Brief answers, but much of this relates to what I was thinking/had in mind four years ago;
 

(04-06-2018, 09:22 PM)Roavin Wrote: @Belschaft - You originally wrote the PGO law that we have now (then titled "Criminal Regions and Organisations"), back in early 2014. In it, the penalty imposed for proscription was simply not allowing citizenship status. When the law was transcribed from the old Code of Laws to its new home currently in the Criminal Code, "citizen" was replaced with its near-equivalent "legislator". A few questions:

• Why did your proposal at the time only restrict citizenship status and not include a prohibition on having a nation in the region?
  

Back in 2014 we didn't have the same in-game offices, powers and roles that are now a thing thanks to polls/dispatches/RO's etc - when I wrote CRO in 2014 it was on the basis of the game back then, and in TSP governance and power was far more centralised on the forums. Were I writing the same law today it would likely be different in several ways, this being one of them
 

(04-06-2018, 09:22 PM)Roavin Wrote:

• Considering that a non-legislator nation in TSP today has more power over the workings over the Coalition than non-citizen nations did in 2014, would you consider it reasonable that such a prohibition is included these days?
  

Very much so - the idea of CRO was to limit the ability of those with loyalties to hostile groups to interact with and harm TSP. Back then that meant access to the forums and citizenship; now that's not necessarily the case.
 

(04-06-2018, 09:22 PM)Roavin Wrote:

• Would you consider such a prohibition reasonable for individuals (as the draft specifies)?
  

Assuming it was handled correctly and with due process, yes.

(04-06-2018, 09:22 PM)Roavin Wrote:

• If you answered Yes to the previous question, do you think this should apply to other official TSP off-site communication platforms, such as Discord, as well?
  

Potentially - I think there is room for nuance, and there may people we wouldn't want in our region who might not be a problem in the public areas of our Discord. I think there is a difference between the two, due to the direct Gameplay elements of of having a nation physically in TSP that being able to talk on our Discord doesn't have.
 

(04-06-2018, 09:22 PM)Roavin Wrote:

• Riffing on your point regarding the 1 to 1 correlation between requirements for proscription and defined crimes, consider this: Legislators may not be declared PNG outright, but may be charged with a crime. When they are, the court has the permission to order reasonable preemptive measures upon request. Would you consider that a viable alternative?
  

I'd consider it not only a "viable" alternative for Legislators, but the sole legal mechanism for something like this when dealing with Citizens and Legislators of TSP. The Bill of Rights prohibits extra-judicial actions such as the ones proposed, but it is eminently reasonable for preemptive measures to be imposed during investigation and/or trial. I've always made a distinction between "security measures" imposed temporarily and permanently when it comes to their legality.
 

(04-06-2018, 09:22 PM)Roavin Wrote:

• If you answered yes to the previous point, what standard of evidence do you think should be required before the court may do such a thing?
  

I don't think the court needs a specific standard of evidence for preemptive measures during investigation and/or trial, as they are by definition temporary and only imposed whilst the matter is under consideration. If a matter is serious enough to warrant trial or criminal investigation - and thus with suffice evidentiary basis to proceed to these steps - the such measures would also be justified.
 

(04-06-2018, 09:22 PM)Roavin Wrote:

• What, specifically, is meant by "have or have attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations"?
  

I honestly couldn't tell you the exact definition we/I had in mind back then, but something along the lines of leaking operational details or otherwise compromising military actions from within was what I had in mind. Large sections of the CRO were written with the activities of UDL in mind, and their penchant for having their members joining GCR military groups - the Ravina affair in TNP in particular. I don't think any reasonable person would consider this clause to cover defending against a TSP raid or such like, but a member of the designated group acquiring knowledge of TSP military operations via membership or access to IRC/MSN/Skype/etc channels and then passing that on to opposing forces would be included.