FD: RA1: Defining Duality

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
Discord
Eluvatar#8517
RA1: Defining Duality:
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...

This is up for formal discussion.

The author of this bill is Monte Ozarka.

The vote on this bill, as modified, will begin between May 22 and June 5th-- I will consult with Monte Ozarka and others for the specific time when we get to it.
 
As currently written this draft law would come into conflict with the Regional Assembly oath as well as several currently enacted TNP Laws concerning the authority of the government to expressly authorize NPA deployments not connected to a pre-exisitng treaty or other diplomatuc agreement.

In its current form, I cannot support this legislation.
 
Eh? How does it conflict? It just means that when the NPA is deployed not in the defence of TNP or a treatied ally, it doesn't count as treason to have a puppet on the other side. That is, BW can do the invading thang and end up against the NPA without a problem as long as it isn't a treatied ally. I fail to see the problem with that, and in fact I think its probably the best way to solve this "issue".
 
I initiatlly had some quibbles over some of these points, but as of this time I put my support behind this change.

No offence Gross, but your intolerances are showing ;)
 
If the government authorizes an NPA deployment, whether it is done under a treaty, or not done under a treaty, it is still a deployment authorized under the laws of TNP. and deserve the same full respect.

The NPA is the official armed forces of TNP. Under that same law, the region declared the NPA as a defender organization, and that TNP is pro-defender.

It would be a betrayal of our principles as a region to allow personas to take up force against the NPA when it is deployed pursuant to TNP Law.

That seems simple and clear enough, and unless this bill properly takes that obligation into account, I am unable to support it. As this proposal currently stands, it will allow certain abuses of duality to the detriment of TNP. Period.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
If the government authorizes an NPA deployment, whether it is done under a treaty, or not done under a treaty, it is still a deployment authorized under the laws of TNP. and deserve the same full respect.

The NPA is the official armed forces of TNP. Under that same law, the region declared the NPA as a defender organization, and that TNP is pro-defender.

It would be a betrayal of our principles as a region to allow personas to take up force against the NPA when it is deployed pursuant to TNP Law.

That seems simple and clear enough, and unless this bill properly takes that obligation into account, I am unable to support it. As this proposal currently stands, it will allow certain abuses of duality to the detriment of TNP. Period.
Click to expand...
As Minister of Defense, I have to agree with Grosse on this.
 
meh...gross I cba to argue with you anymore regardless we wont change your preconcieved notions.

I support this but I do wonder if the right of duality should also be added at a later time to the bill of rights
 
Whenever I read one of Grosses posts about the NPA and "TNP is pro-defender" I have noticed that it always follows the same line of argument, which is essentially "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Oh Lordy help us all! The sky is falling!"

I also got that from several different members of the NPA so it clearly must have something to do with TNP tradition.
 
BW, it has nothing to do with your "Chicken Little" diatribe; it has everything to do with the history, traditions and fundamental principles of TNP.

The law goerning the MoD and the NPA was debated and adopted in October of 2005, after the Constitutional Conention and before we moed here from s2.

The voting thread at s3 is here.

In looking for that thread, BW, I noticed you were shown to be a Registere Voter although not a member of the RA at the time, as you posted in the discussion of that legislation. Thread here. I think it disingenuous on your part to act as ift his aspect of TNP is some ancient secret you didn't know of, because you were around when the law was adopted.
 
Ok first off, I'm sorry if I didn't give that act my full attention, I was a bit busy worrying about being persecuted for being a raider at all times oh and not to mention the fact the government was unwilling to recognize me as a legal citizen.

Second, if you actually read the thread instead of just throwing it like a brick you might have seen the part where I opposed it.

Lastly, I was not accepted into the RV until Nov 17, as seen here, while the bill was voted on in October of that year and actually finished Oct 16. I had no chance of voting on it, I wasn’t even a member of the RV never mind the RA at that time.

So, in conclusion, I have every damn right to bitch about this all I friggin please.

Also, I really am right about the Chicken Little thing, just replace "sky" with "history, traditions and fundamental principles of TNP". :ADN:
 
Could anyone please tell me how if the NPA battles against invaders in a far off region without even an embassy, consulate, or whatever in the North Pacific; would make those certain invaders be a threat to overthrow and weaken the duly elected government of the North Pacific?

For the love of Bokonon! We have an invader as the head of Minister of Culture & Education!! And he's been elected before, doesn't that count as being part of our "history" and since being re-elected one might even consider as a "tradition?"
 
Blue Wolf, the point was you were aware of the legislation at the time it was being debated and discussed.

You may have been against the legislation personally, but that's not really the point in citing to that thread. The primary objection to the bill in that thread was over the Ministry of External Affairs portion of the legislation, and the fact that Tresville insisted on bringing the entire package as a single bill, and not the MoD/NPA portion. I think it is a fair assessment to say that there was no real objection to the MoD/NPA portion of the legislation.

The fact that you are an invader is not what creates the remaining problem with the current bill, it is the situation where any invader who acquired TNP citizenship and then takes up arms against the NPA in an authorized deployment of the official military forces of The North Pacific (i.e., the NPA). It is that aspect of the problems of duality that this legislation fails to address; and that makes the bill fatally flawed.
 
Blue Wolf, the point was you were aware of the legislation at the time it was being debated and discussed.
Click to expand...

Um, ya, I'm also aware of the Spanish Inquisition and the fall of the Soviet Union but that doesn't mean that my awareness of these events has anything to do with the events themselves. I fail to see your point.

I think it is a fair assessment to say that there was no real objection to the MoD/NPA portion of the legislation.
Click to expand...

Are you talking for me again? *Rips the "Blue Wolf" name tag off Grosse's chest* How many times have I told you, it's my name tag, not yours. I'm objecting to it now, even if your argument had any merit at all I still have the right to change my mind and oppose anything I damn well please. Things are not set in concrete.
 
mr_sniffles:
For the love of Bokonon! We have an invader as the head of Minister of Culture & Education!! And he's been elected before, doesn't that count as being part of our "history" and since being re-elected one might even consider as a "tradition?"
Click to expand...

Yup! And I am his deputy and am a member of DEN. Let us not forget Fedele either or Scardino. All raiders.

Also, wasn't Democratic Donkeys a raider as well? I read something I think about his infiltration of the ADN. Or maybe I am wrong.
 
Gross, I may be completly wrong but it does seem that your viewpoint is still that the constitution should not allow RA members to be defenders because the NPA is defender. If taht viewpoint became law you remove a persons right to play the game as they wish, you actually go against the bill of rights. And you attempt to push that viewpoint on the region yourself, throwing in the overly used arguement that "duality/npia oversight/gardeners" (delete as appropriate) leads to an "The Enemy Within" situation. Which is again baseless and a blatant attempt imo of using the politics of fear against the region. Indeed, if you think about it, you bias towards defending and swaying the debate to benifit that viewpoint makes you the enemy within, if you follow your arguements!



The fact remains this is the best peice of legislation to deal with duality TNP has delivered.
 
By the way, I am more than content to have this come to vote, and if it should pass, have the courts decide on the constitutionality of it.
 
Joshua:
mr_sniffles:
For the love of Bokonon! We have an invader as the head of Minister of Culture & Education!! And he's been elected before, doesn't that count as being part of our "history" and since being re-elected one might even consider as a "tradition?"
Click to expand...

Yup! And I am his deputy and am a member of DEN. Let us not forget Fedele either or Scardino. All raiders.

Also, wasn't Democratic Donkeys a raider as well? I read something I think about his infiltration of the ADN. Or maybe I am wrong.
Click to expand...
Fedele's activities as MoCE during the NP war with the Lexicon were legendary!!
 
Okay this is going to a vote.

I apologize for a certain delay, vote will begin between June the First and June the Second, to end between June the Seventh and June the Eighth.
 
Gross, I may be completly wrong but it does seem that your viewpoint is still that the constitution should not allow RA members to be defenders because the NPA is defender. If taht viewpoint became law you remove a persons right to play the game as they wish, you actually go against the bill of rights. And you attempt to push that viewpoint on the region yourself, throwing in the overly used arguement that "duality/npia oversight/gardeners" (delete as appropriate) leads to an "The Enemy Within" situation. Which is again baseless and a blatant attempt imo of using the politics of fear against the region. Indeed, if you think about it, you bias towards defending and swaying the debate to benifit that viewpoint makes you the enemy within, if you follow your arguements!
Click to expand...

Since your hypothesis is wrong, we don't need to respond further, do we?
 
fulhead land:
Gross, I may be completly wrong but it does seem that your viewpoint is still that the constitution should not allow RA members to be defenders because the NPA is defender.
Click to expand...

I have read this six or seven times and it STILL makes no sense to me. Perhaps FL will clarify?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top