Criminal Proceedings

Blue Wolf II:
Save if for someone who cares!

Fact is the one thing WotN has done thus far is (OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!) announce it's existence...which is suuuuuuch a threat to regional security at this point.

Save it for when we actually start raiding.
Click to expand...
By "it" you mean ejection and banning?
 
I'm really not concerned with that. I think it will be amusing to see certain members try to justify a decision to permanently eject a number of non-UN nations. The hypocrisy will be *whips tear of joy away* just beautiful.
 
Blue Wolf II:
I'm really not concerned with that. I think it will be amusing to see certain members try to justify a decision to permanently eject a number of non-UN nations. The hypocrisy will be *whips tear of joy away* just beautiful.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a member who has the best interests of the region at heart.

Userites make me sick.
 
Because...
WE, the Nations of The North Pacific (TNP), mindful of the inherent rights to justice, security, democratic regional leadership and national sovereignty do hereby proclaim this constitution to be the living and growing document of our liberties. This document shall be the foundation of our culture, society and law and shall be respected in spirit and in word by all residents of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

U can...
2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the UN Delegate, for the redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

and we...
The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under this Constitution.
Click to expand...

and my friend....
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency.
Click to expand...
I'd like to ask what your groups founding principles are.?
 
Fact of the matter is raider ideals don't exactly coincide with the founding principles of this government. We will not infringe on your rights to exist, assemble and petition the government....but you cannot as a citizen ask us to support a group that infringes on the sovereignty of other regions. If you don't see how this does not in any way help the growth of the region...I suspect your doing this for your own selfish reasons.

In my opinion of course.
 
You cannot as a citizen ask us to support a group that infringes on the sovereignty of other regions
Click to expand...

I have yet to ask that, I simply request that the government doesn't try to kill the group before they know anything at all about it.

And for the record I am doing it because it is fun, and I like having fun.
 
Blue Wolf II:
You cannot as a citizen ask us to support a group that infringes on the sovereignty of other regions
Click to expand...

I have yet to ask that, I simply request that the government doesn't try to kill the group before they know anything at all about it.

And for the record I am doing it because it is fun, and I like having fun.
Click to expand...
I believe you did tell us about it. I believe you had conversations with a few government officials on the matter. I believe u didn't care what effect this would have on the region.

Fun at our expense....yeah...thrilling.

Be honest. Any other region would probably have banjected you...this is why your taking your platform here.

I for one am a lil tired of people using this region as a platform to get change going in NS. We are not your crash test dummies. We are not the victim proned region we used to be....

**Cisco waits for the roar**
 
Blue Wolf II:
Why not? No really? Why not? Other than the "long history of defender blah, blah, blah" why the hell not?
Click to expand...
Well the basis of my question was, what really makes you public enemy number one? What is it about you that really makes need protection, has any government organization or any official really declared all out war against you and your group?
 
Can anyone please show me a victim proof feeder that isn't the NPO? Yeah, didn't think so. We pay for our freedoms and it's fricken worth it.

BW, this proposal if polished a bit is worthy of being put to a vote.
 
B - Failure of a Nation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific and the North Pacific Legal Code.
Click to expand...

Back on point, this clause, as rewritten, makes to sense, and renders the whole law toothless (which is the whole point).

How can I use force against the territorial integrity a nation? How can I use force against the political independence of a nation?

And how could I do this "in a manner inconsistent with the NP constitution?"

Keep "or Region" in there, and the law makes some sense: NP nations cannot raid.

But what exactly does the Revised law prohibit?
 
Is there anything at all anyone likes about this revision and would have something constructive to say about it or is everything going to be picked through and scrutinized so finely that nothing productive ever gets accomplished? I know its TNP tradition but please, this is already starting to turn into a flamefest marathon.
 
Glad to see you have such positive views of this region.

Positive: it has no spelling errors.

Negative: Your proposal ignores many other parts of the constitution. This would cause a conflict...I think Flem pointed out a prime example.

I believe it is a half assed proposal seeking to eventually force this government to condone raiding.

For this proposal to work you would have to comb through the constitution to adjust many other areas. That would (as I mentioned over a year ago) require much work. Work...not fun...u may not be up to it.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
Watch the insults there Tresville.
Click to expand...
:offtopic:
Their is a difference between sarcasm and insults...a thin line but a difference. I believe I called his proposal half assed...not BW.

You choose this comment to put the GM cap on but totally ignore a post that is an obvious insult (CLick me...look through the thread). Took a screenshot for the record in case it gets edited.....for future reference. U posted in that thread...so don't tell me you missed it! Watch where u point that finger...you chose a bad time to muscle in a personal beef....."I'm not the one." <----slang.

Tsk tsk....choose your battles wisely...for a GM your not very neutral.

BW: Thats a challenge I made a long time ago...over a year ago. If your serious about this...a more proper proposal wouldn't ignore the rest of the constitution.
 
Tresville:
Democratic Donkeys:
Watch the insults there Tresville.
Click to expand...
:offtopic:
Their is a difference between sarcasm and insults...a thin line but a difference. I believe I called his proposal half assed...not BW.

You choose this comment to put the GM cap on but totally ignore a post that is an obvious insult (CLick me...look through the thread). Took a screenshot for the record in case it gets edited.....for future reference. U posted in that thread...so don't tell me you missed it! Watch where u point that finger...you chose a bad time to muscle in a personal beef....."I'm not the one." <----slang.

Tsk tsk....choose your battles wisely...for a GM your not very neutral.

Click to expand...

I don't see where the offending post is? Do you mean the one by OPA which GBM dealt with?

Your post was extremely condescending/insulting and I view that as flamebait. Especially the part where you indicate that it might be too much work for BW to put forth a comprehensive piece of legislation. It was a very informal warning, and not very serious. And it still stands, regardless of whether you believe it to be impartial or not.

Edit: PM me of you want to keep arguing about an informal warning
 
DD, I think what you gave should be labeled as an informal caution. Just my $.02.

BW, there is no half way position on your proposal.

The meaning of your proposal is plain and clear cut. The reason why you proposed it is equally plain and clear cut, especially after that post in that forum you linked to.
 
BW, under the current laws of the region, invaiders are not prohibited from basing raids elsewhere, and as long as they do not intefere with the authorized deployments of the NPA.

I do not think it is possible to be true and faithful to the customs, traditions, and history of The North Pacific, and go beyond that. The fact that you went ahead and did what you wanted and planned to do anyway, after offering this proposal, says a great deal.
 
Edit: Nevermind, that was fairly insulting and I am sleep deprived.


Anyways, you really do seem to assume quite a lot about me don't you? Yet you don't know anything at all about this new organization or how it is to be run. You just see the word raider and scream to the high heavens "OMG!! Political deviant!!"
 
Here's a little hypothetical item. If a raider organization is given 'safe harbor' and permitted to use a given region (in this case, TNP) as a base of operations it is fairly self evident that it would make TNP a target for anyone who has a gripe with said invader group.

Permitting invader groups to use TNP as a base of operations looks very bad for the region as it tends to go against our governing ideals. Invaders, by definition, interfer with the sovereignty and self determination of the regions they target - again, clearly in direct opposition of our ideals and practices. To permit invader organizations to use our region as a base of operations will open us up to the worst type of accusations - mainly hypocrisy and divisiveness.

Permitting invaders activity in our midst is tantamount to condoning it and that is somewhere we most assuredly do not want to go.
 
Romanoffia:
Here's a little hypothetical item. If a raider organization is given 'safe harbor' and permitted to use a given region (in this case, TNP) as a base of operations it is fairly self evident that it would make TNP a target for anyone who has a gripe with said invader group.
Click to expand...

Roman, you know as well as I do that theory is complete balderdash. You really think a defender group or someone is going to raid TNP just to eject a raider group? Hell no! They would ask for the delegate to eject them and when the delegate says "I have no right to eject them, they are allowed to be here" they will either give up or try to beat up out in the field like everyone else.

Romanoffia:
Invaders, by definition, interfer with the sovereignty and self determination of the regions they target - again, clearly in direct opposition of our ideals and practices.
Click to expand...

And yet both Invaders and Lone Wolves United has a government with an actual Constitution and voting members. There are two sides of the coin and not everything is black and white.

Romanoffia:
Permitting invaders activity in our midst is tantamount to condoning it and that is somewhere we most assuredly do not want to go.
Click to expand...

That's funny, I have not heard anyone out side of this region ever complain that TNP was "condoning" raiders by allowing Scar, or Limitless, or I to be RA members. Explain that to me.

Former Defense Minister Romanoffia, is it possible that you have a personally motivated bias against raiders which has nothing to do with The North Pacific what-so-ever?
 
:agree: with Roman


But regarding my earlier post. BW, you cannot make a proposal for a change to the law of the region, and post it in the "Preliminary discussion" thread, then complain when it is being "picked through and scrutinized". That is, rather, the point of this exercise.

Perhaps you could respond to the point I made about the law proposed, Rather than dismiss it as part of a Flamefest marathon, which I do not believe it was.
 
Fine. It allows raids against regions, it expressly prohibits the hacking on nations, verbal abuse, etc.

Also, I suppose the biggest issue here is that segment of law goes not say "a The North Pacific nation" but "a Nation".

What exactly is "a Nation"? TNP or other? The law doesn’t say.
 
So it prohibits what is already prohibited by TOS, forum rules and NS Rules?

Pointless law.

Let's face it, the real point of this change is not to limit anything, it is to approve raiding.
 
Ok, let's pull out from the realm of stupidity. The fact is there is an issue; the issue needs fixing. I would love to hear suggestions of how to do this as, clearly, I suck at writing legislation. First one to come up with an actual solution gets a cookie, two if they were one of the people who were up-set with the wording of the revision I proposed.
 
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

The law as it stands is fine.

That is my solution, and I claim two cookies.

By the way, in the course of one thread you have dismissed my contribution as part of a flamefest (which it wasnt) and now part of the realm of stupidity. You might do better in framing laws if you engaged with folks who comment on your proposals rather than insulting them.
 
I was actually referring to the fact that the conversation was going in circles when I said that "realm of stupidity" comment and the topic was devolving into a flamefest, but your post was not part of it.

Fine, I give up, you win. Enjoy your cookies Flem :P

When this issue reemerges I will be sure to stand well clear of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top