RA Meeting Wednesday 5/3 3 pm SLT - Note time change.

Just to clarify, past behavior (which is being confused with "precedent') does not supersede the law. In other words, if a member of the SC violates the law, it does not set a "precedent" that all those who follow have the right to violate that law. Legal precedent comes from a court case which establishes a principal or rule that a court can adopt when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Thus past behavior does not equal precedent.

So, there is an excellent chance that I was illegally in violation of the constitution and bill of rights earlier, similar to how Gwyn is now by denying foreigners a right to trial. We're all a bunch of rookies.

~Ulrika~

Just to clarify... past behavior illustrates "patterns" by which others can and should deal with individuals and entities. In a certain case, as evident in the quoted text, people can get so caught up in their own intellectual games, they can't even see that one cannot "legally be in violation" and must create yet another rhetorical absurdity to try to make a senseless point.

Just to clarify, of course.

Your insults are become so obscure that I'm having difficulty following them.

Yes, I have broken the law many times in the city (on purpose and on accident), if that's what you're actually implying. These mistakes by definition are not legal precedent, however.

~Ulrika~

That is indeed a very good question. Ideally, of course, the three functions should be completely separate. In reality, until we grow to, say, one thousand members or so, it will hardly be possible to implement separate those areas.

To a slight extent, the Guild already has some "policing" powers. For instance, the SC has no power to decide if a building "looks good" or "fits in" — that's for the Guild to decide. This is perhaps the lowest possible "investigation" level — finding out conformity with the Covenants is up to the Guild, writing up the covenants is up to the RA, providing appeal to the decisions is up to the SC. In a sense, the bit related to "building in Neualtenburg" is slightly better defined than the other areas — since many still view N'burg as mostly a "building project". Still, as we have recently seen, this is far from a perfect system — too many loopholes to exploit, too many unwritten agreements, too many decisions based on precedent/tradition and not unwritten law or contracts.

Well, the opportunity to learn from past mistakes is more important than to refuse to accept that the mistakes were made. No one of the current N'burg citizens claims omniscience Challenges are to be met with skepticism and a lack of fear of experimenting new solutions for some problems.

Will the RA be able to form a quorum (today or in future)?

I see in another thread that Logan Bauer, an RA member, is leaving the city.

What to do?

I still have an SDF seat to fill --Interested, Patroklus?

Oh? What happened to Seldon?

Hasn't he been ill for months? Or am I imagining.

I've been in contact with him more recently. He is physically well, but very busy in RL. His intentions regarding RA and the city are unclear.

Is there anything that stops me as Party Leader from finding another to fill his seat? I have a responsability to those in my Party to have them adequately represented.

I recall some back-and-forth discussion about this a while back.

In fact, here it is:

/103/52/100864/1.html

Seems there is another contradictory element to the consitution. We may need SC clarification on this, barring an amendment.

*update*

this thread might be relevant too:

/103/8c/100988/1.html

why? It's quite clear according to the Constitution that I could --the ruling needs, however, to be a vote from the RA as to whether Seldon's term is still valid--or a word from Seldon as to his intentions. Frankly this doesn't concern any Branch except the RA.

If Seldon cannot fulfill his duties --it's quite clear that I can replace him with any member of my Party.

Actually, it isn't quite so clear to me. If an RA member becomes incapacitated, who replaces him? In the above thread, Ulrika claims it's the next person in the list, regardless of party affiliation. I think it is the next highest ranked person *in the same faction* as the person to be replaced. I think you are arguing that it can be *any* person the party leader wishes to place.

Your position would seem to actually support Claude's proposal here:
/103/8c/100988/1.html

To me it is unclear, which is the correct interpretation, and needs some clarification from the SC.

Yes. I believe it was Claude who made the sound argument that a party should be able to maintain its seats, filling vacant ones as folks left. It's simple and logical. Provided the new individual is a member of the party, the only prerequisite I see would be a reranking of members in a faction, however even that is optional if all in the faction agree on the replacement.

Given that the RA exists to exercise democracy it is of critical importance to keep those seats filled and provide every opportunity for individuals to vote (by email, forum, or website). I would proceed with these modifications only seeking moderation by the SC if there's a disagreement, otherwise you'll be waiting for-ev-er.

~Ulrika~

I rescind this. I was definitely wrong. The seat allocation should remain constant.

~Ulrika~

I have made a formal request to the SC for clarification on this, given the seeming contradictions in the constitution. As far as I know it is still pending.

I understand your objection, and it certainly looks that way to a lot of people. In retrospect, perhaps we should not have made any sanction at all but there were practical concerns and a lot of history that your not aware of that led to the situation in the first place.

