Belschaft Q&A |
(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. 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. 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
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 (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? 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
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
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
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
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 |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |