(12-03-2020, 07:40 AM)Roavin Wrote: Yes, technically a regional proscription is "lesser" than a full proscription but concluding therefore that a regional one is a half-measure when it already includes all the security tools is, frankly, silly.

When you have to hide behind a technicality to say it's "silly," clearly it is not. Your argument here is "glass half full" vs "glass half empty." The lesser form of proscription is, by definition, the half-measure.

(12-03-2020, 07:40 AM)Roavin Wrote: Yes, and I haven't always agreed with the decisions made. But the Rahl designation that you pointed out was based on my suggestion and it's a good use of how I feel the delineation should work: The rank and file of Rahl can't become members of our regions. But the ones that pulled the strings in the background, manipulating people to their cause, etc. also got the contact prohibition because they are the ones that are "responsible for planning their political machinations, while compartmentalizing access so that regular members, unaware, can be used alternately as shields or pawns". It wasn't based on who's the "worser" enemy - the Rahl family as an entity is an enemy, period, and the regional proscription gives us the necessary security tools against their machinations.

You're contradicting yourself here, in what I suspect is a post hoc attempt to defend your belief. You're saying the core Rahl leaders were the really dangerous ones, and so got the full proscription. But then trying to say there wasn't any kind of belief that they were more or less dangerous than the non-leaders. Clearly, there was a determination that certain Rahl family members were more dangerous, and thus needed a heightened level of proscription. The less dangerous ones got the lesser form of proscription. And I would argue not because of some metric-driven analysis or whatever, but simply because the Cabinet operated under the idea that full proscriptions are for the really big bad people, and so if you're not as bad as them, you get the half-measure by default. In reality, every member of the Rahl family should have been fully proscribed, because having any in our region whatsoever poses a serious risk. The reason why that was never done was entirely political-- there were people in the Rahl family who weren't outwardly nefarious and it would be politically difficult to ban them. That's it. The way previous Cabinets handled security was very poor, if you ask me.

(12-03-2020, 07:40 AM)Roavin Wrote: This is false. Bel's view on this is probably mildly closer to Glen's than mine is — Bel's view is simply nuance, while my view is proscribe regionally by default, and go for full only for individuals and only when the contact prohibition is necessary.

No, it is not false. I know, because I was the one who wrote the initial bill that would allow individual PNG declarations and fought with Bel about it. You stepped in and offered a compromise because Bel was wholly opposed to the idea of targeting individual people period. The compromise was that there would be a less severe form of security threat ban, the "regional proscription," and there would be judicial review of all proscriptions. (By the way, not entirely related, but I was absolutely right about what would happen if the Court got the final say )

(12-03-2020, 07:40 AM)Roavin Wrote: TBH is an enemy, full stop. Therefore, they will be proscribed, full stop. The argument here is merely about if the rank and file of TBH is so dangerous as to not even see the public offsite places of TSP. with their main Discord accounts. And honestly - I'd rather have the rank and file hang out with their main accounts than their alt accounts, so we can see where they are.

Clearly they are not "an enemy, full stop" if they are permitted to chat and socialize and ingratiate themselves with TSPers. You don't allow enemies to do that. I think the way you view TBH is an adversary, not an enemy at all.

(12-03-2020, 07:40 AM)Roavin Wrote: And a final note: I'd even consider the regional proscription the stronger one in this case. The full proscription is "we're so scared of you we're not even gonna talk to anybody associated with you". In fact, as I mentioned on Discord, I'd even be so daft as to include a note in the statement along the lines of "OOC: This is a regional proscription and does not bar access to our off-site platforms. Members of TBH, while they cannot have a nation or partake in our governance, are welcome to continue their participation as visitors on our off-site platforms, as several have been doing already."

And this is where I disagree with you most vehemently. Due respect Roavin, but the previous attempts you oversaw on dealing TBH clearly did not work. It's time to try a new way of handling TBH, one that is far more aggressive and no-nonsense. You keep defaulting to this idea that if we go hard on TBH, that somehow makes us the weak ones. And if we go easy on them, well that just shows how confident we are in ourselves. That's just... nonsense. It's the same view that got us to where we are now.

Your logic here basically precludes full proscriptions. That's not acceptable to me. If you want that, then repeal the full proscription clauses. If we consider a group or region to be a straight up enemy, they do not belong in TSP. We are not obligated to provide a public hang-out space for our enemies, but some of you are certainly acting like we are. You are ignoring the serious risk associated with that, under some disproven notion that we are stronger by choosing the weaker course of action. I've yet to see a single counter-argument to my explanation that we know nefarious people can use socializing to ingratiate themselves with TSPers and get them to start advocating for their de-proscription.

TSP loses absolutely nothing by kicking TBH out of TSP completely. We gain nothing by allowing any TBHer to stay. We risk real dissonance in what the government is saying (TBH is a threat) with what the average TSPer experiences (this TBHer is nice and hanging out with us, how can they be a threat?). "Regional proscription" is frankly nonsensical and counterproductive to actual security. It was introduced in a compromise bill and does not actually do much to protect TSP's security. If we are going to say that a region or organization is dangerous and an enemy, we need to put up or shut up. Enough of this too-clever-by-half approach to regional security.