FD: Defining Treason

Grosseschnauzer:
If people want proof that some of those who have expressed disapproval of this legislation don't read, the last three posts are proof of it.
Click to expand...

Grow up.

I was agreeing with the general sentiment of the point;

"Truly, I am more afraid of the erosion of our most basic freedoms than I am of any "outsiders" infiltrating the ranks of the RA."

Secondly, you may have moved that prevision out of this particular proposal but you have now presented it seperately, so the same concerns, should both peices of legislation and others be enacted still exist. Some of us can join up the dots.
 
HC, the problem is that GBM comment's were referring to the one provision that has been transferred out and not the remainder of the proposal.

Well, have at that provision in its thread, then. I;m waiting to see what sort of consensus can develop about wnat the critics of that provision wanted added to that particular proposal.

And there's no certainty that the particular provision will go pass the preliminary discussion stage, is there.
 
Since I'm not a member of the RA feel free to nuke this post if you like but the problem as I see is presented with what is left of your intial proposal is the use of the word "Player". Essentially it's saying that if I have a nation in another region that declares war on TNP, my TNP nation can be accused of treason because the "Player" of that nation "directly wages war against The North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific".

I'm well aware of FL trial and the question of duality comes up quite a bit. This provision, if approved, will allow treason charges to come against any individual who has nations in other regions. In FL's case it allows you to accuse his TNP nation of treason because his "Player" has a nation in the Lexicon which declared war on TNP. It wasn't his nation that declared war and even if his Lexicon nation had NOTHING to do with the war, your wording allows for treason simply because HE HAS A NATION IN THAT REGION.

You are adding to IC laws, OOC wording. I too have a nation in the Lexicon. It doesn't participate in their senate or with their military. I didn't even know there was a war until someone asked if it was still going on. As far as Katinaire is concerned all he knows about this war is that there was one. However, Katinaire will be guilty of treason by your wording should this pass because I, the Player, have a nation in the Lexicon. Do you now see the problem so many people have with this? Change the wording to Nation instead of Player and I see a reasonable law. Leave it and you are saying, "Be in the TNP and no where else or get out." Sounds like a great way to kill a region to me.
 
With the removal of the clause I had issues with, this becomes a bill I can now support.

I have to make a distinction between the practice of "duality" and behavior which is duplicitous. As RA members we take an oath to uphold the Constitution. It doesn't mean we can't have puppets all over the world. I do, as I know many other nations here do.

Now, if another region I was involved with decided to wage war with TNP, I really would have to choose up sides. I could not in good conscience remain true to my oath if I had another puppet who was actively engaged in overthrowing the government here. It would be just plain lying.

I think what "Defining Treason" does is make such duplicity a crime. It doesn't say you can't practice duality. But the rubber meets the road, you have to decide if you are "true blue TNP" or if your real home is somewhere else.
 
The problem I have is that waging war on TNP is now considered any confrontation with the NPA!!

If raiders who have a nation in TNP invade a region with their non-TNP raider nation and the NPA goes to defend that region, it currently is construed as being in a state of war with TNP!!

This is wrong!! If the raiders invade TNP then that is waging war on TNP!! Being confronted by the NPA is not waging war on TNP as the NPA is not defending TNP and the raiders are not invading TNP!!
 
Poltsamaa:
The problem I have is that waging war on TNP is now considered any confrontation with the NPA!!

If raiders who have a nation in TNP invade a region with their non-TNP raider nation and the NPA goes to defend that region, it currently is construed as being in a state of war with TNP!!
Click to expand...
I don't see where it says that outright. Did I miss something? Or are you concerned it could be interpreted that way? If so, is there a modification you can suggest that would clarify the issue?
 
Maybe the MoD can clarify how deployments are being decided.

I'm not aware that any deployments have been pursuant to any treaty obligation or has been submitted to the Cabinet, the Security Councul, or even to me as Prime Minister.

I had assumed any recent deployments have been more in the nature of training, so if they're being deployed without treaty authorization, or approval of an agreement pursuant to TNP Lae 9, I'd like to hear about it.

If a hypothetical situation is being raised, my response is that the recent law on military documents would have to be invoked in some way or the question presented to the SC and the Cabinet for approval. Once one of those things happen, then the NPA deployment is clearly authorized under TNP law.
 
It is one of interpretation and based on the comments in the past and recently with regards to activities of TNP member nations whose "owner" has another nation that raids!!

