Shaitan
der Besucher
I find this proposal to be lawful in intent but will need to see the actual proposed changes en minutiae before approving its legality.
Term 4 - Office of the Judiciary - Fanatikan Law and Order
- Thread starter Veera Anlai
- Start date
- Status
donsig
Low level intermediary
I formally request a PI of our FA Minister, eyrei. I accuse him of using quick polls to form alliances, which is against F.4.C.3.b.i of the Code of Standards, which reads:
F. Forum Poll Procedures
4. Quick polls - When topic discussion is unwarranted or poll procedures cannot be maintained due to time constraints, a quick poll may be used.
C. Results may be used to make temporary changes or specific, one time decisions. They may not be used to make permanent article or law changes.
3. The action item should be instantaneous or reversible/correctable.
b. Examples of items that would not meet the criteria are:
1. Deals with a duration (resources or gold/turn involved)
I offer the following in evidence:
FA Poll: Alliances and ROPs vs. the Persians Part 1 http://
This poll clearly states, in the second line of the first post, that it is a quick poll. The poll was posted to gain approval for (among other things) a deal with China including an ROP and alliance against Persia. Payment for the ROP and alliance included 17gpt.
FA Poll: Alliances and ROPs vs. the Persians Part 2
This poll is also identified as a quick poll in the second line of the first post. It was posted to approve an alliance with England against Persia wherein two of the possible options for payment were WM +1gpt or incense.
Should we use this proposal as a solution to the diplomatic issues raised by war?
This poll is identified as a quick poll in the second line of the first post. This poll was posted, in part, to secure approval for 3 alliances against Japan. While no gpt payments were involved, the poll does cover deals with a duration, i.e. alliances.
I request that the Judiciary Department conduct an investigation of this matter in accordance with Section H of the CoS.
F. Forum Poll Procedures
4. Quick polls - When topic discussion is unwarranted or poll procedures cannot be maintained due to time constraints, a quick poll may be used.
C. Results may be used to make temporary changes or specific, one time decisions. They may not be used to make permanent article or law changes.
3. The action item should be instantaneous or reversible/correctable.
b. Examples of items that would not meet the criteria are:
1. Deals with a duration (resources or gold/turn involved)
I offer the following in evidence:
FA Poll: Alliances and ROPs vs. the Persians Part 1 http://
This poll clearly states, in the second line of the first post, that it is a quick poll. The poll was posted to gain approval for (among other things) a deal with China including an ROP and alliance against Persia. Payment for the ROP and alliance included 17gpt.
FA Poll: Alliances and ROPs vs. the Persians Part 2
This poll is also identified as a quick poll in the second line of the first post. It was posted to approve an alliance with England against Persia wherein two of the possible options for payment were WM +1gpt or incense.
Should we use this proposal as a solution to the diplomatic issues raised by war?
This poll is identified as a quick poll in the second line of the first post. This poll was posted, in part, to secure approval for 3 alliances against Japan. While no gpt payments were involved, the poll does cover deals with a duration, i.e. alliances.
I request that the Judiciary Department conduct an investigation of this matter in accordance with Section H of the CoS.
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
If we are to prosecute eyrei for this, we must open many more investigations for those who used quick polls to place cities.
FortyJ
Deity
Actually, there is no restriction in the laws against quick-polling for city locations. Ideally, we should debate and/or discuss this issue at great length, but if necessary, it is permissable to decide these issues in a quick poll in order to get the results in time for the next turn chat.
But this is not the issue here. What's at issue is whether or not Eyrei violated the Code of Standards by issuing Quick Polls for decisions not eligible for such. Clearly he is. Donsig has posted links to three such polls.
However, I believe this is another instance of the Letter of the Law vs. the Intent of the Law. I seriously doubt that Eyrei was trying to accomplish anything underhanded in his polling practices. If anything, these are examples of Eyrei attempting to get citizen feedback on important issues under a strict time constraint.
Furthermore, as the most severe penalty permissable for such an infraction is a warning, I suggest we issue said warning (ie. Don't use Quick Polls for long-term deals) and be done with this. Our current situation is delicate and with the holidays looming, we don't need to have an additional distraction over such a minor offense.
But this is not the issue here. What's at issue is whether or not Eyrei violated the Code of Standards by issuing Quick Polls for decisions not eligible for such. Clearly he is. Donsig has posted links to three such polls.
