The Overdue Common Sense Oath Tweak

Crushing Our Enemies

Crushing Our Enemies

TNPer
-
-
Discord
COE#7110
SillyString just recently suggested this in the resident's lobby, and since it seems to have gained some immediate momentum, I am bringing it here for official consideration. The main idea is that since, in the context of TNP government, we don't really talk about ourselves as leaders of nations, but rather just use our nation names as our identity, it doesn't make much sense to reference ourselves as "the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION]" when we take our oath of citizenship. Here is the proposal:

The Overdue Common Sense Oath Tweak:
1. Chapter 6, Clause 2 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:
2. Any resident may apply for citizenship using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:
I pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for citizenship in The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The Overdue Common Sense Oath Tweak:
1. Chapter 6, Clause 2 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:
2. Any resident may apply for citizenship using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:
I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for citizenship in The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
We rise to make a Point of Order:

there seems to be a rash of requests in the last few days to make changes to existing law as a courtesy to certain members.

As some or all of you may know, I accidentally lost my citizenship recently due to lack of posting activity. When I applied to rejoin, I was rejected as my oath was not considered acceptable. Specifically, I said "I, SillyString, pledge...", and not "I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of SillyString, pledge..
Click to expand...
."

As the Chair recently sought fit to draw our attention to the opinion of the previously mentioned member as a guide We should follow, should We expect to be granted leave to "accidentally" forget rules and laws that have been codified long previous to our citizenship in TNP?

We object to the proposal as it is not in good order: Silly String should come to the Assembly and submit a valid bill to change the law, or some other member nation should do so on Silly String's behalf. We object strenuously to the Chair introducing legislation unilaterally, as it is Out Of Order.
 
Baker Park:
We object to the proposal as it is not in good order: Silly String should come to the Assembly and submit a valid bill to change the law, or some other member nation should do so on Silly String's behalf. We object strenuously to the Chair introducing legislation unilaterally, as it is Out Of Order.
Click to expand...
That is like, literally what just happened. The "chair" (assuming here you mean speaker) did nothing, COE is a Deputy not the "Chair" of anything. But beyond that, this is not legislation it is a proposal that still has to be debated and eventually voted on if it gets that far so... nothing "unilateral" about it. There is no formal order of things, if anyone has a proposal that they feel should be heard then the onus is on them to bring it to light.


My actual response to the OP though is that I am a little iffy about this mainly because of one thing. How hard is it to delete one thing and then replace it with a simple bit of information. I mean in 4 years I have applied for citizenship 3 times and each time I even went out of my way to make a link to my nation on the site. You know how long it took me? Like 30 seconds. And you know how many times I screwed it up because I failed to remember how to copy, paste and then replace field A with information A? yeah, none. On principle I an opposed to making an easy task easier just because people can't be bothered to follow instructions.

Also I would like to point out cases like mine. I do not identify myself by my nation name. I use a catch all umbrella name Lord Lore as the identity behind all of my nations with no actual Lord Lore nation. Lord Lore is the Persona behind Frances Francis the First of France, Anhur, Ilian Coalition, Versutia, among other nations. It would be silly of me to identify myself in the Oath as Frances Francis the First of France just because I have never gone by that on the NS Forum, on the TNP Forum, on any Discord Server, or such.
 
This is a common sense solution, I don't see it causing any harm.

:2c:
 
Lord Lore:
Baker Park:
We object to the proposal as it is not in good order: Silly String should come to the Assembly and submit a valid bill to change the law, or some other member nation should do so on Silly String's behalf. We object strenuously to the Chair introducing legislation unilaterally, as it is Out Of Order.
Click to expand...
That is like, literally what just happened. The "chair" (assuming here you mean speaker) did nothing, COE is a Deputy not the "Chair" of anything. But beyond that, this is not legislation it is a proposal that still has to be debated and eventually voted on if it gets that far so... nothing "unilateral" about it. There is no formal order of things, if anyone has a proposal that they feel should be heard then the onus is on them to bring it to light.


My actual response to the OP though is that I am a little iffy about this mainly because of one thing. How hard is it to delete one thing and then replace it with a simple bit of information. I mean in 4 years I have applied for citizenship 3 times and each time I even went out of my way to make a link to my nation on the site. You know how long it took me? Like 30 seconds. And you know how many times I screwed it up because I failed to remember how to copy, paste and then replace field A with information A? yeah, none. On principle I an opposed to making an easy task easier just because people can't be bothered to follow instructions.

Also I would like to point out cases like mine. I do not identify myself by my nation name. I use a catch all umbrella name Lord Lore as the identity behind all of my nations with no actual Lord Lore nation. Lord Lore is the Persona behind Frances Francis the First of France, Anhur, Ilian Coalition, Versutia, among other nations. It would be silly of me to identify myself in the Oath as Frances Francis the First of France just because I have never gone by that on the NS Forum, on the TNP Forum, on any Discord Server, or such.
Click to expand...
The "chair" (assuming here you mean speaker) did nothing, COE is a Deputy not the "Chair" of anything.
Click to expand...

In Real appropriate Parliamentary Procedure, the "Chair" is whoever is responsible for conducting the administration of the floor debate. The Chair has No right that can be considered "In Order" to introduce New Business while functioning as the person in the Chair.
The Speaker of the Assembly, and the Deputy Speaker(s)of the Assembly are nominally the primary persons who execute the duties of presiding over affairs in the Assembly as the "Chair". But absent a declaration in advance that they introducing a proposed piece of New Business to the body, anything they convey under the authority of their Office cannot be In Order.

Chair=person who is administering floor business
Speaker=person elected by members of the body to represent said body in discussions with executive or other representatives

The Speaker will always be the Chair, if present; The Chair is Not necessarily the Speaker, or Deputy(s) in all circumstances.

"Mr Speaker, I ask the leave of The Chair to Lay a Bill for consideration upon the Table."

The Chair is the institution
The Speaker is a person
 
Baker Park:
Lord Lore:
Baker Park:
We object to the proposal as it is not in good order: Silly String should come to the Assembly and submit a valid bill to change the law, or some other member nation should do so on Silly String's behalf. We object strenuously to the Chair introducing legislation unilaterally, as it is Out Of Order.
Click to expand...
That is like, literally what just happened. The "chair" (assuming here you mean speaker) did nothing, COE is a Deputy not the "Chair" of anything. But beyond that, this is not legislation it is a proposal that still has to be debated and eventually voted on if it gets that far so... nothing "unilateral" about it. There is no formal order of things, if anyone has a proposal that they feel should be heard then the onus is on them to bring it to light.


My actual response to the OP though is that I am a little iffy about this mainly because of one thing. How hard is it to delete one thing and then replace it with a simple bit of information. I mean in 4 years I have applied for citizenship 3 times and each time I even went out of my way to make a link to my nation on the site. You know how long it took me? Like 30 seconds. And you know how many times I screwed it up because I failed to remember how to copy, paste and then replace field A with information A? yeah, none. On principle I an opposed to making an easy task easier just because people can't be bothered to follow instructions.

Also I would like to point out cases like mine. I do not identify myself by my nation name. I use a catch all umbrella name Lord Lore as the identity behind all of my nations with no actual Lord Lore nation. Lord Lore is the Persona behind Frances Francis the First of France, Anhur, Ilian Coalition, Versutia, among other nations. It would be silly of me to identify myself in the Oath as Frances Francis the First of France just because I have never gone by that on the NS Forum, on the TNP Forum, on any Discord Server, or such.
Click to expand...
The "chair" (assuming here you mean speaker) did nothing, COE is a Deputy not the "Chair" of anything.
Click to expand...

In Real appropriate Parliamentary Procedure, the "Chair" is whoever is responsible for conducting the administration of the floor debate. The Chair has No right that can be considered "In Order" to introduce New Business while functioning as the person in the Chair.
The Speaker of the Assembly, and the Deputy Speaker(s)of the Assembly are nominally the primary persons who execute the duties of presiding over affairs in the Assembly as the "Chair". But absent a declaration in advance that they introducing a proposed piece of New Business to the body, anything they convey under the authority of their Office cannot be In Order.

Chair=person who is administering floor business
Speaker=person elected by members of the body to represent said body in discussions with executive or other representatives

The Speaker will always be the Chair, if present; The Chair is Not necessarily the Speaker, or Deputy(s) in all circumstances.

"Mr Speaker, I ask the leave of The Chair to Lay a Bill for consideration upon the Table."

The Chair is the institution
The Speaker is a person
Click to expand...
Yeah that's real great. I'd personally advise you not to lecture those who know leagues more about how we run things here about how to run things here. Furthermore, your objection to the proposal based on who proposed it comes off, at least to me, as not only unnecessary but borderline obstructionist.

I, for one, feel very strongly about this topic. If you ask me, players bringing "nation leaders" into gameplay is cheesy, irritating, and is only not so if it's in the RP Subforum where it belongs.

Full support.
 
Full support for the change. It makes sense.

Baker Park,

If you're going to try and make a point, at least refer to COE as COE or no one will understand what the heck you are talking about. Also... what is your point? That SillyString should've brought the proposal before the RA instead of COE? How would that make a difference?

Your Point of Order is null and void.
 
Syrixia:
Baker Park:
Lord Lore:
Baker Park:
We object to the proposal as it is not in good order: Silly String should come to the Assembly and submit a valid bill to change the law, or some other member nation should do so on Silly String's behalf. We object strenuously to the Chair introducing legislation unilaterally, as it is Out Of Order.
Click to expand...
That is like, literally what just happened. The "chair" (assuming here you mean speaker) did nothing, COE is a Deputy not the "Chair" of anything. But beyond that, this is not legislation it is a proposal that still has to be debated and eventually voted on if it gets that far so... nothing "unilateral" about it. There is no formal order of things, if anyone has a proposal that they feel should be heard then the onus is on them to bring it to light.


My actual response to the OP though is that I am a little iffy about this mainly because of one thing. How hard is it to delete one thing and then replace it with a simple bit of information. I mean in 4 years I have applied for citizenship 3 times and each time I even went out of my way to make a link to my nation on the site. You know how long it took me? Like 30 seconds. And you know how many times I screwed it up because I failed to remember how to copy, paste and then replace field A with information A? yeah, none. On principle I an opposed to making an easy task easier just because people can't be bothered to follow instructions.

Also I would like to point out cases like mine. I do not identify myself by my nation name. I use a catch all umbrella name Lord Lore as the identity behind all of my nations with no actual Lord Lore nation. Lord Lore is the Persona behind Frances Francis the First of France, Anhur, Ilian Coalition, Versutia, among other nations. It would be silly of me to identify myself in the Oath as Frances Francis the First of France just because I have never gone by that on the NS Forum, on the TNP Forum, on any Discord Server, or such.
Click to expand...
The "chair" (assuming here you mean speaker) did nothing, COE is a Deputy not the "Chair" of anything.
Click to expand...

In Real appropriate Parliamentary Procedure, the "Chair" is whoever is responsible for conducting the administration of the floor debate. The Chair has No right that can be considered "In Order" to introduce New Business while functioning as the person in the Chair.
The Speaker of the Assembly, and the Deputy Speaker(s)of the Assembly are nominally the primary persons who execute the duties of presiding over affairs in the Assembly as the "Chair". But absent a declaration in advance that they introducing a proposed piece of New Business to the body, anything they convey under the authority of their Office cannot be In Order.

Chair=person who is administering floor business
Speaker=person elected by members of the body to represent said body in discussions with executive or other representatives

The Speaker will always be the Chair, if present; The Chair is Not necessarily the Speaker, or Deputy(s) in all circumstances.

"Mr Speaker, I ask the leave of The Chair to Lay a Bill for consideration upon the Table."

The Chair is the institution
The Speaker is a person
Click to expand...
Yeah that's real great. I'd personally advise you not to lecture those who know leagues more about how we run things here about how to run things here. Furthermore, your objection to the proposal based on who proposed it comes off, at least to me, as not only unnecessary but borderline obstructionist.

I, for one, feel very strongly about this topic. If you ask me, players bringing "nation leaders" into gameplay is cheesy, irritating, and is only not so if it's in the RP Subforum where it belongs.

Full support.
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between NSGameplay and TNP Roleplay.
Click to expand...

We are certain that you seem to believe everything you say is true, Lois. But we also are certain the reality is not a cartoon:


your objection to the proposal based on who proposed it comes off, at least to me, as not only unnecessary but borderline obstructionist.
Click to expand...

But still legitimate and valid under the rules laid down. We reserve the Right to Object under the Rules as they stand.

I, for one, feel very strongly about this topic. If you ask me, players bringing "nation leaders" into gameplay is cheesy, irritating, and is only not so if it's in the RP Subforum where it belongs.
Click to expand...

And yet We searched every forum for an example of how strongly you expressed your feelings on any subject presented. Did we miss anyplace where your contribution ever amounted to 'Strong Feeling' on any topic?

Make a proactive, legal argument on the merits of the proposal. That's what we are in this forum to do.

I'd personally advise you not to lecture those who know leagues more about how we run things here about how to run things here
Click to expand...

We ask for leave to reply to this particular "admonition" with an expression of our lack of interest in the subject and a strenuous objection to the intimidation implied. as we have genuine doubt about actual legality of what authority the member insinuates they possess.
 
Yukkira:
Full support for the change. It makes sense.

Baker Park,

If you're going to try and make a point, at least refer to COE as COE or no one will understand what the heck you are talking about. Also... what is your point? That SillyString should've brought the proposal before the RA instead of COE? How would that make a difference?

Your Point of Order is null and void.
Click to expand...
We shall work from back to front on the topic at hand:

Your Point of Order is null and void
Click to expand...

Only the person controlling the debate has the standing to determine a Point of Order.

Aren't you supposed to be on a temporary leave from your position anyway? And We are interested for any citation where you have standing to bring an objection to a proposal at discussion while you are on said leave?

COE is listed as the Deputy Speaker of the Assembly. You'll note that WE gave a lengthy explanation as to the distinction between the Speaker and Deputy Speaker(s) and the person who is supposed to be the impartial arbitrator of floor debate (or preliminary debate prior to an official introduction of a bill). IMPARTIAL means having no interest or affiliation.

If the Speaker or Deputy Speaker(s) can introduce prospective legislation from the Chair, how can that person be impartial during the debate over whether the bill shall be adopted or not? Answer on a Postcard, Please.

Our Point? Let's spell it out in simple words that No one will be able to mis-interpret:

There are procedures and rules that you are pedantic about about when it involves making law. You are perfectly willing to throw those rules out the window when it involves Your Own Self Interest. Resign Your Position and take Your Leave, and then return and resume your position under normal circumstances.
 
I don't have a problem with the current wording or with the proposed language. If the oath is changed, will the old oath be grandfathered in? Or will everyone have to take the new oath? Should we include language which clarifies the situation?
 
Great Bights Mum:
I don't have a problem with the current wording or with the proposed language. If the oath is changed, will the old oath be grandfathered in? Or will everyone have to take the new oath? Should we include language which clarifies the situation?
Click to expand...
I think the logical response to this concern is that language in relation to the retention of all active citizens, including those currently seeking citizenship right now, should be written into the amendment.

Henceforth, those who lose citizenship will instead use the new oath if voting proceeds to agree on the amendment whereas those who already have citizenship retain it regardless of oath change.
 
Crushing Our Enemies is still a citizen of the region, and as a citizen it is within his right to propose to this Regional Assembly. If he ever in some way used his powers extralegally, then there would be something to discuss, but as it is all he is doing is exercising his right as a citizen.

As the current Speaker of the Regional Assembly, I will be overseeing this proposal. I hope this clarifies that COE cannot (nor would he ever) use his position to his own advantage.
 
We've made changes to the oath before, and it was the assumption then that changes to the oath are not binding retroactively - in other words, you don't have to swear a new oath, since you swore the one that was required when you became a citizen. This is in accordance with the forbiddance of ex post facto laws in the Bill of Rights. If there is strong demand for an implementation clause to clarify that, I'll add one, but given the precedent set by previous oath amendments, I don't think it would be necessary.

Baker Land, you are citing RL customs that don't apply here. We have our own procedures that have little to do with Robert's Rules or any other real life manual of parliamentary procedure. If you think our procedures need changing, you can make a proposal to amend them. We aren't going to change how we do things just because you told us to.

EDIT: To address the idea that we are debating this merely to appease Sillystring, we aren't. Her individual case prompted this, yes, but the reasoning for the change is sound, and will apply equally to everyone. As anyone should know, it is often anecdotal events that bring on changes in law. As for your assertion that it should be SillyString bringing this for discussion, she did. The thread is linked in the first sentence of the OP. She cannot officially propose it here because she is not a citizen... duh.
 
I love the royal tone in Baker's posts, they remind me of Maggie Thatcher on Spitting Image back in the 80's.

Now, GBM raises something that would be a good idea to decide prior to the bill progressing: I'd prefer grandfathering in all current citizens, since I could easily see how requiring people to reapply using the new oath could be used as a form of disenfranchisement against would be 'problem people'. (I'm not saying it will happen, nor am I accusing anyone of planning it; I'm saying I see a potential way for it to happen and suggested a way to avoid it entirely.)
 
Obviously, we are quickly seeing that there are numerous examples of ways of doing things that are unique to the establishment. It's unfortunate that it takes so much effort to become aware of them.
In three different topics, not once has the actual position I have expressed been met with a considered discussion--in every case, it was just a dismissive talking-down to, the equivalent of "you'd best know your place, boy". And just like that, 5 people will jump in and say that is a ridiculous assertion.
It just seems a strange coincidence that after nearly 2 months of no activity in the Assembly, all of a sudden some arcane procedural housekeeping issues have come to the attention, and I am not wrong to say--because in both cases it is true--they were both framed as exceptions for individual members. If that was not meant to be the case, there shouldn't have been a mention of them. And that view is reinforced by this statement in the first reply:

There we go changing things again.
Click to expand...

The efforts to induce people to join this forum and participate in it seem to be a bit contrary to the way people are treated once they get here.
 
Enough of this. If we're not discussing about the actual topic of this proposal then there is clearly nothing more to go over. I motion for a vote.
 
Baker Park:
It just seems a strange coincidence that after nearly 2 months of no activity in the Assembly, all of a sudden some arcane procedural housekeeping issues have come to the attention, and I am not wrong to say--because in both cases it is true--they were both framed as exceptions for individual members. If that was not meant to be the case, there shouldn't have been a mention of them. And that view is reinforced by this statement in the first reply:

There we go changing things again.
Click to expand...

The efforts to induce people to join this forum and participate in it seem to be a bit contrary to the way people are treated once they get here.
Click to expand...
Again, this proposal is not making an exception for anyone. It is enforcing a change on everyone. SillyString brought it up, but that doesn't mean we're changing it only on her account, or that she is a special case. It makes good sense, and will be applied to everyone.

I'm sorry if you feel unwelcome - please realize that you were the one who started the business of talking down to people, by lecturing us on parliamentary procedure. It's great that you want to participate in the assembly, but there is a learning curve. It's one thing to read the RA rules and the speaker's standing procedures, and quite another to see how they apply in practice. It takes some time to get the hang of things. It is dangerous to assume that you are the one who knows everything and we are the ones screwing it up. That attitude is what provokes the sort of dogpile that you've been the target of recently.

Before proceeding into formal debate, I'd to know if those who raised issues about whether existing citizens would have to re-oath are satisfied by the explanation I gave my last post for why an additional clause is not necessary. Personally, I am concerned that adding a clause exempting current citizens might give the impression/set a precedent that changes to the oath would require re-oathing by default, when the opposite is true.
 
I’ve made a modification to my oath every time I have given it and it has never been rejected because traditionally we have accepted that the form of personal address is less significant than the substance of what is being agreed to. I don’t see why this should have been any different or why the original application would be denied under the traditional way we do things here.

I, SillyString or I, the leader of SillyString or I, Stabby, the leader of SillyString all reflect the same thing in the context of the oath.
 
Eluvatar:
I would like to point the proponent(s) to please consider also Lord Lore's point which seems to have gotten lost in the strife.
Click to expand...
If this were changing the oath to begin "l, [nation name]" then I would see the point. But it simply requires that the nation be identified, and then that the poster swear "I pledge..." All of us, no matter whether we see ourselves as a player, a nation, the leader of a nation, or anything else all still use the personal pronoun, so I honestly don't see the issue.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Before proceeding into formal debate, I'd to know if those who raised issues about whether existing citizens would have to re-oath are satisfied by the explanation I gave my last post for why an additional clause is not necessary. Personally, I am concerned that adding a clause exempting current citizens might give the impression/set a precedent that changes to the oath would require re-oathing by default, when the opposite is true.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with it. Thank you for your clarification.
 
The change basically allows us all to identify how we so choose when taking an oath. Be it as a nation, person, the leader of a nation or something else. Full support.

I identify as Evil Democratic Donkeys. Do not refer to me as anything else without an appropriately bolded and large font trigger warning at the beginning of any such posts.
 
The bill is now in formal debate, which will last for five days, after which a vote will be scheduled.
 
Flexibility has been offered in the past, but it has no basis in the law, which can lead to inconsistency in how it is applied from speaker to speaker. This amendment allows us to sidestep the issue without it winding up in court - which can lead to unpredictable results.
 
Gracius Maximus:
I still don't see the point in this.
Click to expand...
Well, let's see. Silly String let her citizenship lapse, re-applied, and got rejected for a technicality (certainly not the first person to be rejected for that reason). Anyway, rather than re-post a correct oath (an onerous task indeed), we now have this bill proposal. Against.
 
Alas, I have failed yet again to gain falapatorius' support for a proposal. I suppose I shouldn't feel bad - he only supports proposals that include the words "repeal," "recall," or "override" in their title.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Alas, I have failed yet again to gain falapatorius' support for a proposal. I suppose I shouldn't feel bad - he only supports proposals that include the words "repeal," "recall," or "override" in their title.
Click to expand...
Falap should be appointed as the Official TNP Regional Assembly Devil's Advocate. :lol:
 
Maaan, I went out of my way to name the bill something unique so that it wouldn't be confused with previous oath amendments, and then you went ahead and renamed it "Citizenship Oath Amendment". :(
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Maaan, I went out of my way to name the bill something unique so that it wouldn't be confused with previous oath amendments, and then you went ahead and renamed it "Citizenship Oath Amendment". :(
Click to expand...
The Speaker's Office lost their most creative and free-spirited member only just recently :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top