(02-02-2017, 09:17 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 05:44 PM)Griffindor13 Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 04:27 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: As the founder of TIL, I want to make sure that nobody's character or judgement will be questioned merely by deciding to join. I want the party to grow and new players to not feel like they'll be looked down on or questioned if they join. We should evaluate *all* nominees and their professional character, without singling out party affiliates.

As Chair of the APC, I completely agree. Parties are in TSPs future for the foreseeable future, and we shouldn't try and make it look like being in a party is a dead end road.

Then let's propose legislation saying that justices must resign from a party to be nominated.

Still, I think its disingenuous to claim parties are simply a circle of friends. We know better than that — circles of friends don't set up additional forums to discuss issues nor do their make directives on who to endorse or how people should vote. Nor do they choose who can and can't be accepted into the formal structure. You can frame this how you want, but political parties are horse of a different color; we're not going to pretend like it's business as usual.

It's not that membership should be considered a "dead end," but it's also fair game to ask how they feel they would handle such issues.

We used the TSP forums to plan our endorsement of CoA elections, and we plan to do the same for cabinet elections next week.

I could agree to only a suspension from the party, they are still a part of it, but they cannot participate in party discussion until they leave the court. It cuts off contact to the party, but they are still a part of it by name, there can't be a CoI if they cant participate in the party discussions.