|
|
|
The East Pacific brought to you by, | |||||||||||||
|
Social
Roleplay
|
|
| Welcome to The East Pacific. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you may register an account here! I'm registered. Where do I start? When you sign up on our forums, your account may be limited to certain forums, and unable to make requests in our roleplay section. We recommend that you Apply for Citizenship to gain all the benefits of being part of our roleplay community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Resident Rights Amendment | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 30 2010, 11:06:52 AM (1,937 Views) | |
| Free Pacific States | Nov 30 2010, 11:06:52 AM Post #1 |
|
Number One Drone
|
The Concordat currently interchangeably uses the term "nation" and "resident," without defining a resident, and lists a number of rights for "nations" in the article "Rights for Citizens," without specifying if it means citizen nations or just resident nations. I propose this amendment to the Concordat to address these issues by eliminating the term "resident," in favor of "nation of the East Pacific," and by titling article F as "Rights of Nations".
This is mostly a clerical change, but, I feel there should be no discrepancies in the articles/sections guaranteeing citizen and nation rights. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 1 2010, 02:04:55 AM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
As a formal ex-patriot, I don't think this clarifies to a far enough extent. Resident Nation - resides within the NS region of The East Pacific, may be a member of the TEP Forum, but is not a recognized citizen of TEP. Resident Citizen Nation - resides within the NS region of The East Pacific, is a member of the TEP Forum, and is a recognized citizen of TEP. Non-resident Citizen Nation - does not currently reside within the NS region of The East Pacific, is a member of the TEP Forum, and is a recognized citizen of TEP. |
|
|
| Free Pacific States | Dec 1 2010, 11:49:32 AM Post #3 |
|
Number One Drone
|
That's true, this wouldn't cover non-resident citizen nations. Perhaps adding a section specifying that all rights guaranteed to nations of the East Pacific are also guaranteed to non-resident citizens? |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 1 2010, 03:15:20 PM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
Not all rights afforded Resident Citizen Nations apply to Ex-pats. There are issues of eligibility for gov't office and even the right to vote (not sure if this extends to WA polls or not). I'll look into this more after work. |
|
|
| Todd McCloud | Dec 1 2010, 10:10:05 PM Post #5 |
|
Planet Telox
|
With respect to ex-pats, isn't it just a question of re-ratifying the concordat and waiting to be cleared by the viceroy again? An ex-pat is indeed a nation that is currently not a citizen, and would fall under nations of The East Pacific, sans citizenship. (EDIT: actually, no to the re-ratification part, according to our law on the citizen suspension act. I'm personally for the re-ratification though. Just going on the record for saying that, based on recent events). Furthermore, unless there is a nation granted honorable citizenship, there should be no nations that are non-residents which have citizenship as per Article E, 1 (I don't think we've granted anyone with such distinction thus far). Barb has been updating the citizen list and doing a good job with determining who is and is not a citizen by the definitions provided. Still, with respect to this change: we're basically granting *all nations*, not just citizens, the rights outlined in Article F. I just want to make clear we're doing this. Section One of F is flawed in my opinion, if we are going to do this, especially if a nation is creating a hazard. The Conclave must deem this hazard to be factual or not, something which could take a week to decide, all the while this nation is allowed to do what he or she pleases. To me, this makes for a potential problem. |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 2 2010, 12:43:16 AM Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
I have not re-ratified the Concordat. Gotta go get the kid, then I'll dig deeper into this. |
|
|
| Todd McCloud | Dec 2 2010, 12:55:33 AM Post #7 |
|
Planet Telox
|
Well that's why I edited my post a while ago, lol ![]() According to the citizenship suspension act, you don't have to do that. It's simply re-established. |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Reziel | Dec 2 2010, 02:36:27 AM Post #8 |
