The Minister for Justice

Gracius Maximus

Gracius Maximus

Tyrant (Ret.)
Nothing has changed. My opinions haven't changed. My attitude hasn't changed. Hopefully this time my campaign won't be derailed by a spurious legal accusation.

We will see.
 
flemingovia:
On a scale of 1 to 10, how benevolent would you say you are?
Click to expand...
I do not see benevolence as an absolute. In certain circumstances, such as when I am running a government, I tend to veer towards -12. Although, that is strictly in the sense that benevolence implies acquiescence to some degree. I would always consider myself to be "well-meaning" insofar as I mean well within the confines of how I choose to conduct myself.

However, in general conversation, or in a role within a government, or an outside, ultimately non-authoritative body, I would consider myself at least an 8. I seek to support the common sense approach that you espouse while not alienating those that disagree unnecessarily. That, of course, does not mean that I am unduly open to compromise.
 
Gracius Maximus:
flemingovia:
On a scale of 1 to 10, how benevolent would you say you are?
Click to expand...
I do not see benevolence as an absolute. In certain circumstances, such as when I am running a government, I tend to veer towards -12. Although, that is strictly in the sense that benevolence implies acquiescence to some degree. I would always consider myself to be "well-meaning" insofar as I mean well within the confines of how I choose to conduct myself.

However, in general conversation, or in a role within a government, or an outside, ultimately non-authoritative body, I would consider myself at least an 8. I seek to support the common sense approach that you espouse while not alienating those that disagree unnecessarily. That, of course, does not mean that I am unduly open to compromise.
Click to expand...
You must have read Nietzsche's Jenseits von Gut on Böse. That's a positive in my book!

I have to admit that I appreciate (and even like) your sense of humor and sense of irony, and the fact that you are what you seem. That means I am seriously considering voting for you.
 
Would you be interested in participating in some form of debate with myself and the other candidates in this special election? (Assuming we can find an appropriate venue and moderator).
 
Romanoffia:
Gracius Maximus:
flemingovia:
On a scale of 1 to 10, how benevolent would you say you are?
Click to expand...
I do not see benevolence as an absolute. In certain circumstances, such as when I am running a government, I tend to veer towards -12. Although, that is strictly in the sense that benevolence implies acquiescence to some degree. I would always consider myself to be "well-meaning" insofar as I mean well within the confines of how I choose to conduct myself.

However, in general conversation, or in a role within a government, or an outside, ultimately non-authoritative body, I would consider myself at least an 8. I seek to support the common sense approach that you espouse while not alienating those that disagree unnecessarily. That, of course, does not mean that I am unduly open to compromise.
Click to expand...
You must have read Nietzsche's Jenseits von Gut on Böse. That's a positive in my book!

I have to admit that I appreciate (and even like) your sense of humor and sense of irony, and the fact that you are what you seem. That means I am seriously considering voting for you.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Mall:
Would you be interested in participating in some form of debate with myself and the other candidates in this special election? (Assuming we can find an appropriate venue and moderator).
Click to expand...
Yes, but timing will be key. I am often busy during the period most people seem to be active here.
 
As a youngish TNPer, I'll take that as a compliment.

:old man voice: Back in my day, I wasn't enamored of the GCRs and left them as soon as I could hit the move button.
 
punk d:
There's just something not right with Roman and GM on the same page. Thank you's and compliments on GM's sense of humor.

It's creeping me out.

For you young kids, just check out some of these ancient and classic threads:

http://z8.invisionfree.com/The_North_Pacific/index.php?showtopic=3856

http://z8.invisionfree.com/The_North_Pacific/index.php?showtopic=4171
Click to expand...
Romanoffia seems to have seen the error of his ways in recent years.

Too bad so many others haven't (based upon the vote). I have lost votes that I held last round. It is a shame. I'm active, capable and somewhat knowledgeable and have held the role twice since the events of 2005 and yet I can't seem to get it.

Oh well. I can take the hint. IRC spammers will always win out over intellect in TNP.
 
As it currently stands, the tide has turned somewhat.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this election, I am pleased to see that a large number of citizens vote according to how they believe the region should operate as opposed to voting for the "anti-activity" campaigns.
 
Mall:
And who exactly is running an "anti-activity" campaign?
Click to expand...
Anyone stating that they will ignore court filings or will not put forth positions.

But, since you particularly chose to ask, I believe anyone stating that they will ignore precedent and/or the constitution and legal code are equally bad for the region as a whole. There are ways to be proactive and utilize common sense in legal decisions without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I know because I have done it before.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Mall:
And who exactly is running an "anti-activity" campaign?
Click to expand...
Anyone stating that they will ignore court filings or will not put forth positions.

But, since you particularly chose to ask, I believe anyone stating that they will ignore precedent and/or the constitution and legal code are equally bad for the region as a whole. There are ways to be proactive and utilize common sense in legal decisions without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I know because I have done it before.
Click to expand...
As Flem pointed out, I am not running on an anti-activity platform. Indeed I am running on a controversial platform, but only insofar as utilizing common sense as the basis for Court decisions rather than a convoluted Constibillicode is to be considered controversial.

