Search results

Todd comes in wearing a black pinstripe suit. He sets his briefcase down gently as to not make a loud disturbance and walks up to the presiding judges, the worn bottoms of his fake Italian leather shoes clicking against the cold tile floor. He gives a quick smile and grips his lapels...

Furthermore, UncleJughead (who has a cool name I'll admit) was told the same thing I was. Yet he was masked on the 30th (after asking about it later in the thread). I was masked on the 4th. This doesn't seem right to me.

Admitted, but unable to vote. I was admitted on the 29th. I was masked on the 4th. That's six days. One vote ended less than a day after I was masked. Was I supposed to PM the votes to the speaker? I thought only those who were able to vote at the start of it should be expected to vote?

I see. It wasn't a special election that I missed, so I didn't have to sit out. But I did have to sit out, until the 4th, when I was masked. Am I expected to vote on something in the middle of being masked? In other words, if the admin doesn't get around to it in time, and the foreign aide vote...

Look, this is what I know: I applied on the 26th of March. Limi got to it quickly the next day and said I wouldn't be accepted until the conclusion of the delegate special elections, on the 3rd. I was okay with this, as it wouldn't make sense for me to just jump into things. Evidence states I...

Garbage. And let me explain why: Based on your law (Article II, Section 1, Sub-sect. 5, referenced above in my previous post), I was not to be let in until after the delegate recall vote as written by the speaker at the time. He said it would end on the 3rd. It ended on the 6th. I was let in on...

Precisely, Elu, thank you. Now, in your legal code, it states in Article II, Section 1, Sub-sect. 5: Noting that, and with the two votes in question on-going, it would not have been right for me to vote on the above two votes (the foreign aid ended on the 5th, delegate recall ended on the...

And for what it's worth, Limi even asked you to check the admin logs, which if you would have, would have been shown to take place after 3/27, the conclusion you arrived at in another post. But clearly, from the above post, I was not to be admitted until the end of the recall vote, which was on...

Yeah, because I couldn't vote on them and I was told I'd be let in once those votes were over, which was supposed to be only until April 3rd, but lasted until April 6th, which is probably why it may have eclipsed a vote (This vote, which ended on the 5th). Check your admin logs. This was also...

TNP Nation: Todd the lost gypsy WA Nation: Todd McCloud Chief Justice: < flemingovia > Associate Justice 1: < Abstain > Associate Justice 2: < Abstain > Attorney General: < Abstain >

TNP Nation: Todd the lost gypsy WA Nation: Todd McCloud Speaker: <Jamie>

If they don't, will we impeach them? It just seems unnecessary to me. As long as they do their job and do it well, I have no qualms.

FWIW, I remember the conversation to a degree.

I trust that had you been there it would've been done in a timely fashion. But we need protocol to ensure it gets done regardless of how expedient or inexpedient the particular factions of the trial are (prosecution, defense, judges, etc). Perhaps one of the reasons why it's taking so long (I...

The more back-and-forth things we have going by both sides, the more the trial has the capacity to stall. Hence why I just believe the judges open with the charge brought upon the accused, prosecution presents their case / witnesses until a certain period of time (1 week IMO), defense does the...

I can understand that in the event of a coup. But under peace times, do we really need to rush people through the system? Far be it for me to completely understand, being the new guy on the block over here and still getting used to your laws, but I fail to see the sense of urgency this vote...

I'm sorry for only commenting on a small portion of your post (which was a good read) and sorry for taking this a bit off-course, but personally I think the SC should be disbanded, and in its place are 2-4 members who are allowed to stay over an endorsement cap, hold zero government power...

Aye, I'm sure GBM would be an asset to that SC, but I still can't rationalize a breech in your constitution to rush someone to that body. Again, is the security of this region in jeopardy?

Wait, is our security this dire that we can't wait two weeks?

I have to say. This thing is huge.

Define speedy. Really, NS courts should have, at max, one week for the prosecution, one week for the defense, and one week for a decision. At maximum. Meaning if either the prosecution or the defense can't get things together in a week's time, we move on. They do what they can and the next...

Honestly, if a foreign body is going to infiltrate, they will plan 15-30 days in advance as it is.

Well if it's 15 days, basically 2 weeks, why have a limit at all then? Like I said, eliminate it and may the best nation win. I think the voters here have enough integrity where they can select someone and weigh the fact that a runner in an election has only been an RA guy for a week, for instance.

First off, thanks for your diligence and effort, HC. Good to see things are movin' here! I'll comment / ask questions on a few things: I think the 4-6 month term is probably best here, as it has been done in the past, though tbh I'm leaning this way: - six month terms - halfway through their...

How about we just take the courts we have, find three active people who can do it, and put time limits on things? I'm not one for time limits, mind you, but I've heard of trials and rulings going on for an extended period of time... it may be time to cap that. Also make the courts less about...

"You keep your salty dogs outta these confines! They'll just shake and spray salt water all over the floor and walls and make my job tougher!"

I'm not really Todd.

Todd comes in wearing coveralls and holding a broom. He flicks the last bit of his stogie prior to entering the cavernous confines. "Don't mind me, I'm just the janitor!" He pauses to listen to the faint echoes of 'anitor, anitor, itor...', and then goes to work sweeping the far left corner of...

I thought it was funny, tbh. Personally I'd think it bad if the delegate didn't do anything for April Fools.

Just ban him. Anyone who objects does not have the security of TNP at heart. Banning him invalidates his claims that much more. Maybe you should send out a TG that further invalidates his claims.