Persecution?

Former English Colony

Former English Colony

InFECtious
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
she/her
TNP Nation
Former English Colony
Discord
Erastide
All right ladies and gentleman. It's time we stop and think about what we're doing right now. Given the recent events regarding The Lexicon, we might even need to reevaluate certain sections of the Constitution.

Are we truly going to prosecute people because they use their nations outside TNP to oppose the NPA? I thought we had gotten past that given the members of LWU in TNP. Or I completely missed something. If the LWU goes up against the NPA, do you plan to indict a member of your Cabinet Hersfold?

I also find that all of this is happening at once rather unfortunate. While I agree that admin actions should be taken if deemed necessary against IP, I also think that every effort should be made to have Cathyy keep her rights as a member of the RA. In the event that IP was banned, only if he subsequently circumvented the ban would it be appropriate to ban the actual IP address. (damn acronymns)

Some of the language that people have been using is unacceptable in my view. I don't care if you don't like a person, they have rights until they violate the rules. And given how leinent we are, violate them several times after several warnings.

Anyways... that's all for tonight. Tis probably slightly incoherent, but meh.
 
I just got back here, and included among my first impressions are that TNP is painfully inactive and slow, and has been for a few months, and also that anytime a thread turns into an argument even mildly warm, someone gets upset and the argument gets shut down.

This seems to lead to two things. 1) Arguments and, thus, activity levels, continue to decline even faster than they already would, and 2) Truly flammable arguments arise out of the fact that the original (we'll say "root") argument was shut down at the first spark, leading to multiple locked threads in the Moderation Section about the same thing, closed embassies, old faultlines re-asserting themselves, and threats of banning.
 
You are of course, totally correct Heft.


Are we truly going to prosecute people because they use their nations outside TNP to oppose the NPA? I thought we had gotten past that given the members of LWU in TNP. Or I completely missed something. If the LWU goes up against the NPA, do you plan to indict a member of your Cabinet Hersfold?
Click to expand...

While I cannot discuss this in depth, due to the fact I face charges on this very matter. However I will say that I agree with Eras and taht members lives away from the region should be up to them. I mean, unless your using your TNP resident nation, I cant see, in the oath, constitution or otherwise what the problem is!
 
My personal oinion on this is that, in Camelot Lexicon/DEN and the NPA have found themselves on opposing sides of a classic invader/defender conflict. So far the NPA has been successful in both liberating the region and in holding off a second invasion attempt. in time, or in another region, the fortunes of war may go the other way.

However, this is all part of the Invader/defender game, and does not constitute a direct attack on the North Pacific, or on a region we have a military alliance with.

Personally I do not feel this prosecution should proceed.

Naturally, if our region itself came under direct attack from any party, it would be a different matter.


PS. If we are talking about persecution, I would be interested to know why my wife Cruithne has been IP banned from the Lexicon forum, when neither she nor I have once posted there. Cruithne is not hugely bothered, but the side effect of banning her is that I am banned also!
 
flemingovia:
PS. If we are talking about persecution, I would be interested to know why my wife Cruithne has been IP banned from the Lexicon forum, when neither she nor I have once posted there. Cruithne is not hugely bothered, but the side effect of banning her is that I am banned also!
Click to expand...
Heh - now doesn't THAT sound familiar... anyway.

Are we truly going to prosecute people because they use their nations outside TNP to oppose the NPA? I thought we had gotten past that given the members of LWU in TNP. Or I completely missed something. If the LWU goes up against the NPA, do you plan to indict a member of your Cabinet Hersfold?
Click to expand...

The fact that they are an RA member, Cabinet member, etc., does not change the fact that they are breaking TNP Law. The Constitution quite clearly states that RA Members cannot lend open support to an invader group we are taking defensive action against. It's so obvious, there's very few ways you could interpret it otherwise. I can't overlook portions of the Constitution simply because we're already having an argument. If Fedele or Blue Wolf were to be involved in an LWU invasion, and the NPA happened to move in, they would have to stop helping then and there or forfeit their RA/Cabinet position. They were told this when they first registered, and as that section of the Constitution has not been repealed, it still stands.

(switches hats)
I also find that all of this is happening at once rather unfortunate. While I agree that admin actions should be taken if deemed necessary against IP, I also think that every effort should be made to have Cathyy keep her rights as a member of the RA. In the event that IP was banned, only if he subsequently circumvented the ban would it be appropriate to ban the actual IP address. (damn acronymns)
Click to expand...

*Hersfold repeats himself (again)
In the event IP is to be banned, every effort will be made to ensure that Cathyy will retain uninterrupted access to the forum. I've said this several times, including in the PM's Office, the Courts, and I think at least once in the Moderation Discussion forum. Only if IP continues to access the forum despite the ban will he recieve a full IP ban for evading moderation. If Cathyy gets caught in the cross-fire at that point, there is little I can do about it, other than send Cathyy the address of a local internet cafe. Which IP will have undoubtedly already looked up.
 
