Issue arising from the election of Tresville

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
As election commissioner, I wish to bring to the attention of the Regional Assembly that we have just discovered that Tresville was allowed to stand in the delelgate election despite his not haveing been a member of the RA for 30 days prior to the election (as per the constitution, article 1 section 3.8).

It is clear from the voting that there is an overwhelming wish in the region that Tresville serve as our delegate, and there was ample oppoportunity for people to query his nomination before the election. I would also commend Tresville's honesty, since he is the one who has discovered this and pointed it out, and wishes this to be dealt with rather than remaining a cloud hanging over his term as delegate.

I feel it is important that this is dealt with; there are those who would use this to undermine Tresville's authority. Therefore I propose that the RA pass a resolution recognising the decision of the region in electing Tresville as our delegate, and retroactively suspending article 1.3.8 of the constitution.

In a sense this is a minor, nit-picky matter since that clause was intended to prevent an invader sweeping in and stacking the RA just before an election - not to prevent a longstanding resident like Tres from standing. But hey - nit picky matters are the heart and soul of TNP, aren't they?

F.
 
Was going to approach the RA myself, but I figured that I should confer with an election commish in case I missed something.

I was combing the constitution in order to use reference from it in my speech, when I came upon that.

I found a few problems in the document...but that is not something I want to tackle at this moment. Eventually I will approach the RA to discuss how to fix the problem. After this matter is resolved.
 
I was capable of recognizing my ineligibility to run for Delegate. Is this going to be a common theme with Tresville? I seem to recall a certain disregard for the constitution and a willingness to attempt to use the RA to subvert that Holiest of documents we hold so dear. But yes, lets just ignore the law when it suits our needs.

I cannot agree with your sentiments, partly due to the fact that as Election Commissioner it should also have been your responsibility to check those things.

I would say that this deserves a ruling from the court, as that is the proper course of action now, as a law has been broken, but it is most likely to be squashed by the so called "Old Guard" that you would have people believe does not exist. But what is this then besides a willingness to break the law for someone you favor?
 
I was capable of recognizing my ineligibility to run for Delegate. Is this going to be a common theme with Tresville?
Click to expand...

Are you serious? I am doing the right thing here.

It is not my job to check eligability. I should have, but I neglected to do so because others who have more knowledge about the current constitution were running things. I have been spending my time networking, catching up on affairs and discussing with people ways to boost activity.

Frankly, this point the finger atitude that appears to continue to prevail is not helping this region any. I hope to change that atitude and remove this dark cloud that looms over our great region. This negativity will be overpowered by some positive atitude and action.

But enough talk...I have RA members to contact.
 
Yeah, you should have. You are right, though, that electoral commissioners should have checked it out but how about the rest of DD's post. I'll remind you:

"I seem to recall a certain disregard for the constitution and a willingness to attempt to use the RA to subvert that Holiest of documents we hold so dear. But yes, lets just ignore the law when it suits our needs.

I cannot agree with your sentiments, partly due to the fact that as Election Commissioner it should also have been your responsibility to check those things.

I would say that this deserves a ruling from the court, as that is the proper course of action now, as a law has been broken, but it is most likely to be squashed by the so called "Old Guard" that you would have people believe does not exist. But what is this then besides a willingness to break the law for someone you favor?"
 
As much as I understand the error, I do not believe it gives the right to suspend a constitutional amendment. That would set a precedence that I don't think we want to deal with in the future.
 
Oh wow, nary a week into a Tresville government and the old fault lines are already as strong as ever. This should be good.

Anyway, seeing as there was no other viable candidate that particularly wanted the job, I'll go along with it.
 
You seem to reserve a finger for me at all times HC. I will not be coaxed into an argument, over opinions posted with no fact, in a thread that has nothing to with what you and DD keep referencing.

This is exactly why many have left and stayed out of this region. I will not help to promote this atitude.
 
Tresville:
You seem to reserve a finger for me at all times HC. I will not be coaxed into an argument, over opinions posted with no fact, in a thread that has nothing to with what you and DD keep referencing.

This is exactly why many have left and stayed out of this region. I will not help to promote this atitude.
Click to expand...

So the suggestion that this should go to the Courts is irrelevant "opinion"? Isn't this exactly what the Court is for...?
 
Frankly, this point the finger atitude that appears to continue to prevail is not helping this region any.
Click to expand...

I think what is wrong with this region is we pretend to be lawful citizens and pretend to uphold the constitution, but then when it is inconvenient for the controlling group here we ignore the constitution.

