Restricted RA Membership

Monte Ozarka

Monte Ozarka

TNPer
A new proposal to help solve the duality issue:

Section 1: Definitions
A - For the purposes of this law, a "group" is defined as a region, regional government, governing party, or an organization of nations or regions.
B - For the purposes of this law, a "taking part" or being a "member" of a "restricted party" is defined as taking part in the governance or functioning of a restricted party or any of its governmental departments.

Section 2: "Restricted Party" status
A - No Regional Assembly applicant who is a member of a restricted party may be granted Regional Assembly membership.
B - Any Regional Assembly member who, at the time that a group is deemed as a restricted party by the RA, is a member of a restricted party must either remove him/herself from said restricted party or resign from the Regional Assembly within seven days. If the Speaker of the Regional Assembly receives no decision from said Regional Assembly member, said member's Regional Assembly status will be automatically revoked.
C - Regional Assembly members are prohibited from taking part in a restricted party.

Section 3: Disclosure
A - A current and up-to-date list of restricted parties shall be maintained by the Speaker of the Regional Assembly. The Ministry of Immigration and Internal Affairs shall inform applicants of these laws and maintain the Regional Assembly roster so as to carry out the stipulations of this law.
B - Regional Assembly applicants are required to list any and all restricted parties they are members of.
C - Regional Assembly members shall be required to name and maintain a list of any and all restricted parties they are members of.
D - Exceptions to the rules in Sections 1 and 2 can be made for North Pacific Army (NPA) and North Pacific Intelligence Agency (NPIA) members on NPA or NPIA-sanctioned missions, once the Minister of Defense or the NPIA Director, respectively, has informed the Speaker of these circumstances.
E - Violating these rules may result in charges of treason and other penalties.

Section 4: Creating "Restricted Parties"
A - The Regional Assembly, solely, shall have the power to deem groups as "restricted parties". Any Regional Assembly member may draw up a bill declaring a group as a restricted party.
B - Regional Assembly members who applied for Regional Assembly membership prior to such a bill reaching Formal Discussion are barred from voting on the bill.
C - The Regional Assembly may vote to remove a group from the list of restricted parties. The voting stipulations within this section apply also to such votes for removal.
Click to expand...

(Yes, it's lengthy. If you have any ideas for shortening it, please say so. :()
 
Dezzland:
A restricted party? What is a restricted party?
Click to expand...
Eh? I guess you could say that "restricted parties" are those groups for whom their members are restricted from RA membership. The exact implications are laid out in Section 2, and the way they're created in Section 4. I'm afraid I don't really quite follow your question beyond that.

BW:
This seems to solve the Lexicon voter issue which we no longer have more than the duality issue.
Click to expand...
Well, the issue with duality is that we're afraid of people abusing the RA membership mechanic to undermine and use us from the inside, right? This bill is simply a way to possibly nip it in the bud by setting limits to who can use the privilege of duality. For example, during the Lexicon stuff, the RA could vote to make the Lexicon government a "restricted party" and thereby lock out any players in the Lexicon government from joining/staying in the RA in the first place.

If your complaint is that this bill does not address what counts as a breach of duality, I agree. However, I'm not sure how such a bill could be written and enforced well without depending on very convoluted language (with inevitable loopholes) and very careful, lucky, and possibly dirty intelligence work.

So no. This bill doesn't define how duality is broken, but it gives the RA some tools to keep it from being abused.
 
I don't know...it just seems odd to me. I mean, I see where you’re coming from but I can also see it being abused to censor people.

They should be able to fight the decision if they want.
 
Did we pass that speedy trial proposal? I don't remember.

Honestly, our courts couldn't handle that kind of flood of complaints.
 
Who says there would be a flood?
Click to expand...

I just imagine that if we voted against an entire region and we had more than one or two members currently in the RA from that region it would back our courts up for ages.

It's just a scenario that could play out, I'm not saying it's a definite.
 
Some of you will be amazing to hear that I actually agree with BW's comment that this proposal more addresses a past issue about voting thann the underlying issue of duality,

This doesn't mean that M.O.'s proposal might have merit; and might be useful; I'm just not sue it addresses the abuse of duality issue.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Some of you will be amazing to hear that I actually agree with BW's comment that this proposal more addresses a past issue about voting thann the underlying issue of duality,

This doesn't mean that M.O.'s proposal might have merit; and might be useful; I'm just not sue it addresses the abuse of duality issue.
Click to expand...
Can you tell me, then, what you think the underlying issue with duality is?

I had always thought that it was that people were using it to exploit us and use us to serve their own political interests extraregionally. My proposal seeks to provide a tool the RA can possibly use to warn an outside group to either refrain from meddling like that in TNP affairs, whether it be to stop the outright or tacit perceived abuses of duality or to remove that member from their ranks.

No, this proposal does not define what constitutes an abuse of duality, but the thing is, each of us has a different interpretation of duality and how it should be implemented, so anything remotely close to a consensus would be hard to reach. However, by letting the individual RA members decide whether or not they think, in their mind's eye, certain actions violate duality to the service of some outside group, we can at least perform some action pertaining to the issue of duality instead of simply pretending it doesn't exist or haggling about wordings and definitions. Sure, it's subjective, but it may be worth it, despite the obvious drawbacks like the ones I warned of in the FD thread to Grosse's bill.
 
carlottaguidicelli:
Who says there would be a flood?
Click to expand...

I just imagine that if we voted against an entire region and we had more than one or two members currently in the RA from that region it would back our courts up for ages.

