Term 3 Judiciary

[Furiey]

I do think it is yes to both my questions. Whether we would want to do the second is a different debate altogether.

 

[DaveShack]

So we're going to say that we can rebuild one of our cities if it gets razed, but if one we captured gets razed by the enemy then we're out of luck?

I love the way this game is consistent. If this and previous judiciaries had just given common sense answers to previous questions instead of consistently taking the (stupid IMO) strict letter of the law, then we would not still be asking these questions.

My answer as a citizen is NO and NO. If we're dumb enough to let one of our cities be razed then we get what's coming to us. On the second issue, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander -- if you won't let me raze a captured city and capture another, I'm sure not going to let you raze one of our cities and rebuild elsewhere.

 

[Black_Hole]

So we're going to say that we can rebuild one of our cities if it gets razed, but if one we captured gets razed by the enemy then we're out of luck?

I love the way this game is consistent. If this and previous judiciaries had just given common sense answers to previous questions instead of consistently taking the (stupid IMO) strict letter of the law, then we would not still be asking these questions.

My answer as a citizen is NO and NO. If we're dumb enough to let one of our cities be razed then we get what's coming to us. On the second issue, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander -- if you won't let me raze a captured city and capture another, I'm sure not going to let you raze one of our cities and rebuild elsewhere.

we don't rule on what wouldn't be dumb, we rule on the law

 

[ravensfire]

we don't rule on what wouldn't be dumb, we rule on the law

Actually, you should always take both into consideration.

Judicial Reviews are there because there are legitimate questions about the law. The obvious ones, the ones that can be determined easily by looking at the law, should be dismissed.

That big ruling we did last term had a few areas that I intentionally looked at the "fun" aspects of the game because the law could go either way.

Quite honestly, several of those questions, and probably both of these could be handled by a CoL amendment, as they would explain and detail how the Constitution is interpreted. I didn't like some of what DS said below, as I strongly disagree with him. I think, however, that he could work to change some of those ruling (and probably this one) by putting together a CoL amendment to change them to use his version of common sense.

To go on topic:
Question 1: Yes, we can rebuild a core city that is recaptured.
Question 2: No, we can not abandon and refound a core city. This is far too "gamey" for me, and I don't want to see it.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

I think, however, that he could work to change some of those ruling (and probably this one) by putting together a CoL amendment to change them to use his version of common sense.

This JR, and many of the previous ones to which I refer, are based on Article C of the Constitution, which cannot be changed via a CoL amendment.

 

[Black_Hole]

Actually, you should always take both into consideration.

Judicial Reviews are there because there are legitimate questions about the law. The obvious ones, the ones that can be determined easily by looking at the law, should be dismissed.

That big ruling we did last term had a few areas that I intentionally looked at the "fun" aspects of the game because the law could go either way.

Quite honestly, several of those questions, and probably both of these could be handled by a CoL amendment, as they would explain and detail how the Constitution is interpreted. I didn't like some of what DS said below, as I strongly disagree with him. I think, however, that he could work to change some of those ruling (and probably this one) by putting together a CoL amendment to change them to use his version of common sense.

To go on topic:
Question 1: Yes, we can rebuild a core city that is recaptured.
Question 2: No, we can not abandon and refound a core city. This is far too "gamey" for me, and I don't want to see it.

-- Ravensfire

what I am saying is that even though it is dumb to raze cities and rebuild(if they are built by us), its legal
we shouldn't make it illegal because its a dumb idea(which it is)

 

[ravensfire]

This JR, and many of the previous ones to which I refer, are based on Article C of the Constitution, which cannot be changed via a CoL amendment.

Sure it can - that's the purpose of the CoL - to explain and provide details. The CoL cannot contradict the Constitution, but it can explain how things happen. That's the whole purpose.

Look at the declaration of war stuff - it says the Senate and Assembly have the power to declare war in the Constitution. It doesn't say how. That's all in the Code of Laws.

With this, we've got some gray areas. The constitution says we can have 5 built cities. It doesn't fill in the details about various scenarios because it shouldn't. THAT goes in the Code of Laws.

Make your changes in the CoL, you're filling in the details of Article C.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Bootstoots]

The other justices may make their rulings on DG7JR13 at any time. I'll rule after the other two have gone.

 

[Black_Hole]

JA's Ruling on JR#13
Article C. Game Structure:

No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.

So the answers to both questions are "yes"
Yes, we can rebuild a city lost(if we built it)
Yes, we can raze a city and rebuild it(if we built it)

The law is quite clear, that we can have 5 cities built by us

 

[mhcarver]

1.Yes we may rebuild a city that has been lost if we rebuilit it

2.No we may not raze our own cities and rebuild them, it goes against the game and I feel like that was not the spirit I envisioned when I voted for this variant.

