Ministry Standardization Act

Crushing Our Enemies:
Oh my god Roman. I seriously can't tell if you could tell r3n was joking or not.

...THAT'S how crazy you've become. I can't tell.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, he shouldn't have said the same thing on #tnp on IRC along with a comment about Blue Wolf II being the first to be 'purged'.

And I'm not sure it's a joke. Just look at the law that was passed. r3n might not do it, but I assure you a future Delegate will.

I can think of a million ways that this law could be used to coerce or annihilate raiders in TNP. Remember, a hammer can be used to drive a nail or bash a head. With this law, I am putting my money on the latter possibility.
 
r3naissanc3r:
I was obviously absolutely serious, both here and in #tnp.
Click to expand...
I hope so as no one should possibly joke about it where others can see it.

Don't get me wrong, but if you aren't joking, I want to be there to see the expression on BW's face when he figures out you aren't joking (especially after he voted for you and voted for this bill. The irony will be absolutely divine).
 
Well, flem, you're obviously not looking at it right.

First squint a little.

Then go batshit crazy.

Better?
 
Nierr:
Well, flem, you're obviously not looking at it right.

First squint a little.

Then go batshit crazy.

Better?
Click to expand...
Then you must have an intimate understanding of the matter. :P

Just watch how the law is implemented and it's intended unintended effects. :P
 
I agree. I'm very concerned about the possible removal of TNPers, and I think it would be helpful to know how this might come about in order to try to avert it.

Blue Wolf is too integral to the IRCabal to lose in this fashion.
 
The IRCabal is LEGION when one falls 10 shall take their place. The IRCabal does not forget, The IRCabal does not forgive, You should have expected the IRCabal.
 
flemingovia:
Actually, I would rather have it explained to me now.
Click to expand...
Read these posts in their chronological order as an explanation:

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8144026&t=7197097

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8144673&t=7197097

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8144686&t=7197097

1.) This bill which is intended or will have the effect of and to assert more control over the NPA in terms of the Delegate being Commander in Chief and that military actions may be cleared first through the Delegate before being allowed to be conducted. This is fine, this is as it should be. The Delegate needs to take the role of Commander in Chief to make sure that the NPA doesn't autonomously act and create potential conflicts in treaties or otherwise irritate or damage other regions for the sake of defending/raiding and not for the sake of legitimate regional defence or security. This is exactly the way it should be. I even promoted this as my position during the Delegate elections.

2.) After reading the bill carefully after having voted for it (and I voted for this bill) I noticed that such a bill could and eventually would have the effect of putting a lid on raiders and eventually defeating the purpose of the current Raider Paradigm (which is raiding for the sake of raiding and almost and generally without regards for the welfare of the Region).

Knowing the long-standing tradition (IO!) of TNP, and considering that generally raiders are tolerated as political expediency (and unfortunately not as an actual 'military' asset), and after several conversations with individuals in this region and other regions, the consensus arrived at was that this bill appears to be designed to eliminate Raiding for the sake of Raiding, most likely resulting in the abolition of the use of raiding by the NPA.

Now read the comments I linked to. For a brief synopsis:

I made a semi-joking comment that the Bill would result in the elimination of raiders from TNP.

r3n confirms this conclusion publicly on IRC @ #TNP and makes a comment to the effect that Blue Wolf will be the first purged from the region.

DD steps in in this thread and says it was r3n just joking.

r3n steps in again in this tread reaffirming that it is indeed not a joke.


Moving on to a commentary -

I hear r3n say one thing and reaffirm the truth of my claim which was initially made somewhat in about 51% jest and 40% seriousness and about 9% uncertainty. DD steps in and says it's a joke and r3n steps in again and re-affirms that it is not a joke. Joke or not, there are more than a few people around the water cooler, so to speak, who concluded that this is not a joke at all.

If it indeed is a joke, then they way to settle the matter is for r3n to simply state it was a joke and nothing more and leave it at that, issue solved.That simple.
 
