Alright, then how's this:

3. No member may be banned or ejected from the in-game region for reasons not explicitly specified by law, and may not be permanently or indefinitely banned without due process.

As a simple counterexample, if we preemptively banned someone under the appropriate law, banning them for say 1000 years would be legal under this definition and require no due process.

If people are not part of our region, they aren't protected by our laws. We don't have to let them in.

I'm not sure I follow what you're suggesting here. Are you suggesting we selectively revoke the bill or rights?

Reply

Alright, then how's this:

3. No member may be banned or ejected from the in-game region for reasons not explicitly specified by law, and may not be permanently or indefinitely banned without due process.

As a simple counterexample, if we preemptively banned someone under the appropriate law, banning them for say 1000 years would be legal under this definition and require no due process.

If people are not part of our region, they aren't protected by our laws. We don't have to let them in.

I'm not sure I follow what you're suggesting here. Are you suggesting we selectively revoke the bill or rights?

No. I'm suggesting that someone from another region isn't guaranteed protection under our bill of rights. That isn't "selectively revoking"; they simply are not part of our region and are not entitled to the same rights and protections of those already in the region.

As such, they maybe prohibited from entering the region because we don't have to entertain potentially hostile or disruptive forces.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Since no one is taking our regional security seriously, I'm motioning the repeal of 3.3 of the Charter to a vote.

3. No member may be banned or ejected from the in-game region for reasons not explicitly specified by law, and may not be permanently or indefinitely banned without due process.

While it may fail, I'm happy to be the adult in this region and at least *attempt* to protect us from an invading force.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

The fact that repeal would give anyone with border control free reign to ban anybody they want for any reason says enough about where I stand.

Reply

The fact that repeal would give anyone with border control free reign to ban anybody they want for any reason says enough about where I stand.

Yeah — you're also arguing that the entire NS world should be able to move into the region and be protected right up until they take the delegate's seat, so I don't really care where you stand on this.

Right now the only thing that stands between us and the LWU taking over is the fact that (I trust) DM would act un-constitutionally to protect us if it came to that.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Sounds like a significant move in the trusting the discretion of officers and cutting free of the mind bogglingly large amount of red tape we have. I don't remember the particulars, but I assume any banjection can be appealed...otherwise this seems a bit absurd.

Marius Rahl

Fortitudine Vincimus!

(This post was last modified: 08-11-2017, 10:40 AM by Drall.)

Reply

Tsu, no one is saying that we don't need to clarify this area but there's a better way to go about this than wiping out entire sections of the bill of rights.

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

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

The fact that repeal would give anyone with border control free reign to ban anybody they want for any reason says enough about where I stand.

Yeah — you're also arguing that the entire NS world should be able to move into the region and be protected right up until they take the delegate's seat, so I don't really care where you stand on this.

Right now the only thing that stands between us and the LWU taking over is the fact that (I trust) DM would act un-constitutionally to protect us if it came to that.

This isn't a dichotomy. I can want increased security measures without resorting to drastic proposals like this. You don't need to misrepresent what I've said into "let the entirety of NS in". As I've said several times what you were suggesting was neither legally valid nor technically possible. I'm all for increased security but I will not support drastic proposals like this.

Sounds like a significant move in the trusting the discretion of officers and cutting free of the mind bogglingly large amount of red tape we have. I don't remember the particulars, but I assume any banjection can be appealed...?

There's no appeal or accountability under that proposal. Only bans and ejections regardless of who and why.

Reply

Since no one is taking our regional security seriously, I'm motioning the repeal of 3.3 of the Charter to a vote.

3. No member may be banned or ejected from the in-game region for reasons not explicitly specified by law, and may not be permanently or indefinitely banned without due process.

While it may fail, I'm happy to be the adult in this region and at least *attempt* to protect us from an invading force.

I second.

Hello

Hello

Reply

We have a high-endorsement delegate who's good at tarting, a well-established in-game security council, and no visible risk of being externally couped anytime soon. I think it would be appropriate to take more time to figure out the best replacement for 3.3 rather than kneejerk repeal it during a time when it's not really necessary to do so.

While the current situation isn't enviable, we have more than enough time to figure out a workable version.

[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"

Reply