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.
"Excellent. To sum it up, I was removed from the RA for not voting in two voting periods. Allow me to explain, and please anyone feel free to correct me." He turns around and gingerly sets his suit coat on the back of a chair, revealing a white dress shirt, thin black tie, and thin black suspenders. He opens his briefcase and pulls out some prepared manuscripts.
"I'll bulletize it for easy reading," he says as he passes out a sheet of paper to every judge.
- According to the powers that be, I reportedly missed two voting periods. I'll go into detail with each instance, as I would like to contest each missed vote and consequently have my votes during this period counted in full.
- Again, according to what's been said, I missed this vote here and here. Since they started within 72 hours of each other (March 30th and April 2nd), this constitutes as one voting period - that part is not contested.
- On the 26th of March I applied for an RA membership. I was told by then-speaker Limi that I'd be ready to go either on March 29th or April 3rd depending on if the special election was over. Another member, Uncle Jughead (which is still a cool name and I'll refer to henceforth as UJ), was told the same thing: either the 30th or the 3rd.
- No special election was needed, and UJ was masked into the RA on March 30th. I, however, was some five days later, late on April 4th (evidence). Meanwhile, two votes were going on: one about delegate recalling and one on foreign intervention (the two links above).
- As I was masked on the 4th in the midst of a voting period, I felt it unprofessional and perhaps illegal even to vote in these resolutions. Let's not beat around the bush here, I got a little confused and thought delegate recall vote was the same as the delegate recall special election, which is not the case as I've come to find out. But still, this sets a bad precedent, I feel, as I was masked some five days after the start of the voting period. I ask the judges to consider the fact that if this ruling is upheld, this could very well mean that if someone has been accepted into the RA, but cannot vote due to not being masked and misses the voting period (or gets a very short time to vote on said resolution), this could be counted against him or her. I feel this is obscene - only those who are able to vote at the start of the voting period should be expected to vote. If not, what other protocol exists? Is the poor unmasked RA member supposed to know to PM the speaker his or her vote? What if he or she isn't masked in time for two voting periods? Are they to be removed without even getting the chance to vote?
- Furthermore, I was never informed that I had been masked. I had to wait five days to be masked, while UJ was masked on the 30th, because he complained. Are we to set the precedent of complaining in order to speed up processes like this? Frankly, I'm okay with that, but I don't believe this should have been an issue to begin with. I should've been masked and allowed to go before the voting period began.
- Hence, I'm contesting the belief that I missed my first eligible voting period. I don't believe that if a person isn't masked in time for the start of the vote, he or she should still be expected to vote on the matter.
- Another voting period happened here, the Omnibus bill. Initially, the speaker posted that one could vote Aye or Nay, but also added "Anything else, other than an "ABSTAIN" or "PRESENT" vote shall be considered an invalid vote per RA voting rules."
- I voted 'present'. I don't normally do this, but I wasn't present for the discussion of this bill and didn't really want to vote either way, but I also didn't want to not show up for what I thought was my first voting period. I was then told later on that it was illegal to vote in abstention or stating one's presence. However, the original post (at the time) clearly stated that I could do such.
- It still stated this when I wrote this post. In it, you'll find the original wordage from the speaker in his OP (which was subsequently edited out later on), my explanation, and the speaker's complaints on my post. I figured it was open-and-shut from there: what's said was said, and nothing else was needed. As I was busy for the next two days, I didn't really have the time nor did I really care to read what I thought would be a post simply stating 'oh sorry dude'.
- If it's written to be acceptable at the time, then the wordage is changed halfway through, I don't see how that would be my fault. The err should lie with the speaker, who did not write the correct procedure or the demonstrate the correct care for procedure.
- I am therefore contesting the fact that I did not show up for this voting period. Clearly, I posted in this thread, so I did show up, and at the time I followed correct procedure as per what was written in the original post of the resolution.
As the judges finish listening to Todd's oration, they peer from their copies of the prepared manuscript to see a grinning Todd.
"I know very well I could just re-apply and become an RA member after a period of time. But it's the principle, judges. I still don't see
what I did wrong. I personally believe I did what any reasonable person would have done in my situation. For what it's worth, my voting record since has been spotless, though I do contest I have not missed a single voting period based on my own inferences, observations, and judgments."
He grimaces and rubs his chin... or muzzle. "I've been a delegate for some two years, and probably will be one again in the future. I've served as a judge, forum admin, legislature, etc. My track record has been one of diligence and care, someone who normally gets the work done and with the least amount of drama possible. But judges, I can't drop this issue. I am taking a stand, a stand for my beliefs and what I feel is right. Laws are meant to guide us, not constrict us. I do not want to re-apply for RA. I don't believe I should have ever been removed in the first place."
"I feel so strongly about this, I wish to submit a few demands. First, I want all my votes that had been discounted since my removal from the RA to be recounted. Second, I want immunity for however many voting periods this court decision takes. If it takes two voting periods, I want to be able to miss that many consecutive voting periods without it being counted against me in any way, shape, or form. I feel I would be voting right now if I was still in the RA and, since I should still be in it, the fact that I cannot is a slap in the face of democracy or the very principles TNP is said to be built on. Third, I demand that the citizen mask be a much different color than the RA mask. I might have been able to see when I was and was not RA had I not gone from an orange name color to... an orange name color."
Todd sits down in his seat, leans forward, and folds his hands in front of himself. "Thank you."
