(12-24-2018, 07:50 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: And you’re proscribed because you’ve been a threat.

And you're a threat because you've been proscribed.

Your argument is circular.

You’re not a threat because you’ve been proscribed. You’re “legally considered a threat” because you’ve been proscribed. Those are two different things.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

(12-24-2018, 07:43 PM)Farengeto Wrote:

(12-24-2018, 07:50 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: And you’re proscribed because you’ve been a threat.

And you're a threat because you've been proscribed.

Your argument is circular.

No, that is just nonsensical. It’s like saying going to war is was makes another region an enemy. It’s not circular— it’s just a fallacy.

TSP has issued only a handful of proscriptions in the 5+ years I’ve been here. All with cause. In fact, *you were the one who issued the most* as Prime Minister. If you didn’t consider those people threats, then I’m not sure why you followed through proscribing 5 people and the entirety of HYDRA/TRI.

The *reality* (that again, yall are refusing to acknowledge) is that every single person or group that has ever been proscribed by TSP has engaged in enemy behavior. They’ve infiltrated, couped, manipulated elections, spied, leaked, or conspired to do any of that. THAT is what made them threats to TSP. The proscriptions aren’t what made them threats. That’s just totally illogical.

And yet, for some seriously mystifying reason, you guys think these people should be given every opportunity to wiggle out of a proscription? It seriously baffles me. Anybody who holds that position doesn’t understand security and doesn’t truly care about TSP’s security. They care more about virtue signaling their commitment to “democracy” than they do about ensuring that our region isn’t infiltrated and couped and an entire generation of players is banned. Because that is what the goals of every person we’ve ever proscribed as been. Why should they be given rights? Why should foreign *enemies* be given rights? So we can say we’re the *~* best democracy ever *~* right before our region is subverted and the Coalition as we know it is burned down?

We came very close to having the Coalition fundamentally corrupted with Hileville and the all foreign support he had. *You* were banned, even, because enemies didn’t care about the rule of law and wanted to silence the court. It’s only by dumb luck that it all failed. We can’t keep counting on dumb luck. We need to start taking this shit seriously. Because there are way more GPers out there that wish the worst on TSP than there are officials here taking the threats seriously. And there tends to be a sense that “it can’t happen here” for some reason, when we just saw that with AMOM and Feux it’s damn *easy* to infiltrate and get to the height of power in this game, without anyone suspecting anything.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-24-2018, 08:48 AM)Amerion Wrote: --[quotes removed]--

@Nat, Glen's post actually summarises my opinion on this matter quite nicely — while I have no issue with extending or clarifying existing legislative protection for and with regards to regions & organisations, I'm personally not in favour of going out of our way to help people who have been declared by the government as a being threat to TSP.

@Amerion, fair enough. While I would prefer the last suggestion I made (special leave), I would be satisfied with your original proposal and would happily vote for it.

Thank you @Nat.

Although I appreciate your support, I think your point of view is equally valid. If you desire, you can make a separate threat with the amendments you would like to see go forward. When the appropriate amount of time goes by for your new thread — three days, and after a motion to vote and a second have been received — I can bring both our proposals to vote simultaneously. In doing so, we can see to what extent of changes does the majority of Legislators support.

(5) Should a debate lead to multiple competing bills or resolutions on the same matter, the Chair will separately and simultaneously bring the competing bills or resolutions to vote, in the same manner as regular business is done. The bill or resolution that receives the most votes in favor and meets minimum threshold requirements for passage will become law. Legislative Procedure Act, Article 1, Section 5

Thank you for your advice @Amerion

I have created a separate thread for my proposal: http://tspforums.xyz/thread-6715.html

I would be happy if either proposal got up, however, I do think it is always good to give people the option.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the Court doesn't take security issues seriously; we do, which is why when dealing with Souls' appeal the evidence presented was carefully weighed against the legal criteria established by the Assembly. I recognise that some people consider our ruling as problematic, but on the basis of the evidence presented to us there was no other way we could have ruled.

