FD: Defining Treason

Bingo! My 2 problems with this are that it blends IC & OOC, and it unfairly penalizes innocent nations just because they happen to have a nation in a "hostile" region. Like many people, I run multiple nations, and most of them have no IC connection to Romanar, The Lexicon, or TNP. Each of those nations is loyal to their region.

I think too many people have let themselves forget that this IS a game, and one where multiple nations/personas is common.
 
It doesn't say innocent nations will be convicted of treason just for being there. But it does say that if you take actions to invade TNP, even with a puppet, the you as an RA member, can be charged with treason.

And the notion that RP purists can pretend to forget what their other puppet knows... well it's kind of unbelievable. Let's say my nefarious puppet Sheepylegs organizes an umendorsement campaign against GBM. GBM is supposed to pretend she doesn't know anything about it, or who is involved. At the same time, those working with Sheepylegs are supposed to believe Sheepylegs will not breathe a word of it to Mum. Is anyone going to buy this?
 
GBM, if they believe you are trying to keep them as two separate then yes. This is a game. If you can't handle playing duality then don't do it. Like I said, any RPer worth their salt can do it and do it well. In your example it's not that GBM "pretends" to know nothing about it, if they are truly separate nations and you are IC, then GBM DOES KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT. That's the problem GBM. You are eliminating the line between OOC and IC. Just because the player knows doesn't mean the nation knows. That kind of simplistic mentality is the whole problem here. You want to say every player must be loyal when it is the nation that needs to be loyal. Now if you modify the law to say if a nation known to be controlled by a player with a nation in the TNP reveals secrets that they could not know otherwise then a PLAYER can be convicted of treason. But as currently worded, I am guilty of treason as soon as this is passed simply for "being there" as you put it GBM. See the problem now? With the current wording, simply being there IS treason. It makes no distinction as to whether my nation in another region actually participated in the conflict. It clearly states that any player with a nation in a region that is in a war with the TNP. Read it again and open your eyes.

I still implore you to realize that you cannot eliminate the lines between OOC and IC like this or you eliminate the line between this game and real life. And if you can't separate a game from real life, you have my pity.
 
That 'waging war' term again?

Personally, I have never believed in duality, nor do I find the crossing over from IC to OOC worrying. But this vagueness of language is too much. When defining a crime that can get someone expelled from the region, I would prefer to see something that based on something more than a purely subjective view point. 'Waging war' and 'allies themselves with' are vastly open to interpretation, with little need in my opinion.

As far as I can see, there are only a limit number of offences that should be considered treasonable. Attempting the gain the delegates position, attempting to gain control of the forum, use of information that has been gained through a position of trust in a manner not in the best interests of TNP, and attacking an ally of TNP (in relations to future full alliances/embassy arrangements). Unless someone can come up with a decent example of a treasonable offence that wouldn't fit into these categories, I'd say that's it.

So what is wrong with out lining the exact crimes that are treason, rather than using some rather vague and easily subverted language?
 
Great Bights Mum:
It doesn't say innocent nations will be convicted of treason just for being there. But it does say that if you take actions to invade TNP, even with a puppet, the you as an RA member, can be charged with treason.
Click to expand...
Actually, it does not specify "invading TNP" and Grosseschnauzer has gone on to say that any action against the NPA is an act of waging war on TNP!! Therein lies the issue some people have with this legislation!!

And the notion that RP purists can pretend to forget what their other puppet knows... well it's kind of unbelievable. Let's say my nefarious puppet Sheepylegs organizes an umendorsement campaign against GBM. GBM is supposed to pretend she doesn't know anything about it, or who is involved. At the same time, those working with Sheepylegs are supposed to believe Sheepylegs will not breathe a word of it to Mum. Is anyone going to buy this?
Click to expand...

Once again, an idiotic example that makes no sense at all!! Why would anyone use a puppet nation to undermine their own nation in a region?! Just stupid!!

