| [PASSED] Amendment to Article VIII of the Charter (High Court's mandate) |
(12-26-2018, 09:52 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Hold up-- that draft places moderation under the Court's jurisdiction. That hasn't been agreed to.We've always held that moderation/administration is seperate from the government, so I'm not sure it does. Clarifying language might be helpful though; maybe an extra article at the end of Charter specifying that? Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
This is the language I'm pointing out:
Quote:(1) In addition to its normal powers regarding cases, the High Court has discretionary powers to refuse to hear an appeal against a moderation or government decision if: It pre-supposes that a moderation decision would be heard by the Court in the first place. Which, while it was discussed earlier in the thread, was dropped when Amerion said it belongs in a different amendment. (12-26-2018, 10:19 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: This is the language I'm pointing out: I didn't think that suggestion was being actively considered? Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator (12-26-2018, 10:19 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: ... It pre-supposes that a moderation decision would be heard by the Court in the first place. Which, while it was discussed earlier in the thread, was dropped when Amerion said it belongs in a different amendment. (11-15-2018, 10:05 AM)Amerion Wrote: If others feel that judicial oversight should be applied to moderation, they should propose an amendment stating as such. To clarify my earlier statement (just to avoid any potential confusion); it was made as the author of this bill rather than as Chair (in the unlikely scenario someone may have misconstrued my intention) ... This is a relatively simple amendment which seeks to remove any ambiguity about the Court's jurisdiction where in relation to the in-character component of the game. I have not yet formed an opinion as to whether out-of-character moderation should similarly fall under their purview and I think this is a valuable debate to be had. If no one creates a separate thread regarding this by tomorrow, I will and we can discuss this there. (12-27-2018, 11:21 AM)Amerion Wrote:(12-26-2018, 10:19 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: ... It pre-supposes that a moderation decision would be heard by the Court in the first place. Which, while it was discussed earlier in the thread, was dropped when Amerion said it belongs in a different amendment.(11-15-2018, 10:05 AM)Amerion Wrote: If others feel that judicial oversight should be applied to moderation, they should propose an amendment stating as such. If I understand the present situation correctly, Glen is referring to Nat's amendment…
Regarding my suggested amendment: my intention was to give the court power to dismiss cases of negligible consequence. The fact that it would have possibly granted the court power over moderation decisions was not intended (I incorrectly assumed that was already the case). In light of that, the draft should be this:
Quote:(1) In addition to its normal powers regarding cases, the High Court has discretionary powers to refuse to hear an case about a government decision if the cumulative effect of related decisions made against a single member only directly affects that member and only does so for a maximum period of seven days. This is merely a suggestion made on how we might overcome the fear that increasing the court's power would clog up its time with useless appeals. I apologise for the confusion that this has caused.
Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)
(12-28-2018, 04:31 AM)Nat Wrote: Regarding my suggested amendment: my intention was to give the court power to dismiss cases of negligible consequence. The fact that it would have possibly granted the court power over moderation decisions was not intended (I incorrectly assumed that was already the case). In light of that, the draft should be this: I am largely in agreement with your intention. Could you please create a new thread to discuss it?
Are we ready to motion Amerion's original proposal from the OP?
![[Image: XXPV74Y.png?1]](https://i.imgur.com/XXPV74Y.png?1)
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES ![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
![[Image: flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg]](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/esfalsagov/esfalsa-graphics/main/flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: rank_officer.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/rank_officer.min.svg){kind=icon}
![[Image: updates_lifetime_2.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/updates_lifetime_2.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/150w/defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: detags_lifetime_3.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/detags_lifetime_3.min.svg){kind=small}
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |