The Court of Lemuria: File Cases Here - Page 2

MrBaggins · February 17, 2003, 11:40

I should like to petition the Chief Justice, and ask for remedy of the following situation.

I cannot load the 2720BC save. I have attempted 3 different provided saves.

As the constitution clearly states, in article I.5:

Quote:

5. The government may not knowingly hide information or give false information to the people. Therefore all citizens shall have access to the saved games. However, no Citizen shall ever 'play ahead'.

I would ask that a method be found to appropriately disseminate the information of the current state of play.

I have mentioned in another thread, as a possible remedy:

Quote:

the court appoint another citizen to play from the prior save, ensuring that all known conditions are mimiced. This citizen should not play ahead in any manner. If it worked for all those that cared to use it, then it would satisfy the constitution, I believe.

This (and the game crash) are important issues that need to be resolved by the constitution. The constitution does not hint at game error/save issues.

I thank the court for its time, and judgement on this issue.

MrBaggins

MrBaggins · February 17, 2003, 11:41

I should like to petition the Chief Justice, and ask for remedy of the following situation.

Off topic discussion (regarding the legal status of an invalid nominee) is being made in a thread for the purpose of electing a valid candidate. I should ask for an injunction preventing any such further discussion taking place in a thread for the purpose of discussing candidate issues.

The thread is HERE

The thread has become so convoluted that I believe it may improperly sway voters, and might ask the Chief Justice to correct this by annulling the current election thread. It is a grey area to my mind, yet I ask the court to consider it.

MrBaggins

Gilgamensch · February 17, 2003, 11:46

MrBaggins,

the case for the savegame has been accepted.

Further information to follow (i.e case number/etc.....)

Case number is 008.

Public hearing can be found here

H Tower · February 17, 2003, 14:14

I'd like to add to Mr. Baggins complaint on the discussion of the nomination thread and propose a course of action as well. It is clear that the election thread has been polluted by discussion of the "irregular" manner of the nominaion process, however, in my mind an important discussion on interpreting a key part of the constitution is being confused by election and campaign rhetoric, and inflaming tempers as well. My suggestion as to a course of action is to have a moderator seperate the two topics into two different threads where each can be properly addressed.

MrBaggins · February 18, 2003, 01:16

The 'savegame' issue has been resolved, by Pedrunn, reposting a working save.

Gilgamensch · February 18, 2003, 08:26

H Tower / MrBaggins,

your case has been accepted.

Case number 009 has been assigned.

Further information will follow.

mapfi · March 18, 2003, 10:47

I'd like to file the following cases on the basis of Article III, 1a)

Quote:

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.

In my opinion this includes possible cases on not yet happened but soon to come actions, as well as hypothetical questions. The interest of the law and game would be to evaluate those things beforehand though and not have disputes later on which could lock up the game.
It is however the Senior Justice's discretion to accept the cases.

A:
Locutus is still MoDST and will stay that according to article V,Ic) if noone announces his candidacy for a while. Is he allowed to run for President then? ( article V,If) ) If yes, will he be allowed to hold both offices at one time? Or does he have to resign from the position of MoDST? At which moment?
(@Loc this is in no way a request for you to resign!)

B:
If an executive position can't be filled because noone wants it, what happens? Can the president play along making orders like he sees fit? Or does the game have to stop? (article II,2Id) )

C:
Can a judge hold a delegate position like we've done it before, or does article III,2e) make that illegal?

Locutus · March 18, 2003, 11:17

Quote:

Originally posted by mapfi
In my opinion this includes possible cases on not yet happened but soon to come actions, as well as hypothetical questions.

I agree.

Quote:

(@Loc this is in no way a request for you to resign!)

Since I simply don't have the time to hold two offices, I planned on either resigning as MoDST or appointing a permanent delegate anyway, so it's kind of a moot point. But a ruling of the Court on this would indeed be useful. I doubt this will be the last time this happens.

For further comments on these cases I'll await possible case threads...

Frozzy · March 20, 2003, 03:13

Request Granted. However, due to the nature of your "case", only one thread will be given.

Threads on the way

Martin Gühmann · April 24, 2003, 13:48

mapfi started a poll entitled Amendment: Allow judges to hold certain executive. He claimed he posted an AMENDMENT to our constition but our constition states clearly:

Quote:

Article IV: Polling Rules, IV. Amendments:

(b) The subject line must contain the word 'AMENDMENT', written in capital letters.

According to this the poll is not an AMENDMENT poll. Neither the thread title nor the subject line of the initial post of the thread contains the word AMENDMENT written in capital letters.

Two possible options are possible in my opinion afterwards the court confirmed that the poll is unofficial. On the one hand mapfi could ask Ming or any other mod to fix the thread title and the subject line or he could repost the poll correctly. Of course only if he still whishes that the AMENDMENT should be accepted by the people.

-Martin

H Tower · April 25, 2003, 22:48

The court acknowledges the complaint and has asked the moderator to amend the thread title, , no case will be declared though