New Kervoskia
TNPer
Okay, you can charge me now.
CLO
- Thread starter New Kervoskia
- Start date
mr_sniffles
TNPer
(whoops sorry, thought you could see the CLO. Well this is what I posted an hour ago. Please notice that we especially picked out only the purple M&M as you requested.)
Alright let's settle this matter once and for all. FIRST OFF: I AM NOT TRYING TO BRING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT OR THINK SOME KIND OF WATERGATE IS HAPPENING. And for the sake of saving me from an impending headache and/or week long booze bender, I'd just like some questions to be answered by the government. If not answered soon, I'll bring it to the office of the Minister of Justice.
First off, while I may disagree with this policy of security pre-screening some statements need further elaboration.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken but is there an application to apply to the RA? If not then how did this enter into the government's radar? Is the government pre-screening who may apply to the RA?
If the nation was not banned and only had a questionable past then what criteria does the government use in pre-screening?
Obviously the nation in question would be rejected either way, thus suspending the action does not good. Legislation only interferes with the Constitutional powers already outlined. What I feel we need to get at is the process of how the executives are screening potential RA applicants. If they are bypassing the Speaker then that's a Constitutional violation, if they feel the Con obligation of security requires prescreening then an Amendment (nasty affair really in this atmosphere) will be required. Since both arguments could be constitutionally valid. I would request a Judicial hearing.
Let the government explain itself first, they deserve that right as it was their decision. I'd like to say that these public hearings are a great idea and I commend the government for publishing it. However should no sort of compromise in the form guidelines be accomplished in this screening process then a judicial hearing will be required. Kids, you guys work this out or the mommy with the big hammer will have to do it for you.
I await the government's response to the following:
1) How did the nation come to the government's attention?
a) If the government is obligated to filter potential applicants before they reach the Speaker then some sort of guideline or agreement will need to be put in place. What is the Del's position?
2) Why is the Justice minister knee deep in security, and the Defense minister in the dark?
3) Will this be the policy for future nations thinking of citizenship?
4) If the nation was so dangerous that even considering his/her application would be so dangerous, why was there not an outright ban soon after?
5) What's the pay like for watching new entries into the region? Because it sounds really boring and there has to be some really pretty carrots at the end of the stick.
Alright let's settle this matter once and for all. FIRST OFF: I AM NOT TRYING TO BRING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT OR THINK SOME KIND OF WATERGATE IS HAPPENING. And for the sake of saving me from an impending headache and/or week long booze bender, I'd just like some questions to be answered by the government. If not answered soon, I'll bring it to the office of the Minister of Justice.
First off, while I may disagree with this policy of security pre-screening some statements need further elaboration.
.NF:
Please correct me if I'm mistaken but is there an application to apply to the RA? If not then how did this enter into the government's radar? Is the government pre-screening who may apply to the RA?
If the nation was not banned and only had a questionable past then what criteria does the government use in pre-screening?
Obviously the nation in question would be rejected either way, thus suspending the action does not good. Legislation only interferes with the Constitutional powers already outlined. What I feel we need to get at is the process of how the executives are screening potential RA applicants. If they are bypassing the Speaker then that's a Constitutional violation, if they feel the Con obligation of security requires prescreening then an Amendment (nasty affair really in this atmosphere) will be required. Since both arguments could be constitutionally valid. I would request a Judicial hearing.
Let the government explain itself first, they deserve that right as it was their decision. I'd like to say that these public hearings are a great idea and I commend the government for publishing it. However should no sort of compromise in the form guidelines be accomplished in this screening process then a judicial hearing will be required. Kids, you guys work this out or the mommy with the big hammer will have to do it for you.
I await the government's response to the following:
1) How did the nation come to the government's attention?
a) If the government is obligated to filter potential applicants before they reach the Speaker then some sort of guideline or agreement will need to be put in place. What is the Del's position?
2) Why is the Justice minister knee deep in security, and the Defense minister in the dark?
3) Will this be the policy for future nations thinking of citizenship?
4) If the nation was so dangerous that even considering his/her application would be so dangerous, why was there not an outright ban soon after?
5) What's the pay like for watching new entries into the region? Because it sounds really boring and there has to be some really pretty carrots at the end of the stick.
First, I would remind Administration that I requested that Deputies not have access here, and I am told by a deputy that he can access here. Thanks for your attention.
I would say that the questions and thoughts you've presented come from a number of inaccurate assumptions. Which is understandable.
Govindia has been banned from many regions, forums and IRC channels. Unfortunately, Thel decided to unban him from the #tnp channel two weeks ago. He is self-focused, and demands all attention be placed upon himself. He monopolizes conversations, constantly demands everyone talk to him in query and generally makes a pest of himself. He harrasses people, practically stalks them, and refuses to accept other people's opinions. Frankly, I've been one of the most tolerant of him.
When he was on the Equilism channel, every single person in the channel begged me to ban him. I did not. I gave all ops permission to do so, should he get out of hand. And I did have to warn him multiple times. He was banned following several incidents in the channel.
It took TWP months to get rid of him. Finally TAO said enough and banned him. Gov appealed and the ban was upheld. Gov still does not recognize that ban as legitimate.
He has been begging me to 'help' TNP for weeks now.
Certainly, we all know that he could come here on the forum and apply to the RA. There is absolutely nothing to stop him from doing that. And no one has told him otherwise. So no interference in his rights has been engaged.
No one is sitting watching to screen people as you've assumed. This is an individual issue, stemming from his constant troubles in communities around NS, and Thel's unbanning on the IRC channel. Gov was asked about his troubles in other regions, and he consented to a public IRC hearing. Which is what NK posted.
So to your questions -
1) I believe I've covered this
a) A filtering of applicants is not being established. However, when a potential security issues comes to my attention, it will be addressed. It is indeed my obligation under the constitution to ensure regional security.
2) I don't understand this question. The Defense Minister was involved and aware of this situation at all times. A hearing, however, fits under the office of Justice.
3) I beleive I've already addressed this as well.
4) Because regional security also must take Influence into account. And I do not see enough value in wasting Influence on a formal ban of his nation. Being a Minnow Delegate has it's disadvantages.
5) Sorry, I'm still waiting on NK to establish a regional treasury so we can have some actual cash to pay with.
I would say that the questions and thoughts you've presented come from a number of inaccurate assumptions. Which is understandable.
Govindia has been banned from many regions, forums and IRC channels. Unfortunately, Thel decided to unban him from the #tnp channel two weeks ago. He is self-focused, and demands all attention be placed upon himself. He monopolizes conversations, constantly demands everyone talk to him in query and generally makes a pest of himself. He harrasses people, practically stalks them, and refuses to accept other people's opinions. Frankly, I've been one of the most tolerant of him.
When he was on the Equilism channel, every single person in the channel begged me to ban him. I did not. I gave all ops permission to do so, should he get out of hand. And I did have to warn him multiple times. He was banned following several incidents in the channel.
It took TWP months to get rid of him. Finally TAO said enough and banned him. Gov appealed and the ban was upheld. Gov still does not recognize that ban as legitimate.
He has been begging me to 'help' TNP for weeks now.
Certainly, we all know that he could come here on the forum and apply to the RA. There is absolutely nothing to stop him from doing that. And no one has told him otherwise. So no interference in his rights has been engaged.
No one is sitting watching to screen people as you've assumed. This is an individual issue, stemming from his constant troubles in communities around NS, and Thel's unbanning on the IRC channel. Gov was asked about his troubles in other regions, and he consented to a public IRC hearing. Which is what NK posted.
So to your questions -
1) I believe I've covered this
a) A filtering of applicants is not being established. However, when a potential security issues comes to my attention, it will be addressed. It is indeed my obligation under the constitution to ensure regional security.
2) I don't understand this question. The Defense Minister was involved and aware of this situation at all times. A hearing, however, fits under the office of Justice.
3) I beleive I've already addressed this as well.
