I was not talking about Nam. I should have excepted him.
Sorry, Nam. I would hate you to think that I thought of you as a lexiconian.
Sorry, Nam. I would hate you to think that I thought of you as a lexiconian.
FD: Defining Treason
- Thread starter Grosseschnauzer
- Start date
Fulhead Land
TNPer
*Fulhead Land is a TNP nation and a member of the RA. Whats your point?
I hate to see how the curent Equilisim delegation is trying to stir the pot around here
I hate to see how the curent Equilisim delegation is trying to stir the pot around here
Sorry Fullhead land. I did not realise that you would be so sensitive about being associated in my mind with the lexicon.
Please accept my apologies for this. I can see where you are coming from/
Perhaps Kaltnaire and Romanar would like to distance themselves from the lexicon too, then my apology can be complete?
Please accept my apologies for this. I can see where you are coming from/
Perhaps Kaltnaire and Romanar would like to distance themselves from the lexicon too, then my apology can be complete?
Fulhead Land
TNPer
I have no problem with your mental associations and I require no apologies from you.
I just ask you stop acting like a prat and taking this off topic on what can only be called your personal tirade and let everyone get back on with debating this legislation!
I just ask you stop acting like a prat and taking this off topic on what can only be called your personal tirade and let everyone get back on with debating this legislation!
Just re-read. What is the reference to Equilism about?
If it is a reference to me, I have nothing to do with that region. I have no nation in the region. I have no position in the government, have taken no oaths. My last post in the Equilism forum was on 24th April 2005. I doubt if Westwind would even recognise me.
As MOEA I must ask you; please do not try to drag Equilism into our internal discussions, or claim falsely that they have a delegation in our region trying to interfere with our internal politics. Such a false claim could create a serious, and unnecessary diplomatic incident.
Fulhead Land
TNPer
I'm sorry how rude of me, I had meant the Commonwealth of Equilism.
and erm hold on
Not a hypocrite at least...
and erm hold on
Not a hypocrite at least...
Yes, Integrety is my middle name.
I agree that is poses little scurity risk - unless the numbers are large enough to constitute a voting block. Unfortunately, you cannot frame legislation with the words "unless a dozen or so of your mates are also doing the same thing..."
Therefore, leaving someone charged with treason could easily be a risk, especially in times of war when we are dealing with groups rather than individuals.
I agree that is poses little scurity risk - unless the numbers are large enough to constitute a voting block. Unfortunately, you cannot frame legislation with the words "unless a dozen or so of your mates are also doing the same thing..."
Therefore, leaving someone charged with treason could easily be a risk, especially in times of war when we are dealing with groups rather than individuals.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Katinaire apparently used the original proposal, and not the proposal as it was voted upon by the Regional Assembly. So that Part C was not part of the current bill. (It's in a preliminary discussion thread for a separate bill, but essentially no one has posted any comments about it or offered any additions or changes.)
However, I am not adverse to inserting it back in as part of a compromise on the bill. I'm glad to see that someone finally acknowledged the fact that in that clause, a request for suspension woulf go to the Court first.
Overall, I still want to hear from more members from the RA, especially those who don't have a connection with the Lexicon. That just might be more persuasive.
However, I am not adverse to inserting it back in as part of a compromise on the bill. I'm glad to see that someone finally acknowledged the fact that in that clause, a request for suspension woulf go to the Court first.
Overall, I still want to hear from more members from the RA, especially those who don't have a connection with the Lexicon. That just might be more persuasive.
Fulhead Land
TNPer
And thus the people glance upon the true face of our shining leaders of democracy; the bias the rhetoric and the disregard for opinions of "undesirables"!
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Excuse me, Fulhead Land, in case you haven't noticed, several of those who have posted in this thread are Lexiconians who are not even in the Regional Assembly.
Why would anyone value the opinions of non-residents even more than those who live here and actually have the right to vote on the legislation?
Why would anyone value the opinions of non-residents even more than those who live here and actually have the right to vote on the legislation?
