Users browsing this thread:

Hopolis · 02-18-2015, 10:20 AM

I came across this question a few minutes ago when seeking to review and compile a list of LQ rulings and can't see it being answered/dismissed or discussed anywhere in the private office. It's from December and the question was:

Legal Question: Must Conflict of Interest Disclosures, as established and described in Article 1, Clause 9 of the Code of Laws, include a list of all past positions held?

So to that end... *bump* Do we need to appoint 3 justices and debate this?

Awe · 02-18-2015, 10:22 AM

I suggest we ask the petitioner if he still wants the question to be answered.

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league

Former Offices

RP Information

Hopolis · 02-18-2015, 08:20 PM

Sounds a sensible idea. Unless anyone disagrees, I'll make a post in the LQ to that effect and send an identical PM to the questioner?

Awe · 02-18-2015, 09:35 PM

Fine by me

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league

Former Offices

RP Information

Hopolis · 02-19-2015, 12:27 PM

The response from Kris indicates that he doesn't want to withdraw it, which is what I expected/hoped because it is a good question.

However, I'm recusing myself after getting p***** off over the cross-examination for asking if it still needed to be dealt with. Sorry guys to dump this one on you.

(This post was last modified: 02-19-2015, 01:03 PM by Overseer Staedtler.)

Aramanchovia · 02-19-2015, 04:51 PM

I don't personally see the need to recuse yourself over that, your posts were fine, think it was Kris more than you with the attitude in that topic.

I will look into the question over the weekend or tonight in any case. From a quick thought, "involvement" suggests a similar meaning to "positions" to me, at least with the intent of the clause, but will need to have a better look at it.

Hopolis · 02-19-2015, 05:41 PM

I've had a chance to calm down a bit and you're right Aram. Just a little frustration on my part. If you can do it with me as the non-presiding fine but I won't recuse myself unless others think it appropriate. It's been an odd day on the forum (but a very happy non-forum birthday!) so maybe I was just catching Kris's frustrations at other things.

**Farengeto** · 04-07-2015, 10:26 AM

Wolf has re-opened this case. I suggest we deal with it before Unibot's new question regarding Wolf's CoI.

Hopolis · 04-09-2015, 06:19 AM

Given we no longer have four justices I'm happy to be a presiding justice on this to give us the necessary quorum.

Hileville · 04-15-2015, 07:24 AM

Election Act Wrote:9. Conflict of Interest Disclosures must include current World Assembly Nation, all past and present aliases used, all past and present involvement in other regions and organizations, and all current positions held across NationStates.

Charter Wrote:3. All nations wishing to obtain Citizenship must accept and abide by the terms and provisions of the Charter, declare their current nation residing in The South Pacific, current nation which holds membership in the World Assembly, and all regions and organizations in which the applicant is or has been involved with.

I think Kris originally had a point here. There is a distinction made between all current positions and past involvement. We have to determine what exactly involvement includes. I'm leaning towards involvement only meaning that you were in the region and not requiring you to list every position you held in that region.