WA Verification Repeal Bill
- Thread starter r3naissanc3r
- Start date
I'd say it was more of a rebuttal than refutation, but semantics.
My argument is simple, a speed limit cannot be enforced. People are left to their own devices to drive within the limit but the government cannot control their actions. This doesn't mean we do away with such laws because of an inability to enforce the law at all times.
Further, I am not of the opinion that the majority of RA members will lie, and for those that do the verification is a way we can use to prove such a lie has occurred. In your link you mentioned:
It would seem to me any AG worth their salt would request from the registrar if the WA nation submitted by a a defendant charged with treason of some kind against TNP was accurate, no?
If your reply is that the AG cannot do this because of laws within TNP, doesn't it seem more prudent to change such laws in order to give the AG the most ammunition to prosecute and not take away a tool from him/her?
And here's a more direct question, are you suggesting that if you - as justice - were presented with evidence that a defendant had lied about his/her WA verification, the very fact that this lie occurred would have zero impact upon your evaluation of the credibility of said defendant?
If yes, then we're in more trouble than I thought.
My argument is simple, a speed limit cannot be enforced. People are left to their own devices to drive within the limit but the government cannot control their actions. This doesn't mean we do away with such laws because of an inability to enforce the law at all times.
Further, I am not of the opinion that the majority of RA members will lie, and for those that do the verification is a way we can use to prove such a lie has occurred. In your link you mentioned:
It would seem to me any AG worth their salt would request from the registrar if the WA nation submitted by a a defendant charged with treason of some kind against TNP was accurate, no?
If your reply is that the AG cannot do this because of laws within TNP, doesn't it seem more prudent to change such laws in order to give the AG the most ammunition to prosecute and not take away a tool from him/her?
And here's a more direct question, are you suggesting that if you - as justice - were presented with evidence that a defendant had lied about his/her WA verification, the very fact that this lie occurred would have zero impact upon your evaluation of the credibility of said defendant?
If yes, then we're in more trouble than I thought.
Sure it can. Not against all people at all times, of course, but hit people with a radar gun and you absolutely can tell if they're speeding, and decide whether it's worth pulling them over and writing a ticket.
The equivalent to the current WA requirement would be if your radar gun gave you a readout saying "that's a car!"
No it isn't! It is a way we absolutely cannot prove any lie has occurred, because there is no way to verify anything anybody reports to the registrar!
The AG cannot do this because it is a tool which does not exist. Literally, the registrar would have to be a NationStates Game Moderator to actually verify any report they were given, which would also qualify as an abuse of their power on the game-side and result in a prompt removal of their status. The registrar must take it on faith alone that someone's reported WA nation is accurate.
The Deputy Speaker has already definitively rebutted (even refuted 
) the rest of Punk's points, so I won't repeat the same things.
Regarding this:
) the rest of Punk's points, so I won't repeat the same things. Regarding this:
Do you seriously expect me to answer this? As a former Justice, you know that the only occasion where I could answer this question is if it came up in an actual case before the Court.Punk:
Of course you can answer the question but I find it odd that you didn't.r3naissanc3r:The Deputy Speaker has already definitively rebutted (even refuted
Regarding this:
Do you seriously expect me to answer this? As a former Justice, you know that the only occasion where I could answer this question is if it came up in an actual case before the Court.Punk:
I'll state for the record that yes, if a defendant lied on his WA verification entry, yes it would impact his credibility in a case in which I was justice.
Period, no need for sugar coating. As you can see, not all justices or would-be justices hold this particular view.
And again, Silly String's comments would indicate that a majority of those submitting WA nations are in fact liars. I have a little more faith in RA members than that.
And regarding this, SillyString you just aren't listening:
Unbolded equals my laziness.
If a nation submits a WA nation to the registrar and that nation is not their WA nation, then that is a lie. Just look at the current case against Durk where the complainant is trying to prove that Durk was still in possession of TDE while he was an RA member. It's not a stretch of the imagination that a competent prosecutor would attempt and even have some success at catching a would-be perp in this lie. How? National activity is one way as many people do not update their national activity all the time. Another is via looking at the RA member's "real" WA nation and looking at the national activity of that nation.
