Sorry, could we use forward slash instead of backslash?

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

the island league

Former Offices

Chair of the Assembly - February 2016-August 2016
Deputy Chair of the Assembly - June 2015-February 2016
Justice of High Court of the South Pacific - December 2014-April 2015
Minister of Regional Affairs
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Deputy Minister of Regional Affairs

RP Information

President Tobias Murray
President of the Federal Democratic Republic of Awesomiasa

Simon Harawira

Permanent Representative to the Southern Cooperation Organisation

Federal Democratic Republic of Awesomiasa

Reply

“Non-justiciable” does not mean “non-enforceable.” It means the court either doesn’t have jurisdiction, can’t usurp the judgement of the Cabinet/CRS/LegComm/etc, or it’s a political question that can’t be answered by judicial interpretation.

A finding of non-justiciability also isn’t a binding precedent. The Court can, in a future case, reach a different conclusion as to whether or not the question can be answered by judicial interpretation.

Policy-wise, a COI is far from a guarantee, nor does it actually prevent that conflict from arising. I don’t *care* that voters elect a Delegate with massive COIs. That doesn’t make those conflicts okay and it doesn’t mean the Delegate shouldn’t be forced to resolve them. All the very real problems and potential crises that are inherent in COIs don’t disappear nor are they lessened in impact, just because the person was elected by a majority of voters.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Basically the CoI shows voters the previous positions of the candidate that they would vote for. If they see that that candidate's former involvement in unfavourable, they could simply not vote for them. If they do win, well... that's a problem, but not really a major one. Not a small one either, so it's more in the middle.

I’m aware of what a COI form is. They aren’t actually all that informative. A list of regions doesn’t really do anything to inform voters of the actual conflicts that could arise, nor does it explain the severity of those conflicts and how they would be prevented or resolved. I would venture to guess that 9 out of 10 voters aren’t familiar enough with NS Gameplay history to understand, just by looking at a disclosure list, which regions should even raise red flags. We have a lot of new players, roleplayers, and TSPers who just don’t have an interest in that stuff. So while requiring COI forms is a good idea, it doesn’t actually increase information for many TSPers in a meaningful way. It’s just a data dump that only a handful of players would be able understand the entirety of without further explanation.

I would find it incredibly worrying for our Delegate to have significant conflicts, particularly if they’re in power across various Gameplay regions. I would still find it worrying even if they won with 80% of the vote. An election should not be our sole check on conflicts of interests. An election doesn’t make anything okay— voters are not infallible, we have plenty of real-world evidence of that. Our laws should do the work of protecting the region, first and foremost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

Sorry, could we use forward slash instead of backslash?

 Yepsies (I would also love to know the difference or explanation of it)

Amendment to Article 3

(5) Any delegate candidates that have made it to the gameside voting process must resign any and all political offices or positions of influence and/or leadership, outside of the South Pacific, in any region or organization, excluding citizenship.

Amendment to Article 4

(4) The incoming Prime Minister and cabinet members must resign any and all political offices or positions of influence and/or leadership, outside of the South Pacific, in any region or organization, excluding citizenship.

Amendment to Article 5

(5) The incoming Chair of the Assembly must resign any and all political offices or positions of influence and/or leadership, outside of the South Pacific, in any region or organization, excluding citizenship.

I've tried to make it concise and clear but more succinct language and clarity is always a boon!  

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

 

Reply

I’m aware of what a COI form is. They aren’t actually all that informative. A list of regions doesn’t really do anything to inform voters of the actual conflicts that could arise, nor does it explain the severity of those conflicts and how they would be prevented or resolved. I would venture to guess that 9 out of 10 voters aren’t familiar enough with NS Gameplay history to understand, just by looking at a disclosure list, which regions should even raise red flags. We have a lot of new players, roleplayers, and TSPers who just don’t have an interest in that stuff. So while requiring COI forms is a good idea, it doesn’t actually increase information for many TSPers in a meaningful way. It’s just a data dump that only a handful of players would be able understand the entirety of without further explanation.

You're not wrong, but those handful of players will (hopefully!) call out those red flags in the debate thread.

Amendment to Article 3

(5) Any delegate candidates that have made it to the gameside voting process must resign any and all political offices or positions of influence and/or leadership, outside of the South Pacific, in any region or organization, excluding citizenship.

Amendment to Article 4

(4) The incoming Prime Minister and cabinet members must resign any and all political offices or positions of influence and/or leadership, outside of the South Pacific, in any region or organization, excluding citizenship.

Amendment to Article 5

(5) The incoming Chair of the Assembly must resign any and all political offices or positions of influence and/or leadership, outside of the South Pacific, in any region or organization, excluding citizenship.

I've tried to make it concise and clear but more succinct language and clarity is always a boon!  

I think the language is fine, but there are a few loopholes/issues:

• An incoming office holder can resign positions elsewhere when entering office, and then still gain positions elsewhere afterwards and this does not protect from it.
  
• I'd argue that a founder of a region that is meant as more than a tool (i.e. not a jump point, or a trophy, or something like Knowhere) is inherently a leadership position.
  
• ...and generally, my issue here with things like this being, essentially, not enforceable.
  

Reply

“Calling out red flags” is not a valid constitutional insurance policy. You know intimately how well merely calling something out works.

I’m also confused as to why y’all keep saying things are unenforceable. This stuff is not hard to wrap your mind around. “Unenforceable” is not synonymous with “I think this goes too far.”

(This post was last modified: 07-22-2018, 11:37 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Amendment to Article 3

(5) Any delegate candidates that have made it to the gameside voting process must resign any and all political offices or positions of influence and/or leadership, outside of the South Pacific, in any region or organization, excluding citizenship. In addition, no positions may be pursued or accepted while concurrently holding office in TSP. In the event that the delegate is found to be in breach of this understanding, they will be recalled and an election will take place as soon as possible.

Amendment to Article 4

(4) The incoming Prime Minister and cabinet members must resign any and all political offices or positions of influence and/or leadership, outside of the South Pacific, in any region or organization, excluding citizenship. In addition, no positions may be pursued or accepted while concurrently holding office in TSP. In the event that the Prime Minister or any cabinet member is found to be in breach of this understanding, they will be recalled and an election will take place as soon as possible.

Amendment to Article 5

(5) The incoming Chair of the Assembly must resign any and all political offices or positions of influence and/or leadership, outside of the South Pacific, in any region or organization, excluding citizenship. In addition, no positions may be pursued or accepted while concurrently holding office in TSP. In the event that the Chair of Assembly is found to be in breach of this understanding, they will be recalled and an election will take place as soon as possible. 

I disagree about founder because for example BT founded a region that isn't doing any FA or anything like that but is focused solely on this Western roleplay immersion. His role as founder doesn't give him any clout or power beyond the region itself. If the region did develop a functioning government and then all the associated workings that would be different.

Then founder comes in at least two types (the first disappears or is no longer active in the region so numerous such examples) and the second is active and has some level of control (maybe let's say like Augustine).

Added a bit to address points of time and also points of pursuing a position afterwards.

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

 

(This post was last modified: 07-27-2018, 01:01 AM by Escade.)

Reply

Motion to Vote?

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

 

Reply

Motion to Vote?

I second the motion.

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

Reply

Still opposed as it still continues to block founders.

You could make a very reasonable argument that any Founder position is a "position of influence", even if it's of an RP region, or some po-dunk puppet dump, or whatever. Given the mental gymnastics that some TSPers tend to do at times regarding what constitutes certain things and what doesn't, not to mention that I'm not even sure how you could effectively enforce and define "position of influence" in a way that doesn't by-default include Founder, or even RO simply protecting a founderless region.

By failing to offer protection for the ownership of stuff such as trophy regions, RP regions, jump points, small GP-uninvolved hangout spots, etc, this law is basically disenfranchising a fuckton of people, including those who own stuff such as SPSF trophies (which are technically outside of The South Pacific, by game definition).

[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"

Reply

I understand your concerns and feel that we discussed this to some degree.

Founders are not inherently political, and I think that could be handled on a case by case basis by a judge. For example, founder of a region where the founder is not involved in FA or other decisions or founder of a region where there is no FA or founder of a region where the government makes all such decisions.

I'm not sure how I would refine "position of influence" any further? Or I suppose we can offer a definition?

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

 

Reply