(11-19-2014, 01:42 AM)TAC Wrote: And Milo getting parole is your definition of "doesn't work"

Realizing that a parole board can't consider the severity of crime committed is a deficiency in the parole board, in my opinion. I would have thought so before this act passed, and I think many people would agree with me.

HEM Wrote:Ummm excuse me? I had problems with the Parole Board before Milograd was pardoned, and many of them are documented as posts on this forum.

On the contrary, Milo was brought up early in the discussion (which you didn't even participate in)

(11-19-2014, 01:51 AM)TAC Wrote:

HEM Wrote:Ummm excuse me? I had problems with the Parole Board before Milograd was pardoned, and many of them are documented as posts on this forum.

On the contrary, Milo was brought up early in the discussion (which you didn't even participate in)

I'm...not sure what exactly you are responding to. I was just insisting that I had problems with the Parole Board before Milograd was pardoned, when you previously insinuated otherwise. Essentially I was saying that not all my problems were in response to the current decision -- though some certainly were highlighted by it.

This:

http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-1117.html

The discussion that gave birth to the parole system, which specifically addressed Milograd, among others as well.

Well -- let's be clear that Milo wasn't "pardoned" and still has a year before we can fully interact with the region. So, it's not like we just threw out his entire sentence.

YES, FINALLY, SOMETHING REASONABLE. Good job Tsu

What is unreasonable about asking that the hearing be held in public? What is unreasonable about including more than just three members in the decision making process.

(11-19-2014, 02:11 AM)Apad Wrote: What is unreasonable about asking that the hearing be held in public? What is unreasonable about including more than just three members in the decision making process.

Nothing.  I think this is a reasonable request and should be written up into an amendment.

Because it leaves room for manipulation by people who can't be objective on the matter. Many are too personally involved and thus presents a conflict of interest.

(11-19-2014, 02:17 AM)TAC Wrote: Because it leaves room for manipulation by people who can't be objective on the matter. Many are too personally involved and thus presents a conflict of interest.

You are assuming that the members of the parole board as constituted now and in the future are unbiased. I take it you are also assuming that none of the members are friends with milo outside of tsp and if they are it doesnt affect their decisions. Like you said in a previous post common sense isnt common.