[ADVISORY QUESTION] Regarding WINDOWS DEFENDERISM // [QUESTION CONSULTATIVE] Concernant WINDOWS DÉFENSEURISME

The Conclave
1

ADVISORY QUESTION from THE DEPUTY PROVOST of the MAGISTERIUM of the EAST PACIFIC concerning WINDOWS DEFENDERISM
QUESTION CONSULTATIVE du SOUS-PRESTATAIRE du MAGISTÈRE du PACIFIQUE EST concernant WINDOWS DÉFENSEURISME
2:05 PM EDT Sun Aug 23 2020 // 14h05 HAE dim 23 août 2020

Quick (albeit stupid) question: Does Windows Defenderism violate the Identity Act? There was no internal change but we are having the appearance of embracing it externally so I’m a little concerned; can we have some Conclave thoughts on this?
Question rapide (quoique stupide): le Windows Défenderisme viole-t-il la loi sur l’identité? Il n’y a pas eu de changement interne mais nous avons l’air de l’embrasser de l’extérieur, donc je suis un peu inquiet; pouvons-nous avoir quelques réflexions conclusives à ce sujet?

Thanks, - Merci,
AC
Deputy Provost of the 46th Magisterium of the East Pacific and Citizen Therein
Vice-recteur du 46e magistère du Pacifique oriental et citoyen qui s’y trouve

PS: french - français

2

I don’t think it is. I’m assuming that by the “Identity Act”, you mean Section 3.2 of the Regional Officer’s Act which states:

— Begin quote from ____

…3.2- Anyone with the “Appearance” Power shall not be allowed to instate the following tags: Imperialist, Mercenary, Defender, Invader, Independent, Neutral.

— End quote

No such tags were put up. Additionally, no other action taken by Delegate Libertanny in support of this theme violates East Pacifican law. Therefore, in my opinion Windows Defenderism was completely legal.

It’s also important to note that it was a joke. No formal executive policy was ever established, no Magisterium law or resolution written, etc. And EPSA continued to conduct both raiding and defending operations equally, as has been the prerogative of Overseeing Officer Atlae.

So overall, no, it was not in violation of law. At least IMO.