1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Term 4 ~ Judiciary

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Demo Game: Government' started by Black_Hole, Mar 30, 2006.

  1. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    I would be quite happy to make a ruling on Strider's proposed amendment as it has been submitted to us. However, I would rule that the proposed amendment has numerous conflicts with current law. That would be an unfortunate thing to have to do just because the amendments's sponsor (or someone else) does not want to submit a proper JR for the amendment by simply copying and pasting the proposed amendment poll into the JR request.

    When it comes to replacing our complete Code of Laws we should be taking care to be sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed. I would also like to say that it is not (nor should it be) the responsibility of the judiciary to see that citizens submit propeer JRs.
     
  2. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    Yet, as I've pointed out already I've already submitted a proper JR. You want to say otherwise? Then show me where it says I have to include the current law along with the JR? The procedures do not say I have to, nor does it allow for any exceptions or additions to that.

    I am not an idoit. How many other times will I have to submit something, just because of some unwritten law someone pulls out of their ass? I gave in once just to keep things moving, but I am not willing to repeat the process over and over again.

    Let me put it in simple terms, follow the procedures you agreed to follow. If you didn't write it down, then it doesn't exist. Come on... show me where does it say that the current law has to be included? No, do pull out that bullfeathers that you can't rule on it because you don't know what it replaces. The procedures require that the discussion thread be included, as far as I'm concerned that means you need the discussion thread for something. :hmm: I wonder what that might be?

    I am agitated, angry, and really not in a good state of mind the past two weeks. I have half a mind to just end all of your terms right now. Oh.. and no that is no idle threat. I can launch a Citizen Complaint against all three of you for breaking the lower forms of law. With no way to appoint pro-tems to serve all three judicial poistions, this term is over. Wait, unless the President appoints a pro-tem Chief Justice. Although, that line of reasoning won't go in your favor.

    However, what would that achieve? It will just slow things down, back things up even worst. It would make me like you. My interest is not in slowing things down, I just wanted to keep things moving. We have almost a half-dozen new players in the game. Now is not the time to be showing them that the democracy game doesn't hold to democratic ideals.

    I backed off... I re-posted the proposed poll in the format that was shown to me. Even though there was not a single law in place that said I had to. Now, once again I follow the law... and you tell me once again that there was some unwritten rule that I had to do this. No, sorry it doesn't work that way.

    There's thing that are worth giving up I know, but I won't let this get me. This is just to disturbing to just pass by. You are purposely attempting to block a movement that has followed the laws and procedures as laid down. Hell, a movement that has even went out of it's way twice now just to keep things moving.

    Every other elected official is charged with supplying information to the citizens. Yet I see the complete opposite here. You require that the citizens supply information to you, and for no logical reason. It's right in front of you, but a click away. Not that you needed that click, as you knew the information before I even launched the judicial review.

    The legislative part of our game is one of the most complex in the game and the Judiciary is even more complex. It's often unclear and blurred. Your doing nothing to change that. You are only harming an honest effort to legally change things. Your saying that the procedures set down earlier this term.. are not set in stone. That you can make up rules just off the top of your head.

    I'm sorry, but it is time to give our laws back to the citizens of this game. It is time to require that the Judiciary answer to the people, just like the cabinet must.

    It is disturbing seeing those who say the citizens don't get enough voice, refuse to give the citizens a voice.

    You can tell me all you want about how "simple" it might be just to change it. Yes... I know how simple it is, but I'm not going to let this slide by. The Judiciary can not go on thinking that they can just pull things out of thin air and call it law. Yet, how hard would it be for you to just review the law as you know it should be reviewed? You know what it's meant to replace, it's not that hard.

    Yet, there is no principle, rhyme, or reason in refusing to do so. Your are purposely attempting to block a legal change for no reason. I pointed out already that the procedures do not require I include the current law. A link to the proposed poll has been include with the review.. it says pretty clearly in the proposed poll what it's meant to replace.

