The North Pacific vs Katinaire

:tb1:

Some people are taking this waay too seriously. Anyways, while I disagree with the legislation, surely the Lexis would have nothing to fear if they weren't waging war against us? And I don't quite understand this whole "sheer presence" deal...
 
It's OK Fulhead, Sniffles hasn't had a good run with humour lately!!

I'm not so much concerned about "sheer presence", although I hear it looks great on some women, but the "waging war" definition as it is coupled with the statement that such a war not need be declared!!

Does this mean a war or words is enough to constitute "waging war", a cold war style standoff?! It is deliberately vague so it can be manipulated to wahtever purpose it needs!!
 
Poltsamaa:
It's OK Fulhead, Sniffles hasn't had a good run with humour lately!!

I'm not so much concerned about "sheer presence", although I hear it looks great on some women, but the "waging war" definition as it is coupled with the statement that such a war not need be declared!!

Does this mean a war or words is enough to constitute "waging war", a cold war style standoff?! It is deliberately vague so it can be manipulated to wahtever purpose it needs!!
Click to expand...
You bring up a good point about 'war, delcared or otherwise' (or whatever the exact wording was) and worth looking at.

If someone declares war and doesn't engage in war, is there a war? If someone declares war, engages in war to no effect, is it a war? This brings up a good question: does a declaration of war without any resulting hostitlities of consequence mean that a war exists or is there only the need for a 'declaration of war' in order for a war to exist?

One point to consider, if a 'state' that is not formally recognized as being a state declares war on you, is it really a declared war or an insurgency or a simple case of espionage?

As far as I can see, from a real regional defense point of view, I can't see any war at all. What I did see was a couple of 'renegades' that apparently acted independently of the existing government to engage in espionage to no effect. I think that whoever is in charge of The Lexicon now, whoever that may be, should deal with their own renegades and not us. Face it, there was no war, only espionage if you can even call it that.

Frankly, I'm not entirely happy with what I see as a rather nebulous and somewhat verbose definition of treason, but it's the best that could be arrived at at this time.

A more prudent approach would be to have a good look at what just passed the RA and see what tweaking might be needed to refine what now exists. Personally, I prefer a very narrow definition that is difficult to arrive at without a narrow set of criteria defining treason.

I don't think that flying off the handle and having someone deliberately try to commit treason is a very productive way to test this law. That course of action will only lead to divisiveness and contention.

What I do suggest is that we come up with a few test 'scenarios' and discuss them carefully to see how the law would treat those scenarios. If we conclude that the law need tweaking, then we can tweak away rather than to start a full-scale, knock-down and drag 'em out fight over this.

I've never been one to be a slave to maintaining the status quo, but I tend to want to maintain stability. Sometimes the status quo doesn't promote stability and sometimes it does and we have to make decisions based upon maintaining stability, strength of the region and do the least or little or no harm in the process.
 
Romanoffia:
If someone declares war and doesn't engage in war, is there a war? If someone declares war, engages in war to no effect, is it a war? This brings up a good question: does a declaration of war without any resulting hostitlities of consequence mean that a war exists or is there only the need for a 'declaration of war' in order for a war to exist?
Click to expand...
If a war happens in a wood, and no one hears it, has it actually been declared? :P

And remember, squirrels don't count.
 
Well, I think its decided. Unlike you Katinaire or you Dark, I am both an RA and a raider who goes against the NPA with fair regularity. Gross has stated that if "the NPA has received a legal authorization for deployment" and an RA happens to be in that region which the NPA is taking action against and does not leave a trial will ensue. Chances are I will be convinced and banned from both the RA and the region.

But I don't feel bad, I suspect many, many others will be tried under this law when it is passed.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Well, I think its decided. Unlike you Katinaire or you Dark, I am both an RA and a raider who goes against the NPA with fair regularity. Gross has stated that if "the NPA has received a legal authorization for deployment" and an RA happens to be in that region which the NPA is taking action against and does not leave a trial will ensue. Chances are I will be convinced and banned from both the RA and the region.

