Search results

I think this is an excellent idea. The original proposal not so much, for all the reasons already brought up.

Sooo... Just going to go on not answering the question then? K.

Look, you can try to turn this into a pity party if you really want, but it's not really passing the sniff test. All you have to do to change my mind is explain what part of your job as an SCer you have been doing for 2.5 years. You haven't been maintaining your endorsement count or influence...

So... the only thing you can say that you've done over the past 2.5 years is log into your nation at least once every couple of months, and post on the forum at least once every couple of weeks? That's not a terribly compelling argument. I can't give you credit for your endorsement count when...

@andyynx passes the IP check but looks like they have a 2nd account. Have sent PM to resolve and waiting on reply. Resolved. @brihimia passes admin check. Both remasked as citizens.

As COE said, "table" has opposite meanings on either side of the Atlantic - it would therefore be a very bad idea for the Speaker to be expected to interpret the meaning of colloquial terms not actually laid out in TNP procedure or law. For the British, a motion to table is a motion to hold a...

Drat you've quoted my faulty Latin - I meant lex ethicorum :P

I don't understand the purpose of naming the bill in Latin. The Romans didn't invent ethics - in fact, the word is further derived from Greek. If you *are* going to insist on keeping a Latin name, it should at the very least go all the way: lex ethices.

This request for review is denied. The petitioner has failed to specify what portion of the law they wish to be reviewed, or on what grounds they believe a review to be warranted. It is not the role of the court to read minds or try to divine what laws the petitioner believes apply to their...

My initial reaction to this was to say that if VD and WADP efforts were sufficient to keep Roman within SC requirements, why isn't that sufficient? Why should we care about him not tarting when his numbers are fine? But... upon deeper reflection that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. The VD...

My only concern, and I'm not sure it's a major one, is in regards to applications denied near the 14-day deadline. If the Vice Delegate fails someone at the last minute, but the Speaker doesn't see the failure soon enough to deny the application before the deadline passes, the individual in...

I guess brief submission has ended. This one seems pretty straightforward to me. FOIA does not restrict itself by where government records are located. It is true that prior court rulings (authored, I must note, by yours truly :D ) refer to posts; to whit: However, at the time the vast...

It's less concern that a question will be asked, and more concern at introducing an uncertainty into the system. We know that this is a problem, and I don't like leaving it one.

I'm not sure that's something we want to do at all. >_>

I am concerned that if we don't address this question up front, we're leaving ourselves open to an immediate r4r challenging whether citizens improperly admitted can be held to any oath. I am also concerned that if we don't clarify how the oath is to be handled, the Speaker has absolutely zero...

OwenStacey has been selected as THO to hear the two requests for review currently in front of the court.

We've encountered a small delay due to the loss of a Justice. We have agreed to appoint OwenStacey as THO.

***UNDER CONSTRUCTION*** This is a draft. Getting some thoughts out. Feel free to reply but not everything is fully fleshed out.

After a discussion of the other r4r on Discord, Elu and I are in agreement that we should include the rationale for granting standing in any rulings we issue as a court. I am personally in favor of this because it helps to clarify what is and is not standing - right now there's not a lot of...

Here is a list of the topics I think we can include in our ruling, as they were raised in some fashion in the r4r and briefs. We are not obligated to rule on all of them if we don't want to, so please chime in on which ones you think we should actually include, and, also importantly, if you...

Ruling of the Court of The North PacificIn regards to the judicial inquiry filed by Gracius Maximus on Alterations to the Citizenship Oath Opinion drafted by SillyString, joined by [[name(s)]], with [[name(s)]] [abstaining | dissenting] The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here...

Apologies - we are still discussing.

Upon deeper consideration, I will agree that the Speaker has some power to determine what constitutes a valid application, as defined in the Legal Code: "2. Any resident may apply for citizenship using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and...

Why is the Vice Delegate being excluded? They don't automatically get BC powers outside of this clause, and I don't see a rationale to not allow them to be included in that list. They are the head of the security branch, and the one who takes over if something happens to the delegate - they...

I agree. The question of flavor text within the oath has come up, but one thing we haven't discussed is when that appears outside the oath. To take COE's example from his brief, if someone takes the oath correctly but then signs it "JAL who is logged into someone else's computer", a reasonable...

No, the period for submitting briefs ended on the 26th. Your response to the question I asked you will, of course, be taken into account.

I have a clarification to request of the petitioner. Can you expand on this a bit? Specifically, your rationale for why you feel that you cannot validly take the citizenship oath as "I" instead of "I, the Minister, Ruler of Gracius Maximus"?

I think no matter how we rule, we'll be saying that the Speaker's office did not properly carry out their duty. Either they improperly admitted several folks, or they improperly denied several folks. I think there are two issues we have to rule on. Firstly, in what manner did the Speaker's...

I have similarly unfocused thoughts. This is a tricky one! Will keep pondering and hope to post a more complete set of thoughts tomorrow.

I was not planning to recuse myself. You are correct that my citizenship oath was also denied. However, I chose not to challenge the legality of that denial, and instead decided that it would be both less of a hassle and easier to guarantee the results I wanted if I looked at changing the law...