- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by SillyString on on the ability of the Court to review RA proposals
Opinion drafted by Abbey, joined by Plembobria and Yalkan
The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by [[name]].
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by [[name]].
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of [[other document or referenced text]]:
The Court opines the following:
It is the opinion of the Court that the Court's actions in this case are not reviewable. This is because the Court believes that only in exceptional circumstances, in the case of a particularly severe breach, can the Court's actions be reviewed. This is in order to protect the Court, which is necessary due to the fact that TNP has only a single court and no sophisticated appeals system. As as happened here, reviews of Court actions hold up other requests - and it is conceivable that a particularly litigious AG, or group of citizens that can contrive standing in all the matters brought up, could lead you to have a deep "stack" of Court reviews, with the first only being reviewed after many weeks of supplementary reviews being resolved. This would be a bad thing, and is the reason why this Court will not rule that all Court actions are reviewable. The Court's time cannot afford to be held up with overly litigious requests for reviews of its own actions, necessitating the recruitment of THOs and eventually, the pool of people willing and able to serve as a THO will dry up.
Given the above determination, this request for review would not have been accepted had it been made after this ruling. Therefore the Court has not continued to consider the matter of the ability of the Court to rule on RA matters.
Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by SillyString on on the ability of the Court to review RA proposals
Opinion drafted by Abbey, joined by Plembobria
The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by SillyString.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Clean Land.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Zyvetskistaahn.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Barbarossistan.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the ruling on Standing and the Definition of Affected Party:
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the ruling on the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court's Powers:
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the ruling on Judicial Recusals:
The Court opines the following:
It is the opinion of the Court that the Court's actions in this case are not reviewable. This is because the Court believes that only in exceptional circumstances, in the case of a particularly severe breach, can the Court's actions be reviewed. This is in order to protect the Court, which is necessary due to the fact that TNP has only a single court and no sophisticated appeals system. As happened here, reviews of Court actions hold up other requests - and it is conceivable that a particularly litigious AG, or group of citizens that can contrive standing in all the matters brought up, could lead you to have a deep "stack" of Court reviews, with the first only being reviewed after many weeks of supplementary reviews being resolved. This would be a bad thing, and is the reason why this Court will not rule that all Court actions are reviewable. The Court's time cannot afford to be held up with overly litigious requests for reviews of its own actions, necessitating the recruitment of THOs and eventually, the pool of people willing and able to serve as a THO will dry up.
Considering the precedent, for instance the ruling on Judicial Recusals as well as the ruling on the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court's Powers, these both make clear (either through actions or words) that the Court is reviewable. This ruling does not change that, it simply sets a high standard for that review being possible.
Therefore, this court determines that requests for review can only be reviewed themselves in exceptional circumstances when all routes of appeal have been exhausted. This ruling does not apply to criminal cases.
Given the above determination, this request for review would not have been accepted had it been made after this ruling. Therefore the Court has not continued to consider the matter of the ability of the Court to rule on RA matters.
OK, here's the final draft, including formatting and proofreading. Please post here to indicate your final approval.
Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by SillyString on Court Review of RA Proposals
Opinion drafted by Crushing Our Enemies, joined by Lord Lore and Sil Dorsett
The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by SillyString.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by SillyString.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Clean Land.
The Court took into consideration the legal briefs filed here and here by Zyvetskistaahn.
The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Barbarossistan.
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Constitution of The North Pacific:
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court ruling "On the Validity of a Previous Ruling":Constitution:
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court ruling "On the Nature of Precedent and the Scope of the Court's Powers":
The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Court ruling on Standing and the Definition of Affected Party:
The Court opines the following:
The Court is in the unusual position of ruling for a second time on a single request for review. In the most recently published court ruling "On the validity of a previous ruling", the Court's original ruling on this request was wholly overturned, and it has been ordered that the request be reconsidered. In the same ruling, it was determined that a review of a court action is warranted "whenever there is the possibility that the court was not in compliance with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Legal Code." Since, in this situation, the petitioner cites portions of the Consitution and Bill of Rights that may have plausibly been violated by the court action being reviewed, the court must rule on the question.
The Court finds that Justice Scorch's action in accepting the request for review filed by Lord Ravenclaw on November 28, 2017 violates Article 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution, because the object of the request (namely, a proposal before the Regional Assembly) is neither a law, a goverment policy, nor a government action.
