conduct has complied with the existing law governing Playing the Save. I don't ask that you make new law, rather I merely want you to judge whether elected officials have complied with the law.

    Accordingly, I ask that you re-consider my request for Judicial Review.

    Many thanks,

    Gaidynne
     
  20. Lockesdonkey

    Lockesdonkey Liberal Jihadist

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,403
    Location:
    Why do you care?
    In response to Gaidynne's statements, I would, speaking as a member of the Court, suggest that what has happened has happened and unless he can find a good reason as to why the actions of a given DP in the past are objectionable, we should not seek to rule on them when the option of presenting these concerns to the legislature is an option. If he, for whatever reason, believes this to be an issue for the judiciary rather than the legislature, then he can seek to find a specific where this has happened, wait for it to happen, or, if he so pleases, approach an individual--perhaps a member of the Bar Association who is also a DP--to engineer a test case to allow us to rule on this point of law with specificity (that is, we know what a nightmare scenario would look like, allowing a judgment to come down clearly).

    Barring that, however, this Court has no business meddling in legislative affairs. I concur with the Chief Justice's opinion--for the time being at least--and conclude that this request does not bear merit.

    I concur also with the Public Defender's opinion in the concerns brought up by the Chief Cartographer with regard to naming that while interesting they bear no merit.

    --Lockesdonkey
    Judge Advocate of the State of Yasutan

    By the way, I'm on vacation for the next week, so...yeah. Do what you like, find a temporary replacement for me (I'm confident that anyone who wants the job will be competent to do it...it doesn't attract idiots), or not, go on, or not, it's up to the other justices.
     

Share This Page