Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 11-07-2016, 04:33 PM

The Charter will be amended from:

Quote:3. The military may engage in offensive or defensive operations without fear of political reprisal. However, it may not colonize or annex any region without the express permission of the Cabinet and the Assembly, nor may it engage in region destruction. Any changes to the World Factbook Entry, Regional Message Board, regional flag, or embassies list must be reversed at the end of all military operations.

To:

Quote:3. The military may engage in offensive or defensive operations without fear of political reprisal. However, it may not colonize or annex any region without the express permission of the Cabinet and the Assembly. Nor may it destroy innocent regions. It may engage in the destruction of regions with which the Coalition is at war, and regions espousing hateful ideologies.

It's not unreasonable for the SPSF to raid, as we are not an ideologically defenderist region. The restrictions in Section 3 may pose too high a hurdle in engaging in raids, and so there is a reasonable argument for removing the "reversal" requirement.
Colonization and annexation fundamentally alter the jurisdiction and shape of the Coalition. We are responsible for these new communities. All members of TSP got the chance to form the laws of the Coalition, under the premise that we were all one community declaring our own constitution. The Cabinet should not be able to unilaterally expand the Coalition into other communities. The Assembly, as the voice of the will of the community, should have a say in what other regions we adopt into the Coalition.
The destruction of regions is perhaps the most controversial act in R/D gameplay. Groups like The Black Hawks, the Invaders, etc., have a well-known reputation exactly because they destroy regions. When you destroy a region, those players affected go to the NationStates forums, or go to other regions, and say how terrible the destroyers are, how unfriendly and unwelcoming it makes the game for them. TSP is an open and welcoming democracy. We're known for our peaceful community, our belief in democratic freedoms, and our undying commitment to equality.
We absolutely should help rid NationStates of Nazis. However, it's not necessary to sacrifice our peaceful and welcoming reputation to do so. We can authorize action against hateful ideologies specifically, without handing over the power to remake TSP's reputation to the Cabinet--- a group of 4 people. The competing proposal offers no accountability and no ethical guidelines. We aren't The Invaders or The Black Hawks. We're TSP! We're a casual, fun, welcoming and safe region. We should make sure we keep that reputation.

(This post was last modified: 11-29-2016, 08:56 PM by Ryccia.)

Punchwood · 11-07-2016, 04:46 PM

This is a bill I could see myself supporting. The only problem I might have with it is this part of the amendment “regions espousing hatful ideologies.” This could be seen as being too vague and could potential lead to abuses of power. I do think this is fairly unlikely due to the wording and the region at large however it is still a possibility. Ultimately however this is a better version of the originally proposed amendment and therefore I’ll be supporting it.

Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member
Former Minister of Regional Affairs
Former High Court Justice

***sandaoguo*** · 11-07-2016, 05:05 PM

I'm definitely open to ideas about how to more narrowly tailor that clause Smile

***Tsunamy*** · 11-07-2016, 06:03 PM

I'm good with this. I had a long discussion with someone on Discord about how Nazis are different than communists. So .... aye.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***Roavin*** · 11-09-2016, 09:31 AM

I motion this bill as well as the competing bill for a vote. I kindly remind the Chair that both pieces of legislation must go to vote simultaneously once seconds have been received for both bills.

**Seraph** · 11-09-2016, 12:12 PM

Seconded.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

Resentine · 11-11-2016, 03:42 PM

As SPSF's General, this has my full backing.

An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi

RP-Government Information

Army Ops

QuietDad · 11-13-2016, 09:41 AM

The intent is good, the wording needs a tweek.

It may engage in the destruction of regions with which the Coalition is at war, and regions espousing hateful ideologies.

might read:

It may engage in the destruction of regions with which any coalition the region or the SPSF is involved with is at war, and regions espousing hateful ideologies as identified by the cabinet or Assembly.

The Coalition is not going to last forever and will be replaced by the next thing and there are plenty of coalitions fighting others for what ever reason and wording specific groups in the Charter ends up being dead wording in a few months. May also want to flavor it to "Can't lead" instead of participate. If we raid with allies and friends and don't have the lead, we're supporting allies, but not in control of the WFE

https://t.me/pump_upp

**Belschaft** · 11-13-2016, 10:02 AM

Coalition refers to us QD; "The Coalition of the South Pacific".

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

QuietDad · 11-13-2016, 10:57 AM

Fair point. it's early and I wasn't thru my first cup of coffee yet. There's vagueness in " regions espousing hateful ideologies." but I could get behind this.

https://t.me/pump_upp