The ability to make a proposal to the Regional Assembly is afforded to every citizen in The North Pacific, and thus, when a citizen makes such a proposal, they are not acting as a government official, but as a private citizen. Even if they were to hold a government office at the time they make a proposal, they cannot be considered to be acting in their capacity as a government official. Exceptions may possibly be made for situations in which the ability to make certain proposals is restricted to government officials (e.g. the Delegate proposing a treaty, or the Vice Delegate presenting the Security Council's nomination of a potential new member). In all other cases, however, making a proposal is not considered an action made by a government official.
Furthermore, a proposal before the RA cannot be considered a law or a government policy until it is enacted. The Court is a reactive body, and both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution Article 5, Clause 1 preclude the Court from ruling on something that hasn't actually happened yet, such as potential violation of rights that might be done if a proposal becomes a law.
This decision does not apply solely to requests to review proposals of the Regional Assembly. More broadly, the Court finds that justices are prohibited by the Constitution from accepting a request for review of anything that is not a law, government policy, or government action. When a justice does so, the Court ought to find in their ruling that the object of the request is not within the scope of their review power, and decline to rule on it. To streamline this process, it may be adviseable for the Court to amend the Court Rules and Procedures to allow the Attorney General to appeal decisions of an individual justice to the full Court in a request for review. Currently, only the petitioner has the power to appeal, and they would naturally be disinterested in appealing a decision to accept the request that they themselves have made.
In this particular case, since Lord Ravenclaw has withdrawn their request, no further action by the Court is required to correct the situation.
Cool. Posted. I can copy the discord logs to this thread when I get home, if no one beats me to it.
EDIT:[12:57 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I have decided to reopen the briefs submissions I don't know if anyone will submit at this point but since we all have busy schedules it will give us a chance to give us a chance to get our feet on the ground and we need to be mindful of setting precedent being in these uncharted waters
[1:00 PM] COE: I'm sure Zyvet will
[1:00 PM] Sil Dorsett: I'm sure they'll be going after the last decision
[1:01 PM] COE: He'll submit a treatise on the folly of the prior decision that will make a college epistemology class look like blocks day in preschool
[1:02 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Im just hoping the next one has citing in the brief and is broken up into more paragraphs instead of a block essay
[1:04 PM] Sil Dorsett: thing is this reopened r4r shouldn't be a review of the last decision (if they wanted to do that, why didn't Scorch ask me to recuse myself?)
[1:06 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: If it is tried then we have the prerogative to deny the brief submitted as out of the bounds of the R4R
[1:07 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I reopened it until the start of next week
[1:07 PM] COE: So this is a reconsideration of Sillystring's original question. However, we are bound by the precedent set in Sil's ruling, and by the precedent set in Abbey's ruling (but only to the extent that it has not been explicitly overturned by sil's ruling)
[1:08 PM] COE: So briefs that concern how we should be interpreting and applying precedents set by either of those are still relevant
[1:09 PM] COE: The bottom line is that this is not a new request for review so we don't have the power to overturn any part of the prior ruling that Sil's panel hasn't already overturned
[1:10 PM] COE: So there's an open question as to whether Abbey's ruling has been overturned in part or in whole
[1:11 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I would argue it has been repealed in whole. Given that the foundational block of the whole decision was found invalid
[1:13 PM] COE: I'm not so sure. Sil's ruling appears to affirm that the Court's actions are only reviewable in certain circumstances. Conveniently, Sil is on this panel too, to resolve such questions authoritatively
[1:13 PM] Sil Dorsett: after I'm done with work, I'm going to review the abbey discord chat. I only skimmed over it, but first glance it seemed like Abbey was trying to stop stacking r4rs
[1:15 PM] Sil Dorsett: well, one of the circumstances listed was violation of the legal code. SS's question is did the Court violate the legal code
[1:15 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: It strikes me very unnerving that they even tried to think of a reason why the R4R was invalid on standing
[2:40 PM] Sil Dorsett: I just realized exactly how Zyvet is going to attack my previous ruling. He's going to use my own ruling to say that under that precedent Abbey's ruling should not have been reviewed, a duplicate of what Abbey said before.
[2:41 PM] Sil Dorsett: or at least that the only way we could have ruled against Abbey was to find the ruling to have been sua sponte
[3:09 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I disagree. After rereading the relevant materials the entirely of the decision made by Abbey and Plembobria is based on the idea of exceptional circumstances. And with that being an invalid reasoning I can not find any legal reasoning to issue a new ruling that the Court isn't reviewable and that the Court needs to be Protected
[3:13 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I would also argue that the previous ruling itself gives cover to this. Since what other avenue of appeal is there? It literally says it is only acceptable to review the courts actions when all other forms of appeal are exhausted, but as the ruling itself points out there is no appeals court. Contradicting itself
[3:20 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: As it is the only avenue of appeal and with exceptional circumstances taken out of the equation and no other legal justification, to make a definitive ruling on the matter would meet the standards set by the previous ruling.
[5:06 PM] COE: Let's not get too deep in the weeds. The ruling should stay focused on the question of whether the court broke the law by accepting a request to review an RA proposal
[5:09 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Yeah, so it might be a good idea to discuss where each of us stand on the R4R
[6:13 PM] Sil Dorsett: My initial impression is that SillyString has it right. A proposal is just a proposal, it's not an action until the speaker certifies that the Regional Assembly passed it and it becomes effective. Lord Ravenclaw would have been affected if the proposal passed, but at the time he submitted the R4R he was not. So either it was a bad call because it did not meet the criteria of what the court is permitted to review, or because Lord Ravenclaw was not an affected party (at that time, and still isn't today).
[6:14 PM] Sil Dorsett: My opinion is that if Lord Ravenclaw would have waited until the Speaker certified the vote, and if it passed, then he could bring it up to the courts.
[6:28 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I'm inclined towards that position largely cuz you can only argue one government action and that was when the speaker themselves tabled a vote. But that isnt even what was described in the original request only the proposal itself
[6:30 PM] COE: I'll need some time to organize my thoughts but I an envisioning that being a key point of the final opinion
[6:30 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Going into work be back later
[6:30 PM] Sil Dorsett: I still need time to review briefs, because I need to be sure my thoughts hold up to precedent.
[6:35 PM] COE: A major concern of mine is that we rule in such a way that we explicitly head off further challenges
[6:36 PM] COE: In other words, there should be no question that our ruling is legal
[11:19 PM] COE: My schedule is pretty tight over the next few days. The next time I'd really be available to focus on hashing out this ruling with you guys is on the 18th, when I'm pretty much wide open
[11:20 PM] COE: I figure it'll probably take about an hour and a half to agree on what the content and basic structure of the ruling should be
[11:20 PM] COE: Here's a doodle: https://doodle.com/poll/2p6hkd4zdt26gekd
Doodle: Hash out Ruling
Doodle radically simplifies the process of scheduling events, meetings, appointments, etc. Herding cats gets 2x faster with Doodle. For free!
[11:20 PM] COE: I think if we can all put our heads together for 90 minutes that day, we'll be in a really good spot for one of us to write a draft
[11:21 PM] COE: And we'll probably be able to do the rest of the process on the forum
[11:21 PM] Sil Dorsett: ouch. that's the day I fly out to Vegas. I'll see what things are like that day. i think the onlly other event is some dinner that night.
[11:22 PM] COE: Nuts. Well, if none of the options on the doodle work for you, I can add some limited options during the following week
[11:28 PM] COE: There, I've added in my evening availability for mon-wed. I've marked "if need be" for monday cause I have a thing, but I can get out of it if it's the only time that works
[11:29 PM] Sil Dorsett: I've marked times on Sunday where I think I'll just be in my hotel room.
[2:40 AM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Marked off the time I will be available
[8:00 AM] COE: Ok, sounds like something in the 2:30 - 4:30 pm window (eastern US) is the only time that works for all three. @Sil Dorsett you're accounting for any time change due to your travel, right?
[8:15 AM] Sil Dorsett: correct. that'll be 11:30 pacific, and [redacted].
[8:27 AM] COE: Ok, sounds like a plan
[6:52 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Well it happened. A brief got submitted
[6:58 PM] Sil Dorsett: Were you surprised? Zyvet follows through.
[6:59 PM] COE: His basic argument seems to be that since the court has already ruled on this question, we are bound to rule the exact same way by the precedent they set(edited)
[7:00 PM] Sil Dorsett: additionally, that there needs to be no legal alternative before overruling precedent
[7:00 PM] COE: Yeah, not sure where he got that.
[7:01 PM] Sil Dorsett: From Gaspo's ruling On the Nature of Precedent: "Should it come to pass that precedent must be overturned, this Court believes that that decision must only be made after all legal alternatives have been examined, and must be done in as transparent and explanatory a fashion as possible. "
[7:04 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I mean I still can't find any interpretation that the original ruling is based on any precedent, law, or anything based on the constitution/bill of rights
[10:56 AM] COE: @Lore, Architect of Pandemonium @Sil Dorsett just a reminder we're meeting about this in about 3 1/2 hours
[12:02 PM] Sil Dorsett: just touched down in LAS
[12:32 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: So.... Raven has pulled his original R4R that ours is based on. We must now also add a talking point about if that means ours is also canceled
[12:33 PM] COE: It totally doesn't mean that, because regardless of what happened afterward, the court accepted his request, and that acceptance is what is under review
[12:33 PM] COE: Like, that action still happened
[12:34 PM] COE: And even though it no longer affects anyone, our review was requested by the AG's office, so affected party is not a consideration
[12:34 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Yes, I am aware and the point just had to be raised by someone
[12:34 PM] COE: Cool
[1:21 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: The brief submission is now closed, and I made a brief statement about Raven's withdraw of the proposal that this request is based on and that we shall keep going forward
[1:21 PM] COE: k
[1:59 PM] Sil Dorsett: so, I might miss the planned time. Coworkers and I going to eat. keep going though. I'll review when I get a chance
[2:00 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I should still be here but I got called in a little early to work so I will have to be a little quicker then I normally would
[2:16 PM] COE: Alrighty
[2:24 PM] COE: @Sil Dorsett can you clarify in the ruling you issued, where it says "the ruling...is set aside" does that mean it's overturned in whole?
[2:24 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: ^ the whole sticking point
[2:33 PM] Sil Dorsett: overturned. didn't happen
[2:33 PM] COE: That simplifies things immensely
[2:34 PM] COE: We should reference in our ruling explicitly that Abbey's ruling has been formerly overturned by Sil's panel
[2:35 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Knowing that and in the context of the whole ruling. The interpretation I get is that the court is not out of order to issue a ruling to take no action but that the foundational argument that was used to justify the previous opinion was an invalid argument that was in conflict of the Constitution/Legal Code
[2:37 PM] COE: Yeah, it sounds like the court is allowed to accept a request and then decide that because of the answer to an ancillary question (like "should we have accepted this request?") they ultimately decline to answer the original question
[2:37 PM] COE: This makes sense, because decisions to accept a request for review are made by a single justice
[2:37 PM] COE: But in this case, the answer to the ancillary question "Should we have accepted this request?" was actually "YES" and so the ruling is overturned
[2:40 PM] COE: So, as Zyvet says, we're are bound to consider the question of whether this request actually demands an answer. But all we have to do is point to Sil's ruling where it says "whenever there is the possibility that the court was not in compliance with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Legal Code ... a review would be warranted."
[2:40 PM] COE: Because SillyString's request is on the grounds that the court's action to accept Raven's request is unconstitutional, it meets the standard to be reviewed.
[2:42 PM] COE: Well, I should say "Scorch's action" not "the court's action"
[2:49 PM] COE: So, if we're on the same page with how we justify answering the question at all, we can get on with answering the actual question :stuck_out_tongue:
[2:53 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I still cant find any justification that a proposal is a governmental policy
[2:53 PM] COE: I agree
[2:54 PM] COE: And further, I think it would be a violation of free speech rights to restrict citizens from making proposals that are unconstitutional or illegal
[2:54 PM] COE: I can cite the ruling that struck down the sedition law to support htat
[2:56 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I could see a way to argue that the speaker should screen for illegal proposals while scheduling votes but not for the act of drafting it in the first place
[2:56 PM] COE: I think that's entirely up to the speaker's discretion
[2:58 PM] COE: I think the speaker has the prerogative, as always, to end discussion if they think that allowing it to continue is not in the best interests of the region (such as when it has degenerated into a flame war, or when it's an obvious joke proposal, or when it's targeted at another citizen to annoy or embarrass them), and also has the prerogative not to schedule a vote on a proposal for any reason at all, since there are parliamentary overrides in place to counteract abuse of that power
[2:59 PM] COE: But the exact powers of the speaker with regard to illegal proposals is probably something we should avoid wading into
[2:59 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: But we of course cant touch that at all and it would just prompt more court action to do so
[3:00 PM] COE: So here's the real question: do we say "justices are not allowed to accept requests to review anything that's not a law, government policy, or action by a government offical" or do we say "IF a justice does accept such a request, the court should not answer the question"
[3:00 PM] COE: I'm inclined towards the first
[3:02 PM] COE: I like to keep things simple - if a request is accepted, it gets answered. I don't want to build in more escape routes for the court than necessary in that regard
[3:03 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Since that is what is clearly built into the law I think that it should be what is strengthens by this opinion
[3:04 PM] COE: Well, the law only discusses what the Court is allowed to rule on, it doesn't mention individual justices accepting requests
[3:05 PM] COE:
1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
[3:06 PM] COE: But I think the legal argument to be made is that justices are components of the court, and bound by all the same restrictions that the court is as a whole
[3:06 PM] COE: So if the court can't review something, the justice can't accept the request to review it
[3:17 PM] COE: OK, here's my basic outline of how the ruling should go. Let me know if you agree on all counts. I don't mind writing the draft if you want me to.
[3:17 PM] COE: 1. Abbey's ruling was overturned by Sil
2. The court's actions are reviewable in this situation because they may have violated the constitution
3. In fact, they did violate the constitution because an RA proposal is not a law, gov't policy, or gov't action
3a. Citizens making proposals before the RA are not acting as government officials, even if they hold a government office.
3b. Unless and until a proposal is passed, it cannot be a law or a policy. It must be in effect to be reviewable. The court does not issue advisory opinions.
4. More broadly, justices cannot accept any request for review if the subject of the request is not a law, gov't policy, or gov't action.
5. Since the petitioner has withdrawn the request to review the RA proposal in question, no further action on the part of the court is necessary.
[3:23 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I agree with all but the last. Should 5 be mentioning in the ruling?
[3:29 PM] COE: Well, ordinarily, we would conclude by specifying the actions to be taken to correct the unconstitutional action
[3:30 PM] COE: So for instance "The court is directed to dismiss the request for review and vacate its order to delay counting the vote on the RA proposal"
[3:30 PM] COE: But in this case, they've already done that
[3:30 PM] COE: Because the request was withdrawn, so I figured we'd just say that instead
[3:30 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Alright then I withdraw that statement and have no issue with the list at hand
COE pinned a message to this channel. See all the pins.Last Sunday at 3:31 PM
[3:31 PM] COE: OK, @Sil Dorsett can you take a look at the message I pinned? It's my proposed outline for the ruling
[3:31 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: You can start the drafting if you want, I could also start it but I wouldn't be back at my computer in a state of mind to do so until afternoon tomorrow
[3:32 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: (Going into work in a half hour for an 8 hour shift until 1am)
[3:32 PM] COE: Gotcha
[3:32 PM] COE: OK. I'd like to get a thumbs up from Sil before I start though, in case he has suggestions or changes
[3:33 PM] COE: But if he's not on in the next few hours, I can probably throw something together by tonight
[5:13 PM] Sil Dorsett: reviewing now
[5:22 PM] Sil Dorsett: looks fine to me. there is one thing in 3b. the court actually did issue an advisory opinion regarding punk d's conduct as AG. whether or not they were supposed to is up to debate, as that looked like a proactive action. perhaps because it was only advisory meant it didn't matter. a minor nitpick...
[6:10 PM] COE: I'll look into that. I remember that, but the laws have changed since then, and there may be some relevant precedent as well. Even so, this may be a good opportunity to clarify that
[9:15 PM] COE: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=10126006&t=9093693
Error
the home and government of region The North Pacific of the online game Nationstates
[1:24 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: So far I have no objections
[2:11 PM] COE: One thing I added that we didn't discuss was advice to the court that they allow the AG to appeal the decision on whether to accept a review, because currently appeals are only allowed by the petitioner
[2:12 PM] COE: Wanted to make sure both of you are on board with that, since I only thought of it as I was writing the draft
[4:27 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I really don't see any problem with it, the AG has automatic standing so it is a logical step to take
[6:04 PM] COE: Ok, just waiting for @Sil Dorsett to weigh in. I'll also need to proofread
[6:05 PM] COE: No rush though. This is only day 2 since briefs closed. We're making good time
[6:06 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: We could also follow rhe last timeline and buckle in for a good 4 months
[6:45 PM] COE: I assume Sil is busy on his trip
[6:46 PM] COE: But again, we're well ahead of schedule. I'd say let's try and have this wrapped up by seven days after briefs ended though - this coming Sunday
[6:47 PM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Probably he was at a convention for work
[2:22 AM] Sil Dorsett: I agree with the decision and will join it.
[2:30 AM] Sil Dorsett: I get that Zyvet analyzes and utilizes precedent intensely and probably more so than any other justice, but this is a case where the law itself is clear.
[8:23 AM] COE: Cool beans. I'll have the final version proofread and put into the template for final approval around 12 hours from now
[9:27 PM] COE: Final version posted
[9:27 PM] COE: (in special chambers)
[1:28 AM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: Doing a due diligence reading and then I will post my final opinion
[1:50 AM] Lore, Architect of Pandemonium: I reread it a few times and have officially posted my approval of the ruling
[2:15 AM] Sil Dorsett: posted approval. we're ready to deploy
Last edited: