Mall
TNPer
I motion that the Regional Assembly recall Owenstacey, Sasten, and Cogoria from their position of Temporary Hearing Officers in the Request For Review dated 12/24/17.
Recall THO's
- Thread starter Mall
- Start date
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
I think that it would assist the Assembly if the proposer were to explain the reasons as to why the motion is being made, as I should imagine that there are some in the Assembly who have not been paying quite so close attention as the proposer has to the business of the Court.
Mall
TNPer
Allow me to explain:Zyvetskistaahn:
- Someone appointed three people I've never heard of to handle an extremely complex and important request for review,
- The period for brief submission closed on January 3,
- Those people promised an answer by January 10 at the latest,
- One of them posted on January 19 saying that RL had delayed them but failed to say when they would have an answer,
- No one ever heard from them again,
- ???
- Profit!!!!
Barbarossistan
TNPer
The rules of the Regional Assembly do not seem to require a specific motion to vote, since the rules leave much discretion to the speaker the speaker could arguably request such a motion before scheduling a vote unless the speaker chooses to schedule the vote of his own volition as the rules permit at any time.
I hereby motion that the proposal in the opening post as later motivated by the proposer be scheduled for a vote as soon as possible and request of the speaker that he schedules this vote.
I hereby motion that the proposal in the opening post as later motivated by the proposer be scheduled for a vote as soon as possible and request of the speaker that he schedules this vote.
Barbarossistan
TNPer
now all we need is a request for review on vote scheduling or something like that and we will have a true legal and bureaucratic monstrosity
I object to the Speaker's decision to schedule a vote. Exactly zero time has been set aside for discussion on this matter. A rush to vote is unnecessarily hasty and does not do justice to the gravity of a recall motion.
Barbarossistan
TNPer
4 days to go until the vote begins and a good discussion may draw additional objections. To kick it of, a pro and con of the motion to recall:
pro: its the only obvious way to do something as te court is missing its own timeline and there is no indication when something might happen
con: we are in uncharted legal territory here and this measure if successful may very well result in further delays as new THO's need to be found, they then need time to prepare etc, so taking our chances on the current slate may well be better and quicker
pro: its the only obvious way to do something as te court is missing its own timeline and there is no indication when something might happen
con: we are in uncharted legal territory here and this measure if successful may very well result in further delays as new THO's need to be found, they then need time to prepare etc, so taking our chances on the current slate may well be better and quicker
To add my own reasoning, I strongly disagree that it's at all appropriate for the RA to throw a fit at this point.
Court decisions take time, even in the best circumstances, and RL matters can always come up (and often do). The Court endeavors to have a response within a certain amount of time, but it very very frequently takes longer than hoped for.
I was curious, so I did some digging. It has been 29 days since the request was made, on December 24th. The THOs were appointed on 12/28. So they have reasonably had 25 days to work on this so far, if we include the time for brief submission in their possible deliberation period.
On average, reviews have taken about 29 days for a decision to be rendered. This has a huge amount of variation - as low as 1-3 days, for some straightforward and urgent election-related questions (such as "should the ECs restart voting if a candidate's name is left off the ballot"), and as much as 110-113 days for a couple highly complex cases (like FOIA, or whether to strip citizenship from someone who hadn't committed a crime). The median of this list is 19 days - less than they've taken, sure, but not by a ton. And they're still in good company, with a bit over a third of all cases taking longer than 25 days to decide. Add in that they're dealing with a) a complex issue (the legality of a ruling that was issued) that has an impact on b) a second complex issue (the legality of the court accepting a request), and it's not at all surprising that they need some time to consider the facts. I'd be far more alarmed if they took no time at all to render their verdict. Rushed rulings are sloppy ones, and sloppy rulings lead to messy loopholes and legislative overrides.
Moreover, this recall is clearly just an attempt by a known rabblerouser to throw the Court into more disarray. It is concern trolling, not genuine fear for the state of the Court. If this slate of THOs were recalled, a whole new set of three would need to be appointed, and they would need to begin considering this issue from scratch once again - resulting in further delays to the actual ruling being sought. This fact belies the claim that the recall is being sought for any positive purpose.
This is a completely inappropriate circumstance in which to call for a recall. Let the Court do its job.
Court decisions take time, even in the best circumstances, and RL matters can always come up (and often do). The Court endeavors to have a response within a certain amount of time, but it very very frequently takes longer than hoped for.
I was curious, so I did some digging. It has been 29 days since the request was made, on December 24th. The THOs were appointed on 12/28. So they have reasonably had 25 days to work on this so far, if we include the time for brief submission in their possible deliberation period.
On average, reviews have taken about 29 days for a decision to be rendered. This has a huge amount of variation - as low as 1-3 days, for some straightforward and urgent election-related questions (such as "should the ECs restart voting if a candidate's name is left off the ballot"), and as much as 110-113 days for a couple highly complex cases (like FOIA, or whether to strip citizenship from someone who hadn't committed a crime). The median of this list is 19 days - less than they've taken, sure, but not by a ton. And they're still in good company, with a bit over a third of all cases taking longer than 25 days to decide. Add in that they're dealing with a) a complex issue (the legality of a ruling that was issued) that has an impact on b) a second complex issue (the legality of the court accepting a request), and it's not at all surprising that they need some time to consider the facts. I'd be far more alarmed if they took no time at all to render their verdict. Rushed rulings are sloppy ones, and sloppy rulings lead to messy loopholes and legislative overrides.
Moreover, this recall is clearly just an attempt by a known rabblerouser to throw the Court into more disarray. It is concern trolling, not genuine fear for the state of the Court. If this slate of THOs were recalled, a whole new set of three would need to be appointed, and they would need to begin considering this issue from scratch once again - resulting in further delays to the actual ruling being sought. This fact belies the claim that the recall is being sought for any positive purpose.
