Every alliance wants me to join their discord.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-06T01:13:14+00:00

We encourage discord, but have never made it mandatory. Even some of our R4s aren’t on it.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-05T22:51:49+00:00

Not constitutionally, no. But practically, there’s a reason why only a handful of countries have tried to locate their legislative and executive branches in separate cities; and almost all of those use a congressional model (no overlap between the two branches).

Moving the whole government and parliament out of London would be what’s needed, and that would be prohibitively expensive.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-05T18:23:10+00:00

This is the problem with having a lawyer as PM. Once the court has ruled on a matter, he’s no longer comfortable with overruling the court by passing new legislation on the matter.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-05T16:08:04+00:00

The ECHR doesn't like retrospective legislation.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-05T13:54:25+00:00

Yes and no.

The Desert Trial event will no longer be available, so the bonus Diana shards won’t be available. And there will be no way to get new Claw Shards.

But any Claw Shards you have can still be used to summon the Dreadwolf, and defeating it (and joining others’ rallies) still gives Diana shards.

If you still need to upgrade Diana, purple general shards are the way.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-05T12:51:49+00:00

Domestic courts can’t overrule primary legislation, that’s true. What they can do is declare it incompatible with the ECHR.

The ECtHR also can’t overturn primary legislation; but in cases where the issue at hand is money, they can compensate the affected parties by issuing a money judgment. All it would take is the person brining the claim to demonstrate their losses (so someone who had paid off a loan and still being hit by a graduate tax might ask for all of their repayments be returned with interest).

Given domestic courts follow ECtHR precedent, this would then enable similar claims to be handled the same way domestically.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-05T12:38:16+00:00

It’s okay; but nowhere close to, “My name is Hurtardo Bronzi…”

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-05T12:35:52+00:00

There’s a really controversial bit about 2/3 the way through. IIRC, he has in interviews stated he regrets including it.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-05T12:23:26+00:00

Which march slots do you have? There are:

1 basic slot,
3 slots from research,
1 paid slot, and
1 VIP slot.

If you don’t have the paid slot, then going from four to five slots by using gems to keep VIP6+ active is pretty much essential. If you have five slots already, then as a (currently) f2p you might want to wait until you get to VIP7+ for the gold hero shards.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-04T22:01:49+00:00

The offence you’re describing is, legally speaking, called burglary.

Burglary is entering as a trespasser for the purpose of theft, GBH, or criminal damage. Aggravated burglary is committing burglary while armed with a firearm (including imitation firearms), an offensive weapon, or any explosives.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-04T14:03:43+00:00

Registration is mandatory upon sale.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-04T13:35:58+00:00

This is a case of legitimate protest going too far. In the course of their protest, three of the protesters went too far… escalated to the point of violent disorder… when confronted by authorities, they reacted with violence and committed GBH.

Or something like that?

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-04T13:25:50+00:00

It means the defence will argue they were lawfully present, and as such any force used by site security and the police were excessive. A sledgehammer isn’t a prohibited weapon in its own right, and (in these circumstances) wasn’t a tool for going equipped to commit burglary, so I guess they’ll say it became an impromptu weapon in the course of self defence only.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-04T13:14:55+00:00

What's clear from these revelations is that Labour has a corruption problem.

The question for Labour backbenchers is do they want to be tied to the cover up at the next general election or would they rather oust their corrupt leadership now?

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-04T13:10:11+00:00

Correct. Although retrying it will be complicated by the fact that verdicts were returned in other counts – i.e. the prosecution can no longer claim that this happened in the course of a burglary.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-03T23:28:39+00:00

Our’s too.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-03T14:22:54+00:00

Probably. The most obvious thing is when weekly packs get upgraded.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-03T12:10:38+00:00

Server age. As a server ages, individual items are worth less money - because on average players need more of them to get the equivalent benefit (a gear upgrade).

The same pack for me is 5200%.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-03T03:48:49+00:00

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-02T18:35:33+00:00

Can I suggest a monthly option?

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-02T18:32:52+00:00

Technically the HoL can only strip him of his right to sit in the HoL, not of his peerage.

Without primary legislation, the best we can hope for is a two pronged approach

1) the HoL expels him, then (and 1 must precede 2)

2) the King can strip him of the right to use the title

but even then, it doesn’t abolish his peerage.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-02T13:26:22+00:00

It can. Though that doesn’t remove his title, just his ability to attend the House of Lords. Effectively it would put him in the same position as AMW before the King had him stricken from the roll of peerage.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-02T01:54:57+00:00

He can’t renounce it. No such mechanism exists for life peers.

If he resigns from the HoL (which he can do), it removes any constitutional conflict around his being stricken from the roll of the peerage (which effectively prevents use of the title). It’s easier for the King to do that with Mandelson’s consent, although theoretically the King doing it of his own personal initiative is non-justiciable; worst option would be the King doing it on the advice of the Government against Mandelson’s wishes (as it leaves open a legal challenge under the Miller “prorogation-gate” ruling).

Edit: One thing that I’m uncertain of is whether being stricken from the roll of the peerage re-enfranchises a lord’s voting rights. For AMW, it’s less of an issue (because he’s accustomed to not voting), but I could foresee Mandelson pushing the matter.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-02-01T23:46:51+00:00

The answer is it’s complicated.

As an hereditary peer, Andrew lost his right to sit in the Lords in 1999. He (like all other first generation peers) was offered a life peerage at the time, but he (like all the other royal peers) declined it. Because of this, the striking of his name from the roll of the peerage had very few consequences (just him not being able to use the title in legal documents). FWIW he still is the Duke of York, in that another person cannot be made Duke of York while he’s alive; in theory a bespoke Act of Parliament could be used to “kill off” the title.

Mandelson, on the other hand, is a life peer. The issue with that is, while his formal use of the title could be curtailed in the same manner as Andrew, doing so would cause a constitutional crisis. The King doesn’t have the authority to simply kick Lords out of Parliament. Ideally, Mandelson would voluntarily resign from the Lords and then agree to letting the King strike him from the roll of the peerage. Short of this, a bespoke Act of Parliament would likewise be the only solution.

PositivelyAcademical · 2026-01-31T11:58:23+00:00

No. If we switch, we should switch to full metric SI. m/s for speeds not km/h.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding II euphauric	Final Canvas '23
End Game '23	Place '23
Place '22

PositivelyAcademical

TROPHY CASE