So I do believe there are ways to prove the lie which can be just another brick in building a case against a defendant.
You would have absolutely no way of knowing if a defendant lied. Literally. None. The most you could possibly have is suspicion - and justices should never be allowing unsubstantiated, unprovable suspicion to interfere with their impartiality on a case.
I have said nothing of the sort.
You cannot possibly know if somebody has lied about their status - you cannot know if they have a WA when they claimed they did not, or if the WA they claimed is indeed theirs. You cannot know if the list of puppets they provided is complete, whether or not any of those puppets hold WA status. You cannot know if they have multiple WAs. You cannot know.
The percentage of the RA which has lied to the registrar, I am certain, falls somewhere between 0% and 100%. To narrow that range at all would require a voluntary admission of guilt from those in violation, and would still not preclude a higher percentage of the RA from lying about whether or not they've lied.
Durk, bless his silly heart, has made no attempt to lie. Durk claimed TDE as his WA nation when he joined the RA, and has made no statements rescinding his claims anywhere. The fact that his possession of the nation has to be proven is absurd in and of itself, and does nothing to make your case that it is possible to prove when someone is actually lying.
Seeing that the Delegate has vetoed this bill, I move for an override vote.
- Discord
- COE#7110
Motions to override will follow non-legislative procedures.
- Discord
- COE#7110
There is a motion to override the veto of this bill on the floor. Please confine future discussion to that topic.
I've split out the off-topic posts to allow that discussion to continue without impeding the motioned override.
Edit: For myself, it concerns me that the delegate has used his power to squash a bill which was approved by a majority of the RA without either participating in the debate around it, or providing a rationale for the veto.
Edit: For myself, it concerns me that the delegate has used his power to squash a bill which was approved by a majority of the RA without either participating in the debate around it, or providing a rationale for the veto.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Two quick comments:
Not having a record of a player's WA nation would nullify that clause of the Bill of Rights, ergo, the Bill of Rights thereby requires that such a record be kept in order to assure compliance by the government of the protection afforded by that clause of the Bill of Rights.
That requirement was more easily enforced by earlier versions of the oath; the RA oath has been watered down too much; so the solution is not to remove the WA requirement and verification, but to re-word the oath back to something that will more clearly enforce truthful disclosure of the identity of a player's W.A. nation.
I will appear to vote to sustain the Delegate's veto of the original bill. I am getting closer to the end of my leave of absence, and I am thinking through what level of activity I will sustain at that time; it will likely focus on serving as an admin and my SC membership and duties more than anything else, including the RA.
Not having a record of a player's WA nation would nullify that clause of the Bill of Rights, ergo, the Bill of Rights thereby requires that such a record be kept in order to assure compliance by the government of the protection afforded by that clause of the Bill of Rights.
That requirement was more easily enforced by earlier versions of the oath; the RA oath has been watered down too much; so the solution is not to remove the WA requirement and verification, but to re-word the oath back to something that will more clearly enforce truthful disclosure of the identity of a player's W.A. nation.
I will appear to vote to sustain the Delegate's veto of the original bill. I am getting closer to the end of my leave of absence, and I am thinking through what level of activity I will sustain at that time; it will likely focus on serving as an admin and my SC membership and duties more than anything else, including the RA.
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
I second the motion.
- Discord
- COE#7110
Seeing a motion and a second, I see no need to delay the vote on the override motion, since the original proposal was the subject of extensive debate. The vote will open within a few hours.
For those who pay attention to such matters, it looks like someone has really gotten the vote out on this one.
For a provision (WA Verification) that some have argued is irrelevant to the security of the region, I do agree, GBM, that the number of voters in the override - which is already greater than the number of voters in the original legislation - seems to indicate that someone is trying to get out the vote.Great Bights Mum:
I wonder why?