    I'm getting tired of people acting like this is there own little boxing arena. I had enough drama and gossip during High school. I use to love confrontation, hell I use to love getting into fights. Now it just tires and annoys me. I am not going to beat heads with you untill were all so groggy we don't even know what the hell were saying.

    I'm not going to have some long angry arguement with you about who's right and I'm not going to let you roadblock this game.
     
  3. robboo

    robboo Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,123
    Location:
    Cajun Country
    Strider..just suck it up and post like they asked. Quit being bullheaded just to take the roll of matryr. This is the same thing you did in the rpg. All three want it that way it doesn't change your proposal..so what the big deal.

    Also noone is road blocking the game..we have a perfectly good game going on for almost 4 months without the revisions...the patch might be the only road block.
     
  4. Nobody

    Nobody Gangster

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    5,454
    Location:
    Wellington New Zealand
    I assume your recusing yourself, or just me and donsig could rule as 2/3 is the right amount? also who says it they are accepted or now.

    Anyway can we get through the JRs we have first.
     
  5. Nobody

    Nobody Gangster

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    5,454
    Location:
    Wellington New Zealand
    Strider,

    Calm yourself down we you dont need to write 3000 words to say your anoyed. This is just a beurocratic muck up just like all of the last 2 terms problems. We all know that your proposal is to replace the entire Code of Laws, but some people might not have noticted it. On the side of caution you should just write in your proposal (edit it in) that your amendments replace the entire code of laws. I mean right now your proposal would just add your replacement on too the end of the last. Just do that and i will consent to them going to poll.

    Second dont go around threatening the Judicary, we are neutral and independant and do not take into consideration any threats like that you have just made, so its a waste of type. If you want to CC us all then role the dice. Cowincidentaly we are the ones who rule of a CCs vaildity.
     
  6. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Strider is right. The judicial procedure does not require the law to be replaced to be quoted in the JR request, and the nature of the new law as a replacement is stated clearly in the proposed poll.

    We don't need any any more discussion on this, just review the new law for conflicts with the Constitution and move on.

    DaveShack
    Chief Justice Emeritus*

    * The colloquial usage of the term emeritus refers to someone who has served with distinction in an office and is accorded some degree of respect by the community even though that person is no longer serving in the position.
     
  7. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Element B, Section 3 of the proposed amendment states The Cultural Advisor shall be responsible for the movement of settlers. This is a direct conflict with existing law B.IIA.6.A which states The President shall control all Settler and the defensive units assigned to them.

    I therefore find the proposed amendment, as placed before the judiciary, conflicts with existing law and is ineligible to be placed before the assembly for ratification.

    donsig
    Public Defenfer
     
  8. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    I hereby serve notice of intent to file a Citizen Complaint against PD Donsig for failing to conduct this JR in an impartial manner, and for acting in a manner which prevents the judiciary from conducting the JR in a speedy manner. The law is Article F, Section 3 of the Constitution.

    Additional supporting information from the judicial log from Term 3:
    I suggest reconsideration of the ruling on the current JR, taking into consideration the provisions of Article F and the above referenced ruling on C4DG1JR5. I will allow 3 days to pass before actually filing the intended CC.
     
  9. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    This post serves as a record of Donsig's previous comments on the Strider Amendment, showing predetermined and malicious intent to rule against said amendment. A record is needed to prevent evidence from being edited out by the accused, should a CC proceeding actually result from this sordid affair.
     
  10. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    You ought to know by now that I'm not afraid of CCs or PIs or whatever we choose to call them in any given demogame. It wouldn't even cross my mind to edit a post to avoid accusations. Now, if you'd like to file a complaint then do it. Otherwise, please stop posting veiled threats in the judicial thread.
     
  11. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    After a deep sigh, I'm going to have to say that this has turned things towards an... interesting path. I'll be honest... I am half tempted to give Daveshack a nice pat on the back.. while at the same time giving him a stern smack upside the head.

    This is really a small matter that has much deeper meaning. Yes, I know how simple it will be just to re-post the JR. Yet, how easy would it have been for any of the judges? Any citizen may request a JR over a proposed amendment. Instead of telling me that I should re-request the JR with the current law in place, you could have just done it yourself.

    No, what pissed me off is the "It's my way or the highway" attitude the members of the Judiciary has shown. I'm sorry, but not a single one of you have made any effort to help.

    I'm struggling with a way to say this. You stand more as a obstacle than as a mentor. Tell me, why did you not aid a citizen of this game? Is it just your first reaction to say "No, that's wrong... you MUST do it this way." You could have just requested the judicial review in the way you think it was meant to be done... then reviewed it 30 seconds later. Done and over with.

    You could have done things in a much speedier manner by just posting it the correct way yourself. Now, however, it's no longer about how easy the action is... it's about the principle of the other actions taken. As I've pointed out earlier.. it's just wrong to enforce laws that do not exist.

    Daveshack.. I must ask you to drop the CC. It's not worth the trouble, nor is it worth the fight that will ensue. My comment was not meant as a representation of my future actions. I meant to show the Judiciary that they are not secure in there seats and that they can be knocked down in just the tune of a few words. In the end, it will have no benefit for either side.

    This judiciary has lost my faith, they have shown themselves incapable of doing their duties in a impartial, helpful, or even a speedy manner. Unless they wise up, I will not be voting for any of the three Judicial members in the next election. Regardless of what they are running for. If they are incapable of following laws that made, then they are unfit to follow laws that were made by the people.

    I think what this game needs is some drunk karaoke. So... who's up for it?
     
  12. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    And DS is right that Strider is right. But what Strider had submitted is a poorly written request for a JR on his proposed replacement of the CoL. What's more, his attitude does nothing to improve his peredicament of submitting mass replacement of current law. Just pass the silly thing and let people vote on his writing style, or lack of.
     
  13. robboo

    robboo Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,123
    Location:
    Cajun Country
    Just poll it so we can vote it down....

    We have a CoL that works.... lets just keep going. This CoL and Striders wild proposals have been the cause of ALL the judicial problems and it started with his co-president proposal..
     
  14. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    The judiciary has actually given alot of leeway on this JR request. We could have summarily rejected the proposed amendment using the grounds I gave in my ruling. We did not do that. We pointed out what was needed for us to do a proper judicial review. It is not proper for the judiciary to modify requests that are brought before it. When acting on a JR request judicial members are bound to rule according to what is actually written in our laws. By the same token they are bound to make rulings on JRs and CCs as they are written. The judiciary cannot function if it is placed in a positon where it is expected to somehow divine the real intentions of a JR or CC despite what is actually posted in the judicial thread. If anyone wants to think of this as enforcing unwritten rules then so be it.

    When it comes to interpreting judicial procedures, who are we to turn to? While everyone is mulling that over I will give my interpretation of our judicial procedures as they relate to this controversy. There is a requirement that a mock poll be posted in an amendment's discussion thread. The judiciary's requirement that a link to the discussion thread be included in the JR request is there so justices can easily veryify such a post was made. The requirement in no way should be construed as the judiciary's *permission* to submit a judicial review that lacks all pertinent information.

    Finally, I would like to point out that DaveShack's threat to file a Citizen Complaint seems to hang not only over me but over our Chief Justice and Judge Advocate as well. If they make rulings similar to mine are they also to be subjected to Citizen Complaints? This does not seem to be a good way to go about ensuring we have a judiciary that is free to make impartial decisions.
     
  15. robboo

    robboo Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,123
    Location:
    Cajun Country
    But based on past "quickness" in the replacing justices... Wouldnt this just about kill this term. In addition Strider can not appoint anyone as to serve because he is obviously biased...Dave Shack cant because he is the one posting the complaint. I wont becasue I feel this is insane and have already stated I am against the proposal. So the whole tri and judiciary is out.... Here we go dragging this out another term. Supposedly one in which Strider wont be taking part...( his words) so this would effectively kill Striders CoL request.

