Abbey Anumia for Justice

Abbey

Abbey

TNPer
Rightyo, I'll keep this fairly brief, as I don't think justice elections should be politicised in the first place.

Upon significant thought, I have decided to run for Justice. I absolutely adore NS Judicial work, and feel that it is a difficult, but enjoyable challenge. I'm excited by the reforms that are going through the RA - they are largely little things that together will make a big difference. I intend on being absolutely active and committed to this – barring any RL disasters, I will see this through (with the exception of a 2 week LoA-maybe in June to deal with a particularly nasty spot of exams because JCQ are evil). I spent many months as a Justice (both Chief and Associate) in Europeia, and as I said above, I have been a temporary hearing officer here in TNP for quite some time.

I would love to be a "proper" part of the court, having been involved as a temp justice for quite some time now, and now the the courts are improving (ie, actually functioning), it's an especially nice time to be involved. Plus, my RL workload is especially low for the next few months, and I'm not going to be able to guarantee that after the end of this next term.

I will also make my intent clear, now, that I am definitely interested in becoming Chief Justice.

So yeah. Have at me :)
 
Abbey,

Glad to see a forthright candidate. Best of luck in your campaign.

Please don't take this as harshness but I would like to re-raise a question that was asked by punk d in co6 results thread because I didn't see your response:

What political gain was [punk d] hoping to enjoy in challenging the actions of a highly popular delegate and defending the pariah of The North Pacific? I'm not seeing any political points to be scored in that scenario.

EDIT: Link.
 
Flemingovia, God of TNP, has recently announced his candidate for all three Justices. Isn't your campaign a bit presumptuous? Do you think you're better than God? I predict that hubris will be your downfall.
 
Chasmanthe:
Abbey,

Glad to see a forthright candidate. Best of luck in your campaign.

Please don't take this as harshness but I would like to re-raise a question that was asked by punk d in co6 results thread because I didn't see your response:

What political gain was [punk d] hoping to enjoy in challenging the actions of a highly popular delegate and defending the pariah of The North Pacific? I'm not seeing any political points to be scored in that scenario.

EDIT: Link.
Click to expand...
If you can justify to me why that question is remotely relevant to my campaign for Justice, then I'll answer it, but right now, I fail to see that.

COE:
Flemingovia, God of TNP, has recently announced his candidate for all three Justices. Isn't your campaign a bit presumptuous? Do you think you're better than God? I predict that hubris will be your downfall.
Click to expand...
Well, I think that I'm better than God in that I'm actually running for Justice, whereas God's candidacy is currently not valid because he cannot run for both AG and Justice.
 
You have always been willing to serve as a THO when the Court has needed you and have done great work with the Court under my time as Chief Justice. I fully support your campaign and wish you the best of luck in the election.
 
Abbey Anumia:
Chasmanthe:
Abbey,

Glad to see a forthright candidate. Best of luck in your campaign.

Please don't take this as harshness but I would like to re-raise a question that was asked by punk d in co6 results thread because I didn't see your response:

What political gain was [punk d] hoping to enjoy in challenging the actions of a highly popular delegate and defending the pariah of The North Pacific? I'm not seeing any political points to be scored in that scenario.

EDIT: Link.
Click to expand...
If you can justify to me why that question is remotely relevant to my campaign for Justice, then I'll answer it, but right now, I fail to see that.
Click to expand...
I'm still curious about the answer to that question as well. It's not really going to influence my vote much but I would love to know your thought process because what you said just seemed very odd given the circumstances.
 
Abbey Anumia:
Chasmanthe:
Abbey,

Glad to see a forthright candidate. Best of luck in your campaign.

Please don't take this as harshness but I would like to re-raise a question that was asked by punk d in co6 results thread because I didn't see your response:

What political gain was [punk d] hoping to enjoy in challenging the actions of a highly popular delegate and defending the pariah of The North Pacific? I'm not seeing any political points to be scored in that scenario.

EDIT: Link.
Click to expand...
If you can justify to me why that question is remotely relevant to my campaign for Justice, then I'll answer it, but right now, I fail to see that.

COE:
Flemingovia, God of TNP, has recently announced his candidate for all three Justices. Isn't your campaign a bit presumptuous? Do you think you're better than God? I predict that hubris will be your downfall.
Click to expand...
Well, I think that I'm better than God in that I'm actually running for Justice, whereas God's candidacy is currently not valid because he cannot run for both AG and Justice.
Click to expand...
because being able to answer questions demonstrates you are answerable, and being answerable is being responsible, and responsibility is one of the words in your oath.

It is only one word though, so I can accept that you might not consider it worthy of your attention, and maybe the voters don't either.

