|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Aug 3, 2019 21:13:20 GMT -6
We should keep in mind that tone policing is an argumentatice fallacy, seeking to discredit a message by focusing on how it is delivered as opposed to the content. It's also a way for the 'policer' to hijack the discussion and position themselves as the authority and arbiter of 'acceptable' discourse. Less than a quarter-mile from my home is the courtroom where noted American lawyer Clarence Darrow got his start. He is credited with saying something along the lines of the following: "The English language is a poor enough medium of expression. We should use every damn bit of it." Not sure this logic follows. I do agree that tone policing can be weaponized, but you seem to be implying that every tone is appropriate in every situation. That's clearly not true. That's not what he's implying. But boring story, DARVO.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 31, 2019 11:41:47 GMT -6
When I wroteI was thinking not of an official who makes no arrangements for anyone to handle his office, and goes silent for a prolonged time, but rather of the possibility of a citizen's either being sued or being accused of a crime, and being completely unaware of the fact. Unaware, that is, until he returns and discovers that he's suffered "summary judgment" and been found guilty of a crime, or has lost a lawsuit, because he's been out of touch for a few weeks. — John R We've worked through this. Key points: - Because Talossans value their privacy and do not always opt to having their personal email made public, the Clerk (or SOS) will have access, and they will send the complaint to the person and certify that it was sent. Service is effective that day.
- The person has 60 days to appear (can be extended by stipulation)
- If they do not appear in 60 days, the party suing has three months to move for default judgment, or it's forfeit.
What needs to be done:
- Procedure to vacate a default judgment within, let's say, six months.
Assuming everything happens in the most amount of time possible, a party will then have had 9 months to address a suit, which is basically years in Talossan time. This, of course, assumes that plaintiff seeks a default on day 61, and the court grants it, and then defendant does not move to vacate within 6 months, then the order is entered and binding. It's not uncommon in other jurisdiction to limit what can be recovered on a default (e.g. attorneys fees; putative damages; etc.). Although those don't seem to be an issue in Talossa. I think the foregoing address most, if not all, of the concerns you raised.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 31, 2019 8:39:07 GMT -6
Sorry, V, that was boring and I'm not into it. Get some more interesting taunts if you want to get in on the fun. Have a good one though Translation - DARVO has no idea what he is talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 31, 2019 4:31:55 GMT -6
It is really important to follow the law, and all the more so when you are exerting power. It might be inconvenient, but the rule of law is one of those fragile things that protects the powerless from the powerful. Define "Rule of Law" for me please. I'll give you a hint, DARVO Davinescu, Miestra is not talking about the rule of law, she's talking about judicial precedent. Things like "substantial compliance" and "irreparable harm" do not speak to the rule of law but are legal concepts. So do us all a favor, DARVO, define the phrase you insist on using, because how you're using it certainly does not fit into how Aristotle, A.V. Dicey, or even Brian Tamanaha use it.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 31, 2019 3:39:58 GMT -6
(1) writing "please return with seven (7) days" ... Like, just put seven. I can read.
(2) Using ordinals in dates when the year is present.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 30, 2019 20:32:25 GMT -6
General observation, I really hate the construction "and/or." You really only need "or." From a CS perspective, it makes it clear you don't mean XOR But absent the "either" it's not an exclusive or. And implies each part is necessary. Or means one or both or all. Either or means one at the exclusion of the other. And/or means either all or some. In law, this unnecessarily confuses what is required (are elements required or are only some?). ; See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And/or for a decent legal criticism. This is one of the three pet peeves that I'll red pen and send back the moment I get a draft of something on my desk (as opposed to other things I'll just tell the person not to do again in the future).
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 30, 2019 19:52:03 GMT -6
General observation, I really hate the construction "and/or." You really only need "or."
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 30, 2019 19:11:07 GMT -6
I would gladly co-sponsor it, but I didn't do any work so it's not really my place. I've also only skimmed.