I am going to present some of that here but please don't take this as anofficial SC argument or as a justification, I am just trying to be convivial and honest because there is a lot of "background" that you are seemingly unaware of.

The basic answer to your question is what I have already said, which is there was not a "trial," so the "judge, jury and executioner" argument is not valid. I agree this is a very technical argument though that looks less and less satisfactory as time goes on.

Government officials in RL do this kind of thing every day, hundreds of times a day. They are the judge jury and executioner on all kinds of minor issues. They think on their feet. So the defence of an administrative sanction is a way of saying that the "punishment" (as well as the crime) is so minor that its not something deserving of a trial. As I said earlier, the only RL precedents for a "trial" of a non-citizen, are crimes of a horrificly large nature like war crimes, terrorism etc. This is just a denial of a visa in effect.

Personally, I had problems with our jurisdiction as well (you can see me mentioning these doubts in the transcript). We held a hearing on a "de jure" distinction, which is again technically quite correct, but "looks" like we are holding a hearing on something which we have no actual jurisdiction over.

Sadly, not many people actually have read the transcripts a great deal of opinion is being based as usual on a lot of colourful remarks made by a certain person in the forums. As much as I have stooped to the same level lately myself, I prefer a more factually based argument where the words are not all loaded pejorative terms.

I think the *real* answer to your question however is that this is the *first* such hearing that has taken place. The SC is trying very hard to interpret some pretty hazily worded and mostly "not filled out" documents, and sets a precedent with ever single step and action. Were a really good group of people, really! We each spent up to twelve hours preparing and holding the hearing for Ulrika, pouring over documents and we did our best to do a good job. There are some excellent minds on the SC and IMO they are something the city can be very proud of.

The SC agenda, at the time of this request from Ulrika, as welll as the agenda of the RA was *full* of items. Long complex issues of interpretation of these same "hazy" founding documents, whether the SC should even have the power it does etc. The last two meetings of the SC we were not even able to go through half the agenda even though we generally sit for 3 to 4 hours of talking and the meetings go far into the wee hours of the night!

This "hearing" request from Ulrika and all the subsequent fall-out derailed all of that.

It can easily be argued (and it is by several people), that Ulrika has no real vested interest in a hearing at all. Her purpose might be seen more as an attempt to "stress-test" or indeed destroy the system she has created. To stop that very modification of "her" documents away from what she thinks their meaning or interpretation shoudl be. IMO she has dropped a lot of direct hints to that effect but that is for individuals to decide.

So if not for the reappearance of our favorite terrorist and her (what some view as) purposefull derailing of our agenda, this would likely have been one of the most productive sessions in Neualtenburgs legislative history IMO.

Consider this:

- The powers of the SC that Ulrika rails against today were actually in the process of being curtailed at the very moment she interrupted the legislative timetable.

- The very procedures by which we hold courts and trials and hearings (the ones which may indeed be faulty as you say), and all the methodolgy was the top item on the agenda at the last SC meeting where we actually did anything but talk about recent events!

I am not accusing anyone of anything but I have wondered about how coincidental that was that we were just starting the process of working out how to deal with issues like this when Ulrika hit us with them.

In summation, I think I agree with some of your arguments and I agree that valid points are being raised about the whole structure of the government. I would like to continue in the process of workign all that out, but we cannot get to discussing them because of the current situation.

IMO there are games within games being played. New residents are being "groomed" and old friends are being pitted against each other by a master puppeteer.

What I fear the most is that the whole Projekt will fail when it is to me a great and noble experiment that should continue.

There are people IMO who's entire purpose is this very failure however.

If the Projekt fails --it will because it has turned away from the very Constitution it is supposed to uphold, not from some imagined Emannuel Goldstein.

Sweet. I'm an agenda-derailing terrorist puppet master.

In several paragraphs there was not one mention of the constitution or bill of rights. I'll ask what everyone is thinking. Why exactly are you in the SC again?

~Ulrika~

Better than having to be the boot-licking sycophantic toady. Next time we overthrow a Government can we please switch parts? Pretty please?

It appears you are suffering from rhetorical epithet envy.

~Ulrika~

sorry, boss.

I made you say that.

~Ulrika~

If it hasn't come across in my posts to date can I just put on the record that I truly appreciate all the hard work that everyone put into preparing for these hearings? It is entirely clear to me that you all took the task at hand seriously and prepared for your discussions diligently.

My disagreement with your conclusions should not be interpreted as any implied criticism regarding competence.

If this project fails, you will never have anyone to blame but yourself.