With the SPSF as having no ideology, there is no way to word 3 or 4 and in the military side of gameplay, there will always be a chance that there will be someone on the other side that is treatied or friendly. Try this:
(4) groups that have or have , successful or otherwise, attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations in misrepresenting themselves when participating in operations for the sake of sabatoge or
(5) may reasonably be considered as likely to engage in any of the actions set out in points (1) to (4) of this section in the future.
The only thing another region can do in harm to the SPSF is to take knowldge gain before an operation and leak it to others. IE, the SPSF is planing a raid and a nation or region leaks it before hand to any defender group or the SPSF is planning a liberation that gets tipped off to the raiding group.
Personally, both of those are the SPSF's fault any why for not watching what is being said. Don't see anything in Military game play contributing to making a region "prohibited". It's just how it is.
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2015, 04:01 PM by LadyElysium.)
Reply
-
Unibot
Banned
-
-
|
Joined:
Apr 2014
Posts:
2,027
Threads:
199
|
Credits: 0¢
Bear in mind, guys, that the next clause kind of deals with this:
3. For the purposes of this article, being on opposite sides of a military engagement, provided the target-region is not an ally or a region that The South Pacific is at war with, shall not constitute sabotage of The South Pacific's military operations.
But we end up across the battlefield against allies at times, both accidentally an on purpose. It just happens when you play both sides. Personally don't think the military gameplay world needs to even be in this, but I can understand why some would want it.
(04-18-2015, 05:24 PM)Unibot Wrote: Bear in mind, guys, that the next clause kind of deals with this:
3. For the purposes of this article, being on opposite sides of a military engagement, provided the target-region is not an ally or a region that The South Pacific is at war with, shall not constitute sabotage of The South Pacific's military operations.
Uni raises a good point about the next section. And of course, you don't automatically get added to the prohibited groups list as it requires a nomination by the Cabinet or CSS and then an Assembly vote. So in theory, an ally or other can be on opposite sides of a military engagement without repercussions.
-
Unibot
Banned
-
-
|
Joined:
Apr 2014
Posts:
2,027
Threads:
199
|
Credits: 0¢
I only know because I wrote it. Belschaft wasn't happy with its addition. 
Some additional thoughts:
Quote:5. Any individual whose citizenship has been revoked for membership in a designated Prohibited Group may contest their membership in the Prohibited Group to the High Court within 7 days of their citizenship being revoked. The High Court shall uphold the revocation of citizenship if the individual is found to have been a member of a designated Prohibited Group at the time of citizenship revocation and shall reinstate citizenship if the individual is found not to have been a member of a designated Prohibited Group at the time of citizenship revocation.
Who actually has the power under the Charter or Code of Laws to revoke citizenship due to membership of a prohibited group? I've looked and can't seem to find it. I'd personally support an amendment of Article 1, Section 2 of the Charter to give that power to the Vice-Delegate.
Quote:8. Regions at war with The South Pacific or with which The South Pacific is at war shall be automatically considered Prohibited Groups. The Assembly may further designate Prohibited Groups via a vote with a 60% majority in favor, should the Cabinet and/or CSS request such a designation. The Assembly may rescind a Prohibited Group designation via a vote with a 60% majority in favor.
Given most things in the Code of Laws and Charter are either 50+1% or 75% the 60% requirement seems anomalous. I personally think given the seriousness of what is involved, the 75% threshold should be applied here as it is the same requirement for the (poorly defined) "security threat" in Article 1 , Section 2 of the Charter.
So my final thoughts for the moment:
Quote:1. The Cabinet and/or Committee for State Security (CSS) may request the Assembly designate foreign regions and organizations deemed hostile to The South Pacific as Prohibited Groups. Such requests must be accompanied with a report detailing those activities that meet the definitions of hostility detailed in clause 2 of this Article.