But I don't feel bad, I suspect many, many others will be tried under this law when it is passed.
Click to expand...
Yes, let the cleansing begin!!
 
*Gaspo readies his toiletries for his cleansing

I hope they use scented soaps and shit. That'd be awesome.
 
Dude, if I had the time I'd go through and find Gross's post where he says that there IS war with the Lexicon and although there has been a Cessation of hostilities, no formal treaty has been presented so that there is still a declared war. I think it's in one of the Fullhead trials threads or in the discussion thread of this new law.

My point is(although it seems to have been ignored by Rom and Dam and others who said this was dumb) that this law does not specify whether that nation declare loyalty to be tried. By the wording of the law Katinaire will not go to trial.....the player of Katinaire will go to trial and then Katinaire the nation will be booted from TNP. I can be put on trial for playing the game!!!

Pull off your damn rose-colored glasses and look at this law literally. I already spelled out on page 1 of this thread how the wording makes me guilty of treason. It's right there in black and white. If I were a prosecutor with an agenda, I'd be jumping for joy right now. As far as the Lexicon was concerned, there was a war and so that then qualifies me as guilty. This law has nothing to do with what my TNP nation has done or what my Lexicon nation has done. It involves what I, as a player, have done. It says so in the definition.

If you can't see how this works, please NEVER run for political office for the sake of everyone.
 
Look, I don't know what you're trying to do.

You seem to be trying to get yourself banned to get attention for yourself but just accept that it will not go to court and leave it.
 
I don't want to get banned. I'm just trying to point out that this Patriot Act of a law oversteps it's bounds and isn't worded well but since nobody seems to care except perhaps FL who will probably be the first casulty of it, I'll drop it.
 
Emperor Matthuis:
Look, I don't know what you're trying to do.

You seem to be trying to get yourself banned to get attention for yourself but just accept that it will not go to court and leave it.
Click to expand...
You'll fit in well here!! Smearing peopel with legitimate concerns is an artform in this region!! I see you have been taking lessons!!

Katinaire points out the problem with the new law at vote and also cits that the Prime Minister's comments back his concerns and all you do is call him an attention whore!!
 
Namyeknom:
Romanoffia:
If someone declares war and doesn't engage in war, is there a war? If someone declares war, engages in war to no effect, is it a war? This brings up a good question: does a declaration of war without any resulting hostitlities of consequence mean that a war exists or is there only the need for a 'declaration of war' in order for a war to exist?
Click to expand...
If a war happens in a wood, and no one hears it, has it actually been declared? :P
Click to expand...
That depends upon if one is right in the middle of that war if it occurs.

And this all is exactly why I wanted a very narrow definition of 'treason' thus making the charge of treason very hard to bring in the first place. I belive that the definition of 'treason' needs to be narrowed more than the current law, but there is a need for a law to be in place before we can narrow it down. If an act of 'treason' has no effect upon the stability of TNP or upon it's government, then I personally would tend to advise ignoring such acts in general - that is unless it affects stability or promotes nasty side-effects.

I, for one, don't want to see anyone prosecuted for 'playing the game', as it were. By the same token, I don't want to see anyone deliberatly trying to get themselves prosecuted with the intent of causing a whole lot of trouble that need not be.

There is one big 'however' that must be addressed - we decide here, in this forum for this government of TNP how we all behave as members of that government and voluntary citizens of that government (which resided upon this forum) how we operate and control the region. What we do here to govern the region and act upon it by directing the actions of the Delegate can possibly affect 'game mechanics' or rules of the game.

Citizenship in a given region is totally up to the individuals who choose to reside in that region. If they agree with the way things are run, they can contribute. If they don't agree they can move elswhere or seek to change the status quo. If they choose the last, then they must either behave according to the Constitution to change things or they must engage in acts that the government of this region might consider 'treason' or whatever. NationStates is a 'game board' for chess, as an example. We are required to obey those rules, but the method in which we choose to make those moves is not restricted by anything but adhering to 'game mechanics' and 'game rules'. If we all decide to move our nations or endorse a particular delegate or eject a specific nation, we make that decision here, on this forum. Cooperation by consensus amongst participating nations is why we are here. If this were any number of other regions, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place.

