If the CRS did that, it would be a coup. And it doesn't matter what the law says, if the CRS members are intent on couping. That's the whole point of a coup. It's lawless. You're trying to force order on something that's fundamentally chaotic.

Opening things to an Assembly vote is a huge security hole. If I was going to coup, the first thing I would do is ban my opposition, then hold a symbolic vote according to this law saying that what I did wasn't a coup. It would pass, because I've banned the people who would vote against it. That's an obvious course of action.

Coupers don't care about laws. But they'll damn sure use them against you, if you let them. When Hileville couped, he had the court saying his actions were illegal and to reverse them. Instead, he and other Cabinet members banned us and the Permanent Justice. Did laws matter? No. If it wasn't for a single defector from the Cabinet (who cleared the ban list with no legal authorization), we wouldn't be here today. Everyone else in power was content to let the law be violated. That's chaos, and it's just how things go down in an online game. Trying to codify how we respond to coups will only neuter our ability to respond to coups. You're trying to play lawyer with players who don't care about your imaginary laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 05-07-2017, 11:42 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Do you have an alternative that doesn't involve zero oversight over the CRS, @sandaoguo? I refuse to believe I'm the only person who isn't okay with there being no oversight at all over a declaration of martial law. If you have a better suggestion for oversight, though, I'm all ears.

Laws and what they say matter to regions we will need to assist us, particularly any allies looking for wiggle room not to assist us. A coup by the CRS that is ambiguous in its legality is just the kind of wiggle room someone obligated to assist us would look for if they didn't want to fulfill their obligation.

And before anyone freaks out, I'm not saying the people currently on the CRS would coup, but we're talking about changing the laws to include WA mobile gameplayers on the CRS, and the people on the CRS now will probably not be on the CRS forever. We have to think further down the road.

(This post was last modified: 05-07-2017, 12:34 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

[For the record, I strongly disagree with the decision to relieve the CSS from its responsibility to vet applicants before they get a vote. Let's be honest, the Cabinet often makes decisions based on political or popularity considerations, which is completely understandable and logical, since they are a political body, but those considerations are out of place when it comes to the membership of our security body. If anything, there should be a provision to compel the recommending institution to explain why exactly they believe the recommendation is merited, and also to account for any drawbacks to the nominee (nobody is perfect), so the Assembly gets a full picture of who they are considering.

I also dislike the use of "martial command" and would very much like to see us revert to "state of emergency", which is the more reasonable term. We are talking about a temporary control of the reason, rather than an open-ended command that may very well be unchecked.]

Have we considered time-limited states of emergency? If the emergency continues, then the CSS can vote to extend it, and be required to submit a justification to the Assembly for why it should be extended (or declared in the first place). If the Assembly disagrees, on the basis of abuse of power (because that should be the metric), it could override the extension (or the original declaration) and bring the state of emergency to its end.

Glen makes a good point about double institutions and people disregarding one of them, but that is ultimately a cultural issue, rather than one that can be legally addressed. We know which institution is the legal one. Whether we accept that and abide by our laws, or take the easy route and follow the illegal institution, is up to each one of us. Coups are only as powerful as the people supporting them.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 05-07-2017, 01:28 PM by Kris Kringle.)

Reply

For the record, I strongly disagree with the decision to relieve the CSS from its responsibility to vet applicants before they get a vote. Let's be honest, the Cabinet often makes decisions based on political or popularity considerations, which is completely understandable and logical, since they are a political body, but those considerations are out of place when it comes to the membership of our security body. If anything, there should be a provision to compel the recommending institution to explain why exactly they believe the recommendation is merited, and also to account for any drawbacks to the nominee (nobody is perfect), so the Assembly gets a full picture of who they are considering.

This isn't a bad idea. Another option would be to require that each nominee must be vetted by the CRS, and the CRS must present a report to the Assembly on the nominee, including a recommendation for or against the nominee being confirmed to the CRS. This would still leave the decision ultimately in the hands of the Assembly, but it would be a better informed decision. Thoughts?

I also dislike the use of "martial command" and would very much like to see us revert to "state of emergency", which is the more reasonable term. We are  talking about a temporary control of the reason, rather than an open-ended command that may very well be unchecked.

Have we considered time-limited states of emergency? If the emergency continues, then the CSS can vote to extend it, and be required to submit a justification to the Assembly for why it should be extended (or declared in the first place). If the Assembly disagrees, on the basis of abuse of power (because that should be the metric), it could override the extension (or the original declaration) and bring the state of emergency to its end.

I think reverting to "state of emergency" would better convey the purpose behind that provision. A time-limited state of emergency might also be the more reasonable middle ground that would work here. How long do you think the time limit should be? I would love to hear input on that from others as well.

