Search results

We don't like nazis because (well, the main reason) they tried to systematically eliminate a belief system from the world. That is no different from what ANTIFA is advocating (elimination of fascists everywhere, not just Nazis, fascists of all kinds). While I don't agree politically with...

And they wonder why new members find the system is hard on new people and causes inactivity. Well, I suppose I'll worry about that 30 days from now. :lol:

19 days from application to acceptance on mine? :eyeroll:

Thank you! Heh, thanks Elu.

Thanks to the both of you!

Ello. I've been hanging around the RMB as Weed for the last couple weeks, I was pretending to be a new player to have some fun in the WA. Anyway, I'm backish. I do apologize for falling off the face of the earth when I did, and for not finishing my term as Justice. My interest just plumeted in...

TNP: Weed WA: Topid I, Topid, as the leader of The North Pacific nation of Weed, pledge loyalty to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Laws of The North Pacific Region, and to act as a responsible member of its society. I understand that if my Nation leaves The North Pacific region for...

:lol: I am confused with what is going on at every level of this trial. It was declared here that both would happen at the same time, then it was reversed. It isn't the first contradiction I've noticed, but the best example of a decision being made with no explanation then reversed with no...

I like it too, though the three most recent RA members should have the ability to pass on the opportunity to be a juror if ther are conflicts of interest or the nation isn't going to be active in the near future, etc.

:pinch: Gotcha. Also if there is no opening statement soon after it being requested several times I don't see how we can continue the case, though dismissing it means JAL can't ever be tried for his actions again by the Bill of Rights.

Heh, well order and professionalism has never been the strong suit of yours and your client's. I think Gov is right on here, if people want to discuss what the court is doing there is no reason it has to be in the same thread as official business. There is no harm in a 'discussion' thread in...

Clearly it is most important for there to be many candidates in the elections, even if that means we hand it to people who will only be around every few weeks, primarily when elections come around again. I agree with this posters sentiments in pure jest. As for actually changing the law, I...

If voting begins on the 13th and today is the 10th is it perhaps time for some campaign threads? Looking at the January election, voting started on the 10 and all three candidates for delegate had their threads up by the second, two by the 31st.

From Fel's response, to answer your question, apparently not. Unless you were wanting us to rule the actions of the government illegal or not, (which I realize was was what you meant, just being literal with the first bit), that isn't something I think we can do without a hearing and such to...

I know. And I'm saying the real shame isn't that the laws don't make it very easy to run for office, it is that we don't have a larger group of people that care enough about TNP or the game as a whole to check in every now and then to keep their RA membership so that they can run for office when...

Maybe the problem is that such a small number of people care about the region enough / are involved in the game enough to hold on to their RA Membership, which is rather simple to do. EDIT: And I second Felasia even though seconds aren't required just so there isn't an argument about not...

Given the fact that our AG is no longer a member of the RA does that change his role as AG?

Does it not make sense the law requiring someone to take an oath by nature requires that person to follow the oath? To me, that seems like a very obvious assumption, and that the oath would be legally binding with or without this amendment. [/opinion as an RA member]

I'd answer that question Flem, but I'm a little confused about it myself. I think that is a separate hearing but I'm not sure.

6th is here. Started a new thread (easier IMO). Prepare for :headbang:

The court is scheduled to hear the arguments about the complaint filed by the AG here today, September 6, 2011. Presiding over the case shall be Chief Justice FALCONKATS and Justices Govindia and Topid. The attorney general and prosecutor is Eluvatar. Flemgovia is representing the accused...

Also biased because I wrote the thing, and I Nai has been my 'role model' in both the defender and general gameplay world for a long time, but I would also appreciate a for vote.

By my understanding the matter at hand is not charges against JAL, those were filed but I have not seen any indication the AG has acted upon them. The motion made was by JAL himself, to have the rejection of his application to the RA reversed.

Sigh. Admittedly, hearing the delegate admit the court system is 'worthless' wasn't terribly encouraging to the new guy here. :/ But speaking from my experiences, courts and judiciaries are fundamentally flawed in almost all regions. There isn't a point in having one 95% of the time, they go...

Past criminal behaviour in this very region is very much not to be set aside to me, it is a legitimate reason to reject his application, IMO.

Okay thanks for the response. I'm sure someone else did it too, but I PMed Fel just in case. Other than that, thanks for the response and I'll wait for the Chief to stop by.

Actually no, the Crimson Order means nothing to me, likely before my time. Feeder coups are less extreme than what JAL did to me though. Ejecting meaninglessly, even if a vast majority of them are puppets or nations that will CTE, there would by nature have to be players that legitimately just...

An initial question, was this brought up to the Speaker to see if he would correct any possible errors before bringing it here?

Maybe a topic like this is in order to discuss the case we need to decide on first? I believe the issue being discussed here (JAL/Flem's complaint that his application to the RA should have been accepted) is the first one we need to decide. Personally, given the fact that there is an...

By the ridiculously complicated rules we have to hear the arguments before we can hear the arguments no? Because we have to be sure everything is relevant?