The North Pacific vs Katinaire

Katinaire

Katinaire

TNPer
With the apparent passage of the Defining Treason law(lots of Ayes so far), I figured I'd go ahead and get this thread started since when this passes I will be guilty of treason by virtue of my player having a nation in the Lexicon which apparently may still be at war with the TNP since no official treaty has been signed from what I understand.

Please assign a judge, choose a jury and don't worry about appointing me council as this should be a speedy trial. There is no filter in the law as to membership in any particular group so just by having a nation in the TNP and in the Lexicon I am guilty of treason.

I figure the suspension of forum rights will come soon enough and I've already pled guilty so have a nice life.
 
This is the particular portion of the new law which makes me guilty of treason btw:
“treason” 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...

Just to help the prosecution establish that.
 
Actually, according to the definition, it does. I have a nation there too.

And, incase you haven't noticed I am part of Teh Ebil NPO too.

Accoring to the language in your new rules, I (Not Darkesia, but Teri) will be guilty of treason. Because they are claiming the right to call an OOC player treasonous.

I haven't decided if I will stick around long enough to be tried (two or three years, by my reckoning) or just to vacate the premisis as seems to be the trend these days.

I always have been a fence sitter, though. It just feels so good. :shifty:

Edit: And I have taken the oath.
 
BW,
I know I'm not a member of the RA or any of that....but just because I haven't doesn't mean the law accepted into the TNP doesn't apply to me. Especially because this particular law does NOT spell out only members of these organizations or members who have taken a specific oath. It dictates the OOC player of a nation in the TNP. I am the player of Katinaire in the TNP. I ally myself with the Lexicon in that I also control a nation there. The Lexicon and TNP were at war and according to some people still technically are. By the definition set forth in this law(see quote below) I am guilty of treason.

“treason” is defined as the actions of the player
Click to expand...
Me
controlling a nation nominally located within The North Pacific”
Click to expand...
Katinaire
that directly wages war against The North Pacific,
Click to expand...
Never did this BUT
or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific....
Click to expand...
by having a nation in The Lexicon I do this.


What I don't understand is how so many others don't see that.
 
Yes, but that could also be construed to include raiders. I am putting an EEEENORMOUS amount of faith into the government that they will not abuse the law and only use it in an actually emergency and if they do abuse it, so help me god, they will have one very angry raider with a good sized army on their ass.
 
Katinaire:
“treason” is defined as the actions of the player
Click to expand...
Me
controlling a nation nominally located within The North Pacific”
Click to expand...
Katinaire
that directly wages war against The North Pacific,
Click to expand...
Never did this BUT
or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against The North Pacific....
Click to expand...
by having a nation in The Lexicon I do this.
Click to expand...
Having a nation in a region does not count as allying with them as far as I am aware.
 
I admire the fact that you would initiate a trial on your own behalf, but as it stands the bill has not become law. Even if it were, as some have pointed out, you have not taken an RA oath and as such have not pledged to obey the constitution or the laws of this region. Not even laws that aren't laws yet. ;)
 
Blue Wolf II:
Yes, but that could also be construed to include raiders. I am putting an EEEENORMOUS amount of faith into the government that they will not abuse the law and only use it in an actually emergency and if they do abuse it, so help me god, they will have one very angry raider with a good sized army on their ass.
Click to expand...
If I was unkind I could interpret that as threatening the territorial integrity of The North Pacific!

Article 2:
2) Each member Nation shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

:P

EM:
Having a nation in a region does not count as allying with them as far as I am aware.
Click to expand...

Trouble is that interpretation might not be one in fashion under a different government. Like BW I believe the current government has no intention of abusing this amendment. My crystal ball is unclear as to whether that applies to future governments as well.
 
Trouble is that interpretation might not be one in fashion under a different government. Like BW I believe the current government has no intention of abusing this amendment
Click to expand...

lets hope so.


If not, dark days are coming
 
Do I have to take an oath to uphold the constitution before I can be judged by it? Aren't I judged by it merely because I'm in the region? That's my understanding. If I'm in the UK, I'm judged by the UK's laws. And the kicker is that this particular law applies to players not to nations and AGAIN IT DOES NOT SPECIFY a nation's status or position.....it simply says, "within The North Pacific". Just because someone is on US soil doesn't mean they ever agreed to live by the constitution or obey the laws....but they will still spend time in prison for breaking those laws.


And so I put this question to you: Why enact a law where the temperment of the government becomes an issue with it's interpretation?
 
Blue Wolf II:
Yes, but that could also be construed to include raiders. I am putting an EEEENORMOUS amount of faith into the government that they will not abuse the law and only use it in an actually emergency and if they do abuse it, so help me god, they will have one very angry raider with a good sized army on their ass.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that!!
 
Namyeknom:
Trouble is that interpretation might not be one in fashion under a different government. Like BW I believe the current government has no intention of abusing this amendment. My crystal ball is unclear as to whether that applies to future governments as well.
Click to expand...
It is an open door for the government to get rid of certain people thay have been trying unsuccessfully to remove for a year or so now!! I can't imagine they'd have made such a concerted effort to push this through at a time that coincides with their quagmire of a trial of Fulhead Land just to let people from "enemy" regions hang around as they have before!!

Darkesia's interpretation is a valid one and highlights just how sinister this legislation is!! The only saving grace for Katinaire is that they are not a citizen of TNP under the Constitution!!

While some may have faith in the current government that they will not abuse this law, I do not share their optimism as the laws was designed with a clear purpose in mind and there'd be no point pushing it through if it were not to be used either immediately or shortly afterwards!!
 
Darkesia's interpretation is a valid one and highlights just how sinister this legislation is!! The only saving grace for Katinaire is that they are not a citizen of TNP under the Constitution!!
Click to expand...

Hmmm...my nation seems to be in TNP in NS. However, if what you say is the case, then I have no chance of ever joining the RA or becoming a member of this region under the constitution based on this law. Oh yay. I just hope I never want to get involved, eh?
 
Katinaire:
Darkesia's interpretation is a valid one and highlights just how sinister this legislation is!! The only saving grace for Katinaire is that they are not a citizen of TNP under the Constitution!!
Click to expand...

Hmmm...my nation seems to be in TNP in NS. However, if what you say is the case, then I have no chance of ever joining the RA or becoming a member of this region under the constitution based on this law. Oh yay. I just hope I never want to get involved, eh?
Click to expand...
Yep, you'd have to swear away any interests in other regions and be forced to solely concentrate on TNP or be thrown out for treason!!

Nice set of laws and new oath we have here now!!
 
Emperor Matthuis:
I still don't think maintaining a puppet in The Lexicon counts as going to war with The North Pacific, if so they I'm going on trial.
Click to expand...
If that law passes it is treasonous to have a puppet in The Lexicon, The Pacific and various other regions!! Whether the government chooses to charge you with treason is another thing!! Kiss the right butts and say the right things and you should be ok!! Disagree one time and I'd say you are gone!!
 
Dark is absolutely correct. I plan to stick around long enough to attempt, or support someone else's attempt, to amend this definition to allow for dual-citizenship without it automatically becoming treason. I expect that any effort along those lines will be blocked, and counteracted with fearmongering and such, but at least I'll try.
 
I'm affected by this too, since I'm a known Lexiconian. I have a nation in TNP, though not in the RA or on this forum, and it sure sounds to me like this law would brand me a "traitor", even though I'm not even in a position to plot attacks against you.
 
The Court Forum is not an appropriate place for one to perform their politcal protests outside of an established trial.

Topic moved.
 
I'm almost tempted to say the issue surround whether a non-RA nation could be held accountable to this is interpretable as well. The amendment doesn't make a distinction between RA and non-RA members, nor does it call upon the the RA oath at any point. I can find no where in the constitution that expressly prohibits the bringing of charges against non-RA members. Indeed, the fact that in certain instances non-forum users can be obliged to abide by the constitution (endorsement numbers for example) may even set a precedent which opens up non-RA members to this legislation.

Of course, I may be wrong...
 
Katinaire:
This is the particular portion of the new law which makes me guilty of treason btw:
“treason” 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...

Just to help the prosecution establish that.
Click to expand...
Well, technically you aren't guilty of treason - are you committing an act of war against The North Pacific at this time? I think not. Are you acting as an ally to a hostile enemy and promoting their agenda? I doubt it.

You'll have to provide better proof that you are in fact committing treason or I suspect that the court might not take your admission of guilt seriously. Perhaps you should try admitting to something less severe like sedition, if we even have a law concerning sedition, or perhaps some kind of minor law infraction that you can actually prove you violated.

If a were a judge, I'd probably dismiss your complaint against yourselve on the grounds that it is, well, to put it gently, very silly bordering on frivolous. :eyebrow:
 
Namyeknom:
I'm almost tempted to say the issue surround whether a non-RA nation could be held accountable to this is interpretable as well. The amendment doesn't make a distinction between RA and non-RA members, nor does it call upon the the RA oath at any point. I can find no where in the constitution that expressly prohibits the bringing of charges against non-RA members. Indeed, the fact that in certain instances non-forum users can be obliged to abide by the constitution (endorsement numbers for example) may even set a precedent which opens up non-RA members to this legislation.

Of course, I may be wrong...
Click to expand...
While there is nothing stopping the government kicking a non-RA member out of the region for treason, the fact that they non-RA nation has not taken an oath to obey the Constitution and is by all intents and purposes a non-citizen but a resident, the validity of the law over non-RA members is flimsy!!
 
Romanoffia:
Well, technically you aren't guilty of treason - are you committing an act of war against The North Pacific at this time? I think not. Are you acting as an ally to a hostile enemy and promoting their agenda? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Heh, we'll see if the legislation passes!! I'm less convinced that merely residing in a region not on good terms with TNP is not enough to fall foul of the law!!
 
Wait, I've seen this tactic before. Let me see - try to get planked from the region so that one can cry "Oppression" or any number of complaints. Where's the creativity here? Oh, well. Nothing new under the sun.
 
Romanoffia:
Wait, I've seen this tactic before. Let me see - try to get planked from the region so that one can cry "Oppression" or any number of complaints. Where's the creativity here? Oh, well. Nothing new under the sun.
Click to expand...
You're right, the NPC/NPU did that quite alot all those months ago!! :rofl:

But belittling the concerns of people with nations in The Lexicon and TNP does not address those concerns which, as far as I can tell, are valid!!
 
Speaking as the Deputy Defence Minister....I am not aware of any inter-regional war between TNP and The Lexicon or anyone else for that matter...so I really don't see the point of Katinaire's original post or any of the others following it.....
 
Daimiaena:
Speaking as the Deputy Defence Minister....I am not aware of any inter-regional war between TNP and The Lexicon or anyone else for that matter...so I really don't see the point of Katinaire's original post or any of the others following it.....
Click to expand...
The war does not need to be declared according to the new law so an assumed state of war, such as a cold war, could be enough to facilitate charges!!
 
Daimiaena:
Speaking as the Deputy Defence Minister....I am not aware of any inter-regional war between TNP and The Lexicon or anyone else for that matter...so I really don't see the point of Katinaire's original post or any of the others following it.....
Click to expand...
That is correct.
 
Romanoffia:
Daimiaena:
Speaking as the Deputy Defence Minister....I am not aware of any inter-regional war between TNP and The Lexicon or anyone else for that matter...so I really don't see the point of Katinaire's original post or any of the others following it.....
Click to expand...
That is correct.
Click to expand...
You need to re-read the law being voted on currently too, it does not require the "war" to be declared!!
 
No, but it does require it to be declared or waged.

I was not aware that the Lexicon were waging war on us at the moment. Do you know better?
 
flemingovia:
No, but it does require it to be declared or waged.

I was not aware that the Lexicon were waging war on us at the moment. Do you know better?
Click to expand...
No, it does not require the war to be declared at all!! See quote from proposed law below!!

Defining Treason Bill:
“treason” 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...

I'm puzzled by it because if a war is not declared, how do we know a war is being waged?! What constitutes waging war without war being declared?!

Sounds like a neat little clause to allow the government to manufacture an uneclared war for their own purposes!!

EDIT: Added quote from proposed law because so many people had obviously not bothered to read it!!
 
flemingovia:
No, but it does require it to be declared or waged.

I was not aware that the Lexicon were waging war on us at the moment. Do you know better?
Click to expand...
It is not. Although apparently Grosseschnauzere knows better. :tb1:

Apparently my sheer presence here is an act of war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top