It has come to my attention that certain "undesirables" have been mentioned on a list that only citizens in the Assembly are able to view. Such a list was constructed by a cabinet member, or heavily influenced by one. If I am wrong in this, I will rescind my statements.

The court is very much able to supply a definition as it has been clearly defined in several instances over the course of a few years, as identified in my OP. Only recently did this definition apply to the cabinet and its ability to withhold citizenship to people they either don't like or happen to believe they would be "security threats". Until I can be convinced that the likes of Dali, Nee, BGP, and others represent clear and present threats to the security of the region, I can't even accept that as kosher. Bottom line in this is the defintion has clearly applied to only nations threatening the endorsement total of the delegate who happened to be citizens. It was not designed as a means to barr undesirables. That's not only manipulation, that's undemocratic.

At any rate, I do believe courts here should adopt some kind of ability to answer to the "gray areas" and interpret the law as it best represents the region. Otherwise its lame duck and turns what should be a list of rules into some kind of juggernaut that attempts to answer every single loophole and secondary defintion. Clearly no document, in NS or in real life, is capable of doing that.

Actually, some people wanted that list codified (not me), but it was shot down. We're not exactly sure where that list stands as far as whether or not the VD will use it.

Todd, what you seem to not understand is that those definitions you're citing were created with the same Cabinet authority that we're telling you exists now. Previous Cabinets had a certain idea of what a security threat is. This Cabinet has developed a new one. That's how executive policy works in TSP. The courts don't get to step in and enforce one policy over another.

You have a political beef. Take it up during the election. Stop trying to get the courts to do the job.

(03-15-2015, 01:50 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: You have a political beef. Take it up during the election. Stop trying to get the courts to do the job.

Considering Todd is not going to be allowed to vote in the upcoming elections, and considering he will probably be denied citizenship thereafter, I find this suggestion to be highly ironic.

(03-15-2015, 01:34 PM)Todd McCloud Wrote: Until I can be convinced that the likes of Dali, Nee, BGP, and others represent clear and present threats to the security of the region, I can't even accept that as kosher.

We are in no obligation to convince you of anything. The Cabinet determined that these individuals represented a threat to the security of the region, and the Assembly has considered the arguments in favor and against. Each of the concerned individuals was given a voice on the floor and has been able to exercise their right to self-defence. Due process was followed at all stages.

(03-15-2015, 02:15 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

(03-15-2015, 01:34 PM)Todd McCloud Wrote: Until I can be convinced that the likes of Dali, Nee, BGP, and others represent clear and present threats to the security of the region, I can't even accept that as kosher.

We are in no obligation to convince you of anything. The Cabinet determined that these individuals represented a threat to the security of the region, and the Assembly has considered the arguments in favor and against. Each of the concerned individuals was given a voice on the floor and has been able to exercise their right to self-defence. Due process was followed at all stages.

I am terribly sorry for disagreeing with the way you do business in your feeder. I was under the impression that your region was rendered as the "second chance" region. Now with Dali's appeal rejected, I believe you should change the label of your pacific that you seek to control. Perhaps make an article in your Southern Journal so that your subjects may enjoy reading your publications. It would certainly assist in clarifying any inconsistencies us peons have.

(03-15-2015, 01:50 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: Todd, what you seem to not understand is that those definitions you're citing were created with the same Cabinet authority that we're telling you exists now. Previous Cabinets had a certain idea of what a security threat is. This Cabinet has developed a new one. That's how executive policy works in TSP. The courts don't get to step in and enforce one policy over another.

You have a political beef. Take it up during the election. Stop trying to get the courts to do the job.

The elections I and others will most likely be unable to vote in? Where am I able to cast these pretend votes that probably will not matter?

Well this isn't TEP so maybe you should't be trying to apply TEP's system of doing things to TSP. Also, your entire approach has been that of a person with entitlement issues and when things don't go your way you act like a spoiled brat. Unfortunately, that along with your refusal to actually even consider one of the options to regain trust in the region because of your sense of entitlement makes anything you say a continuation in your desire to see only certain people in political power - those that agree with you on who should be kept in or out.

Kudos, you've done a great job convincing the region at large including mere citizens like me how well you know this region and how much you actually care for it beyond political showmanship.

This isn't another region. This is TSP, our system works differently than other regions. Perhaps it's a WIP but to attack it for not bending to your will is preposterous.

As for the courts, I understand why Kris is confused as am I but that is probably a discussion for another thread. The process from legal ruling or opinion to codification is one that in the TSP court system is still one in progress.

Far be it from me for trying to follow things democratically and believing there's checks and balances here. Trust me, if I didn't care for TSP, I would have left in frustration by now. But I am frustrated at what it has become and who is doing what to it. And I honestly don't get the 'bend to your will' point. I can't even get a ruling on my citizenship application. I thought that right was afforded to me in the Bill of Rights. The rest of the attacks, I will attempt to let slide. I have begun to expect such things, not from everyone here, but especially from yourself.

Your understanding of the region seems to not be in line with the way the region has been operating for the past two years and you bring in extra regional information to support your demands rather then the history of how things work in TSP.

When you take what TSP has been and how it functions and its precedents and ways of working into consideration and acknowledge them rather then I'll be open to taking what you say more seriously.

Also, just because you apologized for colluding in OBT doesn't mean it's over and done with, I mean it hasn't even been a year since the plot began and was uncovered.