|
Eternal Delegate
|
*Reziel calls back the :ph43r: :ph43r: :ph43r: :ph43r: who were going to arrest non-citzen-magister-BGP :lol: |
|
Armis Exposcere Pacem They demanded peace by force of arms ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 2 2010, 08:45:48 AM Post #9 |
|
Deleted User
|
*BGP laughs as Reziel, still in BGP disguise, is arrested by the :ph43r: :ph43r: :ph43r: :ph43r: for being a non-citizen-magister. |
|
|
| Free Pacific States | Dec 2 2010, 11:43:57 PM Post #10 |
|
Number One Drone
|
The East Pacific government exists only because of the support of residents of the East Pacific, namely those that endorse the Delegate and Viziers, and the East Pacific government should serve all residents of the region as such. To properly do so, the government must restrict its powers over these individuals, because otherwise it can use its powers to oppress not serve. Besides which, the Article F rights are pretty standard for any individual under the authority of a democratic administration, and most should be applied to all residents if only to ensure fairness. Section 1 guarantees freedom of speech, Section 2 protects roleplay, Section 3-6 ensure a fair trial, Section 7 allows immigration and emigration, Section 8 only applies to citizens, and Section 9 is merely a general protector. Granting these rights does not threaten the government and does protect the people, so why not do it? Regarding Section 1, I do not feel the Conclave requirement is a problem, because other bodies hold authority to prevent a nation from causing a public nuisance while the Conclave deliberates. If the person is causing a nuisance here on the boards, the forum administration can limit his/her account, just as the forum administration did with AS. If the person is causing a nuisance on nationstates, the moderators can act against him/her, doing more than the Conclave can hope to do. And if the person causes a nuisance otherwise (ie: email), they open themselves up to legitimate legal action. I feel Section 1 thus does provide proper protection while also ensuring a check against public indecency. I do wonder, though, whether Section 1 needs to be amended to allow for the message board advertising regulations. Advertising is definitely speech, after all, that Section 1 provides no exception for such. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 3 2010, 12:18:20 PM Post #11 |
|
Deleted User
|
I do not think the changes proposed in Sections 1 or 3 are needed. I would like to propose the following change to Section 2: Section 2. Article F of the Concordat is hereby renamed "Rights of Nations of the East Pacific". ----- Ex-pats have not forfeited citizenship, Todd. You are one of the few that know the specific reason why I left the region, and you also knew it was for a specific amount of time. I also maintained a puppet within TEP during that time, which is as much as many past delegates and admin have done. The primary difference between the ex-patriot and the tourist, IMHO, is the legitimacy of complaint and the timetable for their return. But this is a debate for another time. |
|
|
| Allegheny | Dec 3 2010, 08:05:19 PM Post #12 |
|
Partly Cloudy
|
My problem with this if you don't mind me expressing my opinion here, is that granting citizen rights to everyone who is just entering TEP's NS stuff can abuse it... I think relying on the NS moderators to solve our problems for trolls on the RMB is kinda foolish. whats to say that all 2000 or so of the nations on TEP challenge the forum led government? we'd be screwed an run out of our region basically.. it wouldn't even take that many.. 100 to 200 people.. and its been done before (ahem Empire) while we are all dilly dallying around trying to mount a defense they would have already taken over. fact is.. Anur Sanur has been causing trouble on the TRR RMB and has been warned by the mods twice and is still causing a problem even taking their spum outside into the other feeders to try and over throw their government.. this could prove to be too dangerous. |
![]() There was a hole here. It's gone now. | |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Dec 3 2010, 11:00:39 PM Post #13 |
|
Planet Telox
|
I was hoping someone else would say something before I did this time, lol. If you give *every nation* the rights of citizens, we could be up a creek without a paddle. Could. Anyway, let me go over the Article F in its entirety and comment on where I see potential problems.
Again, this comes into the whole Anur-Sanur question. What's better here: to let one person harass other nations while the conclave decides if they're being a nuisance here (which could take over a week), or restrict the one member who is causing a lot of other members here problems? I'm sorry, but A-S harassed All and DFD. That's concrete. I don't want that to happen again. If I had the means to do so, I could say it would never happen again. Yeah, maybe he or she had his or her points. But in all honesty, if it comes down to two good citizens' well-being over one nation that's causing a problem, I'm going to choose the former every time. Call me biased, but it's just what you have to do. You can't cater to such people if they're going to act like that. If they're going to be civil, that's one thing, but if they're going to go on a warpath to the point that it gets personal, I'd rather be able to do something about that. What happened with A-S, in my opinion, needed to happen. Wasn't pretty, but it was what needed to have happen. In short, with the case of people trying to create such disturbances, their freedom starts where our freedom stops. This needs to remain as a citizens-only clause. This isn't to say non-citizen nations haven't the right to say what they want. They do: we allow it to happen every day on the RMB and on the forums. Most of the time it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Keeping this citizens-only prevents problems.
This basically would allow any nation to suggest a court cause, which could be a problem in of itself. Bear in mind that to become a citizen is pretty easy here: just tell us your nation, sign the Concordat, don't try to hide who you are, and things are okay. If enough nations organize, we could have some pretty bizarre court cases on our hands. I would love to be able to say all nations deserve this right, but it's like workers' comp: the reason why it is so sneaky is because there are those people who will try to mess with the system. What we're all forgetting here, is that when you or any other nation signs the Concordat, you agree to the terms and agree to have those rights applied to them. That's what they are currently defined as: citizen rights. Citizens are bound by the Concordat, and are offered a little bit more rights, because they agreed to our terms and were not put here by the random nation birthing. Are non-citizens bound to that document? Well, no, but if they act in a destructive, harmful manner we can do something about it. This is basically to prevent such rights from being abused. |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Dec 4 2010, 04:32:19 PM Post #14 |
|
Number One Drone
|
While I understand the concerns regarding regional security and public nuisances, I simply feel that granting the Executive the act against residents without trial is a terrible idea, and I feel that allowing the Executive to act against residents based on speech is even worse. Perhaps a compromise? Most countries allow the government to arrest an individual without proving that individual guilty, though proof of guilt is then required at a trial occurring post-arrest. What if we allowed the executive to ban/censor residents at need, but, then required the government to prove guilt at trial? That way, residents would get a fair hearing, but wouldn't be allowed to cause problems while being tried. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 5 2010, 01:07:57 AM Post #15 |
|
Deleted User
|
It's a slippery slope issue painted a lovely shade of gray. I would support the temporary pre-trial ban, but only if the accused is given proper representation prior to the ban. We must also allow the accused the right to know, prior to the trial, of all charges and evidence against so that a proper defense may be provided. Are these bans to be applied only to the RMB and gov't sections of the forum or also to the RP area? I'd hate to see story arcs disrupted by this. |
|
|
| Chancellor Shaw | Dec 5 2010, 02:44:55 AM Post #16 |
|
Bill Stickers is Innocent
|
I would like to comment as an Arbiter on BGPs concerns of what areas a ban applies to. If I am mistaken in any of this, I ask my fellow Arbiters to correct me. When a nation/Citizen breaks a law of The East Pacific, they are subject to the penalties incurred by the infraction. If/when a party is found guilty, it falls on the Conclave to decided and vote upon a suitable sentence. (This is, of course, not including any actions the Admin team deems fit to take from their point of view.) When a sentence is cast, it is final unless new evidence which merits a retrial is brought forward. As stated in our Standing Orders of the Conclave: "(The) sentencing may include, but is not limited to, forum suspension, removal of governmental positions, regional banning, and forum expulsion." If the sentence is forum expulsion, the guilty party is expelled from the forum. Not "expelled from the