    So Strider...submit it like they want it and then it might get voted on otherwise it will never see a poll unless someone decided to champion your cause...and I dont see that happening. ( unless of course your leaving the game was all a hoax or you changed your mind)
     
  16. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    We all know what the JR request is. It's a complete replacement, and there is no possible way to interpret it as anything else. The mock poll says it's a complete replacement. The grounds used by this court to try to deny the JR request aren't following the court's own procedures, and neither are the grounds used by the esteemed PD to rule against the amendment.

    We all know what is being asked for. A fair and accurate ruling on whether the proposed replacement CoL is valid with respect to the Constitution is all Strider wants.

    There is yet another example of irony embedded in this latest disagreement. Donsig argued that Swissempire was wielding too much power by marking polls invalid according to the Censorial rules. Now the point seems to be that what's good for the Censor is good for the Judiciary, and the Court can also jerk people around by using technicalities in the procedures.

    This logic is wrong, on the facts of the actual cases. The difference between the dispute over the Censor's procedures and this dispute is that the Censor's procedures were being applied correctly, where the Judiciary procedures are being applied incorrectly. In fact, that is another charge which could be added to a CC, if it remained necessary to continue with it -- a justice cannot violate the judicial procedures by ignoring the discussion thread accompanying a JR.

    My advance warning of a possible CC is no more threatening than Donsig's advance warning to Curufinwe was -- and no less threatening either.

    It is still quite possible to rule against the complete replacement -- if it is in conflict with the Constitution. It is equally possible to campaign against its passage, if it does go to a vote.
     
  17. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Actually, the precedent is that the contents of the mock poll is what the Judiciary is reviewing. It is unreasonable to expect those contents to be reposted in the Judiciary thread -- in the past we had just a link, and ruled based on the content of the mock poll itself.
     
  18. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    Daveshack seems to be already "championing my cause" so to speak. Cyc has also, in his own weird insulting way. I'm still debating on wether I should be thanking him or cursing him.

    The proposal, however, is mostly dead. There is no way, in good consciousness, I can move forward with something that incites this type of reaction. Even if that reaction isn't justified. My thoughts are that it's unlikely to pass. Far to many people have refused to even look at it, based solely on that it was proposed by me.

    I will do my duties as I promised when I ran for President. I will do them with the utmost care and thought. I have people telling me that they do appreciate my efforts. Hell, Donsig has even told me in a replied PM that he appreciates my efforts in the game. However, regardless of the people that tell me that they do appreciate my efforts. I can't help but feel that my efforts do as much harm as they do good. It's not that I mean to do any harm, it's just that everything turns out so wrong and twisted.

    We needed a new Code of Laws... it was confusing and lacking. I made the proposal with the intention of helping to fix that. Now that proposal has turned into something so evil and sadistic that even I shudder to think of it.

    Yes, after my duties are done I will decrease my partcipation in this game. I feel that the opposition I cause, by just being me, is unhealthy for the game. I hope to find a new head for the information department, if possible. If I don't manage to find one, I am still uncertain if I will continue to do it myself.. or just let it die off.

    Me, my name, my personality causes natural opposition that is not healthy for the game. That and I really need to focus on my life, college coming up soon.. and I've got alot to do. I believe that it will be better for the game as a whole and for myself if I was no longer a vocal partcipant of this game.
     
  19. Black_Hole

    Black_Hole Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,424
    I would like to submit this JR on behalf of Strider, and with his permission replace his old JR.

    Link to discussion

    Do you wish to adopt this amendment?

    Current law:
    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3579771&postcount=3
    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3579772&postcount=4

    Proposed amendment, completely replacing above:
    Note: It will not come into effect untill the next term.

    Poll question: Do you wish to amend the Code of Laws?

    Yes
    No
    Abstain

    Poll settings:
    Duration: 4 days
    Public Poll
     
  20. Black_Hole

    Black_Hole Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,424
    I was going to bring this up, they actually don't affect me whatsoever, I was just the one that submitted them, so does this mean I need to recuse myself?
     

Share This Page