Reducing WA Nation Tracking

unibot

unibot

TNPer
I think something that's bothered anyone who is a defender or raider and also a member of The North Pacific is that The North Pacific has a noticeable trend of wanting a ton of information because it doesn't trust them; a lot of information it doesn't need, frankly. Which tends to just create red-tape for people who want to participate in The North Pacific and also be a defender or raider. This red-tape is usually used to invalidate votes.

I also don't think it should be necessary to post your current WA Nation to vote (then keep updating it). It just doesn't make any sense what those two have in common really. It's a red tape protocol that is used in practice to trip up people whose nations switch during voting. It has no real purpose for people to say what WA Nation is there's.

I don't see in law where having to post your WA Nation to vote in an election is a legal obligation. It seems to be a made-up protocol.

- Unibot
 
Speaking as someone who has had their vote invalidated for incorrect WA nation listed at the time the vote closed, I'm actually in favour of the status quo.

I think these protocols serve to make voting... more of a challenge. I don't think we need to make voting any easier.
 
I think making voting deliberately more of a challenge is a silly concept in a liberal democratic society. >_> It sounds illiberal to me.
 
unibot:
I think something that's bothered anyone who is a defender or raider and also a member of The North Pacific is that The North Pacific has a noticeable trend of wanting a ton of information because it doesn't trust them; a lot of information it doesn't need, frankly. Which tends to just create red-tape for people who want to participate in The North Pacific and also be a defender or raider. This red-tape is usually used to invalidate votes.

I also don't think it should be necessary to post your current WA Nation to vote (then keep updating it). It just doesn't make any sense what those two have in common really. It's a red tape protocol that is used in practice to trip up people whose nations switch during voting. It has no real purpose for people to say what WA Nation is there's.

I don't see in law where having to post your WA Nation to vote in an election is a legal obligation. It seems to be a made-up protocol.

- Unibot
Click to expand...

I find it a bit surprising that this is being posted after the Election Commissioner's assistant went out of his way to notify people whose WA was invalid well in advance of the closing of the poll, so they could correct it. :cry:
 
It's still a useless protocol. >_> That isn't founded in law and could cause people's votes to be invalidated without a basis in law (simply "protocol").

You also tried to chase around to find every switcher in existence in R/D. <_<
 
One reason for the WA nation requirement is to assist in the enforcement of the "one player, one vote" requirement.

It's also necessary in order to deal with qualifications for the NPA and the Security Council, as well as endorsement level enforcement.

It is a factor in eligibility requirements related to the election of a Delegate and Vice Delegate.

Finally, it is a factor for some Delegates as to the casting of the region's votes in the W.A.
 
Unibot is correct that there is no legal provision for stating your WA nation within a RA vote. However this provision does exist:
Legal Code:
RA WA Verification and Confidentiality Act

11. The Speaker will designate a person who is not involved in any military operations to be the registrar of confidential puppets.
12. Assembly members with a World Assembly nation must inform the registrar of any nation of theirs which may attain World Assembly membership before it does so.
13. Unless granted permission otherwise by the Assembly member in question, if the registrar is informed of possible future World Assembly nations the registrar will keep that information in confidence and will not share it with anyone on pain of a minimum three months ban from the region unless the registrar observes such a nation waging war against the North Pacific.
14. The registrar will not inform their successor of confidential potential World Assembly nations; they may only report which Assembly Members have submitted such lists.
Click to expand...

This seems to indicate that nations can have multiple puppets that are allowed to attain WA status so long as RA members inform the Registrar of those puppets before they attain WA status. For defenders/raiders this would be a registration of one's puppets. I think this could be somewhat difficult in practice and I do not actually know who the current registrar is.

Suffice it to say, if any RA member has not registered their potential WA nations with the registrar, that would appear to be a violation of this part of the legal code.

Still, the point is in finding a balance between the government's desire to know RA members' WA nations and the RA members' ability to be functioning members of this body as well as perform raids/defensive actions as swiftly as they need to.

So, I'll propose a solution:
Legal Code:

RA WA Verification and Confidentiality Act

11. The Speaker will designate a person who is not involved in any military operations to be the registrar of confidential puppets.
12. Assembly members with a World Assembly nation must inform the registrar of any nation of theirs which may attain World Assembly membership before it does so.
13. Unless granted permission otherwise by the Assembly member in question, if the registrar is informed of possible future World Assembly nations the registrar will keep that information in confidence and will not share it with anyone on pain of a minimum three months ban from the region unless the registrar observes such a nation waging war against the North Pacific.
14. The registrar will not inform their successor of confidential potential World Assembly nations; they may only report which Assembly Members have submitted such lists.
Click to expand...

The World Assembly Verification Act of 2012:
Section 6.2: The World Assembly Verification Act of 2012

11. All members of the Regional Assembly must notify the Speaker of their current World Assembly (WA) nation while they maintain membership within the Regional Assembly.
12. Nations not providing the Speaker with their current WA nation shall have their Regional Assembly voting privileges rescinded until such time as they provide the Speaker with their current WA nation.
13. Nations that do not partake in the WA and have no WA nation must notify the speaker that they have no WA nation. If said nations do obtain a WA nation, they must notify the Speaker as defined in the preceding subsections.
14. Exemptions for provisions 11 and 12 shall be as follows:
  • Members of the North Pacific Army.
  • Members of any Intelligence Agency of The North Pacific.
  • Certified raiders and defenders.
15. Raiders and Defenders will be exempted from provisions 11 and 12 by registering as a Certified Raider/Defender.
16. Certification requirements are listed as follows:
  • Must be a member of an Approved raider or defender Organization. Lists of Approved Organizations shall be maintained by the Regional Assembly.
  • Must provide the following additional oath to maintain their RA membership & voting privileges:
I, [insert name here], leader of the [insert The North Pacific nation name here], do hereby request exemption from The World Assembly Verification Act and certify that I am a [raider/defender] of [insert approved organization]. I understand that my certification shall only last so long as I am a member of [insert approved organization] and [insert approved organization] remains listed as an Approved Organization. I understand that this certification does not exempt me from any other laws of The North Pacific except Legal Code Section 6, Subsection 2, Provisions 11 and 12. I pledge to not raid regions treatied with The North Pacific nor defend regions at war with The North Pacific. I understand that any violation of the preceding sentence equates to waging war with The North Pacific and is a violation of my RA membership Oath. In this manner, I petition the Speaker to certify me as a [raider/defender].
Click to expand...
17. Certified Raiders/Defenders will be required to inform the Speaker of their WA Nation on the first day of the third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth month of each calendar year in order to maintain their certification. The Speaker shall not require any Certified Raider/Defender to provide this information publicly.

Additional renumbering required for subsequent but unchanged portions of Section 6
Click to expand...

Thus, I think if we have raiders/defenders certify themselves this will allow them to raid/defend freely without having to always update their WA listing. If we get an update once every 3 months it alleviates concerns that they might be trying to coup the region.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
 
Grosseschnauzer:
One reason for the WA nation requirement is to assist in the enforcement of the "one player, one vote" requirement.
Click to expand...
I think an IP would serve you better here.

It's also necessary in order to deal with qualifications for the NPA and the Security Council, as well as endorsement level enforcement.
Click to expand...

How so? We're only talking about voting in Elections. Not joining the NPA or the SC.

It is a factor in eligibility requirements related to the election of a Delegate and Vice Delegate.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I'm not planning on being the Delegate or the Vice Delegate, I just want to vote on them.

Finally, it is a factor for some Delegates as to the casting of the region's votes in the W.A.
Click to expand...

Once again sure, I can understand when you need the data, you have good reason to ask for it. But this isn't a collection of a data that will be very useful -- all of our WAs will be different in a day, you need to ask when you want to find out, not build up a small useless list every election.
 
This protocol is the very least TNP can do to ensure people voting have TNP's interests in mind enough to at least bother disclosing their WA in service with other regions. Really, TNP urgently needs to look at ways of beefing up their provisions in this regard, not diluting it to make it even easier for UDLers/Raiders/whatever to influence affairs here with minimal real input or care. Getting rid of what little provisions there are in this regard seems like a step backwards to me.
 
North East Somerset:
This protocol is the very least TNP can do to ensure people voting have TNP's interests in mind enough to at least bother disclosing their WA in service with other regions. Really, TNP urgently needs to look at ways of beefing up their provisions in this regard, not diluting it to make it even easier for UDLers/Raiders/whatever to influence affairs here with minimal real input or care. Getting rid of what little provisions there are in this regard seems like a step backwards to me.
Click to expand...
I agree with NES. In fact, I think we should start requiring the disclosure of all switchers. I have nothing to hide -- I'll drop a list right here. How about you, NES? Mall?

No? Thought not.

In case anyone is confused, I was being sarcastic. I don't actually agree with NES. I don't see any compelling reason why anyone needs to know anyone else's WA nation when they're voting. The "one nation, one vote" standard can be enforced by ensuring that no one is using multiple forum accounts and I've seen no other reason presented why this is necessary.

To be quite honest, I have no problem providing every single one of my switchers right here right now -- I wasn't joking about that part. Defender switchers are less secretive. Believe it or not, I'm looking out for our raider citizens here. The WA disclosure requirement for voting in elections is an unnecessary and discriminatory burden on them and the way it's handled is an unnecessary burden on every single TNPer active in military gameplay, including NPA members who aren't even active in any other military gameplay organization.
 
I don't see the connections between disclosing your WA nation and disclosing switchers at all.

And at a stretch I can just about believe "Believe it or not, I'm looking out for our raider citizens here." because well, you might have swapped sides again for all I know. But as for Unibot, yeah, I'm finding it hard to believe that's his motivation. Probably he sees the benefits for getting his UDL members to vote, which considerably outnumber raiders.

I agree with NES. In fact, I think we should start requiring the disclosure of all switchers. I have nothing to hide -- I'll drop a list right here. How about you, NES?
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure.

Semper Vivum
HMS Falmouth

You can get more if you require them very quickly nowadays anyway so there's not many reasons to keep a stock unless your imminently to use them really, again, I dont see the relevance in disclosing switchers anyway, I just thought I'd call your bluff.
 
Reporting switchers ahead of time can save valuable time in battle, relieving one of the obligation of taking a moment to notify TNP when you switch.
 
And Invaders might prefer not to join WA until the last second as well, or might prefer to avoid drawing attention to nations by reporting them right as they join the WA.
 
Or we could, as Unibot suggested, do away with this ridiculous system instead of blaming the players for using tactics that have been implemented for years.
 
punk d:
Unibot is correct that there is no legal provision for stating your WA nation within a RA vote. However this provision does exist:
Legal Code:
RA WA Verification and Confidentiality Act

11. The Speaker will designate a person who is not involved in any military operations to be the registrar of confidential puppets.
12. Assembly members with a World Assembly nation must inform the registrar of any nation of theirs which may attain World Assembly membership before it does so.
13. Unless granted permission otherwise by the Assembly member in question, if the registrar is informed of possible future World Assembly nations the registrar will keep that information in confidence and will not share it with anyone on pain of a minimum three months ban from the region unless the registrar observes such a nation waging war against the North Pacific.
14. The registrar will not inform their successor of confidential potential World Assembly nations; they may only report which Assembly Members have submitted such lists.
Click to expand...

This seems to indicate that nations can have multiple puppets that are allowed to attain WA status so long as RA members inform the Registrar of those puppets before they attain WA status. For defenders/raiders this would be a registration of one's puppets. I think this could be somewhat difficult in practice and I do not actually know who the current registrar is.

Suffice it to say, if any RA member has not registered their potential WA nations with the registrar, that would appear to be a violation of this part of the legal code.

Still, the point is in finding a balance between the government's desire to know RA members' WA nations and the RA members' ability to be functioning members of this body as well as perform raids/defensive actions as swiftly as they need to.

So, I'll propose a solution:
Legal Code:

RA WA Verification and Confidentiality Act

11. The Speaker will designate a person who is not involved in any military operations to be the registrar of confidential puppets.
12. Assembly members with a World Assembly nation must inform the registrar of any nation of theirs which may attain World Assembly membership before it does so.
13. Unless granted permission otherwise by the Assembly member in question, if the registrar is informed of possible future World Assembly nations the registrar will keep that information in confidence and will not share it with anyone on pain of a minimum three months ban from the region unless the registrar observes such a nation waging war against the North Pacific.
14. The registrar will not inform their successor of confidential potential World Assembly nations; they may only report which Assembly Members have submitted such lists.
Click to expand...

The World Assembly Verification Act of 2012:
Section 6.2: The World Assembly Verification Act of 2012

11. All members of the Regional Assembly must notify the Speaker of their current World Assembly (WA) nation while they maintain membership within the Regional Assembly.
12. Nations not providing the Speaker with their current WA nation shall have their Regional Assembly voting privileges rescinded until such time as they provide the Speaker with their current WA nation.
13. Nations that do not partake in the WA and have no WA nation must notify the speaker that they have no WA nation. If said nations do obtain a WA nation, they must notify the Speaker as defined in the preceding subsections.
14. Exemptions for provisions 11 and 12 shall be as follows:
  • Members of the North Pacific Army.
  • Members of any Intelligence Agency of The North Pacific.
  • Certified raiders and defenders.
15. Raiders and Defenders will be exempted from provisions 11 and 12 by registering as a Certified Raider/Defender.
16. Certification requirements are listed as follows:
  • Must be a member of an Approved raider or defender Organization. Lists of Approved Organizations shall be maintained by the Regional Assembly.
  • Must provide the following additional oath to maintain their RA membership & voting privileges:
I, [insert name here], leader of the [insert The North Pacific nation name here], do hereby request exemption from The World Assembly Verification Act and certify that I am a [raider/defender] of [insert approved organization]. I understand that my certification shall only last so long as I am a member of [insert approved organization] and [insert approved organization] remains listed as an Approved Organization. I understand that this certification does not exempt me from any other laws of The North Pacific except Legal Code Section 6, Subsection 2, Provisions 11 and 12. I pledge to not raid regions treatied with The North Pacific nor defend regions at war with The North Pacific. I understand that any violation of the preceding sentence equates to waging war with The North Pacific and is a violation of my RA membership Oath. In this manner, I petition the Speaker to certify me as a [raider/defender].
Click to expand...
17. Certified Raiders/Defenders will be required to inform the Speaker of their WA Nation on the first day of the third, sixth, ninth, and twelfth month of each calendar year in order to maintain their certification. The Speaker shall not require any Certified Raider/Defender to provide this information publicly.

Additional renumbering required for subsequent but unchanged portions of Section 6
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thus, I think if we have raiders/defenders certify themselves this will allow them to raid/defend freely without having to always update their WA listing. If we get an update once every 3 months it alleviates concerns that they might be trying to coup the region.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
punk d:
So was my proposal ignored? :p
Click to expand...

I liked your proposal, I hope that my fellow members of the RA will look at it.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Or we could, as Unibot suggested, do away with this ridiculous system instead of blaming the players for using tactics that have been implemented for years.
Click to expand...
While I applaud Punk D for trying to reach a more reasonable method of WA tracking, I still fail to see the necessity of any WA tracking. I... agree with Blue Wolf. Who... agrees with Unibot. Miracles still happen. :lol:
 
I like the part where I'd have to register as a Known Raider. I quote the person who first told me about this rule (they will remain anonymous): "Yeah no one actually expects you to do that, so don't worry about it."
 
That person lied to you. hehehe.

Please, if you folks value my sanity, please do not run to the courts on this. Can we just figure out the best way to approach this here in this assembly?

I like the WA verification and hope that it continues. But, I'm cognizant of the fact that it unduly slows down the ability of raiders and defenders to raid and defend. I think the point of knowing someone's WA is so that we know the WA's in the region in case anyone looks like they might coup.

But i don't know how long this provision has been around but TNP is the most coup friendly feeder in the game, so is this working?
 
We're also a region with a long history of tolerating divided loyalties and external activities. Just because we tolerate it to a certain extent, however, doesn't mean that we should go out of our way to make it as easy as possible for people to pay the minimum amount of attention to TNP. As to the "one player, one vote" issue, Unibot noted that an IP would be better. He's wrong, as long as you have something to compare it to. We don't have data from NS to compare to, apart from WA nation as reported vs. what's shown ingame. NS is better set up to detect multiing and things like that than we are, and the reporting of WA nation status prevents people like me from easily maintaining a nation at my place, a different one at my girlfriend's place, and a third nation at school, all of which vote in TNP. An IP address, even if you have things to compare it to, is only so good. The more data points, the better. Surely the great Unibot, leader of the UDL, knows this much about security checks.
 
I strongly agree with Cormac, Uni, and BW. It's a pain in the bum to have to continually change in voting threads what my WA is. I could easily provide you with a list of all my switchers, like Cormac said, but I really don't see the necessity of that at all.

Yeah, verification of one-person-one-vote within NS is nice and all but it does put an unfair burden on those that do wish to keep their WA undisclosed. If you think my WA is a threat to TNP, you're welcome to ask, still. :P
 
Unibot noted that an IP would be better. He's wrong, as long as you have something to compare it to.
Click to expand...

But if the IP is different than you can fool NS too. >_<

In my personal opinion would should scrap the switcher policy and this WA-notation on voting and instead just have sweeps where a neutral figure calls for everyone to announce where their WA is to them in private -- mandate that they have do this a minimum of five times a term, The Security Council or the Delegate would be allowed to call for a sweep too.
 
A vote sweep is something like i've proposed except non-raiders/defenders would always keep their WA nations listed.

I have to say, I'm not seeing a ton of arguments against the proposal I made on the previous page. I think it addresses a lot of what's going on here.
 
Considering the widespread historical and present avoidance of the WA requirements on the part of both raiders and defenders.... my response is 'meh'.
 
To be honest, I have to agree with Uni and others - we don't really need this rule. It simply discourages activity in elections, making it hard for anyone with a mobile WA to vote. If someone can fool TNP security to get two RA accounts, its highly likely they could just fool NS as well and have two WAs.

Also, in response to Punk D - Why should people have to take time to either tell the speaker about their WA after every update or get tagged as a certified defender or raider. Not to mention I see /huge/ possibility for manipulation and abuse there if a speaker who isn't neutral in gameplay gets into office.
 
I was trying to create a loophole for raiders/defenders, not necessarily address the larger issue of general WA Verification.

I go back and forth on that issue myself. If I was a delegate of a feeder I think my answer is different than not.
 
I'm bumping this back up after the refusal of Elu to accept Bel's registrar-declared WA nation. The point of the WA Registrar was that there'd be someone R/D neutral to declare WA nations to. If people have to declare them to whoever the election commissioner is (without the legal pain-of-ban that the registrar has) then that utterly defeats the point of the Registrar which I campaigned to get.

As far as I understand it, then surely if the Registrar confirms that that citizen has indeed registered with the Registrar (don't even have to say if there is a WA nation active or not) then we've got no need to worry. But, tbh, I don't see why you have to declare every single time you vote. I think that -is- a little excessive. Perhaps use elections as an opportunity to do random checks on declared WA nations, but not formally.

I really don't like the idea of formal "recognised groups". That's just really a not good place to be.
 
The registrar thing is complicated business. Is it my duty to appoint the registrar? Who does that? If so, I will try to find someone immediately. If not... who currently is the registrar?
 
Exactly my point :P The Speaker needs to appoint a new registrar. The question still remains however, is WA declarations useful and needed. The NPA has it's own register, it's other moveable WA's that are disadvantaged.
 
Again, this all seems to boil down to people thinking it's too much trouble for them to vote here as it is, and they want it to be easier. We're already among the most open regions in the game with regard to allowing multi-regional-interest people to participate and even lead us, and yet still the complaints come? I just don't see the need. Maybe there isn't a particular express need for the data itself, but the institution serves a useful purpose in providing some sort of check to balance out the other areas in which we are incredibly open regarding external obligations.
 
Gaspo:
Again, this all seems to boil down to people thinking it's too much trouble for them to vote here as it is, and they want it to be easier. We're already among the most open regions in the game with regard to allowing multi-regional-interest people to participate and even lead us, and yet still the complaints come? I just don't see the need. Maybe there isn't a particular express need for the data itself, but the institution serves a useful purpose in providing some sort of check to balance out the other areas in which we are incredibly open regarding external obligations.
Click to expand...
I think we would be better served security-wise with checks, than red-tape.
 
So what you're saying, then, is that we should do security checks about these sorts of things, but place all the burden for information gathering on the officials conducting those checks, rather than asking the RA to provide information for the existing checks which already take place? I'm sorry, that just doesn't make any sense to me.
 
Gaspo:
So what you're saying, then, is that we should do security checks about these sorts of things, but place all the burden for information gathering on the officials conducting those checks, rather than asking the RA to provide information for the existing checks which already take place? I'm sorry, that just doesn't make any sense to me.
Click to expand...
Of course it makes sense.

If you're a compliance inspector, you do routine checks out of the blue on places. You don't put an institution in charge of determining when their own inspection occurs (unless you're the government with flexible election dates :P).
 
I think for people who care for security of TNP and people who like to play a role in TNP should disclose their WA nation as a rule and i go further and think we should require all members of RA to disclose all affiliation to other regions before being accepted as member of TNP RA. as a guide line i would like to refer to requirement of becoming citizen in Osiris which can be changed to be used for TNP
A link to your TNP Nation:
A Link to your WA nation:
A link to your main nation if applicable:
Current positions and regions involved in:
Please list any aliases or identies used as well as any involvement, past or present, in a foreign entity.
Have you ever given aid or comfort to an enemy of TNP?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top