Quite so.

We're getting back into the dodgy territory of Alts and puppets here.

Regardless of your views on duality, many people still consider it a legitimate method of gameplay; you cannot prosecute a person for their alt's actions.
 
Oh crap! Not this topic! Anything but this topic! People look away there is nothing here to see! And certainly no laws which I may or may not have broken which could put me on trial!
Chainsaw_by_Deadman2.gif
 
According to the records my sister left, the members of LWU accepted into TNP are fully aware that they need to keep tabs on the movements of the NPA, and they are within the understanding that it is in their best interests to withdraw should they show up in opposition.

It is to be assumed that anyone here, whether they believe it or not, has their primary nation located here. All other nations or alternates are considered puppets and under the control of the primary. In my case, all blame of any actions I may take lies with the Praetor of Daiokura in Lemuria, and that would be the place to proscecute me, as I make it pretty clear that I am a puppet of said nation. EVEN STILL: C'thul Murgos is a member nation of TNP, and as representitive of Daiokura in TNP, if Daiokura or one of it's colonies violates TNP law, I am aware that I could be prosecuted for it. The defence that no member nation is responsible is moot, an associated member nation has knowledge and took no action to prevent violation of the law, and is at minimum, negligent.

In the case of so-called alts, I believe that this age-old arguement can be solved quite easily. It is the discrescion of the court to determine one of two possible options. First, that Fulhead Land is a puppet of Lexiconhead, and as such, the Lexicon has taken military action against TNP with all the reprecussions that come with it. The second is that the court can find that Lexiconhead is a puppet of Fulhead Land, and that as such, Fulhead is guilty of the charges before him.

In either event, the law of the land has been violated, and regardless of how it is taken or seen, it cannot be overlooked, considering that a member nation is knowingly involved.
 
If proof was ever needed that TNPers argue for the sake of arguing, the fact this topic can be derailed by a single smilie surely is it...
 
Right well, this whole situation brings up an interesting point: What direction is TNP headed in?

If this trend of RA members constantly going on trial for actions against NPA continues then perhaps, just perhaps, we should look at dismantling the NPA as a whole because clearly the majority would not be in support of it. Or we could rewrite the laws regarding invasions and the roles which RA members can have in them.
 
I don't think dismantling the NPA would be in the best interests of the region, unless the Wolves would like to become our military?

I do agree that our policy needs to be a bit less vague when it comes to this issue.
 
That is actually the point I am getting at. If more and more find themselves at odds with defender army this region currently has then perhaps we shouldn't have a defender army any more...
 
People, for the most part, are not at odds with the defender army. They are at odds with Hersfold's decision to prosecute Hersfold.

Anyhow, looks like it's time for a Constitutional Amendment to clear this up...
 
My personal opinion is that we might want to look into changing the current wording of the relevant parts of the Constitution/Legal Code to clear this up. As far as I'm concerned I view the invader/defender game (that's what is is folks) as more akin to a national football game or whatever rather than the fanatical lengths some people take it to. As such, I don't have such a problem with people whose interests in invadering/defendering is different to ours and if we end up in opposition then at least we can prove we're better than them (hopefully). I fully agree that prosecution in any case where the security of TNP (or in the future) or any treatied, allied or commonwealth region is threated but as part of the general invader defender thing, I don't think we should prosecute. I also think its unfair when the NPA moves in and they are already present- if they move in knowingly against the NPA (under the current laws) I accept that is slightly different but when it is the other way round it seems a little unfair to catch them out like that.

Personally (although this would mean the admins staying out of it) I don't have a problem with TNP hosting both an invader and defender organisation (major constitutional re-write I know :P)- I think it would also go so way to making us more neutral in that sense and fulfill the part of the feeders role in showing new people all the different oppertunities there are in NationStates (even better when those oppertunities are all avalible in one region). Although I know that might sound a little far out right now.
 
MAybe that ist the way the wind is blowing, HC. All i know is this, the day anyone goes raiding or invading in the name of TNP, that will probably be my last day in the region.
 
Former English Colony:
I thought we had gotten past that given the members of LWU in TNP. Or I completely missed something. If the LWU goes up against the NPA, do you plan to indict a member of your Cabinet Hersfold?
Click to expand...

*Blue Wolf runs behind bunker and straps his helmet on

Well, actually...that happened quite a few times already where NPA forces walked into regions held by LWU forces.

In fact the most recent on was the night before last in Boston (which we just lost when the founder came back). I actually TMed Az with my UN and endo swapped with Asta :blush:

*Blue Wolf dives as the bombshells fall upon him
 
John Ashcroft Land:
People, for the most part, are not at odds with the defender army. They are at odds with Hersfold's decision to prosecute Hersfold.
Click to expand...
*Hersfold points out that he has no intentions to prosecute himself. ;)

TNP is, and has been for a very long time, a defender region. If it becomes absolutely necessary to dissolve the official nature of the NPA, then so be it, but for right now, it's in the law books, and people will have to deal with that should they choose to be invaders.
 
