The Conscientious Regional Assembly Persons Act

There are responsible and irresponsible ways to do all kinds of things - my point is that it's a higher bar to prove irresponsibility when it's not also tied to illegality.

For example, if the Speaker chose to deny someone from the RA who passed both security checks, demonstrating that this action was "irresponsible" is trickier than proving that it's illegal. The individual might be Durk, where the Speaker could (to my mind at least) make a plausible argument that they are in fact acting as responsibly as possible, given Durk's history of couping and purging. Or it could be a complete unknown, and the Speaker makes a similar argument that they can't trust this nation's intentions. Or it could be a known player whom the Speaker just doesn't get along with, and they try to make an argument to responsibility based on prior disagreements. If the act itself is no longer punishable by criminal charges, you'd need much more of a pattern (like denying a bunch of approved applicants) to soundly trounce the "I was doing what I thought was most responsible" defense.

Except that because those actions are against the law already, it makes way more sense to just require that people obey the law.
 
Oh, I was just saying that it may very well be against the RA oath to obstruct any bill drafted by a non-RA member, even though it breaks no laws. We should absolutely keep a prohibition against breaking laws in the oath.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Oh, I was just saying that it may very well be against the RA oath to obstruct any bill drafted by a non-RA member, even though it breaks no laws. We should absolutely keep a prohibition against breaking laws in the oath.
Click to expand...
The bill that is currently under vote in not way implies that one is not required to obey the laws. Any other reading of the bill is deliberate obtuseness or inattention to detail.

It is implicit in any legal system that laws are to be obeyed. If one thinks that it is potentially otherwise, one is an abject idiot. An oath to that effect is not only infantile, but redundant.

It is also a sad state of affairs when people pull things out of their hats (CRAP ACT matter, which was entirely unintentional, but neverthess somewhat ironic) to distract attention from the content of a bill or make statements that they will refuse to vote for bills sponsored by certain people no matter the content of those bills. That, I call cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Such stances lead to factionalism, which leads to serious political parties and eventually results in radicalism and mob rule.

That said, I've seen some interesting crap get passed by the RA that is not only meaningless but also resulted in a festering canker of increased factionalism.

If this bill fails, then it is only because those who voted against it are not actually reading the bill or refuse to vote for serious legislation for personal and petty reasons.
 
Romanoffia:
It is implicit in any legal system that laws are to be obeyed.
Click to expand...
This is true. However, our legal system explicitly states that charges can only be brought against someone if they disobey a specific subset of our laws: the criminal code.
1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any citizen for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code.
Click to expand...
So if we remove the obedience clause from the oath, the implicit suggestion that laws are to be obeyed still exists, but we lose the ability to prosecute people who disobey most of them.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Romanoffia:
It is implicit in any legal system that laws are to be obeyed.
Click to expand...
This is true. However, our legal system explicitly states that charges can only be brought against someone if they disobey a specific subset of our laws: the criminal code.
1. No criminal case may be brought before the Court of the North Pacific against any citizen for any crime not listed in the Criminal Code.
Click to expand...
So if we remove the obedience clause from the oath, the implicit suggestion that laws are to be obeyed still exists, but we lose the ability to prosecute people who disobey most of them.
Click to expand...

No, you don't lose the ability to prosecute people because there is no "Obedience" clause in the RA oath.

For instance, I can see any number of cases in which people who have never taken any Oath to TNP have been prosecuted for Criminal Offenses. Hence, even if one has never taken any Oath of 'obedience' to the law, they can still be prosecuted and have always been in the past.

If what you argue here is true, then anyone who hasn't taken any kind of Government Oath could not be prosecuted. That is absolutely false because were what you contend to be true we could not prosecute people for trying to tart above the Delegate (as we not to long ago did) and 'non-citizens' would automatically be exempt from any TNP laws, which they clearly are not.

The Oath I am presenting in this bill requires the oath-taker to defend and uphold The Constitution by direct and implicit meaning and statement. The Constitution, as it were, is the Law of The Region, so to speak, and this oath puts Loyalty to the region and The Constitution above all else.
 
Romanoffia:
For instance, I can see any number of cases in which people who have never taken any Oath to TNP have been prosecuted for Criminal Offenses. Hence, even if one has never taken any Oath of 'obedience' to the law, they can still be prosecuted and have always been in the past.