4) Because regional security also must take Influence into account. And I do not see enough value in wasting Influence on a formal ban of his nation. Being a Minnow Delegate has it's disadvantages.
5) Sorry, I'm still waiting on NK to establish a regional treasury so we can have some actual cash to pay with.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
Thank you very much for your cooperation and for your answers, I really thought for a second there I'd have to bust out a bottle of scotch just to settle this matter. I've thought from the beginning that this doesn't have a "use my powers improperly of dispose of my enemies" feel to it and you've proven me right (which is quite rare.)
Anyways, I am very glad that your testimony has settled this matter. However being annoying doesn't justify a rejection of citizenship (I can name a couple other citizens who wouldn't be here if such a policy was legal) and as such I cannot uphold your MoJ's decision. Denying his/her's fair opportunity to be rejected by the Speaker is not legal. Nor does circumventing the proper channels (the Speaker) to achieve a goal we all support. As such, I ask that the findings of the hearing be rejected. Obviously I only have the authority to ask questions or bring to a vote with a supermajority's consent to overturn it. Which is completely unnecessary, wasteful, divisive, and a mockery of our Constitution. If not done, then I will be forced to subject the region to this annoyance. The same annoyance you would wish us to avoid by halting his/her application.
So I ask that you allow Govinda to be allowed to apply and be rejected as rightly so for a history of proxy server use. Even if allowed and TNP Law 28 wasn't strong enough a case, then the potential for breach of TNP Law 27 would be more then enough.
I am very confident that Govinda would be rejected no matter what. I do however ask for further discretion in these matters, despite the partisanship of late, we are still all striving for a stronger united North Pacific. Simply informing the Speaker of the situation would have averted this entire mess. The political winds have shifted and the old guard has been replaced but we're still working for a better North Pacific. To be honest, this whole matter could have been avoided solely if you had campaigned against his application or at least informed the Speaker of his/her prior crimes. I do hope that you will accept my recommendations as a vote will simply be a bickering match, a turf war over the most trivial of matters.
I'm also quite disappointed that I'm the only CLO around.... hmmm
Anyways, I am very glad that your testimony has settled this matter. However being annoying doesn't justify a rejection of citizenship (I can name a couple other citizens who wouldn't be here if such a policy was legal) and as such I cannot uphold your MoJ's decision. Denying his/her's fair opportunity to be rejected by the Speaker is not legal. Nor does circumventing the proper channels (the Speaker) to achieve a goal we all support. As such, I ask that the findings of the hearing be rejected. Obviously I only have the authority to ask questions or bring to a vote with a supermajority's consent to overturn it. Which is completely unnecessary, wasteful, divisive, and a mockery of our Constitution. If not done, then I will be forced to subject the region to this annoyance. The same annoyance you would wish us to avoid by halting his/her application.
So I ask that you allow Govinda to be allowed to apply and be rejected as rightly so for a history of proxy server use. Even if allowed and TNP Law 28 wasn't strong enough a case, then the potential for breach of TNP Law 27 would be more then enough.
I am very confident that Govinda would be rejected no matter what. I do however ask for further discretion in these matters, despite the partisanship of late, we are still all striving for a stronger united North Pacific. Simply informing the Speaker of the situation would have averted this entire mess. The political winds have shifted and the old guard has been replaced but we're still working for a better North Pacific. To be honest, this whole matter could have been avoided solely if you had campaigned against his application or at least informed the Speaker of his/her prior crimes. I do hope that you will accept my recommendations as a vote will simply be a bickering match, a turf war over the most trivial of matters.
I'm also quite disappointed that I'm the only CLO around.... hmmm
New Kervoskia
TNPer
I will change my decision, but keep the hearing transcript up for all eternity.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
deal
FALCONKATS
TNPer
Sorry for barely coming in but have had some IT troubles but taken care of that now but for the replys that i have seen and have read that if this particular nation as caused trouble in other regions why do he want to be admitted into this region. I am deeply troubled that a decision was made without input from the CLO.
Glad to see you 'round.
Input from the CLO is not required, they are simply given speaking rights in the Cabinet.
Really, as I said, there's nothing stopping Gov from making an application, so that is fine. It was Gov requesting this permission to apply in the first place. Part of his obsession with bringing attention to himself. The Hearing still provides a fair and public sounding of some of the issues surrounding this individual. So should he apply, it can be considered as submitted for the Speaker's consideration.
Input from the CLO is not required, they are simply given speaking rights in the Cabinet.
Really, as I said, there's nothing stopping Gov from making an application, so that is fine. It was Gov requesting this permission to apply in the first place. Part of his obsession with bringing attention to himself. The Hearing still provides a fair and public sounding of some of the issues surrounding this individual. So should he apply, it can be considered as submitted for the Speaker's consideration.
New Kervoskia
TNPer
He wants to come here because everyone else banned and ejected him. He's banned in TWP and Taijitu, is an Enemy of the State in TP, and is banned in TSP.
The CLO was not informed because it was not seen as a matter for the CLO. It was a security matter between the delegate and the respective ministries.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
Security matter?
Read what your boss wrote or there's going to be another round of questioning.
New Kervoskia
TNPer
I used the past-tense, old top. At the time we saw it as a security threat so I didn't come to the CLO. He wanted a reason so I gave one.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
As I pointed out earlier, there is nothing in Law 28 preventing the Delegate and his appointees from providing information to the Speaker concerning an applicant for Regional Assembly membership, and should Govindia apply, you are more than welcome to submit whatever information y'all deem pertinent concerning him or in the future, others.
I acted on six of the 10 pending RA applicants last night, and they were all admitted. As soon as the other four submit the revised oath, then I will do the various checks and respond to them as well.
L&C you might want to send me an PM about who the deputy is that claims being able to see the private Cabinet forum. When I set up the masking to limit visibility I did it through the user groups masking and not by individual. It's possible there is something that was individually changed that I'm not aware of. Keep in mind that the backroom set up for the forum maskings at these forums is fairly complex, and its possible something escaped notice. And as I've told you before, you'll get a far more timely response if you'd use a PM.
I acted on six of the 10 pending RA applicants last night, and they were all admitted. As soon as the other four submit the revised oath, then I will do the various checks and respond to them as well.
L&C you might want to send me an PM about who the deputy is that claims being able to see the private Cabinet forum. When I set up the masking to limit visibility I did it through the user groups masking and not by individual. It's possible there is something that was individually changed that I'm not aware of. Keep in mind that the backroom set up for the forum maskings at these forums is fairly complex, and its possible something escaped notice. And as I've told you before, you'll get a far more timely response if you'd use a PM.
King Durk the Awesome
TNPer
Edit: nevermind
New Kervoskia
TNPer
Okay, but if you all repeat the same point again, I'm going to have an aneurysm.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
It doesn't matter if it's past or present, it was never a security matter spider expert.
New Kervoskia
TNPer
He asked for a reason, kiddo, so I gave one. I thought it was so that was my reason. It's that simple.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
so you were initially misled to believe that it was a issue of security and not the true reason that the Del stated?
New Kervoskia
TNPer
The Lord Jesus Christ came down from heaven and told me what to do.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
cute.
FALCONKATS
TNPer
I believe that there was a clear abuse of power so would like to know why the CLO would be kept out and if it was a security matter then no one from the defense arena was not consulted.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
The main issue here is that absolutely none of you can get your stories straight.
Your MoJ claims it was a security concern but L&W claims:
The Del claims:
Yet at the end of NK files, he states:
As you have already agreed to lift the sanction on Gov applying, I'm willing to let the matter rest as it is a new Constitution and there are new rules we're all getting used to. Gov is not in the least eligible for citizenship anyways, it's inconcievable that the Speaker would allow his application to proceed given his history. But you guys are only making it harder for yourselves by getting all mixed up.
A statement from your MoJ either retracting or correcting this will end all of this. If the government refuses to act then proper measures ensured in our Constitution will be put in place.
Your MoJ claims it was a security concern but L&W claims:
The Del claims:
L&W:
Yet at the end of NK files, he states:
NK:
As you have already agreed to lift the sanction on Gov applying, I'm willing to let the matter rest as it is a new Constitution and there are new rules we're all getting used to. Gov is not in the least eligible for citizenship anyways, it's inconcievable that the Speaker would allow his application to proceed given his history. But you guys are only making it harder for yourselves by getting all mixed up.
A statement from your MoJ either retracting or correcting this will end all of this. If the government refuses to act then proper measures ensured in our Constitution will be put in place.
New Kervoskia
TNPer
A compaction retraction would be the proper action, but that faction wants inaction so it's absurd to take the word delivered from a bird who uses the law as a claw to make others crawl.
New Kervoskia
TNPer
Oh, yes, I only asked the first three questions posted. The rest were asked by Dali or LC. I didn't see why it'd matter who asked what. So there. Oy gevalt.
- TNP Nation
- Angel of Wine
As much as I find it quite quaint we are having this fireside chat, I feel the need to become involved in a discussion I hoped would have solved itself.
I have my own question I wish to ask, for the all-knowing members of the CLO: I believe you assume that I, as the Cabinet member incharge of Defence and Security, am "in the dark". Do you have any evidence to support this view? Do you think you know more than I do in regards to the defence and security of our region? If so, I certainly am hopeful that you will keep me informed.
If you have any questions regards to my duties, I expect you to ask me directly.
I have my own question I wish to ask, for the all-knowing members of the CLO: I believe you assume that I, as the Cabinet member incharge of Defence and Security, am "in the dark". Do you have any evidence to support this view? Do you think you know more than I do in regards to the defence and security of our region? If so, I certainly am hopeful that you will keep me informed.
If you have any questions regards to my duties, I expect you to ask me directly.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
New Kervoskia
TNPer
Oh, such an attitude you have. Dali was extremely helpful, but I guess one can't see the whole picture all the time. Right, sonny Jim?
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Here's my take on this after reading this thread and poking around a bit.
"Pre-screening" of RA applications is not a good path to take, whether or not it has been done or not.
Primarily, when someone submits an application to become a member of the RA, the only thing that can technically be examined is whether or not the applicant meets the specific requirements. If the applicant meets the minimum requirements, then there is no other action available than to approve the application, strictly speaking. To take into account suspected previous violations that have never been adjudicated or expunged, would be an ex-post-facto violation to some extent.
However, if an RA application is granted under any circumstances because it is required as a result of minimum requirements and some security threat is known or discovered, then revoking the RA application/membership would be justified if said condition is on-going or taken to trial as a violation of law on the part of the applicant.
In any circumstances, after the RA application is granted (the applicant meeting the minimum requirements) any suspected violations or potential security risks to the region or government should be made available to the responsible security authorities, but only after the application has been granted.
Only if there is a previous violation of law or act of hostility or war by the applicant against TNP would there be sufficient cause or reason to deny the application.
Putting on my judge hat, I would say that there would have to be a very compelling reason (violation of law, previous act of war, etc.,,,) to justify an outright denial of the application to the RA.
Putting on my CLO hat, legislation is needed to clarify this whole issue. Other that running through some very quick legislation to rectify, define and refine the law on this matter, there should really be no reason for the CLO to act on this matter - excepting a situation where said applicant might be an agent of a hostile government or organization.
"Pre-screening" of RA applications is not a good path to take, whether or not it has been done or not.
Primarily, when someone submits an application to become a member of the RA, the only thing that can technically be examined is whether or not the applicant meets the specific requirements. If the applicant meets the minimum requirements, then there is no other action available than to approve the application, strictly speaking. To take into account suspected previous violations that have never been adjudicated or expunged, would be an ex-post-facto violation to some extent.
However, if an RA application is granted under any circumstances because it is required as a result of minimum requirements and some security threat is known or discovered, then revoking the RA application/membership would be justified if said condition is on-going or taken to trial as a violation of law on the part of the applicant.
In any circumstances, after the RA application is granted (the applicant meeting the minimum requirements) any suspected violations or potential security risks to the region or government should be made available to the responsible security authorities, but only after the application has been granted.
Only if there is a previous violation of law or act of hostility or war by the applicant against TNP would there be sufficient cause or reason to deny the application.
Putting on my judge hat, I would say that there would have to be a very compelling reason (violation of law, previous act of war, etc.,,,) to justify an outright denial of the application to the RA.
Putting on my CLO hat, legislation is needed to clarify this whole issue. Other that running through some very quick legislation to rectify, define and refine the law on this matter, there should really be no reason for the CLO to act on this matter - excepting a situation where said applicant might be an agent of a hostile government or organization.
King Durk the Awesome
TNPer
I wub it when we pass legislation with the sole intent of clarification. Just what we need 
New Kervoskia
TNPer
I know! MO would be so proud of how we're molesting...er raising...her baby.I wub it when we pass legislation with the sole intent of clarification. Just what we need
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Eh - The role of the CLO is essential to act as an 'advise and consent' (even if consent means not commenting or acting) body.I know! MO would be so proud of how we're molesting...er raising...her baby.I wub it when we pass legislation with the sole intent of clarification. Just what we need
And it is inevitable that all systems drift from the simple to complex over time. Gotta close up the loop-holes before they get abused. And when things get to complex, we tear it down and start all over again!
It's the natural evolution of things.
New Kervoskia
TNPer
Yes, but only TNP does it in less than a year.Eh - The role of the CLO is essential to act as an 'advise and consent' (even if consent means not commenting or acting) body.I know! MO would be so proud of how we're molesting...er raising...her baby.I wub it when we pass legislation with the sole intent of clarification. Just what we need
And it is inevitable that all systems drift from the simple to complex over time. Gotta close up the loop-holes before they get abused. And when things get to complex, we tear it down and start all over again!
It's the natural evolution of things.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
The Delegate has already stated that he will allow Gov be allowed to apply and be rejected. This issue is dead why the MoJ still thinks he's relevant in this matter by making misleading statements is anyone's guess. But I for one don't care.
New Kervoskia
TNPer
Ahhh, how cute, sniffles thinks he's righteous.
King Durk the Awesome
TNPer
Obviously NK is getting under Sniffles' skin - hence he cares. Amusing.
This needs to stop now. I see Cabinet and CLO members testing how far they can push each other, and it doesn't become you.
The CLO has very limited and narrowly defined parameters in the Constitution. They do not include advise and consent, nor do they include a veto of Executive policy. They do include speaking privleges and the ability for a supermajority to place a temporary hold on executive action, to prevent a hasty decision or choice. It does not allow the CLO to complete veto actions and policies.
The Hearing that Gov willingly consented and asked for is on the record for the consideration of the Speaker, should Gov choose to apply for the RA, as it is clearly his right to do.
The CLO has very limited and narrowly defined parameters in the Constitution. They do not include advise and consent, nor do they include a veto of Executive policy. They do include speaking privleges and the ability for a supermajority to place a temporary hold on executive action, to prevent a hasty decision or choice. It does not allow the CLO to complete veto actions and policies.
The Hearing that Gov willingly consented and asked for is on the record for the consideration of the Speaker, should Gov choose to apply for the RA, as it is clearly his right to do.
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
No one ever said that the CLO has veto authority. It does, however, have the authority to push certain legislation and to request a halt to certain actions (as does any other citizen or group in the region).
IOW, I could, if requested as such, in my capacity as a Court Justice, grant an injunction against said action if directly requested to do so, but only based upon legal and constitutional grounds if such grounds exist.
Arbitrary denials and pre-screening of applicants with the result of outright denial of an application to the RA calls into question certain principles of civil liberties and assorted rights of individuals and nations.
Also, as with any young government, they do not become entirely functional until certain precedents are set that can be used as foundation blocks for the development of said government.
R