Repeal of Legal Code Section 6.2

[Cormac]

Repeal of Legal Code Section 6.2

1. The following section of the Codified Law of The North Pacific shall be repealed in its entirety and rendered null and void:

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.

2. All sections and paragraphs of Chapter 6 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific shall be renumbered accordingly.

---

For the past two Speaker terms no registrar of confidential puppets has been appointed by the Speaker of the Regional Assembly. This is due in part to the difficulty of finding a registrar who is truly R/D uninvolved and impartial. Moreover, in our most recent general election which is still ongoing nine RA members failed to properly disclose their WA nations. Had the Election Commissioners not sought Court review of that requirement and had the Court not ruled the way it did, nine RA members would have seen their votes disqualified -- all but one of them because of an unintentional oversight rather than because of willful refusal to disclose. These disqualifications would also have significantly altered the outcome of the Vice Delegate election, with incumbent Vice Delegate Blue Wolf II facing KiwiTaicho rather than Eluvatar in a run-off election.

What we are talking about, then, is a section of the Legal Code that could easily have disenfranchised a large number of citizens and thrown our electoral process into complete upheaval, and that has potential to do so again even if we can ever find someone suitable to serve as registrar of confidential puppets.

For what benefit? Some would argue that there are security benefits to knowing RA members' WA nations because if WA nations can be tracked we know they are not taking unlawful action against The North Pacific. The problem with this line of argument is that someone intent on taking unlawful action against The North Pacific can simply say he has no WA nation, and unless it can be proven that he does -- which is highly unlikely -- that answer must be accepted as truth. Aside from the dubious security benefit there is no clear benefit to Section 6.2 of the Legal Code, and certainly no benefit that outweighs the costs of disenfranchisement and electoral instability for accidental failures to disclose WA nations. This is too heavy a burden to impose upon RA members, especially those involved in military gameplay, with no clear benefits.

It's for this reason that I propose the complete repeal of Section 6.2 of the Legal Code. Thank you for your time.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

On point of fact, my search for a registrar is ongoing, and I have identified a few candidates. Should this law remain on the books, we will have a registrar.

 

[Cormac]

That's good to know, because certainly this would be much easier with a registrar than without one. I wish you good luck in finding candidates.

That said, even with a registrar much of what I say in the OP still applies and I hope the RA can have a thorough debate about whether or not this law should remain on the books -- even if we get a registrar in the meantime.

 

[Tim]

It's about time someone that isn't as lazy as I am posted this

Full Support

I second this so much

 

[Gaspo]

I cannot support the removal of the last requirement for participation in our region. Change the law to something more effective, sure, but simply stripping it away will result in the issue of external influence never, ever being addressed, and that is not something which i feel will benefit The North Pacific in any way. I cannot support a law that makes it even easier for The North Pacific to become just another petty battleground for the squabbling of R/D interests.

 

[punk d]

O think this law needs to go. I fully support its repeal.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I think I am having a senior moment, because I cannot find where Section 6.2 came from. Could someone kindly point me to the discussion on it?

I do have a question for everyone though. Why do we need to have a nation in TNP in order to vote here?

 

[Cormac]

I cannot support the removal of the last requirement for participation in our region. Change the law to something more effective, sure, but simply stripping it away will result in the issue of external influence never, ever being addressed, and that is not something which i feel will benefit The North Pacific in any way. I cannot support a law that makes it even easier for The North Pacific to become just another petty battleground for the squabbling of R/D interests.

I would support other regionalist reforms -- for example, I would be willing to revisit the discussion of having a WA nation in The North Pacific or service in the NPA in order to vote on WA resolutions. This is a notable shift for me but one that I think is justified given the issues we saw in some recent Security Council votes. I would also be open to discussing other ideas people have to curb external influence.