I am quite sure that you mean what you say, but there is far too much counter evidence regarding the history of the Court to support your position.
 
I do believe I differentiated between the two positions. Not exactly sure what either of you are on about in that regard.

The counter-evidence that you point to does indeed exist, but that does not mean that it must always be so, or that it has indeed always been so. Every position that I have ever given as a member of the Court sought to seek the most direct legal route from A to B.

Espousing a position that includes ignoring the law as a means of delivering said law to the masses seems shortsighted to me personally. I do not in any way intend to imply that either you or anyone else stating such a position is ignorant, just that the methodology seems to be.
 
Gracius Maximus:
I do believe I differentiated between the two positions. Not exactly sure what either of you are on about in that regard.

The counter-evidence that you point to does indeed exist, but that does not mean that it must always be so, or that it has indeed always been so. Every position that I have ever given as a member of the Court sought to seek the most direct legal route from A to B.

Espousing a position that includes ignoring the law as a means of delivering said law to the masses seems shortsighted to me personally. I do not in any way intend to imply that either you or anyone else stating such a position is ignorant, just that the methodology seems to be.
Click to expand...
And what happens when the law you are asked to interpret is unworkable?
 
Mall:
Gracius Maximus:
I do believe I differentiated between the two positions. Not exactly sure what either of you are on about in that regard.

The counter-evidence that you point to does indeed exist, but that does not mean that it must always be so, or that it has indeed always been so. Every position that I have ever given as a member of the Court sought to seek the most direct legal route from A to B.

Espousing a position that includes ignoring the law as a means of delivering said law to the masses seems shortsighted to me personally. I do not in any way intend to imply that either you or anyone else stating such a position is ignorant, just that the methodology seems to be.
Click to expand...
And what happens when the law you are asked to interpret is unworkable?
Click to expand...
Such an instance does not exist in my experience. I can work anything.

Regardless, it would appear that the masses agree with your interpretation, that the law can be ignored at whim by the Court. I believe that sets a bad precedent, one that can be manipulated by persons much less benevolent than myself.

So be it.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Regardless, it would appear that the masses agree with your interpretation, that the law can be ignored at whim by the Court. I believe that sets a bad precedent, one that can be manipulated by persons much less benevolent than myself.

So be it.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true regarding the masses.

You should reach out to the masses as Mall has done, i.e. direct campaigning.

That is probably what is turning the tide in his favor.
 
punk d:
Gracius Maximus:
Regardless, it would appear that the masses agree with your interpretation, that the law can be ignored at whim by the Court. I believe that sets a bad precedent, one that can be manipulated by persons much less benevolent than myself.

So be it.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true regarding the masses.

You should reach out to the masses as Mall has done, i.e. direct campaigning.

That is probably what is turning the tide in his favor.
Click to expand...
Indeed, although pandering for a vote and having people agree to do so because I was the "first to ask" (as I have been told by some) seems to be counter-intuitive in regards to the platforms being made.

Getting on the Court because of popularity only solidifies, at least to me, that the approach espoused by my opponent is faulty. A Justice that chooses to disregard the law at whim and is elected purely by popularity will lead to inequitable justice for those unfortunate enough to find themselves on opposing political viewpoints with said Justice in the Court.

If the masses can not be bothered to read the platforms and only vote based on being asked to do so as a favor then they deserve that sort of inequitable justice, in my opinion.

I do not cater to idiocy.
 
Or maybe, just maybe, people think that I am a preferable candidate? I do not consider myself to be more popular than you are in this region.
 
Maybe you should try direct campaigning? Because I was of the same opinion as you, and well lets just say I am not wearing the Vice Delegate badge today. I thought you were fairly pragmatic, and could recognize that politics is by and large a popularity contest, and tailor your campaign accordingly. In my mind, at least Mall took the time to speak to me individually, and that counts for more than you give it credit for.
 
This is an election, this is politics.

Politics is not a meritocracy. You've got lemmings, you've got idealists, and you've got everything in between.

The only thing common among them - they each have a vote.

EDIT:Grammar sucks.
 
Many of the folks who are not voting for you were not around when you served so admirably as AG and as Chief Justice. Most of what they know about you comes from what they have read or heard about in connection with Pixiedance. If that was all I knew about you, I wouldn't vote for you either.

But I know you are an excellent judge and you have more experience on the bench than anyone in TNP, with the possible exception of Schnauzers. People need to be familiarized with your GOOD accomplishments and they need to be able to trust you to do what you promise.
 
Alternatively you can keep calling them idiots for not knowing what you have thus far refused to tell them. I'm running on a campaign of common sense and transparency. You are running on a campaign of "nothing has changed" and utter inflexibility.
 
I do not dispute any of what has been stated above, prior to the most immediate post before this.

However, I do see the Court as an altogether different animal than most of the other positions for which we hold elections. Popularity contests in regards to Speaker or Vice Delegate, or even Delegate to a lesser degree, are anticipated because simply, a prat (not that any in those roles currently are such) can do any of those roles quite simply and cater to the masses.

Stating that you will intentionally ignore the law while running for Justice is moronic to me personally. The fact that the masses will support such a candidate because the candidate spoke to them directly is ignorant.

