Search results

1135

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

1

8

Kaliningrad, Russia

4

1

Delegate: 1. < St George > Would you like to reopen nominations? < No > Vice Delegate: < Gorundu > Would you like to reopen nominations? < No > Speaker: < Fregerson > Would you like to reopen nominations? < No >

Alderman

2

2

Sentient

4

3

531

1358 cans of spam on the wall, 1358 cans of spam! Take one down, pass it around, 1357 cans of spam on the wall!

5

with a bright

2713

1

4

545

Court Justice: 1. < Pallaith > 2. < Lord Lore > 3. < Siwale > Would you like to reopen nominations? < No >

Speaker: < Bootsie > Would you like to reopen nominations? < Yes >

I wish you the best of luck in all your endeavors. This is an incredibly difficult job, I would know. Real life must always take precedence over NS, so don't feel bad putting your needs first. If you ever need advice or support or whatever it is, remember that we're all here for you.

As it has now been more than five days, and formal debate has concluded, I would like to request that a vote be scheduled.

Seeing that this Amendment has not received additional feedback since I made the requested changes, I would like to motion for a vote.

Since this is fairly straightforward, I would like to bring this to a vote soon, however, as Pallaith pointed out in the Discord, there are probably other simple changes that need to be made to the Constitution that could potentially be squeezed in as part of this amendment.

Speaker: 1. < Oracle > 2. < Skaraborg > 3. < Fregerson > 4. < Bobberino >

It recently came to my attention that there is an inconsistency between what the Constitution says about judicial elections and what the Legal Code says. The Legal Code prescribes for justices to be elected by STV (single transferable vote), but the Constitution says they are to be elected by...