ELECTION: Junior Judge (3 months)

[Gilgamensch]

OK, we disagreed about something. Nothing wrong there, but did you ever came up with anything and posted clearly you pro's about it? Did you ever read really replies posted to yours?

Same here:

Trying to evade, but nothing...........Just throwing in peaces, leaving it standing in the air and turn away......

And you call me radical? I am trying to debate and I get as a response: nothing or hot air.........

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
... I am trying to debate and I get as a response: nothing or hot air.........

calling everything you don't like not thread related and crying for the court is not debating

[Gilgamensch]

Thanks Zaphod for this negative image you are drawing, but correct me, if I am wrong (it is mainly you):

1.) Where did I cry for the court?
2.) Where did I call everything not thread-related?

It is just ,sorry I have to say it like this, glibberish like yours which I would consider non-thread related.

DEBATE and not get a lot of hot air out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mapfi]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
Mapfi actually asked me to violate our connie, does this sound like a judge? (He send a PM to me, asking for Tamerlin to be inlcuded to the election). His 'last' demand as leaving judge........

Yes, I still got a copy from this incident........

Yep, and I still stand for that comment. In my opinion the constitution always provides leeway. As it was totally clear to me that Tamerlin intended to run for that position I'd have included him in the election if I had been senior justice. That would have been in the best interest of the game. After all, we play for fun here and not in order to obey a strict interpretation of a text we've written ourselves.

[Gilgamensch]

We set up the connie to have rules to be followed. Agreed?

Why do you suddenly want to change/bend the rules we agreed upon? The position of the judge is to follow those rules and not to change them. The court/judges might need to append (meaning=clarify) something, but they, in no way, have to violate it!!!!!!!!!!!

And Yes, I would have liked to see him in as well, but the connie is clear in this. So for me, that was it. No doubt, no nothing.

What we are doing here (you and me) is what I would like to see in the election, a fight till with tooth and nails , but just between the candidates and not for the mass (unless they want to throw in valid arguements for Locutus and a for H Tower for his one, my point of view)

I guess that's why you wanted to violate the connie, but again that's not our job!

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
... The position of the judge is to follow those rules and not to change them. ...

you don't need a judge for that, a machine could do as well, you need a judge to interpret and rule in cases where the con is unclear or contradictory. and sorry, but i don't think your the right man for that given your straight "what is written is written" attitude.

[Gilgamensch]

con is unclear or contradictory

For the nomination: It was clear for me, so need for discussion. Also people could have opened a case with the court.

A judge should first consider the connie and then in case their isn't anything consider his point of view.

If there isn't a loopwhole you want to create one? That doesn't make sense to me at all!

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
What we are doing here (you and me) is what I would like to see in the election, a fight till with tooth and nails , but just between the candidates and not for the mass (unless they want to throw in valid arguements for Locutus and a for H Tower for his one, my point of view)

The day you silence free speech is the day that this game dies. I will not be silent, and neither will all others around you.


It appears that Gilg is strict on constitutional interpretation and mapfi is willing to interpret a document that we have proved again and again to be less than perfect

[Gilgamensch]

H Tower,

where did I ever wanted to silence the freedom of speech? I even argued/discussed with Zaphod (I hope we continue). Maybe bad frasing of the sentence, no insult meant.

And Yes:

It appears that Gilg is strict on constitutional interpretation and mapfi is willing to interpret a document that we have proved again and again to be less than perfect

I prefer to go with what is written and not twist what is clear.

If it needs to be changed citizens concerned should put up discussions about and make an AMENDMENT. For this the connie is clear. For me a judge has to rule above what is written by US and not decide upon his own wish, making him master of the connie.

And by the way: What happened after the 'inital' posting, was what I wanted to see, but mainly from Mapfi.
But again he puts his priorities, where a judges priorities shouldn't be.

[H Tower]

welcome back mapfi

[Locutus]

Congrats, mapfi

Tough luck, better luck next time... But now you lost here, you might as well sign up for MoDST

[Gilgamensch]

Congrat's Mapfi.

Although I would have liked to see more discussion here

Has anyone heard anything from Frozzy?