I am pragmatic, but I am also stubborn. I would rather be right and lose than compromise my integrity to win.
 
Mall:
Alternatively you can keep calling them idiots for not knowing what you have thus far refused to tell them. I'm running on a campaign of common sense and transparency. You are running on a campaign of "nothing has changed" and utter inflexibility.
Click to expand...
If a member of the RA posts in their signature that they support the Constitution/Legal Code/Bill of Rights and then vote for someone that states that they will intentionally ignore those things then they are ignorant insofar as I can determine. Ignorant is not the same as stupid.

I am transparent. Everyone that deals with me knows up front exactly what they get. I am an asshole, and an arrogant son of a bitch. But I get things done.

I have not once said that nothing has changed (aside from the initial comment in which I am referring to myself, not the machine - if this is what you refer to then it is a comprehension issue, in which I can not assist you) and everything is good with the TNP legal system. What I have stated is that I can work within the confines of the law to deliver direct and succinct judgement without the need to circumvent that which I would take an oath to protect.

You, conversely, have perverted the very idea of "justice" by claiming that the written law can be ignored at whim. This will lead to error and inequitable determinations.
 
I agree with GM in this instance. His record in the courts speaks for itself, for those with memories long enough.

"Common sense" as a basis for judicial decision making would work well in the case of a god such as myself, but mortals lack the wisdom or the depth of intellect to be cast adrift without laws and precedent to guide them.

That is why I have voted for Gracius Maximus.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Mall:
Alternatively you can keep calling them idiots for not knowing what you have thus far refused to tell them. I'm running on a campaign of common sense and transparency. You are running on a campaign of "nothing has changed" and utter inflexibility.
Click to expand...
If a member of the RA posts in their signature that they support the Constitution/Legal Code/Bill of Rights and then vote for someone that states that they will intentionally ignore those things then they are ignorant insofar as I can determine. Ignorant is not the same as stupid.

I am transparent. Everyone that deals with me knows up front exactly what they get. I am an asshole, and an arrogant son of a bitch. But I get things done.

I have not once said that nothing has changed (aside from the initial comment in which I am referring to myself, not the machine - if this is what you refer to then it is a comprehension issue, in which I can not assist you) and everything is good with the TNP legal system. What I have stated is that I can work within the confines of the law to deliver direct and succinct judgement without the need to circumvent that which I would take an oath to protect.

You, conversely, have perverted the very idea of "justice" by claiming that the written law can be ignored at whim. This will lead to error and inequitable determinations.
Click to expand...
To acknowledge that the law which you will swear to uphold is flawed, and then contend that perfectly equitable judgments can be derived from those flawed laws without using independent judgment to counter those flaws is a contradiction.

I obviously was not around during your previous tenures in TNP, I know little of you besides your stint as Delegate, your recent activities in Osiris, and what Flem has just told me. However the voters of TNP also know that I am an individual who sticks to his campaign promises, and I have promised to tale actions which will to seek to produce that which is best for the region in all cases, no matter what the Constibillicode might require. You cannot make such a claim.
 
Mall:
Gracius Maximus:
Mall:
Alternatively you can keep calling them idiots for not knowing what you have thus far refused to tell them. I'm running on a campaign of common sense and transparency. You are running on a campaign of "nothing has changed" and utter inflexibility.
Click to expand...
If a member of the RA posts in their signature that they support the Constitution/Legal Code/Bill of Rights and then vote for someone that states that they will intentionally ignore those things then they are ignorant insofar as I can determine. Ignorant is not the same as stupid.

I am transparent. Everyone that deals with me knows up front exactly what they get. I am an asshole, and an arrogant son of a bitch. But I get things done.

I have not once said that nothing has changed (aside from the initial comment in which I am referring to myself, not the machine - if this is what you refer to then it is a comprehension issue, in which I can not assist you) and everything is good with the TNP legal system. What I have stated is that I can work within the confines of the law to deliver direct and succinct judgement without the need to circumvent that which I would take an oath to protect.

You, conversely, have perverted the very idea of "justice" by claiming that the written law can be ignored at whim. This will lead to error and inequitable determinations.
Click to expand...
To acknowledge that the law which you will swear to uphold is flawed, and then contend that perfectly equitable judgments can be derived from those flawed laws without using independent judgment to counter those flaws is a contradiction.

I obviously was not around during your previous tenures in TNP, I know little of you besides your stint as Delegate, your recent activities in Osiris, and what Flem has just told me. However the voters of TNP also know that I am an individual who sticks to his campaign promises, and I have promised to tale actions which will to seek to produce that which is best for the region in all cases, no matter what the Constibillicode might require. You cannot make such a claim.
Click to expand...
First, I have no recent activities in Osiris. I have no idea what you are referring to.

Second, no law is perfect. Every judgement would be made with the knowledge of that imperfection but would not seek to ignore it because it is so. Perfectly equitable judgements within the confines of the law are possible and have been realized in the past. It is simply a failing of recent Courts that such judgements have not been realized to your satisfaction. No contradiction exists.

Conversely, for you to post up an oath of office after this election would be a contradiction because you have explicitly stated that you will not uphold the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top