Puppet Registrar - Exemption for NPA members

Kiwi

Kiwi

TNPer
This topic has recently popped up and while we do have a document with puppets and the-like, it seems silly that the military of the region should be subject to the same rule as everybody else.

Thus I would like to amend the legal code as follows:
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.
15. No member of the North Pacific Army is required to submit the name of any puppet nation that may attain WA status or their current WA nation.
Click to expand...
 
I dunno about this. There's no law requiring members of the NPA to report all their puppets to the MoD, so it might be used as a way to sidestep the law entirely. I'd have to know more about the NPA to make an informed opinion though.
 
There is no law, correct but it is a requirement for joining the NPA and we even have a special submission form to do it.
 
Still, if they didn't submit all their puppets, and were admitted without detection, and then evidence came out later that showed they joined the WA with a puppet they hadn't submitted, they would still be exempt as a member of the NPA. Even if they were subsequently removed from the NPA they would escape further punishment if they came into compliance after their removal.
 
I think that would be a matter for the NPA itself to regulate. The question that needs to be asked is "what are we trying to achieve by disclosing puppets"? Keep in mind that the last TWO speakers have not appointed a registrar.
 
I think that's a good question to ask, and one that isn't resolved by adding an NPA exception. An outright repeal of this law has been rejected by the RA, but it's clearly in need of revision. In the meantime, I'm not seeing a compelling reason for NPA members to receive special treatment.
 
My main thoughts on this would be that we have the submission form for a reason... Erastide could just be given access to said document. Problem solved, yes?
 
I agree with McM. Let Erastide have access to the document that has NPA submissions. COE is correct that this change would allow NPA non-disclosure and all that would result is discharge from the NPA, rather than the more serious consequences reserved for non-NPA. If we're going to require WA disclosure it's a requirement that should apply to all RA members equally.
 
I'm opposed to this entirely and think it should be removed.

Why should we have to give our WA? Some of us are actively using it for military purposes, not always with this region, and it may switch regularly. This should end completely.
 
mcmasterdonia:
My main thoughts on this would be that we have the submission form for a reason... Erastide could just be given access to said document. Problem solved, yes?
Click to expand...
In part, yes but I personally feel that if one is serving the region, they should be extended special privileges that the rest are not.

The attitude of the RA in relation to the NPA has been cold at best. They are more than happy to have input about what we do and how we're governed but when it comes to anything else we're forgotten. Why not "support the troops" for a change?

Tim on the IRC himself said that people would just join the NPA so that they don't have to disclose and then only participate every now and again. I say GREAT! Considering I'm planning to do a prune of the members who have failed to partake in recent missions, I say bring it on.

Isn't the law around now to illustrate threats to the region or multying on the forum? I can't see any other reason and as the Minister of Defense I can tell you it would be pretty darn hard to do either of those without me knowing.
 
Cormac Stark:
I agree with McM. Let Erastide have access to the document that has NPA submissions. COE is correct that this change would allow NPA non-disclosure and all that would result is discharge from the NPA, rather than the more serious consequences reserved for non-NPA. If we're going to require WA disclosure it's a requirement that should apply to all RA members equally.
Click to expand...
Sorry Cormac but as the head of a military in another region, your position isn't entirely relevant. Particularly considering you resigned from the NPA.

Should this be extended to other RA members? Of course! But I am far less sympathetic to those in other military organisations who choose not to support the region's military.
 
Kiwi:
I personally feel that if one is serving the region, they should be extended special privileges that the rest are not.

The attitude of the RA in relation to the NPA has been cold at best. They are more than happy to have input about what we do and how we're governed but when it comes to anything else we're forgotten. Why not "support the troops" for a change?
Click to expand...
I don't object to having perks for being in the military, but I don't think that military service should provide a way to escape the punishment for committing a crime, because it's a not a crime if you're in the military.
 
Adding such an exemption for NPA members (as a replacement for registrar) would mean that whoever was in charge of the NPA would have to have perfect records on the NPA members (ie full disclosure of WA nations). You already said that that is not happening. Perhaps it *should* be a requirement of being in the NPA. Or at least an active member of it. Since I would think that generally what the NPA does requires a WA nation...

But really, Cormac's suggestion of allowing the registrar access is probably the easiest for you. Future wise... who knows.

But really, assuming COE follows through on pursuing those that don't comply by taking their ability to vote, the non-compliant will swiftly lose their ability to change the law to the way they want it. :shrug:
 
NPA members should not get a blanket pass on the law, their WA should be withheld only if it is on official NPA business. The record-keeping on such matters *should* be very simply to keep track of over time.
 
I would assume that the NPA would involve a large number of puppets that would be so numerous that registration of those puppets would be meaningless considering the 'disposable' nature of said puppets.

Also, there is no meaningful way to enforce puppet registration. Usually, if someone does a legitimate WA shift to a puppet, it is fairly obvious and generally known to those who would need to know. And, provided someone is obeying the rules of NS, there shouldn't be much of an issue at all. If it's multy-ing that is at issue, no one gets away with it for long before they get found out (and 99.99% of the time they get caught before any real damage happens).
 
NPA shouldn't receive special treatment to get out of a non-military related RA requirement. They're RA members just like the rest of us and be stuck with the same silly standards. I personally don't understand the rule with the WAs and find it silly because it's so incredibly easy to hide and just claim "oh, I don't have one". But alas, that's a digression here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top