Interpretation of the Banning Laws

Tresville

Tresville

TNPer
Article VI: Ejection and Banning

Section 1: Use of Ejection and/or Banning

1. Ejection and/or banning from the region The North Pacific may be prescribed as a punishment for violations of regional laws. Violation of forum Terms Of Service and moderation policies remain the responsibility of forum administration.
2. The Delegate is permitted to eject and/or ban violators of NationStates rules without prior or further consultation from the Government.
3. The Delegate is required to eject and/or ban Nations and/or Players that have been sentenced in the Courts to be ejected or banned from the region for breaking regional laws.
4. The Delegate is to inform the region and the Government of all ejections or bannings carried out in a timely manner.
5. The Delegate, in carrying out these duties, must maintain an adequate level of regional influence.
Click to expand...

I am looking for some clarity in regards to the sections highlighted in red.

Are regional laws strictly what is stated in the constitution? Or are laws like our ten limit rule for ads and the process we use included as "regional laws?"

Timely manner may be to broad maybe?

I am just looking for clarification in case anyone tries to bring any ejections to court. I have only banned my own nation, 2 NS rule violators, and two 10 line limit rule violators.

The few who tarted during the previous delegacy have complied in reducing their endorsements. They came to the forum and spoke so I see no reason to ban them if they go 1 or 2 endoes past 150 (unless of course they ignore my tg's on the matter). Yarouza has been the only one of those nations that tarted and went past 150 but he replied to my tg's quickly and refrained from tarting.

Would like to note that in cases like his (where they have come to the forum and discussed the matter with us) I also contact RA members to unendorse said nation.

However, anyone surpassing the 150 mark who has had more than 3 warnings will be dealt with swiftly if they don't appear on the forum or reply to my tg's.
 
I was looking to discuss it here and gather RA opinion on the matter prior to taking it to the court. This should prevent any arguments there....well....reduce the chances of! lol

This way I can edit any of the rules not included in the constitution prior to sending this to the court.
 
I would take the use of "regional laws" (uncapitalized) as a generic reference to anything that is legally enforceable,whether included in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the Legal Code, or not. This wou8ld include rules:

Constitution Article I Section 3:
3. All Government bodies are allowed to create rules for its own governance.
Click to expand...
 
He can adopt a rule stating the policy or procedure by which the Delegate or his Cabinet can enforce, say, the 10-line limit on the RMB, or enforce (as another example) any endotarting limits that complies with current law. Which means those policies or procedures can state when the Delegate can use the power to ejectban someone and be within the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Yes, it's a two-step, but it does work. :lol:
 
irc:
[22:41:09] <Eluvatar> hey
[22:41:22] <MonteOzarka> sup?
[22:41:38] <Eluvatar> There's a slight point of confusion in your Constitution it seem
[22:41:39] <Eluvatar> *seems
[22:41:57] <Eluvatar> .
[22:41:57] <Eluvatar> 2. Only Assembly-members may bring up impeachment charges against any member of the Government. The Assembly is the jury for all impeachment cases.
[22:42:15] <Eluvatar> 4. The Assembly may remove any member of the Government by a motion of recall approved by a two-thirds supermajority of the Regional Assembly.
[22:42:39] <Eluvatar> What's impeachment?
[22:43:29] <MonteOzarka> erm, iirc, when i wrote that, the two were one and the same
[22:43:51] <MonteOzarka> rather
[22:44:30] <MonteOzarka> impeachment was for formally elected officials
[22:44:45] <MonteOzarka> "any member of Government" also covers appointed officials, i.e. the Cabinet
[22:44:49] <MonteOzarka> or ambassadors or whatever
[22:44:56] <MonteOzarka> anyone working in the government for the government
[22:45:11] <MonteOzarka> but the process for going about it was the same
[22:45:56] <MonteOzarka> i think when i wrote "impeachment", it was more criminal and having to do with formal judicial action
[22:46:51] <MonteOzarka> recall can be for whatever reason. suppose you want to get rid of our ambassador to TWP because you didn't like his avatar. you could call a vote for recall against him, and it'd be perfectly fine.
[22:50:33] <MonteOzarka> i'm pretty sure clause 4 was a holdover from an earlier draft when i had more clearly delineated elected versus appointed officials and so had different removal procedures. somewhere along the line, i simplified it and merged the two.
[22:50:41] <MonteOzarka> sorry for the ambiguous language. fail on my part. -_-
[00:16:27] <Eluvatar> Ok :D
[00:18:40] <Eluvatar> MonteOzarka may I quote what you just said in this topic:  http://z13.invisionfree.invalid/TNP/index.php?showtopic=4997 ?
[00:18:48] <MonteOzarka> course
[00:19:20] <Eluvatar> Kk
[00:19:52] <Eluvatar> </log>
Click to expand...

I think this is worth considering.
 
And to be honest, I'm not quite sure what my individual interpretation was, despite my being the author. Original intent is rather moot, as most of y'all were here when this constitution was voted in, and even if it wasn't, shouldn't it be the discussion amongst yourselves that should be taken into account? After all, you all voted for or against this based on your own personal interpretations of this document, and your interpretations may have been influenced by mine, but they are still not one and the same.
 
My not official opinion on that specific issue would be that if a nation was convicted by the Court of a crime then it would move to the RA for an impeachment vote, thus providing a check on the Court against it using its power to remove officials directly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top