Northeast Assembly Thread

[Sam Spade]

1) FWIW, I have a real big issue with the policy of deleting all posts made by posters defined as trolls (and creating such guidelines in the first place). 

2) I don't think it's successful because neither moderator or Dave Leip are on the board 24 hours a day and this encourages trolls to spam the boards during the times they aren't here because, well, they can get away with it.

3) Either you place a poster on mod review ("as a troll") such that legitimate posts get through but spamming is prevented or you ban the poster.

4) I think post moderation is becoming too overactive now because of the Post Moderation board, although it does make it easier to respond to complaints.  But seriously, should my post be deleted if I call NCYankee a schizophrenic or bipolar?  I don't think so, after all it is the truth and it's kinda funny too.

5) The reason why #1 and #4 are occurring is because Dave Leip refuses to engage in #3 and, as I have predicted and will continue to predict, most people will think him more unfair for engaging in #1 and #4 than if he had engaged in #3 to begin with.

6) Preventing moderators from deleting posts on these two boards is not the Supreme Court's responsibility which is why we denied your petition.

[Sam Spade]

FTR, I've been on mod review before and haven't done anything to warrant it again (or else I'd be on it, obviously).

While on mod review, I was able to get many racist posts approved that were deleted  by another mod later. So I'm not sure that system, is very worthwhile.

In other words, you're saying that you should be banned.  Gotcha.

[Sam Spade]

Nothing will happen, and you're irrelevant opinion won't be making an impact, thankfully, for the forum's sake. This place needs me.

Adios, muchachos, adios...

[Sam Spade]

Realpolitik full well knows how close that vote was at the CC, and I know that almost didn't sign the Constitution as a result (along with the right to bear arms, which was corrected later, as I suspected it would be).  It wasn't "slipped in".  I abstained from approving at the Regional level precisely because of it.

That being said, the simple fact is that, in my view, that amendment basically sends most attempts to regulate unionization out the window.

[Sam Spade]

Realpolitik full well knows how close that vote was at the CC, and I know that almost didn't sign the Constitution as a result (along with the right to bear arms, which was corrected later, as I suspected it would be).  It wasn't "slipped in".  I abstained from approving at the Regional level precisely because of it.

That being said, the simple fact is that, in my view, that amendment basically sends most attempts to regulate unionization out the window.

The problem is that "unionization" is a pretty meaningless term without a law defining what it is and how it occurs. If it is impossible for anyone to define unionization, unfair labor practices, rights of employees and employers, and subjects of bargaining, isn't the result anarchy?

No, it means that you know who holds the cards in all labor disputes within Atlasia.  Which should have been written into your GM scenario in the past, but has understandably been ignored (after all - who here really reads the Constitution).

Let me additionally point out that the previous statement that I made was rather glib and did not detail the whole situation, in my view.  While I would submit that any law which limited "the right to organize" would certainly be overturned, laws, for example, regulating the process of collective bargaining might be outside its scope so long as they don't infringe on the "right to organize", whatever that entails.

Of course, given who's on the Court right now, all I can suggest is "pass a law and see what happens."  And secondly, "good luck, you're going to need it"...

[Sam Spade]

Realpolitik full well knows how close that vote was at the CC, and I know that almost didn't sign the Constitution as a result (along with the right to bear arms, which was corrected later, as I suspected it would be).  It wasn't "slipped in".  I abstained from approving at the Regional level precisely because of it.

Litotes

Didn't know you were using it in "that way".  Makes complete sense now.

[Sam Spade]

No disagreements here.  I think putting it on a single page would be smart.

[Sam Spade]

My wild guess is that almost no one--maybe no one period--on this forum belongs to a union household, but that's another issue altogether.

In the NYC area, that would generally require me to engage in a certain amount of criminal activities I'd prefer not to. 

[Sam Spade]

FYI -

The Atlasian Supreme Court has overruled the CJO's decision to award damages for the strike.  The exact import of the opinion is unclear because the first opinion wasn't good enough - probably not sufficiently pro-union to the leftists who wrote the majority opinion, one of which commented on the law as it was written and ought have recused himself.

Stop acting paranoid.  If you want a justice to recuse himself, please tell us before the decision is made.  There is no set procedure for such an action, so bringing it up may actually cause us to make some rules.  Otherwise, nothing will ever happen.  We can't read minds.

Furthermore, I have tried to restrain the justice you mention from making such comments, but if you really find this problematic, you need to take the initiative.  I can only say "don't do this, or don't say that because something will happen."  I can't do anything else.  If nothing is done from outside the Court, nothing will ever happen.  Otherwise, stop whining (in addition to acting paranoid)

[Sam Spade]

The Atlasian Supreme Court has overruled the CJO's decision to award damages for the strike.  The exact import of the opinion is unclear because the first opinion wasn't good enough - probably not sufficiently pro-union to the leftists who wrote the majority opinion, one of which commented on the law as it was written and ought have recused himself.

I'm sorry for butting in here and I'm not going to speak about the decision itself.

However, if you think the court is dominated by the leftists, isn't it unwise to push forward in such a manner that would set forth what you'd probably find to be some very bad caselaw?

I doubt any decision will change because of what cinyc does or doesn't do.