Lawsuit: Adjourned Ameslap v. Crown, Case 12 (Ch. 2025)

[SoggehToast]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OBJECTIONS TO QUESTIONS

8. Assume a player spent 4 hours in the build world without ever engaging with another player. Would they qualify to run for office under the current laws?

OBJECTION - CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
The witness has been asked whether a theoretical player would be “qualified” under current laws. This question could not be credibly answered by the witness, as it is not naturally based on his perceptions. Besides being speculative, this question calls for the former Minister of Internal Affairs to give their interpretation of the law. Minister Thritystone was not called as a legal expert to provide an expert opinion on the law. Regardless, it is hard to imagine that the witnesses’ personal reading of election laws would serve this case.
Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Smallfries]

The Crown shall now have twenty-four hours to ask questions of the witness. The bench shall respond to the objections when we can.

 

[ameslap]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OBJECTIONS TO QUESTIONS


OBJECTION - CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
The witness has been asked whether a theoretical player would be “qualified” under current laws. This question could not be credibly answered by the witness, as it is not naturally based on his perceptions. Besides being speculative, this question calls for the former Minister of Internal Affairs to give their interpretation of the law. Minister Thritystone was not called as a legal expert to provide an expert opinion on the law. Regardless, it is hard to imagine that the witnesses’ personal reading of election laws would serve this case.
Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEEDURE
On all of these objections, The Crown waited until long after the 24 hour period passed to raise these objections, especially for the intial questions.

Furthermore, they admit that they knew that they were past the deadline online.

Proof:


I will be going through each objection now, in case these are not struck based on procedure. I apologize for my delay, some IRL circumstances occured yesterday that prevented me from getting on.

 

[ameslap]

IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
OBJECTIONS TO QUESTIONS

Honorable Chancellors, the Crown raises the following objections to Plaintiff's questions directed to Minister Thritystone.


OBJECTION - LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
Minister Thritystone would not, merely as a consequence of their previous role as Minister of Internal Affairs, have any knowledge regarding empirical evidence on legislator competency.


OBJECTION - CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
This question calls for the witness to speculate on the relative qualifications of hypothetical candidates. The witness cannot credibly testify on these fictitious scenarios, which are not naturally based on the witness’s perceptions as Minister of Internal Affairs. As such, this question also falls outside the scope of the witness's personal knowledge.


OBJECTION - LEADING THE WITNESS
The question is phrased in a manner which asserts an affirmative answer and invites the witness to agree.


OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AND LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
This question presupposes that Parliament has the authority or capacity to directly control the contents of the citizenship exam, which is a matter outside of the witness's personal knowledge. In fact, there is no reason to assume the witness, the previous Minister of Internal Affairs, would have any personal knowledge regarding the citizenship exam at all, which falls under the Ministry of Welfare. Additionally, this question assumes a particular answer to the question preceding it.


OBJECTION - LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
As stated in the previous objection, the citizenship exam falls under the Ministry of Welfare, not the Ministry of Internal Affairs. While the witness could have some credible knowledge on the administration of the playtime requirement during elections, it is unclear how their speculation on the role of the citizenship exam would be of value to the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
OBJECTIONS TO QUESTIONS

Honorable Chancellors, the Crown raises the following objections to Plaintiff's questions directed to Minister Thritystone.


OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
It has not been established that the Ministry of Internal Affairs was responsible for deciding on the 4-hour per 30-day requirement.


OBJECTION - RELEVANCY
Whether or not Minister Thritystone is “aware of how Parliament came up with the 4-hour figure” is irrelevant and unlikely to be of interest to the Court.


OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
It has not been established that Parliament tasks the Ministry of Internal Affairs with this responsibility.


OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
There is no reason to assume Minister Thritystone has any credible knowledge of the relationship between playtime and legislative qualifications.


OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
The Ministry of Internal Affairs is not responsible for the citizenship exam. Minister Thritystone is unlikely to have credible knowledge regarding who designed it or what role Parliament has played, is currently playing, or may play in the future in relation to it.


OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
Minister Thritystone should be asked only questions within the scope of his personal knowledge as the previous Minister of Internal Affairs. There is no reason to assume he can credibly provide testimony about the internal workings of the Government regarding the citizenship exam.


OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
The witness’s speculation on the citizenship exam and its role within the Kingdom is unlikely to be of value to the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

Sorry your honour, for whatever reason the quote tool did not actually quote all of the objections that should have been in my Breach of Procedure Objection.

 

[ameslap]

Responses:

OBJECTION - LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
Minister Thritystone would not, merely as a consequence of their previous role as Minister of Internal Affairs, have any knowledge regarding empirical evidence on legislator competency.

Actually, your honour, this is not true. To be the Minister of Internal Affairs, Thritystone was required to be a member of Parliament as well. If they had direct experence as a legislator they can speak to the evidence of legislator competency.

Additionally, the MoIA office is charged with conducting national elections and ,therefore also responsible for overseeing the candidates in that election. The only body that should reasonably be able to answer questions about the elections and their standards is the MoIA.

OBJECTION - CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
This question calls for the witness to speculate on the relative qualifications of hypothetical candidates. The witness cannot credibly testify on these fictitious scenarios, which are not naturally based on the witness’s perceptions as Minister of Internal Affairs. As such, this question also falls outside the scope of the witness's personal knowledge.

I’m testing whether the rule itself makes sense, whether playtime really reflects engagement. That falls squarely within the Minister’s responsibility to justify the policy.

OBJECTION - LEADING THE WITNESS
The question is phrased in a manner which asserts an affirmative answer and invites the witness to agree.

This is foundational background. I’m entitled to establish what role Parliament plays in the exam before moving to the substance. The phrasing simply narrows the issue, it doesn’t prevent the witness from disagreeing.

OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AND LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
This question presupposes that Parliament has the authority or capacity to directly control the contents of the citizenship exam, which is a matter outside of the witness's personal knowledge. In fact, there is no reason to assume the witness, the previous Minister of Internal Affairs, would have any personal knowledge regarding the citizenship exam at all, which falls under the Ministry of Welfare. Additionally, this question assumes a particular answer to the question preceding it

The witness, as Minister of Internal Affairs, is responsible for defending the playtime requirement and how qualifications for citizenship are implemented. Asking why the exam could not be adjusted tests the credibility of that requirement. The question does not assume an answer, it simply probes whether the exam, which Parliament influences, could serve the same purpose. That goes directly to the policy justification at issue.

OBJECTION - LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
As stated in the previous objection, the citizenship exam falls under the Ministry of Welfare, not the Ministry of Internal Affairs. While the witness could have some credible knowledge on the administration of the playtime requirement during elections, it is unclear how their speculation on the role of the citizenship exam would be of value to the Court.

I’m not asking the witness to redesign the exam. I’m asking them to justify their own policy, the playtime requirement, by identifying what it uniquely measures. That falls squarely within their responsibility as Minister of Internal Affairs and is directly within their personal knowledge.

OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
It has not been established that the Ministry of Internal Affairs was responsible for deciding on the 4-hour per 30-day requirement.

I’m not assuming, this is the policy the witness is here to defend. Asking why 4 hours was chosen goes directly to its justification.

OBJECTION - RELEVANCY
Whether or not Minister Thritystone is “aware of how Parliament came up with the 4-hour figure” is irrelevant and unlikely to be of interest to the Court.

The origin of the figure is central to evaluating whether it’s rational. If even the Minister can’t explain why 4 hours was chosen, that speaks directly to its validity.

OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
It has not been established that Parliament tasks the Ministry of Internal Affairs with this responsibility.

The witness has already testified that it’s "not possible" to idle and meet the requirement. I’m entitled to probe what basis or monitoring supports that claim.

OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
There is no reason to assume Minister Thritystone has any credible knowledge of the relationship between playtime and legislative qualifications.

The Minister doesn’t need outside expertise, this is their own justification. If they say playtime reflects qualification, they should explain how.

OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
The Ministry of Internal Affairs is not responsible for the citizenship exam. Minister Thritystone is unlikely to have credible knowledge regarding who designed it or what role Parliament has played, is currently playing, or may play in the future in relation to it.

The witness already stated Parliament does not ‘solely’ control the exam. I’m following up to clarify what knowledge the witness does have about that division of responsibility.

OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
Minister Thritystone should be asked only questions within the scope of his personal knowledge as the previous Minister of Internal Affairs. There is no reason to assume he can credibly provide testimony about the internal workings of the Government regarding the citizenship exam.

This isn’t asking for inner workings. It’s a simple policy question: Is there any barrier in principle to Parliament addressing engagement through the exam instead of playtime? As a reminder, the Minister also served as a legislator so they should have direct knowledge of their own powers.

OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
The witness’s speculation on the citizenship exam and its role within the Kingdom is unlikely to be of value to the Court.

I’m not asking about the inner design of the exam. I’m asking the witness to justify their own policy: what playtime supposedly captures that waiting periods and exams do not

OBJECTION - CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
The witness has been asked whether a theoretical player would be “qualified” under current laws. This question could not be credibly answered by the witness, as it is not naturally based on his perceptions. Besides being speculative, this question calls for the former Minister of Internal Affairs to give their interpretation of the law. Minister Thritystone was not called as a legal expert to provide an expert opinion on the law. Regardless, it is hard to imagine that the witnesses’ personal reading of election laws would serve this case.

This is not speculation; it is a straightforward application of the law as written. The statute sets a numeric playtime requirement with no distinction for the quality of that time. The question asks whether, under those criteria, someone who logged 4 hours in the build world would qualify. That goes directly to how the Ministry enforces the law in practice, which is squarely within the witness’s knowledge and responsibilities.

The Crown shall now have twenty-four hours to ask questions of the witness. The bench shall respond to the objections when we can.

ENTREATY TO COMPEL
Your Honour, the witness has not yet answered the follow up questions that was posed. I ask that they be compelled to do so, and that the Plaintiff have the ability for further follow up, before we move on.

 

[SoggehToast]

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEEDURE
On all of these objections, The Crown waited until long after the 24 hour period passed to raise these objections, especially for the intial questions.

Furthermore, they admit that they knew that they were past the deadline online.

Proof:
View attachment 851

I will be going through each objection now, in case these are not struck based on procedure. I apologize for my delay, some IRL circumstances occured yesterday that prevented me from getting on.

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

This screenshot is not an "admission" of intentional wrongdoing. In fact, it is the opposite. Far from showing that the Crown knew they posted after the deadline, this screenshot, which has not been admitted into evidence, clearly shows the Crown saying that they "thought Ameslap asked the questions at 1 am."

To be upfront, my second set of objections was mistakenly and unknowingly filed 38 minutes after the deadline. By the time my third filing of objections had been written, which contained only one objection directed towards Question 8, I became aware of this oversight and nevertheless chose to submit it. I apologize for this mild procedural breach.

However, this mistake did not occur "long after the 24-hour period" as the Plaintiff has stated. My second filing of objections was posted just 38 minutes after the objection window. My third was posted less than two hours after.

Additionally, the plaintiff has also claimed that the Crown waited until after the 24-hour period to raise objections to the initial questions. This accusation is patently false, as the initial questions were objected to just under 11 hours after they were posted, which is well within the 24-hour window.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Thritystone]

In Response to Ameslap's Question, those not having been objected to, and while I await the Lord's ruling,

8. Assume a player spent 4 hours in the build world without ever engaging with another player. Would they qualify to run for office under the current laws?

Answer: Yes

**EDIT, Opps i didn't see there was a 3rd page*

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S ENTREATY

ENTREATY TO COMPEL
Your Honour, the witness has not yet answered the follow up questions that was posed. I ask that they be compelled to do so, and that the Plaintiff have the ability for further follow up, before we move on.

Honorable Chancellors, this trial is in a state of superposition. Multiple objections have been filed to Plaintiff's first round of questions which have yet to be ruled on. Per the General Court Rules and Procedures, judicial officers have the authority to order the rephrasing or striking of questions, as well as the striking of witness testimony, when sustaining objections from counsel. The Crown believes that any orders issued by this Court if it sustains any of our objections would have downstream effects on the rest of the trial. If an objection to a question is substained, and the question is altered or struck, then the witness's testimony must also be altered or struck, which would affect the foundation of Plaintiff's follow-up questions, as well as the Crown's cross-examination.

In order to maintain some semblance of order in this trial and stem the amount of unwinding that would occur in the above scenario, the Crown petitions the Court to withhold their ruling on Plaintiff's Entreaty to Compel pending its ruling on the Crown's objections to Plaintiff's first round of questioning.

ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE

The Crown agrees that the present witness's responses to all questions which survive objections should be entered into the record before this trial proceeds to cross-examination. Accordingly, the Crown petitions the Court to grant continuance for the Crown's cross-examination submission until the objections have been resolved and direct examination has concluded.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Acting Crown Counsel

 

[SoggehToast]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CROSS-EXAMINATION

Minister Thritystone, thank you for your participation in this case. I have only a few questions for you at this moment.

1. In enforcing the playtime requirement, did the Ministry of Internal Affairs exercise any personal or discretionary judgment that was not based on objective criteria?

2. Was the playtime requirement applied using verifiable data, such that compliance could be independently confirmed by the public or by the candidates themselves?

3. Was the playtime requirement enforced uniformly across all candidates, without exception?

4. To your knowledge, were any candidates admitted into Parliament despite not meeting the playtime requirement?

5. To your knowledge, were any candidates disqualified based on the playtime requirement despite having fulfilled it?

6. In applying the playtime requirement, did the Ministry of Internal Affairs use any criteria that were not objective, not verifiable, or not uniformly applied to all candidates?

That is all for now, thank you.

Your honor, I post these questions only in anticipation that our Entreaty for Continuance may not be granted. In such an event, failing to examine the witness would be severely prejudicial to our case. If, however, the Entreaty for Continuance is granted, I respectfully request that these questions be struck from the record so the posture of this case can be reassessed.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Thritystone]

In response to SoggenToast

1. No, all decisions were made strictly in accordance with the law

2. Yes, all data was independently verifiable. MOIA took care to document playtime violations with screenshots of the candidate's playtime through the /about command. The timing of these screenshots is also timestamped.

3. Yes, playtime requirements were enforced across the board, regardless of party affiliation.

4. To my knowledge, all candidates at the conclusion of the candidate declaration period who were listed on the ballot had met the minimum playtime requirement. The threshold for meeting playtime was to meet it at the time of the candidate's declaration. I have no knowledge of how a player's playtime changed after the candidate qualification determination, which occurred precisely within 4 hours of the declaration period closing.

5. There was one instance where candidate Complexking, who had met the playtime requirement, was left off the 1st ballot due to a technical error.

6. No. All criteria were objective and verifiable.


I await the court's ruling on whether I can answer Ameslap's follow-up questions.

 

[Smallfries]

In a 2-0 vote, the Chancery has agreed to offer both parties the following optional procedural change:

Ch. R. & P. § 1 will take effect immediately, despite that rule being promulgated after this case's filing. High Chancellor Smallfries will be appointed as Presiding Officer in this case and rule on matters of procedure on his own, as described in that rule.

Should both parties consent to this procedural change, the above will be implemented and we may proceed.

 

[ameslap]

In a 2-0 vote, the Chancery has agreed to offer both parties the following optional procedural change:

Ch. R. & P. § 1 will take effect immediately, despite that rule being promulgated after this case's filing. High Chancellor Smallfries will be appointed as Presiding Officer in this case and rule on matters of procedure on his own, as described in that rule.

Should both parties consent to this procedural change, the above will be implemented and we may proceed.

We consent.

 

[Capt11543]

In a 2-0 vote, the Chancery has agreed to offer both parties the following optional procedural change:

Ch. R. & P. § 1 will take effect immediately, despite that rule being promulgated after this case's filing. High Chancellor Smallfries will be appointed as Presiding Officer in this case and rule on matters of procedure on his own, as described in that rule.

Should both parties consent to this procedural change, the above will be implemented and we may proceed.

Your Honors, the Crown consents to this procedural change.

 

[Smallfries]

Notice to interested parties: Ch. R. & P. § 1 is implemented upon unanimous consent, and I will now act as presiding officer. Please read the Chancery Rules and Procedures for more information. I will be proceeding with this case at my earliest convenience.

 

[Smallfries]

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEEDURE
On all of these objections, The Crown waited until long after the 24 hour period passed to raise these objections, especially for the intial questions.

Furthermore, they admit that they knew that they were past the deadline online.

Proof:

This objection is overruled. Nowhere in any authorizing statute, rule, or binding precedent exists any statement requiring objections to be filed within the timeframe of the associated filing. For the same reason that parties must be allowed to raise their objections after the filing of the opposing party's opening statements or other such filing, objections must be allowed to stand any time they are reasonably raised.

Further, the initial order allowing for the twenty-four hour period of questioning did not include any mention of disallowing objections. Due to the lax timing and asynchronous nature of legal framework, I find it quite reasonable to allow for objections after the filing they are objected to has its deadline passed—even if such objections come "long after" the deadline in question passes.

Frankly, I am a bit confused as to why both parties seem to have it in their head that objections cannot be raised after the deadline for witness questions has passed. There is no rule on point, and no authority has been raised by either party. This is particularly interesting when the Crown has raised a question of breach of procedure, without elucidating what procedure exactly was breached.

---

OBJECTION - LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
Minister Thritystone would not, merely as a consequence of their previous role as Minister of Internal Affairs, have any knowledge regarding empirical evidence on legislator competency.

This objection is sustained in part. The question "What evidence, if any, shows that higher playtime leads to better or more effective legislators?" is inappropriate and overbroad, and should be rephrased to speak to the witness's personal experience or understanding. The Claimant is invited to re-phrase this question for the witness to answer in a manner that testifies to the witness's personal experience or understanding. The original question and the witness's response is struck.

---

OBJECTION - CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
This question calls for the witness to speculate on the relative qualifications of hypothetical candidates. The witness cannot credibly testify on these fictitious scenarios, which are not naturally based on the witness’s perceptions as Minister of Internal Affairs. As such, this question also falls outside the scope of the witness's personal knowledge.

This objection is sustained. This question as written is a question of interpretation, and may only be answered by the trier of fact. The Claimant is invited to re-phrase this question in a way that speaks to the witness's personal experience or understanding. The question and its answer are struck.

---

OBJECTION - LEADING THE WITNESS
The question is phrased in a manner which asserts an affirmative answer and invites the witness to agree.

This objection is sustained. Claimant is invited to re-phrase this question into one that does not pre-suppose an affirmative answer to the question presented. Claimant may offer evidence supporting their proposition if they wish.

---

OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AND LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
This question presupposes that Parliament has the authority or capacity to directly control the contents of the citizenship exam, which is a matter outside of the witness's personal knowledge. In fact, there is no reason to assume the witness, the previous Minister of Internal Affairs, would have any personal knowledge regarding the citizenship exam at all, which falls under the Ministry of Welfare. Additionally, this question assumes a particular answer to the question preceding it.

This objection is sustained in part. Claimant is invited to re-phrase the question into one that does not assume facts not in evidence or pre-supposes an answer. Questions should be neutral in character and not be pre-supposed on another piece of information in contest. To ask "why couldn't" Parliament do something supposes they tried and failed, or failed to do so without trying due to knowing they would fail. There are alternative wordings.

