* Now talking on #tnp-court
<Abbey> "1) What period of time constitutes a legal term for Delegate, if at all possible, put in terms of specific months of the year (ex. January to May)?" What does Wolf actually mean by this?
<Sanctaria> How long is a Delegate's term
<Sanctaria> and when does a term start and end
<Abbey> hm
<Abbey> Right
<Abbey> My thoughts are this:
<Abbey> A legal term is any one for which they are elected in a General election (ie Jan, May etc) It ends either upon the term expiring, or their removal by other means.
<Abbey> The term at large is -always- the full 4 months, though.
<Abbey> hmmm
<Abbey> I have an issue
<Abbey> I don't like the previous ruling.
<Sanctaria> Ok.
<Sanctaria> It's not forever binding.
<Abbey> No, it's not.
<Abbey> My interpretation is that one term is the whole 4 month period
<Sanctaria> We just have to explain why we're overturning precedent.
<Abbey> No matter which section you are elected for
<Abbey> If you are elected to only the second half, you're still elected FOR THAT TERM
* Sanctaria nods
<Sanctaria> I agree.
<Abbey> ie, you can't serve two consecutive terms
<Abbey> Therefore mcmaster wouldn't have been eligible to run in May
<Abbey> because he would have served in 2 consecutive terms.
<Abbey> You end up with an absurdity
<Abbey> if you state that if you take the back end of a term, you can run for 3 terms, essentially.
<Abbey> but if you have the front end, you only get 2.
<Sanctaria> that's the case in the US
<Abbey> I might try to go find the court discussion on the last one.
<Sanctaria> Don't
<Abbey> okay
<Sanctaria> That's really unethical.
<Abbey> hm
<Abbey> I guess
<Abbey> The precedent is what they posted publicly
<Sanctaria> Yes.
<Abbey> Right,.
<Abbey> So our response to the questions.
<Abbey> 1. Legal term is any period served as Delegate between any of the 3 four month periods. Jan-May, May-September, September-Jan)
<Abbey> With punk's specifics.
<Abbey> (of course, I'll post this on the forum to see what he says)
<Abbey> 2. No. Nor is it legal for a Delegate who served the second half of a term to then run in the 2 elections following. This is based on the fact that they have still served two terms as delegate - full 4 month or otherwise.
<Sanctaria> I see.
<Abbey> Agree/not?
<Sanctaria> I'm not sure yet.
<Abbey> hmm
<Abbey> why not?
<Abbey> Not a challenge - I'd like to know your thinking
<Sanctaria> I haven't had a chance to look at it yet.
<Abbey> aaah
<Abbey> Okay
<Abbey> That's fine
<Sanctaria> 2 consecutive terms to be suggests terms have to be completed
<Abbey> hm
<Abbey> That's a fair point
<Sanctaria> *me
<Sanctaria> I think it boils down to whether or not you consider the term to be a person's term in office
<Sanctaria> or a person in a set term of office
<Sanctaria> and because the Delegacy is set terms
<Sanctaria> then I think it should be the latter
<Sanctaria> so two consecutive terms
<Sanctaria> means two Delegacies
<Sanctaria> consecutively.
<Sanctaria> and since Jan-May is still this term
<Sanctaria> He should be barred.
<Abbey> Yeah
<Abbey> As would someone who served the back end of a term?
<Sanctaria> He was elected to that term in a special election
<Sanctaria> So even if it's 1 month and one full term
<Sanctaria> that's still two consecutive terms
<Abbey> yeah
* punkd has joined #tnp-court
<Abbey> That's what I thought.
<punkd> yay...
<Abbey> Punk! Thoughts.
* Sanctaria gives channel operator status to punkd
<Abbey> Me and Sanc are in agreement that he should be barred.
<punkd> yes, i agree as well
<Sanctaria> Hang on a sec
<Abbey> On the basis that it's 2 terms consecutively, regardless of where in the set term the delegacy was served.
<Sanctaria> My answers.
* Abbey nods
<punkd> yep
<Abbey> Which means we are in fact overturning the old ruling.
<punkd> we are?
<punkd> how so?
<Sanctaria> 1. A legal term for Delegate is four months; Jan-May, May-Sep; Sep-Jan.