 

[mhcarver]

umm, I hate to prod but is their a Chief Justice in the house? ( Mhcarver heads down to the wine cellar, realizes that the locks have been changed, theres an interesting combination of thuds and what can best be described as a chugging noise,he decides some things are best left alone)

 

[ravensfire]

HEY! Stop all that banging up there! Don't you know that there's wine to be drunk down here?

Sheesh - you give 'em the keys and they suddenly think they have the only copies...

-- Ravensfire, President of Fanatikos

 

[Bootstoots]

umm, I hate to prod but is their a Chief Justice in the house? ( Mhcarver heads down to the wine cellar, realizes that the locks have been changed, theres an interesting combination of thuds and what can best be described as a chugging noise,he decides some things are best left alone)

My apologies, I'll be right on it, once I get this thing open.

 

[ravensfire]

My apologies, I'll be right on it, once I get this thing open.

Gimme that shtupid bottle! <hick!> I'll open it heh heh heh

<CRASH>

Ohhh. That's not good. I think I'll .... uym ... what was I gonna do?

Security detail: I think it's time to go home, sir.

Ohh yeah! That's a really good idea. Woah - this room isn't level. Mishter Chief ummm, what every you are. You sshhoould really look into that. Thish is dangerous!

Security detail: Okay - time to go home, sir.

Yesh! It's time to go home!

-- Ravensfire, President of Fanatikos (who apparently enjoys his wine!)

 

[Bootstoots]

Judicial Review 13 comes in two parts, namely whether or not we can rebuild if a city is destroyed, and whether or not we can raze one of our own cities and the resettle it. The relevant article of the Constitution, Article C, states the following:

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.

Article C is worded so that we can have no more than five cities that we built standing at any time. Unlike the sentence relating to the capture of foreign cities, the first sentence does not appear to restrict us to only 5 cities, just five cities at any time, thus allowing us any number of cities through the course of the game provided only five are standing simultaneously. This is the key to this ruling, and it answers both questions. My answers to them are as follows:

1. Yes, we most certainly can rebuild cities if they are destroyed. As long as we have fewer than five cities standing at the time the replacement city is built, it's perfectly legal.

2. Razing our own cities and then rebuilding them is not exactly an encouraged practice, but there is no law against it. Article C prohibits that no more than it prohibits the rebuilding of cities. Therefore, it is legal. However, any official ordering or performing such an action without polling it can expect a CC for violating the will of the people - the people should be assumed to be against any extreme measures such as this one. I personally would vote for such an action only under the most dire of circumstances.

 

[Cyc]

Good call, CJ Bootstoots. See? A little wine never hurt anyone. I hope the President made it home safely...

 

[Bootstoots]

Judicial ruling - DG7JR13

This ruling was on the interpretation of Article C of the Constitution. It came with two questions. These questions and the rulings the Term 3 Judiciary has made are as follows:

1. Can we rebuild a city that has previously been destroyed?

In a 3-0 ruling, the Judiciary decided that cities that are destroyed by a foreign power can be rebuilt.

2. Can we abandon our own cities and then resettle them?

In a 2-1 decision, the Judiciary ruled that the abandonment of our own cities, with the consent of the people, is constitutional. The Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate voted for this ruling, the Public Defender dissented.

 

[ravensfire]

Justices,

At the most recent game session, the Designated Player did not show up in a timely manner, based on the time in the Instruction Thread. I used the authority in Section L.1 of the Code of Laws to take over that session.

My question, as raised by Furiey in the DP Pool thread, is does that count at Provo's slot in the DP rotation? There was no notification of a delay. It's quite understandable if something came up, and I'm sure that the other players would accomodate an emergency, but it's in the best interest of everyone to keep things moving on.

Thanks for your help!
-- Ravensfire

 

[Black_Hole]

Justices,

At the most recent game session, the Designated Player did not show up in a timely manner, based on the time in the Instruction Thread. I used the authority in Section L.1 of the Code of Laws to take over that session.

My question, as raised by Furiey in the DP Pool thread, is does that count at Provo's slot in the DP rotation? There was no notification of a delay. It's quite understandable if something came up, and I'm sure that the other players would accomodate an emergency, but it's in the best interest of everyone to keep things moving on.

Thanks for your help!
-- Ravensfire

a tought question, there is no actual clause stating what should happen in this case... I will have to conduct further legal review

 

[Bootstoots]

I will treat this as a Judicial Review request.

This review found to have Merit and will be docketed as DG7JR14 - Missed gameplay sessions.

The question to be addressed is the following: If a DP misses their game play session, and the session is taken over by the President (edit: or another official) according to CoL L.1, does that missed session count as their gameplay session, as it would if they were actually present?

The Court is now open to citizen comments.