R
 
If this were any number of other regions, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place.
Click to expand...


Wait wait wait... Are you trying to make a case for approving this law so that it can be changed at some later date months from now? And are you trying to say that we should be grateful that we can argue about it at all? And are you saying that this argument is why we should allow the gov't to call half of its citizens officially treasonous while trusting they won't act on it?

Come on! :blink:

I do agree that there is always one way to vote on our approval or disapproval. We can finally, after all this time, let the very gov't of TNP drive us to move away.
But...
It will be much more entertaining to watch the inevitable treason trials though.

As I mentioned before, I believe any trial arising from this law, should it pass, would go on even longer than the 5 months that Fulhead (or Fullhead or Rob or whomever it is you are trying) has been on trial.

Honesty really would have been a better policy here people. Just think of how much easier it wouls have been had you said something along the lines of "we dislike The Lexicon and will kick out anyone who belongs to that region and pisses us off."

Instead, your desire to be as verbose, obscure and opaque as possible have lead you to a bunch of words that basically mean "If you belong to any other region than TNP under a different nation name, you may be tried as a player for treason against TNP."

I will not support this so you, the gov't of TNP, can take months to supposedly re-write it. I will not support this as some form of tribute to the region with the most petty arguing in the guise of democracy.

If you want to turn me, Teri, into a traitor, you will not do it with my support or with my silence.

If you want me out, you can either ask me nicely to leave or kick me out. Either way is good. But asking me to vote myself out, is too much.

[/rant]

Sorry. I know this is late. But I've been sick and wanted my chance to bitch
 
Darkesia:
If this were any number of other regions, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place.
Click to expand...


Wait wait wait... Are you trying to make a case for approving this law so that it can be changed at some later date months from now? And are you trying to say that we should be grateful that we can argue about it at all? And are you saying that this argument is why we should allow the gov't to call half of its citizens officially treasonous while trusting they won't act on it?

Come on! :blink:
Click to expand...
If the law is passed, it can be changed, and until then I severely doubt that anyone would even be remotely prosecuted under it. I've made suggestions as to how to narrow down the definition of 'treason' so that it is very specific and difficult to charge someone with. In fact, I have made an argument for a very specific wording that would accomplish making 'treason' a very narrow and difficult charge to bring at all, but apparently my idea is too narrow for most people.

If passing the law as it stands is what it takes to force a narrowing of the definition of treason, then passing the law becomes an expedient to getting a proper, specific and very narrow definition of treason so that no one gets screwed when no treason has occured.

We live in a democratic region and we should be grateful for that fact because we can argue points like this and decide such points as this democratically. And we should't trust that anyone won't mis-use any law.

The point is that the citizens of this region have the ability to either approve or disapprove the passage of any such law as the majority sees as most beneficial to the region. At the same time we have to be careful of giving up freedom for security or having democracy turn into mob-rule. If it takes a controversial law to garner the attention of citizens who choose to participate, then it serves a very good function.

I have been promoting a very narrow definition of treason but others seem to want a very broad definition. My feeling is that if the defition is too broad then the law will be changed or not passed at all. Eventually the law, if passed will be tested, altered or declared unconstitutional and that is the nature of a representative constitutional democracy.

Again, I would like to see a narrow definition of 'treason' that is so narrow that it is extremely difficult to bring. I've tried to get that result but apparently my arguments for such a narrow and specific definition aren't strong enough to convince others.

So, when such a law comes into operation and others see that a narrow and specific definition is needed to prevent such potential events exactly as those you describe then my argument for a better law will become relevent.

If my argument for a narrow and specific definition isn't pursuasive enough, then perhaps the experience of a broad definition being actually applied will be pursuasive.

Experience is always the best teacher. So, if people want a broad definition, then they will have to experience the effects that are the result before they can appreciate a narrow definition and the effects that don't result for it.

See what I mean now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top