To me, the following section of the amendment is too loose and probably needs a definition of what constitutes "waging war"!!

...is defined as the actions of the player controlling a nation nominally located within The North Pacific” that directly wages war against The North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

As can be seen, "waging war" is open to interpretation and therefore leaves that interpretation in the hands of the Cabinet or probably more accurately, the NPIA as they would be offering the intelligence most times, I'm assuming!!

I would like to see "waging war" defined as actions by a nation that are a direct assault on The North Pacific region!! For example, a player who raids TNP using their non-TNP puppet nation would be waging war!! A player who uses their non-TNP nation and/or their TNP nation to endorse a raider lead or take part in unendorsement campaigns against the elected Delegate of TNP would be waging war!!

On the other hand, a player who has their non-TNP puppet nation active in a raider organisation that is confronted by the NPA or an allied army during a raid mission is not waging war on TNP at all and it should not be interpreted that way as the NPA engaged the raider not the other way around!!

I'm against TNP being imposed on non-TNP nations, but realise there are situations where this may be necessary (the examples I cited earlier!!)!! I'm just concerned that the lack of definition of "waging war" leaves certain players open to abuse of the system to remove them from the region!!
 
That happens to be the entire substantive definition of the act, which is identical in substance to the language added to the Regional Assembly oath.

Also keep in mind
  • Article II section 4 of the Constitution,
  • TNP Law 9 as it is currently amended.
  • any other provision of the Constition or the Legal Code related to regional security,
  • treaties or agreements with other regions or organizations
Any of these will make NPA deploymwnrs legal under TNP law. As a result, any attack on the NPA forces in those cases, is an attack on TNP.
 
I want to second the point made by Katinaire. If a player has a nation that's in a "hostile" region, but that player didn't participate, and perhaps didn't even know of the action(s) done by that region, should mere membership be enough to brand him a traitor?
 
I think this has been brought before the Cabinet before and the general response was "they're screwed".


Going off on a tangent, I think we should define the meaning of the word hostile in this case.

[size=-2]*Because, technically, I am founder of a hostile region*[/size]
 
Grosseschnauzer:
That happens to be the entire substantive definition of the act, which is identical in substance to the language added to the Regional Assembly oath.

Also keep in mind
  • Article II section 4 of the Constitution,
  • TNP Law 9 as it is currently amended.
  • any other provision of the Constition or the Legal Code related to regional security,
  • treaties or agreements with other regions or organizations
Any of these will make NPA deploymwnrs legal under TNP law. As a result, any attack on the NPA forces in those cases, is an attack on TNP.
Click to expand...
What about when the NPA attacks someone else?! Seeing as that really was my point!!
 
That would likewise depend on the circumstances, as well as whether there would be legal authorization. As a for instance, if a provision in a hypothetical treaty or military authorized or triggered action by the NPA.

That is one reason why I was so insistent in an extended debate with Haor Chall on his original proposal to change the treatment of diplomatic treaties and agreements to have as many of the agreements involving military forces go through the RA as possible, and others go to the Security Council. Had the provision not been amended, all of the agreements would have required approval by the Regional Assembly.

I will also point out that as TNP Law 9 is currently worded, if a deployment is to occur that was not authorized in a diplomatic agreement or treaty on military matters when approved under TNP Law 9, then that deployment would require separate prior approval as that law indicates.

Is there any instance of the NPA going on an offensive mission without approval? If there is, I'd like to hear about it because I'm not sure that it is legally possible under the current scheme of TNP law.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
That would likewise depend on the circumstances, as well as whether there would be legal authorization. As a for instance, if a provision in a hypothetical treaty or military authorized or triggered action by the NPA.

That is one reason why I was so insistent in an extended debate with Haor Chall on his original proposal to change the treatment of diplomatic treaties and agreements to have as many of the agreements involving military forces go through the RA as possible, and others go to the Security Council. Had the provision not been amended, all of the agreements would have required approval by the Regional Assembly.

I will also point out that as TNP Law 9 is currently worded, if a deployment is to occur that was not authorized in a diplomatic agreement or treaty on military matters when approved under TNP Law 9, then that deployment would require separate prior approval as that law indicates.

Is there any instance of the NPA going on an offensive mission without approval? If there is, I'd like to hear about it because I'm not sure that it is legally possible under the current scheme of TNP law.
Click to expand...
*Poltsamaa waves away the smokescreen!!