Poltsamaa
TNPer
Funny, you never seemeed too bothered with blocs from other regions voting in the RA..oh wait, they agree with you so thats OK!! Nevermind!!
Schnauzer, I think plenty of nations have expressed their opinions on the proposal that was formerly section C of the Defining Treason proposal!! The only suggestion I can make to alter it would involve a strikethrough tag either end of it!!
maybe because I am not aware of such a bloc at work. Please tell us who they are.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
Alright guys, enough about the people with the ideas and let's debate some ideas! Or else I'll turn this car right back around and send you all to time out!
yes.
Monumental Proportions
TNPer
I also agree with that.
*Monumental Proportions adds his stamp. Just for the record.
*Monumental Proportions adds his stamp. Just for the record.
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Oh, you're just trying to widdle in the soup.
All Hail Flemingovia!
And I agree with Flem 1000%.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
That's a decision that was made by others. Maybe Hersfold can explain that.
(I would have preferred that the subforum be for formal discussion rather than the other wa around, or at the minimum two subforums, one for preliminary informal discussion, and a second for formal discussions and voting, then the main RA forum can be left for "open mike" sessions and not interfere with the RA work. (I said that at least a year ao, when we were still at Old Blue. I still think it would make more sense that the other options.)
I'm still awaiting input. Roman, can you live with the sort of ideas that have been offered? Flem? MP? Gaspo? Or has virtually all of the RA membership already gone off on the seasonal celebrations.
If so, I would suggest to the Speaker that we suspend all deliberations until after the holidays are over, since I am of the impression there isn't a quorum to be had.
(I would have preferred that the subforum be for formal discussion rather than the other wa around, or at the minimum two subforums, one for preliminary informal discussion, and a second for formal discussions and voting, then the main RA forum can be left for "open mike" sessions and not interfere with the RA work. (I said that at least a year ao, when we were still at Old Blue. I still think it would make more sense that the other options.)
I'm still awaiting input. Roman, can you live with the sort of ideas that have been offered? Flem? MP? Gaspo? Or has virtually all of the RA membership already gone off on the seasonal celebrations.
If so, I would suggest to the Speaker that we suspend all deliberations until after the holidays are over, since I am of the impression there isn't a quorum to be had.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
I can agree with that how about the one week resets after the 28th? It's a lot better than starting a vote on the 24th anyways, if you're ok with it then we have go.
Other than that, I feel that prospective and non-citizens should be able to weigh in and let them have a "free trial," current annoyances aside; we'd be losing more than we'd be gaining by not allowing outside voices to be heard right now. But as always, if someone drafts something I'll move it along like a bowel movement.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
I don't see why we need "outside voices" in the RA at all!! If people are interested, they can look and see what happens in here without posting!! If they like what they see they can join, its not like it takes any supreme effort to do so and you can quit just as fast as you can join if you find it is not for you!!
Vote on the 28th? Vote on what? I have not seen any proposals on the table, just ideas being kicked around.
Oh, and I am still waiting to hear who these "blocs from other regions" are that I appear to be happy to see voting in the RA. that is a serious accusation, and I would be grateful to hear any ecvidence to back it up.
Who are they?
How have I shown that I am happy about it?
Oh, and I am still waiting to hear who these "blocs from other regions" are that I appear to be happy to see voting in the RA. that is a serious accusation, and I would be grateful to hear any ecvidence to back it up.
Who are they?
How have I shown that I am happy about it?
Poltsamaa
TNPer
Didn't say happy, said not fussed!!
The are the ADN crew that are members of the RA even though their main interests are elsewhere!! Don't tell me you didn't notice?! Who are they?! Nucleo, Pope Hope, JAL are the obviouse ones that spring to mind!! I'm sure there are others I'm unfamiliar with or under different names!!
Personally, I don't care!! But don't care across the board!! Its just that there are probably more people with interests focussed outside this region in the RA that are ADNers than there are Lexiconians, probably considerably more!! So, whose presence here skews things more?! You seem to be getting whatever you want throug in this region with people like Fulhead Land in the RA, so I fail to see the sudden concern that a "bloc of Lexiconians" will turn the region on its ear!!
