Users browsing this thread:

***Roavin*** · 08-19-2017, 07:49 PM

(08-19-2017, 06:59 PM)The Serres Republic Wrote: Yes, but how do you determine what 'good faith' is. Such a vague idea is not something I can support. Imo, striking 3.3 in its entirety is a much better option.

It's not entirely an objective measure, yes, but I don't think it's as vague as you make it out to be. In the US, the definition of good faith is "neither party shall do anything, which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party, to receive the fruits of the contract". As it applies in this context, the contract is between nation and region; the region providing services such as the RMB, the off-site resources, stable governance, and community; and the nation providing to the region its activity and (if a WA nation) its contribution to regional security and power in the World Assembly.

I argue it's easy for the vast majority of cases to uniquely identify whether a nation has joined in good faith or not.

***sandaoguo*** · 08-20-2017, 05:29 PM

It's been 5 days since this was motioned and seconded. So if Farengeto's a bit busy right now, I think it's within the Assembly's right to put this to vote itself.

***Tsunamy*** · 08-22-2017, 02:52 PM

Can this also get put up for a vote ASAP?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

XIV · 08-22-2017, 06:40 PM

I know I'm a little late to this and that it's likely that voting will be happening on the previously suggested language hopefully fairly soon, however I've read through the thread and I think there's a better solution than the one that has been proposed.

Quote:3. No member may be banned or ejected from the in-game region without the due process of law.
a. In situations where there is reasonable belief that the security of the region may be in danger an individual may be banned or ejected from the region, and due process taken later.

It's perhaps a bit inelegant, but it gets the point across. It empowers those who can act to do so to secure the region without doing away with the idea of due process. Maybe call it something like 'delayed process of law'.

Rikutso · 08-22-2017, 06:42 PM

I saw nothing more on the "what if someone bans a person for 1000 years" argument. I feel that we should put a cap on it, say, a month, or 2 months. What do y'all think? If it goes past a certain point, it'll be considered indefinite or infinite for the purposes.

Wintreath Thane of Diplomatic Officers
Fmr. Local Councillor (9/9/15 - c. 10/15)

Discord:Katie#3933

XIV · 08-22-2017, 06:44 PM

I don't know about the previous language suggested, but in my suggested language a 1000 year ban could be overturned if it is found that there was no threat to regional security.

**Pronoun** · 08-22-2017, 09:38 PM

(08-12-2017, 10:56 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: How about this:

Quote:3. No member, who had joined the region in good faith, may be banned or ejected from the in-game region without the due process of law.

This should give us the ability to boot people who has come to cause trouble while protecting everyone else. Thoughts?

I'm sorry for being terribly late, but the only problem I see with this is that intentions change; just because a member joined in good faith does not mean they will continue to act in good faith.

(08-22-2017, 06:40 PM)XIV Wrote: [...]

Quote:3. No member may be banned or ejected from the in-game region without the due process of law.
a. In situations where there is reasonable belief that the security of the region may be in danger an individual may be banned or ejected from the region, and due process taken later.
[...]

I guess I'm okay with due process being taken after a banjection, but due process should begin as soon as possible. There also needs to be much greater safeguard against rash decisions that will be regretted later; for example, who needs to hold this reasonable belief? Furthermore, I feel this should be reserved for extreme circumstances.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

XIV · 08-23-2017, 09:15 AM

(08-22-2017, 09:38 PM)Pronoun Wrote: There also needs to be much greater safeguard against rash decisions that will be regretted later; for example, who needs to hold this reasonable belief? Furthermore, I feel this should be reserved for extreme circumstances.

The safeguard against rash decisions already exists in the form of due process. If someone makes a rash and unfounded determination that regional security is at risk and the court finds that it was not, the decision is reversed. No harm done. As to who should hold this reasonable belief, anyone that has been charged with protecting the regional security of the south pacific, be that the delegate or a member of the security council.

I know I'm new to GCRs, I've spent about a week and a half in TNP before joining here, but I feel like threats to regional security are some of the most extreme circumstances there are.

***Tsunamy*** · 08-23-2017, 09:56 AM

I'm going to keep support for my earlier incarnation. If a nation joins and good fait hand later becomes a turncoat, we have legal processes for dealing with them.

There's also a select few number of people who can banject people — the CRS, the delegate and the Prime Minister. So, we're not selecting a huge force of people — just letting these offices use the power they already have.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Pronoun** · 08-23-2017, 10:16 AM

(08-23-2017, 09:56 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: I'm going to keep support for my earlier incarnation. If a nation joins and good fait hand later becomes a turncoat, we have legal processes for dealing with them.

There's also a select few number of people who can banject people — the CRS, the delegate and the Prime Minister. So, we're not selecting a huge force of people — just letting these offices use the power they already have.

I concede. Your knowledge greatly exceeds mine, and further dicussion from my part on this would be irrelevant.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord