Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 10-20-2017, 04:14 PM

(10-20-2017, 02:26 PM)Roavin Wrote:
(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.
2. b. Again, this is something that I should be able to do within 24 hours; I check the assembly at least once a day as it is.
2. c. Again, within 24 hours when I check the assembly.

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.

Just because I'm aiming for 24 hours doesn't mean I'll actually achieve it.

Your request seems reasonable, and likely to make things easier for people to understand.

As for the issue of the in-game; back then referendums were only required on issues "solely" effecting the in-game region, which was essentially nothing - as I argued at the time. These days it's "directly" effecting the in-game region, which is much more reasonable. I honestly see no more need or reason to campaign in regards to this issue, having "won" the debate - if only by annoying people enough that a more moderate reform than what I was "proposing" was adopted.

(10-20-2017, 03:06 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:
(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.

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.

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.

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.

I do not think our current criminal system is fit for purpose. This should not be news to anyone. I honestly don't think that the current court has any unique input to offer at this point, simply as these issues have been discussed so often.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 10-20-2017, 04:27 PM

Are you telling me that the person who has to preside over criminal cases, and has been presiding over a criminal case under the current set of laws, doesn't have a unique input to offer on how to better run a criminal case?

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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

**Belschaft** · 10-20-2017, 04:38 PM

(10-20-2017, 04:27 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Are you telling me that the person who has to preside over criminal cases, and has been presiding over a criminal case under the current set of laws, doesn't have a unique input to offer on how to better run a criminal case?

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Well, unless you think that things have radically changed in the last four months or so that means the reasons for reform a year ago are no longer the case....?

We as a region have literally argued over and debated this matter to death; the consensus was that the current system isn't fit for purpose, there was simply no agreement on what the best solution was. If you think it is fit for purpose I'd love to hear why.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 10-20-2017, 04:50 PM

What I honestly think is this region has a bothersome tendency to believe that the judiciary, at any given point, no matter its current setup, needs to be reformed. This belief remains regardless of player age and is rarely sufficiently justified with evidence and actual Court experience. We have gone through at least four judicial systems since I joined the region, and all somehow need fixing. There is always room for improvement, that's natural, but the conversation is always about the need for overhauls, rather than the careful diagnosis of problems, based on the practical experience of those who know the Court.

It's no secret that I've long opposed reckless judicial overhaul, and indeed, so far in my term as Justice, I have focused entirely on administrative reform. I have tried to formalise the Legal Question process, hire Law Clerks, establish a Rulings Repository (which will soon be published). Obviously legal changes will be needed, but my point is that they have to be the result of careful consideration, and meant to address specific issues, rather than be the same kind of overhaul that we tend to prefer, and which solves little of the underlying issues, precisely because they are rarely diagnosed.

I'm not sure how you can believe that any debate held in the past few months regarding criminal justice reform can have anywhere near the same weight as the input that might come from the Court. These past debates have been hypothetical. The Court has actual experience presiding over a criminal case, and is in a privileged position to identify the strong points of the Court Procedures Act, its weaknesses, and make informed suggestions on what specifically needs to be reformed. This is precisely the problem that I described above: a tendency to believe the judiciary always needs reform, without a careful examination that precedes it. Our judiciary will never be good enough, because it's always held to an impossible standard. I don't believe it will do us any good to go down this road one more time.

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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

**Belschaft** · 10-20-2017, 04:55 PM

I'm of the opinion that you've been doing an excellent job in regards to LQ's, probably the best we've ever seen; I don't want you to get any impression otherwise. That said, and through no fault of yours, I do not consider our criminal system fit for purpose; this isn't news to anyone.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 10-20-2017, 05:09 PM

I don't think the criminal process is adequate either. I'm always happy to sit down and take a look at areas of improvement. My issue is with the assertion that the Court shouldn't get a particular voice in any reform process. Ultimately the Court will have to implement whatever law is passed, so it should be natural that we listen to whatever experience it has, particularly when nobody else here has experience implementing the provisions that will be subject to reform.

A timely, well-planned and evidence-based reform is positive. A reform that ignores or diminishes valuable input or is done because "the judiciary is broken", and focuses on overhaul rather than improving specific provisions, is one that will damage the Court. I don't think you're (exclusively) guilty of this, this is a generalised phenomenon, as I said, but I do think that specific proposal from your campaign could be a dangerous channel for those feelings.

--

I really appreciate the comments on the LQ process.

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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

**Belschaft** · 10-24-2017, 03:43 PM

With voting due to open tomorrow, I'd like to again encourage people not to vote for me.

I'm not a huge fan of uncontested elections, so figured "wtf" and decided to give an alternative to Far in this one, but;

1. He actually wants to do the job
2. He's less likely to end up resigning due to lack of time for it

If you really want to vote for me... well, okay, I guess. I can't stop you.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 10-24-2017, 03:43 PM by Belschaft.)