| CoI Amendment |
|
I have a proposal:
Changing: Quote:9. Conflict of Interest Disclosures must include current World Assembly Nation, all past and present aliases used, all past and present involvement in other regions and organizations, and all current positions held across NationStates. To: Quote:9. Conflict of Interest Disclosures must include current World Assembly Nation, all past and present aliases used, all current positions held in Nationstates and affiliation with regions and organizations, as well as all past membership in other regions and organizations. Basically this change means that candidates don't have to list every single office they have ever held in every region ever. It requires them to still list all current offices, and still requires all past memberships. So you can know that I was once a citizen of the New Inquisition, but I don't have to list every position I've ever had there. The current expectations are insanely high for those who have been playing NS for a while -- especially those of us, who in our youth, were in quite a few regions. This slims it down a little, while retaining a good working knowledge of a candidate's past. Win-win.
I would also allow for exceptions to declaring past regions which were 'on mission' to declared regions or had no connection to Gameplay.
Does the Code of Laws right now require to list past positions? I assumed "past involvement" simply meant listing the regions you have been a member of, not to list specific positions.
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 (11-16-2014, 09:46 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Does the Code of Laws right now require to list past positions? I assumed "past involvement" simply meant listing the regions you have been a member of, not to list specific positions. The current Election Commission is saying we need to provide every office and every affiliation ever held in our time in Nationstates.
Perhaps we could submit a legal question, to be sure on the definition of "involvement"?
I assumed involvement didn't include positions, because just after that part, the CoL requires listing all current positions. Why make the distinction between involvement and positions, unless they mean different things, right? 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
While I believe that interpretation may be technically correct, I'm satisfied with the current interpretation of the law. I realize that omissions are inevitable if you've been playing this game for a few years, or, like some of us, over a decade, but I think the law causes each candidate to make a good faith effort in disclosing as much information to the electorate as possible. It also allows for the prosecution of anyone that willfully leaves out a certain position within a region which may actually cause a conflict of interest within their prospective position.
The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) Provost, Magisterium Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army Journalist, East Pacific News Service Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific (11-17-2014, 02:16 AM)God-Emperor Wrote: While I believe that interpretation may be technically correct, I'm satisfied with the current interpretation of the law. I realize that omissions are inevitable if you've been playing this game for a few years, or, like some of us, over a decade, but I think the law causes each candidate to make a good faith effort in disclosing as much information to the electorate as possible. It also allows for the prosecution of anyone that willfully leaves out a certain position within a region which may actually cause a conflict of interest within their prospective position. I am a bit confused by your logic here. You seem to note that it may be acceptable for someone to forget a position or two over a long career, but then say the ability to prosecute people for forgetting a position is a merit of the current interpretation.
Willfully omitting is far different from forgetting. If someone decided to prosecute an individual for an incomplete Conflict Of Interest Disclosure, they have to convince the Court beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was a willful omission and not just a lapse of memory.
The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) Provost, Magisterium Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army Journalist, East Pacific News Service Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific (11-17-2014, 11:19 AM)God-Emperor Wrote: Willfully omitting is far different from forgetting. If someone decided to prosecute an individual for an incomplete Conflict Of Interest Disclosure, they have to convince the Court beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was a willful omission and not just a lapse of memory. I just don't like this. How are you going to prove if it was willful or not? And should someone have to endure a long trial because they accidentally forget one position? This seems cumbersome with the region getting nothing in return. Let's pass this amendment and change this process.
Might we think of a subforum where people could keep an ongoing CoI they can update as things change or remembered? Would seem not only easier, but end up being a rolling history of TSP.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |