Search results

My WA nation is now Defender Commandos.

From a legal standpoint the job of the VD is rather simple, be second in endorsements in case something happens to the delegate and chair the SC. The second part is what I really want to focus on with my campaign. The SC is a useful body, but isn't being used to its fullest potential. A big...

I accept my nomination

I'd like to point out this little tidbit from Article V of the Constitution: The RA has decided to remove Elu as delegate. Eras is a member of the SC. Elu still holds the position of delegate in game. As he was removed from office by the government but still holds the in-game position it falls...

I accept my nomination

TNP Nation: Abstain WA Nation: none Delegate: <Abstain> Vice Delegate: <Abstain> Speaker: <Abstain>

I'd like to join this party.

Abstain No WA nation I, Abstain, leader of The North Pacific nation of Abstain, pledge loyalty to the region, to abide by its laws, and to act as a responsible member of its society. I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will...

That is just plain creepy since I decided to keep about 80 puppets alive for no reason.

I, Limitless Events request to join The North Pacific Armed Forces. I pledge to serve our regions security and military interests, both at home and abroad. I pledge to obey all military rules and laws, as well as the laws of The North Pacific in my service in the military. I pledge to respect...

As I said earlier there was 1 item opened while I was Speaker, I did not vote in this item. There were multiple items up for vote prior to me becoming Speaker, I voted in all of these. Therefore I only missed 1 vote before resigning and could not have been removed from the RA.

The following members missed both the Delegate Request for Foreign Intervention and The Order of Succession, Executive Officer Selection, and Abstentions Omnibus Reform Act (some are repeats of those listed earlier): Govindia A mean old man + Greene2010 Aleksotopia Kinetic Mycan* AnimeFreak*...

I'm not asking for the office to be declared vacant or Gov to be removed from his position as Acting Speaker. I'm asking for those who did not vote at all in the two votes listed in flem's opening post be removed from the RA. Maintaining RA membership to maintain a position in the government is...

From #tnp, all times are in EDT

If the Speaker is unwilling to remove those from the RA who are to be removed as required by law then I would assume the SPT is empowered to do so under RA Rule 2 as the speaker would be considered absent.

There is transparency. All of those appointed have taken a public oath of office as required by law which clearly states what they have been appointed to. You know who has been appointed and what they have been appointed to, what more information could you possibly need from an announcement that...

I'm not doing this because you are you or you are Speaker, please don't go running around saying this is just because of a personal grudge because it's not. I'm doing this because as long as TNP wants to have these silly, over the top, ridiculous laws I will make sure they get enforced.

There is no legal requirement that the delegate make any sort of announcement anywhere for appointments. Since BW isn't telling people he didn't appoint them then it is safe to assume that he did indeed ask them to take their respective jobs and they agreed.

Gov, there was one vote opened during my time as Speaker and that was the vote on flem's constitution. Had there been another vote opened I would have cast a vote to maintain membership, which is the whole reason I wrote this policy. Every vote I closed as Speaker had a vote cast by me in it...

The issue at hand is that there are members of the RA who missed 2 consecutive votes with more than 3 days between their start. The votes in question are the Flemingovian Constitutional Proposal and the Revote on Recalling BW. The members who did not vote at all are Govindia, Greene2010...

The law clearly states it is 3 days between the start of the votes in question. The Flemingovian Constitutional Proposal Vote was started 3/22 at 9:23 PM GMT; it ended 3/29 at 9:30 PM GMT as indicated in the opening post of the vote. The Privileged Re-Vote for Recall of Delegate was started...

As I forgot to put this in my resignation, I resign from my position as Election Commissioner for the upcoming judicial elections.

Honestly, I give up. I'm tired of all these constant problems leading one into another. A problem comes up so a fix is created, but then this fix causes something else to be a problem. It may not be noticed immediately but somewhere down the road it is becomes an issue. So what is the solution...

As I stated here because Rule 1 was declared unconstitutional except in cases of election I have 2 options for how to deal with abstain votes. I can consider them valid but as rule 1 is unconstitutional they'd have to be counted as votes for determining a majority of votes cast, essentially...

RA Voting Procedures have been posted following the need to clarify matters following the court ruling on Blue Wolf's recall and abstentions. I also felt it was about time to have these procedures typed up and posted on the forum.

As there is no formal announced policy on this, it would be best to have one written up. With that in mind, the Speaker is allowed to lay out a set of guidelines for proposed legislation and voting, as stated by Article II, Section Two of the Constitution. A lot of this is common sense stuff but...

Following the court ruling declaring that RA Rule 1, which deals with the counting of abstain votes, is in violation of procedure as set by the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, except in cases of elections as defined in TNP Law 26 the policy regarding the voting rights of the...

The issue is that the courts ruled that the RA rule 1 which deals with using abstentions purely for quorum purposes and not using them to determine a result is unconstitutional which means that I'm left with 2 options. Counting it as a valid vote means that it must then be used for the purposes...

As this proposal is a significant change to the Legal Code, by both having a number of changes included and an entirely new structure, I'm opening this straw poll to see how the RA feels about this idea. I've added an actual poll so people can express their opinion anonymously. You don't need...

This has been noted. As the previous recall vote reached an unconstitutional result, due in part to votes not recognized by the constitution for the purposes of recall being cast, a new vote on this matter will be held no sooner than the 29th of March.