|
|
|
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 (1,936 Views) | |
| Free Pacific States | Dec 6 2010, 01:42:03 AM Post #31 |
|
Number One Drone
|
We're not just talking about RMB asshats. We're talking about any non-citizen that the Delegate finds to be "causing a public nuisance" or threatening the government. This government exists solely because of the support of non-citizens -- it should ensure that it cannot oppress citizens and non-citizens alike. Like it or not, the East Pacific consists of more than just the people on these boards, and the East Pacific government cannot simply treat everyone that doesn't join these boards like peons. To do so, honestly, invites revolt more than any limitation on executive power. But we're not talking about a limitation on executive power here at all. We're talking about allowing the Delegate to ban freely -- merely allowing banned individuals the right to defend themselves after the ban with the possibility of the Conclave overturning the ban. What's so wrong about that? So far as I can see, that's a pretty standard right to give a resident or citizen, and it ought not restrict the ability of the government to act at all. And as for the argument that "this hasn't been a problem yet," well, why are we waiting for it to become a problem? DFD was a great delegate and Allegheny is a great delegate but there are going to be new delegates in the future. And while I trust in the EP voter, there is always a chance that a tyrant might take power, and the Concordat should be written to prevent that individual from abusing his/her power. Besides which, the claim that "if it isn't broken, you shouldn't fix it" is inherently flawed because it ignores the extreme helpfulness of preventative measures. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 6 2010, 02:03:33 AM Post #32 |
|
Deleted User
|
Trust the Delegate; Trust the Conclave; Trust the Viziers. |
|
|
| Free Pacific States | Dec 6 2010, 09:18:35 AM Post #33 |
|
Number One Drone
|
I'd suggest, in return, that we trust in the people. And to that end, we ensure their protection. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Dec 6 2010, 05:28:33 PM Post #34 |
|
Planet Telox
|
So does that mean every recruiter that's banned for violating the spum laws here would be merited a trial? Being banned unfairly is something that we can look into on a case-by-case basis. The Conclave has the right to approve or reject a trial on the basis of their opinion if the situation merits a trial or not, based on their standing orders, which is an application of their rights presented in the Concordat. Non-citizens can be tried and can also request a trial, just as citizens can. But as it currently stands, the Conclave can make a judgment call there. It doesn't *have* to set up trials if it feels one is not needed. If the delegate does start banning people wrongly, it doesn't have to be that the banned can try him, which is actually a process that is currently recognized by the Conclave. I have faith that this region would do anything in its power to remove a tyrannical delegate if we ever have one, including having a trial.
I see what you did there. Thanks a lot. |
|
"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 6 2010, 05:59:33 PM Post #35 |
|
Number One Drone
|
That was completely unintentional -- I just picked the last two and threw them out there. You were a great Delegate and no one here doubts that and I apologize if I've given the impression I believe anything else. But, again, this isn't about past or present delegates. We've had great Delegates throughout the history of the TEP with the exception of a couple of invaders, I'm just worried about what might happen in a year or two years. Honestly, though, this seems like a pretty circular argument. Is the consensus amongst the Magisters that there should be no trial requirement for residents? |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Dec 6 2010, 06:24:35 PM Post #36 |
|
Planet Telox
|
It's alright. Just having a tough time - things get magnified now and then. The way this argument has gone, it seems to me there are two issues here. One is the case of what happens if there is a non-citizen causing chaos on the forums or on-site. I personally believe in letting the delegate and admin team do their jobs if the ends justify the means. One person causing chaos can harm a lot of good people in the region, and I'd rather they be able to make the snap decisions to prevent such instances. I don't know what the future holds for this region - no one really does. But some of us have been here for years. Unless we all leave, I don't think we need to worry about bad delegates - we're just that kind of group. Plus that's one of those 'cross that bridge when we get there' sort of things. We'd rouse the Viziers (who have the #1 and #3 influence rankings in the region) and they'd take over. We didn't have a system for rogue delegates in the past, which is kind of why the empire was able to remain for about four months. I think we've got a good one in place right now. Furthermore rogue delegates wouldn't listen to the laws here anyway - they'd probably do the opposite out of spite. Then there's the issue of whether or not it is the right of a non-citizen to have a trial or the right of the conclave to accept / deny trials for non-citizens. The SOC is not written where the conclave can say 'we don't accept your asking for a trial on the basis of whether or not you're a citizen'. And while the Concordat gives them that right, the SOC's written to allow them to make a judgment call. If a recruiter's banned and he wants a trial but he abused the spum laws, they can deny a trial on the basis of he broke a pretty obvious law, especially after being warned. If a nation feels a delegate here banned them for a bad reason, the conclave will look into it and make a judgment call. I trust that body will err on the side of caution when making calls like that, because we put them in that body to begin with because we felt they were arbiter material, lol. |
|
"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 7 2010, 12:08:19 AM Post #37 |
|
Number One Drone
|
For me, the issue is just the basic thought that someone should have the opportunity to defend themselves before a neutral arbiter before facing punishment, even if most would not take advantage of that opportunity (or would be guilty). |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| East Malaysia | Dec 7 2010, 12:57:43 AM Post #38 |
|
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
|
That isn't very feasible in every situation. Depending on the situation it has to be: take action then ask questions later. If they are warned (recruiters, RMB nuisance) and don't comply then they should be banned right off the bat. If they want a trial, they are more than free to register for an account to request one [admin] but I can tell you if a RMB nuisance starts to make a ruckus on this forum: no mercy. [/admin] Direct threat to the government has to be taken care ASAP. Punishment then trial is how it has to be because that is a very stupid move to do otherwise. Now I am not sure if they are aware of this [that they can request to get a trial] and maybe that should be better known and I would hope that the latter of my two thoughts would get a trial anyways for attempting that. I understand you are worried about future delegates but that is a risk I feel we are going to have to take. We have a system in place, true it is untested, but realistically speaking a rouge delegate is not going to get far currently; they wouldn't have the influence to eject people with higher influence that are easily within range of the delegates endos. Now for the future, that may change, but then again we don't know what the future will hold. |
|
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)
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 7 2010, 12:58:15 AM Post #39 |
|
Deleted User
|
Long night, central nervous system fried. I already struggle with intelligent thoughts so I'm sure this will be a complete mess... I completely trust that our delegates are capable of dealing with spum and naughty recruiters. I completely trust that the TEP electorate and it's Viziers are capable of dealing with naughty delegates. Why is this even part of the issue? A non-citizen SHOULD NOT hold the same rights as a citizen. As for resident nations that are not forum citizens, I think we can all agree that the lawful residents will not be the ones getting a whack from the banhammer for spumming or going on endo-swapping binges and flying over the cap. I trust that the delegate and the conclave have the ability to recognize them, and to treat them fairly and provide all due Concordat rights. We are over-complicating things. Just because we can pass a law doesn't mean we should. |
|
|
| Nalt | Dec 7 2010, 01:12:00 AM Post #40 |
|
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!
|
Is that not all FPS wants to assure the person has a right to do in the concordat? I thought that was the whole point of this, to make sure they can have a trial if they want one after they have been banned.
