Users browsing this thread:

TAC Saxton · 03-25-2015, 01:03 PM

You're missing the big picture here...
It's an unwritten rule. A verbal agreement if you will.
Tradition is fine and all, but law trumps tradition.

I am a Super Villain

(This post was last modified: 03-25-2015, 01:06 PM by Rasikal.)

Escade · 03-25-2015, 01:06 PM

(03-25-2015, 12:48 PM)Escade Wrote: It doesn't? Are you sure? You were extremely unsure about this decision yesterday and discussed it with several people on IRC. If you intended to be fair and impartial you would reset the election itself rather then make a decision with so much gray area that has the ability to harm TSP in the long run.

Not because of the candidates but because of the precedence it sets. And you know this. ECs are selected without being approved, what's to keep the next EC from doing such things?

Then you were well aware of TSP's election procedures. Why did you not check the citizenship list before the election started or even during the first two days and say:

"WHOAH GUYS AND GIRLS, wait a minute! This list is out of date! We need the VD and Admins to correct this before elections start and so I ask to pause elections for one day or three to sort this out."

Or did you even check the list then? Why not?

Why did you wait until after when it came down to 1 vote and that too in a highly contested race?

If you feel that you are impartial then reset the election it self, re-open nominations and have the VD and Admins do their jobs and check instead of making an ipso facto decision that benefits your candidate.

I'm not sure what you're responding to here but precision would help me address it, TAC.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

Hileville · 03-25-2015, 01:06 PM

(03-25-2015, 12:48 PM)Escade Wrote: It doesn't? Are you sure? You were extremely unsure about this decision yesterday and discussed it with several people on IRC. If you intended to be fair and impartial you would reset the election itself rather then make a decision with so much gray area that has the ability to harm TSP in the long run.

Not because of the candidates but because of the precedence it sets. And you know this. ECs are selected without being approved, what's to keep the next EC from doing such things?

Then you were well aware of TSP's election procedures. Why did you not check the citizenship list before the election started or even during the first two days and say:

"WHOAH GUYS AND GIRLS, wait a minute! This list is out of date! We need the VD and Admins to correct this before elections start and so I ask to pause elections for one day or three to sort this out."

Or did you even check the list then? Why not?

Why did you wait until after when it came down to 1 vote and that too in a highly contested race?

If you feel that you are impartial then reset the election it self, re-open nominations and have the VD and Admins do their jobs and check instead of making an ipso facto decision that benefits your candidate.

Obviously because I am corrupt and foresaw that this would be an issue mid-election. I had to jump in my time machine and make sure that the vote would result in a way I could manipulate it to benefit my own interests.

Escade · 03-25-2015, 01:08 PM

Why didn't you re-open nominations as you suggested you would if there was a tie?

Yes, Hileville it does look bad when the decision you make benefits the candidate you are supporting and several people disagree with the decision.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

TAC Saxton · 03-25-2015, 01:09 PM

(03-25-2015, 01:06 PM)Escade Wrote: I'm not sure what you're responding to here but precision would help me address it, TAC.

I was responding to the post directly before mine. If there was any gap between my post and GR's post, I would have quoted it, like so:

Sandaoguo Wrote:Because we have legal precedents to go by

Actually, no we don't. We have no current legal precedence for an EC. If it is that hard to believe I suggest you go take a look at our current laws.

I am a Super Villain

(This post was last modified: 03-25-2015, 01:12 PM by Rasikal.)

Hileville · 03-25-2015, 01:12 PM

Had this resulted the other way and GR won by a single vote after an invalid vote was removed we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Escade · 03-25-2015, 01:15 PM

No I think we would be having the discussion but a few different people would be speaking up about it. Some of them would be the same of course.

Again, you stated that if there was a tie (or in this case a legal question for the courts about the EC and their powers as well as who determine citizenship) you would re-open nominations. Why did you choose the option that actually can be seen as a dangerous new precedent rather then the one that would allow all TSPers to take a part in the discussion and also re-cast their votes?

Why?

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

***sandaoguo*** · 03-25-2015, 01:23 PM

There are serious doubts that the High Court can even settle this issue, as they may completely lack the authority to deliver the kinds of ruling necessary to settle it. I think this makes the case for a special election much stronger.

TAC Saxton · 03-25-2015, 01:27 PM

I wouldn't mind a Special Election so long as everyone's citizenship is validated beforehand.

I am a Super Villain

Hileville · 03-25-2015, 01:28 PM

Wolf has been named the MoFA and takes office on 4/1. IMO, in order to have a special election the Assembly would need to first recall Wolf.