<Sanctaria> 2. No, it is not legal. (and then we explain why)
<Abbey> They stated that mcmaster would be eligible in May because he was elected in a Special Election
<Sanctaria> 3. No he is not. (and then we explain why)
<Sanctaria> 4. We have ruled him not to be a legal candidate, so this question is moot.
<punkd> hmm...Belschaft did say "yes" but he was not the chief at the time and the ruling itself was a bit murky on the subject.
<Abbey> Yeah
<Sanctaria> We can overturn precedent.
<punkd> sanctaria - i like your organization
<Abbey> DO you want me to draft something up?
<Sanctaria> We just can't do it nilly willy, really. We have to do it in a context of a review and we have to be very clear why we're doing so.
<Abbey> Yeah
<Sanctaria> If you want. I have a general idea in my head what I'd like to see.
<Abbey> We'll see if they match, then.
<punkd> i also think if we overturn the prior ruling we need to make sure we rule on whatever that review requested as well.
* Abbey nods
<punkd> otherwise we leave a gap
<Sanctaria> What?
<Sanctaria> No.
<Sanctaria> That ruling was appropriate for that case.
<Abbey> Yeah
<Sanctaria> You don't go back and apply a new ruling.
<punkd> ok hear me out.
<Sanctaria> All we're doing is saying that was that, but this is now, we think a mistake was made, but this is what it should be.
<Abbey> Do either of you happen to have a copy of the draft format or not?
<punkd> if that ruling was appropriate, then that'snot overturning that ruling. If we do overturn it we can leave the question posed in that ruling open OR rule on it ourselves.
<punkd> i think it's at the bottom of the private conference subforum
<Abbey> My current draft I have in my head would essentially rule on the other one
<Abbey> but not explicitly
<Abbey> Ah, so it is
<punkd> do we need to explicitly determine if the election cycle must be restarted?
<Sanctaria> Yes.
<punkd> ok
<Abbey> Yes, we do.
<Sanctaria> I think.
<Sanctaria> Let me look at the Legal Code.
<Sanctaria> But all we can do as judges is address the case before us.
<Abbey> Has there been any ruling on candidates withdrawing during votes?
<Sanctaria> We can't go back and change history.
<Abbey> Yeah
<punkd> i'm not sure if the LC or Constitution covers if a candidate is invalidated during an election.
<Abbey> I think we have to leave it to EC discretion.
<Abbey> And if they dump a new review on us, we deal with that -then-
<punkd> but i think i agree that we rule on what is before us. if anything the EC might come back to us for a review.
<Abbey> mhm
<punkd> hehehe
<punkd> indeed.
<Abbey> We can't rule on something we've not been asked yet.
<Sanctaria> We can say that Elu is not a legal candidate
<Sanctaria> and then the EC will have to deal with it.
<Abbey> Yup.
<punkd> sounds good to me
<Abbey>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WlV9vCOhrjNXvgAJqXD77oVpNgJsfXnya6fDcpdTnJQ/edit?usp=sharing
<Abbey> thoughts?
<Sanctaria> I think you should go into more detail about why we're oberturning precedent
* Abbey nods
<Sanctaria> and I don't like the layout personally
<Sanctaria>
<Abbey> heh
<Sanctaria> As in question then answer.
<Abbey> hm
<Abbey> I find that makes ruling easier to reference
<Abbey> and easier to justify as having answered the question
<Sanctaria> Each to their own I guess.
<Abbey> Yeah
<Abbey> that's personal preference more than anything, I think.
<Sanctaria> Yes.
<Abbey> What else do you want me to say?
<Sanctaria> You're writing the opinion, not me
Say what you want and then I'll give feedback.
<Abbey> heh
<Abbey> You've given feedback
I'm asking what else you want me to add
<Sanctaria> I dunno, when you're finished your next draft, send it to me again
<Abbey> I'm working within the doc
<Abbey> I don't know what else to add right now
<Abbey> Go look
<punkd> i'm here
<punkd> i like the layout Abbey
<Sanctaria> If you opened it up to editing, it'd be nice
<punkd> specifically question then answer
<Sanctaria> oh wait maybe I'm not signed in
<Abbey> Habit, Sanc.
<Sanctaria> I don't like thay layout
<Sanctaria> it's not legal-y
<Abbey> It's a direct response to the request for review
<Sanctaria> But if Abbey wants to use it, that's fine. I'll stick to my layout when I write the opinions.
* Abbey nods
<Abbey> I'm not going to go stopping you
<Sanctaria> Have you opened the document up to editing?
<Sanctaria> thanks
<Abbey> I should have.
<punkd> I think we need to expound upon the answer in #2
<Abbey> I think you're right - I just don't know what to write
<Abbey> which accurately reflects the consensus.
* Abbey looks at the clock and then wishfully at her bed
<Sanctaria> I'm typing up something
<Abbey> I can see
<Abbey> That;s a much more eloquent version of what I said above
<Abbey> We should replace what I have selected with what you've typed
<Sanctaria> Okie dokie
<Sanctaria> You should probably post a copy of the ruling in the thread in the private forum. For archival and paper trail purposes.
* Abbey nods
<punkd> yes
<Abbey> I'm wondering, if we're to be using this medium, if we should post these logs.
<Abbey> Although I'll nuke edit perms on this doc once we're done with it.
<punkd> could be useful, but IRC is tough for me in general.
<Sanctaria> We can put a copy of the logs in the private threads too.
<Sanctaria> Like a pastebin or whatever.
<Abbey> I'm not saying that we -have- to
<Sanctaria> No, it'd be handy anyway I think, in case me and you have a discussion some night punk isn't on
<Abbey> But I'm just saying that for paper trail purposes, for any rulings where we -do- have extensive discussion here
<Abbey> Yeah
<Abbey> Exactly.
<Sanctaria> we can put it in the thread for him to view and stuff and then he can give us his thoughts
<Abbey> Aye.
<punkd> agreed
<Abbey> Are we all happy with the ruling?
<punkd> And as I think about it more I think Bel's answer should have been "No."
<Abbey> Yes.
<Abbey> That's the conclusion I came to with Sanc earlier
<Sanctaria> I'm happy enough with the ruling, aye.
<Sanctaria> Oh wait
<Sanctaria> hang on
<Abbey> Okay
<Sanctaria> No, it's ok
<Sanctaria> Nevermind
<punkd> hold on, almost done.
<Abbey> okay
<punkd> can we change this "He has served in the two terms consecutively prior" to "He has served in the two terms immediately preceding"
<Abbey> Yeah
<Abbey> THat's fine
<Abbey> I couldn't think of better wording
<Abbey> Feel free to change anything you spot, punk.
<punkd> i can't make changes.
<punkd> i've never used google docs before
<Abbey> You should be able to.
<Abbey> I've opened edit perms to anyone with the link.
<Abbey> even if not logged in.
<Sanctaria> I think it's done.
<Abbey> "Access:Anyone (no sign-in required) Can edit"
<punkd> ah ha
<punkd> figured it out
<Sanctaria> Abbey
<Abbey> what
<Abbey> I want to go to bed
<Sanctaria> You should probably post in the review saying we've come to a conclusion and the opinion will be posted shortly
<Abbey> Why, if we're posting the opinion within the next half an hour?
<punkd> i always thought that was a bit unnecessary myself Sanc
<Abbey> Likewise
<Sanctaria> So people would know not to post shit?
<Abbey> Like I said, the ruling will presumably be going up very imminently
<Abbey> Are we not all happy with it now?
<Sanctaria> In future when briefs close you should post saying so.
<punkd> this part i don't like - The Court can therefore not hold with that previous ruling. - but not time t focus on rewording
<punkd> no*
<Abbey> Oh, yes, Sanc.
<Sanctaria> What's wrong with that wording.
<Sanctaria> We can't hold with the previous ruling.
<punkd> Therefore, the court sounds better
<Abbey> hm
<Abbey> Either works.
<Abbey> That's personal preference.
<punkd> but i don't want to quibble over that
<Abbey> I'm not fussed.
<Sanctaria> If you're going to be that much of a pedant
<Sanctaria> then you're not going to enjoy the next four months.
<Abbey> heh
<punkd> we'll hopefully not be as under the gun
<Sanctaria> Because that will seriously piss me off.
<Abbey> Lets try not to squabble
<Abbey> We're asking for comments on wording - that was just personal preference.
* Abbey shrugs.
<Abbey> Anything else, from either of you?
<punkd> nope
<Abbey> Sanc?
<Sanctaria> It's fine.
