UDL/TNP dual citizens putting the UDL before TNP

King Durk the Awesome:
From the irc just now:

[22:00] <@Tim> I have a lot of priorities. TNP is up there, but not before being able to actually R/D.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Alrighty, where to start.

First: I don't see how the hell I'm putting UDL ahead of TNP. It's obvious that, during update, my WA isn't being used for Malicious intent against TNP or the NPA. Yet, law will require me to disclose it when it changes. If you have any bit of knowledge of R/D at all, you'd realize that this is just a bit difficult.

Your quote seems to imply that only UDLers would be doing this. Do you think Koth would be sending each of his WA's to Erastide right after he WA's it? Do you think Venico would? Do you think Cormac would?

It's not just a UDL Issue. Do you think Raiders would be sending their sleepers before they WA them? Mall? Koth? Venico? Cormac? I seriously doubt that the Raider side of the spectrum would be too happy with having to do that either.

I'm not saying I don't trust Erastide, and I'm sure she'll make a wonderful Registrar. Alas, 3+ years of R/D can make you quite paranoid about giving our your cleans to anyone.

If none of what I'm posting makes sense, then do tell me so.. because I need to go to sleep :P
 
For the record, I won't be giving up my puppets either. But then, I also have no intention of joining the WA with them during my term.
 
I am of mixed opinions... but unfortunately I recognise this as a serious issue. I am unsure of exactly how much I can say what I know as it concerns Osiris.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
For the record, I won't be giving up my puppets either. But then, I also have no intention of joining the WA with them during my term.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that you will break the law of The North Pacific?

For the record, I will comply with Section 6.2 for as long as it's on the books. Believing that a law should not be in the books =/= intent to break that law if the RA disagrees with me. If the Regional Assembly decides that Section 6.2 should remain on the books then anyone who willfully refuses to comply has no business being a member of the Regional Assembly. One cannot willfully violate the law and call himself a loyal TNPer and refusal to comply with Section 6.2 is something that the Speaker should have perhaps mentioned before being elected.
 
One does not get to choose what laws they comply with and which ones they do not. It's a fact of life. If you break the law, you must face the punishment.
 
This thread was so needed...

Rubi_15.jpg
 
mcmasterdonia:
One does not get to choose what laws they comply with and which ones they do not. It's a fact of life. If you break the law, you must face the punishment.
Click to expand...
As the law stands right now, there is no applicable punishment for violating 6.2.

To quote myself from IRC, someone could conceivably submit a judicial review request to get a court order forcing you to comply. But that is as bad as it gets.
 
mcmasterdonia:
It could result in removing someone's RA membership, could it not?
Click to expand...
Actually, there's no language anywhere in the Legal Code mandating removal from the RA for failure to comply. That's part of the problem with 6.2; there is no legally mandated punishment for failure to comply and, also problematic, it would be exceptionally difficult to prove that anyone has failed to disclose their switchers because a) how do you prove they have any; and b) even if you suspect they have them, how do you prove the nations belong to them?

These are among the many reasons I want to repeal Section 6.2, but I will also say that I will attempt to recall any government official who appears not to comply with 6.2 if it remains on the books. Recalls have no burden of proof.
 
mcmasterdonia:
It could result in removing someone's RA membership, could it not?
Click to expand...
No, it could not. The only provision for removing one's RA membership, 6.10 in the Legal Code, specifies as requirements either forum inactivity, or not meeting the nation requirements, or an order by the Court. Such an order by the Court, as far as I can tell, can be issued only as sentence for some criminal offense, none of which covers 6.2.

You can, of course, propose to have people recalled from their offices, if they do not comply with 6.2. However, it is not automatic, and it is up to the RA to decide whether such non-compliance is sufficient ground for recall.

EDIT: Sorry, Cormac posted while I was typing. We state the same things.

EDIT2: Having said the above, one could perhaps say that violation of 6.2 is fraud, as defined in 1.4.10 of the Legal Code. But it is quite a stretch of the definition, and would be hard to compellingly argue in Court, let alone, for the reasons Cormac mentioned, prove.

EDIT3: It occurred to me after I made this post, and GBM also states similarly below, that someone in violation of 6.2 would also be in violation of the RA membership oath, which states that they may lose their voting rights as a consequence. Whether that is enforceable is not crystal clear, but a recent court case states that someone can be tried for violation of the oath.
 
Everyone who is in the RA has sworn an oath to abide by the laws of TNP. It is disturbing to hear people saying flat out they do not intend to follow the law. A man is only as good as his word.
 
Um, didn't Tim effectively leave the VD post to participate in a defensive action? He's already, by his previous actions, told TNP that he has other priorities.

Yet he was elected to another post. I have problems with his comments, but if we elect him knowing this, why should he do anything differently?
 
Cormac Stark:
Crushing Our Enemies:
For the record, I won't be giving up my puppets either. But then, I also have no intention of joining the WA with them during my term.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that you will break the law of The North Pacific?
Click to expand...
NO, I WILL NOT.

Legal Code 6.2:
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.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. I do not have a World Assembly nation, nor, as I said above, will any of my nations attain World Assembly membership. Take it back, Cormac. Now.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Cormac Stark:
Crushing Our Enemies:
For the record, I won't be giving up my puppets either. But then, I also have no intention of joining the WA with them during my term.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that you will break the law of The North Pacific?
Click to expand...
NO, I WILL NOT.

Legal Code 6.2:
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.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. I do not have a World Assembly nation, nor, as I said above, will any of my nations attain World Assembly membership. Take it back, Cormac. Now.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. So instead of breaking the law you're going to exploit a loophole to get around it. You clearly have switchers -- you've all but admitted that -- but because you'll not be putting WA on any of your nations, or at least won't be telling us about it, you legally won't be required to disclose any of your switchers.