King Durk the Awesome
TNPer
I object to the duration of this vote, as decided by the Speaker.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Some of the voters have done little (recently) other than vote on that particular piece of legislation. Its my understanding that a lot of 'convincing' or 'lobbying' has been going on. At least my request to no be lobbied has been respected. Some members who voted against the original piece are voting in favour of the override. This is another example of the cosmopolitan nature of the RA, It would have helped if Jamie explained his reasoning for the veto.punk d:For a provision (WA Verification) that some have argued is irrelevant to the security of the region, I do agree, GBM, that the number of voters in the override - which is already greater than the number of voters in the original legislation - seems to indicate that someone is trying to get out the vote.Great Bights Mum:
I wonder why?
S
Solm
Guest
Third.Mall:
D
Deleted User (Guest)
Guest
I fifth.Tim:
I sixth.Lord Ravenclaw:
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
It should have closed one minute ago. What exactly is going on? 
Democratic Donkeys
TNPer
I hope this ridiculous banter is split out. I am frankly ashamed at how my fellow assemblypersons are choosing to comport themselves. 
In my opinion, the only reason to vote for this repeal is to weaken the security of TNP.mcmasterdonia:Some of the voters have done little (recently) other than vote on that particular piece of legislation. Its my understanding that a lot of 'convincing' or 'lobbying' has been going on. At least my request to no be lobbied has been respected. Some members who voted against the original piece are voting in favour of the override. This is another example of the cosmopolitan nature of the RA, It would have helped if Jamie explained his reasoning for the veto.punk d:For a provision (WA Verification) that some have argued is irrelevant to the security of the region, I do agree, GBM, that the number of voters in the override - which is already greater than the number of voters in the original legislation - seems to indicate that someone is trying to get out the vote.Great Bights Mum:
I wonder why?
I don't have a problem with people lobbying behind the scenes. That's politics. But for those who have switched their votes, I ask you one question:
Why is it so important that this measure pass?
Democratic Donkeys
TNPer
Because an internet friend might get their feelings hurt?
I am concerned that doing away with the WA reporting requirement was so very important to certain nations that they felt the need to go all out on this. It makes me wonder if I'm missing something. I can't help but feel ill at ease about the motives coming into play.
Gbm, there has indeed been an awful lot of lobbying on this one. I predicted on IRC that this would be the case. As to the reason, see punkd's post above: the only thing this legislation does is to further weaken the security if tnp.
I rather fear we will see why in a while.
Tnp: you got played. Suckas.
I rather fear we will see why in a while.
Tnp: you got played. Suckas.
Chasmanthe
TNPer
If that were the case, why would the Registrar of confidential puppets be voting for the repeal?punk d:
It seems highly unlikely that this is part of some cosmopolitan plot to weaken the security of TNP, when so many loyal and upstanding citizens are on the aye side.
N'est-ce pas?
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
I just want to know why the duration for the vote is being disputed. The vote had already ended, and I would hope that any votes changed after that time would not be counted.
Mais non, Monsieur. FEC's vote was the only surprise AYE. The rest of the blue-bloods voted against.Chasmanthe:If that were the case, why would the Registrar of confidential puppets be voting for the repeal?punk d:
It seems highly unlikely that this is part of some cosmopolitan plot to weaken the security of TNP, when so many loyal and upstanding citizens are on the aye side.
N'est-ce pas?
What Mum Said.
And I love the term "Cosmopolitans". It is so much nicer than the term I would use.
And I love the term "Cosmopolitans". It is so much nicer than the term I would use.
I'm not sure why it was surprising. As has been explained, the registrar position has been given a literally impossible job to do.Great Bights Mum:
- Pronouns
- she/her
- TNP Nation
- Former English Colony
- Discord
- Erastide
SillyString:
It's nice in theory, absolutely crap to practice.
nevermind.
- Discord
- COE#7110
Per the RA Rules, Section 2, Clause 4:SillyString:
Since 1/10 of the RA has objected to the duration of the override vote before in concluded, it will last for the maximum duration permitted by law, which is seven days. The vote remains open, and it will close on (time=1379471400).
- Discord
- COE#7110
The sixth objection was posted at (time=1379298559). The vote was scheduled to end at (time=1379298600).