Proposed Amendment to the Constitution

Southwest Asia

Southwest Asia

TNPer
Proposed amendment to the Constitution concerning member nations:

Items in BLUE are proposed to be added.

ARTICLE II. Membership and Registration.

Section 1: Requirements.

In order to remain as legal members of The North Pacific, a Nation is expected to adhere to the following requirements:
1) Each member Nation will abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code enacted pursuant to Article IV of this Constitution.
2) Each member Nation shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific.
3) Each member Nation shall refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions shall be given to Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet minister having appropriate jurisdiction.
4) A member Nation shall be defined as the individual or individuals responsible for the control and actions of a Nation.
 
Lol or maybe not.

First off, this will of course penalise honest nations who declare their dual citizenship, while continuing to protect those who cloak their actions in secrecy.

Secondly, how is this to be proved. What is the basis to be for determining when an individual is indeed controlling two nations?

I doubt the NS mods are going to hand off identities just cos TNP ask them to.

Finally, why are we adding to an already bloated and overweight document?

Oh and finally, finally Daimianena appears to be both participating in RA debates and votes, despite being in the Diplomats member group.

I assume the Speaker will ensure to count only votes from RA members.
 
Well.....according to the Lexicon it's rather easy to prove that a player is controlling two nations....maybe if you were to ask them they might tell you how they manage it....
Is it the case that by becoming a TNP Diplomat...that I have in some way been removed from the RA of which I was previously a member...If such is the case I would rather retire as a Diplomat...and continue as a member of RA....
 
I would definitely be against this proposal as it takes an in-character government out-of-character and would result in my inability to continue participating in this region.
 
Nah it's ok Daimiaena I checked the RA records.

Just seems someone couldn't be bothered to change your mask.

They did promise to re-mask you after the elections but guess it never happened.

And you may wish to take a look at a screen shot I just posted :)
 
Thanks for the clarification. There was a reference in the thread at the time of Daimianea's masking being changed after the last elections. I assumed as she did not have show with an RA mask that it had not been done.

It would seem more sensible to me if RA members were in their own member group rather than spread among member groups but that's an aside.
 
First off, this will of course penalise honest nations who declare their dual citizenship, while continuing to protect those who cloak their actions in secrecy.
Click to expand...

They know the risks and responsibilities they take when they declare their dual citizenship, and actions cloaked in secrecy can be discovered.

Secondly, how is this to be proved. What is the basis to be for determining when an individual is indeed controlling two nations?

I doubt the NS mods are going to hand off identities just cos TNP ask them to.
Click to expand...

Mostly OOC verification and statements by the nations themselves. Plus, there's lists of nations controlled by various players.

Finally, why are we adding to an already bloated and overweight document?
Click to expand...

Because this part, at least, is necessary in my opinion.

I would definitely be against this proposal as it takes an in-character government out-of-character and would result in my inability to continue participating in this region.
Click to expand...

Ok...I was under the assumption that the government was a meta-game, which was technically "out of character" in the sense that it's not the nation fictional leaders making decisions in a sense.
 
Cathyy:
It would seem more sensible to me if RA members were in their own member group rather than spread among member groups but that's an aside.
Click to expand...
Except that the RA is the base citizenship of this region.

All TNP citizens start in the RA. A Diplomat ranks higher than an Assembly man, supposedly.
 
I was under the assumption that the government was a meta-game, which was technically "out of character" in the sense that it's not the nation fictional leaders making decisions in a sense.
Click to expand...

I've never heard that before. How can a government for a role playing game be out-of-character? If this is out of character I should have been pushing for theocratic anarcho communism.
 
I think there are quite a few proposals that have been discussed for quite some considerably longer time than this one.

Why the rush? ;)
 
I've never heard that before. How can a government for a role playing game be out-of-character? If this is out of character I should have been pushing for theocratic anarcho communism.
Click to expand...

Well, if it's in character, then technically it would be the actual fictional leaders of our countries running a TNP government, as if the UN in real life were to run the world.

But since the running of the regional government appears to be more of a meta-game, I'd say that the actual actions taken are by individuals in real life. For example, flem doesn't say "The country of flemingnovia's ambassador to The North Pacific Regional Government © has, in accordance with his role as serving administrator of the regional conference areas supsended the nation of ________'s ambassadors from participation pending further investigation," he says "I've restricted ________'s access pending further investigation."

I think there are quite a few proposals that have been discussed for quite some considerably longer time than this one.

Why the rush? wink.gif
Click to expand...

Well, I think it's time we speed up discussion processes in order to:

Cathyy (ellipsed and edited):
... [making adjustments] to [a] document [that is much in need of change]...
Click to expand...

;) ;)
 
But since the running of the regional government appears to be more of a meta-game, I'd say that the actual actions taken are by individuals in real life. For example, flem doesn't say "The country of flemingnovia's ambassador to The North Pacific Regional Government © has, in accordance with his role as serving administrator of the regional conference areas supsended the nation of ________'s ambassadors from participation pending further investigation," he says "I've restricted ________'s access pending further investigation."
Click to expand...

Why would his character have to talk like that?
 
His character still has real implications on the forum, especially as an admin. This is still diverging from the point of the law. Even in character, it wouldn't make sense to assume that two separate "nations" aren't one, since in this meta-game nations are no more than aliases.
 
...since in this meta-game nations are no more than aliases.
Click to expand...

They can be. Or they can be completely different characters. I have spoken to many people as Fedele only to have them hate me and then speak to them as Fantoccini and have them love me (and visa versa). If you were to watch the way Scardino talks and behaves in LWU and compare it to the way Fantoccini talks and behaves in Lazarus and then compare those two to the way Fedele talks and behaves in The North Pacific you would not see any similarity between the three.