If what you argue here is true, then anyone who hasn't taken any kind of Government Oath could not be prosecuted. That is absolutely false because were what you contend to be true we could not prosecute people for trying to tart above the Delegate (as we not to long ago did) and 'non-citizens' would automatically be exempt from any TNP laws, which they clearly are not.
Click to expand...
Anyone, whether they have taken any kind of oath or not, can only be prosecuted for crimes listed in the criminal code. That is why non-RA members can be prosecuted for trying to endotart above the Delegate: because treason is in the criminal code, and that activity falls under the definition of treason. It is impossible to prosecute anyone, RA or non-RA, for breaking a law unless breaking that law somehow fits the definition of a crime listed in the criminal code. Breaking a sworn oath is a crime listed in the criminal code: gross misconduct. So, if someone swears an oath to obey the law, and then they break the law, they have committed gross misconduct. However, if someone has NOT sworn such an oath, and breaks the law, they can only be prosecuted if it fits the definition of some other crime, such as treason or spamming. Removing the portion of the RA oath that requires people to obey the law means that breaking the law, in general, is no longer Gross Misconduct, and people cannot be charged with a crime for doing it.

I'm pretty sure the number of times people have tried to explain this to you has risen into the double digits over the course of this thread. I'm not sure how you still aren't getting this.
 
The very fact that one holds a position in the RA or any other position means that they can be prosecuted for Gross Misconduct, oath or no oath. That simple.

The oath I am proposing does in no way exempt anyone from prosecution for any action that is a violation of the Legal Code. In all reality, I have no personal or practical issues with the 'obedience to her laws' clause. I just think it's rather a clumsy phrase that sounds a bit authoritarian rather than egalitarian.
 
Romanoffia:
The very fact that one holds a position in the RA or any other position means that they can be prosecuted for Gross Misconduct, oath or no oath. That simple.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is all just a simple misunderstanding of the definition of Gross Misconduct:
Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct
23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
Click to expand...
You cannot commit Gross Misconduct unless you have broken an oath. Currently, breaking a law violates the RA oath, and constitutes Gross Misconduct. Under your proposed oath, breaking a law does not break the oath, and would not constitute Gross Misconduct.
 
I cannot help but feel that we have created problems for ourselves by linking our criminal code so closely with the RA or other oaths.

to me it seems perfectly reasonable to say "these are the laws of TNP. You may not agree with them, but while you are here, posting here and abiding here you are bound by them. You may not agree with the regional flag being what it is, but the law says that it is. You may not agree with our law on this or that, but the law is the law, and the expectation is that you will obey it whether you have explicitly sworn to do so or not. And if you break the law, you will face the court."

After all - that is how RL laws work. We have, i think, over confused laws with social contracts.
 
Flem:
You may not agree with our law on this or that, but the law is the law, and the expectation is that you will obey it whether you have explicitly sworn to do so or not. And if you break the law, you will face the court."
Click to expand...
I think most/all of us can agree on that. The sticking point is Gross Misconduct, as it pertains to an oath violation.
 
flemingovia:
I cannot help but feel that we have created problems for ourselves by linking our criminal code so closely with the RA or other oaths.

to me it seems perfectly reasonable to say "these are the laws of TNP. You may not agree with them, but while you are here, posting here and abiding here you are bound by them. You may not agree with the regional flag being what it is, but the law says that it is. You may not agree with our law on this or that, but the law is the law, and the expectation is that you will obey it whether you have explicitly sworn to do so or not. And if you break the law, you will face the court."

After all - that is how RL laws work. We have, i think, over confused laws with social contracts.
Click to expand...

Excellent points. I think that is implicit in any oath.

falapatorius:
Flem:
You may not agree with our law on this or that, but the law is the law, and the expectation is that you will obey it whether you have explicitly sworn to do so or not. And if you break the law, you will face the court."
Click to expand...
I think most/all of us can agree on that. The sticking point is Gross Misconduct, as it pertains to an oath violation.
Click to expand...

The problem is that Gross Misconduct is too narrowly defined in the legal code as to be an almost useless provision. I mean, you can nearly get away with using one's government position for personal gain and retribution if one is careful enough about how one goes about it.