The point I and others have tried to make is a situation where, to use your nations as an example, Sheepylegs invaded the region of Sparrow!! Defenders, including NPA members (but not GBM as GBM would not be allowed into the NPA if they have a raider puppet!!), then go to the region of Sparrow to defend the region!! Under Grosseschnauzer's interpretation, Sheepylegs would be required to leave Sparrow the moment the NPA arrived or have GBM tried for treason!! Under a more realistic interpretation Sheepylegs would be allowed to remain in Sparrow as per their mission!!
Conversely if Sparrow was being invaded by another organisation and the NPA came in to defend, then Sheepylegs arrived to assist the other invaders then Sheepylegs did attack the NPA and therefore it would be reasonable that GBM face some form of legal consequence in TNP!!

In the first instance Sheepylegs did not attack the NPA or TNP, in fact, the NPA attacked Sheepylegs, so why should GBM be charged for treason when they did not instigate any confrontation with the NPA?!

In the second, Sheepylegs did instigate confrontation with the NPA and therefore GBM is more open to legal consequence!!

Neither of these situations involved Sheepylegs invading TNP yet under Grosseschnauzer's interpretation both would result in GBM facing treason trials!!
 
With this debate so obviously contentious and on-going, I would urge you all to vote NAY on this so we can continue to make this safe!
 
Poltsamaa:
The point I and others have tried to make is a situation where, to use your nations as an example, Sheepylegs invaded the region of Sparrow!! Defenders, including NPA members (but not GBM as GBM would not be allowed into the NPA if they have a raider puppet!!), then go to the region of Sparrow to defend the region!! Under Grosseschnauzer's interpretation, Sheepylegs would be required to leave Sparrow the moment the NPA arrived or have GBM tried for treason!! Under a more realistic interpretation Sheepylegs would be allowed to remain in Sparrow as per their mission!!
Conversely if Sparrow was being invaded by another organisation and the NPA came in to defend, then Sheepylegs arrived to assist the other invaders then Sheepylegs did attack the NPA and therefore it would be reasonable that GBM face some form of legal consequence in TNP!!

In the first instance Sheepylegs did not attack the NPA or TNP, in fact, the NPA attacked Sheepylegs, so why should GBM be charged for treason when they did not instigate any confrontation with the NPA?!

In the second, Sheepylegs did instigate confrontation with the NPA and therefore GBM is more open to legal consequence!!

Neither of these situations involved Sheepylegs invading TNP yet under Grosseschnauzer's interpretation both would result in GBM facing treason trials!!
Click to expand...
This is exactly the problem I have with this.....Thank you poltsamaa for putting it so clearly....

Unlike Romanoffia....I think that outside of TNP anyone can do what they want including raiding....and if I met a TNP nation on the opposite side during a defence action I'd probably say Hi!!!.....
And to charge them with treason in either of the quoted cases...IMHO is just plain wrong....

Dai....
 
I really do not believe this has been fully debated, and the current version up to a vote does NOT define "Waging War" the way I, or many others, would like it to be defined. Therefore I fear I must vote NYET I mean NAY at this juncture.
 
Something trivial:

defined as the actions of the player controlling a nation nominally located within The North Pacific” that directly wages war against The North Pacific
Click to expand...

Stray double quote after The North Pacific.

That aside, I'm afraid I can't with good conscience vote for this. It smells like cold war politics.
 
Daimiaena:
Unlike Romanoffia....I think that outside of TNP anyone can do what they want including raiding....and if I met a TNP nation on the opposite side during a defence action I'd probably say Hi!!!.....
And to charge them with treason in either of the quoted cases...IMHO is just plain wrong....

Dai....
Click to expand...
Welllllll........

I would also like to see, as I have noted before, a very specific (narrowly so) list of offenses that would constitute treason and/or a definition that is so narrow and specific that a charge of treason would be very difficult to level.

Specifically, 'adhering to one's enemies' should specificially be restricted to situtaions in which there is a declared war; or acting in colusion with a foreign entity with the intent of undermining or overthrowing, or causing the defeat of TNP in a declared war.

As per a TNP resident/citizen 'raider' operating in a region in opposition to the NPA - if there is no delcared war, then under a reasonable definition of 'treason' it could not be rightly called 'treason'.

Now, if a citizen of the region and participant on the forum here were to colude/conspire with a 'foreign' region/entity, in an actual attempt, to overthrow the government; participate in espionage against the region, then that would be the textbook definition of treason.

My personal concern with any overly broad definition of 'treason' is that it could possibly be used as a political weapon - and if it can be used as such, eventually someone will try it.

One should always have a healthy suspicion of one's own government which is exactly the reason we have a Constitution in the first place - to restrain the government from infringing upon the rights of it's citizens. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, IMHO. And this is why laws must be so specific, especially those concerning treason or sedition, that there can be absolutely no mistake nor question about what constitutes treason.
 
Art 4.6

A - If, at a referendum, a bill receives more than 50 per cent, but less than 60 per cent, support of the vote, with the participation of a quorum, then consideration of the proposed bill will move to a debate thread at the Regional off-site forum where members of the Regional Assembly may further debate the bill for one week.
B - At the end of that week, a second referendum vote will then be held and, if the bill receives 60 per cent approval of the vote with a quorum participating, the bill shall be adopted as a law. If the bill fails to receive 60 per cent approval after the second vote, it will be declared a dead bill.
Click to expand...

We have a week to fix it then it's back up at the godforsaken date of the 24th.
 
Are we continuing the debate in this thread?

If so, then I would be happy to support this if...

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...

...were changed to something less open to interpretation.

As I said in a previous post, I can only think of a few distinct actions that would count as treason...

Attempting the gain the delegates position, attempting to gain control of the forum, use of information that has been gained through a position of trust in a manner not in the best interests of TNP, and attacking an ally of TNP (in relations to future full alliances/embassy arrangements).
Click to expand...

...and while I'm sure there are probably a couple more that those more experienced in this kind of thing can come up with, it doesn't seem to troublesome to outline each seperately.
 
One problem I have with getting too specific is that it then creates a "safe harbot" for other methods and means that we may not think of to subvert the accepted constitutional system in terms of the Delegate, the government, or the forums, by an individual or a conspiracy. It's the same thought process that makes fixed endo caps such a bas idea.

Since that often involves the use of private communications or other forums, a "overt" act requirement would be next to impossible to satisfy.

Likewise, we need to take into account both the situation such as the one that involved Limitless Events, and circumstances where someone participates or supports hostile action against TNP.

Another point to keep in mind is that the NPA is in fact an entity under the control of the government; I have reminded the moD that the NPA cannot be deployed without governmental approval under the terms of the military agreements law that was recently adopted.

One of the problems in this discussion is trying to adopt too narrow a definition, that raises problems of its own in that it would allow players to get away ith conduct they should not be able to getaway with. Too narrow a definition is as bad as too broad. The other point to keep in mind is that the operative language in this bill is semantically identical to the language adopted through the constitutional amendment that amended the Regional Assembly application oath.

As it stands, Regional Assembly member can be indicted a tried in a criminal proceeding based upon a violation of their oath, or of any other specific provision of the Constitution.

There's one other unanswered question. At the time TNP Law 1 was originally enacted, there wasn't a Regional Assembly. However, the actual language may well apply to Regional Assembly membership.

TNP Law 1:
Section 1: Scope of Effect

1 - All government officials, including Cabinet Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Prime Minister, UN Regional Delegate, Attorney General, and other offices created through Ministerial Directive, Legislation through The North Pacific Legal Code, or Amendment to The Constitution of The North Pacific, be they elected or appointed to office, to ensure and protect the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Regional Security, shall henceforth be required to take the Oath of Office listed in Section 2 of this Act before assuming their elected or appointed role within The Government of The North Pacific.
2 - All Government Officials, as listed in Clause 1 of this Section, shall be required to take the Oath of Office listed in Section 2 of this bill within one week of assuming office. Any Government Officials already in office at the time of this bill's passage shall be required to take the Oath of Office listed in Section 2 of this bill within one week of this bill's passage, or face removal from office, in accordance with Section 3, Clause 2 of this Act.

Section 2: Oath of Office

The following Oath of Office shall be required for all Government Officials, as according to Section 1 of this Act:

QUOTE
I, (insert forum username), do hereby solemnly swear that during my duly elected/appointed term as (insert government position), I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of (insert government position), with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.

Section 3: Penalties for Violation

1 - This Oath shall be binding on all government officials as previously covered, and violations of said Oath may be ground for indictment of impeachment charges in a legal Court of The North Pacific, pursuant to the guidelines and procedures laid out in Article IV of The North Pacific Constitution, The North Pacific Legal Code, and the guidelines of The Ministry of Justice.

