I think Escade asks some pretty good questions on this that would need to be considered. Recent events have left me fairly predisposed towards this idea but I won't say that I've come to a firm conclusion on it yet. I see benefits and, depending on the answers to Escade's questions, I could see drawbacks.

Also I'm a fairly small-"L" liberal person so the idea of a watch list does cause me some ideological qualms. However, the reason I'm inclined to support it is as we've seen with the Empire citizenship applications (where one member was let in before their citizenship lapsed and another was blocked and we went through the appeal process), the question of who is an external threat to TSP and who isn't seems at best inconsistent and at worst very random.  I'm also concerned that it's very personality based.

I think a properly explained list of who is a threat and why, with the ability for this to be challenged by citizens helps bring into the light what could very well be going on the shadows otherwise. Darkstrait has been very clear this isn't about citizens which has reassured me. Anyway, we have existing processes for resolving matters concerning citizens.

I obviously never proposed this, so it's for Darkstrait to state how he saw this list being used, etc. but my own view would be that perhaps it should be for the MoFA or CSS (or both?) to propose additions to the list but for the Assembly (in the private halls) to approve who goes on the list.

I would be concerned about needing a preponderance of evidence for each candidate because that's what often let's people off the hook. Govindia, in particular comes to mind - he terrifies his victims into not reporting stuff, so it took TNP almost a decade to build up enough "evidence" to remove him from their forum. "Where is the evidence?" is often used to justify allowing him in IRC channels, where he time and time again harasses players. TSP courts generally do not work to prevent female players from harassers because they're adversarial political institutions which assume victims aren't like... actually scared for their life in RL. 

Biyah is another one capable of covering shit up, when he's as big as security threats come. Anyone with some knowledge of Biyah knows not to trust him. 

I'm not asking for a preponderance of evidence unless its available but concrete reason. For example, even I've heard of Govindia so therefore I would just need, "Has a history of threatening and\or abusing female players."

I'm pretty sure several people would say, "Yes," to that description of him.

(03-07-2015, 04:16 PM)Escade Wrote: I'm pretty sure several people would say, "Yes," to that description of him.

You really would be surprised. It took months for Gov to banned from a major defending channel because of political issues - he builds support from allies who are dependent on him and they'll argue there "isn't enough evidence" to support the "slander" against him. 

This was meant to be a method by which the Vice Delegate could cross-check names and pseudonyms of those applying for citizenship. I would support the idea of having the MoFA propose names and having the Assembly vote on them, but with two conditions: first, that there is a loophole by which a name can be added (for example, say we were voting to put Bel on the list, but he had enough allies to shoot it down in the Assembly. The Delegate should be able to get a name on the list, but NOT to take it off against an Assembly approval), and that the Assembly can propose a name independently, in case the MoFA is biased, but it requires a 75% approval, to avoid abuse.

(03-06-2015, 08:14 AM)Darkstrait Wrote: Perhaps, if we could negotiate it, we could set up an Interregional Watch List where all regions within an alliance or group (i.e. all Pacific regions) can post the names and pseudonyms of known criminals.

Of course, you're assuming that security threats are actually criminals under TSP law. Recent discussion has proven this not to be the case at all. A citizen doesn't need to commit a crime in order to be declared a security threat in TSP.

I feel that, given the loose definition of what a "security threat" is (aka, it's whatever the Cabinet decides it is at the given moment) I don't think we should include declared security threats in a report to other regions. This might be viewed as an attempt to unfairly go after members.

Belschaft, for example, is a declared security threat and still not a convicted criminal in TSP. If we were to go to TNP, where Belschaft is still held in a good light, and tell them not to trust him based upon our declaration and nothing else, they'd probably look at us like we're idiots.

We should reserve this list for actual criminals who were convicted in TSP's High Court. At least then we have backing to our claims of wrongdoing.

In other words, basically what Unibot was saying in his post above with the "Where is the evidence?" example. What might work for us, probably won't work for others unless we can provide empirical evidence of wrongdoing.

On a side note, as the person who banned Govindia from TNP twice as Delegate on two separate occassions only to have the ban reversed both times, I absolutely understand Unibot's point. Sometimes other regions just don't get it, and creating a list without good evidence to support our claims will probably just serve to piss our allies off.

If you have not noticed, the idea of an interregional watch list has been basically shot down already.

Yes, I would read a bit more carefully Wolf.

Just reenforcing the point.

But all the same, others are still going to read our internalized Watchlist and, like what Hileville said, it's really stupid to put this out for others to judge and criticize. Reflecting back on my previous post, what we in TSP see as a clear villain, other regions, feeders in particular, might view as unjustly persecuted victims.

Not exactly a message we want to send and with no need to do so. Besides, "watch lists' have this vague and ominous authoritarian feel to them. Almost Orwellian, really.

(03-07-2015, 09:03 PM)Wolf Wrote: Just reenforcing the point.

But all the same, others are still going to read our internalized Watchlist and, like what Hileville said, it's really stupid to put this out for others to judge and criticize. Reflecting back on my previous post, what we in TSP see as a clear villain, other regions, feeders in particular, might view as unjustly persecuted victims.

Not exactly a message we want to send and with no need to do so. Besides, "watch lists' have this vague and ominous authoritarian feel to them. Almost Orwellian, really.

Every GCR disagrees about who are antagonists and protagonists - that doesn't stop any of them from taking matters into their own hands; unless, of course, you intend to go to TNP's government and argue I shouldn't be PNG there, because that might offend TSP? I thought not.