1BC Civ Forums / Civilization IV Discussion / 1BC CivIV BTS Multi Team Battle / Senate Floor / Dgame Archive / 3rd Article of Law / Latest Posts

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Comedy Dave — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:53:18 GMT

[quote]Pin it under the constitution, pin it here on the senate floor... The actual articles might still be posted in the thread itself without becoming too much of a navigational nightmare.[/quote]

Ok... I've got the ball rolling here:

[url]http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2240457-93-1.aspx[/url]

We can just put links to the vote threads... unless someone really want to copy/paste... ;)

RE: 3rd Article of Law

swordinthestorm — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 04:20:46 GMT

Hello tosk.

So there is a history with Tora. I understand that, but have no idea what this afor mentioned history is. As for beating a dead horse, Its done, Tora's gone. Since CD officially anounced his removal i have put the matter behind me. Thank you for updating me on the issue.

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Tosk — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:57:51 GMT

Hi swordinthestorm,

As it appears that everyone else is avoiding (to many of us) the obvious I will put forth, for your information only, that there is a bit of history behind the thing with TOR.

As I personally believe that everyone deserves a second chance, I voted for TOR for judge hoping that the past was the past ... didn't work out that way however.

Like I said just a FYI. no need to beat a dead horse.

RE: 3rd Article of Law

swordinthestorm — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:35:37 GMT

I am sure your intensions where true and you did not act with malice and i have let the matter drop and hold no grudges against anybody involed. Now that i have read both psweets and your own explainations i understand the motives for your actions.

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Locus Coeruleus — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:26:59 GMT

[quote](i will not name said person nor am i trying to upset this person. I just wish to express my opinion freely) [/quote]

Go ahead. Name him. It's not like we don't know who you are talking about anyways! :w00t:

Really though, I was kind of pissed off, because the day before, Psweet had asked me to be his deputy, as it looked like he would secure the election, and then without consulting...nevermind consulting, without even informing me, he tried to drop out.

Now, when I made those infamous comments calling him a nitwit, I was not trying to usurp power for myself, as I have stated elsewhere, I have no desire at this moment to become a candidate for any main position (though I will gladly fill a ticket for a second tier position). No, I was more-so trying to convince Psweet that he wasn't really dropping out, that is to say, someone "leaked" this information, more so to keep the game going without delays for further elections and what not. Sorry Mr. Sword, I was not trying to keep the office from you, I apologize if it had appeared that way... My intentions were good, I swear!!! I just used piss-poor tactics to try and keep things moving along! :)

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Mr. G — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:49:27 GMT

I need a vote before I can rule on any such possible Article of Law.

A good idea, as well, is to stop naming these things boring old "Article of Law [insert # here]" and actually differntiating them by calling them original, descriptive names.

Please, please give me precendents.

RE: 3rd Article of Law

psweetman1590 — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:36:59 GMT

Concerning the past election... I really had not meant for it to be that chaotic, really, and I'm sorry I put such a wrench in it. What happened was that it looked like Tor was about to be impeached, but it did not appear that the SC could continue to function if that happened (G was absent, and there were no other citizens running for the position last time an election was held). Biz and I were talking via pms about the whole situation, and since I was not a Senator yet, I offered to drop out of the election to become a Justice once TOR was impeached so that the government could continue with the minimum of interference. As things developed, it appeared that TOR was not going to be impeached after all, as most of the citizens who voiced their opinion were against it, most importantly CD, who was by all accounts going to be the princeps. So, Biz and I talked again, and it was decided that it would be best if I stayed in the Senate after all.

Again, sorry all. I hadn't any idea how big of a wave this whole shenanigan would create.

Now, about legislating common sense...

It's not like we have anything better to do! Let's get going!

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Zigeuner — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:39:25 GMT

[quote]I've asked Mongoose what would be the best approach for collating the articles of law. Hopefully the ball will start rolling in the next few days...[/quote]How about gathering them in a single thread with links?

