Term 4 Judiciary part 2-Monster Overdrive

[DaveShack]

Donsig, is your problem with the JR12 rulings based on disagreement that the Censor should be required to validate initiatives, or based on the stated reasoning for the rulings?

Does being speedy this term mean finding the fastest way possible to slow down the court's deliberations?

Perhaps if you have a dissenting opinion you could just post it and let the game move on?

 

[donsig]

I find your remark about slowing down the court's deliberations to be extremely funny. There have been no deliberations. I wrote my ruling on this case long ago and pmmed it to my collegues. I've heard back from neither the JA nor either of the CJs. If there had been any deliberation at all perhaps there would not be a dissenting opinion.

I must offer my apologies to my collegues. I have not written my ruling on JR12 yet. This is the JR where my recusal is in question. I confused this with the Strider Amendment JR. I was also thinking we'd be doing things like in an earlier term where we had a set order for deciding cases. That method is much better than the free for all of the last couple terms.

 

[DaveShack]

I think it's quite revealing that there haven't been any nominations for two of three Judiciary spots.

 

[donsig]

I think it's quite revealing that there haven't been any nominations for two of three Judiciary spots.

I fixed that. Consider yourself nominated DaveShack.

Yes, it is revealing. It reveals just how lazy our citizens are. They are too lazy to fix the CoL and constitution through proper means, preferring to have the judiciary rubber stamp whatever interpretation glosses over problems in our laws no matter how far the laws have to be bent. Then when the judiciary refuses to do this dirty work and tells the citizens they must either live by the laws they passed or change them, the citizens ignore both the laws and the judiciary!

 

[robboo]

I dont know about lazy..there just isnt that many of us around any more.

Fix that and we fix the problem of apparent laziness.

 

[donsig]

I dont know about lazy..there just isnt that many of us around any more.

Fix that and we fix the problem of apparent laziness.

Well, let's get rid of the turn chat and make it a forum based game where we can all participate equally. Then let's do away with the monthly terms and make terms based on a fixed number of game play turns.

If there aren't that many around then it should be easier to change our laws, not more difficult. I'm sticking with the lazy diagnosis.

 

[DaveShack]

I fixed that. Consider yourself nominated DaveShack.

That wasn't exactly what I was looking for, but thanks anyway.

 

[robboo]

Well, let's get rid of the turn chat and make it a forum based game where we can all participate equally. Then let's do away with the monthly terms and make terms based on a fixed number of game play turns.

If there aren't that many around then it should be easier to change our laws, not more difficult. I'm sticking with the lazy diagnosis.

Interesting..has it been done before in a demogame??? Not a MTDG but in a demogame

 

[donsig]

No, it's never been done. The very first Civ III demogame started without turn chats. Turning the first term, Grey Fox, (the first President / designated player) started holding chat sessions as he played the turns. It was a social event that took hold and became institutionalized. When we lost alot of players in that first Civ III DG someone started a thread about the reduced participation and a common theme was people lost interest because game play decisions were being made in the chat. I've been fighting the chat since term three of that DG. (I was president back then and we had quite a few rows. Ahhh, the good old days.) Back in the thrid Civ III DG, in term 3 (again when I was president) we had another blow up (over a little war with the Aztecs) and I threatened to play all the sessions off line that term. I think I did one off line and such a ruckus was raised that the mods put the game on hold for a week so things could calm down. We once had a constitution that did not demand chat sessions (nor did it prohibit them either).

So endeth the history lesson.

 

[DaveShack]

If there aren't that many around then it should be easier to change our laws, not more difficult.

Unless one, or three, people sit on amendment proposals instead of evaluating them using common sense so they can be put to a vote.

 

[mhcarver]

Me and donsig have exchanged pms on JR 15 and I hope to rule on it soon, I would like to ask the court to begin debating the questions posed in JR13

 

[DaveShack]

I would like to beseech the court to consider JR13 with all possible speed, since it is likely to be called into action immedately upon the start of the new term, and we'll likely be short at least one justice at the time and so unable to rule on it.

 

[DaveShack]

DG1JR13
Questions:
1) Is there a required place for the office filling the position to post that they are looking for candidates?
2) Must the office filling the position wait 72 hours after that request to fill the office, or may someone be appointed before that time period?
3) If only one citizen applies during that 72 hour period, must the office filling the position appoint that citizen?
Submitted by: ravensfire
Status: To be ruled upon

Relevant Law

C) Vacancies
I. A Vacancy occurs when an office is empty due to the office holder resigning, judicial action, impeachment, if no citizen ran for election for that office or when a new office is created.
II. Triumvirate Vacancies

IIA. If there is a Vacancy in the Triumvirate, the President shall nominate a citizen to that office. If the Presidency is Vacant, the Secretary of State, or Secretary of War if the Secretary of State is also Vacant, shall nominate a citizen to that office. The citizen must accept the nomination prior any further steps.​

IIB. The Judiciary shall confirm the appointment. If confirmed, the citizen takes office immediately. If not confirmed, a different citizen must be nominated.​

IIC. The nominee may be any citizen that does not currently hold a Triumvirate or Judicial position. If the nominee holds another office, they must resign immediately upon confirmation.​

IID. This appointment may not be challenged by a confirmation poll.​

III. Cabinet Vacancies

IIIA. The President must offer the position to the Deputy, if there is one.​

IIIB. If there is no deputy, the President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.​

IIIC. This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll.​

IV. Governor Vacancies

IVA. The Governors Council must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Council within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Council may appoint any citizen to the office.​

IVB. If there is no Governors Council, the Minister of Interior must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Minister of Interior within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Minister of Interior may appoint any citizen to the office.​

V. Judicial Vacancies

VA. The President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.​

VB. This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll.​

VI. All vacancy appointments which are subject to a confirmation poll are provisional until the time for a confirmation poll has passed, or when a confirmation poll for that appointment concludes with a 'Yes' majority.

VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office. This is a private poll, asking the question "Should <citizen name> serve as <office>?", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll should last for 48 hours. If a majority of citizens who vote, excluding abstain, vote no, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term.​

VIB. A Citizen who holds office may apply for a new office before the 72 hour waiting period provided they write in their application that they will resign from their current office. That citizen does not have to resign until the provisional period passes.​

VII. Being a member of the Designated Player Pool is not considered holding an office and thus is not counted against a Citizen in terms of being able to run for and hold multiple offices.

Citizen input

Question 1. The law does not say the call for candidates must be posted in a specific place.

Question 2. The law limits when a current office holder may be appointed, to no earlier than 72 hours after the call for applications. The purpose of this limit is to allow citizens without offices to apply without competition from people who do have offices.

Quesiton 3. The official is not limited to choosing only people who apply for the job, but there is a limitation that a current office holder may only be appointed if there are no non office holder applicants.

 

[mhcarver]

thank you, I'll be issuing a ruling this time tommorow

 

[Black_Hole]

No, it's never been done. The very first Civ III demogame started without turn chats. Turning the first term, Grey Fox, (the first President / designated player) started holding chat sessions as he played the turns. It was a social event that took hold and became institutionalized. When we lost alot of players in that first Civ III DG someone started a thread about the reduced participation and a common theme was people lost interest because game play decisions were being made in the chat. I've been fighting the chat since term three of that DG. (I was president back then and we had quite a few rows. Ahhh, the good old days.) Back in the thrid Civ III DG, in term 3 (again when I was president) we had another blow up (over a little war with the Aztecs) and I threatened to play all the sessions off line that term. I think I did one off line and such a ruckus was raised that the mods put the game on hold for a week so things could calm down. We once had a constitution that did not demand chat sessions (nor did it prohibit them either).

So endeth the history lesson.

currently chat sessions can be offline or online:

A Designated Player shall choose whether his Play Session will be online or offline.

 

[donsig]

Donsig, is your problem with the JR12 rulings based on disagreement that the Censor should be required to validate initiatives, or based on the stated reasoning for the rulings?

Does being speedy this term mean finding the fastest way possible to slow down the court's deliberations?

Perhaps if you have a dissenting opinion you could just post it and let the game move on?

I replied to this a long time ago but the post isn't there.

My problem with the JR12 rulings are based solely on the fact that they do not correspond with what is written in the constitution. I have no *disagreement* that the Censor should be required to validate initiatives. My perceived disagreement stems from the fact that I've read the constitution and CoL and the Censor has no legal authority over initiatives. I do think it would be a good idea to have the Censor validate binding polls but we've never legally authorized it and it is not the judiciary's job to do that. I would gladly support an initiative or amendment that gave the Censor authority to validate initiatives but in the mean time the Censor should be restricting himself to validating official polls only. (I have written my dissent and pmmed it to my fellow justices in hopes they will reconsider their own rulings on this JR.)

For the record, my *disagreement* concerning initiatives also is more about the allowed lengths of initiative polls and the allowed form (public and private).

 

[donsig]

Please note that JR14 was ruled on in the first judicial thread this term. It was never put into the judicial log though.

EDIT: Also, the amendment poll was posted and is now closed. Not sure if the amendment has been actually added to our CoL thread.

 

[DaveShack]

I concur, it has not been updated in the Constitution thread, and the new text of CoL section 8 was not included in my previous post of the law for JR 13. In this case it doesn't actually matter, since that particular subsection isn't relevant to the questions for this JR.

 

[donsig]

I have written proposed rulings on all outstanding JRs. I've been waiting on possible feedback from my fellow judiciary members. If none is forthcoming by this evening I will post my rulings then.

 

[donsig]

DG1JR12
Question: Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?

Article C.1.2 of our constitution states By Initiative in the form of a binding poll initiated by the citizenry, which has force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type.

The same article states by Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.

The descriptions of these two types of decision making differ in three ways:

1) the term official is applied to referendums but not initiatives;

2) the phrase initiated by the citizenry is applied to initiatives but not referendums;

3) initiatives have force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type while referendums only have force over the former.

It is clear that the difference between initiatives and referendums is not one dimentional. This judicial review concerns itself with the question of whether initiatives are official polls. Combining the fact that the word *official* is not used in our constitution to decribe initiatives while it is used in the previous clause to describe referendums it is clear that initiatives are not to be considered official polls. This is confirmed by the fact that initiatives are specifically initiated by the citizenry. One of the differences between initiatives and referendums is that referendums are *official* (i.e., posted by officials) whereas initiatives, being posted by the citizenry (i.e., not posted by an official) are not *official*. Note that both of these decision types are specifically stated to be *binding*. The fact that referendums are explicitly listed as both official AND binding strongly suggests that under our constitution there is a legal difference between the two terms. The phrasing of these constitutional clauses recognizes the common law presumption that a poll need not be posted by an official in order to be considered binding upon our officials. In other words, a *binding* poll need not be *official*.

Therefore, initiatives are not to be considered official polls. I would like to point out here that this interpretation in no way contradicts the other difference between initiatives and referendums (i.e., the scope of each decision type). Nor does any given interpreation of the scope of the two types contradict the interpretation of the officialness of initiatives. Just as the length of a rectangle is not dependent upon its width, how we choose to define the scope of a decision making type is not affected by how we define its offialness.

The second part of this question concerns the Censor's authority to verify (or validate) initiative polls.

B.III.IIIB of our CoL lists the Censor's duties:

The Powers and Duties of the Censor:
1. The Censor shall post his Procedures of Censorship at the beginning of his term, defining how Official Polls will take place during his tenure.
A. The Censor must obey the Procedures that he laid down for his term.
2. The Censor shall be the Official in charge of all elections.
3. Censor shall be responsible for the official results of an election and for validating an election.
4. The Censor is also responsible for validating any other official polls.
5. The Censor posts all votes by the Assembly as instructions as needed.
6. The Censor shall be responsible for maintaining a list of names for the naming of cities, units, and other appraise items, approved by the Citizens Assembly.

Nowhere is the Censor given explicit authority to validate either initiatives (specifically) or binding polls (generally). The Censor is given authority to validate only two types of polls: elections and official polls. Since initiatives are neither, they are not subject to verification or validation by the Censor.

donsig
Public Defender