Todd McCloud status

Grosseschnauzer:

Todd McCloud (while Todd attempted to cast an absention on the Omnibus legislation, he missed the two prior votes)

Click to expand...

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 discussed on the TNP IRC channel. Every vote after the delegate recall vote has been registered.

In the event that re-admitting me adds to any confusion, I vote nay on the current resolution at vote. As I should still be an RA member based on the above information, this vote should indeed count.

And I must say, I can't believe I have to fight to keep my RA status. This is beyond ridiculous, and frankly disgusts me, because all of this could've been avoided had (a) someone asked me or (b) someone checked the records and drawn the same conclusions I did.

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 the 6th.

I now request the following:

- restoration of my RA position
- reinstatement of all votes I made during my (current) tenure as RA member
- a public apology

Eluvatar:

Name [c]Actions [c]Date [c]IP[c]Eluvatar [c]Edited Member: Todd McCloud [c]Apr 4 2012, 05:22 PM [c]X.X.X.X

Click to expand...

Precisely, Elu, thank you.

Now, in your legal code, it states in Article II, Section 1, Sub-sect. 5:

5. No one shall be admitted or re-admitted to the Assembly when a vote is in progress on any legislative matter within the Assembly. Admission shall be effective at the conclusion of such voting.

Click to expand...

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 6th). That's it. If anything, forum administration is to blame for the mishap, but this could have been compounded with the fact that there was a change in the speaker during the time of voting and when I was pre-approved if you will for the RA.

I'd also like to cite, again, in your legal code (Article III, Section 2, Sub-sect. 4-A):

A. "Two consecutive votes" are defined as two votes on any items that are conducted at different time intervals of at least 3 days between the start of each vote, but are voted one after another. Votes on two or more items at the same time are not defined as two consecutive votes.

Click to expand...

Even if I was admitted prior to the beginning of the votes (which I wasn't, but let's just play along), those two votes in question would not be within the consecutive vote definition. Delegate recall started on 03/30 at 10:21 am, while foreign intervention started on 04/02 on 1:11 am. That's 63 hours, not 72, and therefore wouldn't fall within the three days rule. If anyone was removed due to these two votes, it was invalid and probably should be brought to the court's attention.

Based on the above affirmations, my requests are now upgraded to demands. I also demand my restoration to take place in no less than 24 hours, or I will be bringing this up to the courts in the form of election fraud.

Todd McCloud:

Now, in your legal code, it states in Article II, Section 1, Sub-sect. 5:

5. No one shall be admitted or re-admitted to the Assembly when a vote is in progress on any legislative matter within the Assembly. Admission shall be effective at the conclusion of such voting.

Click to expand...

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 6th). That's it. If anything, forum administration is to blame for the mishap, but this could have been compounded with the fact that there was a change in the speaker during the time of voting and when I was pre-approved if you will for the RA.

Click to expand...

While I was reviewing the law, I found that there's a section that I had been lead astray into missing:

TNP Law 28 Article III Section Two Clause 4.A:

A. "Two consecutive votes" are defined as two votes on any items that are conducted at different time intervals of at least 3 days between the start of each vote, but are voted one after another. Votes on two or more items at the same time are not defined as two consecutive votes.

Click to expand...

This provision would mean that a number of removals may have been incorrect. I will be reviewing them and submitting my understanding as advice to the Speaker at the first opportunity.

Eluvatar:

My understanding of your legal code is that "Admission shall be effective at the conclusion of such voting." means what it says it means: if you were to be otherwise admitted March 26th, and the latest-closing vote then open ended March 29th, that is when you were to be admitted. I apologize for the several days of delay between March 29th and April 4th, of course.

It is my understanding that the law is not written so as allow the Speaker to completely close the doors to entry by keeping votes open constantly.

The two votes you have referenced appear to be irrelevant toward your own removal, which is predicated on your having voted in neither the request for intervention nor the omnibus, which opened 80 hours apart.

I am very sorry about the severity of this particular law.

Click to expand...

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 the 4th, which is technically illegal as two votes were going on at the time. Since I was told I'd be let in after the recall vote was over, I decided not to cause a problem and vote in what I was told I would not be able to vote.

