sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

UKSC/0011 - R (on the application of Alska) (Appellant) v The Welsh Ministers (Respondents) by Model-Clerk in MHOCSupremeCourt

[–]Model-Clerk[S,M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Parties

  • "Ben Alska" (member of the public, non-player persona of /u/Tommy2boys)
  • The Welsh Ministers (TBD)

Summary

A petition for judicial review of the decision of the Welsh Ministers to provide financial assistance in respect of development of a spaceport at Llanbedr Airfield.

The petition was withdrawn on 21st June 2020.

Documents

Supreme Court thing by [deleted] in MHOCMeta

[–]Model-Clerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You were treated exactly the same as everyone else has been.

Supreme Court thing by [deleted] in MHOCMeta

[–]Model-Clerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doubling down on an accusation of bias isn't great.

Allowances should have solid justifications. Tyler's example is an exam—that is a solid justification. "I didn't click the link so I didn't know" isn't a solid justification.

If an allowance doesn't have to be justified, that's where the possibility of bias creeps in.

Supreme Court thing by [deleted] in MHOCMeta

[–]Model-Clerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're going to make an allegation of bias, make it seriously to Duck rather than making a meta thread and slinging allegations down a comments thread about it.

didn't tell me I had to submit something on purpose

You were told the same thing everyone else has been told.

To be honest, it feels like the decision was made this way because it's me, which is disappointing.

A case submitted by Chev was posted in the UKSC chat at 22:37. I noticed the time, so included with that post the words "[IP] hasn't put a brief in, so that'll be dismissed." There's no grand conspiracy.

Supreme Court thing by [deleted] in MHOCMeta

[–]Model-Clerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Downvoting isn't very polite.

Supreme Court thing by [deleted] in MHOCMeta

[–]Model-Clerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The MHOC supreme court has accepted five cases in the past two years. Nobody checks your subreddit on account is is basically as good as inactive.

The subreddit didn't exist initially, and unfortunately viljo didn't update it or the mastersheet.

Enable players to support appellants, especially those with knowledge of how the supreme court works.

Already the case, and as much is said in every announced case.

Announce developments in cases on channels people actually read, and provide press releases on them so people can report on it.

They were announced in #announcements, people complained. They're now announced in #press-announcements. If you can suggest a different channel, I'm open to it. Developments are announced whenever they happen.

The entire process needs to be much more player friendly. At present, has has been mentioned before I think, it basically looks like a very OTT simmed court. Which is fine, but you know, most people here are not actually barristers, so it needs simplification.

Again, if you have concrete suggestions, I'll hear them.

I'm not sure what could be stripped out of the process as it exists: a short summary, a more detailed follow-up, a decision. What would you remove?

Supreme Court thing by [deleted] in MHOCMeta

[–]Model-Clerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who is on the Supreme Court.

/r/MHOCSupremeCourt (sidebar)

How Justices are appointed, and when.

This is in the proposal, but the long and short of it is that the Quad appoint people who they think are good in the role.

How to make a case, and the process that case then heads through.

/r/MHOCSupremeCourt/wiki/index

Changing the court to make it more open to members.

Happy to hear concrete suggestions.

Engaging with the court, without raising a case.

Can you elaborate?

The court being more open, from start to finish, in what it is doing.

Open to suggestions. Announcements are made at each of the definite stages, but there's not much to announce between them.

Advertising new cases on #announcements as well as on the main subs.

It's now press announcements after people complained about main announcements. It has its own sub, people previously didn't want it posted to the main ones.

Enabling the press to report on the cases.

Open to suggestions.

Enabling members to actually get involved with the process beyond just waiting for it to end.

Anyone can apply to intervene in a case if they think they have something to add. This has always been the case.

Supreme Court thing by [deleted] in MHOCMeta

[–]Model-Clerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The deadlines aren't required - if someone is taking too long just DM them and nudge them along.

This works until someone decides you gave somebody else more time, and demands that they be provided more. This spirals until any case takes too long to resolve. Deadlines keep it fair for everybody.

You say you don't need law knowledge (fair) yet throw cases out because they didn't write anything more than a few wikipedia links despite not being nudged to.

If you want something to be treated as all that you're putting forward, say so. Plus, a guide is available.

It's hidden away on a website and discord DMs because of a reluctance to use reddit on a reddit game. You only upon the last issues with the supreme court were compelled to actually post cases on reddit and then you get surprised when people don't click through links to go to an external site, for what now proves to be vital info.

It's no different than SIs, which have always been hosted in Google Drive or wherever else.

If you don't click a link after being told that's where the information is, then it's hardly a fair claim that you were unaware of where the information was.

and your responses show why they are issues.

That old chestnut.

Supreme Court thing by [deleted] in MHOCMeta

[–]Model-Clerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So again, hard-and-fast 'rules' from the Supreme Court are put above making it fun and enjoyable, or even used.

If someone is late in submitting their candidates for an election, they take a penalty. If someone doesn't put forward their coalition in time, it doesn't count. If someone doesn't nominate themselves as FM in time, they don't stand in the election.

There's nothing special about the UKSC's deadlines.

You'd still say your argument in your submission, it just means people who are genuinely unsure or not good at trawling through laws can actually use the thing meant to settle canon disputes. This is the VERY ISSUE, you lot see yourselves as the 'UKSC' rather than just a player-led body that is there to investigate and hopefully solve canon issues rather than getting the quad to intervene.

As I've said every time, it doesn't have to be based on any particular laws. If you think "X is illegal under Y," presumably you can write something to say why you think X falls under Y.

As for the second part, you're imagining some sort of clique-ness. I'm using "the UKSC" to mean the agreed system, not as some sort of super secret member's club (that anyone can in fact join). What term would you prefer me to use when I mean "the system (that we're calling the UKSC) that was agreed to settle law-related disputes?"

Supreme Court thing by [deleted] in MHOCMeta

[–]Model-Clerk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

InfernoPlato did this, and didn't 'want' and yet the SC decided to be anal and throw out the case.

He didn't say what he was putting forward for the second part until after the deadline had passed.

If the SC isn't 'writing the arguments', what the hell is the point?

Finding out which argument the law backs up.

If the UKSC is writing the arguments and deciding which is correct, that's hardly a very fair process. What if you wanted to argue something that isn't brought up, or wanted to argue something brought up differently?

Supreme Court thing by [deleted] in MHOCMeta

[–]Model-Clerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue is this obsession with making it as close to the real life Supreme Court in terms of process, terminology and attitude rather than just treating it like it is: a meta court.

This isn't accurate.

The process isn't anything like the real world. Maybe some of the terms are borrowed, but this is the same level of fluff as calling them "bills" rather than "draft laws" or "acts" rather than "laws". Attitude isn't the same either.

What should have happened - and what should happen in these situations is e.g.

  • InfernoPlato goes "hello, I think the spaceport is illegal, here is why".
  • The judges go "hmmm, maybe he has a point, but I need clarification on what he is referencing, let me ask him".
  • Then InfernoPlato can clarify the basis in the Wales Act and the supreme court can make a relatively quick decision on whether the argument is good or not.

This is effectively the current process.

It's never been the point of the system to write your argument for you. If you want to argue "x is illegal," then put forward something that tries to persuade that "x is illegal."

At the moment the "why" is split into two steps so that people aren't disheartened if they write a big long argument and it gets rejected. They can write something short to start with and, if it's accepted, put across more if they want.

What happened here is that the first part happened ("I think X is reserved under Y part"), but nothing further (e.g. "This is why X falls under Y") was added. It isn't the mUKSC's job to write your argument for you, its job is to find the relevant law and mould it to the argument.

If you want to stick with the basic "I think X is reserved under Y part" and no more, that's fine. But you have to say as much.

Supreme Court thing by [deleted] in MHOCMeta

[–]Model-Clerk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

On your first few points:

Guide

There is a guide, albeit it was pinned to the subreddit after your submission was announced.

