Bill Proposal

B

Byardkuria

TNPer
In response to Elu's concerns about the legality of kicking a recruiter that specifically indicated refusal to abide by Haiku week.




Be it resolved, by the assembled nations of The North Pacific -

Whereas, the Regional Message Board is the de facto communications center of the region, to the extent that all North Pacificans are concerned; and

recognizing that it is filled daily with little more than attempts to lure The North Pacific's member nations away from this, their home; and

acknowledging that many nations have no desire to move, and would prefer that their center for cultural development not devolve into a classified ad;

WE, the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific, do hereby grant unto the duly elected Regional Delegate the power to eject, and/or ban, Recruiter Nations from The North Pacific, under the following conditions -

1.  a Recruiter Nation shall be any nation which posts a message or messages to the Regional Message Board with intent to advertise, or entice nations to move to, any other Region.

2.  the Delegate, intending to exercise this provision, must establish specific, demonstrable, reasonable, and appropriate conditions, violations of which may result in ejection or banning. In addition;

  2a.  these conditions must not attempt to cause Recruiter Nations to violate NationStates Rules, or any law or regulation of the North Pacific;
  2b.  these conditions must not unduly interfere with the Recruiter Nations ability to post their recruitment messages;
  2c.  these conditions must be posted at the designated off-site forum, in a post accessible to all viewers of the forum; and
  2d.  either a link to, URL for, or the full text of, these conditions must also be posted in the World Factbook Entry for The North Pacific.

3.  these conditions may be changed at the will of the Delegate, but must allow a period of no less than 24 hours between any substantial alteration of the conditions and their initial enforcement.

4.  the Delegate must promptly inform the Government of any nations banned under this provision, with an explicit citation of cause for the ban.

The provisions of this law shall in no way be construed or interpreted to restrict or abridge the right of any Nation to seek judicial review of its ejection or ban under the Constitution of The North Pacific, or any other applicable law.
Click to expand...
 
We'd have to make it retroactive to properly protect Elu if this is the purpose of this bill.

And are we declaring war on recruiters? Can't we just have fun with them and just say, either haiku or ban?
 
I'm not concerned about protecting Elu this time, it's just something to explicitly say "It's okay to screw around with recruiters, and kick them if they aren't willing to play."
 
Kor:
I could be wrong, but I believe it takes little to no influence to kick/ban them.
Click to expand...
Ok which brings me back to my original question, are we declaring war on recruiters? Don't the Pacific already got them beat?
 
Which is the system we currently have, with the exception that, on approving this bill, the Del won't feel the need to cite Law to justify his actions.
 
Dunno. You'd have to ask Elu - it was his decision.

Could he have let it go? Sure - it's his call.

Could he kick them? Maybe - it's not exactly spelled out. That's why I wrote this. No ulterior motives, no "war on recruiters." If the delegate wants to kick recruiters who refuse to respect our requests, this explicitly gives them power to do so. If they don't, they don't have to.
 
Personally I like this bill as it would make it crystal clear that I'm okay. As it is it is in fact potentially unclear.
 
Byardkuria:
Dunno. You'd have to ask Elu - it was his decision.

Could he have let it go? Sure - it's his call.

Could he kick them? Maybe - it's not exactly spelled out. That's why I wrote this. No ulterior motives, no "war on recruiters." If the delegate wants to kick recruiters who refuse to respect our requests, this explicitly gives them power to do so. If they don't, they don't have to.
Click to expand...
Well don't get me wrong, just curious. Personally I'd support a haiku or ejection amendment. Just think it's overkill for a page long law on banning recruiters. Do they really deserve this much attention? They're just an annoyance.
 
This is what happens when one pushes out perfectly workable constitutions that had already solved problems like this one.

It forces everything to be re-invented often the exact same way, once someone realizes the old solution was torn up.

If we want and need to say again what the region's policy is about spamming, then go ahead. But for frak's sake can we please have thread titles that tell the reader what the Bill is about? "Bill Proposal" just doesn't cut it in my book.
 
How about just saying that all TNP Citizens have the right to not be banned without just cause, or something? So much more elegant.
 
The obvious solution is to just change every instance of "Nation" in the Bill of Rights to "Citizen."
 
The problem is that we have like two levels of citizenship.

1) Simply having a nation in the North Pacific

2) Forum masking as Citizen

While its not important now, these do need to be reconciled at some point.
 
Outer Kharkistania:
The problem is that we have like two levels of citizenship.

1) Simply having a nation in the North Pacific

2) Forum masking as Citizen

While its not important now, these do need to be reconciled at some point.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I don't think a nation who pops into TNP for 5 seconds to dump a spam message, should be considered a "citizen". They're just the door-to-door salesmen of NS, and should be legally bootable. JMHO.
 
The Citizen masking was initiated by Forum Administration to satisfy the needs of those 'players" who have a nation resident in TNP and who desire a masking appropriate to their status of citizenship in TNP and who do not wish to be involved in the Regional Assembly just to have their citizenship recognized.

The procedure requiress the requester to provide a link to their TNP nation; and if te provided link is not to a current TNP nation, then they don't get the masking.

While it's implied, citizenship would also mean a full-time resident who has the current intention to remain in TNP indefinitely. I would suggest that if someone moves a nation into TNP at NS for the sole purpose of posting spam in the RMB and then departs, that does not demonstrate an intent to remain within TNP as a resident. As a consequence the Bill of Rights would not apply to them.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The Citizen masking was initiated by Forum Administration to satisfy the needs of those 'players" who have a nation resident in TNP and who desire a masking appropriate to their status of citizenship in TNP and who do not wish to be involved in the Regional Assembly just to have their citizenship recognized.

The procedure requiress the requester to provide a link to their TNP nation; and if te provided link is not to a current TNP nation, then they don't get the masking.

While it's implied, citizenship would also mean a full-time resident who has the current intention to remain in TNP indefinitely. I would suggest that if someone moves a nation into TNP at NS for the sole purpose of posting spam in the RMB and then departs, that does not demonstrate an intent to remain within TNP as a resident. As a consequence the Bill of Rights would not apply to them.
Click to expand...
Is that an official opinion?

and yeah Outer Khark, the forum masking is just window dressing.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
While it's implied, citizenship would also mean a full-time resident who has the current intention to remain in TNP indefinitely. I would suggest that if someone moves a nation into TNP at NS for the sole purpose of posting spam in the RMB and then departs, that does not demonstrate an intent to remain within TNP as a resident. As a consequence the Bill of Rights would not apply to them.
Click to expand...
Thank you, that's basically what I was trying to achieve. I don't think this law is particularly necessary. The only thing that might be necessary is that legally clarify this point. As I see it, RMB recruiters aren't TNP Nations and thus have no rights whatsoever.
 
mr_sniffles:
Is that an official opinion?
Click to expand...
Not the way you mean. It is an explanation of why, as an administrator, I set up the citizen mask/permission, and then applied some common sense to the current question concerning the spammers. It's my personal opinion.

But if there's a reason to use any of that discussion to craft a proposal that serves the concern Byard had in the first place, I have no problem with using it. (It actually is based on the definition of state citizenship in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, of the RL US Constitution.)
 
No one seems to consider that the Delegate is an executive authority. That means the chief executive, the delegate, should be limited to the execution of the Constitution and not the creation new regulations having the force of Constitution or law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top