At least it wasn't a Sapient Legality Challe-
Crap, now that is gonna be a thing, isn't it?
Advertisement
by Excidium Planetis » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:03 am
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Snefaldia » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:38 am
by Araraukar » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:55 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Wallenburg » Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:04 am
Sciongrad wrote:Announcement:
The following is our procedure for hearing legality challenges.1. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why, along with relevant precedent.
2. The filing player must create a new [Legality Challenge] thread. GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses.
3. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:07 am
Wallenburg wrote:Sciongrad wrote:Announcement:
The following is our procedure for hearing legality challenges.1. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why, along with relevant precedent.
2. The filing player must create a new [Legality Challenge] thread. GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses.
3. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions.
A few questions:
1. We're expected to dig through years of forum posts to see if there is any legal precedent to our challenge now? That's rather excessive and unnecessary, don't you think?
2. Are we supposed to post that new thread on this subforum or the new GenSec one (which, at least for the moment, we cannot even see)? Because we're going to clutter up this one real quickly if we try to use the GA subforum.
by Araraukar » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:07 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:1. If you are using precedent to bolster your argument, we would like you to link to the ruling.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Glen-Rhodes » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:14 pm
Araraukar wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:1. If you are using precedent to bolster your argument, we would like you to link to the ruling.
Do we have to link even to the well-known ones, like how "human" rights means sapient rights? It was a mod ruling, but finding it to link to it is going to be a pain.
by Tinhampton » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:42 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:43 pm
Tinhampton wrote:Why is the "Secretariat" badge for members of the GAS/GenSec not the same colour as the colour of the Secretariat member names on the forums?
by Gruenberg » Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:56 pm
by Bears Armed » Fri Nov 04, 2016 5:10 am
Gruenberg wrote:That process looks reasonably straightforward.
If I can make two suggestions:
1. Once you start making rulings, make an archive of them. Like the mods' "rulings repository", except, actually up to date and used. The rulings repository also suffered because there were so many rulings not in it, whereas if you guys start from day 1, it'll be much easier to keep it up to date.
2. Ignore the moderator ruling banning precedents from the Jolt era. Given you're considering all previous precedents to be less-than-binding ("persuasive" was the phrase previously used), it doesn't matter if they're mixed in, and given you're putting responsibility on players to find evidence of previous precedents, those able to link to the Jolt archives can do so.
by Christian Democrats » Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:16 pm
Wallenburg wrote:A few questions:
1. We're expected to dig through years of forum posts to see if there is any legal precedent to our challenge now? That's rather excessive and unnecessary, don't you think?
Wallenburg wrote:2. Are we supposed to post that new thread on this subforum or the new GenSec one (which, at least for the moment, we cannot even see)? Because we're going to clutter up this one real quickly if we try to use the GA subforum.
Bears Armed wrote:Gruenberg wrote:If I can make two suggestions:
1. Once you start making rulings, make an archive of them. Like the mods' "rulings repository", except, actually up to date and used. The rulings repository also suffered because there were so many rulings not in it, whereas if you guys start from day 1, it'll be much easier to keep it up to date.
2. Ignore the moderator ruling banning precedents from the Jolt era. Given you're considering all previous precedents to be less-than-binding ("persuasive" was the phrase previously used), it doesn't matter if they're mixed in, and given you're putting responsibility on players to find evidence of previous precedents, those able to link to the Jolt archives can do so.
I agree that both of those suggestions make sense.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by States of Glory WA Office » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:48 pm
by Tinhampton » Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:21 pm
by Christian Democrats » Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:33 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:From now on, there will be a special tag for GA legality rulings. The flashing lights will be no more.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by States of Glory WA Office » Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:34 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:From now on, there will be a special tag for GA legality rulings. The flashing lights will be no more.
by Tinhampton » Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:46 pm
by Christian Democrats » Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:49 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by The WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmbulance » Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:55 pm
by Tinhampton » Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:56 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:48 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:56 pm
by Araraukar » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:58 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:council which initiates its own prosecutions without any kind of oversight, does so out of sight of everyone else
Glen-Rhodes wrote:We're about 5 hours into GenSec's first legality challenge. Maybe give it at least 6?
Gruenberg wrote:Postby Gruenberg » Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:53 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Glen-Rhodes » Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:03 pm
Araraukar wrote:That's more than 24 hours.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:If we are going to have these self-initiated prosecutions, it would be at least be more reasonable to only allow the Council to do self-started prosecutions if the member of the Council who proposes that prosecution is forced to recuse. Not doing so would be unreasonable: a judge is not allowed to make a decision if he believe the defendant is already guilty or liable, a juror is removed from the bench if he cannot make a fair decision.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Immerunia
Advertisement