The problem with Section 6.2 is not that it's regionalist but that it's not practical. Finding a suitable registrar is difficult, there are no penalties for the Speaker not appointing one (and the previous two Speakers did not) and moreover Section 6.2 is actually toothless legislation -- nowhere in RA Procedure, the Legal Code or the Constitution is found any provision that actually penalizes any RA member for not disclosing their WA nation. Our practice of disqualifying votes based on failure to disclose has been extralegal all along; there is no provision in any law disqualifying votes cast by RA members who haven't disclosed their WA nations, nor any provision to expel them from the RA, etc. Nor, might I add, does Section 6.2 do anything to curb external influence; it just makes us feel good thinking we're doing something.

This law cannot be fixed. If we want to curb external influence we can and should find better ways to do it, but they need to be practical and Section 6.2 is in no way practical nor can it be made more practical.

I do have a question for everyone though. Why do we need to have a nation in TNP in order to vote here?

If we didn't require a nation in TNP in order to vote here we would be a forum, not a region. We would have so many people here with no attachment to The North Pacific that it would be laughable to even call ourselves The North Pacific. And I suspect the point you're going to make is that anyone from outside can create a puppet and move it to TNP, which makes us just as vulnerable to external influence as if we didn't require a nation in TNP at all. It's a valid point. But Section 6.2 does nothing to change that; someone with solely external interests could still operate here under the registrar system if they're simply diligent in reporting their switchers, while meanwhile people who are more committed to TNP but also more forgetful are harmed by this system.

Again, I'm happy to discuss actual reforms that would impose a greater threshold of regional commitment -- but Section 6.2, rather than being such a requirement, is just a burdensome and impractical bureaucratic process that makes us feel like we're doing something to curb external influence while not actually doing anything.

 

[Cormac]

There hasn't been any discussion of this for a few days, so I motion to vote.

 

[Kingborough]

I second the motion to take this to a vote.

 

[Eluvatar]

You don't wish to wait and see how the new registrar does?

 

[Gaspo]

Why use reason when you can remove something now and damn the consequences?

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Elu, I think some are of the opinion that even the new Registrar does a perfect job, they would rather that WA tracking not be obligated.

 

[Gaspo]

Elu, I think some are of the opinion that even the new Registrar does a perfect job, they would rather that WA tracking not be obligated.

I've noticed that the push for this change has been overwhelmingly backed by R/D interests who want TNP to pick sides in their conflict. This change would make it even easier for those individuals and others to show up, do nothing but vote an outside agenda, and attempt to manipulate this region. I hope the RA is able to see the big picture in this vote and avoid opening the region up even more to controlling interests.

 

[Eluvatar]

Which is funny given that one could surmise that the author of this bill has the same interests as yourself

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I do have a question for everyone though. Why do we need to have a nation in TNP in order to vote here?

If we didn't require a nation in TNP in order to vote here we would be a forum, not a region. We would have so many people here with no attachment to The North Pacific that it would be laughable to even call ourselves The North Pacific. And I suspect the point you're going to make is that anyone from outside can create a puppet and move it to TNP, which makes us just as vulnerable to external influence as if we didn't require a nation in TNP at all. It's a valid point. But Section 6.2 does nothing to change that; someone with solely external interests could still operate here under the registrar system if they're simply diligent in reporting their switchers, while meanwhile people who are more committed to TNP but also more forgetful are harmed by this system.

Actually the point I was going to make is similar, but not so easy to say. I think the the difference between parking a puppet in TNP and not having a nation here at all is negligible. There are degrees of involvement a nation can have in a region. Some regions demand more than others. Currently, to be in a decision-making position here a nation only has to register his WA and take an oath. This proposal gets rid of one of those things. All we have left then is the oath.

Something tells me that a simple oath is not enough to encourage a nation to call TNP home. It is not so much external influences in and of themselves that concern me. I worry about external influences which are entirely devoid of loyalty to TNP. The reason I asked the question about having a nation here at all, was for everyone to consider just how little we will be asking of nations once this requirement is removed. It will just become that much easier for nations who intend to work against our best interests to accomplish their goals.

The suggestion that we can enact something else that works better is a good one. But I want to see that "something else" before we get rid of this one. Let's not pretend no one can see which way the wind is blowing.

 

[Lord Byron]

I think I am having a senior moment, because I cannot find where Section 6.2 came from. Could someone kindly point me to the discussion on it?

BUMP

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.

I interpret the purpose of this legislation as follows:
This is a requirement in order to be able to vote in the RA.
It is for the purpose of security, so that a group of nations could not simply join the RA and change legislation or elect officials of their choice. I.E. Coup.
If a group of nations tried to coup by voting, the registrar would... um... oh

This legislation does nothing to prevent my assumed concern because:
Neither the registrar nor their elector are in the SC whose responsibility it is to ensure security; the official with responsibility does not have sufficient authority.
The registrar is not allowed to share the list of puppets until a "war on TNP" occurs; again, insufficient authority.
The list dies with each old registrar.
Puppets that are not provided to the registrar cannot be found out; it is on the honor system only.

This legislation needs to be strengthened, not weakened.
Until better, stronger legislation can be enacted, I shall take on the burden of retaining the list.

 

[Iro]

Honestly, I think the best thing here is an overhaul.

I am aware that people may or may not support WA tracking, and that's not what I'm talking about at the moment. But this system does need hella change, and in my own experience trying to nip things in the right direction does not work with an issue of this caliber. For that matter, I support the recall, because no one's really going to put enough thought into this until it doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Gaspo]

Which is funny given that one could surmise that the author of this bill has the same interests as yourself

Cormac has been in favor of this change since long before I even considered him for a place in The Pacific, and I've opposed this change since before then, as well. It may not be practiced nearly as effectively or as commonly as it used to be, but proper duality remains achievable so long as one is honest with oneself. Everything I do here, I do purely in the interests of TNP. Cormac, as a TNP citizen, is free to act as he wishes, as well - I'm not in the business of leveraging external influence to direct regions. I leave that to others, such as the UDL's Feeeder/Sinker Affairs office, because it's not how I play the game.

 

[Eluvatar]

Cormac has been in favor of this change since long before I even considered him for a place in The Pacific, and I've opposed this change since before then, as well.

Quite true, making what outside interest he's supposed to be serving a wee bit unclear, which was my point.

It may not be practiced nearly as effectively or as commonly as it used to be, but proper duality remains achievable so long as one is honest with oneself. Everything I do here, I do purely in the interests of TNP.

Cormac, as a TNP citizen, is free to act as he wishes, as well - I'm not in the business of leveraging external influence to direct regions.

Certainly. I'd never ask you to order Cormac around, and I don't think anyone else would either.

I leave that to others, such as the UDL's Feeeder/Sinker Affairs office, because it's not how I play the game.

Aww and this was going so well. What does the UDL's Feeder/Sinker Affairs office have to do with this conversation? Has Hileville even contributed to this discussion?

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Seeing a motion to vote and a second, I have opened a vote on this matter HERE.

 

[Cormac]

Well, I'm glad to see that this debate, if you can call it that, has devolved into questioning my loyalty to The North Pacific (and apparently The Pacific) and to bashing the UDL -- as every thread in TNP's RA rightfully should.

 

[Kogvuron]

"That government is best which governs the least" - H.D. Thoreau

Although I do not always agree with this statement in real life, in NationStates I do. As a general rule, the government should leave citizens alone, have a minimal number of laws only necessary for vital functions of the region, and let nations decide how they want to play the game. This is a utilitarian point of view: All players get as much as they want out of the game without ruining the game for others. No one needs to give up information to others. Everyone is happy and utility is maximized for the group as a whole.

The recent battles in TNP over Law 6.2 have made me think about this maxim that I hold to be true. The law goes as follows.

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.

This law has a number of problems with it. First and foremost, it does not define military operations. I am not in a RL military, therefore, am I fit to be registrar? Should I have access to the private information of all of these puppets?

Second, this law is a blatant violation of the privacy of all RA members. These nations are sometimes puppets that have been sitting in regions for months on end. All it would take was one false registrar for a cover to be blown. All it takes is one bad apple to spoil the bunch.

Third, this law discourages TNP members to gain useful intelligence pertinent to the security of our region. Citizens cannot attempt to infiltrate couper cells, otherwise, they may be flagged as security risks. This deprives us of a valuable and reliable source of information that might one day save our region from tyranny.

Fourth, this law makes it hard for cosmopolitan players, ie. raiders and defenders, to take up residence in our region. The majority of the backlash has come up from R/Ders and rightfully so: R/Ders have much more to lose than anyone else. Our region should be open to anyone who wants to join, not just people who don't have a WA or don't participate in military gameplay. The law forces gameplayers to choose between a region and their alignment and that is a huge mistake.

This law forces R/Ders away from TNP, exactly the opposite of what we want. R/Ders have some of the best culture in the whole game. I would argue many of the best gameplayers, even most of them, participate actively in R/D. Do we really want to exclude those people from our region? Other regions will snap them up, hungry to increase the quality of their regions. Our loss of these R/Ders, from what is widely known as the most democratic feeder, will decrease our player quality, allowing other regions to quickly surpass us. And, we will lose that tenet of democracy, the precept that has long been held above all other sin our region. What kind of hypocrites are we if we exclude people from our region when we claim to hold freedom for all?

This will all promote rampant regionalism in our region, which will keep away cosmopolitan players, promoting more regionalism, keeping away more cosmopolitan players in an endless cycle. And this cycle will be vicious, leaving our region devoid of all except for a few stragglers who still hold fast to that regionalist ideal that has killed our beloved TNP.

David Henry Thoreau chose to live in jail rather than support a government that he didn't believe in. This man stood up for what he believed in, and so will I. I will give up my voting rights before I ever support or comply with this law, and I know many others will too. Although we may be a minority, it is important not to discount the opinions of those who are not in power as well. If you wish to maintain the utilitarian balance between government and freedom, this law must be repealed.

Kogvuron​

 

[mcmasterdonia]

This would have been more appropriate in the debate thread, rather than a whole new thread on it's own.

Don't like the law. Vote to change it. Civil disobedience and out right refusal to comply, just damages the standing of those who oppose this law.

 

[Kogvuron]

Civil disobedience and out right refusal to comply, just damages the standing of those who oppose this law.

So you are saying that I should submit to something that I believe is wrong?

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I'm merging this with the debate thread - it's not sufficiently distinct from the debate on repealing 6.2, although I can see how it's suggesting a different, illegal course of action to supplement efforts to repeal.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you expect civil disobedience to accomplish, or why you think it is necessary at this stage. In the Martin Luther King school of thought on the subject, direct action like you are supposing is the final step of a multi-step process, including negotiation and self-purification (training for direct action, and elimination of any hypocrisy). In other words, a last resort in the face of an antagonistic government which refuses to reasonably negotiate to any acceptable settlement. I'm not sure we're quite that far gone. After all, the vote is still ongoing, and even proponents of 6.2 have admitted that it needs improvement. I urge patience and rationality. Disobeying this law could result in permanent removal of your voting rights if you are found guilty of an oath violation. In other words, even if your direct action campaign is successful and the law is taken off the books, you might not be able to enjoy the new freedoms extended to RA members.

Give this some time, and try legal means of opposing the law first. TNP is not an authoritarian dictatorship - you have some power to change things, and that power increases with numbers. This isn't the end of the line.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Civil disobedience and out right refusal to comply, just damages the standing of those who oppose this law.

So you are saying that I should submit to something that I believe is wrong?