[b][url=http://1bcciv.com/Topic2237589-93-1.aspx]Article of Law #1, concerning election protocols[/url][/b]

[b][url=http://1bcciv.com/Topic2237631-93-1.aspx]Article of Law #2, concerning absence[/url][/b]

Pin it under the constitution, pin it here on the senate floor... The actual articles might still be posted in the thread itself without becoming too much of a navigational nightmare. :)

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Comedy Dave — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:46:04 GMT

That sounds fair, sword. Hopefully we won't have such a convoluted election again... :P

Election Dropouts (V2)

If a candidate drops out of an election, they cannot re-enter election.

The tier of government* holding the election, must do the following:

(a) In cases where leading candidate has stepped down mid race the runner up will be awarded the position, as long as said candidate has recieved a tally of no less than a value of three fifths (3/5 or 60%) of the Leaders tally. Thus proportionally represented.

(b) In cases where the candidate stepping down is not the leader, the leading candidate will win the election as expected.

*For SC Elections, this would be the Princep, for Senate/President elections, this would be the Supreme Court

In regards to the senate floor an unofficial threads. As long as the thread is obviously unofficial, then I don't have a problem. If someone tries to usurp an election, then that would be grounds for punishment. I'm not sure what the other senators think about this.

I've asked Mongoose what would be the best approach for collating the articles of law. Hopefully the ball will start rolling in the next few days...

RE: 3rd Article of Law

swordinthestorm — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:14:20 GMT

[quote][b]Comedy Dave (7/23/2007)[/b][hr]Election Drop-outs

If a candidate drops out of an election, they cannot re-enter election. The tier of government* holding the election, may void the election and re-hold the poll without said candidate.

*For SC Elections, this would be the Princep, for Senate/President elections, this would be the Supreme court[/quote]

I think this wording is a bit vague. It should be more along the lines

The tier of government* holding the election, must void the election and re-hold the poll without said candidate if 2 or less candidate are running or appoint the leading candidate or the runner up* the winner where there are 3 or more candidates

* in cases where leading candidate has stepped down mid race the runner up will be awarded the position as long as said candidate has recieved a tally of no less than a value of three fifths (3/5 or 60%) of the Leaders tally. Thus proportionally represented.

This would in cases of a closely fought campaign leave the option of continuing the game a quickly as possible. Although i feel such circumstances are unlikely to happen again it would be prudent to allow for a provision avoiding such a complicated situation.

-----back to psweets point-----

The senate floor is where said contested thread was placed. It was declared a non official thread by the senator who posted it. Now im not getting into the motives of why it was closed but it should be a case of the senate floor being a place where the senate can discuss matters. there was nothing illegal about what bis did in setting up that thread. Lets not put this legislation through. lets keep unofficial threads for the town square. the senate floor and the supreme court should be places of official business.

Also would sombody create a place where articles of law can be easily accessed. it is tedium to the highest degree looking for that information.

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Comedy Dave — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 04:54:37 GMT

No worries mate - I think you'd have a lot to offer for the senate, based on your current input :)

How about:

Election Drop-outs

If a candidate drops out of an election, they cannot re-enter election. The tier of government* holding the election, may void the election and re-hold the poll without said candidate.

*For SC Elections, this would be the Princep, for Senate/President elections, this would be the Supreme court

RE: 3rd Article of Law

swordinthestorm — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 04:43:23 GMT

I agree we should cover all bases or be "pedantic" so in future the system cant be exploited. Sorry im really grumpy this morning got very little sleep last night. but yeah all i was saying here was that i felt a bit cheated by what happened but i got over it because there were bigger issues on the table at the time and also i have every intention of running again and again. :)

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Comedy Dave — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 04:33:58 GMT

Sword - I see where you're coming from. That election was somewhat... chaotic.

I agree we need to lay down some kind of law regarding elections because of this.

I think that if members drop out then a re-election needs to be held.

In that thread I did express the idea that if Psweet became senator, then resigned, then his deputy, LC, would only be in power as an interim, until a new vote is held.

I would suggest a law as follows (although we'd have to check it doesn't conflict with the Constitution or any other law):

Resignation Law

If an elected official resigns, then his deputy (if available) will manage the position on an interim basis, until a replacement can be elected by the people. The deputy may run in said election.