Gross Misconduct is a fairly broad legal definition that covers a multitude of sins, so to speak. Defining it as only one, narrow possible action actually confuses things because what is generally recognised as 'Gross Misconduct' in TNP has little or nothing to do with the generally understood definition most people would be familiar with, such as:

Misconduct means dereliction of duty or unlawful or improper behavior. Conduct is gross misconduct if it is so outrageous that it shocks the conscience. [Morales Cotte v. Cooperative de Ahorro y Credito Yabucoena, 77 F. Supp. 2d 237, 241 (D.P.R. 1999)]
Click to expand...

or,

Various examples pertinent to TNP (in dictionary terms):


Dishonesty or fraud;
Dalicious damage;
Falsification or unauthorised removal of TNP government
A serious act of insubordination


The problem with the whole concept of "Gross Misconduct" is that the definition we use in TNP Law is so narrow as to exclude the actual applicable definition of the term itself.


For instance, if someone takes the RA oath with the deliberate intent of not obeying that oath, and doing so with malice of forethought (that is with reservation of thought with purposes of evasion or deception), it is strictly speaking, not Gross Misconduct because of the extremely narrow definition.

The oath I am proposing actually expands what can be considered a violation of the oath to cover more possible forms of evasion, reservation or Gross Misconduct. It adds an element of morality that does not currently exist.
 
Roman:
The problem is that Gross Misconduct is too narrowly defined in the legal code as to be an almost useless provision.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Tbh though, I'm a fan of narrow definitions. No ambiguity. Having said that, if you can connect the language of your proposed oath with what is used now (regarding Gross Misconduct).. then great. :D
 
Romanoffia:
For instance, if someone takes the RA oath with the deliberate intent of not obeying that oath, and doing so with malice of forethought (that is with reservation of thought with purposes of evasion or deception), it is strictly speaking, not Gross Misconduct because of the extremely narrow definition.
Click to expand...
It's malice aforethought, not "of". And malice aforethought doesn't refer to deception or evasion, but premeditated intent.

And you are correct. It is not a criminal act to swear an oath with the intent of disobeying it - and nor should it ever be. It is criminal to carry out that intention, to actually disobey the oath. And it is criminal to do it even if one swore the oath fully intending to uphold it.

People can think or intend whatever they want; it is actions which are criminal or not criminal. We are not the thought police.
 
falapatorius:
TL;DR version: Irresponsible (as an RA member and a global mod).
Click to expand...
That really hurts, falapatorius. ?

I read your posts diligently. There are admittedly some people whose posts I will not read, but that is because they are word vomiters who are incapable of brevity, or making any kind of point with the hundreds of words they decide to use.

I am absolutely certain that there is no law against influencing people in this here political simulator. I stated my intention openly to attempt to find people who agree with my position, and to build a consensus. I will not be able to accomplish my stated goal on my own, as the procedures here place a sensible limit on the ability of one member to obstruct the RA as a whole.

Just because you do not like the behavior of a fellow assembly person does not make it illegal, or even irresponsible.

I don't really see the point of attempting to link my "irresponsibility" with my status as a global moderator. This is an IC legislature last I checked, and my moderation duties are wholly separate from my persona in the RA. Your seeming suggestion is that I should somehow act differently than any other member of the RA, which is a wrongheaded idea.
 
DD:
I read your posts diligently.
Click to expand...
I'm flattered, I think. :unsure: I suspect it's more about looking for forum violations on my part, rather than interest in the substance of my posts (such as they may be). But meh..

DD:
I am absolutely certain that there is no law against influencing people in this here political simulator. I stated my intention openly to attempt to find people who agree with my position, and to build a consensus. I will not be able to accomplish my stated goal on my own, as the procedures here place a sensible limit on the ability of one member to obstruct the RA as a whole.
Click to expand...
I know it's not illegal. I've no problem with using RA procedure to block legislation, as long as it's your own decision reached privately. If you want to lobby support via PMs or whatever, then fine. I take issue to publicly stating your goal to obstruct the process at a future time. I also think motioning to stop a vote based on your stated reason (a member's lack of RA membership) goes against the spirit of the procedure. I would think a motion to block a vote would be based on the legislation itself, rather than the status of the author. :shrug:

DD:
I don't really see the point of attempting to link my "irresponsibility" with my status as a global moderator. This is an IC legislature last I checked, and my moderation duties are wholly separate from my persona in the RA. Your seeming suggestion is that I should somehow act differently than any other member of the RA, which is a wrongheaded idea.
Click to expand...
I guess we see the role of a global moderator differently. Of course you should contribute to discussions, but I also think you should edit yourself a bit better. It's one thing for a regular member to publicly foment obstructionist actions, quite another when a mod does it. I know you weren't wearing your mod hat when you made the post in question (as far as I know), but I still hold it was bad form at the least, or irresponsible at worst. It's just my opinion.. as one of the 'unholy trio'. :rofl:

*side note to Lord Nwahs* Unholy trio sounds like some kind of jazz ensemble. Just for lulz, search it on youtube.
 