|
![]() |
|
| East Malaysia | Dec 7 2010, 03:35:33 AM Post #41 |
|
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
|
From that statement, I view that was, trial before action; which is unacceptable depending on the situation. |
|
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 7 2010, 10:25:29 AM Post #42 |
|
Number One Drone
|
And, once again, that problem can be avoided via temporary banning. The question here is whether there should be a requirement to allow a person a trial. I don't see why not. Worse comes to worse, the Conclave will have a few guilty people trying to get away with a crime. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| East Malaysia | Dec 7 2010, 04:20:45 PM Post #43 |
|
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
|
If they want a trial, they can get a trial. It may need to be adopted that they are aware of that option up-front, but I don't see a real reason to have an amendment or law passed that makes it a written requirement per se. |
|
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)
| |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Dec 8 2010, 08:55:09 AM Post #44 |
|
Planet Telox
|
If we require everyone to have a trial regardless, that just seems like a lot of extra work for the Conclave. We might even end up having a lot of rather frivolous trials (like if banning a recruiter requires a trial, for instance). Let the Conclave make the call on the allowance of a trial. |
|
"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 9 2010, 07:16:53 PM Post #45 |
|
Number One Drone
|
But by allowing the government to take action against individuals without trial, we're effectively making an individual guilty until proven innocent, because the Conclave will likely accept a trial only if the petitioner can make a strong argument in his own defense. Because the Delegate can rely upon other citizens to assist him, a defendant is already at a disadvantage, and making them have to essentially prove their innocence before even getting a trial makes that disadvantage nearly insurmountable. Besides which, the workload increase would not be significant. Few individuals would actually appear at trial, a fact made clear during the Looplite and Gnidrah administrations when the Delegate refused to permanently punish without trial, and the Conclave surely would not be so busy in other cases as to hear out whether a person deserves punishment. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 9 2010, 07:46:44 PM Post #46 |
|
Deleted User
|
There's quite a bit going on in this thread. I'd like to call for a roll call vote (or voice vote) so we can see where we are at. |
|
|
| Barb | Dec 10 2010, 03:31:58 PM Post #47 |
|
Sergeant Hobo 678
|
Making the Delegate a constable on patrol who cannot permanently banhammer a nation - whether or not they have forum accounts - is inconsistent with Article A, Section 1 and Section 4 of Concordat. The Executive has independent authority not constrained by prior approval of Conclave. Restricting that power to temp-bans that require in every instance a Conclave trial to confirm that decision is a dramatic shift in the balance of power away from Executive. The power of Executive is not a conviction before a trial, Delegate's power is is the independent authority to limit the nation's access to the NS region. The citizen's path to Conclave trial is direct because they have entered into the social contract of agreeing to follow our laws. Non-citizen nations ALSO have a path to trial. They raise the question if a citizen - specifically a government official - acted in contravention of our law. Currently it's at the discretion Conclave as to whether the accusation is reasonable or just mindless trolling to create a disruptive "show trial" or Conclave busywork. Conclave has no history of turning down any such request under existing law. AFAIK, Conclave has had just three trials for nations breaking laws. All three were either citizens at the time of trial or were citizens attempting to reclaim suspended citizenship. Two were for being a public nuisance and one was for voter fraud. We have no history of trying nations who are not citizens. None of those trials were any fun. They were to preserve the fun by setting boundaries on citizens who had entered into the social contract, not by trying to impose laws on nations who have made no such agreement. Increasing the number of nations who can demand Conclave trial by up to forty-fold is not clerical nor insignificant. |
|
Barb Arbiter Barbara Manatee Ulthar Ambassador to The East Pacific Convicted Thief of the Crown of the Vizier Keep TEP beautiful! The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions. - Thich Nhat Hanh
| |
![]() |
|
