[R4R] On whenever Status Updates are considered Posts


I don't know anymore.
1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

The rejection of @Advancia-Sizzletown 's citizenship by myself, a deputy speaker.

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

Section 6.2.19 of the Legal Code
19. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who, for over 30 consecutive days, neither post on the regional forum, nor post on the regional message board with their registered nations.

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

There are many R4R about the actions of the Speaker, be that the posibility of retraction by the Speaker for the actions of their deputies, to their powers and limitations. Among those we find On the Ability of the Speaker to Retract Citizenship , On the Speaker's Powers to Restrict the Format of Votes and On the Power of the Speaker to Direct Deputy Speakers . All of these are rulings about the actions of the Speaker's office and their scope, and delimitation of such, just as what we week to find out here.

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.

I was the member of the Speaker's Office that processed @Advancia-Sizzletown 's citizenship rejection by the management of the scripted spreadsheet.

5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.

To know whenever a simple profile update would count as a post in the regional forum or if it doesn't is of essential interest for the region, most importantly because of how the Speaker's Office works. We have an automatic script that shows us when the criteria are not met to mantain citizenship, and Advancia-Sizzletown's case was pointed out by the script as having not fulfilled this need of post within 30 consecutive days. They had, however, updated their profile status.

If the case of this profile update out of the scope of the posting requirement, it'd mean that the script will need to be updated and improve such thing

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?

None. I thank the court of their time.

Sil Dorsett

0.00 g/dL
The request is denied

In [R4R] On Standing and the Definition of Affected Party, the Court established that "The affected party must detail in their review request the rights they perceive have been violated and/or the laws put asunder showing a clear connection between the law and how they are personally affected in the situation." The petitioner does not have the standing to bring the case forward as they were the one to perform the action in question and not the one affected by said action.

The resident that was affected by the removal of citizenship simply reapplied for citizenship to resolve the matter. There is also nothing preventing a review initiated by the resident affected by the removal of citizenship should they believe that the Speaker's office violated their rights. Therefore, the Court does not find sufficient regional interest to overrule the lack of standing.