So I had a bit of an odd thought yesterday which I thought was worth discussion.

Article 9.8 of the Charter prevents anyone who has committed a coup of The South Pacific or its allies from joining the Council for Regional Security:

8. 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 a prospective 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.

However, we do not apply similar restrictions to the actual Delegacy. Given that any coup of The South Pacific would almost certainly originate from the Delegacy itself,it seems strange that we would let someone who has already committed such an act against our region or its allies even the possibility of becoming the Delegate.

(This post was last modified: 07-27-2018, 08:32 PM by Roavin. Edit Reason: Amended title )

Reply

Thankfully this oversight is easily fixed.

Edit: Is it simply a matter of C+P with a terminology change?

(This post was last modified: 07-07-2018, 01:19 PM by Amerion.)

Reply

To keep the format neat, I'd propose amending Article VII, Section 1:

VII. THE DELEGATE

Establishing 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.

Reply

Allies at which time, though? (this question applies to the CRS wording, too)

Suppose I coup Balder, depose Rach/NES/Onder/LKE/etc., call a constitutional convention, and let that new now-trimmed-to-fit-its-britches Balder make itself a new government. That government ends up being friendly towards TSP, and a year later, a treaty happens. At the same time, I decide to run for Delegate and/or join the CRS. Would I be disqualified?

(I principally like Glen's wording, though)

Reply

Allies at which time, though? (this question applies to the CRS wording, too)

Suppose I coup Balder, depose Rach/NES/Onder/LKE/etc., call a constitutional convention, and let that new now-trimmed-to-fit-its-britches Balder make itself a new government. That government ends up being friendly towards TSP, and a year later, a treaty happens. At the same time, I decide to run for Delegate and/or join the CRS. Would I be disqualified?

(I principally like Glen's wording, though)

I would assume the reasonable case of "ally at the time" would be it? If we assume present allies, that can also mean a case where someone pulls off a successful coup of an ally and makes them not an ally, which then exempts them from this clause.

Reply

Allies at which time, though? (this question applies to the CRS wording, too)

Suppose I coup Balder, depose Rach/NES/Onder/LKE/etc., call a constitutional convention, and let that new now-trimmed-to-fit-its-britches Balder make itself a new government. That government ends up being friendly towards TSP, and a year later, a treaty happens. At the same time, I decide to run for Delegate and/or join the CRS. Would I be disqualified?

(I principally like Glen's wording, though)

If you do so outside of a legitimate declaration of war, I think the prohibition does and should apply. The point is that people who thought it was okay to coup in the past won’t likely have major moral or ethical issues doing it again in the future. I’m not that much of a fan of limiting it to allies in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 07-08-2018, 10:13 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Not even if it's Balder!?!?

Reply

Personally I’ve always considered that section to be effectively unenforceable, as the definition of a coup is NSGP is inherently political and depends on the popularity of the people involved.

If we use Lazarus as an example, there’s no question that Imki couped the region in “technical’” sense... but as we supported and continue to support her we termed it a liberation instead. We could look at Osiris and the time Tim couped it as well for a similar example.

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

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

(This post was last modified: 07-09-2018, 05:40 AM by Belschaft.)

Reply

Personally I’ve always considered that section to be effectively unenforceable, as the definition of a coup is NSGP is inherently political and depends on the popularity of the people involved.

If we use Lazarus as an example, there’s no question that Imki coupled the region in “technical’” sense... but as we supported and continue to support her we termed it a liberation instead. We could look at Osiris and the time Tim couped it as well for a similar example.

Would an Assembly resolution affirming the official position of TSP on each coup be warranted in this case?

Reply

Not even if it's Balder!?!?

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

Reply