FD - Defining Player

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
A Constitutional Amendment to standardize the meaning of certain words in the Constitution and laws of The North Pacific.

Section 1. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is amended to read:

ARTICLE II. Membership and Registration.

Section 1. Requirements.

In order to remain as legal members of The North Pacific, a Nation is expected to adhere to the following requirements:
1) Each member Nation will abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code enacted pursuant to Article IV of this Constitution.
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.
3) Each member Nation shall refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions shall be given to Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet minister having appropriate jurisdiction.
Unless the context of such terms clearly indicate a contrary intent, the words “Nation,” “member nation,” or “member” as used in this Constitution, or in the Legal Code, or in any other law of The North Pacific, are synonyms and refer to an individual player.
Click to expand...

Section 2. This amendment shall take effect upon its adoption.
Click to expand...
 
I know legal definitions aren't as sexy as declarations of war but as you can see, I've laid the document on a shiny red convertable with an equally red hydrant spraying water upwards...

so um...

sexy enough to warrant attention?
 
This proposal is designed to settle the quetion of duality.
Just the other day, Blue Wolf, you complained about the failure to have the "duality" issue resolved. So does the issue get settled, or does it not? That is the question.

And Mr. Speaker, I would point out that only ahandful of RA members have said anything about this proposal one way or the other. You have no more idea of how the vote will turn out than I do.

This proposal was in response to the intermittent requests since last summer that the RA settle the duality question. And as I pointed out in the beginning, the approach this proposed amendment takes merely formalizes the approach that is already present in the Constitution and Legal Code, and thus, is one way to settle the question. It is my judgment, however, that an absolutist position in either direction (absolutely no duality or absolutely all duality) would not gain approval in the Regional Assembly. A proposal such as this one that spilts the difference between those two extremes, might be able to gain approval.
 
Oh, I want it resolved, but the above stated proposal goes overboard. Why can't someone just come up with one that says "Duality is fine, but if you attack The North Pacific with any of your personalities then your right to duality is revoked"? I mean, why get rid of duality when we can just define and outline it?
 
Blue Wolf II:
Oh, I want it resolved, but the above stated proposal goes overboard. Why can't someone just come up with one that says "Duality is fine, but if you attack The North Pacific with any of your personalities then your right to duality is revoked"? I mean, why get rid of duality when we can just define and outline it?
Click to expand...
Tried, done, got the t-shirt.
 
I believe this makes it illegal to be involved on the wrong side of military action outside the region.

That is the question that should be debated-- I do not hold a strong opinion yet.
 
Yar, I think the problems that were presented in the prelim discussion are going to present themselves here again. I bet $3000 in TNP funny money.
 
It has nothing to do with defining treason.

All this has to do with is making clear that there are synomious terms, and recognizes that fact. It settles that argument.

If you're trying to read more into it than that, then you'e reading too much into it.
 
Then why didn't you protest when both you and I were nominated for regent of the Uni. and the Speaker chose to just have your nomination go to vote?
 
Blue Wolf II:
Then why didn't you protest when both you and I were nominated for regent of the Uni. and the Speaker chose to just have your nomination go to vote?
Click to expand...
Because you never said you wanted it. It would've been a tough call if you said slightly more than "meh, whatever." But either way, Grosse's over-reaching micromanagement of every little detail (for once) has nothing to do with the issue you've raised up.
 
Ah, ok, that clears it up, and for the record I still could care less about being a Regent as the Uni. idea has swan dived into nothingness and more than likely will be forever entangled in red tape :P
 
I don't understand the opposition towards this proposal. Would someone care to elaborate?

To me, it makes perfect sense. I support it.

La Duchess
 
carlottaguidicelli:
I don't understand the opposition towards this proposal. Would someone care to elaborate?

To me, it makes perfect sense. I support it.

La Duchess
Click to expand...
It practically eliminates the practice of "duality" here in TNP, or at least makes it incredibly hard to carry out.

Therefore, the vote on this proposal is seen as a vote on duality--a highly controversial topic that has been bandied about in many venues but avoided hitherto in legislation.
 
This would mean you couldnt do anything outside of TNP, no matter what nation you use, you are always subject to TNP law. It stops people playing NS, basically. With the state of the game we should avoid that, right?

This peice of legislation is crap and simply serves to remove those the PM percieves as Undesirables.
 
For me, it would be common sense to do something like go up against the North Pacific as another nation and criticize it as this one. My mind would explode. I agree with Fulhead Land except not as brutally put.
 
You know, I'm leaving office within a month, unless there's a runoff, and it takes an extra week. Two consecutive terms is plenty for me, even if there were no term limits. And since I'm an admin of the forum now (which I wasn't when I was elected to this second term), I don't plan to be running in the future. This reflects my belief that forum admin should not hold executive office.

Leave me out of it. If someone thinks there some ulterior master plan, I'm not a party to it. People have complained that TNP needs to decide the duality issue, and it's been clear that neither extreme, all one way or the other would ever muster support to be adopted as law in this region.

For at least some of us, the intermediate approach that this proposal formalizes is the only sane course of action available.

If anyone somehow feels threatened by this proposal, which only reflects what is already the practice here, then perhaps that's because you're doing things you think you shouldn't be. That's not my call.

In practical terms, the only possible way what anyone does outside the region could come into play is if your UN is in a military conflict against the NPA, and then only if the NPA is there by treaty, by an diplomatic agreement or by a deployment approved by the Security Council. And that part is aleady part of the law of the region and has been for the past year. Those who try to paint this proposal as a major change are simply pandering to fears of things that have not, and do not exist.
 
your UN is in a military conflict against the NPA, and then only if the NPA is there by treaty, by an diplomatic agreement or by a deployment approved by the Security Council. And that part is aleady part of the law of the region and has been for the past year.
Click to expand...

1) To paraphrase, any time the NPA shows up then.

2)If its already law why is this necissary?

which only reflects what is already the practice here
Click to expand...

No, this isnt normal practice. Its never ben normal practice for TNP to demand full control over a players life regardless of whether its in TNP or not. That practice has been invented by the framers of this bill, and the absurd Defining Treason bill that preceded it!
 
Grosseschnauzer:
In practical terms, the only possible way what anyone does outside the region could come into play is if your UN is in a military conflict against the NPA, and then only if the NPA is there by treaty, by an diplomatic agreement or by a deployment approved by the Security Council.
Click to expand...
The problem is, if you have a UN in a region that isn't pure defender, you could very easily find yourself facing the NPA.
 
If the law requires the player to be held accountable and not just the nation what if the player breaks a North Pacific law in RL? Was s/he still not the player undefined by nation, could they still not be prosecuted for being the player?
 
Mr Sniffles is in fact correct.

By defining player inste dof nation this act would, technically, allow tnp courts to prosecute you here because of outside NS..be it in another game, region of this game or even in IRL...


Odd that
 
Fulhead Land:
Mr Sniffles is in fact correct.

By defining player inste dof nation this act would, technically, allow tnp courts to prosecute you here because of outside NS..be it in another game, region of this game or even in IRL...


Odd that
Click to expand...
thank god there's not an anti-drug law in the North Pacific!
 
Hmm... I do believe that this way of making player synonymous with member nation would mean that my CyberNations nation fell under TNP law and would perhaps be required to refrain from threats against the sovereignty of other nations...
 
The claim that this definitional sentence extends to anything outside of the Nationstates realm is totally absolute BS.

All four words appear in the Constitution and the Leagl Code, and have for a long time. The disingenuous argument being advanced, that it extends to real life or to Cybernations or anything else is the ridiculous use of an ad homnium argument that is just patently absurd.
 
It might not be prosecuted by a sane MoJ but I have yet to see an argument at how replacing the ideas of this game being a collection nations with a collection of players, does not end with merely players in the North Pacific. Where does it end Grosse? Please tell us, where does it end? More importantly, if the language isn't right enough to differentiate this then why should people support it when it is open to such abuse?
 
Having just looked, "player" appears (at present) once in the Constitution, in the Preamble. The rest of the Constitution refers entirely to member/nation/etc and it would be better (in IC/OOC respects) to have that one, somewhat erroneous, reference removed rather than codify it as such.

Personally, this ammendment just highlights the nature of the problem which faces our region.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top