Regional Officer Clarification Bill

Perhaps "nations owned by The North Pacific government, but not any particular official"?

EDIT: I'm also kind of OK with communications powers being given to anyone at all.
 
Eluvatar:
Why shouldn't the Regional Assembly explicitly approve any regionally-owned nations to have such status?
Click to expand...
That's what this bill would do. I confess I don't know much about the origin of TNL account, but it's been operating without this explicit authority for years and I imagine subsequent nations of the like would be for uncontroversial things like this. I suppose there's always the possibility this is not the case, but I tend not to go for specific itemized lists when the list is subject to change unpredictably. It isn't like this bill is stripping the RA of their rights because it allows for the possibility (which I deem unlikely anyway) of future regional nations like TNL.

To directly answer your question another way, there's no reason why they shouldn't, but there's also no demanding reason why they should either.
 
Eluvatar:
Why shouldn't the Regional Assembly explicitly approve any regionally-owned nations to have such status?
Click to expand...
Well, if the nation is named, then it would legally retain whatever powers it is granted, even if it is given to another player, or ceases to be used for government purposes. It would take an act of the RA to strip those powers from it, and that could be problematic.

It makes more sense to me to define the conditions under which a given nation qualifies for "regional nation" status, because then if it failed to meet those conditions at any time it could be legally stripped of its RO powers immediately.
 
At least myself, Asta, mcm, and Eluvatar.

When my delegate term ended, I passed it on to mcm (incoming delegate) and Asta (incoming VD). I also gave it to Eluvatar when he became delegate, because he asked me for it in RL.

Mcm and Asta were supposed to pass it on to their successors, not sure whether they did.

Following the creation of the dispatch page in summer 2015, it was no longer necessary to share access, so it has not been given out to anyone else since then.
 
Alright guys, I have edited my post to reflect the third version of this bill. I decided to pursue the broader path with government officials, and adopted the language for regional nations that I had previously suggested. I would really like to get this off for a vote in a few days, so if you wish to debate this further, I would ask that you take into consideration SillyString's arguments for broader provisions, as it doesn't seem those hypotheticals have been looked at with much detail.
 
I think the main arguments against are the same arguments Zyvet posted before. While he naturally didn't directly address SillyString's post, her post having occurred after Zyvet presented his arguments, he does make some good points.
 
Well, we found the sticking point I guess. You're either willing to entertain broader capability of appointing regional officers or you aren't. I really don't think we're ever going to see speakers or AGs getting RO powers. If there is a reason for that to happen I trust a future delegate to explain what it is, but I can't really see one. I think having the flexibility is good, because we've already been exercising it. After all, that's what prompted me to make this proposal in the first place, the fact that we were broadening regional officers and the legal code didn't contemplate it. I hope that you can see the value and the need for a change of this kind, and obviously hope that this version of that change is one you can agree with. I hope I can count on your support.

With that, I motion for a vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top