2.) After reading the bill carefully after having voted for it (and I voted for this bill) I noticed that such a bill could and eventually would have the effect of putting a lid on raiders and eventually defeating the purpose of the current Raider Paradigm (which is raiding for the sake of raiding and almost and generally without regards for the welfare of the Region).
Click to expand...

This is the part I'm not following. How does it have this effect? Wouldn't removing the term "defense" be more likely to lead to action against defenders than against raiders? And how does simply changing the name of the position give anybody any more or less authority to "purge" people from the region?
 
SillyString:
2.) After reading the bill carefully after having voted for it (and I voted for this bill) I noticed that such a bill could and eventually would have the effect of putting a lid on raiders and eventually defeating the purpose of the current Raider Paradigm (which is raiding for the sake of raiding and almost and generally without regards for the welfare of the Region).
Click to expand...

This is the part I'm not following. How does it have this effect? Wouldn't removing the term "defense" be more likely to lead to action against defenders than against raiders? And how does simply changing the name of the position give anybody any more or less authority to "purge" people from the region?
Click to expand...
Meaning no disrespect here - Are you paying attention?

r3n affirmed and re-affirmed that he is going to purge Raiders from the region.

When a Delegate says they are going to purge Raiders from the region, and then reaffirms that claim several times, even publicly states on IRC #TNP that Blue Wolf is the first to be removed from the region, you ask how does the Delegate have the authority to do so?

The Delegate has the authority to ban-ject anyone they want to by virtue of game mechanics, rules, laws or whatever be damned. That's a fact. Even if it's a rogue action, who could stop it from initially happening in a timely fashion?

If this is a joke, then r3n should say it is just a joke instead of exploiting the suspicions for entertainment values. So far, r3n is silent other than to say and reaffirm he is going to purge raiders from the region.

The authority to do something is meaningless in the face of having the actual power to do it.

r3n - please tell us you were joking.
 
It doesn't really matter what he said - the delegate always has the de facto power to start banning nations from the region. That isn't in question. The question is how this particular law makes that more legal, or more plausible.

Why is him saying he plans to purge raiders from TNP more worrying now than it would have been three weeks ago?
 
SillyString:
It doesn't really matter what he said - the delegate always has the de facto power to start banning nations from the region. That isn't in question. The question is how this particular law makes that more legal, or more plausible.

Why is him saying he plans to purge raiders from TNP more worrying now than it would have been three weeks ago?
Click to expand...
It gives the Delegate the authority (and, to be honest, rightfully so) and ability to actually stop all raider actions on the part of TNP by executive authority. It essentially gives the Delegate the authority to literally cause a defacto ban on raiding by not approving raids.

Nations/persons raiding without the authority of being directly ordered to do so by the Delegate via prior approval of all NPA actions might result in criminal charges against non-compliant Raiders resulting in criminal charges of 'Treason' being brought before the court against non-compliant NPA nations (which would surely result in conviction and ban-jecting for Treason, the highest crime of all). And that's not to mention the actions applicable by the MoD against non compliant raider nations.

By the same token, a 'raider' oriented delegate could do it to defenders.

Why is r3n saying his plans to purge raiders for TNP more worrying now than three weeks ago?

Mainly because he campaigned on a neutrality stance on the Raider/Defender issue and the fact that if you dump raiders you severely and immediately diminish the number of NPA nations resulting in an ineffective NPA.


The problem with the Law is not the law itself - it's the fact that people have a wrong paradigm about Raiding and Defending - both are tools and as such, neither tool is immoral or moral. Tools cannot be moral or immoral, but the manner in which they are applied involves morality. Guns don't pull their own triggers. Guns are tool. How they are used is the issue.

Either way, r3n should clearly state he was joking in his intent in applying this law if that is the case.
 
It gives the Delegate the authority (and, to be honest, rightfully so) and ability to actually stop all raider actions on the part of TNP by executive authority. It essentially gives the Delegate the authority to literally cause a defacto ban on raiding by not approving raids.
Click to expand...
Did the delegate not already have this authority?
 
thanks to Roman for explaining his position.

I do not agree with his conclusions, but at least I now understand where he is coming from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top