2 - Any Government Official required to take the Oath of Office as listed in Section 1, Clause 1 of this bill that fails to do so within the allotted time set forth in Section 1, Clause 2 of this Act shall be subject to removal from office following a trial as set forth in Article IV of The North Pacific Constitution, The North Pacific Legal Code, and the guidelines of The Ministry of Justice.
Click to expand...

The Law was adopted prior to the creation of the Regional Assembly and theCourt of The North Pacific (hence the reference to the guidelines of the Ministry of Justice), but it doesn't change my suspicion that it also applies to RA members once they are accepted into the Regional Assembly. It's relevant to this discussion, as the language of this second oath is also enforceable through a criminal proceeding.
 
I agree that making it too narrow would be just as bad, but in the end I'd prefer something that let some individuals get way with treason in a manner we haven't anticipated (although I suspect they would get away with it once, as I'm pretty sure we'd change the legislation if something like that did happen) than opened up many more innocent nations to prosecution as treasonous under a harsh ruling government.

*Namyeknom takes a breath, and studies the mammoth sentence.

The other point to keep in mind is that the operative language in this bill is semantically identical to the language adopted through the constitutional amendment that amended the Regional Assembly application oath.
Click to expand...

Actually, the recent RA oath change brings up another question. As the definition of treason here is identical to the phrasing of the RA oath, is there any need for this at all? RA members are already held accountable for treason under this definition.

I'm not too sure where you're going with the TNP Law 1 stuff. The way I'm reading it, you're suggesting the RA may be held accountable to the Legal Code, by being a member of the government as stated in Act 1? I already thought we were! :unsure:

Or have I got that all backwards? :blink:
 
Constitution Article IV:
Section 6. Procedure for Certain Legislative Bills.

A - If, at a referendum, a bill receives more than 50 per cent, but less than 60 per cent, support of the vote, with the participation of a quorum, then consideration of the proposed bill will move to a debate thread at the Regional off-site forum where members of the Regional Assembly may further debate the bill for one week.
B - At the end of that week, a second referendum vote will then be held and, if the bill receives 60 per cent approval of the vote with a quorum participating, the bill shall be adopted as a law. If the bill fails to receive 60 per cent approval after the second vote, it will be declared a dead bill.
Click to expand...

This provision says nothing about being able to just kill the legislation, there is no obligation for me to accept an amendment, and there is an obligation to take it to a second vote.

If there is solely reliance on the constitutional oath, then the self-enforcing provisions of the oath come into play. TNP Law 1 adds some different obligations than the constitutional oath, and directs enforcement by criminal prosecution. The question is, does that apply to RA members, since that Law was originally enacted before there was an RA, jusr registered voters. It to me is a valid question and it's also valid to ask if it does apply, whethere it fills any part of the current issue. Hersfold wrote that bil originally, so maybe he'll have an opinion about it.
 
If there is solely reliance on the constitutional oath, then the self-enforcing provisions of the oath come into play.
Click to expand...

I don't think I get that either. Surely it doesn't matter where it says its wrong, just that it says its wrong. Its the same difference between being tried for breaking your RA oath as it is for committing treason if the definition of the crime is the same thing.
 
You don't see any obligation to change the wording????? You still use the term "player" in there right? Hello?!?!? The biggest beef I have with this whole legislation is that it takes a character based game and tries to move it to real life. It does not specify whether a "player" has a nation in any part of the TNP only that they belong to it. So I don't have to be a member of the RA to be tried for treason under this law. And as Polts has so called out in the FL discussion thread, you are trying to make this IC game an OOC issue. You are denying the ability of people to role-play which unfortunately smacks of your own inadequacy and therefore should foster doubt among all TNP member as to whether you can separate this game from real life at all. When you fail to do that, you've failed at a lot of things.

I call upon everyone in the region to remember that this is just a game and to remember that when considering the OUT OF GAME wording of this travesty.
 
The legislative procedure does not require any change in a proposal before a second vote.

Where's an alternate consensus? At the moment there isn't one, so instead of complainig to me, offer something specific that would garner more support than this proposal did in the first vote.