| Free Pacific States | Dec 10 2010, 05:58:46 PM Post #48 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Actually, Barb, I'd argue that at the moment, Article F already applies to non-citizens. While the article is titled "rights of citizens," "nations" are mentioned separately from "citizens" in the article, namely Sections 7 and 8. I am merely suggesting that the Concordat be clerically amended so that it protects only resident nations, not all nations as currently stated, and also so that there is no misunderstanding about its coverage of all nations despite the entitlement of the article as "Rights of Citizens." I am not proposing that the Delegate be restricted from banning a nation that breaks the law. I merely wish to ensure the current Concordat requirement that that person be able to receive a trial after the ban if s/he is interested in such. I am also not proposing any sort of imposition of East Pacific laws on resident nations -- the laws of this region are already imposed on resident nations. I am merely suggesting that we ensure that nations receive the same protections under the Concordat as the authors clearly intended. I am aware, by the way, that trials are not fun. I presided over a few trials back in the day and I watched the AS trial with interest. But even back when TEP required a trial (as opposed to just giving the right to one), the caseload was not significant. And given that the Conclave has already been accepting every request for a trial, as you stated, I do not see a change if we edit the title of Article F from "Citizens" to "Nations." If the rest of the region opposes my amendments to the Concordat, which seems to be the case, than I shall withdraw them. But let me make clear -- my amendment was solely meant to address a clerical matter. Article F already does what I think it should do -- its just titled incorrectly. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Dec 15 2010, 05:34:49 PM Post #49 |
|
Planet Telox
|
With all due respect, I think we're more active these days than a few years ago. And when activity springs up, deputes are more prone to happen. When I wrote the SOC, I wanted the arbiters to have a choice. We appointed / voted them in, so obviously we must respect their judgment well enough that they can determine in a short period of time either 'yes, a trial is merited' or 'no, we do not see the need for a trial because ___.' While yes, there's no such thing as complete neutrality, they should be able to nevertheless do their job. I just feel if we automatically give members the right to a trial regardless, we may have a lot of frivolous trials. And with respect to trials, trials are never fun and usually only serve to make the accused look bad. Even if they win, it's still not looked at as a "good thing". So if we're going to have members who were banned for going over the cap have trials every time for the delegate banning them, that'd be a huge strain on him or her, just for example. Now I know we're not a RL government nor should we assume such. But we need to give our Conclave that protection: their ability to choose and decide. This also on the other hand protects our community. As I said earlier in this thread, I'd rather remove one member who's really laying in on our citizens than let him or her continue to go here and we end up *losing* a few citizens over it. It's a tough thing to do, but it's for the best: we need to be thinking with respect to what's best for the community, which means we have to protect it. |
|
"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 16 2010, 06:58:46 PM Post #50 |
|
Number One Drone
|
We've gone back and forth on this for a page. When it comes down to it, I don't think it'll be a problem, and I think we need to ensure nation rights. When it comes down to it, you do think it'll be a problem, and you think we need to ensure regional security. I don't think either of us are going to change any minds at this point. Given the opposition, I'll drop the proposed amendment to Article F because ultimately, I do believe it clerical. Article F already differentiates between citizens and nations and specifically gives nations certain rights. As for the other amendment, well, I hardly think changing "resident" to "nation" deserves a separate amendment, so, we can just wait to do that some other time. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 17 2010, 12:51:52 AM Post #51 |
|
Deleted User
|
|
|
|
| Free Pacific States | Dec 20 2010, 02:06:18 PM Post #52 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Alright, I suppose, why not? Let's do an unofficial vote on the original resolution. I'm in favor. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| Nalt | Dec 20 2010, 02:34:55 PM Post #53 |
|
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!
|
I'm mildly in favour. |
![]() |
|
| Todd McCloud | Dec 20 2010, 03:39:57 PM Post #54 |
|
Planet Telox
|
Against |
|
"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 | |
![]() |
|
| East Malaysia | Dec 20 2010, 07:53:47 PM Post #55 |
|
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
|
Against |
|
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)
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 21 2010, 01:19:54 AM Post #56 |
|
Deleted User
|
Quoted the OP so it is more accessible. As is, I'm against. |
|
|
| Free Pacific States | Dec 23 2010, 06:18:54 AM Post #57 |
|
Number One Drone
|
Alright, well, its been three days, and the vote is 3-2 against. So, I am going to withdraw the proposal. But I am glad we considered it. |
| The Federated Alliance of Free Pacific States | Lyon Republic | Republic of Xiopothos | East Pacific Treaty Organization | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Archive: Magisterium · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






7:45 PM Jul 10