(02-01-2017, 09:08 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Again, this is beside the point. The point isn't that information is getting leaked, its that Far cannot be an impartial party when ruling on anything the party created and/or pushed for.
Take this thread for example.
The strongest pushback from my even *questioning* the appropriate of this has come from someone who's misunderstanding my point and TIL members who continue to distract from my point. Add that two of the four members of the Cabinet are also TIL members, this is getting patently ridiculous.
Far hasn't even replied to a very basic question, yet TIL members Glen, Roavin and Tim have all rode in to defend him in various degrees of severity.
Again, I've never questioned his qualifications, but I think the point I've been raising is an appropriate procedural question to ask. I'm sorry if that's going against the in-group/out-group logic that some people seemed to have adopted, but once I get a general answer from our soon-to-be justice, I'm happy to dial my questions back.
(02-01-2017, 09:51 PM)Escade Wrote: Tsu,
I think my understanding of this echoes Roavin's point earlier, no one brought this up when Raven was a justice and he was, in fact, part of very clear sides.
It isn't that this hasn't been a problem already...we're a highly politicized community.
It is simply that if Farengeto becomes Permanent Justice and there are COI issues, what is the backup? Do we appoint one?
I'm fine with saying, "Approval of nomination" and then figuring out who the backup person will be.
Farengeto, yes, we would like to hear from you.
Well firstly I apologize for being taking so long. I didn't get around to this last night and have been out all day. Mobile isn't very ideal for writing longer, quote-heavy posts. I appreciate the statements of support while I've been unable to properly address the thread.
As for the CoI I think we're overstating the issue. I've had to recuse myself before, including for matters regarding the (now) CRS. We have a safe system for when this does happen with our Pool of Justices, who can smoothly take over the case. We already have several people on there and can easily assign more. If I run into a conflict of interest (TIL or not) I'll recuse myself as I have in the past.
I think recusing on every law a TIL member has written is also rather excessive. So much changes during the debating phases and so many people are involved with it that you can reasonably extend the argument to most laws for almost any candidate. To give a random example, you could probably exclude Bel from pretty much any law because of how much Glen has been involved with. There will be laws where TIL influenced content may pose a reasonable CoI, but I don't think you can simplify the matter down to a blanket statement without trying to find a Judicial candidate that has never participated in the Assembly.
I'd attribute some of my views to that fact I've never seen the political parties as a radical shift in the region. We've had political blocs that have functioned as almost informal parties for years. The "core TIL", for example, has existed as a group for years, and similar "blocs" have appeared and changed over time across TSP's "political spectrum". These groups being politically close enough to count as a CoI with each other, and the main parts of the current parties being the formalization of these existing groups. The point of my tangent being that in terms of the membership I don't seen the line between party and non-party as so black and white, and that many of the groups of players in years past are not so different in terms of CoI compared to the current parties.
Ultimately though if the matter involves any of my memberships or positions I'll recuse myself and let the appropriate Pool Justice take over. I will give this position the same respect and professionalism I have in the past.
