Chazzy McChaz for Associate Justice

I will try and make this brief and then answer questions if you have them.

I will be sending this out by telegram to as many Nations of the North Pacific as possible, unless the election commissioner says this is not allowed. Although they are not registered to vote on our glorious forum, they will have the same opportunities to question and respond as the members of the community here on forum.thenorthpacific.org

I am running in election for the position of Associate Justice in the Court of The North Pacific. I understand the duties of this office to be the deliberation of criminal and civil cases with the Chief Justice and the other Associate Justice.

Wikipedia says: The word prejudice (or foredeeming) is most often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics. It can also refer to unfounded beliefs[1] and may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence."[2] Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience."

My first opponent, Unibot, is a highly decorated player in this game. He has commendation from the World Assembly Security Council. It's certainly one of the reasons I look at when I am trying to decide whether to trust someone. His prejudice is either defenderism, or cosmopolitanism, or both. He has shown on many occasions that he can rise above such ideologies. So can I. My currently favoured ideology is regionalism. I expect my opponent to tell you that I believe there exists some kind of conspiracy against The North Pacific. This is not a platform based on conspiracy theories, because I don't want to insult your intelligence.

Unibot and I have had only one conversation since we've been playing NationStates. He was lobbying for the recall of Delegate Eluvatar, and I conceded that it is impossible to justify a Nay vote on his recall. That is why I did not vote Nay. Unibot told me that I'm a wonderful debater, but this is false: I can't string a rational argument together to save my life.



My only experience of Court cases so far is PMs exchanged with Associate Justice Blue Wolf II, who is also running in this election. The case was Tyler vs Camwood, and I made suggestions to him on how the court could try and hear its first civil case, in order to overcome the perceived obstructions of the Attorney General Grosseschnauzer.

Vote for me. Chasmanthe

Chasmanthe:

My only experience of Court cases so far is PMs exchanged with Associate Justice Blue Wolf II, who is also running in this election. The case was Tyler vs Camwood, and I made suggestions to him on how the court could try and hear its first civil case, in order to overcome the perceived obstructions of the Attorney General Grosseschnauzer.

Click to expand...

Any communication like that probably should have went to the Chief Justice. But anyway Good Luck to you.

Hileville:

Chasmanthe:

My only experience of Court cases so far is PMs exchanged with Associate Justice Blue Wolf II, who is also running in this election. The case was Tyler vs Camwood, and I made suggestions to him on how the court could try and hear its first civil case, in order to overcome the perceived obstructions of the Attorney General Grosseschnauzer.

Click to expand...

Any communication like that probably should have went to the Chief Justice. But anyway Good Luck to you.

Click to expand...

Apologies.

"Perceived obstructions," LOL. That's an understatement when it comes to Grosse.

*takes a minute to decide whether to use this as an opportunity to campaign for AG, then shakes his head*

Chas, what would you bring to the AJ position that your opponents would not? Feel free to take this as an attack opportunity, or not

This is a question I have for all justices - do you commit to fulfilling your term no matter what in-game situations arise?

RL is always a different matter, but from an in-game perspective will you fulfill your obligations should you be elected?

Second question, What is your judicial style? Do you believe the law should be interpreted literally or that you should use the spirit of the law (aka the author's intent) to make decisions? Please explain.

1) Naivete.

2) I will try to serve a full term but since I don't know what in-game situations will arise I don't think it's honest for me to make that commitment to you now.

3) I think it's hard enough to simply follow letter the law as it is now, without the additional headache of making up laws as I go along.

What is your view of the Figh?

What abilities do you bring to the Court that your opponents do not?

4) I think the Fiqh should be respected as a cultural entity. I wouldn't want to see the Fiqh diminished. That being said, the Fiqh is entirely outside of the legal framework of our region. If it was possible for the religious and secular courts to interact, I believe that would make the game more interesting, but it would have to be done in a way that does not in any way undermine the legitimacy of the Court.

Far be it for me to point holes in my own campaign, I apologise, it was not quite a brief platform.

Secondly, I have not contacted the election commissioner regarding the sending out of telegrams for this election, bearing in mind the possible impact of recent fraudulent telegrams, I've decided to go back on what I said and not do that.

5) I have a tendency to respond to things to matter how insignificant. If elected, I will seek advice on how to tone this down.