Reply

@ Cormac: What you're calling "zero oversight" is a literal coup. I would challenge you to answer why "oversight" is necessary in the chaotic days of responding to a coup. You are a very knowledgeable player, and intimately familiar with coups both as a perpetrator of them and defending against them. Do you seriously think a couper wouldn't easily get around an Assembly vote? That they wouldn't purge their opposition before any such vote ever came to the floor? You should know they would do just that-- because you did just that when you couped Osiris. Every coup that isn't just for the lulz involves a purge of opposition.

The CRS needs the ability to think on its feet and do whatever is necessary to win. I know this region thinks "democracy" is this all-capable force of good in the world... but when the region has literally been taken over in a coup, democracy ain't gonna do shit to overthrow it. In past coups, we didn't subject anything to votes. There wasn't "oversight." The CSS and military made secret forums and secret plans with coalitions of allies and good players. And it's worked. No coup here has ever succeeded. But boil it all down to whether or not a couper can get a vote passed, and it's very simple and relatively easy to solidify a takeover of the region. The moment we make resistance conditional on a vote in an manipulatable Assembly, we lose future counter-coups.

As for allies, fuck them if they don't help because they think they've found some legal loophole out of it. We all know a coup when we see it. Opportunists can argue they're not *really* couping all they want. Doesn't change the fact that everybody knows it when they see it. If an ally (like Europeia, let's be honest here) decides to sit in the sidelines, then they're not an ally that would help anyways. They've already shown they don't take their own diplomatic agreements seriously. You're basically saying we need to trick allies into keeping their commitments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

@sandaoguo, you are either misunderstanding or willfully misrepresenting me. I know oversight won't end a coup. I also know that the law as it currently stands enables the CRS to invoke the "martial command" provision in order to perpetrate a coup, and to argue that their coup is legal -- and that there would be no legal recourse to do anything about it. This would allow allies looking for wiggle room to remain neutral or even to support a coup, because if the coup is legal, they will argue, it isn't a coup at all. Or they will simply argue that it is an internal matter too complex for their intervention.

You make reference to my experience with coups. Yes, I do have a great deal of experience with them. My first experience with them was opposing a 24 hour coup in Osiris in December 2012, which you'll also remember, perpetrated by the Council of Ma'at. The Council of Ma'at was, essentially, Osiris' version of the CRS, albeit with somewhat (though not much) more power. The Council of Ma'at was able to perpetrate a coup and then worm their way out of consequences for that coup due to the extensive, unchecked powers granted to them by Osiris' constitution at the time. That's why, when I see you arguing for ever greater security powers for the CRS and arguing against any checks on existing powers, I tend to get a little concerned about the direction of the CRS. One day, enough people on the CRS may decide to abuse their power, and when they do I would very much prefer for the law not to be on their side.

You may argue that this isn't Osiris. That is the usual argument when I make reference to my experiences in Osiris, and I will concede that Osiris is and has for quite some time been uniquely prone to coups and uniquely unwilling to meaningfully fight them. But that TSP is not Osiris does not mean bad things cannot happen here. That TSP is not Osiris does not mean that members of the CRS are, or more importantly will always be, trustworthy, and will never abuse their power. The extensive, unchecked security powers you consistently advocate for the CRS are dangerous. You're playing with fire and TSP will eventually get burned because you refuse to see that unchecked power for any institution, security institution or otherwise, is bad and will only lead to bad outcomes. I will not join you in willfully refusing any oversight over the CRS in the name of security, because lack of oversight never leads to security for democratic regions.

Perhaps, to be more concise, I should just paraphrase some platform planks of your own political party and say that no government institution should have power that is not checked by at least one other institution, no institution should unilaterally hold the power to usurp the region, and security can only be collectively maintained. Those are basic principles that should guide, but are not guiding, our security debates.

(This post was last modified: 05-07-2017, 04:40 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

In past coups, we didn't subject anything to votes. There wasn't "oversight."

To be fair, after the state of emergency from the last coup was lifted, we were required to present the Assembly with an account of our actions. That was never written.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

New draft. Changes in this draft:

1. I have added a requirement that the CRS will recommend a vote for or against each nominee, accompanied by a report detailing the reasons for their recommendation. This way there will still be security vetting of each nominee, but the Assembly will make the final decision.

2. I have removed the language I had proposed to empower the Assembly to declare that a coup has not taken place or has ended, and have instead changed the language from "martial command" to "state of emergency," and clarified that the CRS may not suspend nor in any way limit the powers of the Assembly. What this does is guarantee that normal oversight will remain in place, such as recall for abuse of authority if CRS members were to improperly use their state of emergency power, i.e., to perpetrate a coup. I hope this will adequately address @sandaoguo's concerns.

Edit (5/9/2017): Per further discussion, I have also removed the language that would have stricken the Intelligence Coordinator.

2. The Council on Regional Security will be chaired by a member of the Council. The Council will select its chairperson by simple majority vote and may select a new chairperson at any time. The chairperson of the Council will be responsible for leading and moderating its discussions, overseeing the progress of investigations, and communicating with the public or other institutions on behalf of the Council.

3. Any legislator who has maintained six consecutive months of legislator status, or anyone who has served at least two terms on the Local Council, may be nominated to the Council on Regional Security by the Delegate or by simple majority vote of the Council or the Cabinet. The Council will recommend that the Assembly vote for or against each nomination, accompanied by a report detailing the Council's reasons for the recommendation. After the required debate period and after the Council has made its recommendation, the Assembly will vote on the nomination to the Council and the nominee must be confirmed by three-fifths supermajority vote.

2. 4. To be considered for membership in the Council on Regional Security, a person must At least half of the Council's members should meet the following qualifications: World Assembly membership in The South Pacific; a Soft Power Disbursement Score Rating of at least 50000, or an Influence Ranking a Regional Influence ranking of at least Vassal, in The South Pacific; and at least 200 endorsements or half the endorsements of the Delegate; and six consecutive months of legislator status, or at least two terms in the Local Council. The specific influence score Soft Power Disbursement Rating, Regional Influence ranking, and endorsement numbers may be updated by the Council, with simple majority approval by the Assembly, to reflect changes to the disbursement of influence in the region, or updates to the game.

3. Eligible members may submit an application to the Council, clearly showing that they meet the basic requirements, and offering reasons for why they should considered for membership. The Council will review applicants and choose whether or not an applications will be submitted to the Assembly for approval.

4. The Assembly will vote on applications forwarded by the Council, using a simple majority threshold.

5. Continued membership in the Council on Regional Security is predicated upon meeting eligibility requirements. Should any member of the Council fail to meet those requirements, they will lose membership and all the powers and privileges that come with it, if they do not meet the requirements within a week of notification.

5. Should the number of members of the Council on Regional Security meeting the above qualifications fall below half, nominations of new members meeting these qualifications will be made, or sitting members will work toward meeting these qualifications, as soon as possible. New nominations that would bring the number of members meeting the above qualifications below or further below half may not be made.

6. If a simple majority vote of the Council on Regional Security deems a member to be a threat to regional security, they will be suspended from the Council pending an official investigation and report to the Assembly. Following the investigation, the Assembly must vote on whether to remove or reinstate the member.

7. Participation, in whole or in part and at any time, in any coup d’etat or invasion of the Coalition or any of its allies will disqualify an applicant a nominee or sitting member from membership in the Council on Regional Security immediately and permanently. Participation in normal raiding, defending, or liberation efforts as part of an organized military will not be considered a violation of this clause.

Powers

8. The Council on Regional Security will be responsible for establishing an appropriate cap on endorsements, ensuring that such cap is not detrimental to the growth of the region. Enforcement of the endorsement cap should be done with leniency if the Council determines that a violator does not pose a significant risk to regional security.

9. During a coup d’etat, whether committed by outside forces, infiltrators, or duly elected officials, the Council on Regional Security may assume martial command of the Coalition declare a state of emergency, until such a time that a legitimate government is restored. The Assembly may not be suspended nor have its powers limited in any way by the Council. All other necessary measures may be taken to defeat a coup d’etat or hostile invasion.

10. The Delegate must grant members of the Council on Regional Security appropriate Regional Officer powers to fulfill their duties. When there is a limited number of Regional Officer positions available, those positions must be given to the most senior Council members according to longest continuous service on the Council.

11. The Council on Regional Security, the Prime Minister Cabinet, and the Delegate will establish a line of succession for the Delegate seat.

(This post was last modified: 05-09-2017, 02:20 PM by Cormac.)

Reply

I was an Osiris citizen for that coup as well, Cormac. They didn't worm their way out of anything. They were given a free pass by Osiris's leadership and almost universally by all the citizens. There were only a couple of us arguing that Biyah and the rest should be banned, and that Osiris would be fucked up in the future if they weren't. I remember that clearly, because it's what caused me to leave Osiris and come to TSP, as I was harassed and attacked relentlessly for saying Biyah should be banned. Osiris laws had nothing to do with it.

(This post was last modified: 05-08-2017, 09:43 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

I was an Osiris citizen for that coup as well, Cormac. They didn't worm their way out of anything. They were given a free pass by Osiris's leadership and almost universally by all the citizens. There were only a couple of us arguing that Biyah and the rest should be banned, and that Osiris would be fucked up in the future if they weren't. I remember that clearly, because it's what caused me to leave Osiris and come to TSP, as I was harassed and attacked relentlessly for saying Biyah should be banned. Osiris laws had nothing to do with it.

You're wrong, but I'm not going to have a prolonged argument with you about Osiris here, as much as I'm sure you would love to bait me into an argument about it.

Are you satisfied with the changes I made to the state of emergency provisions of the legislation or not?

Reply