Border Control Act - Printable Version +- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz) +-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html) +--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html) +---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html) +----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html) +------ Forum: Private Halls of the Assembly (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-95.html) +------ Thread: Border Control Act (/thread-5417.html) |
Border Control Act - Roavin - 08-11-2017 Dear Legislators of the South Pacific, recent events have demonstrated a gaping hole in our security infrastructure - specifically, there are no legal methods by which the Council on Regional Security, responsible for keeping our region secure, can actually perform its duties in-game. This was readily apparent recently when there was an actual attempt by hostile forces to depose our sitting Delegate. As such, the Cabinet and the Council on Regional Security have together drafted this bill for the Assembly to review. The features, in plain language:
Note: "low influence nation", with current game rules, means a nation with 4015 SPDR or less. Given the delicate situation, especially now that it has been brought to the spotlight (even if in the private Halls), the Cabinet has preemptively signed off unanimously that we will, if necessary, submit this bill as an executive order, as per Article VI Section 11 of the Charter. We hope that this isn't necessary, of course, not just because we prefer things be handled through regular order in the assembly, but also because we hope we won't come into such a security relevant situation. Quote: As usual, all bill and no questions make Roavin a sad boi. RE: Border Control Act - Atlantica - 08-11-2017 I strongly support this proposal, as it allows the CRS to enact necessary actions for the security of TSP without sacrificing fundamental liberties. RE: Border Control Act - Drall - 08-11-2017 Questions to make Roa a happy fenda boi. What exactly are you defining as defiantly violating the endocap? Clarification, does this act grant the LC BC powers? I think any one member of the LC should have the right to order the banjection of a nation they seems to be a spammer or a troll. A majority vote seems to be rather a time consuming option, and it is usually preferable to quickly wave goodbye to spammers and trolls. It does require trusting the discretion of each LC member a bit more...but I'd hope that that's something we all trust in. RE: Border Control Act - Griffindor - 08-11-2017 I like this a lot, this gives much needed in game "padding" to keeping the region secure. I have the same questions as Drall. Also, I would think that the CRS would want (and should be given) a bit more time before they must inform the various institutions of their border control actions so they can follow up or investigate. RE: Border Control Act - Roavin - 08-11-2017 (08-11-2017, 11:45 PM)Drall Wrote: What exactly are you defining as defiantly violating the endocap? It's purposefully subjective, but the point is (in conjunction with the CRS being encouraged to be lenient in enforcing the cap) that if somebody is told multiple times to quit it, and they just don't care or even respond mockingly despite being super friendly. (08-11-2017, 11:45 PM)Drall Wrote: Clarification, does this act grant the LC BC powers? No, though DM may at his discretion - see the Regional Officer Act for that. RE: Border Control Act - Atlae - 08-12-2017 I also echo Drall's sentiments and want to put the emphasis on 'defiantly.' If one doesn't know the endocap existed, is that violation defiant? (Sure, you can say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but they're not intentionally breaking the law! >_> ) Is there a procedure to telegram endocap violators to ensure their compliance without ejection/banjection? RE: Border Control Act - Altmoras - 08-12-2017 From my reading this act gives the Local Council the authority to request that a nation be banjected, Drall. If that is the case then I agree with you that a singular LC member should be enough to make the request because whichever Border Control official sees the request could review it and be a check on any abuses. I support this bill, TSP's laws need to further recognize the mechanics of the game and their role in our regional security. RE: Border Control Act - Tsunamy - 08-12-2017 I'd like to thank the Cabinet for taking threats to the region seriously. I'm glad some of us understand what's at stake here. RE: Border Control Act - Roavin - 08-12-2017 (08-12-2017, 12:00 AM)Atlae Wrote: I also echo Drall's sentiments and want to put the emphasis on 'defiantly.' If one doesn't know the endocap existed, is that violation defiant? (Sure, you can say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but they're not intentionally breaking the law! >_> ) If somebody isn't aware of an endorsement cap, or just didn't see that they were over, then that is obviously not a defiant violation. And yes, the CRS does eventually TG people that are over, as they should. RE: Border Control Act - Tim - 08-12-2017 Full support for this bill. I concur with Tsunamy that it's good to see security taken seriously. This is a well worked bill that avoids any knee-jerk risks and sets up effective checks and balances to ensure these situations are not taken lightly. |