Removal of members from RA, change in law needed?

Just wondering where we stand as far as having Cathyy, etc as members of the RA. I, personally don't follow this duality rubbish and as far as I'm concerned I don't see why Cathyy, who is a founder of the region which had declared war on TNO, should still be allowed to post on this forum, let alone remain a member of our Regional Assembly.

I'm unsure of the specific legalese of this situation (although I know it has come up before) and is some change required in the law to resolve this or can people claiming duality be removed from the RA as things stand and how long will it take to resolve?

I too, was wondering this. I believe that it's something the powers-that-be have not realized yet, but will now.

I tried to push an RA vote which would allow us to legally ban her but it needed then approval of a justice or PM which I did not get. Since then a lawsuit has been against her in which gag rules have set. So... shhhhhhhhhh!

Um, yes. At present, there is a standing Court Order against this sort of topic. I think.

I have contacted Byardkuria to see if there is any legal way to have those RA Members who have nations in the Lexicon removed. I do not see how it is logically or legally possible for people to have citizenship in two regions which are at war with each other without there being some sort of security issues. For the moment, however, this topic will be locked until I recieve clearance to open it. I apologize for any inconvenience.

Ok, after recieving a reply from Byardkuria, it seems this topic can be re-opened, as long as the discussion does not wander towards targeting any single person. I will warn you all now - if the discussion does veer in that direction, it will be steered back rather forcibly. There is a standing court order against that particular topic - most of you have not seen it, and as such I will be happy to forward my copy of it to you should you request it. Byard has enough on his plate right now without having to worry about people breaking his orders. Please be considerate of this.

Now then.

I, personally don't follow this duality rubbish and as far as I'm concerned I don't see why Cathyy, who is a founder of the region which had declared war on TNO, should still be allowed to post on this forum, let alone remain a member of our Regional Assembly.

I'm unsure of the specific legalese of this situation (although I know it has come up before) and is some change required in the law to resolve this or can people claiming duality be removed from the RA as things stand and how long will it take to resolve?

Click to expand...

Yes, a law can be passed to change the requirements of RA membership to exclude those nations who have shown to have ties to a region we are at war with. Byardkuria suggested something along these lines in his response:

No player maintaining a nation in a region at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities.

Click to expand...

This particular wording could be easily interpreted as follows:

• No person with a nation in a region at war with us may have a nation in TNP.
• The above would obviously indicate that they can't be in the Regional Assembly or, more obviously, the government.
• The Delegate would have full right to ban anyone proven to be as such.
• Once peace was declared, they could be allowed back in.

Any suggestions on this basic theme? This would effectively kill most duality arguments, although there should not be a problem with people owning multiple nations for most of the time - only if there is a standing declaration of war. Thus, even raiders such as Fedele and Blue Wolf would be allowed to remain, despite the region's defender nature.

I don't need to remind anyone that this would be most effective if passed extremely quickly. As in maybe starting the vote tommorrow.

Edit: Dummy me forgot to open the topic....

Or now?

Obviously (like you said Hers) we can't interfere with the invader/defender dynamic but we need to be clear that we can "war" with specific players because our armies will face off. I think we need to make it clear that anyone who attacks the region of the North Pacific will be affected not those who ban NPA-ers in say Middleearth or whatnot, in which we are taking an enforcement action.

There's a distinct difference between a region declaring war on TNP and the NPA going out and finding the invader armies in some *other* region.

Former English Colony:

There's a distinct difference between a region declaring war on TNP and the NPA going out and finding the invader armies in some *other* region.

Click to expand...

Yes and we should make that by defining "war" against the North Pacific.

Current laws for banning non-endotarting and spaming troublemakers.

Art 6.2
2) The Judicial Branch or the Prime Minister can call a referendum vote of the Regional Assembly for the purpose of approving a motion for immediate expulsion by the posting of the case and evidence of needed action in a thread within the Regional off-site Forum and a notification of the motion and referendum on the Regional message board at Nationstates.net at any time.
3) If more than half of the Regional Assembly Members who cast a vote in that thread, with a quorum participating, vote in favor of an ejection within a 24 hour period, then the Nation will be ejected by the Delegate.

Click to expand...

Nudge nudge, Hersfold.

Hm. The SC has already ruled on the big tarter at the moment, though. And the Lex seems to have quieted down on the RMB somewhat. We do need something like this enacted anyway, though.

So, what I hope to call the final draft:

No player maintaining a nation in a region at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities. Any player found doing so will be stripped of membership in the Regional Assembly and subject to banishment from the region. A "region at war" is any region which has made a formal declaration of war against The North Pacific, or vice versa. War does not constitute actions taken by or against the North Pacific Army unless the conflict meets the conditions above. A state of war exists until a formal peace treaty, surrender terms, or similar, is/are signed.

Click to expand...

That should define/clarify everything.

Sounds okay to me.

Hersfold:

Hm. The SC has already ruled on the big tarter at the moment, though. And the Lex seems to have quieted down on the RMB somewhat. We do need something like this enacted anyway, though.

So, what I hope to call the final draft:

No player maintaining a nation in a region at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities. Any player found doing so will be stripped of membership in the Regional Assembly and subject to banishment from the region. A "region at war" is any region which has made a formal declaration of war against The North Pacific, or vice versa. War does not constitute actions taken by or against the North Pacific Army unless the conflict meets the conditions above. A state of war exists until a formal peace treaty, surrender terms, or similar, is/are signed.

Click to expand...

That should define/clarify everything.

Click to expand...

BOOYAH!

Well, then. In the interest of expediency, I will ask Wizard if we can get a vote on this. Please feel free to keep commenting if you like.

Sorry, but there is one loophole in the legislation (and remember we are dealing with players adept at finding and using loopholes)

This ruling would only cover players who have made a formal declaration of war. If I were part of a hostile region, I would simply wage war without declaring war. Then my nations within the NP would be safe from expulsion.

Why is this nessecary as a seperate bill?

Doesn't the War Powers Act cover what you are saying here?

5. The cabinet may remove (by simple majority vote) from the RA any nation giving comfort to, aiding, passing information to or otherwise supporting any region or group at war with TNP. This would be subject to review by the Regional Assembly, again by simple majority vote.

Click to expand...

Why propose the same thing twice?

I'll answer Saj's question first, since it's easier.

First of all, it's not completely certain that the WPA is going to get passed. There is a chance that it could fail.
Secondly, the section of the WPA you quoted deals mainly with actual traitors - those nations who do not reside in the enemy region, yet provide aid to them anyway. Say your region (Government) were to ally with the Lexicon - we could not remove you from the RA under this provision, but we could under the WPA.
Thirdly, this saves time where the WPA requires us to take a little longer doing things.

Now for Flem.

This ruling would only cover players who have made a formal declaration of war. If I were part of a hostile region, I would simply wage war without declaring war. Then my nations within the NP would be safe from expulsion.

Click to expand...

Well, if they were openly opposing TNP, one would think that we could remove them by claiming a violation of their RA oath. If things really got bad, we could issue a declaration of war and get rid of them that way.

I'm not quite sure how we could change this to fix that hole up a bit. I think we're safe enough leaving it in, but you do have a rather good point.

I'd also be concerned about the clause requiring a formal declaration of war, but when it comes down to it there are a few broadly recognized methods of waging war, including seeking the delegacy outright or taking steps to lower the endo count of a sitting official. These actions ought to trigger a response from our government like this suggestion.

Action on the forum is trickier: Acts to subvert the Constitution (or whatever the rule of law is at the time) is an obvious thing to include, but is spamming an act of war? what about just being annoying/borderline troll?

The solution to this should be to set up a situation allowing the Cabinet to make a statement drawing a line in the sand, actions beyond which will be considered a declaration of war.

I think we need to get this finalised and start voting on it as soon as possible.

Unterwasserseestaat:

Action on the forum is trickier: Acts to subvert the Constitution (or whatever the rule of law is at the time) is an obvious thing to include, but is spamming an act of war? what about just being annoying/borderline troll?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't really consider forum offenses to be an act of war - that's mainly a forum moderation thing, and if someone really makes a jerk of themselves, they can just be banned from the forum. They pose no actual threat to the region's soverignty.

The solution to this should be to set up a situation allowing the Cabinet to make a statement drawing a line in the sand, actions beyond which will be considered a declaration of war.

Click to expand...

Or get a court ruling to decide exactly what an act of war consists of. Meh.

I think we need to get this finalised and start voting on it as soon as possible.

Click to expand...

I've sent wizard a PM, but I don't think he's been online to see it just yet.

Moved to main RA forum.