Well the way I see it, we should either ban invading all together or allow it all together (with the exceptions of invading TNP and its allies). Anything in between is just silly IMO, but the way the law is written Hersfold just seems to be doing his job to me.

I would prefer banning invading all together, but I doubt anyone else agrees with me there so allowing it, even against the NPA, seems to be the only practical solution.
 
I'm not sure how invading a region unrelated to TNP constitutes a military action against TNP at all. Given the nature of defending, the NPA would be taking military action against the invading force, not the other way around.

Edit: extra words
 
I would like to know how I'm harming, threatening, or commiting treason against TNP if I'm involved on a raid in a region that is not associated with TNP and the NPA shows up. In fact this could be taken the other way by saying I'm helping to train the NPA by showing them which tactics work in liberating or defending a region
 
You aren't!! This is nothing more than a ruse and an old one at that!! Hersfold wants certain groups out of the region and is twisting the Constitution to serve his purpose!!
 
For me, the crux of the argument is this: If someone is a raider, and they are elected/appointed to a position where they can see the army forums, they automatically have an unfair advantage. That's the key issue for me.

Additionally, some of us old-timers can tell you that since the founding of the region, we have traditionally been sympathetic to defender causes, dating all the way back to the August Revolution. That's why many of us have problems with the whole issue of raiding in the first place. We're from the old-school, pre-ADN corruption, pre-DEN being invaded by TITO. In those days, defenders were good, invaders were bad. We played our role, they played theirs.

Finally...

flemingovia:
Maybe that ist the way the wind is blowing, HC. All i know is this, the day anyone goes raiding or invading in the name of TNP, that will probably be my last day in the region.
Click to expand...

War Flemingovia. I am in complete agreeance with this. Rack him.
 
Well, I can see instant raider death approaching as I speak....

So I'll be brief, *ahem*, I am so screwed its not even funny. :yes:


Also, please don't ban us or make it so ridiculous for us to operate we might as well just stop raiding and going ADN if we even hope to keep a nation in TNP. As a raider I have faced stereotypes enough, rather not see then here, in a feeder.

And may I bring up the point that perhaps TNP isn't raider because of all the laws that basically ban them...


Yup. thats it, and just to review

Blue Wolf = Totally Screwed
 
I found out early on that I have the heart of a defender. Throughout TNP history, many like-minded nations have called this region our home. Our tumultuous history has led us to experience firsthand the pain of being kicked out of one's homeland. I know these feelings are shared by many in TNP.

Many, but not all. There are diverse views held by members of the community here. The Constitution in its present form doesn't take into account the different attitudes we have. Perhaps there are adjustments that could be made.

I think it is a positive thing for us all to examine our vision of TNP as a society. I am hopeful that we can forge a means to co-exist peacefully.
 
Majority rule, minority rights. It's a nice little concept :P

Of course, in JALtopia, invaders have one right: the right to remain silent. But I guess here in TNP they could be given more.
 
Invaders FTW

*ahem* Invaders have every right to enjoy this game as you do.

In conclusion, i <3 teh raiders
 
War, Flemingovia
Click to expand...
rack him
Click to expand...
Invaders FTW
Click to expand...

Increasingly I need a glossary to understand the 21st Century.....

Anyway, to the point.

I have no problem with raiders being part of the community here, even if they continue to raid. Recent stuff with FL suggests that the constitution may need tweaking to accommodate this.

In fact, some of the raiders who have become involved in TNP have shown a lot of charity, good humour (note spelling) and respect for prevailing TNP culture, and I respect them for that.

Since I think in terms of players rather than nations, I do not personally have much problem with TNP nations being used to raid (except insofar as it reflects on this region).

I do not even have a problem with NAtions whose players are involved in TNP coming up against NPA armies from time to time. Heck, half the time I am not sure which invader organisations are involved in a raid.

I agree with Limitless events: you cannot blame raiders for being there when the NPA turn up. Nor would I expect the player to say "gosh, I have taken this region, but the NPA are coming. I must leave lest i break the NP constitution."

I enjoy the defending game. I do not take it personally.

My problems would be this:

Players using information gained as part of the government of the NP or as members of the NPA to aid their raiding. (OPA's point)

Players who claim to have loyalty to TNP deliberately attacking the NPA. (this is the one clause which might have caught Fullhead Land since he led (?) the Lexicon forces squarely against the NPA in the region of the USA in an attempt to take the region back).

A change of culture that meant The North Pacific as an entity supporting, condoning, or resourcing invading/raiding in it's name, especially if that led to North Pacific Imperialism, the annexing of unwilling regions in an attempt to build an empire.

Just my :2c: :2c: so far. (it was too long to be :2c:
 
I still hold to the opinion that as the constitution is an IC construct, that it only applies to the specific IC construct that signed it.

When I go out in the real world, I do not have to worry about TNP law so I should not have to worry about such laws when I play my seperate Pacific or Meritocracy nations either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top