The Crusader (Public Service Announcement)

[windjammer]

Btw, I will say it again.Changing the Labor rules was my decision, not a decision from Pericles. Did he benefit from my action? Of course. But he didn't have any involvement regarding that.

[windjammer]

For the record.

I don't really care about what the GM writes. I don't believe the Supreme Court can simulate fake trial for the following reason: Elon Musk doesn't exist in this game and for this reason it is impossible to represent fairly something that doesn't exist.

[windjammer]

For the record.

I don't really care about what the GM writes. I don't believe the Supreme Court can simulate fake trial for the following reason: Elon Musk doesn't exist in this game and for this reason it is impossible to represent fairly something that doesn't exist.

We have repeatedly recongized the existence of NPCs in this game, along with state and local governments, and for a year or so even simulated their elections. I think the correct view would be that if the GM Team says Elon Musk exists, then he does (and isn't our standard around real world events (i.e. twitter existing) that we assume they still happen if the GM doesn't say otherwise and our mechanics don't prevent it?). Obviously, Musk cannot represent himself within the context of this game, but certainly someone could be appointed to represent him.

I really have a lot of respect for NewYorkExpress activity. I have had the opportunity to interact with him on various things and I have always found him pleasant. My ruling isn't against his work.

However, it's one thing to take into account we are all having some personas. After all I would never be Chief Justice IRL as I don't have a law degree or whatever lol.

But in the end, I really believe that court cases have to respect the right of due process. The accused has the right to be represented by someone he wants. And this isn't possible to simulate that as Elon Musk isn't a poster.

I'm someone who is really laxist on "standing" etc but this is going too far for me. I can't host a mock trial with the accused person not even existing.

[windjammer]

For the record.

I don't really care about what the GM writes. I don't believe the Supreme Court can simulate fake trial for the following reason: Elon Musk doesn't exist in this game and for this reason it is impossible to represent fairly something that doesn't exist.

We have repeatedly recongized the existence of NPCs in this game, along with state and local governments, and for a year or so even simulated their elections. I think the correct view would be that if the GM Team says Elon Musk exists, then he does (and isn't our standard around real world events (i.e. twitter existing) that we assume they still happen if the GM doesn't say otherwise and our mechanics don't prevent it?). Obviously, Musk cannot represent himself within the context of this game, but certainly someone could be appointed to represent him.

I really have a lot of respect for NewYorkExpress activity. I have had the opportunity to interact with him on various things and I have always found him pleasant. My ruling isn't against his work.

However, it's one thing to take into account we are all having some personas. After all I would never be Chief Justice IRL as I don't have a law degree or whatever lol.

But in the end, I really believe that court cases have to respect the right of due process. The accused has the right to be represented by someone he wants. And this isn't possible to simulate that as Elon Musk isn't a poster.

I'm someone who is really laxist on "standing" etc but this is going too far for me. I can't host a mock trial with the accused person not even existing.

Theres literally no point in passing laws then if NPCs arent people. It nullifies pretty much every federal and regional law. You will take dumb cases where S019 says "I dont like the Souths abortion law therefore I can sue" and blow up 10 years worth of atlasian precedent to score a hack win in a hypothetical advisory opinion with no actual case, but an actual case arising from a federal law as applied to a person by a GM story, meh never ever judiciable ever. The law is therefore dead. Its ridiculous and ignores the clear mandatory language in the Constitution. Something tells me if we had charged an NPC with having an illegal abortion the Court would swoop in and demand we stop.

No worries. Judicial reform will resolve this.

I'm not being hypocritical about it. I believe that anyone who wants to sue should be able to sue and this is why I don't take into account "standing" like the IRL one. I have always encouraged this kind of things and I will continue to do so.

However, I'm not going to host a trial against someone who can defend himself as he doesn't exist. I don't believe that the GM has the power to create that. I'm not accusing NewYorkExpress of malpractice, however I remember very well how in the past some GMs went off board by killing the president, making terrorist attacks, etc etc. And that has to be taken into account.


Your personal vendetta against me is very ludicrous and I don't like your attitude at all. You're always sneaky, never be honest about your intentions and always trying to reach your goals by diverting attention. And you're really to screw up the entire judiciary court for reaching your vendetta goals. If you want to remove me from the Supreme Court it would be better that you simply try to impeach me from office instead of writing a constitutional amendment removing from office. But no, you prefer to divert attention by focusing on "term limits".

[windjammer]

I genuinely don't know you and I don't think WE really interacted

You're always sneaky, never be honest about your intentions and always trying to reach your goals by diverting attention.

Well yes,
We never interacted. That doesn't mean that I'm not aware of you writing long bills with poison pills stuff inside it.

[windjammer]

1. If we adopt that standard, we'd need to invalidate the numerous GM stories that talk about state and local officials, or simulate protests, or foreign governments/elections......NPCs are part of the core of this game.

I don't have to invalidate anything. My ruling isn't saying that the GM's work is unconstitutional or whatever.

2. If Reactionary's amendment succeeds, 2 of the new judges will be decided by a Senate in which most members are in a different party than R is (PPT is merely a procedural position with basically 0 power to block a nominee). A further 2 will be decided by regional legislatures in which he does not even have a vote. And of course the Lincoln judge hasn't been there long enough to be immediately affected by this. It's hardly a court that he will be personally designing. This is just about regular turnover and accountability so we don't have this elite class of people controlling the inner workings of the game despite the fact that most of them weren't chosen by currently active players.

Honestly I find it absolutely sh**t*y how this bill is just removing me from office instantly. I'm not even term limits. It is this clause that I find it absolutely appalling and an attack against my person.

[windjammer]

I dont need a long bill to hide the fact that I think someone remaining in the same position in this game for seven uninterrupted years is terrible sportsmanship and bad for the game. 2 year term limits with retention elections and mandatory juridiction are all great ideas to ensure we never have players break the court by camping for so long ever again.  The judicial reform proposals promote fun, fairness, and good order.

No you want me to remove it from office instantly. There are a ton of term limits things you could have written but you clearly specified I would be out the moment it would pass.

[windjammer]

I dont need a long bill to hide the fact that I think someone remaining in the same position in this game for seven uninterrupted years is terrible sportsmanship and bad for the game. 2 year term limits with retention elections and mandatory juridiction are all great ideas to ensure we never have players break the court by camping for so long ever again.  The judicial reform proposals promote fun, fairness, and good order.

No you want me to remove it from office instantly. There are a ton of term limits things you could have written but you clearly specified I would be out the moment it would pass.

Honestly it's just a concidence of you being the most senior member of the Court. I know I've said you should be impeached in the past on an unrelated manner, but I've come to realize that at the end of the day you're only 1 vote and the bigger issue is the court is simply not accountable to the populace, unless you're lucky enough to be in the right legislature at the right time. The amendment solves that.

Frankly,
I would support the legislation if it removes the "being removed from office instantly". I don't know you can write that for the most senior justice it expires in 6 months or whatever I would support be ok with that

[windjammer]

I dont need a long bill to hide the fact that I think someone remaining in the same position in this game for seven uninterrupted years is terrible sportsmanship and bad for the game. 2 year term limits with retention elections and mandatory juridiction are all great ideas to ensure we never have players break the court by camping for so long ever again.  The judicial reform proposals promote fun, fairness, and good order.

No you want me to remove it from office instantly. There are a ton of term limits things you could have written but you clearly specified I would be out the moment it would pass.

Honestly it's just a concidence of you being the most senior member of the Court. I know I've said you should be impeached in the past on an unrelated manner, but I've come to realize that at the end of the day you're only 1 vote and the bigger issue is the court is simply not accountable to the populace, unless you're lucky enough to be in the right legislature at the right time. The amendment solves that.

Frankly,
I would support the legislation if it removes the "being removed from office instantly". I don't know you can write that for the most senior justice it expires in 6 months or whatever I would support be ok with that

Id be willing to compromise to delay implementation say 60 days, but not 6 months. Why 6 months? You had over 6 years. Every 60 days seems reasonable.

Honestly?
This was just to be held during the mid year and beginning of next year. I prefer as well to be done after the end of the next presidential term. So the president elected in June would pick my replacement.

[windjammer]

Please explain me how I am being *outrageous* about having held this office for more than 6 years?

Your point is ing INSANE. You treat me like if I am some kind of bandit who stole something and has been keeping it from the rest of the population. I have always tried to act fairly when I was (and still am ) the chief justice of the supreme court.

It's furthermore not a coveted office at all. so please explain me how outrageous I am?


And believe me, my 6 months time out isn't for some kind of personal vanity. What change would that make that I stay 6 months more seriously? It's just I know the game and people are going to oppose this if they think the other party is certain to pick the nominee. It's better to take some large longtime period to avoid the "minority party" blocking this.


Honestly, I don't even need to take whatever deal with you. You're a senator out of 18 senators and I don't have to resign just because in your twisted mind you think I am some monstruosity.

I don't feel ashamed of my record.

And furthermore, this is YOUR ATTEMPT to immediately remove me from office that smells partisanship.

[windjammer]

I'm not sure this spat is all that helpful at this point.

At the end of the day I just want a court that is more in touch with the people and doesn't disregard important authorities like the GM Team. And I think a majority of the game agrees.

On an another note,
Doing all this drama because the court didn't grant certiorari about some imaginary twitter controversies is really RIDICULOUS.

[windjammer]

How many people being butthurt because of a certiorari denied to an imaginary trial about twitter and Elon Musk IS absolutely insane

[windjammer]

How many people being butthurt because of a certiorari denied to an imaginary trial about twitter and Elon Musk IS absolutely insane

Some people want to expand the potential of the judicial branch from a gameplay standpoint and you're stopping it. That's what it's about. And frankly, this is pretty mild considering how some people have acted over a game which is entirely imaginary.

And you don't think there are more important than that in your life?

[windjammer]

Retention elections and term limits designed to stop the creation of a perpetual class of oligarchs divorced from the people is anti-democracy?

Labor is the anti-democracy party because it wants to keep its Class of 2016 monopoly in power for literally life in a game where we are debating if Cao getting to serve for a full year is too long.

Judicial reform includes retention elections, reasonable term limits, and guarantees that some unelected royal class cant arbitrarily decide when and when not to do its only job. Turnover and voter participation make for a healthy game.

You're objectively hysterical because you have hidden purposes.


The Supreme Court is absolutely not partisan and this isn't some power grabs by Labor. After all many laborites wanted to impeach me because of the Louisville trial.


These offices are fundamentally for retired people who are semi active at best