- Pronouns
- Any/All
- TNP Nation
- Frances_Francis_the_First_of_Frances
- Discord
- Just_a_Lore
Times are in UTC -5 during Daylight Saving's Time. (EDT)
Note from Justice Lord Lore: Logs for this Term will be archived in two parts due to the Abandoning of Office by Justice Zyvetskistaahn and him holding ownership of the Group Chat requiring a secondary Group Chat.
March 12/18
[16:03] Zyvet: Hey, hey
Zyvet changed the channel name: Court Deliberations - March 2018 Term12/03/2018
[16:05] Zyvet: Recycled policies for this DM that I propose we adopt:
1. All logs that are relevant to a case or review before the court will be posted to the private chambers on the forum, and declassified per normal procedures.
2. All logs that are relevant to an official action by the court, such as updating court rules or declassifying records younger than one year, will be similarly posted and declassified.
3. These rules are retroactive, which is to say that if conversations here become relevant to a matter before the court, they will be posted on the forum, even if there was no relevant matter before the court at the time the conversation took place.
4. Private information, as defined by the Court rules, will be redacted when the log is posted on the forum.
[17:35] Scorch: I'm good with that.
[17:36] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Same here
[17:36] Zyvet: Wonderful
March 13/18
[06:20] Zyvet: @Lore, Architect of Pandemonium, can you see the Special Court Chambers, I can't remember if the Justice mask normally can or if it is wholly a function of the THO group?
If you can't then I'll add you to the THO group (presuming Scorch's permissions aren't changed to fit with those of the Chief Justice before I get chance to do so)
[06:28] Scorch: I don't think that the Justice mask allows you to see the chambers.
[07:40] Scorch: I'll make an announcement soon on being Cheif.
[07:41] Scorch: For the currently open r4r, I will leave it to you @Lore, Architect of Pandemonium since you are the only one not recused.
[09:14] Zyvet: Right. I have added you (Lore) to the THO group, so you ought to be able to see the Special Chambers in which is the thread for the reopened review (it is the same thread as was used by the panel originally)
[13:04] Scorch: @Lore, Architect of Pandemonium everything good now? I think you should be set up.
[13:05] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Yes I couldn't see it before and now I can
[13:05] Scorch: Good.
[13:05] Scorch: Just let me know when you appoint THOs so I can add them to the group.
[13:06] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I'm still searching and asking
[13:06] Scorch: Ok.
[16:17] Scorch: @Zyvet Who is in charge of the rulings page?
March 14/18
[00:20] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: For the sake of precident since we are in uncharted water, would you two mind reaffirming your recusal in the R4R just to preempt a possible challenge I could see someone making on the legality of appointing new THOs
[06:46] Scorch: @Lore, Architect of Pandemonium I have added Sil and COE to the THO group and will reaffirm my recusal later.
[09:27] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Thank you
[12:23] Zyvet: @Scorch, the Chief Justice as part of their discretionary purview (though one supposes the Court at large can adopt rules governing it)
[14:41] Scorch: Sorry, I meant which administrator is looking after it.
[16:53] Zyvet: r3n, I believe
[18:32] Scorch: Ok. Thanks.
[19:17] Scorch: Ok so this thread ( http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9035829 ) is over a year old.
Error
the home and government of region The North Pacific of the online game Nationstates
[19:17] Scorch: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9035829
Error
the home and government of region The North Pacific of the online game Nationstates
[19:17] Scorch: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9035829/1/
Error
the home and government of region The North Pacific of the online game Nationstates
[19:18] Scorch: My bad on the triple. The "error" was confusing me.
[19:19] Scorch: Are we going to finalize this or scrap it? I think with a little editing it could be useful but I want your guys' input.
[19:29] Scorch: Another thing. I talked with r3n about organizing the rulings and he said it would be easier for him if he could get an exact description on what we want to do. Should we let him see the grouping thread or do we just try and explain it to him?(edited)
[19:30] Scorch: Also, @Zyvet how do I add the most recent decision to the rulings page?
March 16/18
[17:23] Scorch: ...
[17:25] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Magic I assume
[17:36] Scorch:
[17:41] Scorch: @Zyvet I think I have figured it out.
[17:41] Scorch: I can add the ruling later when I get home.
[20:59] Scorch: Done. I might change the name though.
[21:00] Scorch: Still need thoughts on the "Depositions for Dummies" thread and organizing the rulings.
March 17/18
[00:25] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Keep it as is just give it a but give it a better name like "Fake Internet Depositions 102 by [author]"
[15:14] Scorch: Why don't you like the current name?