If no deputy is available, then an election must be held as soon as possible to fill the position.

(This is similar to a bi-election, except a deputy can manage the position in the interim, to keep the game going)

RE: 3rd Article of Law

swordinthestorm — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 04:12:58 GMT

[quote][b]Mr. G (7/21/2007)[/b][hr]

The only reason the result of the election was in psweet's favor was because swordinthestorm didn't have a problem with being Deputy Senator. [/quote]

No i didnt have a problem becoming a deputy but i had a huge problem with actions a coments made by certain members. This one in particular.

[quote]Actually. Psweet.... you nitwit.

Don't resign now or withdraw your name. Just let the election go to completion, claim your victory, then resign and let your deputy (why, would you look at that, it's me!!!!!) take over. [/quote]

Here is direct evidence that a member intentionally influence a candidate to remain in the race just so said member could recieve a senetorial seat without recieving a single vote from the people.

This to me is an act of extreme coruption. (i will not name said person nor am i trying to upset this person. I just wish to express my opinion freely)

Now you wonder why i didnt contest this at the time. well i though initially that no member of this goverment would accept a renentry to a campaign. I was wrong. I also decicded that it would be best to allow the game to continue rather than add to its impeachments and other issues. Had i known of the option and had there been the correct circumstances i would have fought my case.

What Mr G is refering to with liable action is to dispute matters of the goverment (not involving the supreme court) when an issue arrises. I feel that this is required to supress future incidents of a similar nature.

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Zigeuner — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:40:41 GMT

Nobody is served by constitutionality beyond reason. Look at [url=http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2237589-93-1.aspx]Article of Law #1[/url], concerning senate elections:

[quote] d) Elections for specific Houses will consist of a poll open to all citizens, listing all candidates for said House, [b]and also an "abstain" option[/b]. This poll will run for three (3) days.[/quote]

Now look at [url=http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2239949-86-1.aspx]the official election poll for house Scorpius.[/url] :w00t:

Let's just do what we can to keep things running smoothly, learn from our (or others') mistakes, and always remember that it's just for grins and giggles...

As it happens, Article of Law #1 also covers Princep elections:
[quote]III The Princips
a) The Senators shall be given a campaign period of seventy-two (72) hours to announce their qualifications and desire for the position of Princips.
b) All such announcements are to be made by creation of a new thread in the Election Campaigns board, and this thread shall serve as the candidates' campaign area.
c) At the end of the seventy-two (72) hour campaign period, the Supreme Court shall organize an election.[/quote]

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Comedy Dave — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 07:13:25 GMT

[quote]This sentence scares me slightly. You should try and legislate to cover loopholes in the Articles of Law (and to do your freakin jobs too). For Christ's sake you only have 2 at this point! [/quote]

Actually, I think we did a couple of ratifications of a couple of SC decisions when MM and VC were still around... and we put forward a couple of constitutional changes...

but anyway... ;)

I don't mind legislating to cover various points and details. What I meant was that I didn't expect I had to legislate for common sense - such as saying unofficial threads are unofficial. Unfortunately, looks like we need to do something after the recent problems.

I think Tosk's point is right. All we need somewhere is a freedom of speech law. Should be a short one to draft... any takers?... ;)

[quote]

People must be willing and ready to file suit against one another in the Court system, otherwise one whole branch of the government is unused. I think that's a point worth remembering and worth legislating for.

Unless I am reading it terribly wrong this would require setting up an entire judicial system.
The SC, as it is constructed, is to rule on constitutionality not delve into civil law???[/quote]

Yeah that confused me a bit too. What did you mean by that Mr G?

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Bismarck2990 — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 03:28:35 GMT

It really just seems like making common sense written into law. However, I suppose it is needed to avoid past scenarios... I'm positive something brief could be added into the Supreme Court section of the Constitution (or any government body for that matter) briefly stating it has no say in the procedure of unofficial threads. I'll let you all argue over what the exact text should say but I'm in agreement to now have this included into the Constitution.