As to IC or OOC, just remember the NS mods long ago ruled that anything outside of the NS game server was OOC as far as they're concerned.

Finally, the Constitution has had a first-person reference to the player from the time the registration process was first drafted (and that was before I had arrived on the scene.) So I think it is reasonable to assume that horse is already out of the barn.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The legislative procedure does not require any change in a proposal before a second vote.

Where's an alternate consensus? At the moment there isn't one, so instead of complainig to me, offer something specific that would garner more support than this proposal did in the first vote.

As to IC or OOC, just remember the NS mods long ago ruled that anything outside of the NS game server was OOC as far as they're concerned.

Finally, the Constitution has had a first-person reference to the player from the time the registration process was first drafted (and that was before I had arrived on the scene. So I think it is reasonable to assume that horse is already out of the barn.
Click to expand...
Still beating that deceased equine, Schnauzer?!

The Constitution itself refers only to "member nation" and "nation", not player!! also, the part of the oath you refer to is an aberration even in the oath itself prior to it being reworded!!

I'd prefer the oath remained in its original form with the OOC reference to the "ownership" of another nation, including the disclosure of the UN member nation, to be removed from the body oand added as an OOC rider on the orginal oath!!

Thus allowing people to role play while enforcing the "one player-one vote" requirement!!

As for Defining Treason, I'd say its simply defined as a TNP member nation attacking the region or conspiring with those attacking the region!! Note, not players, nations!!
 
Polts, I can't help the fact that history and precedent in TNP does not support you.

Oh, that's right. You didn't come into TNP as a democrat, but as an autocrat. The funny part is that the oath was not something I wrote originally; I didn't even write the language added to the oath by one of the recent amendments. (Flem did.)

But let's not let facts stand in the way of your tirade. Heaven forbid that!

:rofl: :lol: :rofl:
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Polts, I can't help the fact that history and precedent in TNP does not support you.

Oh, that's right. You didn't come into TNP as a democrat, but as an autocrat. The funny part is that the oath was not something I wrote originally; I didn't even write the language added to the oath by one of the recent amendments. (Flem did.)

But let's not let facts stand in the way of your tirade. Heaven forbid that!

:rofl: :lol: :rofl:
Click to expand...
Do you actually read anything I post?!

I didn't say you wrote the oath, just that you keep holding up one section of the oath as though it overrides the rest of the constitution!! That is the dead horse you keep flogging!!

Secondly, the pretext to my arrival in the region does not have any bearing on the validity of what I post!! Again, you try to use smear to distract peopel from what is being said!!

What do you think of the suggestion I made with regards to the OOC section of the oath?! I notice you did not even bother to comment on the suggestion I made due the the eagernes of you to try and smear instead of discuss!!
 
Ok, so for constructive progress in this, I'm ammending the language and encouraging Grosse to adopt this language or language similar to it for this law. The bolded section is what I have changed.

TNP Law ____
Criminal Offenses

Section 1. Treason.
A. “Treason” defined. For the purposes of this Law, or elsewhere in the Legal Code or in the Constitution, “treason” is defined as the actions of a nation nominally located within The North Pacific” that directly wages war against The North Pacific, or aides a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific by either supplying arms or intelligence.  Any information aquired by an outside nation that they should not be privvy to except given it by a nation residing in The North Pacific shall be considered treason and charges shall be brought against the nation responsible for such an act(this applies in all cases including the failure of a player to properly handle duality).  The actions of a member nation pursuant to the lawful orders of The North Pacific Army or The North Pacific Intelligence Agency are excepted from this definition.
B. Criminal offense; maximum penalty. Treason is declared to be a criminal offense. The maximum punishment that may be imposed on a party found guilty of treason may include:
(1) the permanent ejection and banning of the convicted party from The North Pacific;
(2) the permanent ejection and banning of the convicted party from membership in the Regional Assembly;
(3) the permanent ejection of the convicted party from The North Pacific Army; and
(4) the permanent disqualification and removal of the convicted party from any office or position within the government of The North Pacific.
The penalty shall apply to all nations that the convicted party has controlled or will control that is placed within The North Pacific at any time.
C. Suspension pending trial. At the time an indictment is issued, the Prime Minister or the Attorney General, or the prosecutor appointed by the Attorney General, may file a ex parte civil proceeding with the Court of The North Pacific requesting a court order that suspends the indicted party from the Regional Assembly or any office or position within the government of The North Pacific pending the outcome of the criminal proceeding. This suspension shall apply to all nations that the indicted party has controlled or will control that is placed within The North Pacific at any time.
Click to expand...


