Users browsing this thread:

~~Cormac~~ · 02-28-2017, 12:15 PM

(02-28-2017, 12:06 PM)Belschaft Wrote: No, what you demonstrated is that TBH are prepared to raid GCR's in-game and f--- with them. You haven't demonstrated that they join GCR's and subvert them from within, Empire/NPO/UDL style - which is what this legislation was designed for.

Designated TBH as a prohibited group wouldn't have any impact on what they do.

First of all, yes I did, because Jakker infiltrated Osiris for two years from 2011-13 as "Lemon Love" -- during which time he infiltrated their admin team, their in-game security institution (which also had judicial functions), and very nearly won their Delegacy before finally being discovered. He wasn't the only one; The Black Hawks also had an operative infiltrating Balder, and possibly more operatives in other Feeders and Sinkers of which I am unaware.

Secondly, there is nothing in the prohibited group law that would lead me to believe the law is supposed to have any impact on what prohibited groups do. The law is supposed to protect the South Pacific from these groups and what they do. So, just to use Sygian as an example, he is a citizen of Lazarus but had no problem participating with The Black Hawks in unseating Lazarus' Delegate and then pseudo-bragging about it in Gameplay and on Discord. Do you think he would have any problem doing that here? Do you think he can be trusted here? How about Jakker? How about Mallorea and Riva?

(This post was last modified: 02-28-2017, 01:04 PM by Tsunamy.)

Ryccia · 02-28-2017, 12:17 PM

This is a matter of our sovereignty as a region. We all love the Coalition here, or at least the region it stands for. We must protect our home at all costs. At any cost.

You don't let in a criminal in your house. Why should we let a major organization that can violate the sovereignty of the even the mighty Pacifics have an open door to enter our home?

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

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

**Belschaft** · 02-28-2017, 12:20 PM

There's also a question of due process here; no one from TBH has ever been charged with any criminal offences, nor has it been demonstrated that they meet any of the legal criteria for Article 4 Designation. This matters.

Short of a legal basis for this beyond "TBH are raiders" I don't see how this could be even considered.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Cormac~~ · 02-28-2017, 12:27 PM

(02-28-2017, 12:20 PM)Belschaft Wrote: There's also a question of due process here; no one from TBH has ever been charged with any criminal offences, nor has it been demonstrated that they meet any of the legal criteria for Article 4 Designation. This matters.

Short of a legal basis for this beyond "TBH are raiders" I don't see how this could be even considered.

They meet the first criterion. There is no statute of limitations on it.

This has nothing to do with The Black Hawks being raiders. HYDRA Command, Firehelm, The Invaders, et al., are raiders, and they are not being brought up. Why? Because they just raid founderless user-created regions and there is no reason for us to care. The Black Hawks, on the other hand, have a consistent history of violating the sovereignty of multiple Feeders and Sinkers, including this one. Don't boil that down to them being targeted for being raiders, because it has nothing to do with them being raiders.

**Belschaft** · 02-28-2017, 12:32 PM

And yet you've failed to demonstrate how they meet the criteria required for Article 4 - aside from reaching back four years into the past, to an event which didn't see what was then Article 7 applied to them at the time - or engage in the behaviour this law is intended to address.

I must remind you once again that this law is designed and intended for a very specific "mode of operation" that TBH does not engage in.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Cormac~~ · 02-28-2017, 12:41 PM

(02-28-2017, 12:32 PM)Belschaft Wrote: And yet you've failed to demonstrate how they meet the criteria required for Article 4 - aside from reaching back four years into the past, to an event which didn't see what was then Article 7 applied to them at the time - or engage in the behaviour this law is intended to address.

I must remind you once again that this law is designed and intended for a very specific "mode of operation" that TBH does not engage in.

Again, there is no statute of limitations on the first criterion, and they have done nothing in the intervening years to demonstrate that they would be any less dangerous. On the contrary, just two weeks ago they demonstrated once again, in an allied region, that they remain as dangerous as ever.

That The Black Hawks have not yet engaged in mob-style subversion -- piling people into the legislature and taking it over -- does not mean they will not. Everything in their history indicates they would if they felt inclined. Waiting until they actually do it is waiting until it's too late. This law is designed to prevent that from happening by prohibiting groups that are a serious enough threat that it's likely they would engage in such tactics. The Black Hawks are such a group. They proved four years ago they're a threat to this region, and they proved it again two weeks ago in Lazarus.

(This post was last modified: 02-28-2017, 12:44 PM by Cormac.)

**Belschaft** · 02-28-2017, 12:43 PM

Which is utterly irrelevant, as Article 4 has specific criteria. The requirements for this designation are strict, so that people can't designate opposing R/D groups on a flimsy basis.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Cormac~~ · 02-28-2017, 12:51 PM

(02-28-2017, 12:43 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Which is utterly irrelevant, as Article 4 has specific criteria. The requirements for this designation are strict, so that people can't designate opposing R/D groups on a flimsy basis.

As I've already stated and you continue to ignore, The Black Hawks meet the first criterion.

**Belschaft** · 02-28-2017, 12:54 PM

(02-28-2017, 12:51 PM)Cormac Wrote:
(02-28-2017, 12:43 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Which is utterly irrelevant, as Article 4 has specific criteria. The requirements for this designation are strict, so that people can't designate opposing R/D groups on a flimsy basis.

As I've already stated and you continue to ignore, The Black Hawks meet the first criterion.

If you reach back four years in time to get around their failure to really meet the criteria, and make use of an event that did not see them designated under this law when it occurred.

Straws are being grasped at.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 02-28-2017, 12:54 PM by Belschaft.)

~~Cormac~~ · 02-28-2017, 01:00 PM

(02-28-2017, 12:54 PM)Belschaft Wrote: If you reach back four years in time to get around their failure to really meet the criteria, and make use of an event that did not see them designated under this law when it occurred.

Straws are being grasped at.

You're creating criteria that don't exist except in your mind. They've met the first criterion. In the intervening time since meeting that criterion, they have done nothing at all to demonstrate they are no longer a threat, and plenty to demonstrate they remain a threat. They did not need to do anything else but meet the first criterion in order to be designated a prohibited organization.

There is no reason to go by Belschaft's personalized criteria for this. We have actual criteria. The Black Hawks meet those criteria.