To elaborate on why it might be relevant, you effectively surmised the motives of punk d were political, but when he denied that idea, you didn't respond with a reasoning for your opinion. I'm not saying that every opinion has to be backed up with a reason, but if you are asked for one, then it projects an impression of reasonableness if you provide one.
 
Are you familiar with this thing called rhetoric, Chas? It's something people do when they wish to raise a point in a clever manner. Sometimes, they do it in the form of a question. The question needs, and even has, no answer; merely by asking it, however, attention is drawn to the issue in question. I suspect (though I may be wrong) that that was Abbey's intention there.

I won't even touch the logical inferences you claim lead you to a part of Abbey's oath, because well, yeah. No. Funny, though.




Abbey has worked exceedingly well with the current Court. She helped me revise the latest version of the Court rules, editing them extensively to ensure they were approachable and readable. She is intimately familiar with the Court's procedures and policies, and has demonstrated a clear and dispassionate mind in rendering decisions. She has my full support.
 
I actually concur with Chas' thought process on this one.

but again, we all make flippant comments. Abbey doesn't know me well and may have thought I was trying to make a political point against McM. I'm not sure where she would have gotten the notion, but i thought her comment odd because I know my motives on that issue, thought I was quite clear about them, and her comments were about as antithetical to my motives as one could possibly get. I really wanted to understand where she got them.

I also tend to think that in campaigns everything is open game for people making decisions. If someone wishes to ask me about why I am banned in TSP, have a condemnation, etc. I am not put off by the question. People vote for/against people for different reasons and my particular bent is to answer questions. That may be a fault...

Gaspo - I don't believe anyone is questioning the work Abbey did to help you. This seems to be an entirely different issue for this particular voter.

...sorry for the threadjack Abbey. I would like to say, that while you will probably have my vote in this election, I seriously am interested in your reply and I was a bit perplexed that a statement as harsh as the one you made has gone unanswered. But heck, I'm not the center of the universe.
 
I'm not suggesting anyone is questioning her work. that's why my comments about her work had so much empty space before them - they're about something different. I would have done two separate posts, but people tend to yell at me when I do that ;)
 
Right. First point, because it's something I wish to address. I dislike the implication that I didn't respond because I didn't -want- to respond. I failed to respond initially because I first spotted the post while browsing on my phone, wished to respond properly in the evening, then RL intervened in between and I forgot, and by the time I remembered, the thread had died and it became inappropriate for me to dig it up. Simple.

It isn't that I don't think it's worthy of my attention - it's that I think that it is irrelevant to my campaign for justice. Ultimately, however, my reasoning was what Gaspo pointed out - it was rhetoric, and it was also not the best wording in the world. I'm not in punk's head, so I can never know what his motives are, but at the time it struck me as behaviour unbecoming of an Attorney General, and the best word I could think of for the only possible motives was political. However, it is also behaviour unbecoming of a Justice to criticise the AG in such a manner, as Justices should remain out of politics (note that I'm a THO currently, not a Justice, and thus don't hold myself to -quite- such a high standard as to general political activities).

Bokeryville:
What are your thoughts on stare decisis?
Click to expand...
After having googling to check that latin term, my thoughts are that, within a system with no defined rules on precedent, we're best treating previous rulings as persuasive at most. Rulings of previous Court panels should be respected - equally, if there is a reason why it needs overturning (perhaps, the justices failing to consider a piece of law that now links in), it needs overturning - no point beating around the bush.

Another thing to mention, I guess - I have no RL legal training whatsoever. So I don't look at things from the point of view of someone with training, complete with legalese, instead I think about things logically without the pre-defined legal concepts in my head. I think a decent mix of "normal" people and those with a legal background results in a system which is both comprehensible for the average person but also makes some legal sense :P
 
Right. First point, because it's something I wish to address. I dislike the implication that I didn't respond because I didn't -want- to respond. I failed to respond initially because I first spotted the post while browsing on my phone, wished to respond properly in the evening, then RL intervened in between and I forgot, and by the time I remembered, the thread had died and it became inappropriate for me to dig it up. Simple.

It isn't that I don't think it's worthy of my attention - it's that I think that it is irrelevant to my campaign for justice. Ultimately, however, my reasoning was what Gaspo pointed out - it was rhetoric, and it was also not the best wording in the world. I'm not in punk's head, so I can never know what his motives are, but at the time it struck me as behaviour unbecoming of an Attorney General, and the best word I could think of for the only possible motives was political. However, it is also behaviour unbecoming of a Justice to criticise the AG in such a manner, as Justices should remain out of politics (note that I'm a THO currently, not a Justice, and thus don't hold myself to -quite- such a high standard as to general political activities).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. I understand much better now.
 
Abbey Anumia:
Right. First point, because it's something I wish to address. I dislike the implication that I didn't respond because I didn't -want- to respond. I failed to respond initially because I first spotted the post while browsing on my phone, wished to respond properly in the evening, then RL intervened in between and I forgot, and by the time I remembered, the thread had died and it became inappropriate for me to dig it up. Simple.

It isn't that I don't think it's worthy of my attention - it's that I think that it is irrelevant to my campaign for justice. Ultimately, however, my reasoning was what Gaspo pointed out - it was rhetoric, and it was also not the best wording in the world. I'm not in punk's head, so I can never know what his motives are, but at the time it struck me as behaviour unbecoming of an Attorney General, and the best word I could think of for the only possible motives was political. However, it is also behaviour unbecoming of a Justice to criticise the AG in such a manner, as Justices should remain out of politics (note that I'm a THO currently, not a Justice, and thus don't hold myself to -quite- such a high standard as to general political activities).

Bokeryville:
What are your thoughts on stare decisis?
Click to expand...
After having googling to check that latin term, my thoughts are that, within a system with no defined rules on precedent, we're best treating previous rulings as persuasive at most. Rulings of previous Court panels should be respected - equally, if there is a reason why it needs overturning (perhaps, the justices failing to consider a piece of law that now links in), it needs overturning - no point beating around the bush.

Another thing to mention, I guess - I have no RL legal training whatsoever. So I don't look at things from the point of view of someone with training, complete with legalese, instead I think about things logically without the pre-defined legal concepts in my head. I think a decent mix of "normal" people and those with a legal background results in a system which is both comprehensible for the average person but also makes some legal sense :P
Click to expand...
Thanks. I do try and give people the benefit of the doubt. There is often a lot of doubt to go around. I'm sorry you saw it as a negative implication but I didn't actually see where you were coming from, because it had not yet been explained. I actually find propriety can be kind of subjective, but I do get what you meant.

The chain of events was, the delegate held elections, posted the results, disregarded one aspect of them. People, including the attorney general, commented and criticized, and the delegate closed the thread. The attorney general restarted the conversation in a subforum that he had moderating powers over. All of those things can be questioned and criticized and defended, and motives assigned to them by people who did not do the things. The way we each see what is becoming and unbecoming of each person may differ, and it is via communication of views that we find out.

For example, I now understand that you see it as a sliding scale of how politicized each can be, justice, attorney general, temporary justice, cabinet, delegate, etc. And presumably you would agree that in some of those cases they can remain political but keep their politics separate from their judicial role, depending how they handle that separation?

Sorry if this is too off topic but am showing what understanding I have now, and if it can be linked to your campaign you may wish to elaborate further.
 
Abbey Anumia:
Well, I think that I'm better than God in that I'm actually running for Justice, whereas God's candidacy is currently not valid because he cannot run for both AG and Justice.
Click to expand...
Only according to the imperfect laws of man. :P Thanks for the answer!
 
Apologies Chas - I initially missed your extra question in your post. Blame late-night phone browsing <_<

For example, I now understand that you see it as a sliding scale of how politicized each can be, justice, attorney general, temporary justice, cabinet, delegate, etc. And presumably you would agree that in some of those cases they can remain political but keep their politics separate from their judicial role, depending how they handle that separation?
Click to expand...
Well, I'd say that generally speaking, nobody other than the judiciary has to worry about staying out of politics - preeeetty much everything else is a political role.

I'd say that it is possible but incredibly difficult to remail political while also maintaining a decent separation with the judiciary. To a limited degree, certainly, but I'm not going to claim to be able to remain a political person while also keeping a clear head for judicial matters. I'm just not that good.

Any other questions, from anyone?
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Flemingovia, God of TNP, has recently announced his candidate for all three Justices. Isn't your campaign a bit presumptuous? Do you think you're better than God? I predict that hubris will be your downfall.
Click to expand...
LOL :lol:

:yes:
 
Abbey Anumia:
Apologies Chas - I initially missed your extra question in your post. Blame late-night phone browsing <_<

For example, I now understand that you see it as a sliding scale of how politicized each can be, justice, attorney general, temporary justice, cabinet, delegate, etc. And presumably you would agree that in some of those cases they can remain political but keep their politics separate from their judicial role, depending how they handle that separation?
Click to expand...
Well, I'd say that generally speaking, nobody other than the judiciary has to worry about staying out of politics - preeeetty much everything else is a political role.

I'd say that it is possible but incredibly difficult to remail political while also maintaining a decent separation with the judiciary. To a limited degree, certainly, but I'm not going to claim to be able to remain a political person while also keeping a clear head for judicial matters. I'm just not that good.

Any other questions, from anyone?
Click to expand...
Quite alright, Abbey.

Thank you for your answer.

If elected, will you be stepping down as spokesperson of the Progressive Party, for the duration of your term as justice?

If not, then please can ProP either remove me from its rolls, or negotiate fairly regarding my name being kept on?

Finally, do you believe that justice is blind, in the sense that it regards not who the perpetrator is, but what they have actually done?
 
Chasmanthe:
If elected, will you be stepping down as spokesperson of the Progressive Party, for the duration of your term as justice?

If not, then please can ProP either remove me from its rolls, or negotiate fairly regarding my name being kept on?
Click to expand...
Chas, in case you haven't noticed, ProP is defunct. It's dead. It no longer exists. It's gone.

The reason no one has removed your name from the rolls is because no one maintains the rolls. Because the party no longer exists.
 
Belschaft:
Chasmanthe:
If elected, will you be stepping down as spokesperson of the Progressive Party, for the duration of your term as justice?

If not, then please can ProP either remove me from its rolls, or negotiate fairly regarding my name being kept on?
Click to expand...
Chas, in case you haven't noticed, ProP is defunct. It's dead. It no longer exists. It's gone.

The reason no one has removed your name from the rolls is because no one maintains the rolls. Because the party no longer exists.
Click to expand...
Belschaft, if you're right then I must be incredibly stupid to have said what I said. I don't see things the way you see them.

The Lexicon is defunct. It is dead. The Lexicon no longer exists. It's gone.

Many other the truths you cling to depend greatly on your own point of view.

The Lexicon has not CTE'd.

You can dispute the facts all you want. Am I wrong to say that it still exists? Not really.

The ProP has not been officially disbanded, the thread is still an open and publicly viewable thread just as it was when it was alive. The fact it's inactive does not mean that Eluvatar cannot revive it next year, or tomorrow, if he has the support and the inclination to do so. The last he told me is members may rejoin.

You're not officially recognizing my resignation, and that's your choice, but don't paint me as ignorant when the deadness and defunctness of the party was why I resigned at all. People have been pinickity about smaller things.
Apologies for the diversion.

Abbey, I wish you all the best for the campaign.
 
Chasmanthe:
Belschaft:
Chasmanthe:
If elected, will you be stepping down as spokesperson of the Progressive Party, for the duration of your term as justice?

If not, then please can ProP either remove me from its rolls, or negotiate fairly regarding my name being kept on?
Click to expand...
Chas, in case you haven't noticed, ProP is defunct. It's dead. It no longer exists. It's gone.

The reason no one has removed your name from the rolls is because no one maintains the rolls. Because the party no longer exists.
Click to expand...
Belschaft, if you're right then I must be incredibly stupid to have said what I said. I don't see things the way you see them.

The Lexicon is defunct. It is dead. The Lexicon no longer exists. It's gone.

Many other the truths you cling to depend greatly on your own point of view.

The Lexicon has not CTE'd.

You can dispute the facts all you want. Am I wrong to say that it still exists? Not really.

The ProP has not been officially disbanded, the thread is still an open and publicly viewable thread just as it was when it was alive. The fact it's inactive does not mean that Eluvatar cannot revive it next year, or tomorrow, if he has the support and the inclination to do so. The last he told me is members may rejoin.

You're not officially recognizing my resignation, and that's your choice, but don't paint me as ignorant when the deadness and defunctness of the party was why I resigned at all. People have been pinickity about smaller things.
Apologies for the diversion.

Abbey, I wish you all the best for the campaign.
Click to expand...
It has been explained to you previously that the reason your name is still on the members roll is because no one is updating it because the the party is defunct. I don't know why you brought it up in Abbeys campaign thread - or at all for that matter; you're flogging a dead horse. That has been pointed out as dead to you. On several occasions.

If you actually care so much, ask a mod to take your name off it.
 
How active will you be able to be if serving as a Justice? Do you foresee anything that might hamper your possible duties?
 
Well, I already answered that in my original post:
"I intend on being absolutely active and committed to this – barring any RL disasters, I will see this through (with the exception of a 2 week LoA-maybe in June to deal with a particularly nasty spot of exams because JCQ are evil)."
 
With regard to the recently updated court rules, which changes do you think helped the justice system, and which changes do you think hurt the justice system? Is there anything you would support changing, as Justice, or are you fine with the rules how they are now?
 
Well, I was involved in drafting the current court rules, so generally I think they're fine. They're certainly an improvement on the old ones. I cannot actually see any major issues with them (otherwise that would have been pointed out when I was helping draft them), but it's a case of seeing how the changes actually work out in practical use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top