Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
As proposed by Lewis and Clark:
There will be a short formal discussion period before this goes to a vote.
There will be a short formal discussion period before this goes to a vote.
Proposed Law on Regional Assembly Membership
- Thread starter Grosseschnauzer
- Start date
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Very well written. I agree with this as written.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
Section One, Clause 5 needs further clarification as per comments in the formal discussion regarding proxy usage!!
The oath in which the leader of a nation pledges not register multiple nations does not sit with the in-character oath from a nation's leader!!
OOC: As currently worded a player could create multiple nations and register corresponding forum accounts and take this oath with each forum account referring only to the corresponding TNP nation and not breach TNP law.
The oath in which the leader of a nation pledges not register multiple nations does not sit with the in-character oath from a nation's leader!!
OOC: As currently worded a player could create multiple nations and register corresponding forum accounts and take this oath with each forum account referring only to the corresponding TNP nation and not breach TNP law.
How 'bout adding this, borrowed from Roman -
As to the issue with the Oath, this just copies the Oath from the existing TNP Law #1. So to change the Oath, Law #1 needs to be amended.
The Oath could be removed from this legislation, and instead refer to Law #1, but it seemed better to me to have the whole thing together in one peice of legislation.
As to the issue with the Oath, this just copies the Oath from the existing TNP Law #1. So to change the Oath, Law #1 needs to be amended.
The Oath could be removed from this legislation, and instead refer to Law #1, but it seemed better to me to have the whole thing together in one peice of legislation.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
That will clarify the proxy usage, thanks!!
As for the oath, I know its the same oath as before but I think its a bit all over the place!! Either its an in-character oath by the member nation's leader or its an oath by a player which then creates a situation whereby you are in the TNP and nowhere else in NationStates as every single nation a player controls will be held to the laws of TNP!!
This is the very essence of a recent trial and also of most conflicts within TNP!!
Admittedly, as the oath is the same as the current one we have this will not or should not block passage of this legislation but I just wanted to point out that perhaps the oath needs to be revisited at some point to rectify this!!
As for the oath, I know its the same oath as before but I think its a bit all over the place!! Either its an in-character oath by the member nation's leader or its an oath by a player which then creates a situation whereby you are in the TNP and nowhere else in NationStates as every single nation a player controls will be held to the laws of TNP!!
This is the very essence of a recent trial and also of most conflicts within TNP!!
Admittedly, as the oath is the same as the current one we have this will not or should not block passage of this legislation but I just wanted to point out that perhaps the oath needs to be revisited at some point to rectify this!!
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Very good! Nice application I didn't think of in those terms.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
L&C, Law 1 is an oath of office provision, and is not the oath used under the previous Constitution for applying to RA membership. You might want to check both and see which was the oath you borrowed from.
The previous constitution can be found in the Constitution and Legal Code subforum, but you would need to change the search parameter to "from the beginning" to locate the thread.
The previous constitution can be found in the Constitution and Legal Code subforum, but you would need to change the search parameter to "from the beginning" to locate the thread.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
One other thing I should point out is that the oath L&C used was the original version when the former Constitution was adopted in the NPC and not as the application oath was amended in October of 2006. It would make sense to start from the revised application oath, as that is the one everyone currently in the RA has taken.
It's clear that this bill is not yet ready for a final vote, so I will leave it in formal discussion until the sponsor has a chance to decide whether to accept any changes in the oath text or decides to have the bill as is move ahead to a vote.
It's clear that this bill is not yet ready for a final vote, so I will leave it in formal discussion until the sponsor has a chance to decide whether to accept any changes in the oath text or decides to have the bill as is move ahead to a vote.
One problem with the existing oath is that the only reason it allows for leaving the region is NPA deployment. There can be other legitimate reasons for official government deployment out of region.
Here is a hybrid of the previous RA Oath, and the one in the proposal. Changes from the original proposal are in blue. I remain open to futher suggested changes:
Here is a hybrid of the previous RA Oath, and the one in the proposal. Changes from the original proposal are in blue. I remain open to futher suggested changes:
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
One question that needs to be addressed is whether to require current RA members to re-post the new oath. That was the procedure we followed last time; we gave everyone a period of time to re-post and then placed the remainder in a "suspended RA member" group.
IF we don't have access to an accurate RA member list with the TNP and UN nations, then such a procedure would make it a lot easier to initially verofy membership.
The other concern is that Article II Section 2 Clause 1 does not address a situation where an RA member's TNP nation of record is no longer in TNP at Nationstates. Unless the Speaker is notified by the appropriate official that the member's nation is out of the region on official business, the Speaker should be empowered to remove an RA member from the Assembly for CTE or for the lack of having a TNP nation on record with the Speaker. And it should be the duty of the RA member to keep that information current with the Speaker or the Speaker's designated deputy.
IF we don't have access to an accurate RA member list with the TNP and UN nations, then such a procedure would make it a lot easier to initially verofy membership.
The other concern is that Article II Section 2 Clause 1 does not address a situation where an RA member's TNP nation of record is no longer in TNP at Nationstates. Unless the Speaker is notified by the appropriate official that the member's nation is out of the region on official business, the Speaker should be empowered to remove an RA member from the Assembly for CTE or for the lack of having a TNP nation on record with the Speaker. And it should be the duty of the RA member to keep that information current with the Speaker or the Speaker's designated deputy.
HEM
TNPer
I wanted to suggest article III, section two to:
1. Assembly members who's nation has CTE'd (Ceased to Exist) that have been active on the forum 72 hours previous, shall get one warning via Private Message from the Speaker to create a new nation within 48 hours or be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker.
1. Assembly members who's nation has CTE'd (Ceased to Exist) that have been active on the forum 72 hours previous, shall get one warning via Private Message from the Speaker to create a new nation within 48 hours or be removed from membership automatically by the Speaker.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
From my reading of this thread these are the remaining unsettled questions:
1. Should there be a provision to remove RA membership from those nations listed on the RA membership list that are no longer located in The North Pacific and are not absent due to official government business. It could require an inquiry, but there really needs to be something in order to prevent those who no longer reside in the region from voting in the RA and voting in elections.
2. Should there b a warning for removal due to CTE'd nations at nationststes?
3. Any other changes in the oath?
4. Should all current RA members be required to post the new oath as a condition of continued active RA member status? If there is such a requirement, how long should RA members have?
Assuming I'm reading the thread correctly, I'll go ahead and incorporate the change relating to the proxy server issue and the text of the oath as the discussion currently stands. L&C am I correct on that reading?
1. Should there be a provision to remove RA membership from those nations listed on the RA membership list that are no longer located in The North Pacific and are not absent due to official government business. It could require an inquiry, but there really needs to be something in order to prevent those who no longer reside in the region from voting in the RA and voting in elections.
2. Should there b a warning for removal due to CTE'd nations at nationststes?
3. Any other changes in the oath?
4. Should all current RA members be required to post the new oath as a condition of continued active RA member status? If there is such a requirement, how long should RA members have?
Assuming I'm reading the thread correctly, I'll go ahead and incorporate the change relating to the proxy server issue and the text of the oath as the discussion currently stands. L&C am I correct on that reading?
Yes, thank you !
I think this would be a good idea. It would give us a clear and easy way to establish a viable RA membership roster. I'm thinking that ten to fourteen days would be sufficient to provide for existing members to post the new Oath.
While I think it would be nice to do so, it really is the responsiblity of each person to keep their nations alive and active. The burden of activity in-game and on-forum should be on the individual.
I don't think that an additional provision is needed. If someone is no longer located in TNP, and are not on official business, they have violated their Oath and can be removed.
I'm open to any suggestions.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
UPDATED PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION
Here is the current text of the proposed law with the change in the proxy server and oath text. (I've also corrected the reference to "registered voter" to "Regional Asssembly member," since there is no such thing as registered voters these days.)
Here is the current text of the proposed law with the change in the proxy server and oath text. (I've also corrected the reference to "registered voter" to "Regional Asssembly member," since there is no such thing as registered voters these days.)
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Now, I wish to continue the conversation with L&C on a couple of points.
This is the procedure that was used when the application oath was last amended, and could serve as a basis for the process this time:
Should we just adapt this? From a forum administration viewpoint, the suspended RA member mask already exists, so it would be a matter of tracking who has and has not complied. In addition, I wouldn't object if we wanted to give say, 10 days, rather than seven days.
Lewis and Clark:
This is the procedure that was used when the application oath was last amended, and could serve as a basis for the process this time:
Should we just adapt this? From a forum administration viewpoint, the suspended RA member mask already exists, so it would be a matter of tracking who has and has not complied. In addition, I wouldn't object if we wanted to give say, 10 days, rather than seven days.
The problem is that under the current draft of this proposed law, the removal would have to be by due process, without any indication of what that entails. A full trial every time this happens (which is more frequent that some may realize) would be cumbersome and ineffective. I think the following would be a fair and viable alternative:Lewis and Clark:
Really, I have no problem with any of that, I'd welcome it's incorporation into the proposal. Let's just make sure it points to the correct portion of the new constitution so that it's appropriately relevent.
And I don't have an objection to making the period granted for posting the Oath seven days rather than 10 or 14, especially since it apparently won't cause any additional masking headaches.
Enabling the Speaker to easy handle removals is certainly a good thing.
And I don't have an objection to making the period granted for posting the Oath seven days rather than 10 or 14, especially since it apparently won't cause any additional masking headaches.
Enabling the Speaker to easy handle removals is certainly a good thing.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I've incorporated the additions L&C and I have discussed above and unless there is something further, this proposal will go to a vote of the Regional Assembly beginning at 0000GMT ON 10 January.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
One of the applicants wwhose RA application has just sent me a PM because he can't find the appropriate thread (more accurately this subforum is limited to RA members for posting; which means we're going to have to either create a new subforunm for the applications under the RA area, or move voting and final discussion into a new third-level subforum and allow non-RA members access to this subforum so they can access the application thread.
(This subforum was limited as the result of a motion that was passed in the RA so it wasn't repealed by the new Constitution.)
(This subforum was limited as the result of a motion that was passed in the RA so it wasn't repealed by the new Constitution.)