forum except for this part", nor "expelled from the forum unless they are part of an awesome RP", they are just expelled. To FPS: The compromise which you suggested is exactly what happened during the Anur-Sanur trial. When it came to attention that Anur-Sanur was, for lack of a better term, causing a public nuisance, the Admin team barred AS from all parts of the forum excluding the Conclave. The trial was then held, with AS having full access to witness and partake in it. When AS was found to be guilty, he/she was permanently banned. Anur-Sanur was never re-granted citizenship after it had been lost for CTEing. Anur-Sanur was not tried as a Citizen, but as a member of The East Pacific. As far as allowing Executive to act against residents without a trial, that already happens and, quite frankly, must continue happening no matter what is decided upon. It is neither feasible nor practical to require a trial before every puppet recruiter is banned for continually breaking our recruiting rules, or a nation is banned for rising above the Endocap without showing signs of stopping, or a troll is banned for being a troll on our RMB. The Delegate has and will continue to act on our behalf to keep TEP safe. |
|
Thank you for your time Chancellor Shaw, of the Free Land of Moafin Moafin Wiki: under construction Moafin Q&A
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 5 2010, 03:37:48 AM Post #17 |
|
Deleted User
|
I'm referencing purely pre-trial bans when the convicted is still the accused. Are we locking out a citizen who has allegedly committed a crime or sentencing before conviction? A-S was clearly disruptive and the administrative ban from the forum was warranted, but what if it was Todd or All or FPS? Are we still clapping down the ban before the trial is initiated? |
|
|
| Chancellor Shaw | Dec 5 2010, 03:41:48 AM Post #18 |
|
Bill Stickers is Innocent
|
Of course you were, and that's what I get for trying to think straight with a killer head cold. Forgive my impudence, and ignore my spiel of information which I'm sure you already knew.
|
|
Thank you for your time Chancellor Shaw, of the Free Land of Moafin Moafin Wiki: under construction Moafin Q&A
| |
![]() |
|
| Der Fuhrer Dyszel | Dec 5 2010, 06:33:04 AM Post #19 |
|
Cool like Snakes
|
We did after all elect and vote in our Delegate with the hopes and faith that the person is trustworthy and competent to do their job. Perhaps we as a region should start acting like we trust our delegates and give him/her the authority to do the job we granted them. Just a thought. I mean the delegate elections are open to all citizens and well...I didn't really see anyone else but Pack raising their hand to do it, so I am going to respect the person who stands up to take the job and give my vote of confidence that they will act in the best interests of TEP.If not....well they have people like me who have been fighting for TEP to answer to and we already know the outcome of that. :lol: |
|
Official Approval by Terasu MASTER OF PSYCHOSODOMY You can't ignore my girth. Terasu: "Well done DFD you imploded the universe" :lol: ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Dec 5 2010, 02:56:07 PM Post #20 |
|
Number One Drone
|
There are two concerns at hand here. First, as voiced by BGP and myself, that the government might use the ability to act a resident without Conclave approval to suppress dissent. Second, as voiced by everyone else, is that enemies of the region might take advantage of the time it takes for the Conclave to act to damage the region. Both concerns are valid. The regional government can address both concerns by requiring that the executive take only temporary action against individuals except with approval of the Conclave as provided for by law. That way, the Delegate can temporarily ban from the region an individual that is causing a public nuisance or conspiring to overthrow the Delegate, but the Delegate can only make that ban permanent after the Conclave orders such. That way, the Delegate can protect the region, but the Conclave can still protect the people against an overstepping Delegate. Putting that aside, I feel it worthwhile to note that the East Pacific government holds no authority over the forums, despite the belief of the Standing Orders of the Conclave. 1 Infinite Loop owns the forums and the Concordat provides the government no authority over the operation of the forums. So far as the forums are concerned, as such, this matter is completely irrelevant. If the forum administration feels a person is causing a nuisance, it will act against that person. If the forum administration feels a person is not causing a nuisance, it will not act against the person. Generally, the forum administration bans anyone banned from the region, but it is not required to do so (the Conclave actually holds no authority to assume the power to order someone banned from the forum, regardless of what is said in its Standing Orders). So when discussing this matter, remember, we're only discussing action taken against a person on nationstates not in general. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| East Malaysia | Dec 5 2010, 03:38:48 PM Post #21 |
