Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on June 18, 2020, 07:36:06 AM

4.)  Whoa-Boy, the Infrastructure- Sleek websites and forums are very nice.  But they're also a huge pain in the tuckus.  Talossa will always be beholden to its nerds to keep things running, but I often think back to the geocities era of micronationalism and wonder if there wasn't something to the "quick and dirty" method of hanging out your shingle.  From what I've gathered, maintaining this stuff has been a thankless job.  This can be extended to a lot of stuff handled by the overall civil service.  You hear from the requisite minister when you miss a deadline, but not otherwise.  Do we have too much STUFF?

I agree.  This is one reason why I think the wiki is the best platform for most of our records and the like.  It's transparent, keeps records innately, it's very easy to understand and edit, and it operates based on very widely-used software.  The database is kicking up errors and has things that just can't be fixed without its specialist designer.  It's very impressive and cool, but it's also made us wholly dependent on MPF for most things to do with it.  That's just the way it is, and it's not a problem now, but it might be in the future.  Plans should be made for a future time when the database breaks and MPF is unable to help.

Sorry, was just thinking about this, and that's unfair -- "I know but I won't tell you."  Dumb of me.  In brief and off the top of my head:

it was a mistake to ban newbies from the Cosa, since jumping right into the Cosa is very fun;

the way that organized parties and the government avoid embarrassment by reaching private consensus before taking action is very professional but very opaque, getting in the way of one of the fun things about Talossa -- the ability to see and participate in parts of a society that are normally out of your reach;

monarchies are interesting because strong monarchies are really rare in almost every country from which Talossans immigrate, and here we even get to personally interact with the monarch, but instead we keep shifting more and more to versions of the same forms of government most people already live under, and that's boring;

a lot of people in charge don't prioritize the major problems (inactivity, voter decline, lack of political diversity) as highly as the changes they personally wish to make to the country regarding their specific hobby-horses;

a lot of the silly fluff that was fun, like the RUMP parade, was really easy to mock, and so now it's gone;

any new potential political groups would need to endure some cruelty, and it's just not worth it;

a lot of schemes for encouraging activity have been dumb because they relied on the assumption that restricting people from doing some fun stuff would force them to do less fun stuff, but in reality people just skipped the whole thing.

There's probably more, but that's all I have off the top.

I am sorry, but you are the elected leader of Talossa.  It's a position you avidly sought to obtain and to retain.  You are responsible for governing the country.  I am just a citizen observing we have serious problems.  I certainly have ideas about what's causing these problems, but I'm not going to start offering policy solutions and advocating for their adoption -- I got out of politics a while ago, and I am much happier for it.

Maybe making Talossa a republic will be the thing that fixes the drastic and continuous decline in activity and voter turnout.  That would be a good thing.

I don't really foresee a lot of trouble for your bills, don't worry.

I resign my post as head of the reorganized Els Zuávs.  I stand by the idea, but obviously it relies exclusively on myself to keep it going.  Since I have drastically downgraded my level of Talossan involvement, it would be irresponsible to retain my office.  I expect the institution to become moribund, but it would also be a perfect post for someone new with a lot of enthusiasm.  If the national atmosphere ever changes, then I hope someone will seize the opportunity.

There was a special midterm referendum on the monarchy just a few years ago, with 71% of respondents saying they wanted to keep the monarchy and 60% saying they didn't want it to be a figurehead.  I guess this question will be asked over and over in different ways until it produces the answer that is desired.

Hope Luc and his family are doing okay.

The wiki has been down for a bit over a week.

Thank you for everyone's time.

That's basically the principle of adhering to precedent.  To apply it, I would look at the underlying legal dilemma in a case and determine if a case had been previously decided on the basis of similar or related principles, then attempt to adhere to the same principles in my ruling.

I am not sure what answer I can give you on the question of ex parte communication that will satisfy you.  I intend to abide by precedent, as I have already said many times.  But that doesn't mean I can rule out a future case coming before the cort that addresses the issue, and because of that I can't speak definitively about the future.  The existing rules on the matter in question are G.12.1-3 and D.2.5.1.5-7, so you may look for yourself.  I am not interested in coming up with a code of conduct or anything like that.

I do not agree with the premise of your second question, especially since the quotes make it seem as though you're repeating rather insulting words that I did not, in fact, say.  I am not interested in gratuitously insulting them or anyone else.  And you must already believe that I'll be able to operate on the cort just fine, since you asked me if I'd accept a nomination out of the blue.

My account of the case was the one that was publicly presented.  A potential litigant posted on a private forum about a suit currently in a judge's courtroom.  The judge advised him not to "fall for it."  I understand that Txec hadn't actually read the post, and was just reflexively advising the litigant not to agree to anything I might possibly be saying -- problematic in its own right, but beside the point.  Separately, you posted on a different forum about the case and some of your arguments and how difficult it was for you, to which you testified the judge also replied sympathetically.  My contention at the time was that these were inappropriate communications, but the cort found that no impropriety occurred, unanimously and without qualification, "given the small size of Talossa and the inevitable overlapping of people within public offices."  That was the reason given.  So that's that: the rule is set.

"[C]an you think of a time, in Talossa preferably but in your outside life if you want, that you were wrong about something; and you publicly admitted you were wrong and accepted the consequences?"

Sure.  I once passionately argued that MMP would diminish regional power, but I was just flat-out wrong.  Tafial and Luc explained why.  I saw what they were saying, admitted I was wrong, and moved on.  It's not a big deal.

"To give an example: if a member of the Free Democrats were to be arguing a case before the Cort, would you argue that they should not be allowed to mention the case in the private Free Democrat forum which is read by two CpI justices? As opposed to the voluntary code of conduct which prevails, i.e. that the Justices will not engage with any such thread?"

The precedent was set very firmly.  Absent some suit to the purpose with good reason to reconsider, it seems very clear that all of the practices you mention are completely fine under Talossan law.  Indeed, much much more would probably also be fine, as long as they fell within statutory requirements.

"The Cabinet has a Code of Conduct. Should the CpI have one, and how should it be enforced if so?"

There are already rules for judicial behavior in the law.

Roll it back to the previous version and it should be fixable by disabling the named extension that the error message talks about.

1. I think it will be fine.

For your first example, both the judge and one of the advocates belonged to the same private forum, where the advocate had been presenting arguments and a theory of the case privately, which the judge had been reading.  In my view, this was clearly inappropriate, but the whole Cort ruled very clearly that the practical constraints on our small Talossan community were too great to require recusal.

As to your second, I draw your attention to the post to which you linked:

"You are 100% right that I cannot know V's mind or whether or not it was to the advantage of the FDT to give you a seat. But regardless, you were given a seat by the FDT and V is a member of the FDT and he convened a hearing alone before a judge where he argued unopposed for your sentence to be curtailed. Those are the plain facts. Even if you are sure that there was nothing corrupt at work here, that doesn't mean that next time there won't be."

The cort felt that this was fine too, and now that, too, is precedent (albeit somewhat weaker).

I still think that both practices are not great.  It would have been better if Talossa didn't permit lawyers to argue their cases, unanswered, on private forums.  It would have been better if Talossa didn't permit the Government to revisit prior cases (of political allies or anyone else) and reargue them without opposing counsel.  But a lot of things have changed in Talossa in recent years, and these precedents are set.

2.  I'd feel fine ruling whichever I thought the law inclined.

3.  I do not recall his answers in enough detail to say, unfortunately.  I had no objections to his legal philosophy, however.

4.  They would be superseded, I imagine.