Users browsing this thread:

***Roavin*** · 07-10-2018, 05:52 AM

(07-09-2018, 10:39 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(07-08-2018, 10:57 AM)Roavin Wrote: Not even if it's Balder!?!?

If you want to depose the Balder monarchy, get an official declaration of war

Fiiiiiiiiiiine. Anybody want to draft the resolution? Tounge

The Sakhalinsk Empire · 07-10-2018, 08:52 AM

(07-10-2018, 05:52 AM)Roavin Wrote:
(07-09-2018, 10:39 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(07-08-2018, 10:57 AM)Roavin Wrote: Not even if it's Balder!?!?

If you want to depose the Balder monarchy, get an official declaration of war

Fiiiiiiiiiiine. Anybody want to draft the resolution?

I'm in. But make sure to make me something like the Minister of Regional Affairs or something. Heh

For the actual discussion, well, adding Sandaoguo's (please call him that, I get confused) wording would be great, but the arguments made by other people have to be taken into account.

The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe.

Complete Conflict of Interest

**Farengeto** · 07-14-2018, 09:52 AM

Motion of Glen's proposal to vote.

**Beepee** · 07-14-2018, 10:12 AM

I'll second.

Check my links.....

SWAN 4 Life
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1086117

Escade · 07-15-2018, 12:22 AM

(07-07-2018, 06:12 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: To keep the format neat, I'd propose amending Article VII, Section 1:

VII. THE DELEGATEEstablishing a head of State

1. The Delegate will be the head of state of the Coalition. They will be responsible for helping maintain the security of the region, promoting growth and activity, and serving as an advisor to the forum-side government. Barring reasonable circumstances, the Delegate will hold the in-game Delegate seat. No person may be Delegate if they have participated, in whole or in part and at any time, in any coup d'etat of the Coalition or any of its allies, excluding normal raiding, defending, or liberation efforts as part of an organized military.

Because I like specifics, who indeed would be impacted this if it currently went into effect? As in which specific players? Are we considering Imki, Hileville, and assorted others to be no longer eligible for delegacy? Milograd (if he were to somehow become undosed)? Mall? Would there be some sort of list tracking this or ?

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

***Roavin*** · 07-18-2018, 08:01 AM

(insert CoA Logo here)

The motions to vote have been noted. After reviewing the discussion, in particular the open questions by Amerion and Escade, the vote will be delayed to avoid preempting active debate as per Legislative Procedure Act 2.5.

The Chair of the Assembly

***Roavin*** · 07-22-2018, 04:18 AM

(insert CoA Logo here)

Since no further debate has occurred, the amendment is now at vote.

The Chair of the Assembly

**Belschaft** · 07-22-2018, 08:55 AM

Due to the complete un-enforceability of this clause I have voted Nay. I look forward to the inevitable shitstorm the first time someone tries to use it to stop someone from running for office.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 07-22-2018, 11:32 AM

(07-22-2018, 08:55 AM)Belschaft Wrote: Due to the complete un-enforceability of this clause I have voted Nay. I look forward to the inevitable shitstorm the first time someone tries to use it to stop someone from running for office.

If you believe this is unenforceable, then you’d have to also believe the same exact language in the CRS requirements is also unenforceable. However, the CRS has already enforced that requirement at least once before with Imki.

It’s fairly straightforward: if you have couped (or helped in any capacity) TSP or any of its allies, at any time, then you are disqualified. That is enforceable. The Election Commission doesn’t put your name on the ballot. That’s how it’s enforced.

If you want to argue that we can’t define what is and isn’t a coup, that’s a disingenuous argument. We know what a coup is, it is written into literally every treaty we have. Our current Charter was written in response to a coup, as well. The court is fully capable of looking at a situation, judging whether or not the rule of law was followed, and calling it a coup or not a coup. How exactly is that unenforceable?

**Belschaft** · 07-22-2018, 12:30 PM

(07-22-2018, 11:32 AM)sandaoguo Wrote:
(07-22-2018, 08:55 AM)Belschaft Wrote: Due to the complete un-enforceability of this clause I have voted Nay. I look forward to the inevitable shitstorm the first time someone tries to use it to stop someone from running for office.

If you believe this is unenforceable, then you’d have to also believe the same exact language in the CRS requirements is also unenforceable. However, the CRS has already enforced that requirement at least once before with Imki.

It’s fairly straightforward: if you have couped (or helped in any capacity) TSP or any of its allies, at any time, then you are disqualified. That is enforceable. The Election Commission doesn’t put your name on the ballot. That’s how it’s enforced.

If you want to argue that we can’t define what is and isn’t a coup, that’s a disingenuous argument. We know what a coup is, it is written into literally every treaty we have. Our current Charter was written in response to a coup, as well. The court is fully capable of looking at a situation, judging whether or not the rule of law was followed, and calling it a coup or not a coup. How exactly is that unenforceable?

Did Tim coup Osiris? Did Imki coup Lazarus?

It's unenforceable because whether or not something is a coup depends entirely on whether or not the one judging it approves of what occurred. This will create an inevitable shitstorm, and will lead to a cataclysmic fight in the Assembly and Court the first time the EC either does or doesn't invoke the clause and someone thinks they should have done the other. The clause is entirely subjective and a nightmare in waiting. I look forward to the first court battle alleging that the EC has illegally ruled someone a couper due to personal bias and the months of pain it inflicts on all of us.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES