| Prohibited Group Discussion: New Pacific Order |
|
The NPO Senate could always be prohibited as a group, as opposed to prohibiting the entirety of the NPO.
The NLO is a more difficult problem, because they haven't couped TSP... and Article 7 was written to assume the declaration is reactive. If the law was changed to include allies of TSP, I think we do it fine.
(04-14-2015, 06:05 PM)Unibot Wrote: The NPO Senate could always be prohibited as a group, as opposed to prohibiting the entirety of the NPO. I think this is a common sense approach. Regarding NLO, I don't think we really have to worry about any of them coming here anytime soon.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I would like to move forward with this, as part of a united effort among democratic regions to isolate the NPO.
Last question, am I absolutely required to rescind all ties with the NPO, as I would rather not have to give up the RP Overseer status I have over there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I believe that would be required, Henn.
I will motion this to vote.
Indeed, one of the points of a prohibited designation is to prevent cross-membership.
Seconded. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Fuck.
Thanks for the clarification. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Full support.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
I'll put a vote topic up for this tonight.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |