(10-20-2017, 02:26 PM)Roavin Wrote:

(10-20-2017, 01:41 PM)Belschaft Wrote: 2. a. This would depend on the application in question; some would take a lot longer than others. I expect to be able to acknowledge receipt of an application within 24 hours of it being made, the process of rejecting/accepting it will depend on how long the various security checks take to be completed - which may very well come down to how long the CRS/admin team takes to do them, depending on the level of access the Chair is granted. I think a period of one week from receipt is pretty much the maximum "reasonable" time someone should be waiting, but I'd hope we can get it done a lot quicker.
2. b. Again, this is something that I should be able to do within 24 hours; I check the assembly at least once a day as it is.
2. c. Again, within 24 hours when I check the assembly.

Sold. My threshold would have been double on all of those.

More questions for now.

First: You've been a strong advocate for the enfranchisement of the in-game populace in the past. This is laudable, though many (including myself) felt your activism sometimes reached levels of absurdity. As Chair, you will have the unique responsibility of unilaterally deciding whether or not a proposed amendment requires an in-game vote. While you've expressed more mellow views on this, one remaining fear about a Belschaft Chair of Assembly is that you could potentially engage in "2016-esque shenanigans" and begin to decide that every amendment requires game-side approval. What is your stance? Ideally, could you look through the past few eligible amendments and render your judgement on whether they should have been voted upon game-side or not?

Second, what is your stance on my request to the Chair here?

Depending on your answers, and what a quick perusal of your previous CoA work reveals, I may just have to vote for you. Sorry.

Just because I'm aiming for 24 hours doesn't mean I'll actually achieve it.

Your request seems reasonable, and likely to make things easier for people to understand.

As for the issue of the in-game; back then referendums were only required on issues "solely" effecting the in-game region, which was essentially nothing - as I argued at the time. These days it's "directly" effecting the in-game region, which is much more reasonable. I honestly see no more need or reason to campaign in regards to this issue, having "won" the debate - if only by annoying people enough that a more moderate reform than what I was "proposing" was adopted.
 

(10-20-2017, 03:06 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

(10-20-2017, 02:15 PM)Belschaft Wrote:

(10-20-2017, 02:02 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

(10-20-2017, 01:41 PM)Roavin Wrote: I honestly don't care about a presumptive CoA's legislative agenda. They don't need the CoA job to do any of that, and I want to know if we can finally have a CoA that can function.

We all decide what issues to take into account when casting our votes. My concerns are just as valid as yours, and I have a right to ask about them. I'm sure you didn't mean to dismiss my views, but it definitely felt that way.

--

@Belschaft: I'm referring to Coalition v. Milograd and Roavin v. Cormac. In the interest of accuracy, while the latter is still ongoing, my argument took into account the fact that other criminal changes tended to be dismissed, so this is as far as the process has gone since 2013.

As you are hopefully now aware - as I informed you of such yesterday via PM - Roavin v. Cormac has not been handled in the manner required by the Court Procedures Act - something none of us had managed to notice (we should all be embarrassed, myself included); as such, I'm not sure how you can possibly consider it to be an example of the Court working.

I don't remember claiming that it was an example of the Court working. The point I'm making is that the present Court has a unique perspective into the strengths and weaknesses of the current criminal justice system, while others may lack due to the fact that criminal cases are filed, let alone accepted, so rarely. In that sense, I ask what role do you envision the Court having in an eventual reform effort, and whether its voice will be given adequate weight.

I think this is a fairly straightforward question, and one that would define whether any reform would be "yet another one" or a serious effort that aims at fixing imperfections, rather than make changes because it's the default position to assume that the judiciary needs fixing.

I do not think our current criminal system is fit for purpose. This should not be news to anyone. I honestly don't think that the current court has any unique input to offer at this point, simply as these issues have been discussed so often.