The Court of Lemuria: File Cases Here

H Tower · December 15, 2002, 18:45

Greetings from the court. This thread is to tell you that we are now open to hear cases.

The Court is constituted to rule upon: contested disputes involving legal interpretation, validity of polls and elections, violations of the Constitution, or any other legal dispute involving the game.

To file a case, please post in this thread to get the attention of the Senior Justice who will then decide whether to accept the case or not. Under the rules of the constitution governing the court, no case may begin without first a complaint made by a citizen (not a member of the court) to the court.

Official Case History is here

Immortal Wombat · December 16, 2002, 09:09

I want a recount on the empire name vote

Maquiladora · December 16, 2002, 17:36

Put IW in the dock

H Tower · December 16, 2002, 17:50

he was just kidding Maquiladora

Maquiladora · December 16, 2002, 17:52

I wasnt.

Immortal Wombat · December 16, 2002, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower
he was just kidding Maquiladora

Frozzy · December 16, 2002, 23:47

The thread:

H Tower · December 16, 2002, 23:53

come on guys, this is supposed to be a serious thread. if you have a case that you want heard, post here. lets keep the spam in the cafe.

Locutus · December 24, 2002, 19:53

Okay, I have an interesting case for the Court: the past elections are unconstitutional since they didn't have an Abstain option (I have a feeling that this is not gonna make me very popular

)...

Immortal Wombat · December 24, 2002, 21:03

Make a poll: "Who cares?" - and remember the abstain option in that one

Pedrunn · December 25, 2002, 00:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Locutus
Okay, I have an interesting case for the Court: the past elections are unconstitutional since they didn't have an Abstain option (I have a feeling that this is not gonna make me very popular

)...

C'mon we are still getting used to the constitution. And BTW, you were the only one among the 15 people who voted.

BTW2: Locutus can you delete posts?

Just a curisity

Note: Loc, why your cute smile doenst have a christimas hat. I know you are not christian but you hate Christmans that much???

H Tower · December 25, 2002, 02:49

he's linking to the old smilies, which are still stored on the forums or another forum's smileys

H Tower · December 25, 2002, 02:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Locutus
Okay, I have an interesting case for the Court: the past elections are unconstitutional since they didn't have an Abstain option (I have a feeling that this is not gonna make me very popular

maybe if the court didn't have to go hunting through 3 different articles and 5 sections, all of which have something to do with an election poll, then there wouldn't be any mistakes made.

H Tower · December 26, 2002, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Locutus
Okay, I have an interesting case for the Court: the past elections are unconstitutional since they didn't have an Abstain option (I have a feeling that this is not gonna make me very popular

)...

the court accepts your complaint as being valid and will begin the public hearing thread shortly.

the case has been assigned a docket number of 001 and the public hearing is to be held here.

Locutus · January 11, 2003, 13:53

Hi all, here's everyone's favourite pain-in-the-ass again, to take up an opportunity to reaffirm this reputation

IW's Austria poll (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=73568) is unconstitutional in 2 ways: it's a multiple choice poll and it deals with 3 different topics in a single poll (not sure if this is actually unconstitutional but it should be

).

H Tower · January 11, 2003, 14:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Locutus
IW's Austria poll (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=73568) is unconstitutional in 2 ways: it's a multiple choice poll and it deals with 3 different topics in a single poll (not sure if this is actually unconstitutional but it should be

).

the court accepts the complaint and assigns it a docket number of 002. Public hearing thread here

Immortal Wombat · January 11, 2003, 14:23

hooray!

Frozzy · January 14, 2003, 21:21

EDIT: Pointless case, retracted.

Locutus · January 15, 2003, 06:28

Note to the Court: the 'Attitude towards Austria' thread that was supposed to be stripped from it's poll on Court orders was in the process of stripping seriously f*cked up. Fortunately it has been recovered in the sense that it be accessed again but performing any kind of action on this thread (posting, editing, closing, whatever) will mess it up again, so I must advise the Court to not enforce it's ruling of stripping the thread of the poll. It's best to leave the thread alone now and to only use it for reference.