2.For the purposes of this article, hostility shall constitute foreign regions or organizations that:
(1) were actively involved and complicit in an attempt, successful or otherwise, to illegally overthrow the legitimate government of The South Pacific or a region or organisation with which The South Pacific has a recognised treaty with;
(2) have coordinated efforts to directly exploit the elections or Assembly of The South Pacific;
(3) groups that have engaged in or have attempted to engage in coordinated espionage against The South Pacific government or military; or
(4) groups that have or have , successful or otherwise, attempted to sabotage The South Pacific's military operations in circumstances where it is acting in defence of The South Pacific or in defence of a region/organisation that The South Pacific has a recognised treaty with; or
(5) may reasonably be considered as likely to engage in any of the actions set out in points (1) to (4) of this section in the future
3. For the purposes of this article, being on opposite sides of a military engagement, provided the target-region is not an ally or a region that The South Pacific is at war with, shall not constitute sabotage of The South Pacific's military operations.
4. Membership in a designated Prohibited Group is prohibited within The South Pacific and grounds for revocation of citizenship, following a 7 day grace period to allow renunciation of membership in the Prohibited Group. The seven days grace period begins immediately after the notification of the citizen in question that they are a member of a Prohibited Group by the Vice Delegate or a member of the CSS.
5. Any individual whose citizenship has been revoked for membership in a designated Prohibited Group may contest their membership in the Prohibited Group to the High Court within 7 days of their citizenship being revoked. The High Court shall uphold the revocation of citizenship if the individual is found to have been a member of a designated Prohibited Group at the time of citizenship revocation and shall reinstate citizenship if the individual is found not to have been a member of a designated Prohibited Group at the time of citizenship revocation.
6. Applicants for citizenship who are members of a designated Prohibited Group shall not be granted citizenship unless they renounce membership in the Prohibited Group.
7. Membership in a designated Prohibited Group does not constitute a criminal offense; failure to disclose such membership shall constitute fraud.
8. Regions at war with The South Pacific or with which The South Pacific is at war shall be automatically considered Prohibited Groups. The Assembly may further designate Prohibited Groups via a vote with a 60% 75% majority in favor, should the Cabinet and/or CSS request such a designation. The Assembly may rescind a Prohibited Group designation via a vote with a 60% 75%majority in favor.
9. The following regions and organizations are deemed Prohibited Groups within The South Pacific: None.
10. The Chair of the Assembly shall update clause 9 of this article to reflect The South Pacific's current Prohibited Groups.
Then add a new section on definitions at the end of the Charter (which could in future be expended for clarity on other Articles):
Quote:Article 13: Definitions
1. A recognised Treaty for the purpose of Article 7 shall be one that has been adopted by The Assembly in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Charter of The South Pacific.
And then clarify who actually removes citizenship by amending Article 1, Section 2:
Quote:Article 1: Citizenship and Regulations of Citizenship
Section 2 - Acceptance and Removal
1. Citizenship applications will be reviewed by the Vice Delegate.
2. Upon review the applicant may be either conditionally approved or denied by the Vice Delegate.
3. Upon the applicant being conditionally approved the forum administration staff will conduct a security check to ensure the applicant is not using a proxy, is not trying to avoid a forum ban, and is not a citizen using a different nation. In the event that an applicant is found to be using a proxy, attempting to avoid a forum ban, or applying for citizenship on multiple nations their application will be denied and not subject to appeal.
4. Citizenship applications submitted during election periods will not be processed. In the event that a citizenship application has been submitted prior to the election but not yet processed, the current Vice Delegate may process the application during the election period.
5. In the event that an applicant is denied the reason for denial must be disclosed by the Vice Delegate. The applicant may appeal their denial to the Assembly which may reverse the denial by a 75% majority vote in favor.
6. If a Citizen no longer has a resident nation their citizenship will be immediately removed by the Vice Delegate.
7. Citizenship may be removed by a majority vote of the Cabinet if a nation is found to be a security threat. Citizens removed for being a security threat may appeal to the Assembly which may reverse the removal by a 75% majority vote in favor.
8. Citizenship will be removed if a nation has not logged into the South Pacific forums for more than 30 days and made two posts within that period.
9. The Vice-Delegate will revoke citizenship from any nation that has failed to renounce its membership of a region or organisation designated as a prohibited group by the Assembly immediately upon the elapsing of the 7 day grace period provided for under Article 7 of the Charter.
9.10. Citizens may request a leave of absence from the Vice Delegate.
10.11. If the Vice Delegate position is vacant, or the Vice Delegate is otherwise unavailable, the Cabinet may designate a member to perform the above duties.
Just as an aside, the Charter needs updating to reflect the amendment approved on the 14th in respect of the VD being otherwise unavailable.
|
