The Crusader (Public Service Announcement)

[Mr. Reactionary]

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.

[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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[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

[Mr. Reactionary]

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.

[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.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Maybe the junior federal associate justice can be "removed instantly." I would be fine with that.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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.

Lol. So in other words, you want to stall until after a likely Federalist Presidency. I dont think partisanship is a good reason to delay 6 months, especially since Obama was president when you went on the Court. Seriously dude, do you really not see how to anyone who isnt you the amount of time youve camped out in the court is outrageous? And now after 7 years you want to delay another 6 months purely in the hopes that a Labor President can replace you? Id be willing to compromise to 60 days which even that im not thrilled with, but 6 months for partisan reasons is unreasonable.

The only way id agree to delay it 6 months is if you resign this weekend. If you do, I pledge to fight to delay it 6 months. But otherwise I dont see yours as a reasonable request. Its not like you have a docket or pending cases. Delaying implementation smacks of vanity and partinsanship.

[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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

This game is all a story that we're helping write. Everything is imaginary at some level. We don't believe certain components are inherently more real than others.

[windjammer]

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

[Lumine]

I'm leaving this as an open question to readers as I get acquainted with what I've missed: why is the Russo-Ukrainian war now suddenly a thing when it wasn't before in game canon? I don't want to misjudge, but I was a bit disappointed when I realized it.

(I also want to know who had the bright idea to have Zelensky issue a commissar order, because that's both questionable on several levels and, I'd argue, in very poor taste)

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm leaving this as an open question to readers as I get acquainted with what I've missed: why is the Russo-Ukrainian war now suddenly a thing when it wasn't before in game canon? I don't want to misjudge, but I was a bit disappointed when I realized it.

(I also want to know who had the bright idea to have Zelensky issue a commissar order, because that's both questionable on several levels and, I'd argue, in very poor taste)

That was me. I think I implied that he canceled it under pressure from the rest of the world, and the Ukrainian Military was largely ignoring that order anyways.

[Sirius_]

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.

[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?

[YE]

Is there consistent multi-year support for a judicial branch from a game plan standpoint and are proponents convinced it won’t turn into another useless office? I’ve never heard this even argued in private when I was active. Yet alone realize that all is a sudden we need new members on the Supreme Court over.

[Sirius_]

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?

By that logic, why do I do this at all? Or any of us? The entire thing is an imaginary game, it doesn't serve any purpose to us in real life. Imaginary elections aren't any more important to anyone's life than imaginary court cases. The point of this is to be fun, and some people think NPC court cases could be fun.

And to make it clear, I'm not here just to act "butthurt," or make petty insults towards anyone. I stopped taking Atlasia personally long ago. I'm just arguing in defense of my position: that a thing that could potentially be fun should at least be given a chance to work. And it isn't like this is some great upheaval that potentially kills the game. That's all.

[Sirius_]

Is there consistent multi-year support for a judicial branch from a game plan standpoint and are proponents convinced it won’t turn into another useless office? I’ve never heard this even argued in private when I was active. Yet alone realize that all is a sudden we need new members on the Supreme Court over.

Maybe someone else has but I'm not arguing in favor of creating any new offices. We already have a judicial branch. I'm just talking about potentially doing more with what we already have. Would NPC lawsuits be a major hit? I don't really know. But if they aren't, the supreme court can just go back to doing what it did before. Or it could be just something that happens every once in a while, but not regularly. That doesn't require any new offices or any new legislation to do. It just requires people to do it.

[Sestak]

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.

If this was indeed the intention from the get-go, it...probably should have been fleshed out better? None of the petitions for certiorari even mentioned once that they were asking the Court to do something completely unprecedented here. Not a single reference to the fact that the decision even was made at the NPC level, not a single argument about taking cases involving NPCs or jurisdiction on that front, no suggestions as to how such a case could be carried out. Instead every party to that case simply acted like it didn't exist, and now people turn around and claim dismay at the fact that the Court refused to do something that it had never done before.

If you want to expand the role of the judicial branch within the game, that's all fine and good. But actually put out a proposal for how such a system would work! Instead, here we have a situation where players are pretending that such a system already exists and acting accordingly; it's basically a demand that the Court create such a system immediately, out of thin air. Not sure how it's a surprise that the reaction to that demand would be unsatisfying!

If this is actually a good faith attempt to change the game and not an antagonistic attempt to garner support for dismantling the Court, then it should be done through a dialogue with all parties involved - both the game's population in general and the Court specifically. Instead, at least from our point of view, this came with no advance warning and left many questions unanswered. The question of NPC representation is, of course, the thorniest one, but not the only one. And most of these questions have essentially been passed on to us - and we really have no idea what to do with them. Making decrees on the policy of game operations - when the active player base has never had even a serious public discussion of those policies - would almost certainly be a major overstep on our part. Certainly, I would see it that way.

[YE]

Is there consistent multi-year support for a judicial branch from a game plan standpoint and are proponents convinced it won’t turn into another useless office? I’ve never heard this even argued in private when I was active. Yet alone realize that all is a sudden we need new members on the Supreme Court over.

Maybe someone else has but I'm not arguing in favor of creating any new offices. We already have a judicial branch. I'm just talking about potentially doing more with what we already have. Would NPC lawsuits be a major hit? I don't really know. But if they aren't, the supreme court can just go back to doing what it did before. Or it could be just something that happens every once in a while, but not regularly. That doesn't require any new offices or any new legislation to do. It just requires people to do it.

Push a bill allowing for NPC lawsuits would be a far better use of one’s time than screaming at the Chief Justice and trying to get him removed.

[Sirius_]

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.

If this was indeed the intention from the get-go, it...probably should have been fleshed out better? None of the petitions for certiorari even mentioned once that they were asking the Court to do something completely unprecedented here. Not a single reference to the fact that the decision even was made at the NPC level, not a single argument about taking cases involving NPCs or jurisdiction on that front, no suggestions as to how such a case could be carried out. Instead every party to that case simply acted like it didn't exist, and now people turn around and claim dismay at the fact that the Court refused to do something that it had never done before.

If you want to expand the role of the judicial branch within the game, that's all fine and good. But actually put out a proposal for how such a system would work! Instead, here we have a situation where players are pretending that such a system already exists and acting accordingly; it's basically a demand that the Court create such a system immediately, out of thin air. Not sure how it's a surprise that the reaction to that demand would be unsatisfying!

If this is actually a good faith attempt to change the game and not an antagonistic attempt to garner support for dismantling the Court, then it should be done through a dialogue with all parties involved - both the game's population in general and the Court specifically. Instead, at least from our point of view, this came with no advance warning and left many questions unanswered. The question of NPC representation is, of course, the thorniest one, but not the only one. And most of these questions have essentially been passed on to us - and we really have no idea what to do with them. Making decrees on the policy of game operations - when the active player base has never had even a serious public discussion of those policies - would almost certainly be a major overstep on our part. Certainly, I would see it that way.

Well it would have been great if any of this was communicated to anyone yesterday, instead of Windjammer just saying "I don't wanna" and denying certiorari. In fact, the court had over two weeks from when the case was filed to now to say something. Now, the plaintiffs in the case didn't do a much better job on that front, I can't deny that. I wouldn't say that this case in particular was handled all that well either, but until you posted there was never any indication that the court was even open to such a thing. And I don't really appreciate being accused of being part of some plot to undermine the court when I've had no role whatsoever in drafting the proposals for court reform, am not a sitting senator, and have never stated any intention to radically alter the court. So if you have a problem with that, take it up with the people who are actually pushing for that.

Now I'm really not trying to be belligerent towards any particular person, and I would actually like to accomplish something productive. The things I said before were under the impression that the court was a hard no on this concept. So if you would like to stop the back and forth here and try to come up with a framework please do message me about it.

[Pericles]

I thought Labor was supposed to be the anti-democracy party, but it sure doesn't look like that with the attitude that the Federalist and Peace parties have shown to our Supreme Court.

[NewYorkExpress]

I thought Labor was supposed to be the anti-democracy party, but it sure doesn't look like that with the attitude that the Federalist and Peace parties have shown to our Supreme Court.

I'm pretty sure sitting on the bench for seven years and doing literally nothing would be abhorrent to IRL Supreme Court justices.