That said, I intend to vote in the affirmative.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 30, 2019 18:37:38 GMT -6
The Republic used to have a board set aside specifically for overly flowery language. Maybe merge this idea with the thunderdome? Points scored for the fanciest dis. It would, I imagine, be something like this?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 30, 2019 14:55:22 GMT -6
In the gif above, V is of course Flexo
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 30, 2019 8:00:10 GMT -6
Well, this went from self-congratulations to a grandiose battle of morality in 14 hours. How does Talossa do it? We're a talented lot. And if you're going to do something, why not make it overblown?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 30, 2019 7:57:40 GMT -6
I did not quit because I wanted to attack people in "nastier" terms. I resigned because I was getting thrown under the bus. Again, you lack the moral high ground to question me when you insults are a hell of a lot worse but you dress them up in flowery language. You've condoned homophobic comments or, at the very best, tried to straightsplain them away. You've engaged in transphobic behavior for which you've never apologized. At least Johnny Boy had the moral capacity to admit that he waits to the last possible minute to levy his political objection to maximize impact. You lie about all of this. You're not a liar because you disagree with me. You're a liar because you lie. But cool revisionism, manarchist. If I don't agree with your vague unsubstantiated insults and allegations, that must make me a liar, of course. Again, you don't seem to actually know what a lie is. Whatever. This is clearly not going anywhere, any more than similar arguments have gone anywhere. A code of conduct to which you agreed to adhere couldn't stop you from unleashing your id, and you turn on friends and allies in the blink of an eye if you think they're standing in the way of your crusade. So certainly reason alone isn't going to work, either. I do hope you find peace at some point. May you one day develop a sense of morality and ethics.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 30, 2019 7:55:32 GMT -6
What if we amended Section 1 to say, "Each Grand Session of the Estats Xhenerais shall convene and prorogue with each Cosa session of the National Ziu to the extent practicable. A Grand Session may continue as an Extraordinary Session for the sole purpose of resolving pending legislation if the national Cosa is dissolved prior to the last, possible clark as outlined in the Organic Law. No new legislation may be introduce during an Extraordinary Session."
The idea being that the Organic Law may change the number of clarks. But a voc or a call for an early election would hurt Vuode. So we make it flexible. No new legislation within 21 days of the last, possible final clark. But if we're on the 4th Clark, and it's like day 3 before the election,and I introduce legislation, then the GS can extend to resolve that legislation. Absolutely no new legislation is permitted (i.e., we can't keep extending; it's really to prevent rollover).
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 30, 2019 7:43:37 GMT -6
I did not quit because I wanted to attack people in "nastier" terms. I resigned because I was getting thrown under the bus.
Again, you lack the moral high ground to question me when you insults are a hell of a lot worse but you dress them up in flowery language. You've condoned homophobic comments or, at the very best, tried to straightsplain them away. You've engaged in transphobic behavior for which you've never apologized. At least Johnny Boy had the moral capacity to admit that he waits to the last possible minute to levy his political objection to maximize impact. You lie about all of this.
You're not a liar because you disagree with me. You're a liar because you lie. But cool revisionism, manarchist.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 30, 2019 5:40:34 GMT -6
Alex, you intentionally mislead people and lie. Pretty usually, your examples of my atrocious falsehoods are based purely in your fever-dreams about my motivations. If I criticize a major flaw in a bill of yours, it's because I just want to destroy all that is pure and good, and I am a terrible villain for not admitting it. Indeed, you have a tendency to gin up these huge passion plays in your own imagination, where you are a brave truth-teller who's willing to speak truth to power, boldly shattering norms in service of a greater truth. In this imagination, the king is not a fairly busy and oft-absent guy who has the country's best interests at heart and delights in rules and legalities (the same interests which drew him to Talossa and which enabled him to help lead the resistance against King Ben, driving him out). It's frankly a little embarrassing to watch, because it leads you to make these hyperdramatic posts like the one memorialized in your signature. When you get your teeth in something, you never seem to be able to let it go, and it gets in your way of seeing what's really going on. If someone disagrees with you about something, it can't be an honest difference of opinion -- even if they explain what they're thinking and they have a long history of thoughtful helpfulness! No, they're evil, since they disagree with you. Gluc is a liar when he doesn't agree with you: It's not obvious. And I said it results in effective expulsion. So yes, Gluc, you are lying. Ian is personally attacking you when he doesn't agree with you: I won't engage this discussion with either of you anymore, considering not once have you condemned the liar John or his patent misrepresentation as you have attacked me. Gluc and Ian, you have now made it personal. Great job. Let's have fun. :-D The king is trying to ignore the law when he doesn't agree with you: King John Completely inappropriate. You filed a petition. The Attorney General defends the Chancery and the Government. The Cort has yet to intervene. The Chancery need only draw its attention when required. And the mere allegations that Florencia has not approved the Constitution is insufficient. The Chancery needn't stop the referendum until such time as the Cort tells it to. You don't get to assert your interpretation as binding. You. Are. Not. The. Law. You. Are. Not. Above. The. Law. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Well, whatever. Clearly not going to change your mind about anything, since if I said that the sky was blue you'd send up three astronauts, a cosmonaut, and a monkey with a camera just to be sure. Just maybe think about this a bit? You have to know that your anger clouds your judgment at this point. You've had to go back and apologize once you cooled down. Is it possible that you're not the glorious hero -- that you and I and the king and everyone are just folks doing their best, often misunderstood and frequently disagreeing? That we have different beliefs, but no one is seeking to "lie to everyone" or destroy the country with tyranny? I flattered that you (a) spent an exorbitant amount of time culling through posts to make this case; or (b) have kept a schedule in a word doc somewhere for just this occasion. I'm further flattered by you adopting my "sky is blue" point, which I have used against you and Johnny boy. As I said Alex, you're a liar. And you obfuscate your insults. Your morals, if you have any at all, are questionable.
|
|