[flash]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8st0m2fLuk[/flash]

...okay...

(warning: nsfw-ish)
 
falapatorius:
DD:
I read your posts diligently.
Click to expand...
I'm flattered, I think. :unsure: I suspect it's more about looking for forum violations on my part, rather than interest in the substance of my posts (such as they may be). But meh..

DD:
I am absolutely certain that there is no law against influencing people in this here political simulator. I stated my intention openly to attempt to find people who agree with my position, and to build a consensus. I will not be able to accomplish my stated goal on my own, as the procedures here place a sensible limit on the ability of one member to obstruct the RA as a whole.
Click to expand...
I know it's not illegal. I've no problem with using RA procedure to block legislation, as long as it's your own decision reached privately. If you want to lobby support via PMs or whatever, then fine. I take issue to publicly stating your goal to obstruct the process at a future time. I also think motioning to stop a vote based on your stated reason (a member's lack of RA membership) goes against the spirit of the procedure. I would think a motion to block a vote would be based on the legislation itself, rather than the status of the author. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Setting aside the status of the author of the proposal for one second.

I find it interesting that you would prefer such discussions to occur in private rather than in the realm of public discussion. Personally speaking, I would much rather have someone state their intention to lobby against proposals or votes (or anything else for that matter) so that the public is aware of their intentions.

You've said to me before that you respect my right to an opinion, but that I should only share it if it is necessary to do so. I think this is another situation here, where DD is simply stating his intent and was attempting to garner how much approval and support his position would have.

Additionally stating your intentions publicly, gives other people the opportunity to campaign against their goal if they should so wish. Which I have done on multiple occasions.

Private campaigns are a bit annoying. I'd rather people come out and state their intent and be prepared to stand behind their words in a public debate. That way you can be aware of what they are doing and why.

:2c:
 
Yes, I abhor skulking around dark corners to get something done around here. My approach is to be out in the open with my intent.

I am also not suggesting a boycott of proposals of ALL citizens, just one in particular based on their history. I have to wonder what position people would take with a persona non grata, who was rejected from the RA, were they to attempt to suggest legislation? Would you ignore that person's history and entertain their ideas based on the principles being espoused here? I sincerely doubt it.
 
DD:
I have to wonder what position people would take with a persona non grata, who was rejected from the RA, were they to attempt to suggest legislation? Would you ignore that person's history and entertain their ideas based on the principles being espoused here?
Click to expand...
Why not? Good legislative ideas should be examined, regardless of the author's history/status/popularity.

Roman:
Aha! SO you are the one who stole my home movies.
Click to expand...
:rofl: I didn't want to link to that. The hillbilly version of 'bring the noise' cracked me up. I'm partial to the Anthrax version.
 
Just pointing out that great legislation can come from "untrustworthy" or "suspicious" sources. Votes on legislation should be based on how you want the law to look after the vote is over.
 
COE:
Just pointing out that great legislation can come from "untrustworthy" or "suspicious" sources. Votes on legislation should be based on how you want the law to look after the vote is over.
Click to expand...
Ima hold you to that.
 
Feel free to quote me on that any time. Every vote I cast on a legislative proposal is based on the merits of the legislation under consideration.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Feel free to quote me on that any time. Every vote I cast on a legislative proposal is based on the merits of the legislation under consideration.
Click to expand...
:agree:

On the other hand, I don't agree that DD was engaging in that particular fallacy. He wasn't saying Alunya's ideas are bad - just that he won't support them on principle. You may or may not agree with that principle, but it isn't fallacious.
 
SillyString:
Crushing Our Enemies:
Feel free to quote me on that any time. Every vote I cast on a legislative proposal is based on the merits of the legislation under consideration.
Click to expand...
:agree:

On the other hand, I don't agree that DD was engaging in that particular fallacy. He wasn't saying Alunya's ideas are bad - just that he won't support them on principle. You may or may not agree with that principle, but it isn't fallacious.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
flemingovia:
Nah. I look at the proposer and supporters. If they are plonkers I am inclined to vote against.
Click to expand...
And that is why you would have probably gone down with the RMS Titanic.

"I don't like that Captain Smith. I refuse to listen to his claims that the ship is sinking. Therefore, I shall sit and listen to the orchestra play Nearer My God To Thee and enjoy the cool water." :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top