Dale · January 17, 2003, 17:58

I wish to file some complaints:

Complainst:

Pedrunn started a new official poll titled "Attitude towards Austria......". I argue that this poll is invalid, and that Pedrunn has stepped outside of the law concerning the actions of President, which is an impeachable offense:

Complaint 1: Pedrunn is unauthorised to start this poll. He claims that he starts it because Imortal Wombat could not fulfill his duties as Minister of Diplomacy. He cites constitution Article II, 2.I (c). However, if the court allows I'd like to cite the following points:

Quote:

Article II: Executive Branch: The Ministers

1. General Contents

(c) An elected minister is charged with the duties explained in this Chapter 2 of this article until the end of the term for which the minister was elected.
(e)The terms for all elected offices last four weeks. All ministers will remain in office for this period unless they resign or are impeached before the end of it.
(f) If a minister will be unable to perform its duties for some part of the term, this minister is obliged to choose a willing citizen as delegate, who will act on his behalf, until further notice from the minister or the end of the position term, whichever is the sooner. This delegate will still be subordinated to the citizen being replaced. A minister can be delegate of a fellow minister.

2. Government Positions

I. The President

(c) The President must follow the instructions of the Court, the Ministers and their delegates while playing the game and doesn't hold any veto powers unless specifically named in the constitution. If an instruction is clearly erroneous, or by changed circumstances made impossible or harmful the President may decide in the best interest of the game.
(d) In case of missing orders for a whole turn from a minister and all his delegates the President may not play on.

- Article 1 (c) & (e): Imortal Wombat is the elected Minister, and has NOT resigned or been impeached.
- Article 1 (e): Immortal Wombat has not assigned a delegate.
- Article 2 (d): If Immortal Wombat does not give any instructions due to his absence, then quite simply the game cannot go on.
- Article 2 (c): Contrary to what Pedrunn first cited this use for, his lack of Veto power means he CANNOT act in another Minister's steed.

Quite simply, we elected Pedrunn to be President, and Immortal Wombat to be Minister of Diplomacy. They should stick to their own portfolios, and if there's an absence in the game of a Minister, the only power the President has to act on our behalf is to wish that Minister a good holiday! In acting outside of the powers of President he is being unlawful and should be held accountable.

Complaint 2: The poll posted by Pedrunn is stilted! I claim that the poll does NOT cover the entire wishes of the people of Lemuria. My complaint revolves around the wording of option 1:

Quote:

War. Lets prepare to start a war with them in the future.

By stating "Let's prepare" and "in the future" is indicating to the people that Pedrunn wants peace to start with NOW, and THEN war. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's been no official poll to determine whether peace is wanted NOW. Some may say that the first Austrian attitude poll by IW gives us the result, but directing the court to the ruling on CASE 002 on 15/1/03:

Quote:

Ruling of the court: The poll is invalid.

Therefore all results of the poll are null and void, and not to be taken as current policy.

I claim that Pedrunn is stilting official policy by bringing his own wishes into the poll. This is in breach of constitution Article II 2.I (c) concerning Veto powers. This is outside of the bounds of the Presidential position and thus Pedrunn could be impeached for it.

Summary:

To summarise my complaints:

Pedrunn has stepped outside of the bounds of the Presidential position twice. This is unlawful in Lemurian law and an empeachable offense. I request the court to rule on the following:

1. The validity of the Attitude with Austria poll opened by Pedrunn be made NULL and VOID!
2. The Presidential occupation and canditacy for re-election of Pedrunn be retracted by the court, and a new round of nominations for President begin!

Due to my busy schedule, I submit the above notes as my opening arguements to both complaints. Please feel free to copy/paste into any opened case threads.

Sorry guys, but I'm feeling positively legal today.

Immortal Wombat · January 17, 2003, 18:30

Oh crap. Looks like I should've assigned a delegate...

Locutus · January 17, 2003, 19:24

Although I considered it, even I didn't dare take this one on

H Tower · January 17, 2003, 19:27

perhaps the court should make it more clear that this thread is not for commentary on potential cases and only for the filing and acceptance of cases

Pedrunn · January 18, 2003, 16:01

mapfi · January 18, 2003, 16:28

Dale's complaint have been answered - see the court case thread

Martin Gühmann · January 18, 2003, 16:43

Pedrunn started an official poll entitled: "OFFICIAL: Choose the city name (final)"

The first post of this post contains the following lines:

Quote:

Originally posted by Pedrunn in OFFICIAL: Choose the city name (final)
The two most voted city names to choose from.

