Question of Clarification

Southwest Asia

Southwest Asia

TNPer
I would like the court to clarify a question about the concept of duality.

It can be understood that a person can play on nationstates under several personalities, thus TNP allows the concept of "duality" in order to allow people who normally operate as invaders a chance to participate in our government.

However, my question is this: if duality is declared, then does the name of the forum goers and the countries become important?

I have an example to clarify:

Say I have a nation called A, and I post on this forum using the name B. I also post on another forum using the name A, but in that forum's region my nation name is B. If I declare that A and B are separate identities, does it mean that the actions of A on the forum correspond to the actions of A in the NS game, or not?

It would seem logical that upon declaring duality, the name of the seperate identities upon the forums and the game itself become important.

I await a response.
 
I have a further question on this, if I am allowed to ask.

Is there a difference in the duality of Fedele/Scardino and that of Cathyy/Pixiedance?
 
Astarial:
I have a further question on this, if I am allowed to ask.

Is there a difference in the duality of Fedele/Scardino and that of Cathyy/Pixiedance?
Click to expand...
If I may be so bold, I think I can tackle this question.

I believe the difference would be primarily decided by the fact that Scardino's form of aggression toward TNP and Cathyy's vary greatly.

Scardino organizes members of LWU and plans raids for them. TNP then seeks to find them before they are successful and keep them from obtaining the delegacy. LWU does not consider TNP's actions to be hostile to them and TNP could hardly consider LWU's actions to be hostile as TNP is the one that initiates the confrontation. It is generally seen more as recreation than serious military excercises.

Cathyy, the name of the nation in The Lexicon and the ruler of Pixiedance(???), however, has openly declared war on The North Pacific and saught to topple the government.
 
That wasn't the question I was asking either. ;)

I chose you specifically because you're the easiest example I had of the type. Ivan represents another example - the duality of Pierconium/GM and Fedele/Scardino is based on separate accounts and separate personas. The duality of Cathyy/Pixiedance is based on one account and really, one persona.

My question was whether one was a more legitimate claim of duality.
 
The simple answer, which those of you who frequent this area know I am loathe to give, is that . . . . .


The Constitution and Legal Code make no references to duality. Thus far, I am not aware of any Court cases hinging on the point; as such, there is no precedent on which to base an answer.

IOW, the Court doesn't know. There is no such ruling or law; and, as such, the court cannot declare a policy on duality ex nihilo.


Sorry. I know that doesn't satisfy, but it's the only answer the Court can give right now.
 
As a amicus curae (friend of the Court) may I observe that the only constitutional reference dealing with duality, even indirectly, is the recognition that a player may have more than one nation as shown in Article II concerning membership in the region and the recognition that a player may have a UN nation outside TNP. (Thus, the separately stated limitation that only players with a UN nation in TNP are entitled to vote for Delegate and Vice Delegate.

Beyond that, I personally think it would be fair to say that the original intent when the registration reqiquirements were introduced in the first constitutional revision (the so-called NPC revision of April 2005) was that the concept of duality was to be developed and refined as needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top