Touche. I take it back. You won't be breaking the letter of the law, just the spirit of it.
 
punk d:
Um, didn't Tim effectively leave the VD post to participate in a defensive action? He's already, by his previous actions, told TNP that he has other priorities.

Yet he was elected to another post. I have problems with his comments, but if we elect him knowing this, why should he do anything differently?
Click to expand...
Maybe when he apologized for his behavior and said whatever he said in his campaign. people (gasp) took him at his word.
 
Great Bights Mum:
punk d:
Um, didn't Tim effectively leave the VD post to participate in a defensive action? He's already, by his previous actions, told TNP that he has other priorities.

Yet he was elected to another post. I have problems with his comments, but if we elect him knowing this, why should he do anything differently?
Click to expand...
Maybe when he apologized for his behavior and said whatever he said in his campaign. people (gasp) took him at his word.
Click to expand...
Not sure if he said that he would put TNP first going forward, however. I may have missed that.
 
punk d:
Great Bights Mum:
punk d:
Um, didn't Tim effectively leave the VD post to participate in a defensive action? He's already, by his previous actions, told TNP that he has other priorities.

Yet he was elected to another post. I have problems with his comments, but if we elect him knowing this, why should he do anything differently?
Click to expand...
Maybe when he apologized for his behavior and said whatever he said in his campaign. people (gasp) took him at his word.
Click to expand...
Not sure if he said that he would put TNP first going forward, however. I may have missed that.
Click to expand...
He said this during the debates in response to the VD vacating incident:

01[23:32:05] <+Tim> I deserted my post for Vice out of my own choice.
01[23:32:10] <+Tim> UDL urged me not to.
01[23:32:16] <+Tim> I basically told them "f*ck yall, I'm doing it"

Looks to me that TNP does not come first for him

(Asterisk mine)
 
Let no one doubt my intent to follow the laws of The North Pacific. You will find no more faithful son of TNP than I in these halls. It is disappointing to hear a UDL officer announcing his intent to violate our laws, but this is unsurprising.
 
Cormac Stark:
Touche. I take it back. You won't be breaking the letter of the law, just the spirit of it.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The law is intended to record persons WA nations, not any and all of their nations. It stipulates proactive reporting of nations that may become WA before they do so in order to make the burden of reporting less onerous, not in order to track all of someone's nations.
 
I'll never understand the fusses made about things like this, though I do disagree with this law. But it's the law--if you have a problem with it, go repeal it, go challenge it, whatever. At the moment it doesn't look like those against this are the majority, so either go convince people that they're wrong or honestly..deal with it.

*shrugs* I just send my list of WA switchers off to Erastide; I truly hope for her sakes that when I (or others like me) she doesn't have to go through my 120+ switchers to actually find the proper WA every time now. :/
 
Earth:
I'll never understand the fusses made about things like this, though I do disagree with this law. But it's the law--if you have a problem with it, go repeal it, go challenge it, whatever. At the moment it doesn't look like those against this are the majority, so either go convince people that they're wrong or honestly..deal with it.

*shrugs* I just send my list of WA switchers off to Erastide; I truly hope for her sakes that when I (or others like me) she doesn't have to go through my 120+ switchers to actually find the proper WA every time now. :/
Click to expand...

Comp Sci is a helluva tool.
 
madjack:
The question is, why do you need to have this information?
Click to expand...
Justice Madjack, it's the law.


Section 6.2: 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...
 
Karpathos:
madjack:
The question is, why do you need to have this information?
Click to expand...
Justice Madjack, it's the law.


Section 6.2: 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...
Click to expand...
I know it's the law. I'm asking why there is a need for the law.
 
madjack:
The question is, why do you need to have this information?
Click to expand...
A very long time ago TNP held elections at, believe it or not, nationstates.net. One absolutely had to have a WA(UN) in the region to be able to vote for the UN Delegate. Then voting was moved to the forum and the requirement of having a UN nation in the region in order to select the Delegate was dropped. After a number of coups, the region decided a voter registration process was a wise thing to have. That process included sharing WA information. The Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs could require applicants to submit to all sorts of interrogation. We expected voters to be true-blue TNP. In those days, if you were an invader, it was unlikely you would be admitted. Over the years, the entry barriers to having a decision-making role in the region were gradually whittled away.

Currently one has to:

1. Have a nation in TNP
2. Post an oath on the forum
3. Let the registrar know your WA nation

So the last requirement represents the vestiges of what was once a much more rigorous standard for acceptance in the RA.
 
Great Bights Mum:
madjack:
The question is, why do you need to have this information?
Click to expand...
A very long time ago TNP held elections at, believe it or not, nationstates.net. One absolutely had to have a WA(UN) in the region to be able to vote for the UN Delegate. Then voting was moved to the forum and the requirement of having a UN nation in the region in order to select the Delegate was dropped. After a number of coups, the region decided a voter registration process was a wise thing to have. That process included sharing WA information. The Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs could require applicants to submit to all sorts of interrogation. We expected voters to be true-blue TNP. In those days, if you were an invader, it was unlikely you would be admitted. Over the years, the entry barriers to having a decision-making role in the region were gradually whittled away.

Currently one has to:

1. Have a nation in TNP
2. Post an oath on the forum
3. Let the registrar know your WA nation

So the last requirement represents the vestiges of what was once a much more rigorous standard for acceptance in the RA.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that GBM.

I'm interested though - do NPA officers have to submit all of their switchers? We have our own switcher submission form so it seems entirely redundant for NPA officers to have to submit their switchers twice.
 
I was actually about to ask about that, but I see people with more influence than me had the same idea.

I think allowing FEC access to the document would be a great idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top