Term 4 Judiciary-the carver court

[Double Stack]

Look at it this way, we cannot form a law that conflicts with the CFC Forum's Rule since that where we are based. If someone break a law, they can be CC. However, since we have no laws conflicting with CFC Forum's rule, any infraction will be reported to a moderator rather than the Judicary. The jurisdiction of the Judicary resides over the Demogame's Code of Law and Consitution wherelse the jurisdiction of the moderators is any infraction of the Forum rules.

In short, we don't make laws that conflict with the rules and we make laws that concides with the Forum rules. In other words, the forum's rule is also the law of speech and conduct among ourselves.

 

[Black_Hole]

So that means that if you break the forum rules you are also breaking the demogame rules, although to CC someone would be silly, thats the mods job.

no it doesnt mean that!!! it means we can't make a law like : "You can flame the recipient of a CC", but it doesnt mean breaking forum rules is breaking demogame rules!!! you are making an inaccurate and huge link....

 

[Nobody]

no it doesnt mean that!!! it means we can't make a law like : "You can flame the recipient of a CC", but it doesnt mean breaking forum rules is breaking demogame rules!!! you are making an inaccurate and huge link....

I see what you mean (i surender) but would it article that our rules that say "you can have free speach" would be braking our other law that says "laws cant conflict with the CFC forum rules" and the CFC rules say "there is no freedom of speech" anyway this conversation is pointless, we all know that everyone can say what ever they want as long as they dont swear,spam or flame or discuss moderator action.

 

[RegentMan]

I have a JR for the court. Don't think that your term is up yet...

Here is Article L of our constitution:

Article L.  Commission of any game action by any person other than the 
            Designated Player while carrying out their duties that is 
            not instantly reversible without reloading the save is 
            strictly forbidden.

Does this include previous turnchat saves? For example, in order to help me decide whether or not I wanted to accept my nomination for president, I played turn one of the 1320AD save. We're currently on 1370AD. Does my action still violate Article L? Would me playing 300BC violate this article?

 

[DaveShack]

Trying to CC yourself?

Speaking as a citizen, and looking at the reason the law is there in the first place, I don't think it should be a violation of the law to play an old save -- as long as there is no second action like using the knowledge thus gained.

The main intent of the law is to avoid cheating by gaining knowledge which wouldn't otherwise be available. Playing a sufficiently old save would have very little chance of yielding knowledge which would be useful. There is a secondary reason for not playing old saves, which is to avoid second-guessing ourselves. Also we don't want citizens replaying old saves and using different results as a rallying point for or against political candidates.

My suggestion to the court is to look at this JR as "does the prohibition on playing the save imply the current save, or does it extend beyond the current save? If the ruling is that it extends beyond the current save, I would advise leaving it at that and not trying to define an answer to "how old is old".

 

[RegentMan]

Trying to CC yourself?

Just wanting to make sure that everyone knows that I was not trying to do anything illegal on purpose. I could see someone reading my post and thinking that that's illegal, so I skipped steps two and three and went to the end myself.

 

[mhcarver]

oops, sorry about overlooking regentmans review, I find regentmans request for judicial review has merit and is to be added to the docket as DGVIT4JR4

 

[GenMarshall]

I do admit that I am quite orthodox with the rules regarding playing the save. Playing an older save is still considered forbidden since you could come up with alternate events that would have happened and thus is a irreversable action.

 

[mhcarver]

In this ruling I do agree with the Judge Advocate/ CJ elect, playing any of the previous saves does constitute an action that cannot be reversed and is this illegal. on a personal note , If people did begin playing the old saves then I feel the demogame as a whole would weaken since their would essentially be nothing but playback.

 

[GenMarshall]

Retracted: Proposal still undergoing discussions

 

[Nobody]

Public Defeneder ruling on Dgvit4jr4

I agree with the ruling of my fellow justices. Playing any save including the old saves, is in clear violation of the constitution.

 

[mhcarver]

before I go to work I would like to issue the following ruling
If the proposed poll from CG dealing with a vacant presidency is submitted to this court unchanged within the 24 time period then I find it has merit,

2.If the previous statement is true then I also find it does not contradict the constitution and may proceed to polling assuming it receives judicial approval

 

[mhcarver]

well I think the vacant presidency bill needs to be sped up in order to get a president in place as soon as possible. So I am submitting this addition to the COL on CG's behalf


Proposed Poll
Do you approve of the following changes to the Consitution?
Yes/No/Abstain and will run for a maxumum of 96 Hours

Original Text of the current consitution:

5.  Vacant Offices
        a.  An official or Justice may declare themselves to be 
            Absent for a period of time. This period may not exceed 1 
            week.  During this time, the deputy or pro-tem will act 
            with all power and duties of that office, surrendering 
            them to the official or Justice when they return or at 
            the end of the planned absence, whichever comes first.
            
        b.  Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3
            days in a thread related to their area without prior 
            notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.

        c.  If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial matter 
            for three days, the remaining Justices may declare the 
            Justice Vacant.  If all three Justices fail to post on 
            any active Judicial matter for 3 days, the President may 
            declare all Judicial offices Vacant, and immediately 
            appoint a new Chief Justice.

Proposed Changes/Addition (Changes in Boldface):

5.  Vacant Offices
        a.  An official or Justice may declare themselves to be 
            Absent for a period of time. This period may not exceed 1 
            week.  During this time, the deputy or pro-tem will act 
            with all power and duties of that office, surrendering 
            them to the official or Justice when they return or at 
            the end of the planned absence, whichever comes first.
            
        b.  Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3
            days in a thread related to their area without prior 
            notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.

        c.  If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial matter 
            for three days, the remaining Justices may declare the 
            Justice Vacant.  If all three Justices fail to post on 
            any active Judicial matter for 3 days, the President may 
            declare all Judicial offices Vacant, and immediately 
            appoint a new Chief Justice.
        [b]d.  If in the event that the presidential office is vacant, 
            The chief justice shall nominate a citizen for president. 
            The candidate that the chief justice nominates shall be 
            approved by both the public defender and the judge advocate.[/b]

[/QUOTE]

 

[mhcarver]

I find that above submission has merit and will be added to the docket as DGVIT4JR5

 

[mhcarver]

I also rule that the above request does not conflict with the constitution of code of laws in any way and may proceed to polling, assuming this meets judicial approval I would like to ask that the last judiciary member to rule on this proposal post the poll immediately

 

[GenMarshall]

I would like to thank Mhvarver for placing the proposal up .
I agree with the current CJ that this new addition does not conflict with the constitution of the CoL.

(Now I just need to get Nobody's butt in here to place his rulling )

 

[Nobody]

Yeah i agree that the proposed legislation does not conflict with the constitution.

 

[DaveShack]

Good, you finished the ruling prior to the end of the term. Now the poll has to go up before the end, to make sure it can't be argued as being illegal due to the term having expired.

However, we'll be in limbo until the new law is ratified, which will be a couple of days into the next term.

 

[Bertie]

Question to the Court:

Why isn’t each judicial action discussed in a separate thread in the Citizen’s forum? I believe Court Procedures say this may happen if someone requests it; but otherwise it won’t.

The reason I inquire is because I, at least, tend to miss discussions when they take place only in a governmental thread. This is probably my own failing; but I would think if you would like citizen input on matters – and perhaps you don’t – that making discussions more accessible would be useful. It’s also a good way to organize discussions; by confining them only to the Judicial Thread, there can be several different discussions running concurrently, and it can be difficult for the casual reader to sort out which post belongs to which topic.

Thank you for your consideration,

Bertie

 

[Black_Hole]

Question to the Court:

Why isn’t each judicial action discussed in a separate thread in the Citizen’s forum? I believe Court Procedures say this may happen if someone requests it; but otherwise it won’t.

The reason I inquire is because I, at least, tend to miss discussions when they take place only in a governmental thread. This is probably my own failing; but I would think if you would like citizen input on matters – and perhaps you don’t – that making discussions more accessible would be useful. It’s also a good way to organize discussions; by confining them only to the Judicial Thread, there can be several different discussions running concurrently, and it can be difficult for the casual reader to sort out which post belongs to which topic.

Thank you for your consideration,

Bertie

if you desire a certain JR to be discussed in the citizen forum, post so in the judicial thread and the CJ or other justice will post it, if no one requests it then it won't be posted so we don't clutter up the citizens forum