Edited to remove the "member" reference in the new part so flem can get off his high horse since this specifies ANY nation within TNP regardless of whether they belong to the RA or not.
 
Defining treason – a second stab.

Can I suggest this as a definition of Treason. This seems to sum up where the discussion has been heading:


Treason

Treason is defined as an attack against the region using the particular nation with which you registered for the regional Assembly. So, so long as you do not use this nation in any operation, feel free to attack the region, run an unendorsement campaign against our delegate, fuck us over, screw with us, spam our RMB, bleat, moan or otherwise fuck with our forum. We don’t mind – so long as you are careful not to use your TNP nation to do it. In fact, we are happy to still let you vote ona any response to an attack you might make against the region. That may sound illogical, or even stupid to most people, but we don't think so. 
Click to expand...

How’s that?

PS. Don’t worry. I have given myself a 20% warning and placed myself on a 5 hour mod preview.
:lol:

edit: It turns out I cannot warn myself. Would a mod please oblige?
 
*Gaspo bookmarks for next year's TNPAC

*Gaspo also quietly applauds

Regardless of the opinion expressed, epic post. Epic.
 
Katinaire:
Ok, so for constructive progress in this, I'm ammending the language and encouraging Grosse to adopt this language or language similar to it for this law.  The bolded section is what I have changed.

TNP Law ____
Criminal Offenses

Section 1. Treason.
A. “Treason” defined. For the purposes of this Law, or elsewhere in the Legal Code or in the Constitution, “treason” is defined as the actions of a nation nominally located within The North Pacific” that directly wages war against The North Pacific, or aides a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific by either supplying arms or intelligence.  Any information aquired by an outside nation that they should not be privvy to except given it by a nation residing in The North Pacific shall be considered treason and charges shall be brought against the nation responsible for such an act(this applies in all cases including the failure of a player to properly handle duality).  The actions of a member nation pursuant to the lawful orders of The North Pacific Army or The North Pacific Intelligence Agency are excepted from this definition.
B. Criminal offense; maximum penalty. Treason is declared to be a criminal offense. The maximum punishment that may be imposed on a party found guilty of treason may include:
(1) the permanent ejection and banning of the convicted party from The North Pacific;
(2) the permanent ejection and banning of the convicted party from membership in the Regional Assembly;
(3) the permanent ejection of the convicted party from The North Pacific Army; and
(4) the permanent disqualification and removal of the convicted party from any office or position within the government of The North Pacific.
The penalty shall apply to all nations that the convicted party has controlled or will control that is placed within The North Pacific at any time.
C. Suspension pending trial. At the time an indictment is issued, the Prime Minister or the Attorney General, or the prosecutor appointed by the Attorney General, may file a ex parte civil proceeding with the Court of The North Pacific requesting a court order that suspends the indicted party from the Regional Assembly or any office or position within the government of The North Pacific pending the outcome of the criminal proceeding. This suspension shall apply to all nations that the indicted party has controlled or will control that is placed within The North Pacific at any time.
Click to expand...


Edited to remove the "member" reference in the new part so flem can get off his high horse since this specifies ANY nation within TNP regardless of whether they belong to the RA or not.
Click to expand...
K, you aren't a member of the RA, and I've been waiting to see if any of the RA members who voted against this bill like your approach enough to vote for a bill with that type of change or whether any of those who voted for the original bill dislike your approach, and would vote against the bill.

I knew back in the spring that there are such a wide range of views on the issue that achieving a universal consensus on this will be virtually impossible. On the other hand, given the support for the substantive definition used in the constitutional amendment, it was reasonable to believe that it was as close to a consensus as we're going to find. I made a promise during the debate on the statute of limitations law that if a definition of treason could be agreed upon, that I would support an exemption from that law for the crime of treason. As far as I am concerned, I am keeping my word from that debate.

At this point, I need to see something that convinces me that the particular kind of change you suggest would more likely lead to a 60 per cent majority in the Regional Assembly. Any change in the language of the bill has to have some support that hasn't appeared yet.

So I'm waiting to see what other RA members think about your idea.
 
That's true I'm not a member of the RA, but the current wording of the proposed law would still make me guilty of treason whether the current government interpretted it that way or not. That's the whole reason I even got involved. However, since I have done lots of bashing, I took my rebuke and decided to contribute a change that makes this law something I can support.

So at least now, I can have a clear conscience and say I tried to make it better.
 
I still dont like this bill, but I think Kats changes make it better. Except we now need to define improper duality or it is again open to abuse
 
I'm not in the RA either, but I think this bill is much better than the other one. But I agree with FL. Proper/improper duality is vague.
 
So the new proposal has the approval of the current lexiconian contingent in our midst. Great to see the lexicon continuing to take such an active interest in tnp internal affairs. :cool:

I shall sleep safer in my bed tonight.
 
flemingovia:
So the new proposal has the approval of the current lexiconian contingent in our midst. Great to see the lexicon continuing to take such an active interest in tnp internal affairs. :cool:

I shall sleep safer in my bed tonight.
Click to expand...

So now your accusing Nam of being a Lexiconian as well?

Well I guess that is your usual response to anyone who says something you disagree with. Way to go with intelligent arguements flem. :duh:
 
Haor Chall:
flemingovia:
So the new proposal has the approval of the current lexiconian contingent in our midst. Great to see the lexicon continuing to take such an active interest in tnp internal affairs. :cool:

I shall sleep safer in my bed tonight.
Click to expand...

So now your accusing Nam of being a Lexiconian as well?

Well I guess that is your usual response to anyone who says something you disagree with. Way to go with intelligent arguements flem. :duh:
Click to expand...
Flem does intelligent arguments?! :blink:
 
Katinaire:
TNP Law ____
Criminal Offenses

Section 1. Treason.
A. “Treason” defined. For the purposes of this Law, or elsewhere in the Legal Code or in the Constitution, “treason” is defined as the actions of a nation nominally located within The North Pacific” that directly wages war against The North Pacific, or aides a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific by either supplying arms or intelligence.  Any information aquired by an outside nation that they should not be privvy to except given it by a nation residing in The North Pacific shall be considered treason and charges shall be brought against the nation responsible for such an act(this applies in all cases including the failure of a player to properly handle duality).  The actions of a member nation pursuant to the lawful orders of The North Pacific Army or The North Pacific Intelligence Agency are excepted from this definition.
B. Criminal offense; maximum penalty. Treason is declared to be a criminal offense. The maximum punishment that may be imposed on a party found guilty of treason may include:
(1) the permanent ejection and banning of the convicted party from The North Pacific;
(2) the permanent ejection and banning of the convicted party from membership in the Regional Assembly;
(3) the permanent ejection of the convicted party from The North Pacific Army; and
(4) the permanent disqualification and removal of the convicted party from any office or position within the government of The North Pacific.
The penalty shall apply to all nations that the convicted party has controlled or will control that is placed within The North Pacific at any time.
C. Suspension pending trial. At the time an indictment is issued, the Prime Minister or the Attorney General, or the prosecutor appointed by the Attorney General, may file a ex parte civil proceeding with the Court of The North Pacific requesting a court order that suspends the indicted party from the Regional Assembly or any office or position within the government of The North Pacific pending the outcome of the criminal proceeding. This suspension shall apply to all nations that the indicted party has controlled or will control that is placed within The North Pacific at any time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This is certainly an improvement, but I fail to see how the "failure to handle duality" thing will work as that leaves what is deemed a "failure" open to interpretation!! If you scratched that section then its a good definition that allows everyone to roleplay their nations without fear of being punished in TNP for daring have a nation resident in a region that does not share the same preception of how a region should be run!!

Also, Section C needs to be removed altogether or amended to refer only to removal from the position in the Cabinet and/or the NP(I)A pending trial!! Leaving a nation charged with treason in the Regional Assembly creates no security risk to the region!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top