The GL debate

[notyoueither]

I appreciate your response Aggie.

However, I must say that I do not regard your polls as valid (the second one mostly). The use of a great leader is too important to be rushed. It would be better to skip a chat (or two even) and get it right than to barge ahead over all objections, would it not?

I say this because I can see that I am not alone in my opinion. Ministers should be careful in the excercise of their authority. We have never had one impeached. It would be a shame if the new govt got embroiled in a lengthy and unpleasant case before the court before the term began.

I am very serious. You seem to be attempting to rush a very important decision. I would also point out that your second poll cannot be regarded in any way as official, since I just noticed that it is closed after only two days. The result therefore is not binding on the president or any other official.

[jdjdjd]

I have some problems, not with Aggie, but with this thread. For such a thread to be started by a member of the Court could be deemed prejudicial since members of the Court possibly are looked on as experts in legal matters, and thus that by the very nature of nye's objection, Aggie's poll is unconstitutional. So I will counteract that prejudice with some of my own.....

Aggie concede's the poll is unofficial, and based on a prior court decision, Trevman v. UberrKruX, such action as taken by Aggie, admitting his poll is unofficial, is sufficient to make a poll unofficial.

I think the CoL does need clarification as to this, something for the Constitutional Convention. But for now based on the CoL IMHO, Aggie is allowed to make a poll, the poll is unofficial, and the Ministers do not need to rely on it or anything to decide what happens to a GL. As to who makes the decision, the SMC, City Planner and the President should be involved, and an official poll of the people would be appropriate. OPD should step up as soon as he is President and make this his first official act.

As for my opinion on what to do, I agree on Sun Tsu (and yes I am a builder when I play), my main thought is not to waste potential future GLs from being created because a current GL sitting around collecting dust. There is siginificant benefit to having the barracks for free. The Sistine Chapel is awesome, but to buy it now will be costly to purchase, or to take peace with Persia too early.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I have seen people argue that sacrificing 3 or more GLs "for a chance" to build the Sistine is extremely costly.

We would be lucky to get another during the current war with Persia. It could happen. However, many players play a war like style through an entire game and get only one GL.

To say '3 or more' leads me to question your choices.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
I have some problems, not with Aggie, but with this thread. For such a thread to be started by a member of the Court could be deemed prejudicial since members of the Court possibly are looked on as experts in legal matters, and thus that by the very nature of nye's objection, Aggie's poll is unconstitutional. So I will counteract that prejudice with some of my own.....

I thought it better to discuss than to bush whack by filing a complaint myself. I can do that, right?

I also wanted to gauge opinion on the conduct of those polls that are being presented as being the decision of the people.

I see that I am not alone.

[UnOrthOdOx]

We have a few hours left. THIS MUST BE DECIDED BEFORE THE CHAT! Either to cancel the chat, (thus violating the CoL based on the new amendment, but that is a whole other topic), or to wait for the use of the GL. No one is likely going to build Sun Tzu in the next 5 turns, but it would prevent us an opportunity for another GL.

NYE, I think the concern is that Judges must APPEAR to be impartial. How can one now take these to court when you have so vocally pronounced your opinion and expect an impartial and fair trial.

Other methods could have been used to get this into the open. PMing someone outside of the court, perhaps? I would be happy to hear out your concerns in private and post if something like this arises in the future, thus maintaining the impartiality of the court...

[Togas]

Originally posted by Aggie
Also i did check, the best deal on theology is this 181g and 25gpt. If you think we should get the sistine by all means pm togas and demand we buy theology

Just as a note. There is no way I'm going to buy Theology for (181 + 25*20 [500]) 681 lytons. We will not have Theology until we are given it by Persia, or until the price drops substantially.

There is no provision in the CoL for how to deal with GLs. He is a military unit, however, building a GW probably falls upon the control of the City Planner.

In any case, this is a joint decision. I think it's good that the poll was made and the issue discussed.

Constitution v2.0 will deal with this situation.

--Togas

[Aggie]

Originally posted by notyoueither

I say this because I can see that I am not alone in my opinion. Ministers should be careful in the excercise of their authority. We have never had one impeached. It would be a shame if the new govt got embroiled in a lengthy and unpleasant case before the court before the term began.

I am very serious. You seem to be attempting to rush a very important decision. I would also point out that your second poll cannot be regarded in any way as official, since I just noticed that it is closed after only two days. The result therefore is not binding on the president or any other official.

NYE I respect you greatly, however this threat was inappropriate, I qoute the consitution and specificly the amendment on impeachment
"a. An official can be impeached only if they have violated the Code of Laws in place at the time of the violation."

I assume I am the person you are referring to in the impeachment threat, I have not violated any laws, so an impeachment is not called for, yes the poll could be declared invalid, but since the poll WASN'T necessary I fail to see how setting up an optional invalid poll consitutes violating the COL.

