Users browsing this thread:

***Roavin*** · 03-13-2017, 07:50 PM

I can't support the current draft for a variety of reasons.

The Assembly should have no business with security risk declarations (too easy to politicize, too easily swayed by populist rhetoric, etc.etc.etc.)
The CRS should not be the instance deciding on anything permanent. That is, at the end of the day, a courts thing.
The investigative nature of the process must emphasized and encouraged. Arguing for a month over what needs to be done with a log is not investigating. <_<
It must be emphasized that the sanctions that the CRS can impose must only be imposed in case of an immediate threat

That being said, the CRS needs powers and honestly we will have discussions on the CRS soon as it is, so either way this will be a stopgap measure. Let's try not to just pass something just to have a reason to bal Bel, no matter if you think it's justified or not.

**Belschaft** · 03-13-2017, 07:53 PM

Problem with that Roa, is that this is something just to have a reason to ban me. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it....

The CRS is literally proposing that the Assembly vote away every TSPers civil rights, because they can't prove something in court.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 03-13-2017, 07:53 PM by Belschaft.)

***Roavin*** · 03-13-2017, 08:03 PM

Saying that is just as much cheap populistic rhetoric though.

**Belschaft** · 03-13-2017, 08:07 PM

(03-13-2017, 08:03 PM)Roavin Wrote: Saying that is just as much cheap populistic rhetoric though.

Maybe, but it's also true. The direct consequence of this being adopted and ruled constitutional by the High Court will be me being banned from TSP without a trial. Maybe some people are okay with that, but an indirect consequence is that anyone can be banned from TSP without a trial.

I have no problem at all with security provisions and giving the CRS better investigatory powers, but at the end of the day this isn't what this does; it gives the CRS the power to ban people from TSP permanently, without trial, or even an allegation that they've broken the law. I agree with all four points you raised, but this proposal doesn't reflect them.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Cormac~~ · 03-13-2017, 08:41 PM

(03-13-2017, 07:50 PM)Roavin Wrote: I can't support the current draft for a variety of reasons.

The Assembly should have no business with security risk declarations (too easy to politicize, too easily swayed by populist rhetoric, etc.etc.etc.)

The CRS should not be the instance deciding on anything permanent. That is, at the end of the day, a courts thing.

The investigative nature of the process must emphasized and encouraged. Arguing for a month over what needs to be done with a log is not investigating. <_<

It must be emphasized that the sanctions that the CRS can impose must only be imposed in case of an immediate threat

That being said, the CRS needs powers and honestly we will have discussions on the CRS soon as it is, so either way this will be a stopgap measure. Let's try not to just pass something just to have a reason to bal Bel, no matter if you think it's justified or not.

The problem with the points you've raised, particularly the first two and the last point, is that it appears addressing them to your satisfaction would lead to others voting against this legislation. So it's a catch-22 situation; you might vote for the legislation, but then others wouldn't. Those of us who agree that we need legislation like this need to be able to compromise, or we aren't going to get legislation like this. Aside from that, I don't agree with you that these three suggested changes would be adequate to protect TSP's security for reasons that have already been discussed at length.

I'm open to hearing how you would further emphasize and encourage investigation, though.

As a note to everyone, new draft will be happening tomorrow.

(This post was last modified: 03-13-2017, 08:42 PM by Cormac.)

Omega · 03-13-2017, 10:13 PM

(03-13-2017, 04:55 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: A security law that requires a thorough investigation and gives the person investigated a chance to speak is 10 times more than any other region in the game goes.

I looked into that claim actually. Looking at the laws within Lazarus and Osiris they have no laws even allowing their security bodies to conduct investigations like this. All their security bodies do, according to their laws, is manage endorsements.
So yeah. This is actually surprisingly out of line with some of our fellow GCR's.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

(This post was last modified: 03-13-2017, 10:40 PM by Omega.)

Escade · 03-13-2017, 11:35 PM

(03-13-2017, 07:50 PM)Roavin Wrote: I can't support the current draft for a variety of reasons.

The Assembly should have no business with security risk declarations (too easy to politicize, too easily swayed by populist rhetoric, etc.etc.etc.)

The CRS should not be the instance deciding on anything permanent. That is, at the end of the day, a courts thing.

The investigative nature of the process must emphasized and encouraged. Arguing for a month over what needs to be done with a log is not investigating. <_<

It must be emphasized that the sanctions that the CRS can impose must only be imposed in case of an immediate threat

That being said, the CRS needs powers and honestly we will have discussions on the CRS soon as it is, so either way this will be a stopgap measure. Let's try not to just pass something just to have a reason to bal Bel, no matter if you think it's justified or not.

I'm not trying to ban Bel. Would I like some sort of "Don't do this" repercussions or "chain of command to inform CRS so you aren't burned". Yes. Ban, no.

I would like to address the larger isssues which are that we need better intel, we need CRS to be able to take some sort of stop gap measures. Our court systems have been either dysfunctional or otherwise "..." and therefore I would support legislation that allows the CRS to make certain decisions that the player can then appeal to.

This can be a process of 1. CRS contacts individual and questions 2. CRS taps intel people for any other possible information 3. CRS makes a temporary decision and 4. ?

See that's where we get stuck - what powers do the courts have? They can't, thankfully, wiretap\hack or really obtain much more than what is freely or accidentally given.

So yeah, the system will not have real world parallels at all because the real world an FBI agent has a program that tags people who talk about the FBI on the internet and is now picking up my conversation and my site history.

Again, NS does not have that. In NS and in TSP certain people engage in behavior that needs to be addressed.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

**Belschaft** · 03-13-2017, 11:54 PM

I agree entirely with that Escade, and I think Roa likely does too. But that isn't what is being proposed here.

No one has an issue with the CRS having greater investigatory powers, or the ability to impose temporary restrictions and suspensions subject to such. Legislation doing that would sail through the Assembly. What is being proposed, however, is that the CRS be granted sweeping powers to impose permanent penalties, in the absence of any kind of criminal charge or judicial process; that's the part people have a problem with.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 03-14-2017, 09:18 AM

(03-13-2017, 10:13 PM)Omega Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 04:55 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: A security law that requires a thorough investigation and gives the person investigated a chance to speak is 10 times more than any other region in the game goes.
I looked into that claim actually. Looking at the laws within Lazarus and Osiris they have no laws even allowing their security bodies to conduct investigations like this. All their security bodies do, according to their laws, is manage endorsements.
So yeah. This is actually surprisingly out of line with some of our fellow GCR's.

Tell that to the people who have banned by Lazarus and Osiris.

Omega · 03-14-2017, 11:41 AM

(03-14-2017, 09:18 AM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 10:13 PM)Omega Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 04:55 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: A security law that requires a thorough investigation and gives the person investigated a chance to speak is 10 times more than any other region in the game goes.
I looked into that claim actually. Looking at the laws within Lazarus and Osiris they have no laws even allowing their security bodies to conduct investigations like this. All their security bodies do, according to their laws, is manage endorsements.
So yeah. This is actually surprisingly out of line with some of our fellow GCR's.

Tell that to the people who have banned by Lazarus and Osiris.

I never said it doesn't happen. I was only saying they do not give their security agencies anywhere near this amount of power in their laws. The only bodies in those regions that can legally take the actions that this current draft would allow for are the courts.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021