(12-26-2018, 09:22 AM)Belschaft Wrote: I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the Court doesn't take security issues seriously; we do, which is why when dealing with Souls' appeal the evidence presented was carefully weighed against the legal criteria established by the Assembly. I recognise that some people consider our ruling as problematic, but on the basis of the evidence presented to us there was no other way we could have ruled.

You can disagree all you want, but it's largely your own behavior during that case that reinforces the belief that the Court is inadequate and incapable of treating security-related cases with any sense of reality. And the Court's inability to explain the meaning of its opinion in a consistent way doesn't do much to counter that belief. Even now, you're saying that the Court used "legal criteria established by the Assembly", when in reality the Court never explained what "tests" it used, and based on the discussion Roavin, Kris, you, and myself had after the case, it boiled down to personal assessments rather than anything resembling a legal framework.

(12-26-2018, 08:33 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:

(12-26-2018, 09:22 AM)Belschaft Wrote: I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the Court doesn't take security issues seriously; we do, which is why when dealing with Souls' appeal the evidence presented was carefully weighed against the legal criteria established by the Assembly. I recognise that some people consider our ruling as problematic, but on the basis of the evidence presented to us there was no other way we could have ruled.

You can disagree all you want, but it's largely your own behavior during that case that reinforces the belief that the Court is inadequate and incapable of treating security-related cases with any sense of reality. And the Court's inability to explain the meaning of its opinion in a consistent way doesn't do much to counter that belief. Even now, you're saying that the Court used "legal criteria established by the Assembly", when in reality the Court never explained what "tests" it used, and based on the discussion Roavin, Kris, you, and myself had after the case, it boiled down to personal assessments rather than anything resembling a legal framework.

For what must be the hundredth time, I once again refer you back to the decision, in which we carefully examined each piece of evidence presented to the Court against the five Acts of Hostility as defined by the Assembly. As the decision made abunduntly clear, this was the test the Court used. As has been stated many times, for all but one of the pieces of evidence there was no legitimate grounds to believe it represented an Act of Hostility (uppercase very intentional). The final piece of evidence was problematic, and we recognised the argument that it showed and Act of Hostility - but that argument is far from clear and convincing, and you have consistently misrepresented both the nature of the evidence and it's content. If you wish to continue to argue to the Assembly that the Court mishandled the appeal and that our security laws thus need changing, I once again invite you to declassify your secret intelligence so the Assembly can make it's own evaluation. I am confident that the Assembly would conclude similarly to the Court

In am attempt to bring move this legislation forward, may i wade in? The feedback from outside of TSP to the last set of Proscriptions was expected on some matters and whilst it was forcefully made from many quarters, the reasoning for the prosciptions seemed sound to me.
As per @sandaoguo, I don't think we should bend to the will of external parties, but by the same token we can't have the situation where threats remain in the region.

I agree with @Belschaft that the court court does take these matters seriously. I think the detail within the EWS decision shows how seriously it was taken.

Whilst I generally love wiggle room in legislation, I generally think we need to be much less loophole-y in proscription legislation. This is because of the nature of the matters. I do have a bit of a worry about the draft currently before us still allows for that wiggle room.

My preference would be to bolster the Proscription Act and to add a secondary PNG act. A PNG act could effectively operate for individuals and could limit the right of appeal.

In terms of the current draft, I would ask if a further restriction on the grounds of appeal as follows could be added:

4. Judicial Review

(1) Individuals, regions or organizations subject to a proscription may only challenge the issuing authority's determination of hostilitproscription in the High Court on the grounds that the proscription fails to accord with Section 3 subsection 2 of the Act.
 
If satisfied that special circumstances warrant it to do so, the High Court may grant an individual special leave to appeal the proscription of a region or organization on the grounds that the proscription fails to accord with Section 3 subsection 2 of the Act.


(2) Individuals subject to a proscription of a region or organization may challenge the issuing authority's determination of their membership in that region or organization in the High Court. 

(3) For the purposes above, the individual or an individual representing the region or organization must be granted adequate permissions to participate in the High Court proceedings for that case.  

I feel that this amendment would allow is to maintain and protect our borders whilst at the same time providing greater certainty for the Court system.