Didn't answer my question!! If a raider nation owned by a player with a TNP nation raids a region and the NPA goes to defend the region AFTER the raiders have entered the region, would the player's TNP nation be charged with trason for being "at war" with the NPA and by extention, as you have stated, TNP?!

If you could give your verdict on such a hypothetical in as few words as possible it'd be much appreciated!! ;)
 
It would depend on all of the specifics --- that's the problem with your desire for categorical responses, when a meaningful answer could go either way.

The answer would depend on things such as what that player does at that point, it depends on what the legal situation is at the time (was there a treaty obligation of some sort to the the invaided region), and it depends on other questions such as whether the natives of the invaded region asked for NPA assistance.

A simple answer may seem best to you, but it ignores the reality of these situations, period. And whether the NPA is acting within our law would always be a relevant and meaningful question. It is not a smokescreen, it is a recognition that the question is not colored black or white but has various shaeds of gray.
 
The raider nation would remain in the region as per their mission!! Would TNP law require that nation to leave or have their TNP nation face treason charges?!

It is a fairly clear cut example of where the NPA are the aggressors in a conflict with a raider army in which a nation, whose owner also has a nation in TNP, is present!!

Would this nation, in your opinion, be charged with treason for being in a "state of war" with the NPA and, by extention, TNP?!
 
I am having a hard time understanding how someone can be on both sides of a war without being either disloyal, dishonest, or both.

Let's say my puppet Sheepylegs takes up with a raider group. (Not that any fierce invaders would want such a lame-named nation.) Sheepylegs raids and the NPA shows up. As a player, I would be hard-pressed to avoid taking up sides. GBM knows the NPA's plans and Sheepylegs knows the invaders' plans. To pretend I don't know what I know is unrealistic. I would submit that it is nearly impossible to act without compromising one's loyalty to one group or the other.
 
I don't see anything wrong with the legislation in its present form; however, isn't the clause about punishment for treason a bit redundant? My understanding of the rules of the game is that nations who do not reside in a given region cannot hold public office in that region. Wouldn't it be enough, then, to simply eject a nation from a region? It seems like the other consequences happen as a result of removing a nation from the region.
 
Under the TNP system, it is the jury that determines the punishment for a crime, the only constitutional requirement being that it is "proportionate" which the court determines. This law, however, states out the maximum punishment a jury can impose; therefore, a jury might decide (based on the facts as the jury finds them) that a lesser punishment is appropriate. So the law has to state the maximum punishment that is available to a jury.
 
I would like to have a system of "declared player loyalty."

Since duality is crap, GBM or Sheepyleggs, well, if you declares loyalty to TNP you could support TNP or just withdraw from the fight completely.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Let's say my puppet Sheepylegs takes up with a raider group. (Not that any fierce invaders would want such a lame-named nation.) Sheepylegs raids and the NPA shows up. As a player, I would be hard-pressed to avoid taking up sides. GBM knows the NPA's plans and Sheepylegs knows the invaders' plans. To pretend I don't know what I know is unrealistic. I would submit that it is nearly impossible to act without compromising one's loyalty to one group or the other.
Click to expand...

Well, this has happened to me a few times before and I have discussed it with higher ranking members of what was the Cabinet at that time. I was told that going against NPA was not at all like going against TNP unless, of course, said raid which NPA was taking action against happened in TNP.
 
so you can disallow it to continue to destroy the concept of invaders in TNP and promote your own version of "loyalty"?

Let's say my puppet Sheepylegs takes up with a raider group. (Not that any fierce invaders would want such a lame-named nation.) Sheepylegs raids and the NPA shows up. As a player, I would be hard-pressed to avoid taking up sides. GBM knows the NPA's plans and Sheepylegs knows the invaders' plans. To pretend I don't know what I know is unrealistic. I would submit that it is nearly impossible to act without compromising one's loyalty to one group or the other.
Click to expand...

The whole concept of duality would suggest that here you would be roleplaying your invader-self. At the same time, should you so wish, your TNP self would be condeming the actions. Duality is playing two roles at the same time. If you dont feel able to distinguish you dont do it.
 
FL, you're making a claim you were told something by the regional officials of the day, so it's not unreasonable to ask who and what was said., and where it was said

If you're not able to do so, could it be that it wasn't the case to begin with?
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Care to link us to where those statements were made?
Click to expand...

That would have been Flem and Polts and a few others in an IRC conversation which occurred right after I was accepted into the RV after having been rejected forever by Tresville and his jolly group of nay sayers. Can't actually provide a link as I don't log on IRC.