This is a completely inappropriate circumstance in which to call for a recall. Let the Court do its job.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
And thus typical of politics in TNP.SillyString:
I agree whole-heartedly.
Barbarossistan
TNPer
TNP has amazingly realistic politics I suppose.Romanoffia:
After hearing the 100% reasonable perspectives from the individuals involved, I withdraw my second.
I support keeping the discussion open for a longer time (Court stuff should ALWAYS be placed under public scrutiny) but the vote is too fast and whether the matter should be voted on at all is undecidedly questionable.
I support keeping the discussion open for a longer time (Court stuff should ALWAYS be placed under public scrutiny) but the vote is too fast and whether the matter should be voted on at all is undecidedly questionable.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I object.
Mall
TNPer
tl;dr to all the objections: "Our Court has a history, nay a Tradition! of sucking, and so we are understanding when the Court lies to us about timelines and whatnot. That is expected here in TNP, and to attempt to change the culture of incompetence is to strike at the very core of the region."
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Yeah, but at least here, no one loses 50,000 emails or hacks anyone's servers.Barbarossistan:
Barbarossistan
TNPer
thats just what they want you to thinkRomanoffia:Yeah, but at least here, no one loses 50,000 emails or hacks anyone's servers.Barbarossistan:
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Perhaps the THOs should update their timeline or provide an ETA (I assume if they are logging in at all, they will surely be checking this thread) 
. That would help to make the assembly more understanding of the radio silence so far.
. That would help to make the assembly more understanding of the radio silence so far.
In the event that the RA decides to vote on the recall of multiple officials, there should be separate motions and a separate vote for each officer.
IMO a recall at this point is premature. Has anyone tried to contact them? If so, what did they say? If not, why not?
IMO a recall at this point is premature. Has anyone tried to contact them? If so, what did they say? If not, why not?
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
Fnord!Barbarossistan:thats just what they want you to thinkRomanoffia:Yeah, but at least here, no one loses 50,000 emails or hacks anyone's servers.Barbarossistan:
Clean Land
TNPer
I messaged the THO's about them missing their self-designated deadline.
Two of them replied.
One of them said "Very soon".
That was seven days ago.
Cogoria posted in the thread then, once.
And then further questions did not get answered.
The THOs missed their self-imposed deadline by a mile.
The THOs have not answered questions for five days.
I move: Sasten shall be recalled as Temporary Hearing Officer, due to missing a court-imposed deadline on ruling timing.
I move: Owenstacey shall be recalled as Temporary Hearing Officer, due to missing a court-imposed deadline on ruling timing.
I move: Cogoria shall be recalled as Temporary Hearing Officer, due to missing a court-imposed deadline on ruling timing.
- Discord
- COE#7110
I would like to know what, if any, progress has been made to date on the ruling. Have the THO's discussed the questions their ruling will address? Have they come to a preliminary agreement on the basic content of the ruling, or are there still differences of opinion to be worked out? Has a draft been written?
In other words, I'm less interested in the reasons for the delay, and more interested in knowing that work is being done. As long as steady progress is being made, I don't mind waiting longer, because under those circumstances, appointing a new slate of THOs and starting from scratch would delay the ruling further than allowing the current appointees to continue their work.
If, however, the THOs cannot or do not provide assurance that such work is underway, I would support a recall.
In other words, I'm less interested in the reasons for the delay, and more interested in knowing that work is being done. As long as steady progress is being made, I don't mind waiting longer, because under those circumstances, appointing a new slate of THOs and starting from scratch would delay the ruling further than allowing the current appointees to continue their work.
If, however, the THOs cannot or do not provide assurance that such work is underway, I would support a recall.
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
If I may, as Chief Justice, intervene briefly to note that it is not wholly correct to say that the deadline was "self-imposed". The deadline of seven days is contained in the Rules which the Court has chosen to adopt. It would have, strictly speaking, operated on the panel whether or not they had expressly noted it in the thread, so they did not take on anything themselves in this regard.Clean Land:
I should also note (as was earlier noted by SillyString), the rule is not formulated in a strict manner, rather "[t]he Court will endeavor to deliver an opinion answering the request for review within seven days after the end of the period for submitting briefs" is the formulation of the rule, so it is not even necessarily the case that the THOs have failed to meet it, provided they have done what they can to rule in seven days.
This is not to say that the Assembly cannot take the rule into account in making a decision of whether or not to recall a THO or a Justice, it is simply to make clear the nature of the rule.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
I support overriding the objections as moved by Mall
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Yes, I am moving for an immediate vote.
Clean Land
TNPer
I move for an immediate vote.
Barbarossistan
TNPer
Quorum is determined by the number of citizens who voted in at least one of the last three legislative votes. In one of the last 3 votes, the one about the security council amendment, there were 46 votes, so quorum cannot be less then 15 (when runding down) or 16 (rounding up). It is possible a third legislative vote is relevant with a higher number of votes cast but I could not find it on the voting floor.
Moreover, it is likely that some citizens voted in one but not not another of the last three legislative votes. By the text of the relevant statute, the number of citiens who voted in at least one of the last vtes should be added up to determine quorum.
I hereby request that the speaker propery determine the valid quorum based on the number of citizens who voted in at least one of the last 3 legislative votes. I also request that the speaker announce the resulting quorum in this thread.
Moreover, it is likely that some citizens voted in one but not not another of the last three legislative votes. By the text of the relevant statute, the number of citiens who voted in at least one of the last vtes should be added up to determine quorum.
I hereby request that the speaker propery determine the valid quorum based on the number of citizens who voted in at least one of the last 3 legislative votes. I also request that the speaker announce the resulting quorum in this thread.