SR 113-24: Judicial Reform Amendment (Passed)

[windjammer]

If a Justice would not be reconfirmed or retained that would be because of how they acted in office. I don't want a blatantly partisan system, but the current system, in which a supermajority of current players weren't around or were very new when 80% of the judges were chosen, is not a good system either. I would hope my vote for Sestak shows I am willing to vote for judges whose ideology is different from mine. And indeed, none of my problems with the Court have stemmed from actual full fledged rulings, but instead from refusals of action.

As far as timing goes, we've already substantially amended Reactionary's language and I think more are coming. But 4 of 5 justices will be subject to fairly quick reconfirmation regardless, it's not just you that is getting reevaluated Windjammer.

As far as the refusal on the Louisville case goes, while that refusal is settled precedent that I won't support re-litigating, I still believe that was the wrong decision. And of course, you have more or less said you were looking for a way to drop that case even before the "speedy trial concerns" arose, which I definitely don't think was appropriate.

What do you have against the current supreme court exactly?


As I already said, these seats aren't for active players

And on an another note,
I'm ing tired of this disinformation against my person. What I Said regarding the Louisville trial it is that I believe the offense he was being accused were grave enough not to be judged by a fantasy supreme court but should have been dealt by the moderators.

I didn't withdraw this trial because I didn't want to take it like you are insinuating

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If a Justice would not be reconfirmed or retained that would be because of how they acted in office. I don't want a blatantly partisan system, but the current system, in which a supermajority of current players weren't around or were very new when 80% of the judges were chosen, is not a good system either. I would hope my vote for Sestak shows I am willing to vote for judges whose ideology is different from mine. And indeed, none of my problems with the Court have stemmed from actual full fledged rulings, but instead from refusals of action.

As far as timing goes, we've already substantially amended Reactionary's language and I think more are coming. But 4 of 5 justices will be subject to fairly quick reconfirmation regardless, it's not just you that is getting reevaluated Windjammer.

As far as the refusal on the Louisville case goes, while that refusal is settled precedent that I won't support re-litigating, I still believe that was the wrong decision. And of course, you have more or less said you were looking for a way to drop that case even before the "speedy trial concerns" arose, which I definitely don't think was appropriate.

What do you have against the current supreme court exactly?


As I already said, these seats aren't for active players

And on an another note,
I'm ing tired of this disinformation against my person. What I Said regarding the Louisville trial it is that I believe the offense he was being accused were grave enough not to be judged by a fantasy supreme court but should have been dealt by the moderators.

I didn't withdraw this trial because I didn't want to take it like you are insinuating

My understanding is the moderation team did take a look at the matter at the time. I am not familiar with why they did not employ substantial forum-based sanctions. As for in-game sanctions like stripping voting rights, SCOA would be the only ones with jurisdiction to impose that, short of banning LT from the AFE board as a whole, and I'm not entirely sure if doing that was supported by the forum software at the time (or banning him entirely, for which public support did not exist).

[windjammer]

If a Justice would not be reconfirmed or retained that would be because of how they acted in office. I don't want a blatantly partisan system, but the current system, in which a supermajority of current players weren't around or were very new when 80% of the judges were chosen, is not a good system either. I would hope my vote for Sestak shows I am willing to vote for judges whose ideology is different from mine. And indeed, none of my problems with the Court have stemmed from actual full fledged rulings, but instead from refusals of action.

As far as timing goes, we've already substantially amended Reactionary's language and I think more are coming. But 4 of 5 justices will be subject to fairly quick reconfirmation regardless, it's not just you that is getting reevaluated Windjammer.

As far as the refusal on the Louisville case goes, while that refusal is settled precedent that I won't support re-litigating, I still believe that was the wrong decision. And of course, you have more or less said you were looking for a way to drop that case even before the "speedy trial concerns" arose, which I definitely don't think was appropriate.

What do you have against the current supreme court exactly?


As I already said, these seats aren't for active players

And on an another note,
I'm ing tired of this disinformation against my person. What I Said regarding the Louisville trial it is that I believe the offense he was being accused were grave enough not to be judged by a fantasy supreme court but should have been dealt by the moderators.

I didn't withdraw this trial because I didn't want to take it like you are insinuating

My understanding is the moderation team did take a look at the matter at the time. I am not familiar with why they did not employ substantial forum-based sanctions. As for in-game sanctions like stripping voting rights, SCOA would be the only ones with jurisdiction to impose that, short of banning LT from the AFE board as a whole, and I'm not entirely sure if doing that was supported by the forum software at the time.

Wulfric,
We were talking about doxxing accusation which I believed were grave accusation to be dealt by the mods. I don't know what they did or they didn't but this was MY POSITION.

I did take the Louisville case regarding fantasyland and I worked my ass to make the trial as fair as it could, the first being that Louisville being represented by an attorney.

In the end the accusation completely screwed up by not presenting their case and a second attorney emerged like one month later because he was being busy trying to make Lincoln secede.

So tell me Wulfric what did I do wrong that was deserving this removal.from office threat? I did my best to make the trial the fairer possible and it is not my fault the defense screwed up

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If a Justice would not be reconfirmed or retained that would be because of how they acted in office. I don't want a blatantly partisan system, but the current system, in which a supermajority of current players weren't around or were very new when 80% of the judges were chosen, is not a good system either. I would hope my vote for Sestak shows I am willing to vote for judges whose ideology is different from mine. And indeed, none of my problems with the Court have stemmed from actual full fledged rulings, but instead from refusals of action.

As far as timing goes, we've already substantially amended Reactionary's language and I think more are coming. But 4 of 5 justices will be subject to fairly quick reconfirmation regardless, it's not just you that is getting reevaluated Windjammer.

As far as the refusal on the Louisville case goes, while that refusal is settled precedent that I won't support re-litigating, I still believe that was the wrong decision. And of course, you have more or less said you were looking for a way to drop that case even before the "speedy trial concerns" arose, which I definitely don't think was appropriate.

What do you have against the current supreme court exactly?


As I already said, these seats aren't for active players

And on an another note,
I'm ing tired of this disinformation against my person. What I Said regarding the Louisville trial it is that I believe the offense he was being accused were grave enough not to be judged by a fantasy supreme court but should have been dealt by the moderators.

I didn't withdraw this trial because I didn't want to take it like you are insinuating

My understanding is the moderation team did take a look at the matter at the time. I am not familiar with why they did not employ substantial forum-based sanctions. As for in-game sanctions like stripping voting rights, SCOA would be the only ones with jurisdiction to impose that, short of banning LT from the AFE board as a whole, and I'm not entirely sure if doing that was supported by the forum software at the time.

Wulfric,
We were talking about doxxing accusation which I believed were grave accusation to be dealt by the mods. I don't know what they did or they didn't but this was MY POSITION.

I did take the Louisville case regarding fantasyland and I worked my ass to make the trial as fair as it could, the first being that Louisville being represented by an attorney.

In the end the accusation completely screwed up by not presenting their case and a second attorney emerged like one month later because he was being busy trying to make Lincoln secede.

So tell me Wulfric what did I do wrong that was deserving this removal.from office threat? I did my best to make the trial the fairer possible and it is not my fault the defense screwed up

Well the reality of the doxxing accusation was each part of the "Atlas Government" needed to address what was in its jurisdiction:

The Discord moderators handled discord sanctions - LT was banned from the Atlas Discord for a number of years
The Atlas moderators handled forum sanctions - and for whatever reason didn't do much
Imposing in-game sanctions fell to you guys, and you guys also declined to take action.

What you did wrong was:
- Dropping the case (speedy trial should refer to cases years afterward, not barely 4 months afterward)
- Threatening people who disagreed with you in the case's thread (although I will grant that you later partially retracted this under some pressure)
- Later admitting that you didn't want the case anyway and were glad it was dropped, essentially saying you wanted LT to get away with nothing outside of discord (since, for whatever reason, the forum moderators had more or less dropped the case at that point and your body was the only one that could impose sanctions.)

[windjammer]

If a Justice would not be reconfirmed or retained that would be because of how they acted in office. I don't want a blatantly partisan system, but the current system, in which a supermajority of current players weren't around or were very new when 80% of the judges were chosen, is not a good system either. I would hope my vote for Sestak shows I am willing to vote for judges whose ideology is different from mine. And indeed, none of my problems with the Court have stemmed from actual full fledged rulings, but instead from refusals of action.

As far as timing goes, we've already substantially amended Reactionary's language and I think more are coming. But 4 of 5 justices will be subject to fairly quick reconfirmation regardless, it's not just you that is getting reevaluated Windjammer.

As far as the refusal on the Louisville case goes, while that refusal is settled precedent that I won't support re-litigating, I still believe that was the wrong decision. And of course, you have more or less said you were looking for a way to drop that case even before the "speedy trial concerns" arose, which I definitely don't think was appropriate.

What do you have against the current supreme court exactly?


As I already said, these seats aren't for active players

And on an another note,
I'm ing tired of this disinformation against my person. What I Said regarding the Louisville trial it is that I believe the offense he was being accused were grave enough not to be judged by a fantasy supreme court but should have been dealt by the moderators.

I didn't withdraw this trial because I didn't want to take it like you are insinuating

My understanding is the moderation team did take a look at the matter at the time. I am not familiar with why they did not employ substantial forum-based sanctions. As for in-game sanctions like stripping voting rights, SCOA would be the only ones with jurisdiction to impose that, short of banning LT from the AFE board as a whole, and I'm not entirely sure if doing that was supported by the forum software at the time.

Wulfric,
We were talking about doxxing accusation which I believed were grave accusation to be dealt by the mods. I don't know what they did or they didn't but this was MY POSITION.

I did take the Louisville case regarding fantasyland and I worked my ass to make the trial as fair as it could, the first being that Louisville being represented by an attorney.

In the end the accusation completely screwed up by not presenting their case and a second attorney emerged like one month later because he was being busy trying to make Lincoln secede.

So tell me Wulfric what did I do wrong that was deserving this removal.from office threat? I did my best to make the trial the fairer possible and it is not my fault the defense screwed up

Well the reality of the doxxing accusation was each part of the "Atlas Government" needed to address what was in its jurisdiction:

The Discord moderators handled discord sanctions - LT was banned from the Atlas Discord for a number of years
The Atlas moderators handled forum sanctions - and for whatever reason didn't do much
Imposing in-game sanctions fell to you guys, and you guys also declined to take action.

What you did wrong was:
- Dropping the case (speedy trial should refer to cases years afterward, not barely 4 months afterward)
- Threatening people who disagreed with you in the case's thread (although I will grant that you later partially retracted this under some pressure)
- Later admitting that you didn't want the case anyway and were glad it was dropped, essentially saying you wanted LT to get away with nothing outside of discord (since, for whatever reason, the forum moderators had more or less dropped the case at that point)

Regarding dropping the case: I followed what Pit and BaconKing were advising me to do. They are the specialists of the US system. If the accusation cannot present its case, it has to be withdrawn. It's not the fault of the judge that is ridiculous.

- Well, I "threatened" people because there were many people, including you, who were scapegoating me so I was pissed at hell to be frank.

- And as for your third point: you are once again blatantly intentionnally miconstructing what I said. I believed doxxing accusation should be up to the mods or at an even higher level given the Gravity of their action. I still tool the case regardless and it played absolutely no role in the rulings I did.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Whatever. In any case, the new mandatory jurisdiction provision should prevent such a miscarriage of justice from happening again.

[windjammer]

Whatever. In any case, the new mandatory jurisdiction provision should prevent such a miscarriage of justice from happening again.

You see this is exactly what Infear with this amendment.


People like you removing all the bench because you didn't like how a court case (in that instance the Louisville one) didn't go your way.


How doesn't it infringe the independence of justice?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If a Justice would not be reconfirmed or retained that would be because of how they acted in office. I don't want a blatantly partisan system, but the current system, in which a supermajority of current players weren't around or were very new when 80% of the judges were chosen, is not a good system either. I would hope my vote for Sestak shows I am willing to vote for judges whose ideology is different from mine. And indeed, none of my problems with the Court have stemmed from actual full fledged rulings, but instead from refusals of action.

As far as timing goes, we've already substantially amended Reactionary's language and I think more are coming. But 4 of 5 justices will be subject to fairly quick reconfirmation regardless, it's not just you that is getting reevaluated Windjammer.

As far as the refusal on the Louisville case goes, while that refusal is settled precedent that I won't support re-litigating, I still believe that was the wrong decision. And of course, you have more or less said you were looking for a way to drop that case even before the "speedy trial concerns" arose, which I definitely don't think was appropriate.

What do you have against the current supreme court exactly?


As I already said, these seats aren't for active players

And on an another note,
I'm ing tired of this disinformation against my person. What I Said regarding the Louisville trial it is that I believe the offense he was being accused were grave enough not to be judged by a fantasy supreme court but should have been dealt by the moderators.

I didn't withdraw this trial because I didn't want to take it like you are insinuating

My understanding is the moderation team did take a look at the matter at the time. I am not familiar with why they did not employ substantial forum-based sanctions. As for in-game sanctions like stripping voting rights, SCOA would be the only ones with jurisdiction to impose that, short of banning LT from the AFE board as a whole, and I'm not entirely sure if doing that was supported by the forum software at the time.

Wulfric,
We were talking about doxxing accusation which I believed were grave accusation to be dealt by the mods. I don't know what they did or they didn't but this was MY POSITION.

I did take the Louisville case regarding fantasyland and I worked my ass to make the trial as fair as it could, the first being that Louisville being represented by an attorney.

In the end the accusation completely screwed up by not presenting their case and a second attorney emerged like one month later because he was being busy trying to make Lincoln secede.

So tell me Wulfric what did I do wrong that was deserving this removal.from office threat? I did my best to make the trial the fairer possible and it is not my fault the defense screwed up

Well the reality of the doxxing accusation was each part of the "Atlas Government" needed to address what was in its jurisdiction:

The Discord moderators handled discord sanctions - LT was banned from the Atlas Discord for a number of years
The Atlas moderators handled forum sanctions - and for whatever reason didn't do much
Imposing in-game sanctions fell to you guys, and you guys also declined to take action.

What you did wrong was:
- Dropping the case (speedy trial should refer to cases years afterward, not barely 4 months afterward)
- Threatening people who disagreed with you in the case's thread (although I will grant that you later partially retracted this under some pressure)
- Later admitting that you didn't want the case anyway and were glad it was dropped, essentially saying you wanted LT to get away with nothing outside of discord (since, for whatever reason, the forum moderators had more or less dropped the case at that point and your body was the only one that could impose sanctions.)

1. Four months is an entire Presidential term in game, though. Also, as I recall, the second designated prosecutor spent a month lobbying for Lincolnite secession and only once that imploded then decided to come back to the case. There was certainly prosecutorial incompetence in that case by any objective measure.

2. This is partly what I meant when I said chickens coming home to roost the other day. It also incorporates both his longevity, his "reputation" and also whatever this Lincoln business is that I don't really know the first thing about, but its just one more paper cut in some ways. We can debate to the ends of time what is fair and not in this regards. Personally, I don't think personal views of Windjammer should dictate the way we structure a government institution.

This has happened before, when the radicals and TPPers decided to restructure the Senate rules around the basis of working out their anger at how Windjammer operated as Vice President, even though his actions were completely legal and constitutional in his handling of such. I don't want an institution damaged for two years again because Windjammer hurt too many people's feelings.

Instead, it should be on the basis of what is best for the functioning and operation of the institution itself.

3. The court's decisions should not be "variable based on moderator action". That is not impartial justice. First of all because the court has not a bit of relevance to moderator level decision making, nor is it appropriate for the court to change its decisions to assuage the baying mobs of hounds dissatisfied by a mod cave action. Second, because mod cave actions are private and many sanctions are as well unless publicly announced.

Also I don't appreciate us as moderators being lumped in under "atlas government" as if this was some "three branch system" with the Mods, the Atlasian Court and Discord. Just contemplating this combination makes me sick thinking about it.

[windjammer]

If a Justice would not be reconfirmed or retained that would be because of how they acted in office. I don't want a blatantly partisan system, but the current system, in which a supermajority of current players weren't around or were very new when 80% of the judges were chosen, is not a good system either. I would hope my vote for Sestak shows I am willing to vote for judges whose ideology is different from mine. And indeed, none of my problems with the Court have stemmed from actual full fledged rulings, but instead from refusals of action.

As far as timing goes, we've already substantially amended Reactionary's language and I think more are coming. But 4 of 5 justices will be subject to fairly quick reconfirmation regardless, it's not just you that is getting reevaluated Windjammer.

As far as the refusal on the Louisville case goes, while that refusal is settled precedent that I won't support re-litigating, I still believe that was the wrong decision. And of course, you have more or less said you were looking for a way to drop that case even before the "speedy trial concerns" arose, which I definitely don't think was appropriate.

What do you have against the current supreme court exactly?


As I already said, these seats aren't for active players

And on an another note,
I'm ing tired of this disinformation against my person. What I Said regarding the Louisville trial it is that I believe the offense he was being accused were grave enough not to be judged by a fantasy supreme court but should have been dealt by the moderators.

I didn't withdraw this trial because I didn't want to take it like you are insinuating

My understanding is the moderation team did take a look at the matter at the time. I am not familiar with why they did not employ substantial forum-based sanctions. As for in-game sanctions like stripping voting rights, SCOA would be the only ones with jurisdiction to impose that, short of banning LT from the AFE board as a whole, and I'm not entirely sure if doing that was supported by the forum software at the time.

Wulfric,
We were talking about doxxing accusation which I believed were grave accusation to be dealt by the mods. I don't know what they did or they didn't but this was MY POSITION.

I did take the Louisville case regarding fantasyland and I worked my ass to make the trial as fair as it could, the first being that Louisville being represented by an attorney.

In the end the accusation completely screwed up by not presenting their case and a second attorney emerged like one month later because he was being busy trying to make Lincoln secede.

So tell me Wulfric what did I do wrong that was deserving this removal.from office threat? I did my best to make the trial the fairer possible and it is not my fault the defense screwed up

Well the reality of the doxxing accusation was each part of the "Atlas Government" needed to address what was in its jurisdiction:

The Discord moderators handled discord sanctions - LT was banned from the Atlas Discord for a number of years
The Atlas moderators handled forum sanctions - and for whatever reason didn't do much
Imposing in-game sanctions fell to you guys, and you guys also declined to take action.

What you did wrong was:
- Dropping the case (speedy trial should refer to cases years afterward, not barely 4 months afterward)
- Threatening people who disagreed with you in the case's thread (although I will grant that you later partially retracted this under some pressure)
- Later admitting that you didn't want the case anyway and were glad it was dropped, essentially saying you wanted LT to get away with nothing outside of discord (since, for whatever reason, the forum moderators had more or less dropped the case at that point and your body was the only one that could impose sanctions.)

1. Four months is an entire Presidential term in game, though. Also, as I recall, the second designated prosecutor spent a month lobbying for Lincolnite secession and only once that imploded then decided to come back to the case. There was certainly prosecutorial incompetence in that case by any objective measure.

2. This is partly what I meant when I said chickens coming home to roost the other day. It also incorporates both his longevity, his "reputation" and also whatever this Lincoln business is that I don't really know the first thing about, but its just one more paper cut in some ways. We can debate to the ends of time what is fair and not in this regards. Personally, I don't think personal views of Windjammer should dictate the way we structure a government institution.

This has happened before, when the radicals and TPPers decided to restructure the Senate rules around the basis of working out their anger at how Windjammer operated as Vice President, even though his actions were completely legal and constitutional in his handling of such. I don't want an institution damaged for two years again because Windjammer hurt too many people's feelings.

Instead, it should be on the basis of what is best for the functioning and operation of the institution itself.

3. The court's decisions should not be "variable based on moderator action". That is not impartial justice. First of all because the court has not a bit of relevance to moderator level decision making, nor is it appropriate for the court to change its decisions to assuage the baying mobs of hounds dissatisfied by a mod cave action. Second, because mod cave actions are private and many sanctions are as well unless publicly announced.

Also I don't appreciate us as moderators being lumped in under "atlas government" as if this was some "three branch system" with the Mods, the Atlasian Court and Discord. Just contemplating this combination makes me sick thinking about it.

Yankee,
I didn't withdraw the case because I wanted the mods to take over.


What is wrong with what I said seriously? If there are doxxing attempts it has to be dealt by the mods whether this true or not, whether this is on Atlas or an another website

[windjammer]

On an another note,
Yankee is raising a good parallel.

The radicals and other TPP/discord followers are Always trying to get rid of me. They succeeded 10 years ago and what After happened was a dark period of personal harassment, bullying mostly directed against Yankee and myself true but it was clearly having a negative on the game


Wulfric saying he wants this amendment passed to make sure the case I administered finally goes his way.


My conduct has Always been perfectly legal. There is nothing that I did as Supreme Court Justice that is objectionable. I Can defend all my supreme court decisions.

On an anything thing, it's obvious I'm having to deal with people looking to scapegoat me because I'm the one postikg the results etc. But in the end, almost everything I did was unanimous.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

On an another note,
Yankee is raising a good parallel.

The radicals and other TPP/discord followers are Always trying to get rid of me. They succeeded 10 years ago and what After happened was a dark period of personal harassment, bullying mostly directed against Yankee and myself true but it was clearly having a negative on the game


Wulfric saying he wants this amendment passed to make sure the case I administered finally goes his way.


My conduct has Always been perfectly legal. There is nothing that I did as Supreme Court Justice that is objectionable. I Can defend all my supreme court decisions.

On an anything thing, it's obvious I'm having to deal with people looking to scapegoat me because I'm the one postikg the results etc. But in the end, almost everything I did was unanimous.

1. I think you missed the part where I said that at this point, I wouldn't support re-litigating the Louisville Decision. While I don't feel a four month time span falls under speedy trial violation, eighteen months definitely does.

As far as the Elon Musk Decision goes, I hope that can be resolved through executive orders or some sort of GM simulation. It's possible that that could be brought back before a future court, but too early to say if it will be.

This amendment is more about changing how things are handled going forward, not re-litigating the past.

2. Nothing you've done is objectionable is an obvious falsehood. Yes, everything you did was legal, and had some reasoning behind it, and whether out of genuine agreement or simple adherence to the will of the Chief (I suspect it is more the latter), most of what you did did not have vocalized dissenting opinions. But that doesn't mean that some of your actions don't have arguments against them, or that all of your conduct has been perfectly honorable in every possible light.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If a Justice would not be reconfirmed or retained that would be because of how they acted in office. I don't want a blatantly partisan system, but the current system, in which a supermajority of current players weren't around or were very new when 80% of the judges were chosen, is not a good system either. I would hope my vote for Sestak shows I am willing to vote for judges whose ideology is different from mine. And indeed, none of my problems with the Court have stemmed from actual full fledged rulings, but instead from refusals of action.

As far as timing goes, we've already substantially amended Reactionary's language and I think more are coming. But 4 of 5 justices will be subject to fairly quick reconfirmation regardless, it's not just you that is getting reevaluated Windjammer.

As far as the refusal on the Louisville case goes, while that refusal is settled precedent that I won't support re-litigating, I still believe that was the wrong decision. And of course, you have more or less said you were looking for a way to drop that case even before the "speedy trial concerns" arose, which I definitely don't think was appropriate.

What do you have against the current supreme court exactly?


As I already said, these seats aren't for active players

And on an another note,
I'm ing tired of this disinformation against my person. What I Said regarding the Louisville trial it is that I believe the offense he was being accused were grave enough not to be judged by a fantasy supreme court but should have been dealt by the moderators.

I didn't withdraw this trial because I didn't want to take it like you are insinuating

My understanding is the moderation team did take a look at the matter at the time. I am not familiar with why they did not employ substantial forum-based sanctions. As for in-game sanctions like stripping voting rights, SCOA would be the only ones with jurisdiction to impose that, short of banning LT from the AFE board as a whole, and I'm not entirely sure if doing that was supported by the forum software at the time.

Wulfric,
We were talking about doxxing accusation which I believed were grave accusation to be dealt by the mods. I don't know what they did or they didn't but this was MY POSITION.

I did take the Louisville case regarding fantasyland and I worked my ass to make the trial as fair as it could, the first being that Louisville being represented by an attorney.

In the end the accusation completely screwed up by not presenting their case and a second attorney emerged like one month later because he was being busy trying to make Lincoln secede.

So tell me Wulfric what did I do wrong that was deserving this removal.from office threat? I did my best to make the trial the fairer possible and it is not my fault the defense screwed up

Well the reality of the doxxing accusation was each part of the "Atlas Government" needed to address what was in its jurisdiction:

The Discord moderators handled discord sanctions - LT was banned from the Atlas Discord for a number of years
The Atlas moderators handled forum sanctions - and for whatever reason didn't do much
Imposing in-game sanctions fell to you guys, and you guys also declined to take action.

What you did wrong was:
- Dropping the case (speedy trial should refer to cases years afterward, not barely 4 months afterward)
- Threatening people who disagreed with you in the case's thread (although I will grant that you later partially retracted this under some pressure)
- Later admitting that you didn't want the case anyway and were glad it was dropped, essentially saying you wanted LT to get away with nothing outside of discord (since, for whatever reason, the forum moderators had more or less dropped the case at that point and your body was the only one that could impose sanctions.)

1. Four months is an entire Presidential term in game, though. Also, as I recall, the second designated prosecutor spent a month lobbying for Lincolnite secession and only once that imploded then decided to come back to the case. There was certainly prosecutorial incompetence in that case by any objective measure.

2. This is partly what I meant when I said chickens coming home to roost the other day. It also incorporates both his longevity, his "reputation" and also whatever this Lincoln business is that I don't really know the first thing about, but its just one more paper cut in some ways. We can debate to the ends of time what is fair and not in this regards. Personally, I don't think personal views of Windjammer should dictate the way we structure a government institution.

This has happened before, when the radicals and TPPers decided to restructure the Senate rules around the basis of working out their anger at how Windjammer operated as Vice President, even though his actions were completely legal and constitutional in his handling of such. I don't want an institution damaged for two years again because Windjammer hurt too many people's feelings.

Instead, it should be on the basis of what is best for the functioning and operation of the institution itself.

3. The court's decisions should not be "variable based on moderator action". That is not impartial justice. First of all because the court has not a bit of relevance to moderator level decision making, nor is it appropriate for the court to change its decisions to assuage the baying mobs of hounds dissatisfied by a mod cave action. Second, because mod cave actions are private and many sanctions are as well unless publicly announced.

Also I don't appreciate us as moderators being lumped in under "atlas government" as if this was some "three branch system" with the Mods, the Atlasian Court and Discord. Just contemplating this combination makes me sick thinking about it.

Yankee,
I didn't withdraw the case because I wanted the mods to take over.


What is wrong with what I said seriously? If there are doxxing attempts it has to be dealt by the mods whether this true or not, whether this is on Atlas or an another website

I didn't say you did, I was saying he was implying that certain actions needed to be taken differently by the courts as "the last man standing to act" or whatever his exact wording was. In this case, it would be ignoring the prosecutorial issues to proceed "because the mods didn't act as the mob desired".

[windjammer]

On an another note,
Yankee is raising a good parallel.

The radicals and other TPP/discord followers are Always trying to get rid of me. They succeeded 10 years ago and what After happened was a dark period of personal harassment, bullying mostly directed against Yankee and myself true but it was clearly having a negative on the game


Wulfric saying he wants this amendment passed to make sure the case I administered finally goes his way.


My conduct has Always been perfectly legal. There is nothing that I did as Supreme Court Justice that is objectionable. I Can defend all my supreme court decisions.

On an anything thing, it's obvious I'm having to deal with people looking to scapegoat me because I'm the one postikg the results etc. But in the end, almost everything I did was unanimous.

1. I think you missed the part where I said that at this point, I wouldn't support re-litigating the Louisville Decision. While I don't feel a four month time span falls under speedy trial violation, eighteen months definitely does.

As far as the Elon Musk Decision goes, I hope that can be resolved through executive orders or some sort of GM simulation. It's possible that that could be brought back before a future court, but too early to say if it will be.

This amendment is more about changing how things are handled going forward, not re-litigating the past.

2. Nothing you've done is objectionable is an obvious falsehood. Yes, everything you did was legal, and had some reasoning behind it, and whether out of genuine agreement or simple adherence to the will of the Chief (I suspect it is more the latter), most of what you did did not have vocalized dissenting opinions. But that doesn't mean that some of your actions don't have arguments against them, or that all of your conduct has been perfectly honorable in every possible light.

You literally Said on this thread you want this passed to avoid the Louisville court case go the same way that it happened before.


And I'm not against "objections" regarding my conduct people are free to disagree
 It's an another thing however to blow up the judiciary system.


And frankly I don't feel Bad about having threatened to make the life of these terrorists miserable. It's absolutely not something I ended up doing and it was out of anger to get to be aware about their secret plot to impeach me for office undermining the independence of the court. They tried to blow the game some last year so they are not some kind of martyrs

[windjammer]

If a Justice would not be reconfirmed or retained that would be because of how they acted in office. I don't want a blatantly partisan system, but the current system, in which a supermajority of current players weren't around or were very new when 80% of the judges were chosen, is not a good system either. I would hope my vote for Sestak shows I am willing to vote for judges whose ideology is different from mine. And indeed, none of my problems with the Court have stemmed from actual full fledged rulings, but instead from refusals of action.

As far as timing goes, we've already substantially amended Reactionary's language and I think more are coming. But 4 of 5 justices will be subject to fairly quick reconfirmation regardless, it's not just you that is getting reevaluated Windjammer.

As far as the refusal on the Louisville case goes, while that refusal is settled precedent that I won't support re-litigating, I still believe that was the wrong decision. And of course, you have more or less said you were looking for a way to drop that case even before the "speedy trial concerns" arose, which I definitely don't think was appropriate.

What do you have against the current supreme court exactly?


As I already said, these seats aren't for active players

And on an another note,
I'm ing tired of this disinformation against my person. What I Said regarding the Louisville trial it is that I believe the offense he was being accused were grave enough not to be judged by a fantasy supreme court but should have been dealt by the moderators.

I didn't withdraw this trial because I didn't want to take it like you are insinuating

My understanding is the moderation team did take a look at the matter at the time. I am not familiar with why they did not employ substantial forum-based sanctions. As for in-game sanctions like stripping voting rights, SCOA would be the only ones with jurisdiction to impose that, short of banning LT from the AFE board as a whole, and I'm not entirely sure if doing that was supported by the forum software at the time.

Wulfric,
We were talking about doxxing accusation which I believed were grave accusation to be dealt by the mods. I don't know what they did or they didn't but this was MY POSITION.

I did take the Louisville case regarding fantasyland and I worked my ass to make the trial as fair as it could, the first being that Louisville being represented by an attorney.

In the end the accusation completely screwed up by not presenting their case and a second attorney emerged like one month later because he was being busy trying to make Lincoln secede.

So tell me Wulfric what did I do wrong that was deserving this removal.from office threat? I did my best to make the trial the fairer possible and it is not my fault the defense screwed up

Well the reality of the doxxing accusation was each part of the "Atlas Government" needed to address what was in its jurisdiction:

The Discord moderators handled discord sanctions - LT was banned from the Atlas Discord for a number of years
The Atlas moderators handled forum sanctions - and for whatever reason didn't do much
Imposing in-game sanctions fell to you guys, and you guys also declined to take action.

What you did wrong was:
- Dropping the case (speedy trial should refer to cases years afterward, not barely 4 months afterward)
- Threatening people who disagreed with you in the case's thread (although I will grant that you later partially retracted this under some pressure)
- Later admitting that you didn't want the case anyway and were glad it was dropped, essentially saying you wanted LT to get away with nothing outside of discord (since, for whatever reason, the forum moderators had more or less dropped the case at that point and your body was the only one that could impose sanctions.)

1. Four months is an entire Presidential term in game, though. Also, as I recall, the second designated prosecutor spent a month lobbying for Lincolnite secession and only once that imploded then decided to come back to the case. There was certainly prosecutorial incompetence in that case by any objective measure.

2. This is partly what I meant when I said chickens coming home to roost the other day. It also incorporates both his longevity, his "reputation" and also whatever this Lincoln business is that I don't really know the first thing about, but its just one more paper cut in some ways. We can debate to the ends of time what is fair and not in this regards. Personally, I don't think personal views of Windjammer should dictate the way we structure a government institution.

This has happened before, when the radicals and TPPers decided to restructure the Senate rules around the basis of working out their anger at how Windjammer operated as Vice President, even though his actions were completely legal and constitutional in his handling of such. I don't want an institution damaged for two years again because Windjammer hurt too many people's feelings.

Instead, it should be on the basis of what is best for the functioning and operation of the institution itself.

3. The court's decisions should not be "variable based on moderator action". That is not impartial justice. First of all because the court has not a bit of relevance to moderator level decision making, nor is it appropriate for the court to change its decisions to assuage the baying mobs of hounds dissatisfied by a mod cave action. Second, because mod cave actions are private and many sanctions are as well unless publicly announced.

Also I don't appreciate us as moderators being lumped in under "atlas government" as if this was some "three branch system" with the Mods, the Atlasian Court and Discord. Just contemplating this combination makes me sick thinking about it.

Yankee,
I didn't withdraw the case because I wanted the mods to take over.


What is wrong with what I said seriously? If there are doxxing attempts it has to be dealt by the mods whether this true or not, whether this is on Atlas or an another website

I didn't say you did, I was saying he was implying that certain actions needed to be taken differently by the courts as "the last man standing to act" or whatever his exact wording was. In this case, it would be ignoring the prosecutorial issues to proceed "because the mods didn't act as the mob desired".

For the record I don't believe the Supreme Court should interfere in any way in how the mods operate. I agree with you

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2. Nothing you've done is objectionable is an obvious falsehood. Yes, everything you did was legal, and had some reasoning behind it, and whether out of genuine agreement or simple adherence to the will of the Chief (I suspect it is more the latter), most of what you did did not have vocalized dissenting opinions. But that doesn't mean that some of your actions don't have arguments against them, or that all of your conduct has been perfectly honorable in every possible light.

You know this reminds me of November 2016 when one of the Blair supporting CR members or whatever they were calling themselves by that point said something to the effect of "their is no way Yankee agrees to split the term" then hours later a deal with Blair splitting the term was announced. Was that you, I cannot remember?

Rather then engage in conjecture about the nature of a dynamic, why not just ask them yourself? PiT posted in this thread earlier. BK might not be available at present but I would reckon most of the others involved can be reached for inquiry.

Either way its better than just presuming the other justices are Windjammer's mind slaves. I have known PiT for fourteen and a half years, doesn't sound like something he would be keen on doing.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

2. Nothing you've done is objectionable is an obvious falsehood. Yes, everything you did was legal, and had some reasoning behind it, and whether out of genuine agreement or simple adherence to the will of the Chief (I suspect it is more the latter), most of what you did did not have vocalized dissenting opinions. But that doesn't mean that some of your actions don't have arguments against them, or that all of your conduct has been perfectly honorable in every possible light.

You know this reminds me of November 2016 when one of the Blair supporting CR members or whatever they were calling themselves by that point said something to the effect of "their is no way Yankee agrees to split the term" then hours later a deal with Blair splitting the term was announced. Was that you, I cannot remember?

Rather then engage in conjecture about the nature of a dynamic, why not just ask them yourself? PiT posted in this thread earlier. BK might not be available at present but I would reckon most of the others involved can be reached for inquiry.

Either way its better than just presuming the other justices are Windjammer's mind slaves. I have known PiT for fourteen and a half years, doesn't sound like something he would be keen on doing.

I was in CR and did support Blair. I don't recall ever opining on the deal, you'd have to search my history.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

On an another note,
Yankee is raising a good parallel.

The radicals and other TPP/discord followers are Always trying to get rid of me. They succeeded 10 years ago and what After happened was a dark period of personal harassment, bullying mostly directed against Yankee and myself true but it was clearly having a negative on the game


Wulfric saying he wants this amendment passed to make sure the case I administered finally goes his way.


My conduct has Always been perfectly legal. There is nothing that I did as Supreme Court Justice that is objectionable. I Can defend all my supreme court decisions.

On an anything thing, it's obvious I'm having to deal with people looking to scapegoat me because I'm the one postikg the results etc. But in the end, almost everything I did was unanimous.

1. I think you missed the part where I said that at this point, I wouldn't support re-litigating the Louisville Decision. While I don't feel a four month time span falls under speedy trial violation, eighteen months definitely does.

As far as the Elon Musk Decision goes, I hope that can be resolved through executive orders or some sort of GM simulation. It's possible that that could be brought back before a future court, but too early to say if it will be.

This amendment is more about changing how things are handled going forward, not re-litigating the past.

2. Nothing you've done is objectionable is an obvious falsehood. Yes, everything you did was legal, and had some reasoning behind it, and whether out of genuine agreement or simple adherence to the will of the Chief (I suspect it is more the latter), most of what you did did not have vocalized dissenting opinions. But that doesn't mean that some of your actions don't have arguments against them, or that all of your conduct has been perfectly honorable in every possible light.

You literally Said on this thread you want this passed to avoid the Louisville court case go the same way that it happened before.

I did say that ruling was wrong and that this bill would prevent similar rulings in the future. But I also said:

As far as the refusal on the Louisville case goes, while that refusal is settled precedent that I won't support re-litigating,

[windjammer]

And wulfric regarding my relations with my colleagues,
Usually what happens it is that I'm the first to contact everyone about a New court case.

However none of them are my "puppets" or whatever as you're suggesting. (Dear god it's crazy how yore willing to make some assumptions while it is obvious you have no clue about what you're talking about).

In fact it's more likely me who seeks guidance towards Pit and at it used to be BK when he was still around given their knowledge about all these kind of stuff

[Blair]

The court has been the one part of the game since 2015 which has not been buggered, defanged or meddled with to the point of ruining it.

Term limits are wrong for the court, when it’s very purpose is to allow experienced, skilled or ex players to interpret the law and act as a safety valve on the day to day whims of players and both political parties, and their plots.

The court is a non political body- I ruled the opposite way to Windjammer on a case about Labor! I had very long arguments with him about the game because we read the rules and the law differently.

This new proposal is very misguided and as someone who has not been involved in anything happening here for what the last 12 months I very much hope that we don’t embark on a reform which will see the court have stupidly high turnover and get filled with people who are unsuitable for the job.

The labor party once had a super majority and we could have stacked the courts but we didn’t for a very good reason as we knew what it leads to.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The labor party once had a super majority and we could have stacked the courts but we didn’t for a very good reason as we knew what it leads to.

The court is 4/5 (80%) Labor and will be forever under your plan. 3/5 of those Labor have been on the Court for greater than FIVE consecutive years. That isnt stacked?

[windjammer]

The labor party once had a super majority and we could have stacked the courts but we didn’t for a very good reason as we knew what it leads to.

The court is 4/5 (80%) Labor and will be forever under your plan. 3/5 of those Labor have been on the Court for greater than FIVE consecutive years. That isnt stacked?

Actually only 2 people are from labor.

And in the end why should it matter ? Are you accusing the court of being partisan?

[windjammer]

To go further regarding my point above. On the current 5 supreme court justices, there are currently 2 Justices who are affiliated with Labor. But I suppose that Sestak could count as an another one given he was party chair. Ilikeverin however has never been a member of Labor and has never been affiliated in anyway with my party.

Most of the Court cases are unanimous. There are two court cases in recent memories that were not:

- One concerning abortion: there were two Justices siding actually with blackraisin : Pit and myself. And three overturning the law.

- One concerning some merger technicity between parties. Blair wrote the majority opinion, Pit was part of the majority. I was the sole dissent.


As blackraisin IS making the case the Supreme court is stacked in labor's favour, I would love him explain why he thinks that.



Furthermore, there are never anyone who are interested in filling these seats.

When I was appointed, there were only two candidates: one immediately left the forum
When gass was appointed: he was the only candidate.
When blair was appointed, he was the only candidate.
When Pit was appointed, he was the only candidate.
When ilikeverin, I think he was the only candidate.
When Sestak was appointed, there were only two candidates and one immediately left the forum.



No active players are interested in this kind of position, it's a fact. Very often a struggle.to fill a Seat.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The labor party once had a super majority and we could have stacked the courts but we didn’t for a very good reason as we knew what it leads to.

The court is 4/5 (80%) Labor and will be forever under your plan. 3/5 of those Labor have been on the Court for greater than FIVE consecutive years. That isnt stacked?

Actually only 2 people are from labor.

And in the end why should it matter ? Are you accusing the court of being partisan?

I seem to recall last year 1 opinion stating "All prior Atlasian case law is overturned and Roe v. Wade is now muh law of teh land because its a real life supreme court precedent." Then like 3 months later when I cited different real life supreme court precedent, I was told by the court in a complete reversal of itself "who cares? real life supreme court precedent doesnt matter in game when we dont want it to." Thats at minimum suspect.

Similarly, the recent decision to try and nullify through inaction a federal social media law designed to stop censorship has rankled a number of people. And when a proposal is discussed to within the rules make some changes so that maybe other people can have fun too, the faux alarmists are literally saying we can never, ever, ever change the 7 year old rules or change the ways the rules are interpreted.

When i first joined the game in 2017 I heard many private complaints on different policy/interpretation issues that appealing to the supreme court would not be useful because of "the current makeup." 6 years later, other than musical chairs in 1 Region, the current makeup is identical.

Like, this is a game. It is not fun to have permanent posts in a game. Weve been over this already. I dont think its fair to have players, regardless of party in the same in-game job for more than a few consecutive years max. I dont think thats unreasonable. I dont think literal life tenure in a game that has historically rebooted in shorter periods than your current tenure on the court is reasonable. 3 consecutive years with only 1 side holding the Presidency wasnt fun for most. And we are supposed to pretend more than twice that with the Supreme Court isnt a broken facet of the game?

Term limits are neutral. They are certain. They apply to everyone. They dont rely on partisan retention votes. I think term limits are sorely needed.

[windjammer]

The labor party once had a super majority and we could have stacked the courts but we didn’t for a very good reason as we knew what it leads to.

The court is 4/5 (80%) Labor and will be forever under your plan. 3/5 of those Labor have been on the Court for greater than FIVE consecutive years. That isnt stacked?

Actually only 2 people are from labor.

And in the end why should it matter ? Are you accusing the court of being partisan?

I seem to recall last year 1 opinion stating "All prior Atlasian case law is overturned and Roe v. Wade is now muh law of teh land because its a real life supreme court precedent." Then like 3 months later when I cited different real life supreme court precedent, I was told by the court in a complete reversal of itself "who cares? real life supreme court precedent doesnt matter in game when we dont want it to." Thats at minimum suspect.

Similarly, the recent decision to try and nullify through inaction a federal social media law designed to stop censorship has rankled a number of people. And when a proposal is discussed to within the rules make some changes so that maybe other people can have fun too, the faux alarmists are literally saying we can never, ever, ever change the 7 year old rules or change the ways the rules are interpreted.

When i first joined the game in 2017 I heard many private complaints on different policy/interpretation issues that appealing to the supreme court would not be useful because of "the current makeup." 6 years later, other than musical chairs in 1 Region, the current makeup is identical.

Like, this is a game. It is not fun to have permanent posts in a game. Weve been over this already. I dont think its fair to have players, regardless of party in the same in-game job for more than a few consecutive years max. I dont think thats unreasonable. I dont think literal life tenure in a game that has historically rebooted in shorter periods than your current tenure on the court is reasonable. 3 consecutive years with only 1 side holding the Presidency wasnt fun for most. And we are supposed to pretend more than twice that with the Supreme Court isnt a broken facet of the game?

Term limits are neutral. They are certain. They apply to everyone. They dont rely on partisan retention votes. I think term limits are sorely needed.

Except that there are never anyone who are interested in this kind of position. Term limiting them would mean it would be extremely difficult to fill the seats. It's replacing long Time officeholders by constant vacancy.


As for abortion, well, there was a reset so I Guess this may have caused confusion.


And regarding the GM stories, it's simply not our juridiction. We do not rule on that. Like we do not rule on NPC elections.

[Mr. Reactionary]

No active players are interested in this kind of position, it's a fact. Very often a struggle.to fill a Seat.

There were various points in the game's past where I would have dropped everything to be on the court. I even once joked to WD that Labor messed up by not sticking me on the court to get rid of me. Now, I dont at this present time wish to be on the court because theres too much policywise Id like to accomplish first. But just repeating "no one else would do it" doesnt seem to be accurate. And certainly saying "no one else in 2016 would do it" doesnt make that true now.

Theres possibly lots we could do to tease out potentially intetested justices, but there wont be much vocalization when 80% of the court hasnt been available to new players in like 6 years.