Search results

Hello. I am Eluvatar. I have served as Justice a few times before. The last time I offered a detailed campaign was July 2023. I am happy to answer questions, whether about the law, my availability, or anything else appropriate.

Justice: 1. Abstain Would you like to reopen nominations? Yes

I will stand for election.

I am considering accepting. I have a lot of commitments the next few months so I must consider whether to take on this duty carefully.

It's (past) time to update the forum. I will be doing a few other maintenance tasks during the downtime. Downtime will be about an hour. Any suggestions as to when would be a bad time to do it? I hope to pick a time less likely to inconvenience people

:salute:

Done

Excellent!

Yes it has

Shouldn't @Ornge post an oath?

I don't believe Admin should necessarily do the actual posting of the treaty content to the Diplomatic Documents Archives, but we certainly should remove dissolved treaties from the Laws Page. Have done so for PPO.

I would like to argue against the (perhaps) imminent repeal of the requirement of admin notification of proxying. I have applied to rejoin the Regional Assembly, at which time I will be able to participate in the debate, but pending that I would like to remark that the debate so far has missed...

Nation: Zemnaya Svoboda I pledge loyalty to The North Pacific and its territories, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the...

How dare Greitbart expose my sadomasochistic relationship with the Regional Assembly! For shame!

Nation: Zemnaya Svoboda I pledge loyalty to The North Pacific and its territories, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the...

Done!

That time frame is for leaving, not getting kicked out. A nation that leaves was presumably logged in to do that, and can be expected to reverse that action afterward.

It's unclear, reading the ruling, what we mean by the reasonable window. I think it might help to specify that it would be constitutional for statute to establish such a window (but none has been).

I have a very mild preference for "the court" over "the unanimous court" but that's ok. No objection whatever to adding that apostrophe. Please go ahead and post the ruling, with whatever version of "the court" or "the unanimous court" you two prefer.

My tweaks: (I may come back and suggest more later, probably not. Further tweaks welcome!) Sentencing Order of the Court of the North Pacific Opinion drafted by @Dreadtonr, joined by @Eluvatar & @Pallaith The Court took into consideration the relevant clauses of the Legal Code: The Court...

I remain fine with five.

A good bit. He was a bit puzzled by Scardino et al's pre-coup purges.

I feel very weird that I technically first started playing before you did, by three months and a day. My brother pointed out to me today that The North Pacific's constitutional order is (significantly) older than South Sudan. In fact, we haven't experienced an outright coup or civil war since...

It would be legitimate for the RA to require returning to retain citizenship but be in my reading it has not done so (in the case of ejection).

I'd, perhaps obviously, prefer 4 months to 5, but 5 is an acceptable compromise and I could sign on to a cogent sentence with that. I should underline that Bobberino's internal post was a (presumably joking) to ban any soldier who didn't vote for him (presumably from the army). Taken seriously I...

The legal code provides that: It also provides that: There are defined specific but various processes for removal of citizenship, which are the ways in which the Regional Assembly has determined citizenship should be removed. Ejections for NS rules violations are not one of them, but deletion...

The language in the emergency law is consistent with the original language in the revamped legal code, and that uses "leave" to mean voluntary departure from the region. Please review this post in the request for review thread, the way "leave" is used in every post of this thread it comes up, or...

I am fine with two months, but am open to finding a compromise. Nine months strikes me as far too long. We're at war with the Brotherhood of Malice, not Warzone Trinidad, after all. And even in their statement of support for Texico et al they disclaim that there are lines they would not cross...

I don't see any reason to reinterpret "leave" but I am willing to debate the matter if you, my colleagues, see it as necessary.

As I said on Discord, it's an awful lot of words to say they disagree with my (and the prior court's) interpretation of "leave".