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

[Thritystone]

IN response to Ameslap:":


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?

-
Yes

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

- yes

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?

- Citizenship should require that a civil magistrate vouch for the immigrant's worthiness along a set of criteria, of which a minimum total playtime should be considered. I believe 4-6 hrs should be the minimum.

4. During your time as Minister, did the Ministry ever review whether playtime accurately measured a citizen’s readiness for office?
- no

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?
- Yes

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?
- Section Six of A.P.004 grants the relevant ministry flexibility and discretion on the content of the exam, and merely outlines a number of guiding rules and format requirements.

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

- by popular will, a citizen's petition recieved overwhelming support, parliament subsequently passed relevant legislation.

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?

- we do not

9. What specific competency does the playtime requirement measure that the waiting period and citizenship exam do not?
- playtime requirements measure competency in the effect of implemented policy, including but not limited to, the physical conditions of the city of New-Hamilton, the number of businesses operating in the country, the functionality of the transportation system, and other fundamental aspects of the server's society.

 

[Thritystone]

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:


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

1. No, the Ministry of Internal Affairs only used objective and publicly verifiable criteria
2. No, the Ministry of Internal Affairs only used Verifiable criteria
3. No, the Ministry of Internal Affairs uniformly applied all criteria to all candidates.

 

[Smallfries]

In the interest of fairness, the Crown shall have one round of follow-up questions should they so choose. After that (or if the Crown relieves themselves of this right) we shall proceed into closing statements.

 

[SoggehToast]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
QUESTIONS FOR WITNESS

Thank you, Minister Thritystone. Some final questions for you:

1. You stated the Ministry failed to add Candidate ComplexKing to the ballot. Was this mistake in any way related to the playtime requirement?

2. Did this error materially alter the outcome of the election?

3. As a Member of Parliament, has your in-game activity afforded you any practical knowledge not ordinarily available to Members of Parliament with less playtime?

4. Based on your experience, how would you characterize the current playtime requirement in terms of both its attainability for candidates and its overall level of restrictiveness?

5. Based on your experience, how would you characterize the citizenship exam in terms of its effectiveness?

6. From your experience in Parliament, what observations have you made regarding the playtime of Members of Parliament and their ability to fulfill the duties of their office?

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[ameslap]

2. Did this error materially alter the outcome of the election?

Q2 Objection - Calls for Speculation
The witness can't credibly assess how the outcome would have changed.

3. As a Member of Parliament, has your in-game activity afforded you any practical knowledge not ordinarily available to Members of Parliament with less playtime?

Q3 Objection - Leading and Calls for Speculation
It presupposes that more playtime is equal to "practical knowledge". Also it assumes that the witness can compare themselves to other Members of Parliament generally.

4. Based on your experience, how would you characterize the current playtime requirement in terms of both its attainability for candidates and its overall level of restrictiveness?

Q4 Objection - Calls for a Conclusion and Compound Question
Whether the requirement is "attainable" or "restrictive" is ultimately up to the Court to decide, not the Minister's opinion on the matter. Additionally, if the question is allowed to be asked, each qualifier of "attainable" and "restrictive" should be asked separately.

6. From your experience in Parliament, what observations have you made regarding the playtime of Members of Parliament and their ability to fulfill the duties of their office?

Q6 Objection - Overboard and Calls for Speculation
The question asks the witness to generalize about other Members' "ability", something that is to vague and not limited to the witnesses' personal knowledge.

@Thritystone, your questions from the Claimant:

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?

-
Yes

1. Can you describe a specific example where higher playtime clearly improved legislative effectiveness?

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

- yes

2. So, even with relatively low playtime, is it possible to demonstrate office competency?

4. During your time as Minister, did the Ministry ever review whether playtime accurately measured a citizen’s readiness for office?
- no

3. If no review was ever conducted, what basis does the Ministry have for saying playtime measures readiness?

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?
- Yes

4. So, a citizen who has never engaged with debates or the community could still run for office simply by logging 4 hours?
5. Does this mean the requirement rewards presence over participation?

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

- by popular will, a citizen's petition recieved overwhelming support, parliament subsequently passed relevant legislation.

6. So, the regulation was based on popular demand, not on data about legislative competency?

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?

- we do not

7. You've said that it is "not possible" for a citizen to engage in debates, legislation, or the community. What did you base that statement on?
8. You also said that if someone spent 4 hours in the build world without engaging with others, they would still qualify under the playtime requirement, correct?
9. So, if playtime qualifies a candidate, even without engagement, how does that square with your earlier statement that such accumulation was "not possible"?

9. What specific competency does the playtime requirement measure that the waiting period and citizenship exam do not?
- playtime requirements measure competency in the effect of implemented policy, including but not limited to, the physical conditions of the city of New-Hamilton, the number of businesses operating in the country, the functionality of the transportation system, and other fundamental aspects of the server's society.

10. Can you explain how simply logging hours ensures a citizen understands those policies?

1. No, the Ministry of Internal Affairs only used objective and publicly verifiable criteria
2. No, the Ministry of Internal Affairs only used Verifiable criteria
3. No, the Ministry of Internal Affairs uniformly applied all criteria to all candidates.

11. When you say that all criteria were objective, can you explain what specific activities counted toward playtime?
12. Even if criteria are uniformly applied, does that ensure that playtime accurately reflects a candidate's readiness for office?

Thank you so much for your time.

 

[ameslap]

IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY OF STRIKING

Apologies, I didn't realize that I didn't have any more follow-up questions to ask.

I request that they be struck from the record. My objections still stand.

 

[Smallfries]

IN THE CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY OF STRIKING

Apologies, I didn't realize that I didn't have any more follow-up questions to ask.

I request that they be struck from the record. My objections still stand.

This is granted.

 

[SoggehToast]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS

Your honor, the Crown has the following responses to the objections raised by the Plaintiff:

RESPONSE TO Q2 OBJECTION - CALLS FOR SPECULATION

The witness can't credibly assess how the outcome would have changed.

This question does not call for speculation. Whether or not this "technical error" would have changed the election results is a simple question of fact. Our election law under A.P.018 is highly technical and involves specific calculations on specific data. Whether or not the election outcomes would have changed based on this technical error is, in this case, a purely mathematical and procedural question based on formulas established under law. The question does not entail any speculation regarding election outcomes, but rather the application of Ministry policy to official voting counts within the witness's direct knowledge.

RESPONSE TO Q3 OBJECTION - LEADING AND CALLS FOR SPECULATION

It presupposes that more playtime is equal to "practical knowledge". Also it assumes that the witness can compare themselves to other Members of Parliament generally.

The question is not based on any presupposition. It simply asks whether the witness's in-game activity has provided him with practical knowledge relevant to his parliamentary duties. This does not presuppose that playtime equals practical knowledge. Rather, it asks the witness to testify, based on his own experience, whether his activity level has been beneficial to understanding his role. The witness is competent to testify about his own experience and knowledge.

Additionally, this question simply does not constitute a leading question as it fulfills neither element of such a question. It is not phrased in an affirmative manner and does not favor any particular response.

RESPONSE TO Q4 OBJECTION - CALLS FOR CONCLUSION AND COMPOUND QUESTION

Whether the requirement is "attainable" or "restrictive" is ultimately up to the Court to decide, not the Minister's opinion on the matter. Additionally, if the question is allowed to be asked, each qualifier of "attainable" and "restrictive" should be asked separately.

This question does not ask the witness to make a constitutional determination on behalf of the Court. The witness, as a long-term Member of Parliament, can provide credible knowledge on his direct experiences regarding the attainability and the restrictiveness of the playtime requirement, which he has been required to maintain by law. This question explicitly calls for the witness to respond based on his own personal experiences. His firsthand account of the attainability and restrictiveness of the playtime requirement is directly relevant and valuable to any constitutional analysis the Court may undertake regarding the requirement's burden on Parliamentary candidates.

Additionally, the Crown would not hesitate to ask about attainability and restrictiveness separately if given the opportunity. However, it does argue that doing so is unnecessary, as the question was open-ended, and does not call for a "Yes," or "No," response. The open-ended nature of this question means that the Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by some ambiguous answer resulting from the question's framing.

RESPONSE TO Q6 OBJECTION - OVERBOARD AND CALLS FOR SPECULATION

The question asks the witness to generalize about other Members' "ability", something that is to vague and not limited to the witnesses' personal knowledge.

The question does not ask about "abilities" in some vague, general sense. Instead, it explicitly asks the witness to testify, from his own direct experience in Parliament, about specific observations concerning playtimes and performance of parliamentary responsibilities. This is far from a call for speculation. It is not outside the witness's personal knowledge to form observations regarding a Members’ legislative competency and playtime. Minister Thritystone has firsthand knowledge of what fulfilling the duties of a Member of Parliament involves. As a long-term Member of Parliament, Thritystone has been directly involved in the Parliamentary process and may have insight into how activity levels among members relate to their effectiveness in fulfilling their legislative responsibilities.

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Smallfries]

Q2 Objection - Calls for Speculation
The witness can't credibly assess how the outcome would have changed.

This objection is sustained. Whether an issue or fact is material is ultimately a conclusion for the trier of fact to make. The Crown may rephrase this question into one that asks about the technical or mathematical implications of a decision, but not one that delves into speculation or asks for a conclusion as to law or materiality.

Q3 Objection - Leading and Calls for Speculation
It presupposes that more playtime is equal to "practical knowledge". Also it assumes that the witness can compare themselves to other Members of Parliament generally.

This objection is overruled. This question would be leading if it was phrased as, "What benefits do you see from the practical knowledge you have over other, less-playtime accruing Members?" As it stands, the question simply asks if there is some practical knowledge benefit from more in-game activity.

Q4 Objection - Calls for a Conclusion and Compound Question
Whether the requirement is "attainable" or "restrictive" is ultimately up to the Court to decide, not the Minister's opinion on the matter. Additionally, if the question is allowed to be asked, each qualifier of "attainable" and "restrictive" should be asked separately.

This objection is sustained. The matter at hand is not of a sophisticated or technical nature, and a witness's testimony is not necessary or helpful in this matter to the trier of fact.

Q6 Objection - Overboard and Calls for Speculation
The question asks the witness to generalize about other Members' "ability", something that is to vague and not limited to the witnesses' personal knowledge.

This objection is overruled. Speculation refers to a witness's being asked to testify over something they have neither observed nor experienced. The witness has surely observed the work and effort of other members of Parliament, and can provide testimony as to his personal opinion of the link between that quality of work and their effectiveness (ability) and playtime.

When the Crown has rephrased the question as stated above, @Thritystone is asked to answer all questions in kind. We will then proceed to the closing remarks period of trial.

 

[SoggehToast]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
QUESTIONS FOR WITNESS

Minister Thritystone, thank you for your participation. One final question:

2. You described the Ministry's mistake to add ComplexKing to the ballot as a "technical error." Can you characterize the technical implications of this error, specifically in relation to the apportionment of parliamentary seats under your Ministry’s election procedures?

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

 

[Smallfries]

@Thritystone

 

[ameslap]

ENTREATY TO COMPEL

Your honor,

I request that the Witness have sanctions held against them as it has been over 5 days since the question was posed, and over 3 days since you last pinged them.

The Court Rules give the general standard 'flow' if a case as:

Response Times
Response times are designed to give a standard feel to the 'flow' of a case. Below will be a standard set of response times for each 'stage' of a case.
Answer to Complaint & Plea (within Criminal Court): 48 hours
Opening & Closing Statements: 72 hours
Witness Testimony, Cross Examination, Writs & Objections: 24 hours
Extensions: 24 hours

This has gone on for far to long, I request that the court sanction them not only for the time they have wasted, but for any additional time they may continue to waste.

 

[Thritystone]

IN THE CHANCERY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
QUESTIONS FOR WITNESS

Thank you, Minister Thritystone. Some final questions for you:

1. You stated the Ministry failed to add Candidate ComplexKing to the ballot. Was this mistake in any way related to the playtime requirement?

2. Did this error materially alter the outcome of the election?

3. As a Member of Parliament, has your in-game activity afforded you any practical knowledge not ordinarily available to Members of Parliament with less playtime?

4. Based on your experience, how would you characterize the current playtime requirement in terms of both its attainability for candidates and its overall level of restrictiveness?

5. Based on your experience, how would you characterize the citizenship exam in terms of its effectiveness?

6. From your experience in Parliament, what observations have you made regarding the playtime of Members of Parliament and their ability to fulfill the duties of their office?

Respectfully submitted,

Soggeh T. Oast
Minister of Justice
Kingdom of Alexandria

Apologies, my lord, I got delayed, irl stuff.

1. This mistake was not related to the playtime requirement, but a user-technical error in configuring the election plugin.

3. I believe that it grants me better insight into the practical implications of legislation and policy.

5. The citizenship exam is an insult to the concept of exams. I believe that it fails to follow a rigid standard for state acceptance of a citizen, but is an entirely automatic process. Criminals, serial killers, and all sorts of persons who perhaps ought not qualify are granted citizenship without any safeguards for traits of virtue.

6. I believe... that Alexandria exists in Minecraft, and that Discord is the means to coordinate such activities on the server. Thus, playtime is a condition for participation in the administrative process. If one has no playtime, one not only suffers from a deficit of practical experience, but essentially doesn't exist at all. All physical powers to exercise sovereignty are conducted through the Minecraft medium (at least that is what ought to be). Though I fear we have relegated a society that exists eternally in the ethereal, a paper country, in essence, where the key issues of governance is totally detached from reality. Alexandria is at a critical point now, where even the most loyal and active players will soon be exhausted by the lack of purpose and direction of our state. Players and playtime are the fundamental essence of our country. No government or economy can survive the perpetual non-existence of its people and still expect to claim legitimacy of purpose. So, if even members of Parliament abdicate this responsibility, are we even a country?

 

[ameslap]

6. I believe... that Alexandria exists in Minecraft, and that Discord is the means to coordinate such activities on the server. Thus, playtime is a condition for participation in the administrative process. If one has no playtime, one not only suffers from a deficit of practical experience, but essentially doesn't exist at all. All physical powers to exercise sovereignty are conducted through the Minecraft medium (at least that is what ought to be). Though I fear we have relegated a society that exists eternally in the ethereal, a paper country, in essence, where the key issues of governance is totally detached from reality. Alexandria is at a critical point now, where even the most loyal and active players will soon be exhausted by the lack of purpose and direction of our state. Players and playtime are the fundamental essence of our country. No government or economy can survive the perpetual non-existence of its people and still expect to claim legitimacy of purpose. So, if even members of Parliament abdicate this responsibility, are we even a country?

ENTREATY OF STRIKING - NARRATIVE AND NON RESPONSIVE
The question asked for the witness’s observations about Members of Parliament’s playtime and their ability to perform their duties. Instead, the witness gives a long philosophical speech — talking about Alexandria “existing in Minecraft,” saying that those without playtime “don’t exist at all,” and questioning whether “we’re even a country.” None of those answers the question or describes actual observations.

Obviously, this witness is now more interested in wasting the Chancery's time and campaigning or prompting some political discussion. I ask that their remarks for question 6 be struck, and we move forward with this trial.

 

[ameslap]

5. The citizenship exam is an insult to the concept of exams. I believe that it fails to follow a rigid standard for state acceptance of a citizen, but is an entirely automatic process. Criminals, serial killers, and all sorts of persons who perhaps ought not qualify are granted citizenship without any safeguards for traits of virtue.

ENTREATY OF STRIKING - NARRATIVE AND NON RESPONSIVE
This is another instance of the witness going beyond the scope of the question and instead commenting on the type of people who are becoming citizens and the supposed values of our nation.

I again ask that this response be struck.