SR 113-24: Judicial Reform Amendment (Passed)

[windjammer]

Honestly I find it absolutely childish to write a constitutional amendment to remove the whole bench of the Supreme Court just because a court case as stupid as about Elon Musk's fantasy twitter actions didn't go your way

[windjammer]

Honestly I find it absolutely childish to write a constitutional amendment to remove the whole bench of the Supreme Court just because a court case as stupid as about Elon Musk's fantasy twitter actions didn't go your way

This was written before the case even started by my knowledge but go off I guess *shrug*

Not a good idea to antagonize the senate over this. The ruling was dumb but I was like, whatever over it. Your behavior the past day however had made me consider this a lot more.

What are you even talking about?

[windjammer]

All this over Elon Musk fantasy Twitter actions getting nuked?

To be fair to Blackraising,
He wrote it before this whole stuff.


But the goal is clearly removing me from office as with this amendment currently written I would be "instantly" be removed

[windjammer]

Honestly I know this can be surprising but I do believe blackraisin does have some point.

However I detest the part where I would be instantly removed from office as I genuinely think this is just to screw me basically.

Can someone write some amendment where:
- the 2 most senior justices would expire at the end of the first semester
- the 2 or 3 other at the end of this year.

I mean something like that?

[windjammer]

Honestly I know this can be surprising but I do believe blackraisin does have some point.

However I detest the part where I would be instantly removed from office as I genuinely think this is just to screw me basically.

Can someone write some amendment where:
- the 2 most senior justices would expire at the end of the first semester
- the 2 or 3 other at the end of this year.

I mean something like that?

I guess I see a level of Wisdom in that. Once we see if the retention thing is adopted or not I can write up an implementation delay.

Thank you wulfric!

[windjammer]

I'm not going to continue to argue with blackraisin who thinks that I'm being some criminal because I'm holding an office for 7 years that literally NO ACTIVE  PLAYER WANTS.



Regarding weatherboy's amendment, the issue I have it is that there would be too many associate justices being up for reelection and not that I don't believe he's looking for a power grab, in the end that would be looking like that.

I believe a clause setting the various terms. Like for example for me : "for the two justices appointed by the president, one expires in December and an another in June and at the end of their term they would be up for reelection"

I'm not looking at some personal gains and I'm willing to promise to retire and not seek an another term if that is needed
Of

[windjammer]

I'm not going to continue to argue with blackraisin who thinks that I'm being some criminal because I'm holding an office for 7 years that literally NO ACTIVE  PLAYER WANTS.

This is an unverifiable statement. To any common observer before now, you were intent on occupying the position forever and basically impossible to remove. Therefore, anyone interested would see no value in expressing that interest because it would not result in them achieving anything. People are not going to waste their breath over an impossible to obtain position.

Now that we have opened the doors to new justices, such interest is being allowed to appear and I believe will appear in due time.

This reminds me of Tack being like "Well I thought it was Kaiser or bust" during the Lincoln nomination. Then he got names provided to him by various sources, and in the end we got a nominee who didn't have Kansas Crisis baggage (even if there were some nefarious tactics behind the scenes) that we could all feel decent about voting for. Sometimes you just need to open up your windows and look around.

It is a verifiable take. I won a presidential election remember? And I was looking to find someone to replace me.

There were only three candidates interested: talleyrand, Oak and Siren and all of them weren't active players

[windjammer]

I'm not going to continue to argue with blackraisin who thinks that I'm being some criminal because I'm holding an office for 7 years that literally NO ACTIVE  PLAYER WANTS.

This is an unverifiable statement. To any common observer before now, you were intent on occupying the position forever and basically impossible to remove. Therefore, anyone interested would see no value in expressing that interest because it would not result in them achieving anything. People are not going to waste their breath over an impossible to obtain position.

Now that we have opened the doors to new justices, such interest is being allowed to appear and I believe will appear in due time.

This reminds me of Tack being like "Well I thought it was Kaiser or bust" during the Lincoln nomination. Then he got names provided to him by various sources, and in the end we got a nominee who didn't have Kansas Crisis baggage (even if there were some nefarious tactics behind the scenes) that we could all feel decent about voting for. Sometimes you just need to open up your windows and look around.

It is a verifiable take. I won a presidential election remember? And I was looking to find someone to replace me.

There were only three candidates interested: talleyrand, Oak and Siren and all of them weren't active players

Fair point, but then again that was two years ago.

Wulfric,
For the love of god. I'm not even trying to save my seat on the bench because believe me or not I have thinking of retiring for the last few months (I have been extremely busy and it's getting worse lol).


I know how this game works, and this kind of supreme court Seat IS absolutely unappealing for active players.

[windjammer]

Also, I cannot help but note that we run risk of diminution of the judiciary branch as a result of anger manifest against Labor shenanigans and chaos.

Color me shocked!

Oh come on.
For once that I didn't do anything controversial

[windjammer]

Also, I cannot help but note that we run risk of diminution of the judiciary branch as a result of anger manifest against Labor shenanigans and chaos.

Color me shocked!

Oh come on.
For once that I didn't do anything controversial

This is a multitude of chickens coming home to roost.

But yes, I am victim in some way of my dark legend

[windjammer]

the main thing I'm looking to do is make it so we can review judge's conduct over 2 years then decide if they should stay or go, not as much make it so there's a whole bunch of new ones. In fact, I think *most* of the court's doing fine right now and would vote to reconfirm most of the justices (though 3 of them are out of my hands so I wouldn't be able to). But having some accountability can't hurt.

Well I understand you're doing all these efforts to remove me. But in the end, all the decisions that I have written were almost anonymous.


Given the tantrum I faced in the past for making the right decisions, je Louisville etc.

How wouldn't that make the Supreme Court dependent from the senate?


Justice isn't ruling in favor of the mob.

[windjammer]

And on an another note,
If you want terms, it's better to have "fixed terms". Because otherwise there would be 4 seats up at the same time.
I will write an amendment fixing that.

[windjammer]

the main thing I'm looking to do is make it so we can review judge's conduct over 2 years then decide if they should stay or go, not as much make it so there's a whole bunch of new ones. In fact, I think *most* of the court's doing fine right now and would vote to reconfirm most of the justices (though 3 of them are out of my hands so I wouldn't be able to). But having some accountability can't hurt.

Well I understand you're doing all these efforts to remove me. But in the end, all the decisions that I have written were almost anonymous.


Given the tantrum I faced in the past for making the right decisions, je Louisville etc.

How wouldn't that make the Supreme Court dependent from the senate?


Justice isn't ruling in favor of the mob.

Weatherboy could you please answer me?

I don't see how it doesn't end into some partisan elections the fait every year they would have to be reconfirmed.


I understand for gameplay purposes it could be interesting to have a blatant partisan supreme court
But IS it really what you want?

[windjammer]

the main thing I'm looking to do is make it so we can review judge's conduct over 2 years then decide if they should stay or go, not as much make it so there's a whole bunch of new ones. In fact, I think *most* of the court's doing fine right now and would vote to reconfirm most of the justices (though 3 of them are out of my hands so I wouldn't be able to). But having some accountability can't hurt.

Well I understand you're doing all these efforts to remove me. But in the end, all the decisions that I have written were almost anonymous.


Given the tantrum I faced in the past for making the right decisions, je Louisville etc.

How wouldn't that make the Supreme Court dependent from the senate?


Justice isn't ruling in favor of the mob.

Weatherboy could you please answer me?

I don't see how it doesn't end into some partisan elections the fait every year they would have to be reconfirmed.


I understand for gameplay purposes it could be interesting to have a blatant partisan supreme court
But IS it really what you want?

I was planning on having the reconfirmations be staggered with an amendment. The only issue is mathematically trying to split those reconfirmations to be perfectly spread out is annoying with 24/5 not being a nice fraction.

And this doesn't make it dependent on the Senate. The regional justices are still re-confirmed by the regional legislatures.

For the record as soon as Computer writes his amendment  I will write my own amendment to make sure all Justices aren't up for reelection/reconfirmation at the same time.


As for your other point, whether this is in front of the senator or a regional legislature, my point still stands.

In my case for example, when the Court withdrew the Louisville trial. It was honestly the good judiciary decision to make as the accusation failes to show up. But this was unpopular.


Do you really believe that WE would have been reconfirmed as the mood was lynching the Justices.


Don't you see the problems that are going to arise if the Court is so dependant from the various legislative bodies?


I'm curious from your answer

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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?