Judicial Selection

I don't think we should be trying to attracting casual players to these important positions. If a member can't find this after being up for a week (and mentioned in the WFE), then I think that person is a casual player.

I understand this will rankle some, but I believe it to be true.
 
If we have more jobs than active players willing to fill them, then we should likely review how we do things (i.e. reassess the jobs themselves, re-evaluate how we advertise openings, etc.).
 
Judiciary positions is often a problem in most NS regions and we are not an exception. I always thought that these position should only be filled when their is actually something for them to do by the selection process within the RA.
 
If you have to wait for a selection process in order to conduct any type of judicial proceeding, then it would never get done.

And leaving it to the RA to decide would be an even worse folly.

The unfilled seats would go to a special election. Or we could make the judiciary one year rather than six month terms.
 
it's not about the term limit, even if it is extended to 1 year the elected person may get busy with RL and eventually gone and became unreachable. BTW, what are the differences among these 3 positions and what are their job discriptions exactly?
 
I have some things to add to this important discussion, but it's 2:21am, OPArsenalan time, and I need to hit the hay. Basically, this is my reminder to myself to post.

Also, I think it would be prudent for a mod or admin to split this topic and move the discussion posts to the Committee of the Whole subforum. This discussion is one that we need to have.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
If you have to wait for a selection process in order to conduct any type of judicial proceeding, then it would never get done.
Click to expand...
As it stands now, how often do we currently have judicial proceedings? I don't think it's too often... So really, what harm would it do to delay something that rarely, if ever, happens?

Grosseschanuzer:
And leaving it to the RA to decide would be an even worse folly.
Click to expand...

The unbridled condescension in this sentence is completely staggering. Who currently decides the nominees to the judiciary? Members of the RA nominate them, members of the RA vote on them. I fail to see how selection by the RA, as it differs from the current system could be considered "folly." Perhaps you find the "common" citizen of the region to be unable to make these types of decisions, Grosseschnauzer, but I do not.

Grosseschnauzer:
The unfilled seats would go to a special election. Or we could make the judiciary one year rather than six month terms.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the logic here. The first election failed to fill the vacant seats, so the solution to that is... Another election? What will make the second election different from the first? The fact that it's "special?" This "solution" will not fix the problem. Making the terms last a year is similarly ludicrous. In internet time, six months is already an eternity. One year terms limits will insure that judiciary turnover will be almost non-existent, except in cases of members going AWOL or the patented Resignation Due to Real Life Issues. If anything, the term should be shortened due to the lack of activity that these positions see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top