However, I believe this is another instance of the Letter of the Law vs. the Intent of the Law. I seriously doubt that Eyrei was trying to accomplish anything underhanded in his polling practices. If anything, these are examples of Eyrei attempting to get citizen feedback on important issues under a strict time constraint.
Furthermore, as the most severe penalty permissable for such an infraction is a warning, I suggest we issue said warning (ie. Don't use Quick Polls for long-term deals) and be done with this. Our current situation is delicate and with the holidays looming, we don't need to have an additional distraction over such a minor offense.
I am quite willing to agree to this resolution so that we might spend our time on more important things.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Well, I's have to say Strider's signature sums it all up: The Screwed up Demogame const. Forgive me if I don't actually make a link to that document. So, eyrei is PIed, gets a warning and says ok. Yet there's nothing to prevent him from posting more quick polls for all we could do is PI him and warn him! What a crock!
Well, I have to agree with you eyrie, we should spend our time on more important things. Sad part is none of these important things have anything to do with the demo game.
@40J: No, eyrei wasn't underhanded. He just pushed through something he wanted and he did show contempt for the spirit of the law as well as its letter.
Well, I guess the next step is a PI that doesn't involve breaking the CoS.
Well, I have to agree with you eyrie, we should spend our time on more important things. Sad part is none of these important things have anything to do with the demo game.
@40J: No, eyrei wasn't underhanded. He just pushed through something he wanted and he did show contempt for the spirit of the law as well as its letter.
Well, I guess the next step is a PI that doesn't involve breaking the CoS.
FortyJ
Deity
You're right on the mark with your assessment of the situation Donsig. The current rules do not provide for harsher punishment for individuals that continue to commit offenses against the rules despite warnings. This should be changed.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
What about Final Warnings?
Veera Anlai
Southern Belle
Legally, there is no device to skip the trial and such phase after the PI has begun, but if Eyrei accepts an official reprimand on behalf of the judiciary and Donsig wishes to drop the PI before we actually start, then we can end this now and stop the hassles and stress of an investigation.
This offer will be valid as long as my fellow Judiciary agree with the proposal.
Cyc, final warnings are not offered in Code of Standard violation PI's. CoL.H.8.E
Obviously, this should be rectified.
This offer will be valid as long as my fellow Judiciary agree with the proposal.
Cyc, final warnings are not offered in Code of Standard violation PI's. CoL.H.8.E
Obviously, this should be rectified.
donsig
Low level intermediary
I'm not sure what you mean by an official reprimand but I see no point in pursuing a PI that can only end in a warning. Therefore I do agree to drop this PI. I do hope eyrei will refrain from using quick polls in the manner he has been using them. I do reserve the right, which is due any citizen, to ask for a new PI or PIs if it is determined that these quick polls violated the CoL or our constitution.
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
I totally disagree with the idea that quick polls are not well defined as to what they can be used for. Just the opposite is the case:
Results may be used to make temporary changes or specific, one time decisions. They may not be used to make permanent article or law changes.
The specific action item must be noted.
The action item must be applicable to the upcoming turn chat.
The action item should be instantaneous or reversible/correctable.
Note the final point. The action must be reversable or correctable. I don't think that city placement meets that criteria.
Results may be used to make temporary changes or specific, one time decisions. They may not be used to make permanent article or law changes.
The specific action item must be noted.
The action item must be applicable to the upcoming turn chat.
The action item should be instantaneous or reversible/correctable.
Note the final point. The action must be reversable or correctable. I don't think that city placement meets that criteria.
FortyJ
Deity
Bill_in_PDX
You are both right and wrong. The final point is the key: "The action should be instantaneous or reversable/correctable."
The wording is clear, and I believe it to be intentional. By stating that the action should be a certain way is quite different than saying it must be.
Of course, I would prefer to not settle city placements via a quick poll as well, but unfortunately, time constraints often interfere and I don't believe that people want to have turn chats cancelled or stopped early just because a settler poll needs another 24 hours to be considered official.
You are both right and wrong. The final point is the key: "The action should be instantaneous or reversable/correctable."
The wording is clear, and I believe it to be intentional. By stating that the action should be a certain way is quite different than saying it must be.
Of course, I would prefer to not settle city placements via a quick poll as well, but unfortunately, time constraints often interfere and I don't believe that people want to have turn chats cancelled or stopped early just because a settler poll needs another 24 hours to be considered official.
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
Well, I think in the bigger picture the issue is not waiting for a extra 24 hrs for a poll, it is instead the ability to use a smaller number of votes to drive public opinion.
Shaitan
der Besucher
The argument is academic. If a poll fails to reach quorum or has not been completed then the decision rests on the Leader, who is free to use his discretion. Instead of taking this route, eyrei at least tried to get a binding poll.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Bingo.
Veera Anlai
Southern Belle
Agreed Shai. His intentions may have been good, but you know what they say about those... The way to down-below is paved with good intentions. It was just an honest mistake, he won't make it again, so let's drop the issue.
Veera Anlai
Southern Belle
I have a discussion which I believe should be immediately reviewed by the Judiciary so as to hopefully sew up a massive loophole in our constitution.
Definitions: Organize
In the context of a leaders duties, this includes suggesting a plan, discussing it and passing instructions on to the Designated Player.
According to the semantics of this law as written, the concept of organizing does *not* include polling the citizens. It is entirely possible for a Department Leader to finish his entire term, making massive changes in his area of the DG, and never make a single poll. As an example, see CoL.C.1.H.1
(Foreign Affairs Department) Organizes decisions on declarations of war.
According to this wording, it is perfectly legal for the Foreign Affairs Department leader to declare war on another nation with no polling from the citizenry whatsoever. This action may be political suicide, but is still feasible. On smaller scales, this would allow the President to use Great Leaders without polling the populace, or the Domestic Department to build cities or wonders without citizen approval.
It is my opinion that the phrase "discussing it" in the definition of organizing implies that the decision *must* be polled.
This is a Judicial Review case, and as such, requires the assent of two of our three Judicial Members before it can be entered into the Judicial Log.
be a temporary change OR be a specific, one time change.
Definitions: Organize
In the context of a leaders duties, this includes suggesting a plan, discussing it and passing instructions on to the Designated Player.
According to the semantics of this law as written, the concept of organizing does *not* include polling the citizens. It is entirely possible for a Department Leader to finish his entire term, making massive changes in his area of the DG, and never make a single poll. As an example, see CoL.C.1.H.1
(Foreign Affairs Department) Organizes decisions on declarations of war.
According to this wording, it is perfectly legal for the Foreign Affairs Department leader to declare war on another nation with no polling from the citizenry whatsoever. This action may be political suicide, but is still feasible. On smaller scales, this would allow the President to use Great Leaders without polling the populace, or the Domestic Department to build cities or wonders without citizen approval.
It is my opinion that the phrase "discussing it" in the definition of organizing implies that the decision *must* be polled.
This is a Judicial Review case, and as such, requires the assent of two of our three Judicial Members before it can be entered into the Judicial Log.
be a temporary change OR be a specific, one time change.
naervod
My current user title
Judge Advocate Opinion
I agree that this needs to be changed. We have already had one PI because one of our past presidents didn't post a poll on it. I believe it should be mandatory to have organize include polling, or else 4/5 of the people could theorectically have no say and just sit by and watch while 1/5 of the people run the game. Then, the game would be no fun and we would not have that much membership or everyone would just participate in the RPG.
I agree that this needs to be changed. We have already had one PI because one of our past presidents didn't post a poll on it. I believe it should be mandatory to have organize include polling, or else 4/5 of the people could theorectically have no say and just sit by and watch while 1/5 of the people run the game. Then, the game would be no fun and we would not have that much membership or everyone would just participate in the RPG.
naervod
My current user title
I was also wondering if this would be a good amendment to the Code of Standards, as I have also found a loophole. Theoretically (ilove that word), someone could resign their post at the last time possible in order to be eligible to run for two elections. I think we should stop something like this from happening so we don't have a huge argument in our hands. Here is my proposed amendment:
COS.G.6.B.3:
If a citizen is elected or appointed to any Leader position in or after any election cycle, then he/she may only run for one position in the following election.
COS.G.6.B.3:
If a citizen is elected or appointed to any Leader position in or after any election cycle, then he/she may only run for one position in the following election.
- Status
Similar threads
