The Town of Odyssey

Wait, so being dead doesn't immediately remove you from office? Does this mean dead people can be Mayor or CoP?

Knight Fisher wrote:As members of ToO can we actually be obligated to pay if we lose? And what happens if I refuse if I lose?

It depends. Payment would be in the form of restitution to the winner of the suit, and legal fees to your respective attorney, if applicable. Either or both of those could be waived depending on the circumstances. It’s a case by case basis.
In any event, the combined sum any one party would be asked to pay in the end should never be unreasonably high. The fees are just to provide some semblance of an official nature. The primary purpose of this court is to protect against attacks on character and settle disagreements, so the ruling is what’s really important, not the money.

Astronomer wrote:Wait, so being dead doesn't immediately remove you from office? Does this mean dead people can be Mayor or CoP?

Of course not. How else do you think that Catspaw has been able to maintain power?

Monty wrote:

Astronomer wrote:Wait, so being dead doesn't immediately remove you from office? Does this mean dead people can be Mayor or CoP?

Of course not. How else do you think that Catspaw has been able to maintain power?

That post is a perfect example of why you should only quote the part of the post you’re responding to.

I refuse to have this case with this judge. He was willing to take a bribe for the verdict.

When was this?

bookworm wrote:When was this?

A couple days ago. He came to me wanting me to use my powers to get a certain pairing in The Spring Dance. I offered it, (To prove he is a dishonest Judge.) And while he didn't technically accept it was strongly implied he would. Check our comment pages.

I didn’t see anything in the comments that appeared to be accepting a bribe. You offered it and he appears to have refused.

Sure seems to me like he was going to. The point is I don't trust him to fairly and partially try this case. As his track record clearly shows him taking on frivolous law suits with great regularity.

That isn’t his fault, as a practitioner of the law he is obligated to try whatever case comes before him. If the suits have been frivolous, it was because frivolous people filed them.

But the Judge has the right to throw out frivolous cases. It has been by his choice that, that hasn't happened.

That is true. But I don’t see how that questions his fairness.

And if I end up refusing to pay history says... http://thetoo.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29569#p947749

And by his own admission he is unbiased. http://thetoo.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29569#p947803

Both of those posts were obviously made in jest. That was before this court took on an air of more seriousness.

bookworm wrote:Both of those posts were obviously made in jest. That was before this court took on an air of more seriousness.

But that fact does not make me trust him anymore as Judge and since my cooperation is based on my own willingness...

If by cooperation you mean appearing in court, it’s not up to you any more. You have been served your summons and are now required to show. If you fail to do so you will lose your case by default.

I never agreed in the first place to his jurisdiction though.

But there is no other judge.

And what does that have to do with my point? If people want to sue they should have an agreed mediator and by going that far should have fully committed to do whatever the mediator deems fair.

It would seem to me that by virtue of being the judge of this court the mediator is worthy to be trusted to deliver a fair verdict. Trying to base a case of bias on a few posts that were clearly made in jest seems like an unnecessary stalling tactic to me. Are you actually concerned about the judge’s competency, or are you just afraid you will be unable to present an adequate defense for yourself? If there is valid reason to suspect bias then you can appeal the verdict and these questions can be taken up then.