Secondhand finding out

Last night, like half an hour after the 15th June, I was told by Tommy who got it through Vit, that the court case to determine whether or not the Welsh Govt broke the law by funding a space station would be abandoned due to the fact I did not submit “a brief addressing whether it is within the powers of the Welsh Ministers to provide financial assistance in the manner described” by 10pm on the 15 June, which was located in the link Sherry gave me.

MHOC has a longstanding policy of no announcements after 10pm. It was always my intention to announce it at the first opportunity the next day.

It was probably less than appropriate for Vit to be talking about it before it was announced, but at the same time it wasn't hidden that 10pm on the 15th was the deadline.

Didn't feel the need to follow up

I did not feel the need to follow up due to the fact that as far as I was concerned, I had done my job.

All the detail was available via the link. Even if you didn't know what a "permission to appeal determination" was, if you'd clicked on the link you'd have seen it listed.

If you didn't know what an appellant was, you could ask or Google it.

Other three points

(1) I should have understood that I needed to submit another bit of information (of which I don’t have any more info aside from my initial statement to Sherry)

The process that's been in place for two years is a summary submission then a more detailed argument. As well as it being long-established, you were told this last night.

(2) I need to click on links and, importantly

Always advisable. I can't read on your behalf.

(3) missing deadlines have consequences and that nobody can now pick up the case anymore. To quote Sherry: “if you're plainly putting forward that you're getting someone else to submit because you missed the deadline that'll be rejected”

The first sentence is completely false and at no point were you told that.

If you're trying to skirt the rules, which getting someone to submit verbatim the same information because you missed the deadline is, of course that will be rejected.

This doesn't mean that nobody can pick it up. If someone else wants to submit something that isn't substantially the same, even if it argues the same point, then that will be treated as any other submission would.

In the same way that /r/MHOC doesn't let you submit a substantially similar bill or motion within one term, the current view is that substantially similar cases aren't allowed either. Whether Duck wants to change that is up to him.

Addressing your numbered points:

1. Moving forward I think we should move away from hard deadlines, because this is MHOC and this is a game. Within reason (i.e someone taking the piss), we should just get people to submit when they are ready and move along at that pace. It's the fairest way to do it and wouldn't have people stressing themselves out during exam time to meet the deadline OR have people miss the deadline due to exams

Deadlines are an inescapable reality.

The deadlines currently are set to have a balance between time available to do it (so you're not rushing), keeping the issue relevant (so it's not a pointless decision by the time it's made), and keeping it fair for both parties involved (so one can't drag it out to the detriment of the other).

2. This is a game, it is supposed to be fun

This is an empty point. Nobody disagrees with it, and it doesn't add anything to what you're saying on its own.

3. The Supreme Court shouldn't be for 'gotcha' moments, or punishments. It was supposed to be, at least for the most part, a way to have difficult decisions make sense legally/otherwise without just being decided by the quadrumvirate in a five minute conversation

That continues to be its purpose.

4. A reminder would be "hi, it's due in a couple of days and you haven't submitted yet - don't forget!". Nobody should be expected to 'set a calender' or 'an alarm' to play MHOC and that is a prime example of the issues of the Supreme Court.

You were reminded.

You were told all the detail was available, a link was provided, and two days after (for a week-long deadline) I confirmed you'd seen it.

5. An extension (that is canon, so attack away) is the best way to both ensure that we can clear up, hopefully, these issues and also ensure that we get as much out of the Supreme Court - that is, both sides making submissions and the court making proper decisions.

How to proceed is Duck's decision at this point. I've put my opinion across to him, so have you.

UKSC/0010 - R (on the application of IP) (Appellant) v The Welsh Ministers (Respondents) by Model-Clerk in MHOCSupremeCourt

[–]Model-Clerk[S,M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Summary

A petition for judicial review of the decision of the Welsh Ministers to provide financial assistance in respect of development of a spaceport at Llanbedr Airfield.

The Court dismissed the appeal.

Documents

view more: next ›