by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .874875876877878879880. . .2,1802,181»

Meridiani Planum wrote:Inheritance is a matter of law, and government has a say over law. Yes, people may have contracts, but even then government has a say in how those contracts are going to be interpreted and enforced. And if there is no contract, government will still need to have principles from which to make legal interpretations and judgments.

Ok, if you are going to split the hairs that tightly, we can play that game for a while.

Would you be good enough to explain why there should be laws on inheritance?

Aurora Islands wrote:The dislike was not about the alternate justice election but about the outdated voting system you use here in the region. Why not do what the majority of the people wants? page=poll/p=441

Thank you for the clarification. The election results here are on a majority vote which is what the majority want.

Bruntilia wrote:Disliking a post doesn't make one a troll, but that does seem like an odd thing to dislike.

In this case you are right.

Aurora Islands wrote:The dislike was not about the alternate justice election but about the outdated voting system you use here in the region. Why not do what the majority of the people wants? page=poll/p=441

This poll that you referenced was before certain features of polls were considered. The most damaging being:

1) no way to specify residency to the 15 day requirement
2) no way to hide the results until after the voting period
3) people outside the region can pop in for a second, vote then leave and their votes will remain in the poll

As such this would still require the appointing of vote counters to go through the polls and only count the true 15 day residents which might make the real results be contrary to the poll results, it is better to just have one result. Additionally, if you add up the totals for public vs. secret ballot, the secret ballot is the majority which is not possible. As such the consensus at the time was to wait until secret ballots were implemented before reconsidering the use of NS polls.

Since voting for the Alternate Justice is open, the floor is also open to ask the candidates questions, lets get some discussion from the candidates. This would help people make a more informed decision.

Southern hampshire

Why don't you make a preliminary poll here now where people vote if they want to "register" for the future vote, or ask people to post here for their vote to be considered, and then launch the poll? that solves problems 1 and 3

Acario wrote:Since voting for the Alternate Justice is open, the floor is also open to ask the candidates questions, lets get some discussion from the candidates. This would help people make a more informed decision.

I agree wholeheartedly! Please, ask away. I'll be more then happy to answer any questions you may have

Let me start off by saying why I am an ideal candidate for Alt. Justice:
One I am active in this region, and am available at most times to hear a case in a timely manner. Two I helped write our current constitution and know how to interpret it on any case dealing with the constitution. I believe my history in this region shows my commitment to it, and my record of being fair and honest in any government office.

Kaputer wrote:Let me start off by saying why I am an ideal candidate for Alt. Justice:
One I am active in this region, and am available at most times to hear a case in a timely manner. Two I helped write our current constitution and know how to interpret it on any case dealing with the constitution. I believe my history in this region shows my commitment to it, and my record of being fair and honest in any government office.

I too am a time in the region, all three my nations. My main one, Armus Republic is the Minister of Interior. In fact, I may be as bold to say I am more active then my friend Kaputer here in some regards. While it is true that I did not have a hand in writing our Constitution, that does not make me any less aware of its interpretations in regard to our laws. It can also be argued that a new justice, one who had no hand in the creation of the Constitution, could approach all cases with a complete unbiased opinion as compared to my opponent. I have wholeheartedly stood by this region since my arrival two years ago and I will continue to stand by it

Speaking as a Justice, I have a question I would like to ask the candidates for Alternate Justice to consider the following scenario.

Suppose a close friend or an ally is facing a trial in Capitalist Paradise. Suppose one of your enemies is on trial. What measures would you take to make sure that you would not be placed in any sort or conflict of interest or bias on your part?

Nation of Quebec wrote:Speaking as a Justice, I have a question I would like to ask the candidates for Alternate Justice to consider the following scenario.

Suppose a close friend or an ally is facing a trial in Capitalist Paradise. Suppose one of your enemies is on trial. What measures would you take to make sure that you would not be placed in any sort or conflict of interest or bias on your part?

If possible, I would abstain from the vote in the basis of a conflict of interest. If abstaining is not an opinion, I would closely follow the Constitution in regards to my decision

Nation of Quebec wrote:Speaking as a Justice, I have a question I would like to ask the candidates for Alternate Justice to consider the following scenario.

Suppose a close friend or an ally is facing a trial in Capitalist Paradise. Suppose one of your enemies is on trial. What measures would you take to make sure that you would not be placed in any sort or conflict of interest or bias on your part?

If it is a close friend or bitter enemy and I felt it might conflict my opinion I would recuse myself. However I have a fair and equal sense and would weigh each case on its merits, not the merit of the individual.

Kaputer wrote:If it is a close friend or bitter enemy and I felt it might conflict my opinion I would recuse myself. However I have a fair and equal sense and would weigh each case on its merits, not the merit of the individual.

Nation of Quebec wrote:Speaking as a Justice, I have a question I would like to ask the candidates for Alternate Justice to consider the following scenario.

Suppose a close friend or an ally is facing a trial in Capitalist Paradise. Suppose one of your enemies is on trial. What measures would you take to make sure that you would not be placed in any sort or conflict of interest or bias on your part?

Agreed. Justice is blind and all must be held to the same standards as all the rest

I would like to hear both candidates weigh in on respectful posting vs. free speech.

The Poll to elect our next Alternate Supreme Court Jusitce is now open!

Our Candidates are:

Artimsia

and

Kaputer

To be counted, Please send your vote to both vote counters Fra Jong and Mortem inferre.

All Constitutional Election rules apply.

The Poll will close Saturday January 31 at 9:00 PM ET.

Capitalist Producers wrote:Would you be good enough to explain why there should be laws on inheritance?

Are you kidding me? If your society has private property rights, people are going to need legal judgments on this matter or else there will in some cases be confusion about transfers of ownership. What property rights should be transferred where?

The problem isn't simply about fights that might break out. It's about having an orderly process of settling such matters that is based on the best wisdom collected from past cases.

Southern hampshire

Force everyone to make a will and get out of inheritance altogether.

Capitalist Producers wrote:I would like to hear both candidates weigh in on respectful posting vs. free speech.

Like I have said before, our Constitution will be my guide. To post respectfully on the forum. To post on the message board, respectfully and in accordance with game rules of etiquette. These are the two rights regarding free speech. In order to uphold the Constitution, I must therefore follow and adhere to the game rules of etiquette. it's not really about freedom of speech in regards to NationStates. I know all of us here would rejoice at having true freedom of speech here, but that's simply not the case. In NationStates, respectful posting=free speech. With that being said, that does not mean we cannot disagree with others. The free exchange of ideas and thoughts must continue on, just like it has always done. This is how I looked at newspaper postings with Armus Republic, which is the Minister of Interior. However, personal attacks and other similar forms of harassment should not, and will not be tolerated. To debate and to attack are two very different things

Meridiani Planum wrote:Are you kidding me? If your society has private property rights, people are going to need legal judgments on this matter or else there will in some cases be confusion about transfers of ownership. What property rights should be transferred where?

The problem isn't simply about fights that might break out. It's about having an orderly process of settling such matters that is based on the best wisdom collected from past cases.

We could revive quo warranto.

Meridiani Planum wrote:Are you kidding me?


Not in the least.

Meridiani Planum wrote:If your society has private property rights, people are going to need legal judgments on this matter or else there will in some cases be confusion about transfers of ownership. What property rights should be transferred where?

Isn't that why some legal scholar created a will?

Meridiani Planum wrote:The problem isn't simply about fights that might break out. It's about having an orderly process of settling such matters that is based on the best wisdom collected from past cases.

The wisdom of previous cases...

You mean like the lady in New York who left $2.9 million in cash, bonds and stocks along with a $6 million Manhattan roof top condo to her cat?

Or are we talking about parents that disinherit offspring for the sin of being gay?

Perhaps you are referring to the couple that left their entire estate, tipping the scales at a quarter billion dollars, to the Rev. Jim Jones, disinheriting all their kids and grand kids in the process. (As luck would have it, Rev. Jones died the same day they did.)

As extreme as those case may be, and there are hundreds more at least that extreme every year, it is their money and property to be disposed as they see fit. While we may laugh and point and exclaim "what a freakin' waste" they have every right to do what they wish with their property.

