| Belschaft Q&A |
(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. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (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. 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. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
(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. 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. ![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
(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. I didn't mean to be dismissive, rather to point out that, in my opinion, the legislative agenda of a prospective Chair should take a backseat to actually having a functioning CoA again (a position that I consider incredibly important).
I’m not sure a candidate who says not to vote for him and says he may not even have time to do the job really qualifies as the only “viable candidate”, Roavin :/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(10-20-2017, 02:31 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I’m not sure a candidate who says not to vote for him and says he may not even have time to do the job really qualifies as the only “viable candidate”, Roavin :/ More viable than the other one, who (based on the standards we used for Omega) should be facing recall right now.
It’s kind of hard to take such a principled stand when the campaign we’re posting in says “don’t vote for me, I don’t want this, it’s a shit job, I might not even have time to do it.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And yet, he'd model himself on Vetinari. He'll be dismayed to learn that got my vote. [emoji14]
Sent from my KOB-L09 using Tapatalk Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond! Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi. Salma 145:8
(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. 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. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (10-20-2017, 02:50 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: It’s kind of hard to take such a principled stand when the campaign we’re posting in says “don’t vote for me, I don’t want this, it’s a shit job, I might not even have time to do it.” I don't want this job. It is a shit job. I would much prefer it if I didn't end up doing it. It's possible that I might not have time to do it. .... That said, it's an important job that needs doing and I am willing to do the damn thing. .... I don't think these are incompatible statements. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |