Re Defender-Invader Convention

Heft

TNPer
Haor Chall:
http://merit.nosync.org/index.php?showforum=82

I believe TNP did send someone there last term, I'm not sure on what happened or what our involvement was though. Question I wanted to ask though, if we haven't signed already, shall we sign up to this? I don't see any reason for us not to.

The Representatives were Poltsamaa, Goal, and myself, since we were, at the time, PM, MoEA, and MoD, respectively. We all kind of stopped paying attention pretty early on though. For me, it was after they argued for a few days over whether or not they should elect a chairman (not even who the chairman should be, but whether or not there should be a chairman). I never really had much confidence in the thing to begin with, which I did express to Poltsamaa. The entire thing seemed pointless, as it didn't seem to enforceable.

So, we started out with representatives there, we even signed and everything. But we all stopped paying attention or pretending to care pretty quickly. :kiss:
 
psst... Heft can't post there anymore :P

Showing up would probably be best, as a show of good faith, but if you lot were arguing about the presence of a chairman last time, I really doubt we'll see many results.
 
I would suggest that Myself, the MOEA and the MOD poke our heads over there, equivalent to our representation last time.
 
hmmm. Looked in there. They do seem to have got a document ready for ratification, which has been approved by a number of reguinal already, including the MErit, Gates, Nasi, Equilism etc.

MAybe it is a shame our region did not stick around to have some input into it's creation.

The document is:

The NationStates Convention on Espionage and Warfare


United in a common belief that the destruction of forums and the use of illegal and otherwise dubious activities blurs the line between game actions and non-game actions to the extreme detriment of the NationStates world, we, the Signatories to this Convention, have resolved that lasting measures should be taken to prevent the use of such tactics from ever becoming an established and normal tactic in NationStates conflict, and to deter anybody who would seek to use them.

To that end, and regardless of our various political allegiances and histories, we undertake to abide by and actively enforce the terms of this Convention.


Section I - Applicability and Miscellaneous Provisions

(1) Signatories will not instigate, participate in or tolerate any of the Proscribed Activities in Section II of the Convention.

(2) Each Signatory undertakes to abide by this Convention in all circumstances and at all times.

(3) All Signatories are recommended to ask all Non-Signatories to follow Sections III and IV of this Convention and take action against any offending Parties.

(4) The Signatories agree to enact, in accordance with their respective governmental style, the necessary legislation or other measures to ban the Proscribed Activities and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons who engage in those Activities that give effect to Sections III and IV.

(5) The following definitions apply throughout this Convention:-
(i) A "Signatory" is any Region or Organisation that has signed this Convention, whether an original Signatory or one that has signed at a later date.
(ii) A "Representative" is a person who is the official representative of a Signatory at an ASRO. He or she must be officially endorsed by the governing authority of that Signatory. Each Signatory may only have one Representative at any one time, and no more than one Representative from each Signatory may participate in any vote.
(iii) A "Party" is any region, organisation or person.
(iv) Any reference to a vote is to a majority vote of Representatives unless it is otherwise stated, and a majority means a majority of those Representatives that vote. An abstention does not count as a vote.


Section II - Proscribed Activities

(1) The activities listed in this section are Proscribed Activities for the purpose of this Convention.

(2) The use of hacking, cracking, phishing, or any other activity considered illegal by international convention, although the use of scripts legal under NationStates, national, and international laws and policies shall not be prohibited.

(3) The destruction of any material on any forum connected to NationStates unless:
(i) that destruction is carried out by the account used to create the forum AND by the person who created that account, or
(ii) that destruction is part of the normal administrative functions of the forum or any governmental activity.


Section III - Sanctions against Individuals

(1) Where a person has committed a Proscribed Activity described in Section II, the Signatories agree to ban them from any and all of their off-site forums, under whatever account they may be registered, and to cease any cooperation or collaboration with that person on any level.

(2) This section operates irrespective of the notion of duality, irrespective of whether or not the person was affiliated with a Signatory, irrespective of whether they were ordered to undertake the Proscribed Activity by another Party, and irrespective of whether sanctions have been imposed on their region or organisation under section IV.


Section IV - Sanctions against Regions and Organisations

(1)(a) Where a person has commited a Proscribed Activity described in Section II, and did so while on an official assigment of any region or organisation, then, subject to subsection (2) and subsection (3), the Signatories will break off any and all diplomatic ties with that region or organisation.
(b) Breaking off diplomatic ties includes, but is not limited to:
(i) the termination of all alliances, pacts, or the like,
(ii) the deletion or removal of embassies, consulates, interest sections, or the like, and
(iii) the cessation of any cooperation or collaboration with that region or organisation on any level.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if that region or organisation did not order the action, and has banned the person that engaged in the Proscribed Activities in a manner that satisfies Section III.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person had acted in contravention of their current orders from that region or organisation.


Section V - Conflict Resolution And Arbitration

(1)(a) Where any Signatory has applied any of the sanctions in Sections III or IV of this Convention, then an Assembly of Signatory Regions and Organisations ("ASRO") may be called by:
(i) any Signatory,
(ii) any Party subject to those sanctions, or
(iii) any Party which was the victim of the actions for which those sanctions were imposed.
(b) The Party calling the ASRO should state who is imposing the sanctions, and upon whom.  If later evidence indicates the involvment of other Party or Parties, the indicated Party or Parties may be made the subject of the ASRO's investigations and votes may be taken on sanctions against them.

(2) When the ASRO is called, Signatories should make efforts to ensure that all other Signatories are informed about the ASRO.

(3)(a) The ASRO may appoint, unappoint or replace a Chief Arbitrator by a vote, though a motion to unappoint or replace a Chief Arbitrator requires at least ten Signatories to vote to be effective. Any Representitive may propose a motion under this subsection, and the motion will be open for 24 hours.
(b) The Chief Arbitrator is responsible for ensuring that subsection (2) is carried out and supervising all votes and motions of the ASRO. He may also gather evidence or arrange for it to be gathered, and present it before the ASRO.

(4) The ASRO must hear all pertinent evidence that the alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim of a Proscribed Activity described in Section II wish to put before it, and all pertinent evidence that any Representative wishes to put before it.

(5) The ASRO will vote on the question of whether an implicated Party has committed any action described in Section II, and may vote seperately, where appropriate, for each Party, and for each action that was alleged to have breached Section II.

(6) A vote under subsection (5) may take place when ten Representatives have backed a motion for it to take place, and may be begun by any Representative. Such a motion may include or exclude any of the different votes that may be conducted in relation to those actions, and multiple motions may occur at any ASRO.

(7) A vote under section (5) will be open for voting for 72 hours. Once decided, it may not be revoted or appealed unless there is a tie, in which case a vote must be taken again until a result is reached.

(8) Where an ASRO has voted to impose sanctions then the Signatories will each impose those sanctions. Where an ASRO has voted not to impose sanctions then the Signatories are not bound by any course of action.

(9) The ASRO will not be a standing body. It will close when either:
(i) it has voted to close itself, or
(ii) a period of one month has passed since it was convened, although the ASRO may vote to extend that period by any further period that it thinks fit.


Section VI - Clemency

(1)(a) Any Signatory may, if seconded by another Signatory, convene an ASRO in order to for the purpose of lifting sanctions imposed following a particular decision or decisions of a previous ASRO, and in calling the ASRO that Signatory should state which previous decision or decisions is or are to be the subject of the ASRO.
(b) An ASRO cannot be convened under this subsection during:-
(i) the period of one month beginning with the relevant decision, and
(ii) the period of one month beginning with any previous ASRO convened under this paragraph for the purpose of lifting those same sanctions.

(2) Subsections (2), (3), (4) and (8) of Section V apply to ASROs convened under this section

(3) The ASRO will vote on the question of whether sanctions imposed by the particular decision for which the ASRO was convened should be continued or not.

(4) A vote under subsection (3) may take place when ten Representatives have backed a motion for it to take place, and may be begun by any Representative. Such a motion may include or exclude any of the different votes that may be conducted in relation to those actions, and multiple motions may occur at any ASRO.

(5) A vote under subsection (3) will be open for voting for 72 hours, and sanctions will be lifted if two-thirds or more of the Representatives vote in favour of lifting the sanctions, and if at least 15 Representatives vote.

(6) The ASRO will not be a standing body. It will close when either:
(i) it has voted to close itself, or
(ii) a period of one month has passed since it was convened, although the ASRO may vote to extend that period by any further period that it thinks fit.

We, the undersigned, ratify this document:


Please post your nation name, and the region or organization that you represent. Discussion should not occur in this thread

Thank you.
 
Sure, looks good. I should probably be one of the ones to sign it, since it does rather concern forum administration and bans and stuff.

(3) The destruction of any material on any forum connected to NationStates unless:
(i) that destruction is carried out by the account used to create the forum AND by the person who created that account, or

One thing that might need pointing out, though...

In Invisionfree's eyes, whoever has control of the #1 account owns the forum. If that account is peaceably handed to another person, they have as much right to do whatever as the person who made the account did. I know why this was placed in here, in the event someone hacks that account, which would most certainly be illegal, but technically it doesn't really work out.
 
I think it's a good idea. A crisis with the United Regions played a part in the creation of this document, but that's a long story... Anyway, I think it's a great thing for us to be involved in.
 
Sorry, I've been out for the weekend...

I suppose I'll sign it. Where's the convention at? :duh: Never mind, helps to read the topic.

Is anyone else going in to sign the thing? I'd think the Prime Minister at least should... maybe a few others.
 
Though it is a good gesture and all, I do not feel that our region, or for that matter any region or organization, should be forced to conform with such a binding document such as this one. It is in my opinion that people are going to do this anyways whether or not they sign the agreements. If you disagree with the practices, then fine, you disagree with it. You, again in my opinion, do not need a full out document futher binding the will of a region in order just to basically state that forum crashing is wrong.

Please, do not take this as support for that barbaric act. I was the first person to openly call for action against the crimes in the Red Liberty Alliance, and I stand openly opposed to such measures. However, as I stated above, it is rather redundant and forceful on a region such as ours to have such a document all layed out like this that states basically one thing: We are opposed to forum crashing and refuse to do it.

Saying that, I will not sign this document. If you all wish to, then go for it. More power to you I guess. I just am not liking it myself.
 
... states basically one thing: We are opposed to forum crashing and refuse to do it.
Well, this sums up my feeling on the subject and I support the signing of this document. I'm smelling a faint hint of conflict of interest here.
 
What's this convention about anyway? The title says "Re Defender-Invader Convention" but when I scanned through the document, I saw no "Invader" or "Defender" anywhere on there.
 
It's a convention between invaders and defenders... Regarding, as the title of the document may suggest, "Espionage and Warfare". (;) Reading topics helps)

I've registered on their forums and signed in at the convention (not sure I entirely like the way their forum is set up...). I've read a few of the topics but haven't really done anything yet since we seem to still be discussing this.
 
I'm smelling a faint hint of conflict of interest here.
Such as?

I'm not too sure myself on this, on the surface it seems reasonable enough - but (and I'll admit to not having read the full document) on a cursory glance, it does seem to indicate that the entire region could be held responsible for the actions of a rogue individual, which surely should be dealt with internally?

Basically, it could bring the entire issue of regional sovereignty into question.

Possibly.


EDIT: Ignore that, I've just read it a bit more thoroughly... :blush:
 
Back
Top