---

OBJECTION - LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
As stated in the previous objection, the citizenship exam falls under the Ministry of Welfare, not the Ministry of Internal Affairs. While the witness could have some credible knowledge on the administration of the playtime requirement during elections, it is unclear how their speculation on the role of the citizenship exam would be of value to the Court.

This objection is overruled. The witness, as a member of Parliament, member of the Government, and Minister of Internal Affairs, could reasonably have helpful information regarding this question. I do not see this question—and the witness's answer—as possibly prejudicing the Court's conclusion in this matter or muddying the waters in any way. Further, as the Claimant alludes to, the connection between the citizenship exam and the playtime requirements requires a short logical step that is plainly evident.

---

OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
It has not been established that the Ministry of Internal Affairs was responsible for deciding on the 4-hour per 30-day requirement.

This is sustained in part. The Claimant is asked to re-phrase the question into one that simply asks why the numbers discussed were chosen, unless the Claimant has evidence to offer to sustain their initial assertion.

---

OBJECTION - RELEVANCY
Whether or not Minister Thritystone is “aware of how Parliament came up with the 4-hour figure” is irrelevant and unlikely to be of interest to the Court.

This is overruled. The reasoning for why this specific number was chosen instead of any other (or indeed, any number at all) is a central question of this case and is of paramount import for this Court's deliberations.

---

OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
It has not been established that Parliament tasks the Ministry of Internal Affairs with this responsibility.

This is overruled. The witness himself could easily say that the Ministry does not do as asked. Either the witness does this, or he does not and instead answers in the affirmative. Either way, no fact is assumed with this question. That this question is a follow-up to a previous question further supports this conclusion.

---

OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
There is no reason to assume Minister Thritystone has any credible knowledge of the relationship between playtime and legislative qualifications.

This is overruled. Working as a member of Parliament and as a Minister, the witness could very well possess that knowledge. I see fit to allow the witness to testify as to whether or not he does—and if he does not, he may say so himself.

---

OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
The Ministry of Internal Affairs is not responsible for the citizenship exam. Minister Thritystone is unlikely to have credible knowledge regarding who designed it or what role Parliament has played, is currently playing, or may play in the future in relation to it.

This is overruled. Though true that the witness is not the preferred individual to ask such a question, it is possible that his station gives him the information required to answer. So long as the witness does not speculate, but testifies directly to his experience or understanding, I am satisfied with this question.

---

OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
Minister Thritystone should be asked only questions within the scope of his personal knowledge as the previous Minister of Internal Affairs. There is no reason to assume he can credibly provide testimony about the internal workings of the Government regarding the citizenship exam.

This is sustained. Whether Parliament may or may not do something is entirely within the decision-making sphere of the Court, and I will not entertain lines of questioning that seeks to supplant our decision-making power or interpretative authority. If the Claimant's point is not a question of "can Parliament do this," the Claimant may re-phrase their question to reflect that intent plainly.

---

OBJECTION - LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
The witness’s speculation on the citizenship exam and its role within the Kingdom is unlikely to be of value to the Court.

This is sustained in part. Instead of testifying over the failures of the exam, the witness's experience and understanding is focused on the policy of the regulation in question. The Claimant is invited to re-phrase the question so that the playtime regulation is the main subject of the question.

---

OBJECTION - CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
The witness has been asked whether a theoretical player would be “qualified” under current laws. This question could not be credibly answered by the witness, as it is not naturally based on his perceptions. Besides being speculative, this question calls for the former Minister of Internal Affairs to give their interpretation of the law. Minister Thritystone was not called as a legal expert to provide an expert opinion on the law. Regardless, it is hard to imagine that the witnesses’ personal reading of election laws would serve this case.

This is overruled. Witnesses should not testify as to conclusions of law. However, when an individual tasked with applying the law (here, a Minister) is asked about their application of the law and its obvious, reasonably foreseen effects, it is permissible for a witness to answer a question such as that posed. I do not see a reason to label this question as speculative, as it is straightforward with rigid guidelines as to its hypothetical construction, and is central to the matter of this case. Further, the question does not ask for qualitative opinion, but rather quantitative probing of the law as implemented at the time of the witness's tenure.