Fulhead Land
TNPer
Yeah. People like katinaire, with his non-RA self and his lexiconian nation! Luckily once this passes we can ban enemies like him!
Katinaire
TNPer
Yeah! That no good non-RA and probably-wouldn't-have-posted-in-here-if-this-stupid-law-didn't-apply-to-all-TNP-members-regardless-of-association-with-the-RA-or-not piece of trash should be thrown out on his ear.
If I had made no reference to the fact that I play a nation in the Lexicon(and very sparingly at that and even then it was mostly spam and a little fantasy RP), would I be taken more seriously? Or because I'm not in the RA would I have still been mostly ignored? Obviously there is a HUGE Lex prejudice sitting like an elephant with gas in the room.
I made my peace with this by submitting my suggestions for change. I leave it up to you RA members to either submit my suggestion or similar suggestion in a formal manner so someone will take it seriously. If you don't, then you're no better than us non-RA people who post here.
I will probably never join the RA because I just don't care enough to spend that much time on things. But I have a friend here and am making more friends and to possibly get banned or have a trial which would boot me from the region just for freakin' being here is the only reason I spoke up. You'll notice I have not involved myself in any other laws or proposals....not my business from what I can tell. But if you are going to pass laws that affect every nation in the region or if you are going to pass laws on players of nations, then you need to keep this place open to their input. Like I said, I will probably never be an RA member but I don't want to get banned because of what goes on here either.
If I had made no reference to the fact that I play a nation in the Lexicon(and very sparingly at that and even then it was mostly spam and a little fantasy RP), would I be taken more seriously? Or because I'm not in the RA would I have still been mostly ignored? Obviously there is a HUGE Lex prejudice sitting like an elephant with gas in the room.
I made my peace with this by submitting my suggestions for change. I leave it up to you RA members to either submit my suggestion or similar suggestion in a formal manner so someone will take it seriously. If you don't, then you're no better than us non-RA people who post here.
I will probably never join the RA because I just don't care enough to spend that much time on things. But I have a friend here and am making more friends and to possibly get banned or have a trial which would boot me from the region just for freakin' being here is the only reason I spoke up. You'll notice I have not involved myself in any other laws or proposals....not my business from what I can tell. But if you are going to pass laws that affect every nation in the region or if you are going to pass laws on players of nations, then you need to keep this place open to their input. Like I said, I will probably never be an RA member but I don't want to get banned because of what goes on here either.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
K, I'm still not dismissing your ideas, I'm trying to guage what level of support there is for it.
With the realities of the holiday period coming fully into play, we're not going to realistically address that aspect until after the holidays. I know Mr. Sniffles is thinking the 28th, but in a lot of places, folks basically are off until after New Years. So it is likely going to be two weeks before enough RA members are back so I can get comments on the matter.
With the realities of the holiday period coming fully into play, we're not going to realistically address that aspect until after the holidays. I know Mr. Sniffles is thinking the 28th, but in a lot of places, folks basically are off until after New Years. So it is likely going to be two weeks before enough RA members are back so I can get comments on the matter.
Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
It is clear anyway, due to how you support The Lexicon on everything and not The North Pacific.
Well The Lexicon did declare war on The North Pacific and then engage in unendorsement and endotart campaigns.
Or because you wouldn't be allowed in?
But I am still in support of the bill.
Fulhead Land
TNPer
What the hell are you on about Durnia? Seeing as you are in exactly the same position as Kat is! Your character assasinations dont go unnoticed
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
@Flem, Mr Sniffles had previously indicated that after the two votes ended on the 14th, he wasn't going to start any more votes until the 28th. Then this bill had over 50% but not 60% approval, and a mndatory one week formal discussion period before a re-vote would start.
@Mr Sniffles. We might as well let this discussion continue unofficially in the meantime, but resetting the official second, formal discussion to the 28th might be best, since folks have already left for the holidays. Go for it.