|
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
|
I feel that having a trial for everyone will more than likely just be a blunder. Honestly, the majority of them will not show up. A recruiter will just create another puppet and a RMB nuisance can be handled by NS Mods. I say unless they request a trial then they shouldn't get one, just ban them, and move on since we are talking about general NS. Now the people trying to overthrow the government, they I think, should be the only group of people that would warrant a trial. |
|
Question with Boldness >Sovereign Empire of East Malaysia [url]East Malaysia @ NSWiki[/url] - WIP The Eastrovia Times wwt.et.em Embassy - Coming Soon Character List - Updating Soon >Forum Support ![]() >>>Forum Descriptions Rework<<< >>>Tapatalk Migration Information<<< #forum-help-center \ Mod/admin requests \ Board Rules \ Internet Safety & You \ ZB TOS & TOU Emergency Contact: east.malaysia@mail.theeastpacific.com (forwards directly to my personal email)
| |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Dec 5 2010, 04:04:59 PM Post #22 |
|
Number One Drone
|
If they don't show up for trial in, say, 72 hours, then we just keep them on the temporary ban list indefinitely. If they ever show up, they get a trial. If not, then technically, they're just banned awaiting trial. Alternately, we just hold a quick trial, and find them guilty in absentia if they don't show up to provide a defense. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| SCKnightVulshain | Dec 5 2010, 06:40:47 PM Post #23 |
|
The Boll Weevel
|
I apologize for posting on here so late, but I've been busy with work (we started staying open late and I usually work closing shift, so I work from 5PM-1:30 AM) and I helped my folks with putting up Christmas decorations. Anyhow, while I'm all for protecting citizen rights, I don't think we need to just give just anyone citizen rights. It isn't too hard to gain citizen rights. One simply needs to ratify the Concordat and wait for a couple of days before they are granted rights. |
| Confederacy of Vulshain | |
![]() |
|
| Allegheny | Dec 5 2010, 07:31:13 PM Post #24 |
|
Partly Cloudy
|
Let's just think for a moment about how much influence could cost the Delegate, it's not infinite and temp banning people in emergencies only to let them back in will be quite taxing on what I can do. Trolls and such won't always come at us one at a time, unfortunately. Case in point... i didn't have enough influence to ban Anur... yea that's right Anur was only ejected and plans on coming back when my term is up... Now i will take the fall for that.. my idiotic accidental button pressing banned rez and caused a huge loss in my influence. but it still stands influence will be wasted by temp banning and could leave us open. and i can only step down so many times until the vizier's influence is wasted too.. so another option will need to be presented if you really want to do this... my opinion stands, i don't think this is a good idea honestly. Now to me this is a needless bureaucracy we are adding to our rights and trials. The forum led government needs to be a little authoritative to keep control over the NS page.. if we don't then we risk being overthrown and our WFE links replaced with something else. John Ashcroft Land did it... twice as much as i know. |
![]() There was a hole here. It's gone now. | |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Dec 5 2010, 08:31:19 PM Post #25 |
|
Number One Drone
|
This is not needless bureaucracy, it is not in fact bureaucracy at all, but rather a check upon executive power. The Delegate ought not be able to permanently ban a person for "causing a public nuisance," violating the advertising regulations, or exceeding the endorsement count, without any recourse. I am proposing that people be banned until the completion of their trial -- not booted then allowed to re-enter then booted again then allowed to re-enter. To do so would be stupid. I am merely saying that the Delegate should be able to ban a person for committing a crime -- but that that person should then automatically get a trial (if s/he decides to pursue one). If found innocent, s/he would be allowed to return. If found not guilty, s/he would just remain banned. And, once again, this does not at all relate to the forum administration. The government holds no authority over the forum. So the argument "but they could cause a nuisance while awaiting trial" is null because the forum administration can ban a person regardless of the findings of the Conclave. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Nalt | Dec 5 2010, 09:32:30 PM Post #26 |
|
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!
|
AS will lose a lot of influence if he waits all the way to the next election to return. And if you haven't noticed he's trolling TRR hard and I would assume will only get more and more aggressive as it becomes clear his attempts to overthrow Nai aren't working. He very well could get that nation deleted. (If I weren't retired from the WASC... :lol: ) So don't sweat it All. Anyway, I would think if a delegate bans a member that has a decent amount of influence he or she would have a good enough reason for doing so to hold up in the Conclave. If the delegate didn't have a good enough reason for banning, I don't see why we should allow the ban to stand only because overturning it would mean wasted influence. IMO, the delegate should have thought of that prior to banning without reason/evidence.
|
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Dec 5 2010, 10:11:56 PM Post #27 |
|
Planet Telox
|
I served as a delegate of this region for a year, and I did ban players that were being a nuisance and/or causing problems in the region. That is absolutely important for the delegate to be able to do. Over here, on the off-site forum, the off-site government is in control. But really, on-site, the person making sure everything's going well is the delegate. More than that, he's entrusted with a very important job of keeping the on-site community tethered to the off-site community. He or she is in charge of maintaining security, broadcasting the forums and other important information on the WFE, and... delegating. The rest is mostly style points, and each delegate does things a little differently, *especially* with the circumstances the region is currently in. If we're trusting the delegate to maintain the region on-site, part of that trust includes that he or she will use their better judgment to ensure the region is a safe environment for all. I had no problems with banning people for causing problems in the region, as did DFD and now currently All. That's the job of the delegate: thinking what's best for the region, and not necessarily every individual in it. As I said in a previous post, with respect to people who do cause problems, their freedom starts where our freedom stops. If the delegate can't do this job, we're basically telling him or her we don't entrust him or her with handling the on-site community. The thing to take home here is we all voted the delegate in, by majority. We knew what the job of the delegate was, especially after how the last two people defined the job. We knew the delegate would have to handle the on-site community as best he or she could do. Now, if we suspect the delegate is not doing their job with maintaining the on-site community, that's another topic altogether. And no, I'm not suggesting that - All has done an excellent job with doing delegate work, and that's coming from someone who knows how hard that job can be, both in game and on the individual. My point is if we're going to handcuff the delegate from doing his or her job and require them to never ban someone unless told to via a trial, we're just ushering in another takeover. Let me paint a picture. Let's say for some strange reason the nation of Freedom Fascists goes over the cap and won't get down. All would have to ban him and should, but if he can only eject, the guy can come back in. FF has been in the region since I was delegate, and hovered around the cap for at least a year. He's got a good amount of influence. Feeder influence is different than userite influence, in that if you're ejected or banned from a feeder and come back, your influence will be mostly intact. If he comes back in, All can't ban or eject him - not enough influence. And if this guy decides to go back over the cap, we'd have to rouse one of our viziers, which takes time and creates confusion, all the while the guy is gaining endos. It would be... a mess, to put it nicely. No, that's the delegate's job. You trusted me to do it, you trusted DFD too. Now trust him. |
|
"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it." "You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi "The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Listonia's Wiki Page | |
![]() |
|
| Nalt | Dec 5 2010, 10:48:27 PM Post #28 |
|
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!
|
How exactly is this handcuffing the delegate other than requiring him to have a good reason to ban a nation? I don't know of a single ban that has been made that I think the Conclave would have overturned (though I haven't been here long). So I don't see why Todd and All are acting like they couldn't have banned the Anur's and such we've faced in the past. They still could have as far as I can tell. I honestly don't understand. |
![]() |
|
| Allegheny | Dec 6 2010, 12:58:34 AM Post #29 |
|
Partly Cloudy
|
I don't understand why we need this check on the executive. Didn't need it during todd's term, didnt need it when DFD was delegate.. but now.. all of sudden we need it? |
![]() There was a hole here. It's gone now. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 6 2010, 01:08:55 AM Post #30 |
|
Deleted User
|
Wait. I thought we were talking about problematic citizens/forum members. Why are we debating trials for RMB asshats? We warn them, the delegate nukes 'em. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archive: Magisterium · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2












7:45 PM Jul 10