---

ENTREATY TO COMPEL
Your Honour, the witness has not yet answered the follow up questions that was posed. I ask that they be compelled to do so, and that the Plaintiff have the ability for further follow up, before we move on.

This writ is granted. Claimant is instructed to take into account the above rulings, re-phrase the questions as directed (if they chose to ask them again) and then pose them anew (if desired or necessary by these rulings). Once this is done, the witness is compelled to respond within a reasonable timeframe.

---

ENTREATY FOR CONTINUANCE

The Crown agrees that the present witness's responses to all questions which survive objections should be entered into the record before this trial proceeds to cross-examination. Accordingly, the Crown petitions the Court to grant continuance for the Crown's cross-examination submission until the objections have been resolved and direct examination has concluded.

This is granted. The Crown shall be granted one round of follow-up questions once the witness answers all outstanding questions as directed above.

---

The Court asks all parties to please numerate or otherwise make clear the order of objections so that the court may review them easily and without risk of confusion.

 

[ameslap]

ENTREATY OF CONTINUANCE

This is more of a statement I suppose, I understand that there was no deadline to submit my re-phrased work. I wanted to let the court know that I will be unable to do so until Monday afternoon (MST) at the earliest.

Attempting to take Sunday as a day with family without even opening my computer once.

I thank you for your understanding ahead of time.

Ameslap

 

[ameslap]

@Thritystone here are the new questions as well as the ones that were still allowed by the court:

1. During your time as Minister of Internal Affairs, did you observe any connection between a player’s amount of playtime and their effectiveness in legislative duties?

2. In your personal experience, have you encountered citizens with relatively low playtime who were nonetheless knowledgeable about the laws and parliamentary process?

3. Based on your understanding, how could the content of the citizenship exam be adjusted to better test for knowledge or engagement, if at all?

4. During your time as Minister, did the Ministry ever review whether playtime accurately measured a citizen’s readiness for office?

5. Assume a player spent 4 hours in the build world without ever engaging with another player. Would they qualify to run for office under the current laws?

6. You stated Parliament does not “solely” design and control the citizenship exam. Could you identify exactly who does design it, and what role Parliament plays in approving or revising its content?

7. Are you aware of how Parliament came to the 4 hour figure?

8. You wrote that it is “not possible” for a citizen to accumulate playtime without engaging in debates, legislation, or the community. How does the Ministry monitor playtime to ensure it only reflects meaningful participation and not idle presence?

9. What specific competency does the playtime requirement measure that the waiting period and citizenship exam do not?

 

[ameslap]

6. In applying the playtime requirement, did the Ministry of Internal Affairs use any criteria that were not objective, not verifiable, or not uniformly applied to all candidates?

1. Objection - Compound Question

The question improperly combines three distinct inquiries (objective, verifiable, uniform) into one, each deserves its own inquiry.

 

[Smallfries]

1. Objection - Compound Question

The question improperly combines three distinct inquiries (objective, verifiable, uniform) into one, each deserves its own inquiry.

This is sustained. The question contains modifiers such that if the witness were to simply answer "Yes," the record would be unclear as to what he meant. The Crown is ordered to revise this question.

 

[Capt11543]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
QUESTIONS FOR WITNESS THRITYSTONE

Your Honor, these questions are submitted in response to this Court's prior ruling:

This is sustained. The question contains modifiers such that if the witness were to simply answer "Yes," the record would be unclear as to what he meant. The Crown is ordered to revise this question.

Minister Thritystone,

1. In applying the playtime requirement, did the Ministry of Internal Affairs use any criteria that were not objective?
2. In applying the playtime requirement, did the Ministry of Internal Affairs use any criteria that were not verifiable?
3. In applying the playtime requirement, did the Ministry of Internal Affairs use any criteria that were not uniformly applied to all candidates?

Respectfully submitted,
Capt11543
Acting Crown Counsel