El Dorado - That in spanish means: The Golden. And hitorically is a mytical city so rich that even houses were made of gold held by 16th century explorers to exist in South America

Lemur City - From our country name Lemuria. If anyone really wants we can make a poll among its variables (Lemur Town, Lemur Poo, Lemurkat, etc...).

From hour constitution the first post has to contain the followling information:

Quote:

[Article IV: Polling Rules]

2. Poll Organization:

(a) The first post of all polls must contain the following elements:
* A clear and unbiased explanation of the question and the answers, if needed;
* Expiration date, if applicable;
* Links to related threads or other information sources, if any;
* Type (see section 4) and nature of the poll: information gathering or decision making.

The question was what should be the name of our capital as expressed in the title. The title implies that the poll is a poll for decission making. So nothing wrong with that even it is not explicitly mentioned.

But it doesn't contain a clear and unbiased explanation why he exactly selected the two given city names for the run of poll.

According to his post he based his decission on "[t]he two most voted city names", ok it was clear that he meant the two city names voted in the unofficial poll:
Poll: Name of our capital
But actual he should have mentioned it. But that is not the problem the real problem is that his explanation is not clear and unbiased. Actual it is wrong.

Here are the top city names voted for in the said unofficial poll:

Code:

1. El Dorado................154 (6)
2. Gondolin.................134 (5)
3. Valhalla.................124 (5)
4. Paititi..................120 (4)
5. Xanadu...................119 (5)
6. Lemur City...............100 (4)

Lemur City is number 6 on this list and not number 2. The aim of the said unofficial poll was to gather information. That could have been information on how we call our first city, then the name would have been El Dorado without any further disscussion or a run off poll, between a certain number of the first top city names. The number of the first top city names could have been 2, 6 or whatever, that depends on the choice of the creator of the runoff poll, but not taking number 1 and number 6.

The argument Pedrunn used to use Lemur City as an option was that a lot of citiziens voted for names with the Lemur reference, but this argument is invalid. The rhules of the said unofficial poll was that every citiziens has 120 points that he could allocate to the cities on the list given in that poll. So a citizien was able to allocate all his points like this:

Lemurtown 30
Lemurcak 30
Lemurkakton 30
Lemur City 30

So just another citicien has to do the same thing all the Lemur options had 240 points together. So the conclusion is that:

Lemurtown != Lemurcak
Lemurcak != Lemurkakton
Lemur City != Lemurtown

And so on. Note for nonslicers != means unequal.

So the only explanation one could has why Pedrunn choosed Lemur City for the runoff poll is that he neither likes El Dorado nor Gondolin. And it was also clear as Pedrunn posted the poll that there were many people who don't like El Dorado and would vote for something different see the last comments of the Poll: Name of our capital thread. However the result is according to Article IV Section 2a) of The Constitution of Lemuria a biased poll in favour of Lemur City.

As the poll is biased it is null and void and must be declared invalid, in addition we need a new poll about the name of our capital, of course a unbiased one that must contain at least the first two top voted city names in the Poll: Name of our capital poll started by Locutus. As the aim of this poll was to gather further information the creator of the unbiased poll is free to put more city names on the option list as long as these city names are the n top voted city names in the Poll: Name of our capital poll.

-Martin

mapfi · January 18, 2003, 16:55

your case has been accepted and has been assigned the number 006,
the public hearing is being held here

Locutus · January 18, 2003, 18:34

mapfi, H Tower: for future reference, I think it would be a good idea to provide links to the public hearing threads in the Case History thread. Any chance you could edit your posts to include those?

H Tower · February 13, 2003, 18:51

I want to challenge this resolution poll. http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=77081 The populace was not informed informed of the expiration time of the poll which violates Article IV, section III(h)

Gilgamensch · February 15, 2003, 10:15

H Tower, you case has been accepted and ruled upon.

The case number is 007.

No public hearing was hold. Further information can be found here