For the Omnibus act, the first vote I should have been legally able to vote in, I voted 'present'. Now, about that. The current speaker said that was an invalid vote. At the time, however, it wasn't and was stated specifically in the vote before it was edited out. Technicality? Maybe. But it still stands. It was written in at the time, and I responded within the bounds of the original post.

So, let's call this a worst-case scenario. At the very worst, the Omnibus one could be counted as a 'non-vote', though it was specified at the time of the vote that it was a valid vote prior to the post being edited. The recall and foreign intervention cannot, as I was not supposed to be able to vote on that. When I was able to, which is illegal in your laws, I didn't feel right to vote on it, nor was it right to vote on them, and I could've been thrown out for election fraud, which is basically what I'm going to be charging the admin team with if this is not resolved in now 23 hours.

Limi:

Todd, application accepted, welcome to the RA. As stated above you will be admitted at the conclusion of voting for the delegate special election on the 3rd of April unless the recall vote is overturned by the courts in which case you'd be admitted on the 29th of March.

Click to expand...

Italics, bold mine.

My review of the facts leads me to believe that you may only have been removed if the Speaker (whoever they may be) upholds the "Present is invalid" policy which was adopted by Speaker Limi prior to the Omnibus and furthermore that votes made during the voting period which are invalidated fail to count as votes for activity requirement purposes. This would include upholding that Acting Speaker Govindia gave Todd sufficient time to bring his vote into compliance with that policy with this post.

If that policy is upheld then you missed the Re-vote on recall and the Omnibus vote.

Personally I believe that even an invalid vote counts as a vote for the purpose of activity requirements. I am not, however, the Speaker, Acting Speaker, Speaker Pro Tempore, Deputy Speaker, or even Deputy Acting Speaker Pro Tempore. I hope that whoever the [prefix?] Speaker may be, they will rule on this question reasonably.

As Speaker Pro Tempore, I am obligated to follow the rulings of those with the more legal status when there is a Speaker or specifically appointed Acting Speaker in office. Throughout the period after Rule 1 was nullified through the passage of the Omnibus legislation which wrote the practice of abstentions into the Constitution in order to nullify the Court's most recent decision on that point.

Todd, I personally did not agree with the interpretation applied by Limi and Govindia, and said as much as to how it was applied to Gov's situation. However, since under the policies in place at the time of the different votes, and taking into account the definition Elu quoted in connection to what constitutes"two votes" your attempted "present" votes was not considered valid by the Acting Speaker, and you were affording an opportunity to change that to either for or against before the vote closed.

Others also were in violation of that policy during the time it was in effect and I had to also honor its application. My review of the voting records, including the date given in the official thread for your date of admission, indicated a violation of the two vote requirement.

We have several periods lately of multiple overlapping votes (including elections) and there have been disagreements over how Law 28 works as a result. However, with the passage of the Omnibus legislation some of the problems have been cleared up going forward. (I even changed the voting policy on two votes in progress as soon as the constitutional amendments in the Omnibus bill were legally in effect.)

Your best course at this point is to just reapply, and the current vote ends on the 23rd. You could seek a Court review of the matter but even if the Court agreed with your position, not one result of the previous votes would change.

Now as a mod action I'm going to separate out this discussion from the application thread. I'll leave it in this area although I suspect it ought to go in the R.A. area instead.

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 was admitted on the 4th. At that time, two votes were going on: the delegate special election (ended on the 6th) and the foreign request thing (ended on the 5th). I didn't vote on these because (a) I thought I wasn't supposed to and (b) I though I could've been convicted of some kind of fraud for voting on something that hadn't ended when I got into office. Legally, to me at least, this still looks like the right thing - to put someone in during a vote seems to me like fraud and actually seems dangerous as one could bring in a whole bunch of new people during a vote to change it. So I didn't vote. Those two votes happened within 72 hours of each other too, so if anyone lost their RA status based on missing those two votes, they should be reinstated.
  
• The Omnibus bill was posted up on the 5th. At the time of the posting, 'present' and 'abstain' were valid vote choices. It was only invalid when I pointed this out and the Speaker ruled it unconstitutional based on a previous passing. Being new, I wasn't aware of this, but hey, I followed what I was going by when I read the OP. Only checking on the post, well, today, did I notice it was now an invalid vote choice.

So, by the above, you can see there's a lot of gray area here. First, I was instated during two votes, which according to the legal code is illegal. Heck, one could even conclude that had I been voting for those two votes, I could have been convicted of voting fraud. Second, I had voted as per the written bounds of the resolution in the original post when I saw it. Even if that's counted against me, legally I have only missed one vote.


So I do not feel compelled to re-submit an application, as I don't think I've done anything wrong here (and also because now this has piqued my interest, lol).

The Delegate Special Election never happened, it was called off, just as Limi said might happen in his post. He said that if that happened, you'd be admitted effective March 29th. Which you were. I just didn't get around to it until April 4th.

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 was made three days apart from the recall vote, I could've been thrown out without even having the ability to vote? Like, if I was masked on the 7th, and the two votes were opened three days from each other, I could've been removed without having an ability to vote? Do I PM people my votes then?

As I said in IRC: laws are meant to govern, not constrict. Personally, I think it's silly that someone is expected to vote on something when they weren't able to when the vote started.

Todd McCloud:

• Evidence states I was admitted on the 4th. At that time, two votes were going on: the delegate special election (ended on the 6th) and the foreign request thing (ended on the 5th). I didn't vote on these because (a) I thought I wasn't supposed to and (b) I though I could've been convicted of some kind of fraud for voting on something that hadn't ended when I got into office. Legally, to me at least, this still looks like the right thing - to put someone in during a vote seems to me like fraud and actually seems dangerous as one could bring in a whole bunch of new people during a vote to change it. So I didn't vote. Those two votes happened within 72 hours of each other too, so if anyone lost their RA status based on missing those two votes, they should be reinstated.

Click to expand...

Except that those votes started *after* the decision to admit you to the RA came down.

Eluvatar:

Except that those votes started *after* the decision to admit you to the RA came down.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Todd McCloud:

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.

Click to expand...

UncleJughead complained on the 30th and got masked immediately.

Neither Gov nor Grosse noticed there were others in his class unfortunately.

Todd McCloud:

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 was made three days apart from the recall vote, I could've been thrown out without even having the ability to vote? Like, if I was masked on the 7th, and the two votes were opened three days from each other, I could've been removed without having an ability to vote? Do I PM people my votes then?

As I said in IRC: laws are meant to govern, not constrict. Personally, I think it's silly that someone is expected to vote on something when they weren't able to when the vote started.

Click to expand...

Except that whatever you say or agree on IRC has no relevance unless it's said here because IRC is not an official form of communication recognised by TNP law.

And well, I sympathise with you, but since BW and Flemingovia won't apologise to me for their actions, I doubt you'll get an apology for what happened to you

Au contraire, mon ami Govindia. From what I can see I think what has happened is very unfortunate, but probably an honest mistake. I am sorry this happened to Todd.

The system is so unwieldy that mistakes will happen, but that is little comfort when they do. I doubt it was personal.

I know it isn't personal, hence why I more or less rescinded that demand in the recent post I did in the justice hall.

The problem is, there's really no way to prevent something like this. It comes down to a question of using common sense vs following the law to the letter, and getting lost when the law doesn't outline a specific instance, or instances in this case. You could pass a law instructing people to use common sense, but the problem is common sense isn't all that common these days and it has the propensity to be abused. Ie, someone could say 'well this makes complete sense to me' and rule in the same manner. So we've gotten nowhere. In essence, following the law to the letter like this is a judgment call in of itself. It's a safe bet, requires no opinions or beliefs, and more or less reminds me of button-pushing. But that's not a bad thing per se. It just blows.

My philosophy on laws is they should guide us, not constrict us. To me it's obvious, if someone hasn't been masked at the time of the vote, he or she shouldn't have that counted against them. If a vote said one thing at the start of it, and the vote options change halfway through, someone who voted in that manner shouldn't have it counted against them. But here the law is very rigid, and riddled with loopholes. But see, the law here is written to remove loopholes, which is why it's huge. Rather, I think the law should cover what it must, then leave the rest up to interpretation. That's how we operate in TEP - the law covers pretty much everything we need, and the rest is more or less between the lines and up to the current person in power to dictate. For instance, we do not have an election law. We have guidelines for them, but there's no actual process outlined. And we've yet to have a problem, because our viceroy has the freedom to outline his or her own process for it, which has been surprisingly... similar between people.

But that's just me. TNP strikes me as this 'Legal Eagle' region that clings to its laws, but the law is so huge it weighs people down. Not only that, when something like this happens, one has to wait until the courts make a ruling. A loophole isn't treated as a judgment call; it's treated as there's something definitely wrong with the law and it needs to be amended into the law. So we end up making the law bigger.

So in thinking about this, I believe allowing judgment calls into the legal system will make an easier system overall. If someone makes a judgment call, and someone doesn't like it, bring it to the court's attention then. That system works well in TEP and everyone's pretty much fair when they're in an elected seat. I don't know if such a system would work over here, because I don't know TNP well enough, but I believe it'd work better here. But maybe that's a problem in of itself. Trust. TEP generally trusts one another. Generally - we have had problems in the past, but they've been worked through. I get a guarded sense of community here. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But it makes stuff like this harder, because then that tends to give people outside motives or allow people to think other people have outside motives. It is what it is.

I don't know. I'd love to push for that type of policy here, but I don't know if it will work. And if it won't work, we're going to have a huge system of laws again, I fear, even if we start from scratch.

I get a guarded sense of community here. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But it makes stuff like this harder, because then that tends to give people outside motives or allow people to think other people have outside motives. It is what it is.

Click to expand...

I have only been around here for a little while as well. I certainly see where you are coming from on the above point. It seems a lot of the long time residence do not trust each other in the slightest, they are always worrying about the motives of another. Fingers are always being pointed at someone.

I say! I say!!

I don't know what you're talking about mcmasterdonia, we all trust each other so very much.

That last link, is my personal favourite.

mcmasterdonia:

I get a guarded sense of community here. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But it makes stuff like this harder, because then that tends to give people outside motives or allow people to think other people have outside motives. It is what it is.

Click to expand...

I have only been around here for a little while as well. I certainly see where you are coming from on the above point. It seems a lot of the long time residence do not trust each other in the slightest, they are always worrying about the motives of another. Fingers are always being pointed at someone.

Click to expand...

And there, in a nutshell, you have the reason why the JAL trial was started so long after the events concerned, and why the trial has been kept going now for nine months.

It has nothing to do with justice. It is because JAL is not trusted and must be kept out of regional life at all costs.

flemingovia:

mcmasterdonia:

I get a guarded sense of community here. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But it makes stuff like this harder, because then that tends to give people outside motives or allow people to think other people have outside motives. It is what it is.

Click to expand...

I have only been around here for a little while as well. I certainly see where you are coming from on the above point. It seems a lot of the long time residence do not trust each other in the slightest, they are always worrying about the motives of another. Fingers are always being pointed at someone.

Click to expand...

And there, in a nutshell, you have the reason why the JAL trial was started so long after the events concerned, and why the trial has been kept going now for nine months.

It has nothing to do with justice. It is because JAL is not trusted and must be kept out of regional life at all costs.

Click to expand...

Then why not a speedy trial that outlines provisions for him being banned from all government life, possibly for a defined period of time (or not?). What I guess I don't get, and maybe I'm a little new here, but anytime a trial takes over a month's time, it's not a fast trial. Really, one week for the prosecution, one week for the defense, and one week for the verdict should be sufficient.

Eluvatar:

I say! I say!!

I don't know what you're talking about mcmasterdonia, we all trust each other so very much.

Click to expand...

Yeah I really don't know how such rifts can be fixed. Or if they should be fixed. They can be annoying, but also fun.

They can be fun, and quite a good laugh to read at times. But they can to an extent be counterproductive, and can undermine the genuine good work of others.