Yoahtl v. TheOrangeWizard (and 14uu), Nov 2017
Judge: Bench Trial
Date: 15th November 2017
Suit
Bgbba alleges that the government has the right to derelict spawners to ensure public access to materials if the individual owner is not maintaining their improvements to provide access or goods for sale.
Proceedings
Simply put: dereliction is based on usage. Allow me to link the relevant council decision: The Alcuahtl assigns dereliction duty to an individual councillor. This duty cannot be delegated. The longest-inactive players are the first available for eviction and dereliction. The Derelictor and Alcuahtl have discretion over the need to derelict, but but cannot abuse the power. The other two councillors may force the Alcuahtl to reconsider their choice of derelictor, but may not force a resignation without proof of wrongdoing.
The way dereliction has always run, businesses are only considered 'used' if they continue to produce products for regular sale. I argue that grinders are:
- Businesses
- Dereliction rules apply to them
- 14uu hasn't produced products for sale from his grinder in weeks
-bgbba
.
I believe that while derelicting functional grinders is unfair, the government is fully within its rights under the dereliction act to do so. Because discretion is the determining factor and abuse is undefined, I cannot see that 14uu and I have any legal defense against bgbba if he wishes to derelict our property and claim it for the state.
-TheOrangeWizard
People question what the definition of 'abuse' is.
bgbba says the council is the only body which can define 'abuse'
Outcome
Dereliction law redefined, bgbba's dereliction overturned.