Fedele is a liberal geurilla-themed character, Scardino is damned near fascist, and Fantoccini is a bureaucrat.
 
Nevertheless, all 3 nations are in a sense under the control of 1 person, hence the Nationstates use of the term "puppets" to denote many different nations belonging to 1 person.

All your separate identities signify different personalities of 1 person. That, or multiple personality disorder.
 
Southwest Asia:
All your separate identities signify different personalities of 1 person. That, or multiple personality disorder.
Click to expand...
Actually, according to commonly accepted theory, the urge to act out differently or pretend to be someone else in different environments suggests a hidden desire to actually be what you are imitating or a suppressed, possibly due to not being socially acceptable, side of your personality. In short, by me acting out multiple characters on NS I am demonstrating characteristics of an extremely mild version of multiple personality disorder.

The pleasure taken in considering myself a General of this and a Minister of that can also easily be considered delusions of grandeur. You can see this even more clearly in other characters in NationStates.
 
True but draconian laws does nothing to reflect the inclusive spirit of the region. Being as a feeder, invaders really pose no threat.
 
mr_sniffles:
True but draconian laws does nothing to reflect the inclusive spirit of the region. Being as a feeder, invaders really pose no threat.
Click to expand...
...................................................................................... times infinity


...................

We're not Lazarus or the RR here.

You don't need to have an alias to be a traitor.
Click to expand...

But under TNP law, you're allowed to get away with it with an alias.
 
mr_sniffles:
True but draconian laws does nothing to reflect the inclusive spirit of the region. Being as a feeder, invaders really pose no threat.
Click to expand...
I don't think his aim is to specifically exile BW and I. I think it is just him taking the hunt for Cathyy's head a little too far. When you toss two or three members for a conviction that really won't solve anything, you're going a bit too far. Our war is with The Lexicon, not Cathyy specifically. Convicting her of treason in court will not win the war or even hurt The Lexicon.
 
First, the amendment is not retroactive. Secondly the goal is to prevent future situations where people declare war/attack TNP with 1 nation, and then claim that it was merely an alias.
 
What good will it do? It will result in the exile of a Minister and a Deputy Minister but will it do anything good?

Also, please edit your post with all the dots. It's stretching out the page and is incredibly irritating.
 
It won't result in your exile. If it comes to that, then there are several legal avenues, such as authorization by the NPA or NPIA for I assume what you do.
 
You don't get it. I'm not in the NPA. I'm not in the NPIA.

This is like talking to a brick wall that only speaks Spanish.
 
Fedele:
You don't get it. I'm not in the NPA. I'm not in the NPIA.

This is like talking to a brick wall that only speaks Spanish.
Click to expand...
Fedele...I get it...You're right...when you look at it from that point of view there really is no point to it...it will only make things difficult for some of our fave members...

Sorry SWA I know I started off agreeing with this...it was an instant gut reaction....a way to rid my life of Cathyy...but I'd rather keep her around than lose any of our other duality friends...
 
Fedele:
mr_sniffles:
True but draconian laws does nothing to reflect the inclusive spirit of the region. Being as a feeder, invaders really pose no threat.
Click to expand...
I don't think his aim is to specifically exile BW and I. I think it is just him taking the hunt for Cathyy's head a little too far. When you toss two or three members for a conviction that really won't solve anything, you're going a bit too far. Our war is with The Lexicon, not Cathyy specifically. Convicting her of treason in court will not win the war or even hurt The Lexicon.
Click to expand...
It might also be worth pointing out that:


A: membership on this forum, and hence this government, is based upon the specific individual behind a nation or nations. If I have 20 puppets I cannot bave 20 accounts here and 20 RA memberships.

B: Cathyy is a citizen of The Lexicon and TNP. Since The Lexicon is at war with TNP it means that we have an enemy combatant in our midst in the RA.

C: Since The Lexicon is at war with TNP, it would go to say that any citizen of TNP who is a citizen of The Lexicon is technially engaging in an act of war against TNP, thus committing High Treason by the absolute definition of High Treason.

D: Holding dual citizenship with a region at war with TNP should be, by definition of treason, cause for immediate revocation of citizenship.

E: We are at war which means that certain protective measure need to be taken to preserve the region's security so we don't run into problems.

F: Expelling an enemy combattant from the RA and the region is the logical course of action - who in their right mind would let an enemy combatant have a say in the government of the region with which they are at war? Think about it.


R
 
OOC:

I am wholly against this amendment for various reasons. It is obvious that I, as a player in NationStates, have interests elsewhere besides the north Pacific and that is the first and primary objection. I have never in my time in this region, before the NPD, during and now, let those obligations interfere with my actions here. Who here can honestly say that I have not had an impact on this regions development? (Both good and bad admittedly) If this were to pass would former Prime Minister and Delegate Flemingovia be forced to give up his activity in the west? Would those that partake in the Meritocratic Senate be forced to resign that body in order to continue here? I think this is an attempt to fix a specific problem with much too broad a brush.

IC:

The Minister speaks for Gracius Maximus as the leader of that nation which is collectively a member of the Regional Assembly, yes, but represented by a single finger and leader. To point to Gracius Maximus and state that the nation in and of itself is a construct outside the realm of gameplay in regards to the governmental structure of the north is absurd in our opinion and such supporting arguments for this amendment should be dismissed out of hand.
 
This bill's goal is not to force single citizenship, but to hold individuals with TNP member nations responsible for any damage they might have done to The North Pacific while under another alias.

However, I am considering not pushing for a vote, as Roman has shown that such a section is implied in the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top