Search results

A fine idea, I would support this measure! ^_^

Can Bhagavan please be taken off the ban list? Thank you. ^_^

Perhaps he missed the memo? :P

Nation: Bhagavan Zone: C Colour:Purple Comments: Coastal area

Welcome back, AP! ^_^

Asshat! :P As long as Bhagavan is unbanned after Talk Like A Pirate Day has concluded.

My nation Bhagavan was banned. May I ask why?

Well given that the results of the election are at odds with the constitution, I would argue that it should be taken out of the WFE until this mattered is settled.

I cited the relevant part of the constitution as it pertains to this problem. At the time of nominations neither Rhindon Blade or Tresville were eligible. Rhindon applied on August 26th, so the issue of applying and being accepted is a non-issue, either way he would not fulfill the 30 day...

I just realized that if we do hold a re-vote before the 26th of September that Rhindon Blade will not be eligible under the terms of the constitution. He applied on the 26th of August, and the date of his acceptance I am unsure of.

You could swap the passwords for your nations? Though it might not be an even trade. :P

It is completely realistic and it is the fairest and most constitutional solution.

Thank you, Al Homa! And nice to see you back on the forum. ^_^

And so far Gatesville has done nothing, but toss words us at us. :) THis conversations is necessary and needed. The court will be making a ruling and we shall go from there.

Was this directed at me?

Rhindon Blade's Regional Assembly application Tresville's re-application to the Regional Assembly September 2008 Nomination thread

Elu was going off of the Constitution on wiki, and noted on there that the 30 day requirement was absent. And that would have made this whole thing a non-issue. But, that omission of the 30 day requirement from the wiki Constitution was an error. So, we go back to the request for a court...

Neither candidate had been in the RA for 30 days when the nominations began.

This is a minor issue and is a distraction from the more important issue at hand. Rhindon Blade and Tresville were ineligible at the time of nominations because neither one of them were in the Regional Assembly for the 30 days that is mandated in our constitution. I have submitted a motion...

Article 1, Section 3, Item 7 Rhindon Blade posted his RA application on: Tresville reapplied to the RA on: Nominations started on: Therefore, both Tresville and Rhindon Blade did not meet the 30 days of Regional Assembly membership that is dictated in our constitution.

Thank you Sydia, and I fully agree. What must we do to put this to a vote in the Regional Assembly? I am a tad rusty.

I have also posted a motion in the Prelim area of the RA.

Under the constitution Rhindon Blade and Tresville were ineligible at the time to run for their respective positions. I propose that we hold a new round of voting for WA Delegate and for the CLO position that Rhindon was elected to. I also propose that the new round only be 3 days in length...

They are invalid obviously based on the what the constitution says. Neither of you were RA members for 30 days at that point in time. Proposing motions to confirm you and Tresville is merely a band-aid to cover up the oversight. I would fully back a motion to hold a new round of voting for WA...

I hereby request that the court rule on the current situation over the election results for WA Delegate and CLO. Due to the fact that Rhindon Blade and Tresville were ineligible at the time (less then 30 days in the RA). I also would like the court to make a ruling on holding a new round of...

And I never made that statement. If it were me I would want to pursue the solution that would most likely let me keep my position. And a new round of voting could be a lot riskier. That is what I was saying. :) 1) Have the court rule on whether we can hold a new round of elections for WA...

Citizens and candidates are also responsible for reading and knowing the laws. Please read my post before this one. The quicker we remedy this the better off TNP will be.

I am glad Tresville was honest, that is very commendable. Though, it does fix the quandary that we find ourselves in. No one is putting your head on the block. Permission from the Speaker does not nullify the issue we are facing. The constitution states you must be in the RA for 30 days to run...

This is a matter for the court to settle. It involves the constitution, and eligibility requirements.

If we simply hold another round of voting, then they both are eligible anyways and no need to propose that to the RA.