With all of that, you have yet to give a good reason why the process of inheritance must be regulated, examined or processed (other then title transfers as need be) by the government. Everything you've asked for may be handled without government having a hand in it or even knowledge of it.

As for that claim of orderly process... You've never spent a lot of time dealing any government agency, have you? Yeah, it's orderly alright. So orderly that it takes an order of magnitude more time and effort plus some hefty fees to get anything done. Assuming it gets done at all.

Probate court is just another government agency propped up on a massive foundation of paperwork built into a maze of law so vast and complex that no one human can fully understand the entire process. In some states, the process even differs by county. Is that the "order" you had in mind?

Southern hampshire wrote:Force everyone to make a will and get out of inheritance altogether.

I would like to think of it more like voting. If you don't vote that is a vote to let the majority make the decision for you.

If you don't make a will, that is a decision to have someone else make the decision for you after you have gone on to see what comes next.

If the direct descendants cannot sort it out among themselves, then let them hire lawyers and spend all that inheritance fighting for it. It will only take two or three highly public probate battles to encourage the rest of the world to make a will or play nice when someone dies intestate.

Think of this as a self solving problem.

Artimsia wrote:Like I have said before, our Constitution will be my guide. To post respectfully on the forum. To post on the message board, respectfully and in accordance with game rules of etiquette. --SNIP--

A while back there was a case where editors censored a newspaper article over words deemed to be offensive. Was the court right or wrong in ordering the news paper to reinstate those articles in their original form?

One other question. I see that you are not a member of the WA. Would you be willing to tell us whether or you are a puppet nation or if you have other puppet nations and provide a list of those?

Capitalist Producers wrote:A while back there was a case where editors censored a newspaper article over words deemed to be offensive. Was the court right or wrong in ordering the news paper to reinstate those articles in their original form?

To my understanding, the case you are referring to had its decision grounded on the fact that the person who was in charge of the newspaper postings did not have the explicit Constitutional authority to censor material and on that ruling, I would have to agree with them. However, in terms of the words deemed offensive, it could be argued that the words were part of a larger, more personal attack towards another nation which, according to the Constitution and game rules of etiquette, is illegal. I cannot give an unbiased statement in regards to it because I am allies with two of the involved nations and enemies with the other.

Capitalist Producers wrote:One other question. I see that you are not a member of the WA. Would you be willing to tell us whether or you are a puppet nation or if you have other puppet nations and provide a list of those?

It is no secret that this is a puppet nation. The main nation is Armus Republic, which is the Minister of Interior. Decoris is the second puppet nation, which also resides in this region. Imren is my WA nation and my third puppet, which is also my final one. Imren currently resides in Federation of Capitalist States

Armus Republic: Main nation
Artimsia: First puppet
Decoris: Second puppet
Imren: Third puppet and WA nation

Greetings from the Emperial Federation of Gatttica! We have recently moved to the Capitalist Paradise region and are hoping to become more involved in WA, regional and inter country affairs. Glad to be here!

does anyone know how to post pictures on NS international incidents forms

Capitalist Producers wrote:One other question. I see that you are not a member of the WA. Would you be willing to tell us whether or you are a puppet nation or if you have other puppet nations and provide a list of those?

I think in the interest of fairness Kaputer should voluntarily inform us of his puppet nations in the region as well.

Nation of Quebec wrote:I think in the interest of fairness Kaputer should voluntarily inform us of his puppet nations in the region as well.

Works for me.

Artimsia wrote:To my understanding, the case you are referring to had its decision grounded on the fact that the person who was in charge of the newspaper postings did not have the explicit Constitutional authority to censor material and on that ruling, I would have to agree with them. However, in terms of the words deemed offensive, it could be argued that the words were part of a larger, more personal attack towards another nation which, according to the Constitution and game rules of etiquette, is illegal. I cannot give an unbiased statement in regards to it because I am allies with two of the involved nations and enemies with the other.

Thank you for your replay and honesty.

Southern hampshire

Coltpower wrote:does anyone know how to post pictures on NS international incidents forms

Use [img] and [/img] and put the link between the tags

Capitalist Producers wrote:Thank you for your replay and honesty.

You're very welcome. If anyone else has any questions, please feel free to ask

«12. . .874875876877878879880. . .2,1802,181»

Advertisement