Term 2 - Office of the Judiciary, The Fanatikan Rule of Law

[Shaitan]

D-3 Says he can't simply decide by himself.

There is also an overriding manifesto that elected leaders are to serve the will of the people.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Appointment - Judge Advocate Pro Tem

I have also sent a PM to Leningrado encouraging him to resign as he clearly has a lot of real world stuff going on. In the meanwhile I am legally the Judge Advocate, per the rules on absenteeism.

Since we have a lot of issues going on, and my recommendation for appointment to JA should the position become vacant soon is donsig, and we need an additional individual in the position now.

Therefore, I am appointing donsig as Judge Advocate Pro Tem, until such time as I make a post in this thread taking back the position. I am not anticipating that occuring.

The poll for this appointment requires simple citizen majority in accordance with CoL, Section H. Please see the poll here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34681

Bill
Chief Justice

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Public Investigation - Neutral Leader

As requested by Cyc and Shaitan, a PI has been opened in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34683

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Chief Justice Opinion - Border Polls

I agree that quick polling for border definition is not valid.

Dis, I fully agree that there has been a ton of discussion and that we should have solved this long ago. The problem lies not with the law, but with the polls. If I were the Domestic Leader, I would simple set up an official poll, and let it run to quorum...this could have been done three weeks ago.

Bill
Chief Justice

 

[disorganizer]

Mayb a judical explanation of "how to setup an official poll?" should be sent out to all new government members at the beginning of the legislation period?

This way nobody will again post a poll with set ending date and instead use the right determination with "2 day or until quorum reached, whichever comes last".

Another small question:
Lets say:
* quorum is 18 (19 votes needed)
* a poll has 15 yes and 1 no.
* no changes in the votecount occur
now if our system is over-burocratized, we could say the poll is invalid as not reached quorum
if our system is flexible, we would say that the no's could never outnumber the yesses even if all votes until quorum are no's (there would be 3 more votes, if all were no it would stand 15 against 4) and as such the poll would be valid even if it did not directly but indirectly reach quorum...
now how flexible/burocratic are we ?
do we have a chance to implement the later in a fine-worded ammendment as it would help many polls out of the quorum-"problem"?

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by disorganizer
This way nobody will again post a poll with set ending date and instead use the right determination with "2 day or until quorum reached, whichever comes last".

Another small question:
Lets say:
* quorum is 18 (19 votes needed)
* a poll has 15 yes and 1 no.
* no changes in the votecount occur
now if our system is over-burocratized, we could say the poll is invalid as not reached quorum
if our system is flexible, we would say that the no's could never outnumber the yesses even if all votes until quorum are no's (there would be 3 more votes, if all were no it would stand 15 against 4) and as such the poll would be valid even if it did not directly but indirectly reach quorum...
now how flexible/burocratic are we ?
do we have a chance to implement the later in a fine-worded ammendment as it would help many polls out of the quorum-"problem"?

Now this is an interesting idea....

Tony Gwynn won a batting title under a similar arrangement. He needed like 30 more AB's to qualify for the title, so they game him an 0-30 and he still won it....

However, the idea you have, while pretty good in my opinion, would require a change to the laws, and I can't stretch that far in judicial interpretation to get you there.

As we have seen even recently, polls can reach quorum quite quickly if they are pushed.

Bill

 

[Cyc]

It is a valid poll, Dis. A valid informational poll. It can be used by a Leader to help make a decision, but can not be used as an officially binding poll by the Leader or anyone else.
This was all discussed at great length last game. It doesn't matter how "enlightened" we are, the polls currently follow a documented procedure. A poll will always fall into one of the categories listed for polls.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Call for Judicial Review

Please review the proposed change to the CoL in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=553079#post553079

The Chief Justice has posted his opinion there.

 

[disorganizer]

FYI:
My Honour Poll finally reached quorum and i claimed the top of the naming-coc. I just didnt know where to request it so i did multiple posts

 

[eyrei]

I am happy to see the PI finally got underway. Please don't wait so long next time (I am not referring to the judiciary, but to the entire citizenry). I don't like having to threaten to violate the constitution to get things moving...

 

[disorganizer]

well, but it seemed to have worked
threatening always works.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

Bill- I need a review. Donsig made an interesanting point in the latest border poll. Please review.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

Bill heres the link-
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=553214#post553214

 

[eyrei]

If the President is looking for someone to appoint, I strongly recommend Cyc, as he will certainly do the job and do it well. Maybe we can even convince him to run for governor next term...

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I agree cyc would be great as a governor.

Saam, see my notes in the thread you reference. I recommend you post the proposed poll in your thread as soon as possible.

Bill

 

[disorganizer]

hy judicacy,

one question, again polls:

our code of standards only sais "should" in all sentences concerning the formatting of a poll, including those about discussion links, discussion times. the only fixed thing there is the quorum level.

we lately rendered some of our polls invalid because of formatting errors (no pre discussion, no link to it, etc.). imho, this was wrong as our rules do not explicitly say we must use those formatting standards.

of course this is stupid and must be changed, but at the moment i think its definitely so that we have no rule at all to enforce anything about polls except quorum levels.

now whats you humble opinion about that?

 

[Eklektikos]

Originally posted by eyrei
If the President is looking for someone to appoint, I strongly recommend Cyc, as he will certainly do the job and do it well. Maybe we can even convince him to run for governor next term...

Cyc would have been my choice even without the lobbying

I'll be happy to make the appointment as soon as the Judiciary informs me that it is legal to do so.

 

[Danke]

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
sorry. i meant public defender.
did he take this job thinking there would be nothing to do?
seriously...

Hopefully you mean Leningrado, the judge advocate

Danke
Public Defender

 

[Danke]

Sorry, I missed this conversation earlier.

Bill, I actually disagree that this only refers to citizens in the CoC or who have citizen honors, as I believe you said in an earlier post. The Code of Standards (C:6) says:

"Naming rights must pass through all citizens before a citizen is given a second naming right in the chain (from Article 1). That is, if you've already named a city you do not get to name another one because you moved positions in the Chain of Command. "

I think all citizens means *all* citizens. While I think that we can skip inactive players who don't respond, I do think that we need to run through the CoC, honorees, and the entire Citizen Registry before someone gets a second shot.

Danke

 

[Danke]

Originally posted by disorganizer
hy judicacy,

one question, again polls:

our code of standards only sais "should" in all sentences concerning the formatting of a poll, including those about discussion links, discussion times. the only fixed thing there is the quorum level.

we lately rendered some of our polls invalid because of formatting errors (no pre discussion, no link to it, etc.). imho, this was wrong as our rules do not explicitly say we must use those formatting standards.

of course this is stupid and must be changed, but at the moment i think its definitely so that we have no rule at all to enforce anything about polls except quorum levels.

now whats you humble opinion about that?

Here's my .02gp, dis:

When interpreting the laws I look at what can reasonably be interpreted as intent given the law as written (and without reviewing the arguments leading up to the law). I tend to rule using should=must, so my interpretations would not change even if the wording did.

However, your point is well taken and I would support a poll to clean this up as it does open the door for judicial latitude in areas where that is not intended.

Danke