You seem to feel strongly about this so I suggest if you desire to persue this issue you do the following, this is a more reasonable course of action.(Though I oppose this too, but I can see how you might want this.)
"d. Injunctions:
The Court cannot halt the game to make a decision without a 2/3 vote amongst the people. In case of an emergency due to timing of a turnchat and poll of the populace, the Court may halt the game for 72 hours, but only by unanimous vote of the Court and only if a specific case has been presented to them that must be decided prior to the turnchat. In the emergency case, the Court would immediately have to present a 72 hour poll to the people for their approval of the Injunction. If not approved by the time of the poll's closure, the game immediately resumes where it was before. "

I hope if you feel there is a legal question, that you persue this course. I don't see how there is any case here, since there are no rules for using a great leader, but if you want to; go for it(the courts been bored anyway), but I would much rather MWIA had his final turnchat in peace. The best idea would be to incorporate what I and Ghengis have written above, into the new laws your commitee will work on. I do understand that intelligent people can disagree and do not take personal offense.
Still Respecfully
Aggie

[Aggie]

Togas that is what I thought and is why I didn't include the sistine chapel in the poll. But thank you for coming out and saying it.
Aggie

[notyoueither]

Alright UnOrtho. Thanks for the offer, however to me that would be a sham. I would be hiding my bias.

Are judges biased? You bet. We all play the game too. We all have opinions. The important bit is when we make decisions that we make then in accord with the CoL rather than our own opinions. In this matter, I would be extrememly deferential to the positions of the other members of the court.

There are other merits to this thread. However, the original question is now moot. The reason for this thread? Good you asked. Should I, or some other citizen challenge those polls by petitioning the court to declare one or both of them as invalid? I thought about just doing it myself. I am a citizen. I too can PM a justice with a complaint. However, I felt it better to put the issue out there for discussion and to see if any others are disturbed by the progress of the GL debate.

That has been addressed by Aggie. But I would like to stress that to use a 2 day poll that was not well conceived as the guide to the true will of the people would be a mistake. There is a reason official polls must run 3 days, and there is a reason there are rules in how the questions are arrived at.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Aggie
I assume I am the person you are referring to in the impeachment threat, I have not violated any laws, so an impeachment is not called for, yes the poll could be declared invalid, but since the poll WASN'T necessary I fail to see how setting up an optional invalid poll consitutes violating the COL.

It was not a threat Aggie. Please do not regard it that way. I would really rather not have to deal with such a matter in the court if possible.

What I saw, was a minister polling with invalid polls and then seeming to proceed as if those polls were both official and valid. That might be a problem, yes?

[UnOrthOdOx]

/me looks at his watch...

I have a few hours of authority left, I will go and make an OFFICIAL poll, then. And, I will petition MrWIA NOT to use the GL in the next five turns. The only thing that will lose us is the remote possibility of another GL.

[Aggie]

Originally posted by notyoueither

What I saw, was a minister polling with invalid polls and then seeming to proceed as if those polls were both official and valid. That might be a problem, yes?

It could be a problem and hopefully we can fix it with the new and improved code of laws(where what to do with a great leader will be dealt with). Actually this incident helps us in that way, now we know to fix the problem. No offense was taken NYE. Aggie shakes NYE's hand and goes back to kill persians.
Aggie

[notyoueither]

Just so it is clear. I would have no problem with the GL being used now if the Pres, SMC, and CP can agree. However, in the decision on what to use him for, please do not use that second poll. It is very misleading for a number of reasons.

No offense was taken NYE. Aggie shakes NYE's hand and goes back to kill persians.
Aggie

No problem. Go get em tiger.

/me shakes hands with Aggie.

[=OttomusCeasar=]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
* UnOrthOdOx looks at his watch...

I have a few hours of authority left, I will go and make an OFFICIAL poll, then. And, I will petition MrWIA NOT to use the GL in the next five turns. The only thing that will lose us is the remote possibility of another GL.

So this means no attacking Persians, no allowing of Persians to attack us, and if necessary complete abandonment of Tyre, to avoid the possibility of a lost opportunity to generate a GL?

[Aro]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
* UnOrthOdOx looks at his watch...

I have a few hours of authority left, I will go and make an OFFICIAL poll, then. And, I will petition MrWIA NOT to use the GL in the next five turns. The only thing that will lose us is the remote possibility of another GL.

But, UnOrthOdOx, we don't know in what stage of the construction are the other civ's! We are risking to loose the Sun Tzu, and the remote possibility of another GL stills a possibility. In this case, better cancel the chat, IMHO.
In fact, I'm confused. Togas don't see anything wrong or illegal, and it's almost a consensus that we can't wait with a GL in hour hands.