FD - Defining Player

Fulhead, of course you'd make that suggestion, but the fact remains none of those who have criticized this proposal has come forward with any alternative to address the abuse of duality.

A list of positions or roles curently held in other regions doesn't do a thing as to preventing abuse, does it? So that doesn't sound like much of a alternative either, does it?
 
Well first I'd suggest something that actually combatted duality rather than simply changed the name nation to player so you could try people anywhere anytime for doing anything which thsi proposal does.
 
Can I ask the speaker when and if this is coming to a vote? There are other pieces of legislation that went to FD at the same time as this (or, in the case of "forum change", several days later) which are already at vote.

And in the last few days I have not seen substantive discussions taking place, so can we go to vote?
 
Grosse:
Fulhead, of course you'd make that suggestion, but the fact remains none of those who have criticized this proposal has come forward with any alternative to address the abuse of duality.
Click to expand...

Except, you know, Sniffles, and well, me. :fish:
 
flemingovia:
Can I ask the speaker when and if this is coming to a vote? There are other pieces of legislation that went to FD at the same time as this (or, in the case of "forum change", several days later) which are already at vote.

And in the last few days I have not seen s taking place, so can we go to vote?
Click to expand...
I move legislation when I feel the proper debate has ended, there's still questions regarding this issue that has not been answered. Especially regarding how this and solely this has been the only sane solution to duality. Not to mention the potential abuse this definition will allow.

You might not like the subject of the debate Flem but that does not mean their has been no "substantive discussion"

I can tell you that if the Holidays language has been finished, this may also be included in the final slate of votes before the election.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Fulhead, of course you'd make that suggestion, but the fact remains none of those who have criticized this proposal has come forward with any alternative to address the abuse of duality.
Click to expand...
Basically, the situation comes down to this: We don't particularly care if you have other personas in regions that are irrelevant to TNP or if you don't wish to exploit us for political reasons. Of course, now the problem is trying to define those categories. To make it short, the people that we want to exclude from the privilege of duality are the ones who have the greatest chance of exploiting us politically.

What I have in mind, therefore, is to give the RA the power to vote to make certain regions "restricted regions", for which it shall be illegal for any RA member to be a governmental member of that region in any capacity or aid/abet them by passing on RA-sensitive materials. Coincidentally, applicants and current RA members would be required to state whether or not they are a member of the said "restricted region". Therefore, players who are party to the governments of the "restricted regions" can no longer apply for the RA, and current RA members who run afoul of this rule would have to choose between resigning from the RA or from whatever governmental body by which the restricted government is controlled. Those who try to circumvent this rule could be tried for treason.

Now, for the caveats... Yes, to some, it might make more sense to define what regions may partake in duality instead of what regions may not, but it is just far more practical voting-wise. Also, yes, there is a high political cost to voting to essentially lock out a region from our governmental processes.
 
I believe the Speaker is on the edge of abusing his authority as Speaker.

There was at least s much debate on the "Declaration of War" proposal which the Speaker stated he was going to put it to vote, without regrd to any objections from members of the Regional Assembly for doing so.

Now, he has to be proded to give fair treatment to this proposal. The proposal is not frivolus and is a meritous proposal. The Speker has attempted his opposition to the prposal onto the Regional Assembly by a totally inappropriate delay in bring this forwarf to formal discussion, after the preliminary discussion thread sat for three weeks.

Nothing new has been presented by the opponents in formal discussion. Nothing. They are as unable to enunciate any form of alternative to address the issues this proposal was brought forward to address. It is rather, the Speaker's arbitrary use of his moderating authority (and maybe his obvious political alliances with two or three particular members of the Regional Assembly throughout this term) that has dictated how he has treated this legislation.

The real question is why is the Speaker so determine to emasulate the Assembly's right to vote on this proposal, even after he rammed the Declaration of War" proposal down the Assembly's collective throats?

It is time to allow this proposal to come to a vote. Period.
 
The only real issue i have with MO's proposal is that there is always the chance certain pro-defender governments will attempt to outlaw involvement with Invader Groups...but if it IS RA vote..and fair..and not Security Council or PM/Cabinet based..i see it working better than this "Player" crap
 
I agree with the Prime Minister.

I believe this is ready to go to vote before--and be approved by--the Regional Assembly.

I think one or two more days to flush out any further language with the proposal and consideration of MO's ideas (which I commend the effort taken on MO's part to reach common ground amongst all of us) should be allowed and then this proposal should be moved to vote.

Though my government has many, many flaws one of the assets is that our Speaker of the House of Representatives rarely votes and rarely debates on proposals. Objectivity is a wonderful trait for a Speaker to have.

La Duchess
 
Let's get Hersfold back and let him kick some ass with this.

Or we could just have them, when signing up for the RA, list the nations they have in other regions. If they are found guilty of lying, then a trial is at hand.
 
Or we could just have them, when signing up for the RA, list the nations they have in other regions. If they are found guilty of lying, then a trial is at hand.
Click to expand...