BTW, I expect legislation for TNPU to be ready with a report by the end of the month, as well as something from the Ministry Study Commission, with recommendations as well. And there may be two or three other items coming down the track by then.
@Mr Sniffles. We might as well let this discussion continue unofficially in the meantime, but resetting the official second, formal discussion to the 28th might be best, since folks have already left for the holidays. Go for it.
BTW, I expect legislation for TNPU to be ready with a report by the end of the month, as well as something from the Ministry Study Commission, with recommendations as well. And there may be two or three other items coming down the track by then.
Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
Fulhead Land
TNPer
And yet anyone here* could take a casual glance on their forums and see you constantly there. Odd!
* No, we know, not you Flem
* No, we know, not you Flem
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
In working on something else, I had a chance to look at TNP Law 14, which was passed over the summer, when I was involved with RL issues and wasn't around much.
It appears to settle the issue of what "waging war" means, and establishes the underpinning of legal theory for both the oath amendment and this legislation.
The language of the law as enacted seems to settle whether the concept of "player" is recognized as part of TNP's framework of laws:
The oath amendment applies whether war is declared or not, so the definition here has been broadened a bit. But for those who were concerned about the lack of a definition of "waging war," it appears TNP Law 14 addresses that question.
I've also requested a opinion from the Court in a judicial review proceeding to determine whether TNP Law 1 applies to members of the Regional Assembly when a member takes a seat in the Regional Assembly. The language of the Law itself would seem to apply even though the practice to now has not required the TNP Law 1 Oath of Office to be posted. The language of that Law may also overlap the area covered by this bill.
Petition for Judicial Review concerning TNP Law 1
It appears to settle the issue of what "waging war" means, and establishes the underpinning of legal theory for both the oath amendment and this legislation.
The language of the law as enacted seems to settle whether the concept of "player" is recognized as part of TNP's framework of laws:
The oath amendment applies whether war is declared or not, so the definition here has been broadened a bit. But for those who were concerned about the lack of a definition of "waging war," it appears TNP Law 14 addresses that question.
I've also requested a opinion from the Court in a judicial review proceeding to determine whether TNP Law 1 applies to members of the Regional Assembly when a member takes a seat in the Regional Assembly. The language of the Law itself would seem to apply even though the practice to now has not required the TNP Law 1 Oath of Office to be posted. The language of that Law may also overlap the area covered by this bill.
Petition for Judicial Review concerning TNP Law 1
Apollo-Industria
TNPer
Good work, Grosseschnauzer (man, your name is a mouthful)
N
Nucleo
Guest
This made me LoL. You still ignored the most important part of Flem's post. Regardless of whether there are people from other "blocs" of regions outside the TNP, how has he shown he is happy to see us voting in the RA over anyone else?
Now, I don't claim to know the entire situation here yet, but it seems to me that the problem is not simply that there are people from other regions who are members of the RA, but that there are people from other regions that have been known to be enemies of TNP voting in the RA. That's how I see it.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
So is there a final language you've all agreed upon?
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Mr. Speaker, I'm assuming most of the RA hasn't been around due to the calendar, so I don't know that we can make that conclusion just yet.
Second, I'm awaiting a Court opinion on a question that may prove relevant (that concerns the application of TNP Law 1 to the RA itself.
I am however, satisfied, that the RA has previously adopted language that essentially defines waging war (in TN P Law 14), so I'm not inclined at the moment to add another definition of the same concept.
Since the prior plan was, as far as I know, to resume the second formal debate period on the 28th (tomorrow), I'd like to give RA members another day or so to informal chime in.
Second, I'm awaiting a Court opinion on a question that may prove relevant (that concerns the application of TNP Law 1 to the RA itself.
I am however, satisfied, that the RA has previously adopted language that essentially defines waging war (in TN P Law 14), so I'm not inclined at the moment to add another definition of the same concept.
Since the prior plan was, as far as I know, to resume the second formal debate period on the 28th (tomorrow), I'd like to give RA members another day or so to informal chime in.