(02-02-2017, 02:21 AM)Farengeto Wrote: 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.

Thanks Far, I appreciate all of this. I think this is a logical view, and I'm glad to hear this has been thought out. Seeing that the nominee has thought this through, I'm actually happy to withdraw my motion for a vote.

As I said several times throughout, I don't think Far's experience and ability is in doubt. I trust he'll once again make a fine appointment.

(02-02-2017, 06:07 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Tsu, I'm sorry to say it, but that's highly hypocritical. Did you not support Raven? He had many friends  and enemies and was hardly an impartial person. Despite his numerous public freakouts against people, you believed he was "upstanding" and had zero concerns about any potential impartiality.

I think the pushback against your insinuation is fair and correct. There only seems to be real questions of impartiality when it comes to certain people in TSP. That's not fair.

It's worth noting that I didn't even accuse Raven of inevitable bias/corruption when I opposed his nomination. I opposed him based on his history of abrupt resignations (and, well....) We're a community of like 20 people at most. Our justices are going to have close friends and bad enemies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I mentioned from the get-go here, my concern has been how parties play into this. Raven, I thought was an ideal choice for justice because he was someone that didn't have strong recent ties in TSP and yet had a sterling reputation across NS.

To be clear, we have accusations in another thread that the APC "block vote" just voted in December for a a candidate that couldn't do the job. And, my questioning of how party politics plays out in this instance is "hypocritical"?

As I've said throughout, I wanted to hear from Far on the issue and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's a legitimate request. What I didn't need (or want) was a proxy war over whether or not my question was legitimate.