Search results

Like Pallaith I am on board on the substance. I don't think a general comment on specificity does a lot here, though. Not against it, but if we want to make a difference for future Courts I think it should go in some general guide for the Court. There are a few minor things (grammar and...

Yep. I am still good to sign on to it.

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by @TlomzKrano on Defunct Rulings and the Reconsideration of Candidate Eligibility in Reopened Nomination Periods Opinion drafted by Chief Justice @Attempted Socialism, joined by Justices @Pallaith and @Eluvatar...

Just so there's no miscommunication, I'm reposting the draft as it currently stands. Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by TlomzKrano on Defunct Rulings and the Reconsideration of Candidate Eligibility in Reopened Nomination Periods Opinion...

No, it is a three part test. 1) was the ruling correct at the time? 2) were changes made to the legislation underlying that ruling? 3) did those changes address the ruling in part or in full? If the answers to the first two are yes, but the third is "not at all", we get to something like the...

Do you have suggestions? I can just excise the inserted line but I would prefer to have some line that elaborates on what we think when we say innocuous. That some minor changes simply aren't worth a R4R, because the change isn't actually changing the legal foundation of a ruling.

Maybe it was unclearly phrased, but I added language to that effect in the first draft and it is still there. My comment was towards Elu's about whether the line can be misunderstood by the casual observer.

The changes I can spot (Last line about strikeouts, the reference to an appeal) are fine by me. If you made other edits they are either purely to readability or I missed them. The line about e.g. numbering being innocuous is meant to signal that we know that some changes are irrelevant in legal...

Against. States deciding a minimum wage is a liberal feel-good policy to deaden worker power, taking it away the unions and co-opting progressive energy in favour of the existing system of exploitation.

I don't want to downplay the toxic nature of the fight over the recall, and part of that has definitely been calling out groups or specific people for their votes in various ways. That has been rather disheartening to watch. However, I don't think that this is a solution, for a few reasons...

@Eluvatar have you had a chance to read the draft, as edited by Pallaith above?

Re-read it just now, I can sign on as-is.

We discussed this at length on Discord, and I think you catched the various views quite nicely. I can sign on to the ruling, but I'd like a few days to read it back leisurely for minor things in the language.

I can sign on to that.

To the first part, that's a good and uncontroversial idea. I would not expect anyone to plead no contest without a plea deal, to be honest. Without a plea deal it is basically the same as pleading guilty. I would make that clear in the procedures or an accompanying note. As for how a plea deal...

I'm good with all the renamed titles. If the table is a work in progress then let's wait and see if we can make just one announcement, but if it drags out then I would suggest we post first the renamed list and the table at a later date. On a similar note, if you're making larger changes to the...

As Pallaith brought up: We don't have a style guide, and the current style has been developing organically over time, as different Justices have contributed. Do we want an actual style guide, some additions to the current templates, or continue with the current system without any suggestions on...

I'll make a few line breaks. I am aware that my writing style, inherited from Continental philosophy, leans towards fairly long and cumbersome sentences, so if there are specific places you want to break up a sentence for clarity, I'm all ears. I would say yes, but no longer than what I do here...

Alright, @Pallaith and @Eluvatar , I made a few changes to the draft, mostly adding the ruling that the Court Examiner cited, and using it to elaborate on how to apply the test: I'd love to get the ruling out soon-ish. Ruling of the Court of The North PacificIn regards to the judicial...

Good thoughts. The jurisdiction ruling was updated and that's reasonably within the scope of the third part of the test I lay out: The original ruling wasn't wrong, just insufficient by today's standards, so a later ruling superseded.