You are not doing the right thing at all. The right thing would be to accept you broke the law and deal with the consequences, namely resign as it is not your Office. The wrong thing would be to try to cram this down the throats of the voters who voted for someone they believed would honor the constitution.

It is incidents like this that drive people away. Don't try to make it appear as if I am doing this because I am a negative finger pointing person, I am merely trying to defend the constitution consistently. You can continue to try to obscure the issue by decrying my attitude, but the simple fact is you did not follow the law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I appeal to you to resign, an RA vote will not help you at all because our system of law is based on precedent, and passing a law to negate the sections you don't like cannot affect the outcome of your election since it happened before the new law was passed.

The longer you try to hold on to what is not yours the more you dishonor the constitution, the law, this region, and yourself.


Tresville in his campaign:
you omit the fact that some people wave the liberty and democracy flag just to gain power and later are the first to burn and ignore it. Which is my point. I am all for liberty and democracy...but I am smart enough to know when people are just using that as a means to their own end.
Click to expand...
 
A note about activity, since it seems to be a primary tool of confusion in this debate: ACTIVITY IS DOWN EVERYWHERE. You cannot legitimately say "Activity is down in TNP because of negativity". It is down because this game was not designed to last longer than necessary to promote a book.

Correlation does not equal causation.
 
I', going to point out a few things in my capacity as an admin and RA member, and not as either a newly elected member of the CLO or as Chief Justice.

First, Tresville's status before he rejoined[.i] the RA was that of a suspended RA member under Law 28, whose rights of participation were suspended and not non-existent. When he posted the oath, he was entitled to immediate and full reinstatement to the RA. He was placed in the TNP citizen mask at one point during his suspension, one that option existedm at his request.

Second, even before Tresville post the oath and be automatically reinstated as an RA member, he was appointed to Eluvatar's Cabinet apparently as a minister without a portfolio.

We've never decided if the RA reinstatement is retroactive or not. That is a question that could be discussed by the CLO to present emergency legislation of some form for an immediate RA vote, or be taken to the Court for a ruling. I'm not going to express an opinion on that specific point at this time because the question may coime before me as a member of the Court.

But from where I'm at in looking at this matter, the question of whether the reinstatement of a suspended RA member under Law 28 is a retroactive reinstatement of that RA member's rights and status is the question to be resolved. The immediate question is whether to use the CLO or the Court to address that specific question.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I', going to point out a few things in my capacity as an admin and RA member, and not as either a newly elected member of the CLO or as Chief Justice.

First, Tresville's status before he rejoined[.i] the RA was that of a suspended RA member under Law 28, whose rights of participation were suspended and not non-existent. When he posted the oath, he was entitled to immediate and full reinstatement to the RA. He was placed in the TNP citizen mask at one point during his suspension, one that option existedm at his request.

Second, even before Tresville post the oath and be automatically reinstated as an RA member, he was appointed to Eluvatar's Cabinet apparently as a minister without a portfolio.

We've never decided if the RA reinstatement is retroactive or not. That is a question that could be discussed by the CLO to present emergency legislation of some form for an immediate RA vote, or be taken to the Court for a ruling. I'm not going to express an opinion on that specific point at this time because the question may coime before me as a member of the Court.

But from where I'm at in looking at this matter, the question of whether the reinstatement of a suspended RA member under Law 28 is a retroactive reinstatement of that RA member's rights and status is the question to be resolved. The immediate question is whether to use the CLO or the Court to address that specific question.
Click to expand...

So, since Gracius Maximus was removed from the RA under similar circumstances you wouldn't have minded if The Minister came back shortly before the election and stood and won?

I find that incredibly difficult to believe. Hypocrisy at its best.
 
In your statement on the law addressed here you note that the suspended RA member is reapplying for status in the Regional Assembly.

The oath also includes verbage alluding to this position.

Reapplying implies that you were removed. Suspended or otherwise it would seem clear that once out of the voting population that upon return your status begins anew without automatic tenure.

When I terminate an employee and they return a few months later asking for their job back they do not start at the same level they were previous in regards to vacation benefits, etc. They start over.
 
Grosseschnauzer, then Tres was incorrectly masked, or that mask has generally been applied incorrectly. He posted the oath in April and was moved back into the RA mask but since left again (just going by the RA List he was no longer in the RA in June). The Suspended RA Mask, as per Section 2 of Law 28, was specific to the taking of the new oath- people removed because of inactivity or any other reason were to be removed from the RA as per Section 1. Section 2 should not, therefore, apply to Tresvilles recent absence from the RA and he has therefore not been a member of the RA, as per Section 1.

I think that is fairly unambigious. It may be that the Courts are required to rule on this, though I'm not sure what precedent it would set if someones legal status was determined by their forum masking over the procedures written in law.
 
Outer Kharkistania:
Gracius Maximus:
Was surprised to see that the righteousness brigade was skirting their own constitution.
Click to expand...
Good thing I'm not part of the Righteous Brigade.

I fully support Cisco as delegate, and I think Gross's assessment of the situation gives us a good path to go to solve this.
Click to expand...
Good for you.

Ignoring the rule of law as written by the offsite pretenders is something typically reserved for Tyrants. I would know.

The moral foundation of many, including the Election Commissioner, the Delegate-Elect and the High Judge, is that the written constitution outweighs the whims of the ingame elected Delegate.

Now that highground seems to be under a few feet of water.
 
Gracius Maximus:
So, since Gracius Maximus was removed from the RA under similar circumstances you wouldn't have minded if The Minister came back shortly before the election and stood and won?

I find that incredibly difficult to believe. Hypocrisy at its best.
Click to expand...
Thankfully, the issue of "does the law apply only to popular people in this case?" wouldn't have come up because only the "popular" people would win.

And can't say I honestly care about following the constitution to the letter. All those experiences burned me, and I just can't bear to open myself up to that potential pain again. Sad.
 
Heft:
Gracius Maximus:
So, since Gracius Maximus was removed from the RA under similar circumstances you wouldn't have minded if The Minister came back shortly before the election and stood and won?

I find that incredibly difficult to believe.  Hypocrisy at its best.
Click to expand...
Thankfully, the issue of "does the law apply only to popular people in this case?" wouldn't have come up because only the "popular" people would win.

And can't say I honestly care about following the constitution to the letter. All those experiences burned me, and I just can't bear to open myself up to that potential pain again. Sad.
Click to expand...
Oh, don't misunderstand, I am not disagreeing.

I am known as an advocate of the Delegate's right to supercede any offsite constitution, code of law, codex, civil code, etc. I have thrown out several in my time.

It was just too much to pass up this opportunity to point out the same qualities in others that have historically stood in opposition to that point of view, especially in regards to my activities, in this region and elsewhere.
 
Interesting.

FIrstly, I apologize to the North Pacific. I forgot to ask the Election Commissioners to review the eligibility of candidates. Since I was asked what they should do, I should have remembered that.

I am a bit surprised that such anger is being let out at Tresville when, had he not commented about this, it's quite likely that nobody would ever have noticed. I second flemingovia's commendation of Tresville's honesty.

Finally, it is not unheard of under the new Constitution for the Assembly to pass resolutions with constitutional force, allowing the Constitution to be somewhat bypassed: Specifically the resolution endorsing Great Bights Mum during the last civil war comes to mind. Such a resolution would be entirely constitutional if it was proposed, voted on, and passed with the requisite majority, which given the margin by which Tresville won seems probable.

A few specific responses:

Grosseschnauzer: I am highly uncomfortable with anything being considered retroactive, and what Haor Chall is saying about Tresville's masking would indicate that reasoning inappropriate. I do not think that it is reasonable to have Tresville take office without a special resolution.

Gracius Maximus: I believe you are not particularly familiar with the environment of TNP today. In this case, I do not believe it is entirely fair to assert that Tresville represents "the righteousness brigade," assuming you mean the NPU/NPC of your era. Today's North Pacific has a different array of factions and this government embraces participation from all of them. The other candidates for Delegate, from what I can see, did not have wide support.

In addition, up until this point, I, the in-game delegate had said nothing. I do not believe in this statement I am advocating any ignoring of the Constitution either. I agree that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in a Constitutional manner.

The body which may in this case act to supercede the Constitution is the Assembly-- which has the power to amend the Constitution.
 
Oh, I claim no authority to speak on the region. I know the individuals involved from various places however and do feel that I am credible enough to speak on their past associations and "moral" arguements to make well reasoned assertions on what they would do if the situation were reversed towards someone they are not aligned with politically.
 
I think this is completely unneccessary. Tresville has been in the RA for much longer than 30 days. He simply took a break and rejoined. His total number of days in the RA surpasses the meagre 30 day rule.

Also Rhindon Blade is disaqualified no matter what interpretation.

Oh and those screaming for blood can thank the "new" "streamlined" version of the Constitution for such open endedness.
 
mr_sniffles:
Oh and those screaming for blood can thank the "new" "streamlined" version of the Constitution for such open endedness.
Click to expand...

Open endedness? I think it's pretty clear cut. Unlike before where you could worm you way out of anything because of how verbose the constitution was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top