Defining Duality

Monte Ozarka

Monte Ozarka

TNPer
Perhaps I should actually take the time to explain this a bit.

As opposed to my other proposal, which involved disenfranchising people en masse, this proposal protects duality in everything except treason against TNP (including invading TNP). In addition to formally codifying the privilege of duality, it also defines invading under different personas as not treasonous. Anything that one says or does under a different persona that seeks to harm or undermine TNP and its government (even not during times of war) would be taken as a breach of duality, and therefore, those words and actions can be used in a court of law as coming from the RA member. However, this only applies to matters of treason, espionage, and sedition*. Anything else, i.e. libel, slander, etc. cannot be prosecuted against.

*List may change as I work on a bill of crimes and whatnot. Working draft here.

Proposal:
Section 1: Definitions
A - "Duality" is hereby defined as the right of a Regional Assembly member to possess different personas within The North Pacific, its RMB, official IRC channel, or official forums, or in outside regions, groups, or any of their modes of communication. When possessing the right of duality, the words and actions of a non-Regional Assembly persona of a Regional Assembly member cannot be used against him/her in judicial proceedings in The North Pacific.

Section 2: Limitations
A - The right of duality is given, by default, to each Regional Assembly member.
B - In charges of treason, espionage, or sedition against a Regional Assembly member, the member does not possess the right of duality for the purposes of the trial.
C - When under a non-Regional Assembly persona, participating in or planning invasions, defenses, or liberations of regions (The North Pacific and her treatied allies, excepted) shall not be considered treason on the part of that Regional Assembly member.
D - When under a non-Regional Assembly persona, participating in or planning activities against the North Pacific Army when it is not acting in defense of The North Pacific or any of her treatied allies shall not be considered treason on the part of that Regional Assembly member.
E - Exceptions may be given to North Pacific Army and North Pacific Intelligence Agency members, with the consent of and notification by the Minister of Defense or NPIA Director, respectively, when on officially sanctioned missions.
Click to expand...
How's this? I tried to protect invading as best I could. Suggestions?
 
I haven't had time to really go through this, but I'll make a couple of observations.

Under a provision in the Law on Diplomatic, Military and Politicl Diplomatic documents, there is a provision that the Security Council has te power to authorize deployments of the NPA that are not based on a treaty or agreement. The proposal needs to reflect that process.

There is no current definition of treason, although a majority of the regional assembly tice supported a proposed definition last term; however, it did not reach the 60 per cent threahhold.

When I have more time, I will look at this more carefully; with organizing the elections, the nominations for the Court next term, and discussion on a proposed treay with the TWP, I haven't had much time to think through this idea.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Under a provision in the Law on Diplomatic, Military and Politicl Diplomatic documents, there is a provision that the Security Council has te power to authorize deployments of the NPA that are not based on a treaty or agreement. The proposal needs to reflect that process.
Click to expand...
I am loathe to put that in, as I don't particularly see it as a problem if the NPA and some organization like the LWU come to fisticuffs. All NPA actions, as far as moving into a region goes, have to be approved by the SC first. If I implement your suggestion, it amounts to saying that invaders who have other personas here in TNP cannot join in invasions where the NPA is taking defensive action. In fact, clause D in section 2 specifically addresses this.

As to the issue with treason, well...I guess I'll try thinking up of an adequate definition in the meantime.
 
Just wondering...if we assume that duality is respected by default, what crimes do you all think should constitute a breach in duality? I have listed treason, sedition, and espionage. I could add election fraud from my other bill on here, too. But I'd like y'all's input first.
 
Monte Ozarka:
Grosseschnauzer:
Under a provision in the Law on Diplomatic, Military and Politicl Diplomatic documents, there is a provision that the Security Council has te power to authorize deployments of the NPA that are not based on a treaty or agreement. The proposal needs to reflect that process.
Click to expand...
I am loathe to put that in, as I don't particularly see it as a problem if the NPA and some organization like the LWU come to fisticuffs. All NPA actions, as far as moving into a region goes, have to be approved by the SC first. If I implement your suggestion, it amounts to saying that invaders who have other personas here in TNP cannot join in invasions where the NPA is taking defensive action. In fact, clause D in section 2 specifically addresses this.

As to the issue with treason, well...I guess I'll try thinking up of an adequate definition in the meantime.
Click to expand...
The section of your bill that you cite would create a lgal nightmare, in as much as current law, more particularly the oath taken by RA members on application would dicate that the conduct covered by yourproposal language would be a violation of that oath.

The amendment to the Constitution on diplomatic documents, as implemented by the Law 12 amendments to Law 9, makes it clear that an RA member would come into conflict with their oath b taking up arms against the NPA where the NOA deployment is authorized by law.

That protects everyone because then the invaider who chooses to be in the Reginal Assembly has the option of withdrawing from a conflict once it is known that NPA is being lawfully deployed, and it protects the NPA from claims that a deploymenttrapped a RA member that was participating in an invaison. Since this is partially the result of a constitutional provision that directs SC authorizatiion for NPA deployment in the absence of a treaty or other diplomatic agreement, your proposed section would come into conflict with the COnstitution.

As long as thi proposal contains that section and remains inconsistent wth the current law, and the constitutional prpisions (based on the provision in Article II, Section 4 and the Regional Assembly oath in Article III, Section 2, I will be unable to support this proposal.

And of course, that doesn't even get into the fact that by law, and by Constitutional creation of the NPA, the NPA are the armed forces of the region, and that TNP is a pro-defender feeder region.
 
Are you saying that because, by your interpretation, TNP is pro-defender this proposal wouldn't work?

Explain that one to me because it sounds like a load of fluff.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The amendment to the Constitution on diplomatic documents, as implemented by the Law 12 amendments to Law 9, makes it clear that an RA member would come into conflict with their oath b taking up arms against the NPA where the NOA deployment is authorized by law.
Click to expand...
What? Where do you see this? Are you interpreting "military relationship document" very broadly or what? Please explain, Grosse.

Grosse:
That protects everyone because then the invaider who chooses to be in the Reginal Assembly has the option of withdrawing from a conflict once it is known that NPA is being lawfully deployed, and it protects the NPA from claims that a deploymenttrapped a RA member that was participating in an invaison. Since this is partially the result of a constitutional provision that directs SC authorizatiion for NPA deployment in the absence of a treaty or other diplomatic agreement, your proposed section would come into conflict with the COnstitution.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "trapped a RA member that was participating in an invasion"? Current law already prohibits NPA personnel from invading. Plus, there is an additional level of authority that would allow the MoD to basically kick out someone that he feels untrustworthy. Duality legislation is unneeded right now for the NPA, as common sense reigns. RA members are not required to join the NPA and so are not asked to go on defenses or abide by its laws. Only defenders join the NPA, but invaders can party with us in the RA. In short, I see no conflict. (Now, if you had brought up the concern that invaders might be a part of the SC, well...then I think you have a valid concern. Frankly, I don't like SC approval of NPA actions, but that's neither here or there.)

Grosse:
And of course, that doesn't even get into the fact that by law, and by Constitutional creation of the NPA, the NPA are the armed forces of the region, and that TNP is a pro-defender feeder region.
Click to expand...
That's some rather flimsy arguments to base constitutional arguments on, in my opinion. I disagree with your assessment, but I eagerly await your response.
 
