(04-15-2018, 05:17 PM)Roavin Wrote: @Belschaft

• The mere presence of a nation in TSP does not automatically grant the rights afforded by the charter. Kris ruled on this in HCLQ1708. I didn't see anything wrong or inherently authoritarian in what Glen stated.
  

I believe you have misunderstood Kris' ruling in HCLQ1708; all residents of TSP are not to be considered members of the coalition, but most are. Glen's distinction between Legislators and non-Legislators, and his grant of civil rights (ie; right of appeal) to the first but not the second, is contrary to precedent and law. Members and non-members is the correct, and legal, distinction that must be made.

As such Glen is attempting to create a group of second-class members - non-Legislators - who are not extended the full civil rights they Charter guarantees them, and may be treated as if they were not members of the Coalition. Based on his response in this thread this appears to be intentional rather than accidental.

This is one of several reasons why Glen's draft is unconstitutional, and to my mind the clearest cut. Members who are not Legislators cannot be treated differently from members who are Legislators.
 

(04-15-2018, 05:17 PM)Roavin Wrote: @Belschaft

• Do you consider it possible that an individual can commit an IC action in another region that is so heinous that we would no longer want them to be a Legislator in our region, even if they did not break any of our region's laws while doing so? If so, can you think of an example?
  

I'd suggest that an individual IC action would rarely be sufficient by itself, though it could possibly be otherwise in limited circumstances; malicious forum destruction is the only one which immediately leaps to mind. I know some people view "bad" GP actions like couping or purging as unforgivable, but it's certainly not something I agree with - the idea of PNGing Tim, for example, due to his historical actions in Osiris is silly to me. I wouldn't even necessarily apply this to people like Mall, who are serial and unapologetic purgers; I wouldn't support electing him to the cabinet or putting him on the CRS, but as an individual player he's fun to be around, always good for a laugh and relatively harmless if we don't give him access to Regional Controls - and he always plays within NS' rules.

Most of the actions that fall under "so heinous that we would no longer want them to be a Legislator in our region" are OOC for me; NS is a game, banning people for playing that game in a rules complaint manner isn't something I support.

The overlap between TSP crimes and non-crimes is also problematic here; there are some things that I think could be put on a list of "do this and you're out, doesn't matter what rights you have IC" but that's a mix of OOC and IC. That's not what is being proposed here though, it an extra-judicial system that covers TSP members - and for things that are existing offences dealt with judicially.

As I've said before, having this apply to non-members is fine - I can see an argument for "Mall is a serial couper/purger, it would be stupid to let him join TSP" even if I don't agree with it. It's when it is expanded into "Tim has couped Osiris in the past, let's declare him PNG even though he is a member and that's not against our rules". Curating who can join is different to kicking people out.
 

(04-15-2018, 05:17 PM)Roavin Wrote: @Belschaft

• Do you consider proscriptions of individuals and/or groups as a diplomatic measure, a security measure, or both? Please elaborate.
  

Both. I can think of groups (ie; Nazi-whatever-they-are-calling-themselves-this-week) that are so pathetically awful at NSGP that they could not possibly be a security threat, but we may very well want to proscribe them anyway because of diplomatic reasons.... and because they are just the worst people. In much the same way, there will be individual players we want to proscribe because they are a threat to out community, even if it's diplomatically awkward or harmful for us.