It's just a scenario that could play out, I'm not saying it's a definite.
Click to expand...
Well, then the issue is to make sure that this bill would be constitutional, right? I'd love to hear some constitutional arguments against the current wording.

As to the trials themselves, yeah, I'm not sure that the court system would be able to handle the restriction of a group that many RA members are part of, but the court system is a larger problem in and of itself. Furthermore, if people were going to come in and spam-register, knowing that they won't get in and filing charges anyways in court in an attempt to derail our justice system, well...it would be fairly pointless (as trials do not greatly disturb the day-to-day functioning of the region greatly) as well as a fairly douchebaggish thing to do.
 
Hmm I dont know... The more I think about it the more it does seem open to abuse. The scenario where invaders become unwelcome here is one I can easily forsee happening. It does seem quite open to abuse.

But again we are left with the issue of how to deal with duality..does it need to be dealt with in the ways we are attempting to go about it? What if we insted created a "Code of Conduct" for duality that set fiorth guidelines..such as member accounts for different personas etc?
 
Blue Wolf II:
I am interested as to why your for it :P

No, really, I am.
Click to expand...
:P

Since you asked...

This proposal would be useful in blocking members of certain regions, for example North Pacific Destroyers, (Lexicon isn't really a threat) from joining the Regional Assembly and then trying to derail/submit legislation or rig elections.

I wouldn't want to see a blanket ban on invader groups though, I would like to start off with only a few regions included, then if a region becomes a threat add it to the list through an RA vote.

It wouldn't get rid of duality but it would allow us to get rid of members who through membership in other regions abuse duality and their RA membership.
 
Fulhead Land:
Hmm I dont know... The more I think about it the more it does seem open to abuse. The scenario where invaders become unwelcome here is one I can easily forsee happening. It does seem quite open to abuse.

But again we are left with the issue of how to deal with duality..does it need to be dealt with in the ways we are attempting to go about it? What if we insted created a "Code of Conduct" for duality that set fiorth guidelines..such as member accounts for different personas etc?
Click to expand...
Yeah, the slippery slope definitely is relevant to this bill and is perhaps my biggest concern with it, to be quite honest. I guess it's the consequence of trying to create a simple way to make this process organic.

Your suggestions are a good start, FL, but my question is...then what? You create guidelines, you create different accounts for personas. That would go very far in solving issues of treason and whatnot that happen on these boards, but what about things that a member might say or do on other boards? Would rules of conduct extend beyond TNP? I mean, it would be difficult, but if you can think of some good guidelines and word it well, I'd be all for it.

Also, I have to add my comment in for the suggestions for a disclosure act. That's all fine and dandy, but then what? They disclose their memberships, they get in the RA with no fuss, and we still potentially have a duality problem. It helps us find who might have a duality problem but takes no steps to stem its potential abuse.
 
Rules cant extend beyond TNP, like our laws arent relevant elsewhere, asides the obvious we have already, as in passing info across to enemies etc. Thats what I'd say..MO?
 
Fulhead Land:
Rules cant extend beyond TNP, like our laws arent relevant elsewhere, asides the obvious we have already, as in passing info across to enemies etc. Thats what I'd say..MO?
Click to expand...
My concern is this situation: People join the RA under a new persona but on other forums or some other media make it adequately clear that they're using their power in TNP to serve outside interests. Is there anything we can do about that?
 
Monte Ozarka:
Fulhead Land:
Rules cant extend beyond TNP, like our laws arent relevant elsewhere,  asides the obvious we have already, as in passing info across to enemies etc. Thats what I'd say..MO?
Click to expand...
My concern is this situation: People join the RA under a new persona but on other forums or some other media make it adequately clear that they're using their power in TNP to serve outside interests. Is there anything we can do about that?
Click to expand...
Yes if they're spying but even then our own spy agencies are on them.

Any mention of "restricted party" clearly draws up fears of stripping citizenship to simple minority groups who may just happen to disagree or annoy us. My two cents is to make "restricted party" to "foreign enemies, enemy groups, or something of that sort. After a mandatory SC report on the matter (no timelines because we all know how they seem to work out) we can vote to eject them (as a group) as already outlined in the Constitution. Where a one day vote can be held to ban citizens for whatever reason. Except this time a region openly warring with us.

Once again stripping a group of citizens of their legal rights and guarantees is walking into a mine field. I'd also like to make sure that these "declared foreign enemies" must be involved in plots directly attacking the North Pacific or regions we have MDP with.

Banning or prosecuting citizens over some NPA mission for those who haven't discovered the joys of warring in Cybernations, just plain doesn't make sense to me. Since an invader/defender face off in a region of 11 nations called "we like pot" is no way treasonous or against North Pacific security in my book. So maybe this is a sideline but I think this should be considered.
 
I thinkMO if it was that obviously malicious the security council or cabinet would move against them as has been done before?
 
Certainly, I don't consider whatever invader/defender tiffs that may occur as treasonous, and any bill that addresses this issue can specifically distinguish between it in its wording.

To address another issue, of course, wartime provisions are one thing, and we already have a law that covers that. My concern is if/when we already have some sort of internal conflict with foreign implications, and agents of foreign powers come in and try to affect the outcome of the internal conflict through claims of duality. I guess that this sorta sums up my view of duality: I don't care if you practice it, so long as the RA is not inundated by potentially exploitative characters. This view of duality is kinda tempered by the events of the whole GM/PD stuff and whatever came after. I do not believe in absolute duality, nor do I think that we should be absolutely trusting of everyone who claims it, so I have structured this proposal to reflect that fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top