That would be TWP's old Sunshine Act, would you like me to find it and post it here?
 
Fulhead Land:
The only real issue i have with MO's proposal is that there is always the chance certain pro-defender governments will attempt to outlaw involvement with Invader Groups...but if it IS RA vote..and fair..and not Security Council or PM/Cabinet based..i see it working better than this "Player" crap
Click to expand...
Yes, I forgot to talk about this. The danger to my general proposal is that it might be taken as a sanction for our current friends and allies to come in and take part in our government. If they were to begin to use TNP to serve the purposes of their other regions, there would eventually be harder and harder to push them out. However, I'm not sure how this risk could be mitigated outside of...

...an RA interview process. The RA would be able to interview any potential applicants and confirm or deny membership by overall RA vote. But then, this changes the entire nature of RA membership, and we would have to give up our relatively easy-access RA for something that is far more restrictive. Claims of conservatism, cronyism, and clique-ism would be valid.

To whatever mod may be strolling by: I know that this is somewhat off-topic to the formal discussion of Grosse's bill, so if you feel that this is too disruptive, please feel free to split this discussion elsewhere. It seems that there is interest in my proposal, so I'll probably draw up something and open up a new thread in Preliminary Discussions soon.
 
...an RA interview process. The RA would be able to interview any potential applicants and confirm or deny membership by overall RA vote. But then, this changes the entire nature of RA membership, and we would have to give up our relatively easy-access RA for something that is far more restrictive. Claims of conservatism, cronyism, and clique-ism would be valid.
Click to expand...

I think voting on every single applicant would be pointless and bog down the hold Assembly in people who apply, but then never come back.
 
I think voting on every single applicant would be pointless and bog down the hold Assembly in people who apply, but then never come back.
Click to expand...

TWP has that now, their Senate is much smaller because of it.

I messed up, I confused acts, its called the Conflict of Interest Law not the Sunshine Law. Silly TWP history :eyeroll:

Conflict of Interest Law:
Conflict of Interest Law

Table of Contents
1. Current Government Members and Electoral Candidates
2. Government Members
3. Electoral Candidates
4. Intelligence Personnel
5. Punishment for Disregard of this law
6. Definition
7. "Puppet" Nations
8. Official Representatives
9. Conclusion

1. All electoral candidates and members of the government of the West Pacific, elected, appointed or otherwise, including undersecretaries and ambassadors, shall forthwith inform the citizens of the West Pacific of all governmental positions that they hold in regions outside of the West Pacific. Such disclosure shall be made in the forum entitled "Public Disclosure" and shall consist of stating the regional government(s) of which the member of government or candidate is a member.

2. Where a government member of the West Pacific assumes governmental responsibilities in a region outside of the West Pacific midway through their term of office as a government official of the West Pacific, such government member shall disclose their new outside governmental responsibilities in the forum entitled "Public Disclosure" within 24 hours of assuming their new non-West Pacific government position.

3. Where an electoral candidate assumes governmental responsibilities in a region outside of the West Pacific midway through their candidacy, such candidate shall disclose their new outside governmental responsibilities in the forum entitled "Public Disclosure" within 24 hours of assuming their new non-West Pacific government position.

4. Where a member of the West Pacific Government is sent on an approved intelligence mission to another region and assumes a government position in the other region with the approval of Cabinet, then the requirements for public disclosure shall be waived.

5. Where a member or candidate has failed to properly disclose an outside governmental interest as mandated in section 1, 2 or 3, such member or candidate shall be suspended from holding a government position in the West Pacific for a period of not less than 60 days. In addition, if the person in question is a government member, the said person shall be immediately relieved of his or her government duties. If the person in question is a candidate in an election, such person shall be immediately stricken from the ballot.

6. For greater certainty, a Government Position in a region outside of the West Pacific shall be defined as any position of influence within a governing structure of a region outside the West Pacific.

7. Without limitation, it is acknowledged that where a Government Official or Candidate of the West Pacific controls a non-West Pacific nation, commonly known as a "puppet", and by virtue of its control of the puppet gains a government position outside the West Pacific, such a situation would trigger the disclosure provisions of sections 1-3.

8. A nation may only speak on behalf of the government of the west pacific with the approval of the Prime Minister.

9. This Law is intended to protect the security and interests of The West Pacific at home and abroad. It provides the proper protection against hostile foreign organisations and prevents the improper use of the government’s name.

Respectfully submitted,
The WPLF nation of Neandertron
Click to expand...
 
I much prefer a disclosure rule to this 'defining player' nonsense. It does what we want to do (at least ostensibly) without introducing a mountain of pitfalls.

An exclusion list seems a touch more iffy to me but as long as it is decided on by the region and not by the government or agencies of the government I would be willing to accept it.
 
Nothing wrong, logically, with arguing for the status quo AI if he prefers the status quo to this proposal. Nothing says he has to come up with an alternative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top