The provisions of the Constitution and the Legal Code relevant to my earlier post include:

Constitution Article II Section 4:
D - Provisions for military alliances, military co-operation, and joint military operations by treaty or agreement shall be established in the North Pacific Legal Code. Such provisions may provide for approval of deployments by the Security Council in appropriate circumstances as provided by law.
Click to expand...
Implemented by:
Law 9 Section 3v(as amended by Law 12):
F - Approval of Specific Deployments. Whenever a military relationship document does not authorize specific military deployments by its terms, the Security Council may approve military deployments in appropriate circumstances.
Click to expand...
These provisions were adopted a year ago, in April of 2006

Constitution Article II Section 2 Clause 4:
"I, (Forum Name), as the leader of the (Official Full National Name), pledge to obey the Constitution and Laws of The North Pacific Region, and to act as a responsible member of its society.  I understand that if my Nation leaves The North Pacific region for reasons other than participation in North Pacific Army deployments that I may be stripped of my right to vote and required to reapply.  I pledge to only register one Nation to vote in The North Pacific.  I understand that my registration of, or attempt to register, multiple Nations to vote in The North Pacific shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region. I understand that if any nation under my control directly wages war against the North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against the North Pacific, this shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region. In this manner, I petition the Regional Government of The North Pacific region for membership in the Regional Assembly."
Click to expand...

That sentence was added last November, and was proposed by Flemingovia while he was still Prime Minister.

law 7 Section 4:
The North Pacific Army is established as a mobile army of UN nations pledged to the greater good of The North Pacific.

First and foremost, its duty will be to defend The North Pacific from any hostile or aggressive attack from any party.

In times when the first duty is not called upon, the North Pacific Army, in recognition of the dangers and damage invaders cause to the welfare of innocent peoples and regions, is granted the mandate to counter the forces of such invaders/griefers/crashers.

In this manner, the NPA is, at its core, a defender organization. In the best interests of the general populace, it shall enter and defend regions against aggressive attacks. It does not seek to be imperialistic or controlling. Instead, it aims to maintain or return control of the region to the region. It will not attempt to interfere in regional affairs besides trying to repulse or expel invader forces.
Click to expand...
This was adopted in the autumn of 2005, that is in the September-Otober time frame.

Finally, what I'm referring to are the same issues I and many others had with a proposal from Mr. Sniffles at the beginning of the term. This proposal is just another way to provide a safe harbor to those who want to ignore what this region is, and has always been, namely, a pro-defender region, with a defender force that serves as its military. http://z13.invisionfree.com/TNP/index.php?showtopic=2789
 
I think it's rather short sighted to hold onto the old defender ideals. The Atlantic is gone, the ADN is gone.

TNP should move forward and embrace the new political climate. I'm one for following tradition, but I also believe that being steadfast to something which is not so black and white anymore is simply suicide.

Invaders want to involve themselves in our community; whilst they are here they pose no threat to us. It is a mistake to turn out perfectly capable, intelligent people because we disagree with their politics. That, my friend, goes against the spirit our constitution was written in.
 
Thank you for those citations, Grosse. However, I am still hesitant to define fighting against the NPA in neither TNP nor in regions with whom we are allied can be counted as an act of "war".

In fact, if we look at TNP Law 14, it specifically states:
Wartime Provisions:
No player maintaining a nation in a region at war with TNP may maintain a nation within TNP, or participate in the governance thereof, for the duration of hostilities. Any player found doing so will be stripped of membership in the Regional Assembly and subject to banishment from the region. A "region at war" is any region which has made a formal declaration, or made acts of war against The North Pacific, or vice versa, as deemed by decision by the Security Council. War does not constitute actions taken by or against the North Pacific Army unless the conflict meets the conditions above. A state of war exists until a formal peace treaty, surrender terms, or similar, is/are recognized.
Click to expand...
Countering NPA actions do not count as actions of war unless the invader group is actually attacking TNP itself.

As to TNP Law 7...
NPA Code:
In this manner, the NPA is, at its core, a defender organization.
Click to expand...
The NPA Code applies to the NPA only. I do not disagree with you in saying that TNP has had a long tradition of pro-defender sympathies. HOWEVER, this does not mean that we should shut invaders out of every part of our governance. I don't believe that TNP should run an official invader army, nor should we use the NPA for offensive means. But it is another thing altogether to say that invaders should be excluded from this region.
 
Wouldn't the NPA be moving against the invaders be an act of war on our behalf? We can't punish our citizens if we decide to declare war on their other identities, can we? I'm pretty sure the constitution isn't binding OOC.
 
Vitrionia:
I'm pretty sure the constitution isn't binding OOC.
Click to expand...
Much to the disappointment of some, I'm sure.

Its a nice piece of legislation. Perhaps my only gripe with it is that without a clear definition of treason already in place (please correct me if I'm wrong), the intended effect could be altered later on because of its exception clause. Not this bills fault, just something to consider...
 
Namyeknom:
Its a nice piece of legislation. Perhaps my only gripe with it is that without a clear definition of treason already in place (please correct me if I'm wrong), the intended effect could be altered later on because of its exception clause. Not this bills fault, just something to consider...
Click to expand...
It would be reasonably simple to clarify treason, wouldn't it? I think doing that would be beneficial regardless of the success of this proposed policy.
 
Hah, very interesting...

I think this issue there was that the bill was typically vague. I think the suggestions being made here are much clearer. We're addressing the concerns of dualists and providing a way to protect TNP's sovereignity.

Personally, I think this is one of the better ideas for a solution I've seen on the matter.
 
Namyeknom:
Its a nice piece of legislation. Perhaps my only gripe with it is that without a clear definition of treason already in place (please correct me if I'm wrong), the intended effect could be altered later on because of its exception clause. Not this bills fault, just something to consider...
Click to expand...
BUT WAIT! I realized this after Grosse brought it up, so that's why I also wrote a sister piece of legislation defining various crimes.

Read it here!
 
Monte, The NPA Code is part of the Law of the region. It was enacte by the Regional Assembly, just as any other law.

The Consttution and the Legal Code both make the NPA the military of The North Pacific; the rationale of the requirement for approval of NPA deployments (where a treaty or agreement isn't the basis for deployment) protects all of the region, whether defenders or invaiders, who live here.

By having the SC approval, those who participate in an invasion for which the NPA's (and TNP's) assistance is sought in resisting or countering suh invaision) have notice, and an opportunity to remove themselves from that theatre of enggement, It does not mean those who want to play invaider can't, it just means that they can't once the NPA is lawfully deployed.

Whether the Atlantics, or the ADN, or other defender organizations still exist or not is not even relevant or material to the current discussion. And I will point out the RA just rejected a proposal by an overwhemling margin that sought to turn the region into an invaider. So I think the position of this region as pro-defender remains intact.

And I think this bill still needs to reflect that point. That's the primary sticking point for me.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Monte, The NPA Code is part of the Law of the region. It was enacte by the Regional Assembly, just as any other law.
Click to expand...
Of course. But to say that a code of conduct for a specific subset of the RA actually applies to the RA, as a whole, seems rather illogical.

Grosse:
By having the SC approval, those who participate in an invasion for which the NPA's (and TNP's) assistance is sought in resisting or countering suh invaision) have notice, and an opportunity to remove themselves from that theatre of enggement, It does not mean those who want to play invaider can't, it just means that they can't once the NPA is lawfully deployed.
Click to expand...
Okay, allow me to present a situation where this does not work: Liberations. Suppose that the LWU has taken over some region, and suppose that Blue Wolf is participating. The NPA seeks to liberate that region. If the SC doesn't inform that this action has been approved, you entrap RA members that would otherwise have no idea this was happening. If the SC does give public consent, you wholly compromise NPA operational effectiveness. For this reason, a little while ago, the SC approved the liberation of Iran but didn't publicize its approval until after the mission had been completed. How is one supposed to remove themselves from the theatre of engagement?

Sidenote: I do not agree with having to have prior SC approval of NPA actions, so that tempers my view.
 
Not wishing to become an invader region does not automatically make us pro-defender. I'd contend that Feeders should be neutral in terms of Devader politics. Our forces help those who need it, and I'd hate for us to ignore people because of their politics.

I'd also hate for us to exclude willing members of the region when general activity seems to be a bit of a low.
 
As this was proposed before I declared my proposal rules or even was elected, this is exempt from them.

I don't think anyone will complain that I have moved it to Formal Discussion, now, here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top