However, superficial proof that such statements just might have occured is reinforced by THIS TOPIC in which the basic idea that the raider-NPA issue is a "non-issue" is reaffirmed several times.

The fact no one has brought me to trial on charges of raiding is also evidence of my claim as well as the jolly attitude which the NPA had when facing off LWU in Utopian Islands (a mission which the following ribbon was issued for:
ribbon16763085693oc0qb.png
).
 
Two points about that linked thread:

(1) the proposal never went anywhere;

(2) Flem did eventually follow up on his idea with the amendment to the oath that he put forward just before the end of his recent term as PM.

Even in that linked thread, there was some discussion about a player oriented oath, which even now I would argue was evident from the way the oath was worded even at that time.

(OOC: And while I participated in that thread for a day or two, I was out of it after than due to a death in my immediate family. It was a couple of months before I really spent anything approaching much time online after that.)
 
Well, this has happened to me a few times before and I have discussed it with higher ranking members of what was the Cabinet at that time. I was told that going against NPA was not at all like going against TNP unless, of course, said raid which NPA was taking action against happened in TNP.
Click to expand...

That has, pretty much, always been my personal viewpoint. There are two occasions where I would see a player in TNP running a raider nation as being treasonable. One would be if the raider attacked TNP directly (and possibly regions with which we have an alliance - I have not thought that one through yet) and secondly, if they used information gained from the TNP forum to aid their raiding.

For example, if I, as Admin, decided to sample the dark side and run a raider nation for a change, if I used my access to the NPA forum area to pass on information to raiders, I would call that treason.
 
flemingovia:
Well, this has happened to me a few times before and I have discussed it with higher ranking members of what was the Cabinet at that time. I was told that going against NPA was not at all like going against TNP unless, of course, said raid which NPA was taking action against happened in TNP.
Click to expand...

That has, pretty much, always been my personal viewpoint. There are two occasions where I would see a player in TNP running a raider nation as being treasonable. One would be if the raider attacked TNP directly (and possibly regions with which we have an alliance - I have not thought that one through yet) and secondly, if they used information gained from the TNP forum to aid their raiding.

For example, if I, as Admin, decided to sample the dark side and run a raider nation for a change, if I used my access to the NPA forum area to pass on information to raiders, I would call that treason.
Click to expand...
Sounds about right to me!!
 
The other thing to remember is that there are at the moment only two diplomatic agreements related to military issues; all earlier agreements were voided, and all diplomatic agreements have had to be set up anew.

The area of action due to an alliance or request for assistance from another nation, I suspect, is where the ambiguity really lies.

And as I said earlier, that really does depend on the specifics of the situation. As fas as I know, there haven't been any Cabinet-approved agreements related to the use of military forces, and there is some latitude for MoD in deployments; if anyone believes the NPA has embarked on deployments not authorized under TNP law, it needs to be posted to me and the rest of the Cabinet.
 
Poltsamaa:
flemingovia:
Well, this has happened to me a few times before and I have discussed it with higher ranking members of what was the Cabinet at that time. I was told that going against NPA was not at all like going against TNP unless, of course, said raid which NPA was taking action against happened in TNP.
Click to expand...

That has, pretty much, always been my personal viewpoint. There are two occasions where I would see a player in TNP running a raider nation as being treasonable. One would be if the raider attacked TNP directly (and possibly regions with which we have an alliance - I have not thought that one through yet) and secondly, if they used information gained from the TNP forum to aid their raiding.

For example, if I, as Admin, decided to sample the dark side and run a raider nation for a change, if I used my access to the NPA forum area to pass on information to raiders, I would call that treason.
Click to expand...
Sounds about right to me!!
Click to expand...
Yes.

It seems pretty clear that being a member of The North Pacific, being in the Regional Assembly, or even a Minister of the Government, while also being a region-crasher does not pose a problem. As long as said region-crashing isn't against TNP or its allies, and as long as the member does not join the NPA, NPIA, or somehow collect NPA information for that region-crashing, it's all fine.

But it appears the Prime Minister disaggrees? :huh:
 
No, I'm pointing out that the effect of diplomatic treaty obligations has not come up in a concrete way, in part because there really hasn't been any since all treaty obligations were abrogated prior to the Constitutional Convention.

Tell me ZS, wouldn't the fact that TNP had a treaty obligation to defend another region from invaison make any difference to you?
 
Grosseschnauzer!!

Dragging "allies" into the discussion of treason is a bit odd!! As far as I'm aware, the nation in the raider group is not a member of TNP so trying to extend our treason laws to cover them confronting the NPA in an allied region or worse still claming them raiding an allied region is treason against TNP is drawing a long bow!!

I realise you aim is to drive all raiders or people with puppet nations in regions that do not share a similar view on government models from this region!! But I have to ask why?!

A nation in the RA has no access to intelligence, no access to the NPA unless they are specifically accepted (lets face it, someone who has openly declared their raider puppet is hardly going to try and infiltrate the NPA unless they are a complete idiot!!) nor can they access the NPIA!! Hell, I couldn't access the NPIA and I was PM!!

To me, you are taking this too far for what I can only imagine are personal gripes with raiders!! Its a waste of tiem and resources to turn this region's laws into some sort of all-encompassing doctrine by which PLAYERS must adhere or be tossed out of the region, albeit politically!!

I may not see eye-to-eye with Flemingovia much, but I am honest enough to see when someone has the right idea about something and have a genuine understanding of the situation!! Following his views on the matter allows people to play this game as they like up to the point where their actions genuinely compromise this region!!

That is the balance we need, not some draconian law telling people how they can play the game!!

Sure they have the choice to leave if they want to keep raiding, but do we want to turn people away like that?! Raiding is a tough business and the raiders tend to be the most active people in this game!! Harnessing that activity while not compromising the region sounds like the most beneficial result for TNP!!

EDIT: Added clarification as to who I was replying to...thought I'd quoted the post but no!!
 
There you go again.

I've been very consistent in pointing out that the gray area that exists on this question is an honest-to-god gray area, and that at this point, there is no clear answer.

If you want to see "evil" in an honest statement that there are shades of gray, then see evil. It's your choice. This proposed law like any law, can state a principle. We can guess how it will apply to a state of facts, but it's never possible to predict every circumstance that it might involve. And there may be hypothetical situations where the answer is simply not apparent.

At the moment there are only two diplomatic agreements involving the use of the NPA that has been ratified by the Regional Assembly. Only two. And neither one currently amounts to an alliance.

That makes it difficult to assess under what circumstances a raider with a nation in TNP might find itself at arms against the NPA and possibly subject to prosecution. As a matter of belief, and out of loyalty to this region, I don't believe, as GBM pointed out, that a player who places its higher loyalty to TNP should remain in opposition once this region makes a decision. But that is just a belief. The important thing to remember that they could be prosecuted for violation of their oath as a member of the RA whether this law passes or not.

The NPA is part of the region, part of the government, and one of the tools used by this government in setting its policies. The oath any regional Assembly members takes makes that pretty clear. What the answer should be with something that develops that wasn't anticipated, depends on everything that is involved at that point. As I basically said in that linked thread back in May, a player ought to be prepared to get out of the way if the region makes a decision about defense of a region. The question at that point is where is their higher loyalty.

TNP laws recognizes that a player often has more than one nation, often has more than one nation in TNP, and may not have a TNP nation as its UN nation.

I can remember how some insisted that this region should have a policy that to be a part of TNP, one had to have their TNP nation be their UN nation. I gather some tyrants in some of the feeders and other regions have in fact adopted that type of thinking as their policy. TNP doesn't.

I don't think there is enough actual experience to make a flat, one-size-fits-all judgment about how to handle a invaider nation in another region where the NPA shows up. It's going to depend on what all the facts are at that time, including how the NPA deployment came about. I simply and honestly cannot say whether that would or would not be permitted under this proposed law, or even whether under the oath amendment, it would violate that oath. So I'm am going to only say this once -- do not presume to label my position for me.

The motto of my nation, from the day I first entered Nationstates is "liberty, justice, equality and security." I rank them all of equal importance. My obligation as Prime Minister is to protect this region and its institutions. I have taken an oath to that effect, and in my view, this proposed law is a part of fulfilling my obligation under that oath of office that I took under TNP law.

We have recently faced a situation where another region subvert an official of the government and sought to place its agents within the government. More recenty, we had evidence of outside interference with the region's affairs by this same group of outsiders. We wouldn't have had to deal with the questions raised by this proposal had these particular advaraies just left us alone. They did not; as a result, they highlighted a need to shore up our defenses and that is what we are doing. Not doing so would have, as far as I am concerned, been a violation of my oath as TNP's Prime Minister.

In short, I believe this law is useful and necessary for the protection of this region, and its security; it is as reasonably clear as it can be in stating a principle and a definition for the courts to apply in any future criminal proceedings, and is therefore, an appropriate law for adoption.
 
You are not reading what I'm posting so let me make it more clear!! I don't give a toss about diplomatic agreements, I do not see them as having any bearing on treason charges and/or trials that are by their very nature domestic issues!!

What I do think is important is finding a definition of treason that allows people to enjoy the game to the fullest while keeping this region free from harm!! I do not believe your legislation allows that to happen, hence my suggestions and the suggestions of others to make the definition of treason and "state of war" more clear and more in line with allowing people to play characters in this game!!

Sure it is a grey area, never said it wasn't!! But that does not mean you enforce a law that snuffs out an important aspect of this game for many people when it offers nothing extra as far as regional security goes!!

Members of the RA do not access intelligence, members of the RA are not automatically members of the NPA or the NPIA!! So, please explain to me the threat of having the puppet nation of a player that has another nation in a raider group as a member of our RA?! If this is a major problem, why has it not been an issue for the past 12 months with various raiders and members of regions not on good diplomatic terms with TNP as members of our RA?!

What exactly is it you hope to accomplish by enforcing this law that transcends the region and imposes itself in the OOC?!

Who says the raider places higher loyalty to TNP?! Who says they have to?! If the TNP engages a raider group how can that be perceived as the raider attacking TNP or the NPA?! Why should they have to stand down when they were not the ones who sought conflict with TNP or the NPA?!

Excuse me if the "I have no idea how it will work until it's in place" answer doesn't instil me with much confidence because I know full well how it will be applied based on past history in this region!!
 
We wouldn't have had to deal with the questions raised by this proposal had these particular advaraies just left us alone. They did not; as a result, they highlighted a need to shore up our defenses and that is what we are doing. Not doing so would have, as far as I am concerned, been a violation of my oath as TNP's Prime Minister.
Click to expand...

And yet over and over again you brag about your victories in defending the region fromn threats.

So I aks the prime minister, If this region is so onviously capable of dealing with threats why do we need the oppressive "security" measures you propose?
 
I also ask that this receive further consideration and rewording. It's almost as if no one here understands the concept of role-playing. When you role-play you act as if you are that person/nation. That means that even if you had knowledge of the TNP's actions or plans because of one nation that when you go to RP the other nation, your RP as if you have NO knowledge. This is all about roleplaying and being able to be different people with different ideas. IF THIS PASSES I AM GUILTY OF TREASON BECAUSE I HAVE A NATION IN THE LEXICON. How stupid is that????? I didn't participate in the war on either side, I didn't even know it was going on. But because you define it as player and you don't include filters such as member of the NPA or whatever(which still denies the ability to roleplay) you'd have to take me to court and find me guilty of treason.

If I am in this to RP, my TNP nation must be loyal to the TNP and my other nations must be loyal to their regions. If you demand absolute loyalty, can't they all?? So who do I side with? What if I have friends in several different regions? Do I totally abandon them and perhaps months and months of RP over there because they go to war with TNP?? You are forcing me to kiss off another region or kiss off the TNP.
Any RPer worth their salt can separate one nation from another just as they separate one character from another in their RP. Just because as a player I know who is going to do what of my characters doesn't mean all of those characters knows. Just because I include exposition in my posts sharing history and background on a character doesn't mean the players automatically give their characters that knowledge. Put your "Damn everyone but the TNP" hat to the side for a moment and look at the bigger picture. If you have spent a long time building up multiple puppets, do you bail on all of those puppets because TNP says you have to or do you just bail on the nation in TNP to cut your losses? This is the situation you put active RPers into with this law.

I have no loyalties. I came here because a friend came here. I don't have the time to really RP a lot or pay attention to all the nitty-gritty details of regions so I don't get involved with RA's or Senate's or military orgs. I come to spam and chat with friends and possibly make new friends. This law, supposedly passed on an IC Constitution and set of laws, will find me guilty of OOC treason based on current wording.

If you force me to choose, I'll drop TNP like a moldy banana peel. I'll go somewhere where people don't condemn me for trying to find friends in other regions as well as theirs.

I beg you not to force that upon me. Reject this proposal, reword it to keep it IC....whatever. You're telling me if I'm friends with you I can't be friends with them. I don't believe I've heard that said since Elementary school(grades 1-6 for non-USers).

"What logic and rationale is the TNP governed by Holmes?"
"Elementary, my dear Watson, Elementary."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top