Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
このトピックはピン留めされているので、おそらく重要です 
ルールとガイドライン
5294 
この投稿を報告する
Generate Legal Cases/Challenges (NPCs) (10% -> 100%)
Total Update: (45% -> 50%)
The game is now capable of generating legal challenges (from NPCs) when new laws are enacted. It selects a jurisdiction for the challenge and a judge to oversee the trial.
The next step is to work on the judicial review process, which is the process where judges use their unique judicial philosophies to decide whether a law is constitutional.
I have also been working on some minor visual changes for dark mode, specifically changing the appearance of maps in the game (so that they are more consistent with the dark mode theme).
Judicial Review (0% -> 20%)
Total Update: (50% -> 51%)
Ignore the fact that the total update progress went up only 1%. Some categories are more complex than others and represent a greater share of the update, but in the progress percentages each category is treated equally. So, 10% in the judicial review category might actually be equivalent to 100% in the advanced options category, but that difference is not reflected in the total percentage.
I have been working on the judicial review process. This is the process where judges use their judicial philosophy to decide if a specific law is constitutional. I am currently gathering all of the precedents and justifications that judges might use to support or oppose arguments against each law.
As an example, when the framers were drafting the constitution, there were state constitutions that explicitly stated that individuals had the right to bear arms for self defense. A judge with the originalism judicial philosophy (which interprets the constitution based on its original intent) will use this historic context to conclude that the second amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms for self defense (rather than using the Collective Rights Theory, which argues that the 2nd amendment applies only to militias and not individuals). But a judge with the Judicial Restraint judicial philosophy will observe that there are decades of supreme court precedent in which the second amendment was interpreted using the Collective Rights Theory.
It gets complicated because there are more recent precedents that reject the collective rights theory, so how does a judicial restraint judge decide which precedent to use? Would they use their personal ideology to choose a precedent or would the precedents cancel each other out? Those are the sorts of things I will have to decide.
I have to do that sort of analysis for every single judicial philosophy for every legal challenge. It could take a while.
I'm still working on the judicial review process. It is somewhat slow because it requires a lot of research and decision making (in terms of how each judicial philosophy will react to a legal challenge).
There are three major categories of judicial philosophy - each category has 2 opposing philosophies, so that means there are a total of 6 arguments that have to be made to decide a case. For each judge, a score is generated for each category and those are combined to determine the judge's decision.
Each judicial philosophy has a different weight for each judge. So one judge may have a 50 weight for the first judicial philosophy and a 10 weight for the second and third judicial philosophies. In that scenario, the judge will almost exclusively make decisions based solely on the first judicial philosophy (because it's weight it higher than the other judicial philosophies combined).
I was sick most of the week and did not accomplish much. I'm really hoping I will get some solid days of work done next week. This slow progress is making me anxious.
Something I find interesting about the judicial review process in the game is that it references real life case law precedents. To some extent it will be an educational experience for players. It is fairly simplistic, but it introduces the player to various case names that they can research on their own and gives examples of the reasoning that judges used in those cases to come to conclusions.
Judicial Review (20% -> 80%)
Total Update: (51% -> 54%)
The judicial review process is going pretty well. I have written opinions for most of the federal legislation being challenged in the game. The only federal challenges left are election related legislation. After that I can write the judicial opinions for state laws. Hopefully that will go fast since a lot of the arguments will be similar to the arguments for federal legislation.
Once the beta is available, everyone will have to take a look at the judicial opinions and let me know how they can be improved. Trying to create believable/realistic opinions for multiple judicial philosophies is difficult and I'm not sure I always get it right. Some judicial philosophies I just leave blank because it is unclear whether they would have a specific opinion about a specific legal challenge. If you notice any instances of that happening and you think they should have an opinion, you will have to let me know.
With the election law challenges, it is unclear how judges with the activism philosophy would react to the challenges. Judges with the activism philosophy are supposed to rule in favor of their own ideology. For example, if an activist judge opposes gun regulations, then they will rule gun regulations as unconstitutional. For things like election laws, I'm not sure what the basis should be for making rulings. Does anyone have ideas? The only election ideology that the game has for characters is the opinion about the electoral college. How can that opinion be used in combination with something like social ideology to determine rulings? If someone supports the electoral college does that mean that they support or oppose same day voter registration, or voter IDs, or jungle primaries, or mandatory voting?
If anyone has suggests for how activist judges should rule in such cases, please let me know. It may have to be as simple as socially liberal judges supporting legislation that makes voting easier and socially conservative judges supporting legislation that makes voting harder. I don't like reducing social liberals and conservatives in that way, but it might be the only option for giving activist judges a way to judge election legislation. The other option would be to exclude activist opinions from the ruling and have judges rely on their other judicial philosophies.
Judicial Review (80% -> 90%)
Total Update: (54% -> 55%)
I have finished writing the opinions for the Judicial Review process. Now I just need to add the code that updates laws based on the majority opinion. Then I need to create the logistics/menus that display the judicial opinions. Once that is complete, the Judicial Review category should be finished.
I think I might be getting close to a good place to release the first beta. It probably won't be next week, but it conceivably could be the week after that. I have not tested the judicial review process yet, so I may discover a lot of additional work that needs to be done.
Judicial Review (90% -> 100%)
Total Update: (55% -> 56%)
There isn't much to report this week. The judicial review category is essentially complete. I still need to do some testing, which could reveal some additional tasks.
Next I plan to add a judicial archive menu so the player can see the results of the court cases. Then there might be some other minor things I need to work on, such as the concepts page. Once all of that is complete I may be able to release a beta update.
As a reminder, don't pay too much attention to the fact that the total progress only increased by 1%. Each category is weighted the same, even though some take significantly longer than others. Something like the advanced option category may only take several hours to complete, and that alone will increase the total update by 5%. The custom event tool category could also take less than a day of work, and increase the total update by another 5%.
It looks like I should be able to release a beta update next week. Today I finished doing some testing and I worked on adding judicial branch info to the concepts document. I might try to add some advanced options before releasing the beta, but I will make that decision on Monday.
I just released a beta version of the current Judicial Branch update. To learn more about it, and how to opt-in, visit this post: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1184770/discussions/1/594017265911925303/
I will likely release an update on Monday with several bug fixes. I will also try to respond to the suggestions and comments in the forums. Thank you to everyone who has reported problems with the beta.
There is one specific bug report that the community can try to help me fix. I have gotten multiple reports of duplicate supreme court judges appearing (possibly when the player is senate majority leader and chair of the senate judiciary committee). I was not able to recreate this problem when I did some testing. If anyone is interested in attempting to recreate the problem and then send me the save file, that would be helpful. Essentially, play the game and wait until you receive a notification about nominating a supreme court justice. At that point, save the game. Then continue playing to determine if your nomination is confirmed and duplicated. If that happens, send me the save file. Thank you!
The beta has been updated to version 0.315. The update includes:
-Fixed an issue where a judicial nomination prompt (for protégés) was hidden behind the main menu.
-Likely fixed an issue where the player could not hold confirmation votes for certain judicial nominees if the player was senate majority leader.
-Likely fixed an issue where nationally mandated legislature redistricting did not have an effect.
-Fixed an issue where the supreme court would not make a ruling on federal redistricting laws.
-Fixed an issue with the naming of certain district courts. There were Michigan, East Michigan and West Minnesota courts. But it should have been East Michigan, West Michigan, and Minnesota.
-Fixed an issue where the supreme court would have too many judges if you loaded an old save in the middle of a game.
-Fixed some judicial review opinions being incorrectly applied to certain claims.
-Fixed an issue with the judicial review process regarding the state self defense gun license law.
-Added absentee voting, early voting, and automatic voter registration to the judicial review process. Previously they were missing from the review process, but the game attempted to review them anyway. Other laws missing from the review process have been properly removed so that the game no longer tries to review them.
-Fixed an issue where senate support for a nominee would display the number of senators supporting a nominee rather than the percentage. For the U.S. senate this was not a problem because there are 100 senators, so it corresponded to 100%, but for state senates with more or less senators, it could have been confusing.
-Fixed an issue where some laws would be upheld as constitutional even though the supreme court argued that they were unconstitutional.
-Added a player message whenever a supreme court justice dies or retires, since it is a major event.
I still have not been able to recreate the issue where supreme court judges are duplicated, but I have some more info. It appears that duplicate supreme court judges were first nominated to the circuit court but they never received a confirmation. Then, they would be nominated to the supreme court and they would be confirmed twice. I'm not sure how this happens. If anyone has a save that recreates this problem, sending it to me could help. Specifically, the game needs to be saved prior to the supreme court judge being confirmed, so that I can watch the process.
The problem may also be related to a protege being a senator (possibly the majority leader). If anyone has additional information about the bug, but no applicable save file, feel free to tell me the additional information.
I should be able to release an update to the beta early next week.
One of the major problems that will be fixed is the problem where state court vacancies are not filled if a judge retires (in states where judges are elected). This can lead to a problem where state courts don't have any judges.
I added statistics so you can track how many judges you have nominated and confirmed. The statistics are unique to each type of judge.
I am currently working on Automated Nominations and Automated Confirmations, in order to reduce the number of judges you have to manually nominate/confirm. If you use automated nominations, the game will nominate judges automatically on your behalf based on your preferences. You will be able to specify which positions are automated. For example, you can automate district court nominations, but still choose to manually nominate supreme court judges.
I don't have time to respond to any comments in the forums today, but I will try to do so once I release the next beta update. Thank you for all of the suggestions and feedback.
The beta version has been updated to version 0.316. If you have already opted into the beta, it should download automatically.
The update includes:
-Added automatic judicial nominations. This can be turned on in the Office > Events > Nominations menu. It can also be turned on in the advanced options (next to the other judicial options in the Nations tab). Automatic Nominations will automatically nominate an appropriate candidate when a judicial vacancy arises. This can save you time if you are not interested in making nominations for every type of judicial position. The options allow you to specify which positions you want to automate, while allowing you to continue manually nominating other positions. For example, you can automatically nominate district court judges and manually nominate supreme court judges.
-Added automatic judicial confirmation hearings. This can be turned on in the Office > Events > Nominations menu. It can also be turned on in the advanced options (next to the other judicial options in the Nations tab). If you turn this on, and you are the senate majority leader, the game will automatically grant confirmation hearings for every judicial nominee. This saves you time because you no longer have to go through the process for so many nominees. The game will still show you information about nominees so that you can specify if you support/oppose the nominee, but it will not be a mandatory event, which means you can skip it.
-Added player statistics for nominating and confirming judges. This specifically applies to judges nominated/confirmed by the player as governor/president and does not apply to judges nominated/confirmed on behalf of a protégé. If automated nominations are turned on, the game may include protégé nominations in the statistics.
-Fixed an issue where states would not hold an election to fill state supreme court (and appeals court) vacancies, eventually leading to the state supreme court (and appeals court) being completely empty.
-Fixed an issue where the player’s relationship would decrease with themselves if they denied a confirmation hearing for a judge while playing as senate majority leader.
-Likely fixed an issue where the nomination menu could show empty portraits, which also could have caused other errors.
-Fixed an issue where the office menu would not be updated with a new prompt if a protégé nominated a current judge to a new position, creating a situation where the player could not advance to the next turn because there was a mandatory event, but the office menu did not show the mandatory event.
-Fixed an issue with the endorsement mechanism. If you threatened a primary challenger against a candidate as a condition for endorsement, and the candidate rejected the condition, the game would give you a prompt asking if you wanted to run a protégé against the politician. There was a problem where clicking “Yes” to this prompt would not have any effect and the prompt menu would remain open. That problem has been fixed.
-Fixed an issue where the history of state judges would not update, which could give the impression that the judge’s term had ended even though it had not.
-Fixed an issue where the number of supreme court judges would not increase if you changed the number in the middle of the game (using advanced options). Now, if the number is increased, judges for the new positions will be nominated on week 1 of the next year.
-May have fixed an issue where a legal challenge would not be triggered for mandatory voting legislation.
I finished adding options to customize judges. There will also be an ability to save/load character presets and group presets for judges. Those additions will be available in the next update.
I started working on judicial legislation. For most of the new laws, I found a way to avoid the need for constitutional amendments. Since constitutional amendments are almost impossible to achieve, I thought it wouldn't be very much fun to add laws that could never be passed.
The specific laws in question are related to things like term limits or maximum ages for judges. The constitution (Article 3) says that federal judges get to keep their positions in "good behavior". Based on most interpretations of the constitution, a term limit law would unconstitutionally force a judge to retire. The solution, which has been included in real life legislation, is to assign judges a new status once they reach the limit. I believe it has been called "senior status". The court would essentially be organized into active status and senior status. There would be 9 active status judges (on the supreme court) and the remaining judges (who hit the term/age limit) would be senior status. Only active status judges would hear appellate jurisdiction cases (which is most cases). Senior status judges would continue to hear original jurisdiction cases and could replace any active judge who needs to recuse themselves from a case. This solution does not conflict with the constitution (and thus does not require a constitutional amendment) because the judges are still on the court and still receive the same salary, but they are on the court in a different capacity.
A separate solution would be to define "good behavior" as agreeing to not serve beyond the term limit. Anyone who served beyond the term limit could be impeached for no longer serving with "good behavior".
Along with term limit legislation, I am going to add legislation to change the manner that judges are appointed (either by the president or with an election), but that legislation will require a constitutional amendment. In the game, that means it will require 2/3 votes from congress. The game does not use the state ratification process. It is already possible to change these laws in the advanced options.
Other laws I plan to include are retention elections for federally appointed judges, bans on supreme court justices receiving gifts or owning individual stocks/securities, an independent ethics committee that can determine whether supreme court judges must recuse themselves from cases, an option to increase or decrease the number of judges on the supreme court, and interval appointments for the supreme court.
The "interval appointments" legislation would allow the president to appoint a new supreme court justice every x years (where x is the relevant interval). Only the 9 most recently appointed judges will serve as "active judges" who rule on the majority of cases. All other judges will serve as "senior judges", and essentially will be removed from the game. If you set the interval to 2, that would be equivalent to an 18 year term limit for every judge.
I am also considering adding a new metric call Judicial Accountability, which will be influenced by many of the new laws.
Judicial Metrics (0% -> 75%)
Judicial Legislation (0% -> 50%)
Total Update (58% -> 62%)
I have been adding new judicial laws this week.
Random question: who would vote to decrease the number of supreme court judges and what would be their reasoning? I am working on the code to determine how politicians vote on legislation and I don't know how they would vote in this instance. Decreasing the number of judges does not remove any judges. It just means that once x judges retire, their vacancy will not be filled if the total number of judges is still larger than the decreased number of judges specified by law.
Strategically, one might look at the judges most likely to retire and see if they represent the opposition ideology. If the current president belongs to the opposition party, one may not want them to have an opportunity to replace the judges once they retire, which would be an incentive to decrease the number of judges. But at the same time, it's not obvious when a judge would decide to retire. They might retire when a favorable president is in office, which would mean that the favorable president would not have an opportunity to place a favorable judge on the court. This would not be desirable. So it is unclear how people would vote. Any suggestions are welcomed.
In addition to adding new laws, I have added new metrics - which are influenced by those laws. The new metrics are Judicial Accountability and Judicial Independence. They will be similar to the Democracy metric. There will be a list of sub-factors that determine the overall score. Currently, these metrics do not have an effect on anything. But, conceptually they could be used to trigger events or possibly approval ratings.