(12-21-2018, 05:04 AM)Nat Wrote: Thanks @Amerion

Yes, your interpretation is correct: my suggestion is that individuals who want to be part of TSP but are barred due to a region/organisation proscription should be able to challenge the proscription that affects them, even if their region/organisation does not intend to challenge it.

Since a proscription does not do anything directly to a region/organisation, I would imagine they would be less likely to appeal the proscription on behalf of one of their members who wants to be part of TSP. If that is so, the original proposal would mean that the actual proscription decision would never get reviewed by the court, despite individuals being affected by it. My suggestion (allowing challenges by anyone who wants to be part of TSP but is barred due to a region/organisation proscription) would mean that any and all proscriptions which directly affect people can be reviewed by the court.

It may be necessary to add something to it, such as saying that a second individual who wants to challenge the proscription of the same region/organisation would have to demonstrate a new line of argument or new evidence. That way, the court would not get clogged up by going through identical cases.

My understanding of proscriptions against either a region or an organisation is our government views the threat posed by such a group to be so serious as to necessitate the barring of its members from our community, lest it does harm to TSP.

Given this hypothetical threat, I do not think it wise that an individual who belongs to this group is allowed entry into our region. Period. Granted, there may be innocent people who are part of these groups by accident but I imagine that once they are enlightened to the true nature of their company, they would surely renounce all membership and leap at any opportunity to join the good guys.