[17:00] Zyvet: @Scorch I would think it proper to omit "In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Barbarossistan", that used to be included on the rulings page but now the rulings page titles are just "On [topic]"
[17:03] Zyvet: Re: depositions, I've left it for a while as I had felt it may be useful but I don't have a particular desire to move it forward. Re: rulings page, I don't see that there would be a problem letting him see the thread itself
[17:04] Scorch: Ok. I'll edit the name of the ruling.
[17:06] Scorch: On the depositions thread I need to think on that one a little more.
[17:07] Scorch: On the rulings being grouped I will show the thread to him so he has a better idea of what we want.(edited)
[17:17] Scorch: I edited the title of the ruling.
March 18/18
[10:21] Scorch: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=10125751&t=9092500
Viewing Single Post From: Request for Review: the ability of the R...
the home and government of region The North Pacific of the online game Nationstates
[10:21] Scorch:
[10:21] Scorch: Ok so we need to go over what this does.
[10:23] Scorch: I believe that since the other r4r was originally filed by the AG's ofiice and it is reviewing a decision that was made it can still go on.
[10:24] Scorch: However, since this review is the one where we ordered the Speaker to not count, I believe that we must redact that order and end the r4r.
[10:25] Scorch: For this to be the way that this whole process kinda ends is so funny to me.
[14:12] Zyvet: Well, the other review is not a matter for us Have fun with that Lore
[14:13] Scorch: ^
[14:18] Zyvet: But, yes, my sense of it is that we ought acknowledge the withdrawal, vacate the order and, maybe, await the r4r challenging the way in which the Speaker has counted
[14:18] Scorch:
[14:19] Scorch: I'll post right now.
[14:20] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I abstain from any decision made
[14:27] Zyvet: It might be advisable to DM/PM Darc, though I doubt he will miss the order being vacated
[14:27] Scorch: I already shot him a DM.
[14:27] Zyvet: Wonderful(edited)
[14:27] Scorch: Uggggggggg
[14:28] Scorch: I just from this from COE
[14:28] Scorch: "During the proceedings of a matter before the Court, substantive appeals and requests which relate to that matter must be addressed before the proceedings can continue."
[14:28] Scorch:
[14:28] Zyvet: These proceedings are not continuing(edited)
[14:29] Scorch: He seems to think differently
[14:30] Zyvet: Then I look forward to his r4r
[14:30] Scorch: He believes it is an action and thus, we must wait until the other r4r is finished.
[14:32] Zyvet: If you are of a different view (to myself) then I would edit that post quickly, given that there is not a majority for it
[14:34] Scorch: No need. I share your view.
[14:38] Zyvet: In any event, I do not think that the rule could constitutionally sustain proceedings that lack an affected party, whether or not they expressly prohibited the Court from ending a proceeding, they cannot defeat that requirement(edited)
[14:40] Scorch: I would agree.
[14:42] Scorch: I'll let him know our opinion amd see what he says.
[14:45] Scorch: If he withdrew the request, is their even a request with which to continue?
[14:45] Scorch: If that makes any sense.
[14:46] Zyvet: Indeed
[14:58] Scorch: He shares our interpretation of the withdrawal but believes that since there was another r4r related to the withdrawn one, that we shouldn't have even addressed the withdrawal.
[14:58] Scorch: Until the other one was complete.
[15:01] Zyvet: I am not sure that works, if one considers it unconstitutional for the Court to engage in a review without an affected party, the Court should not get around that by ignoring that there isn't such a party any more
[15:01] Scorch: He isn't too worried about it.
[15:01] Scorch: He doesn't think it will make much of a difference either way.
[17:52] Scorch: Well, we have another r4r but I am for denying it.
[17:53] Scorch: The petitioner doesn't explicitly state what legal document or right has been breached.
[20:52] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I have no objections to a denial, serving as a deputy minister is not a right(edited)
[20:53] Scorch: All right. I'll wait until morning for Zyvet's response and if he doesn't give one, we have a majority so I will deny it either way.
March 19/18
[19:37] Zyvet: Given it has been withdrawn, it is neither here nor there, but I would have either denied or asked for elaboration as to how the removal is alleged to be unlawful
[19:37] Scorch:
March 22/18
[19:07] Zyvet: So, @Lore, Architect of Pandemonium have you had opportunity to consider the assorted rules amendments proposed?
[19:56] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I havent made a minute to sit down and look at them been a little busy this week I will have some free time when I get off of work
June 3/18
[14:55] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: @Scorch Since Zyvet is gone and is the primary of this group. Should we archive this early and start a new one?
[14:57] Scorch: That sounds fine to me. My computer has not been working recently so I might have trouble transfering the logs to the forum right now.
[14:57] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I can do it
Note from Justice Lord Lore: Logs for this Term will be archived in two parts due to the Abandoning of Office by Justice Zyvetskistaahn and him holding ownership of the Group Chat requiring a secondary Group Chat.
March 12/18
[16:03] Zyvet: Hey, hey
Zyvet changed the channel name: Court Deliberations - March 2018 Term12/03/2018
[16:05] Zyvet: Recycled policies for this DM that I propose we adopt:
1. All logs that are relevant to a case or review before the court will be posted to the private chambers on the forum, and declassified per normal procedures.
2. All logs that are relevant to an official action by the court, such as updating court rules or declassifying records younger than one year, will be similarly posted and declassified.
3. These rules are retroactive, which is to say that if conversations here become relevant to a matter before the court, they will be posted on the forum, even if there was no relevant matter before the court at the time the conversation took place.
4. Private information, as defined by the Court rules, will be redacted when the log is posted on the forum.
[17:35] Scorch: I'm good with that.
[17:36] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Same here
[17:36] Zyvet: Wonderful
March 13/18
[06:20] Zyvet: @Lore, Architect of Pandemonium, can you see the Special Court Chambers, I can't remember if the Justice mask normally can or if it is wholly a function of the THO group?
If you can't then I'll add you to the THO group (presuming Scorch's permissions aren't changed to fit with those of the Chief Justice before I get chance to do so)
[06:28] Scorch: I don't think that the Justice mask allows you to see the chambers.
[07:40] Scorch: I'll make an announcement soon on being Cheif.
[07:41] Scorch: For the currently open r4r, I will leave it to you @Lore, Architect of Pandemonium since you are the only one not recused.
[09:14] Zyvet: Right. I have added you (Lore) to the THO group, so you ought to be able to see the Special Chambers in which is the thread for the reopened review (it is the same thread as was used by the panel originally)
[13:04] Scorch: @Lore, Architect of Pandemonium everything good now? I think you should be set up.
[13:05] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Yes I couldn't see it before and now I can
[13:05] Scorch: Good.
[13:05] Scorch: Just let me know when you appoint THOs so I can add them to the group.
[13:06] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I'm still searching and asking
[13:06] Scorch: Ok.
[16:17] Scorch: @Zyvet Who is in charge of the rulings page?
March 14/18
[00:20] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: For the sake of precident since we are in uncharted water, would you two mind reaffirming your recusal in the R4R just to preempt a possible challenge I could see someone making on the legality of appointing new THOs
[06:46] Scorch: @Lore, Architect of Pandemonium I have added Sil and COE to the THO group and will reaffirm my recusal later.
[09:27] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Thank you
[12:23] Zyvet: @Scorch, the Chief Justice as part of their discretionary purview (though one supposes the Court at large can adopt rules governing it)
[14:41] Scorch: Sorry, I meant which administrator is looking after it.
[16:53] Zyvet: r3n, I believe
[18:32] Scorch: Ok. Thanks.
[19:17] Scorch: Ok so this thread ( http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9035829 ) is over a year old.
Error
the home and government of region The North Pacific of the online game Nationstates
[19:17] Scorch: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9035829
Error
the home and government of region The North Pacific of the online game Nationstates
[19:17] Scorch: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9035829/1/
Error
the home and government of region The North Pacific of the online game Nationstates
[19:18] Scorch: My bad on the triple. The "error" was confusing me.
[19:19] Scorch: Are we going to finalize this or scrap it? I think with a little editing it could be useful but I want your guys' input.
[19:29] Scorch: Another thing. I talked with r3n about organizing the rulings and he said it would be easier for him if he could get an exact description on what we want to do. Should we let him see the grouping thread or do we just try and explain it to him?(edited)
[19:30] Scorch: Also, @Zyvet how do I add the most recent decision to the rulings page?
March 16/18
[17:23] Scorch: ...
[17:25] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Magic I assume
[17:36] Scorch:
[17:41] Scorch: @Zyvet I think I have figured it out.
[17:41] Scorch: I can add the ruling later when I get home.
[20:59] Scorch: Done. I might change the name though.
[21:00] Scorch: Still need thoughts on the "Depositions for Dummies" thread and organizing the rulings.
March 17/18
[00:25] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Keep it as is just give it a but give it a better name like "Fake Internet Depositions 102 by [author]"
[15:14] Scorch: Why don't you like the current name?
[17:00] Zyvet: @Scorch I would think it proper to omit "In regards to the Judicial Inquiry filed by Barbarossistan", that used to be included on the rulings page but now the rulings page titles are just "On [topic]"
[17:03] Zyvet: Re: depositions, I've left it for a while as I had felt it may be useful but I don't have a particular desire to move it forward. Re: rulings page, I don't see that there would be a problem letting him see the thread itself
[17:04] Scorch: Ok. I'll edit the name of the ruling.
[17:06] Scorch: On the depositions thread I need to think on that one a little more.
[17:07] Scorch: On the rulings being grouped I will show the thread to him so he has a better idea of what we want.(edited)
[17:17] Scorch: I edited the title of the ruling.
March 18/18
[10:21] Scorch: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=10125751&t=9092500
Viewing Single Post From: Request for Review: the ability of the R...
the home and government of region The North Pacific of the online game Nationstates
[10:21] Scorch:
[10:21] Scorch: Ok so we need to go over what this does.
[10:23] Scorch: I believe that since the other r4r was originally filed by the AG's ofiice and it is reviewing a decision that was made it can still go on.
[10:24] Scorch: However, since this review is the one where we ordered the Speaker to not count, I believe that we must redact that order and end the r4r.
[10:25] Scorch: For this to be the way that this whole process kinda ends is so funny to me.
[14:12] Zyvet: Well, the other review is not a matter for us Have fun with that Lore
[14:13] Scorch: ^
[14:18] Zyvet: But, yes, my sense of it is that we ought acknowledge the withdrawal, vacate the order and, maybe, await the r4r challenging the way in which the Speaker has counted
[14:18] Scorch:
[14:19] Scorch: I'll post right now.
[14:20] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I abstain from any decision made
[14:27] Zyvet: It might be advisable to DM/PM Darc, though I doubt he will miss the order being vacated
[14:27] Scorch: I already shot him a DM.
[14:27] Zyvet: Wonderful(edited)
[14:27] Scorch: Uggggggggg
[14:28] Scorch: I just from this from COE
[14:28] Scorch: "During the proceedings of a matter before the Court, substantive appeals and requests which relate to that matter must be addressed before the proceedings can continue."
[14:28] Scorch:
[14:28] Zyvet: These proceedings are not continuing(edited)
[14:29] Scorch: He seems to think differently
[14:30] Zyvet: Then I look forward to his r4r
[14:30] Scorch: He believes it is an action and thus, we must wait until the other r4r is finished.
[14:32] Zyvet: If you are of a different view (to myself) then I would edit that post quickly, given that there is not a majority for it
[14:34] Scorch: No need. I share your view.
[14:38] Zyvet: In any event, I do not think that the rule could constitutionally sustain proceedings that lack an affected party, whether or not they expressly prohibited the Court from ending a proceeding, they cannot defeat that requirement(edited)
[14:40] Scorch: I would agree.
[14:42] Scorch: I'll let him know our opinion amd see what he says.
[14:45] Scorch: If he withdrew the request, is their even a request with which to continue?
[14:45] Scorch: If that makes any sense.
[14:46] Zyvet: Indeed
[14:58] Scorch: He shares our interpretation of the withdrawal but believes that since there was another r4r related to the withdrawn one, that we shouldn't have even addressed the withdrawal.
[14:58] Scorch: Until the other one was complete.
[15:01] Zyvet: I am not sure that works, if one considers it unconstitutional for the Court to engage in a review without an affected party, the Court should not get around that by ignoring that there isn't such a party any more
[15:01] Scorch: He isn't too worried about it.
[15:01] Scorch: He doesn't think it will make much of a difference either way.
[17:52] Scorch: Well, we have another r4r but I am for denying it.
[17:53] Scorch: The petitioner doesn't explicitly state what legal document or right has been breached.
[20:52] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I have no objections to a denial, serving as a deputy minister is not a right(edited)
[20:53] Scorch: All right. I'll wait until morning for Zyvet's response and if he doesn't give one, we have a majority so I will deny it either way.
March 19/18
[19:37] Zyvet: Given it has been withdrawn, it is neither here nor there, but I would have either denied or asked for elaboration as to how the removal is alleged to be unlawful
[19:37] Scorch:
March 22/18
[19:07] Zyvet: So, @Lore, Architect of Pandemonium have you had opportunity to consider the assorted rules amendments proposed?
[19:56] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I havent made a minute to sit down and look at them been a little busy this week I will have some free time when I get off of work
June 3/18
[14:55] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: @Scorch Since Zyvet is gone and is the primary of this group. Should we archive this early and start a new one?
[14:57] Scorch: That sounds fine to me. My computer has not been working recently so I might have trouble transfering the logs to the forum right now.
[14:57] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I can do it