(03-21-2019, 10:28 AM)Roavin Wrote: It is not hard to imagine situations where the petitioner is satisfied with the ruling as-is while a materially interested party is not. Since this is a matter of court policy and not law, the court can reconsider this at any time.

For example, The recently declined Legal Question about the clauses and enforcement of a RMB etiquette guideline, partially authored by myself as one of three Local Councilors, where I do not have standing to ask for reasons as to the non-justiciability of the case?  Oh and I would ask the question originator to ask for reasons, but low and behold, they've blocked me from sending them telegrams, leading to my own complaint to the court, which was dismissed, and I am awaiting the release of reasons on that separate matter.

I would note the current LC now has to write a new gameside election law, following the gameside rejecting the application of the Forumside Elections Act, and that the case that gave rise to this legal question specificly relates to gameside election issues, so I certainly hope whatever the court deceides on this question, that Tsu will ask for reasons, as this will guide the writing of a new gameside elections act.

I can only hope Tsu does ask for reasons, otherwise the LC is left completely in the dark trying to guess what the courts determine is and is not allowable.  We don't have standing to directly request the Courts reasons.