View Topic

I agree with Chanku, although I should probably point out that we're going to have to get started with judicial reform anyway, so perhaps we should do that now, and come back to this later. I understand we're itching to do something about the situation in Lazarus, but let's cover our legislation first.

I'm in favour of giving the monarch the exclusive authority to be the court anyway, and then if he so chooses, to appoint a judge to represent him. Basically what I'm saying is that the monarch could approach a court system at his own discretion, but a system of precedent should probably play a part.

I do agree that we need to fix our judicial system and figure that part out before we agree to vote on something incorporating it.  However, I do also think that the Lazarus situation should be voted upon in some way since it's something that's still highly important and shouldn't be brushed aside for us to tackle something else.

All things considered, the fact that my Judicial system lasted this long is rather an achievement (although Mootles' endorsement of it must have helped a lot) I feel :p what sort of amendments would you be making?

In regards to the OP - I have no interest in IG happenings beyond what I'm required to have, but this does seem to have been an act in poor faith. Hmm.

what sort of amendments would you be making?

That would be the million dollar question, since nobody can seem to agree on the best approach for our Judicial system.

However, I am interested to see what it'll be like with this term of UH representatives.  Perhaps we'll finally be able to agree on something. 

That would be the million dollar question, since nobody can seem to agree on the best approach for our Judicial system.

If no one can decide on how to 'fix' the pre-existing system, perhaps it's not broken in the first place


That being said I designed the Judicial Offices Act with a certain role in mind and then never went on with the necessary follow-on acts due to inactivity. I'll see if I can make it make a little more sense, as at heart the system itself is based on a merger of the 10 top-ranking (efficiency) judicial systems in the world (the benefits of my job, eh).

That would be the million dollar question, since nobody can seem to agree on the best approach for our Judicial system.

If no one can decide on how to 'fix' the pre-existing system, perhaps it's not broken in the first place


That being said I designed the Judicial Offices Act with a certain role in mind and then never went on with the necessary follow-on acts due to inactivity. I'll see if I can make it make a little more sense, as at heart the system itself is based on a merger of the 10 top-ranking (efficiency) judicial systems in the world (the benefits of my job, eh).

Well that explains a lot.

Also um, Weissreich there is an issue with your system itself, and that is that:

1) The one that brought the case can't even present their side of the story

2) The Judicial System, as defined in Article III, is only for Civil Issues, Everything else is handled by the Storting itself, as per sections 15 and 16 of Article I

He did say there were issues with it that he never fixed due to inactivity.  It's more than likely that your first observation was a specific one that was accidentally neglected. 

Seeing that the debate on the judicial system has raged on for ten months, I don't think it would wise to make the resolution of that debate a prerequisite to proceeding with this one.

True. Perhaps a new law should be made that in Gameplay emergencies, the monarch can handle violators of these types of laws, once an agreement has been met that a situation qualifies as this type of emergency. What this tries to accomplish is give the monarch the necessary power to deal with situations like these, without the judicial system interfering, and perhaps more importantly, without there potentially being interference in other areas of the judicial system from the monarch.

What counts as a Gameplay Emergency, and who gets to determine when one begins and ends? That would have to be clearly defined.

Anything involving R/D, where either we or a direct ally are involved, which has far-reaching implications across the NS world. So pretty much what the Lazarus issue is.

And let us also then say that any issue involving a GCR qualifies as important.

Also um, Weissreich there is an issue with your system itself, and that is that:

1) The one that brought the case can't even present their side of the story

2) The Judicial System, as defined in Article III, is only for Civil Issues, Everything else is handled by the Storting itself, as per sections 15 and 16 of Article I

1) They can, and in fact have ample opportunity within the law to post their responses and defence.
2) As far as I'm aware, no-one got around to drafting the Code of Civil Law the Act was supposed to draw from, so that's not an inherent issue within the system itself.

I would again urge everyone to focus on the matter at hand and not on the long-running judicial debate, which can and quite frankly should be taken elsewhere.

I agree with this.  What matters right now is getting feedback on this current topic and going about this the best way that we can.  Other matters like our Judicial system will come into play elsewhere, I'm sure.

How does the recent overthrow of the NLO affect this current discussion?