In the aftermath of the NPO's takeover of Laz, I would like to review laws that I feel can ultimately be used against the region in event of a coup.

The one law I find most troubling above anything else is the cabinet's mostly unchecked ability to strip citizenship without due process indefinitely.

That law was intended to allow us to remove people like Milo legally after a coup. Instead, Bels had planned to use it as it was unintended, and in a giant dose of irony, had it used that way against him.

In this era where a colonized GCR can stand, I understand the cabinet's need to protect our region. But, I think it is totally improper for this removal of citizenship to be indefinite. I propose that we add a clause where this automatically sunsets for a month. After a month, the CSS can vote for a continuation. A month after that the assembly can vote for a continuation. After that, the ban is expired.

I think this change will allow the cabinet to act in event of a threat. If a crime was committed, it allows the cabinet time to build a case. After a month, it puts the action under CSS review, and a month after that under assembly review.

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

Reply

Not entirely following your logic here SB. Someone can be deemed a threat, but after 3 months this person can become a citizen again without question, or less if the CSS/Assembly decides to let them return sooner? Doesn't sound right to me.

Reply

Yes I agree.

Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member
Former Minister of Regional Affairs
Former High Court Justice

Reply

Honestly — and I think this is really important to get at — I think we need to decide what we consider a "threat."

Are we talking about nations immediately in range of a coup? Or are we talking about people who have the potential to change the dynamics in TSP?

I think we'll come to different conclusions depending on which "threat" we're talking about.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Not entirely following your logic here SB. Someone can be deemed a threat, but after 3 months this person can become a citizen again without question, or less if the CSS/Assembly decides to let them return sooner? Doesn't sound right to me.

Yes, I think striping someone of citizenship in this manner should be a temporary measure to secure the region in the short term. Not a long term method of removing citizenship without trial. If someone is a security threat, I am sure the CSS would uphold the ban for an additional month. Then finally the region can decide if this is a direct threat.

Under my plan, if the cabinet deems someone a security threat and the region agrees they have three months to build a case and charge them with a crime and / or address the threat directly. If not, they have a month.

The concept of this being indefinite is scary, especially when this could very easily be abused in its current state.

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

Reply

The Cabinet already has to present their case to the Assembly.

This would neuter any remaining ability of this region to actually take necessary security measures. We are practically the laughing stock among GCRs for how utterly incapable our region is to take common sense security measures. Talk to anybody with experience in this area, explain how our system works, and they'll be shocked at how simple and easy it is for somebody to completely weasel their way into the region despite being recognized as a security threat. I've had that discussion with several players outside TSP already.

At some point, we need to recognize that this is a game and not a real country. There are people in this game who get enjoyment out of fucking shit up. Just because we've chosen a democratic way to elect our leaders and believe in the rule of law does not mean we need to make ourselves totally incapable of recognizing that this is a game and we need to play it as such.

Sometimes you simply need to kick somebody out of the playground when they have a long history of stealing and breaking the toys. The tendency for some in this region to ignore history and think, "They're nice to me! They joke around on IRC!", and use that as an argument for why they ought to be allowed in this region is what is going to turn us into the next Osiris. Again, this is a game. You can play poker with friends, but that doesn't mean you trust them and show them your hand.

Reply

Let them come here. They can try, but they can never establish a NSPO.

Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)

Local Council Member(April 24-August 11)

Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)

Quotes

"The 1% is like a 1% battery charge. It will die out if it is not charged(the charge is the 99%). But if you don't charge it, it will die for sure, sooner or later"
- Me (2001- Present)

"Change is the world's blood"
- Me (2001-Present)

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

Reply

Don't get me wrong SB, I am not against there being time limits on any security threat declaration (this is a good idea), but I do feel that a maximum of 3 months (or less if overturned after 1 or 2 months) may be a bit short though in some cases. I get the intent of why you want this, but I can also see cases where this is possibly not enough.

I do agree with Tsu though, it all comes down to the current loose definition of "security threat" that we currently have in legislation (i.e. none). I would really like to see that tightened up as a priority. Any thoughts on wording for this? (Not my strong suit, especially at 2AM).

The ability for cabinet to strip citizenship is not great legislation as is, fully agree it should have more detail on when and how this ability can be used, but I don't know that limiting it how you have suggested is the best approach.

I guess another thing to look at, is who declares someone a security threat. Really there are three options for thid (Cabinet, CSS or Assembly). Currently the only ones who can are the Cabinet, with the ability for the Assembly to overturn any decision (75% majority required). The CSS do not have any say in this at all under legislation, unless the nation in question is breaching the endorsement cap. Does this seem reasonable? Guess once again we need a definition for "security threat" to be able to decide. As Glen mentioned, our legislation is way too loose on security and some people we should not want around. There is very little way we can knock somebody back in legislation at present from joining/becoming a citizen. I do feel this needs to be looked at.

That is my thoughts on it, I do think the whole "security threat" needs to be looked at, not just putting a time limit on any declaration. I need sleep though, have fun discussing, I'll check back in the morning.

Reply

Oh god. A definition. A definition would be catastrophic because it wouldn't be generalisable to specific cases. Security threats are smart people, they shift and reshape their own reputations to make it difficult for governments to remove them. They do it publicly and in their face. They tease governments to blow political capital on them.

A security threat is someone who has a persistent history of exploiting the privileges of citizenship for personal, not public advantage in such a way that their ban is demonstrably justifiable in a democratic society as protection against those who would undermine its democratic practices for the goals of amassing power, control and license over the South Pacific.


I think it's impossible to define a security threat. It's an elephant test. You know it when you see it. But there's no way to establish clear boundaries of what is and what is not a security threat - and that's where the political process comes in.

Glen-Rhodes is right - TSP has a reputation for not performing well in banning citizens - mere social connections is enough to wipe away years of being a GCR troublemaker.

(This post was last modified: 04-13-2015, 03:29 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

Reply

The Cabinet already has to present their case to the Assembly.

This would neuter any remaining ability of this region to actually take necessary security measures. We are practically the laughing stock among GCRs for how utterly incapable our region is to take common sense security measures. Talk to anybody with experience in this area, explain how our system works, and they'll be shocked at how simple and easy it is for somebody to completely weasel their way into the region despite being recognized as a security threat. I've had that discussion with several players outside TSP already.

At some point, we need to recognize that this is a game and not a real country. There are people in this game who get enjoyment out of fucking shit up. Just because we've chosen a democratic way to elect our leaders and believe in the rule of law does not mean we need to make ourselves totally incapable of recognizing that this is a game and we need to play it as such.

Sometimes you simply need to kick somebody out of the playground when they have a long history of stealing and breaking the toys. The tendency for some in this region to ignore history and think, "They're nice to me! They joke around on IRC!", and use that as an argument for why they ought to be allowed in this region is what is going to turn us into the next Osiris. Again, this is a game. You can play poker with friends, but that doesn't mean you trust them and show them your hand.

First, don't jump on this I don't understand this is a game perch just because I want more democratic protections. I understand that there are rabble rousers, I just don't think a policy that is open for legal abuse is the way to handle it.

I think using our prohibited group laws is a better way to handle a lot of the threats that you are mentioning. It makes zero sense to accept someone into our community then decide they are a rabble rouser and strip them off rights.

We've argued this to death, but a in lock cabinet can not realistically be overridden. If you want real assembly input, how about we simply flip the vote instead of needed a super majority to overrule to a super majority to continue the ban. That's REAL democratic oversight.

TSP has faired better than almost every other feeder government against coups and events like this, because our democratic protections and policies.

Real NPO style governments only can succeed in situations where they install a high influence nation, and eliminate / eject all other influence threats. Often times using "legal" methods to do so before using illegal methods.

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

Reply