The SC Clerk position should be kept simple and able to function at the drop of a dime (eh, at the press of a post topic button) when situations arise in the SC. However, I'll leave the rest of my opinions concerning the position for when it's the origional topic at hand. :)

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Tosk — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 02:51:39 GMT

[quote]As suggested in the impeachment thread, I think it's prudent to create a law dealing with all unofficial threads (not just princeps nominations).[/quote]

Perhaps rather than put to much thought, and effort, into this perhaps a simple statement that no branch of government shall infringe on the right of free speech.
I think that "Official" legislature, threads etc are already covered?

[quote]People must be willing and ready to file suit against one another in the Court system, otherwise one whole branch of the government is unused. I think that's a point worth remembering and worth legislating for.[/quote]

Unless I am reading it terribly wrong this would require setting up an entire judicial system.
The SC, as it is constructed, is to rule on constitutionality not delve into civil law???

[quote]This is also why I'm seriously considering creating a Clerkship position that will also serve as a Deputy Judge of some sort (if there is interest of course).[/quote]

I would still have an interest in the position ... as long as it remains a clerk.

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Mr. G — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:48:36 GMT

[quote]Although I'd hate to have to legslisate for every pedantic point that common sense should cover...[/quote]

This sentence scares me slightly. You should try and legislate to cover loopholes in the Articles of Law (and to do your freakin jobs too). For Christ's sake you only have 2 at this point! That's nothing! If you don't cover the pecularities, then you're leaving the Supreme Court out to dry with no laws to stand on, no cases to stand on either. The only reason the result of the election was in psweet's favor was because swordinthestorm didn't have a problem with being Deputy Senator. But, if he would have had a problem and had filed suit in the Supreme Court......well, that would just have been a mess.

*G comes down off his rant a bit here*

Good night my collegues.
G

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Comedy Dave — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:38:52 GMT

PSweet your proposal makes sense, it's just a shame that common sense could not prevail as you would think this would go without saying...

Although I'd hate to have to legslisate for every pedantic point that common sense should cover... ;)

Zig - yep you're right, that was a peculiar election process. Maybe we need to lay down some ground rules regarding withdrawal - such as whether you can re-enter the race after, or whether a re-election should be held.

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Mr. G — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:34:41 GMT

[quote][b]Zigeuner (7/21/2007)[/b][hr]Perhaps we should adopt a more general law stating that common sense will rule supreme?

We would be better served with a law concerning the highly irregular election of senator psweetman1590, who _during the actual voting_ stepped down, then stepped up again, and was declared elected as if such behavior is not in the least bit strange![/quote]

If only it were true...

However, I cannot - as my authority lies within the bounds of the Court - pass legislation on how campaigns elections ought to be held. I can only try to make sense of the situations that arise after the fact. This is why the Judicial Branch may be too small at this point, two guys absent at the same team throws the whole Community into disarray. This is also why I'm seriously considering creating a Clerkship position that will also serve as a Deputy Judge of some sort (if there is interest of course).

Herein lies the core problem with how things are handled here, IMHO. Fix these issues and you'll fix a lot, hopefully for some time down the road as well.

That is all,
G

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Zigeuner — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:15:06 GMT

Perhaps we should adopt a more general law stating that common sense will rule supreme?

We would be better served with a law concerning the highly irregular election of senator psweetman1590, who _during the actual voting_ stepped down, then stepped up again, and was declared elected as if such behavior is not in the least bit strange!

RE: 3rd Article of Law

Mr. G — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:06:02 GMT

I support this amendment, if and only if it itself is constitutionally valid.

3rd Article of Law

psweetman1590 — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:04:06 GMT

As suggested in the impeachment thread, I think it's prudent to create a law dealing with all unofficial threads (not just princeps nominations).

So, I take it most are in favor of allowing said threads to exist freely. Thus, I would propose, as a first draft, the following:

"Threads and discussions not intended to carry official weight, force a ruling, or otherwise directly influence the running of the government are considered to be outside the jurisdiction of Constitutional review by the Supreme Court and are not to be closed or restricted by reason of interfering with the Supreme Court's or any other government body's Constitutional duties."

Let the discussion commence!