I'm saying if you believe it is wrong, you should campaign to change it. Convince people to vote for the repeal.

Earth's comment here are basically the same as my own view, and what I am saying. "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."

What gives you the right to ignore the democratic will of the regional assembly? At what extent does your 'right' to civil disobedience end?

If Blue Wolf believes that the laws regarding endorsement levels impinge on his national sovereignty and rights in game - does that mean he has the right to civil disobedience and may coup the region? Of course it doesn't.
What if some people disliked holding elections, does that give them the right to ignore the results and form their own governement?

You might not like the law, but the Regional Assembly voted to enact it originally when we adopted the new legal code, if the repeal fails you will be expected to comply with it, just like any other law.

Lastly, I completely agree with everything COE has said in his posts above. We are not that far gone to warrant civil disobedience. Be prepared to campaign for the things you want, don't throw your toys out of your pram and disobey simply because you dislike the law.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

If Blue Wolf believes that the laws regarding endorsement levels impinge on his national sovereignty and rights in game - does that mean he has the right to civil disobedience and may coup the region? Of course it doesn't.

What do you mean, "if?"

 

[Kogvuron]

Civil disobedience and out right refusal to comply, just damages the standing of those who oppose this law.

So you are saying that I should submit to something that I believe is wrong?

I'm saying if you believe it is wrong, you should campaign to change it. Convince people to vote for the repeal.

Earth's comment here are basically the same as my own view, and what I am saying. "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."

What gives you the right to ignore the democratic will of the regional assembly? At what extent does your 'right' to civil disobedience end?

If Blue Wolf believes that the laws regarding endorsement levels impinge on his national sovereignty and rights in game - does that mean he has the right to civil disobedience and may coup the region? Of course it doesn't.
What if some people disliked holding elections, does that give them the right to ignore the results and form their own governement?

You might not like the law, but the Regional Assembly voted to enact it originally when we adopted the new legal code, if the repeal fails you will be expected to comply with it, just like any other law.

Lastly, I completely agree with everything COE has said in his posts above. We are not that far gone to warrant civil disobedience. Be prepared to campaign for the things you want, don't throw your toys out of your pram and disobey simply because you dislike the law.

There's a large difference between couping a region (affects everyone) and losing voting rights (affects me).

 

[mcmasterdonia]

The point is. It's a slippery slope. If we allow citizens to outright refuse to comply with our laws, where does it end? What would be the next step?

 

[Kogvuron]

The point is. It's a slippery slope. If we allow citizens to outright refuse to comply with our laws, where does it end? What would be the next step?

I did not say that I should be allowed to refuse to comply with the law. I am saying that there should be no law at all.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

The point is. It's a slippery slope. If we allow citizens to outright refuse to comply with our laws, where does it end? What would be the next step?

I did not say that I should be allowed to refuse to comply with the law. I am saying that there should be no law at all.

Some others in the region feel the same way, which is why we are having this debate and voting on it. Early results point to leaving it as is. The repeal would likely have been a rousing success if there were some compromise measure introduced alongside it.

For the benefit of newcomers, I am going to repost from JAL's thread a brief history explaining how we got here:

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.

 

[Kogvuron]

And why is this still needed then?

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Because tradition.

 

[Former English Colony]

Looking at it, and knowing the declarations from RA members, I think realistically the people most likely to be a worry are the ones that declare they have no WA. But with no declaration by anyone, it's very hard to know who could potentially be gaining endos in an effort to takeover TNP.

But also, just because we have Elu's awesome data and tracking tools to make the SC's job easier doesn't mean they have always existed or will always continue to exist. This provision means you can also ensure RA members are not getting too far up.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

But with no declaration by anyone, it's very hard to know who could potentially be gaining endos in an effort to takeover TNP.

Oh come now, lets not pretend that this custom is due to a fear that our members will have secret WAs that they will use to overthrow TNP with.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

Nope, it's politics.