Farengeto, let me first address your points.

These security measures are unaccountable and unappealable.

"Unaccountable": Any border control action taken must be reported, that's explicit for every case in the bill. That is accountability.

"Unappealable": That's not true - with the exception of RMB spammers, there are upper limits placed on each case for which a ban may take hold. There is no mention of appeal but that does not preclude the CRS or the Delegate/LC from instituting an appeal process. The bill only says what the maximum length is, but it's at the discretion of the institution that issued the border control action how long (up to that point) it actually is, and an informal appeal is certainly a way to reduce such a sentence. In fact, there is nothing in this bill stopping the CRS or LC from instituting a formal appeals process!

It undermines the CRS by allowing the delegate to freely appoint BC ROs with no accountability.

That is a fascinatingly incorrect statement. This bill does not address who gets the power or not, as it does not belong in this bill. The appointment of regional officers is regulated in the Regional Officers Act; it also includes provisions about the Border Control power and ensures that all members of the CRS must be granted that power, thereby negating your point that the CRS is undermined. I suggest you read that law.

It allows indefinite bans on even the accusation of criminal charges.

False. With the exception of RMB spammers or invaders, there is an upper limit to the length of a ban each kind of border control action. If a ban is served based on an accusation of a criminal charge, it must be a criminal charge relating to the security of the region, not any arbitrary crime.

Hell, several parts of this bill are one step away from how Funk did the Laz coup, something we just spent weeks criticizing.

.... HOW!?! Are we even reading the same bill?

In fact as written if the Delegate and CRS agree (with our past few Delegates being on the CRS it thins the separation in practice) they can indefinitely ban any nation they choose with no means of appeal.

Again, not true, because there is an upper limit.

Even if they don't the "whichever is longer" clause lets the CRS ban any nation they choose for the months it takes to lose the influence, again with no accountability or appeal.

Again, disproven earlier - appeal is not specified but possible, and it must be reported, therefore accountable. Illegitimate bans by the CRS are legal grounds for a recall.

I would also argue that this recent incursion was actually an example of the CRS working well. We successfully repelled a hostile foreign incursion without needing to raise regional alarm, and with no disruption to the region or delegacy. Even if this attack had succeeded they would only have temporarily installed the outgoing delegate and member of the CRS who is one of our region's oldest and most trusted members. That is not to dismiss the incident or the need for better security powers, but we are overstating the imminent danger to the Coalition being implied here. And even then, as demonstrated again recently in Laz the biggest threats are the internal, not the external. Foreign infiltration, foreign agitators, endo cap ignorers: those all need to be dealt with. But if anything this just gives the position most likely to coup greater ability to "legally" do so.

"Worked well" in the sense that people were scrambling to figure out some additional endos for DM, including calling in the SPSF to pile, without having to resort to unendorsing Tsunamy (which ended up happening anyway). On the other hand, a quick press of a button for something that was a legitimate case of foreign tampering would have been much, much easier and much more sane.

---

Having addressed your points, I am disappointed. Not only are you grossly misrepresenting this bill, as if you hadn't even read it, but your opposition comes now, as the minimum debate time expires, instead of 10 days ago when I posted the very first draft (in EO form then) in the Joint Security Forum, semantically nearly identical to the version presented here. Your only concern there was illegality due to 3.3, and while I realize you were busy, at no time did stop to say "hey hold up, I've got concerns, but I need a day or two to write them up". Had you done that, this wouldn't have moved forward. Instead, we've proposed a bill, crafted and approved and advertised by the CRS and Cabinet jointly, and then you come in as a CRS member with false rhetoric to discredit it. I cannot fathom this and am having a hard time not questioning your motives.

Reply

Having addressed your points, I am disappointed. Not only are you grossly misrepresenting this bill, as if you hadn't even read it, but your opposition comes now, as the minimum debate time expires, instead of 10 days ago when I posted the very first draft (in EO form then) in the Joint Security Forum, semantically nearly identical to the version presented here. Your only concern there was illegality due to 3.3, and while I realize you were busy, at no time did stop to say "hey hold up, I've got concerns, but I need a day or two to write them up". Had you done that, this wouldn't have moved forward. Instead, we've proposed a bill, crafted and approved and advertised by the CRS and Cabinet jointly, and then you come in as a CRS member with false rhetoric to discredit it. I cannot fathom this and am having a hard time not questioning your motives.

Sorry that my RL gets in the way of your bill. The time you proposed it was in the middle of my LoA, so apologies if a cabin in the woods where we can barely get TV signal while using a phone barely holding a charge isn't exactly the best drafting environment.

And I intended to draft a response a few days ago, however I ended up stuck on writing a report that took far longer than planned. The fact I didn't finish it until after 1am last night should explain why I didn't address it sooner, instead sending that hastily written response from my phone while starting work.

Reply

I think we all understand that life happens.

That said, this bill is only targeting new members and those who might flood the region in an attempt to invade. High influence nations cannot be ejected for banned without wider consent, so this is rather unlike what happened in Laz.

As I've been arguing elsewhere, the idea that we should hold a trial for every ban-able offense is silly. We don't have the manpower and, moreover, more of the people we'd ban don't take the game so seriously.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

The issue isn't having a RL (I even acknowledged that), but you had enough time to state your concerns regarding 3.3 and could have said "hold up I'm not cool with this, gimme a moment to get back to you in a few days".

Gesendet von meinem Xtouch mit Tapatalk

Reply

Is any of this about RL necessary? Roavin addressed the critiques. If Farengeto doesn't have a response, can we move forward?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

If Farengeto doesn't have a response, can we move forward?

It's been 7 hours since his first response. Surely a little more time can be spared.

Marius Rahl

Fortitudine Vincimus!

Reply

I also have some concerns on the bill. Can we have some stronger definitions on what counts as a troll or spammer please or remove that part. In it's current form, it is open to abuse. I'm also not sure if it is really needed, their messages can be suppressed and if they are that bad you can report them to an NS Mod I believe.


I'm also wondering if this along with the other pieces of legislation up for discussion right now in the Assembly are a knee-jerk reaction to events going on outside TSP. I myself am not seeing the threat which is so imminent that we need to restrict voting or give more people the power to ban-eject members. This is all happening very quickly and we shouldn't be rushing these kinds of serious security pieces of legislation through as quickly as possible.

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

Reply

I'm not in a hurry - quite the contrary, I'm glad we're actually picking up the debate now, though for some reason it took three days to do so

Can we have some stronger definitions on what counts as a troll or spammer please or remove that part. In it's current form, it is open to abuse. I'm also not sure if it is really needed, their messages can be suppressed and if they are that bad you can report them to an NS Mod I believe.

It's hard to come up with a definition of what counts as spamming or trolling and what doesn't. The moderators for the NS forums themselves don't have direct definitions for what is and isn't trolling/spamming for that very reason.

Furthermore, there is a difference between spamming/trolling that is actionable for the purposes of NS moderation, and spamming/trolling that we as South Pacificans want to accept and allow on our RMB. The Delegate and Local Council have the mandate, through their Communications power, to use their suppression powers to act against those we believe to be violating the latter, by the terms that they set. So logically, it would be them that would say who is spamming or trolling, not an assembly bill.

Nonetheless, we could add a check on their use of the power. I don't see that as an unreasonable thing to do. I'd be happy for suggestions.

I'm also wondering if this along with the other pieces of legislation up for discussion right now in the Assembly are a knee-jerk reaction to events going on outside TSP. I myself am not seeing the threat which is so imminent that we need to restrict voting or give more people the power to ban-eject members. This is all happening very quickly and we shouldn't be rushing these kinds of serious security pieces of legislation through as quickly as possible.

What other pieces of legislation - the debate on 3.3? Those are kinda related, and the reason this comes up is because there was an actual attempt at foreign meddling in-game in our region and in that process we noticed that there are no legal methods to actually enforce anything. We don't have to rush it, I'd be happy for the debate. I have stated that if it's necessary, the Cabinet would pull the executive order option (which will gain 6 days), but hopefully that won't be necessary and we can just debate, draft, and vote on a bill through regular order.

Reply

I also have some concerns on the bill. Can we have some stronger definitions on what counts as a troll or spammer please or remove that part. In it's current form, it is open to abuse. I'm also not sure if it is really needed, their messages can be suppressed and if they are that bad you can report them to an NS Mod I believe.

In the case of spammers and trolls, I think that's really something where we have to trust to the discretion of the Delegate/LC to define, like Roavin said. As for whether or not troll/spam banjection is needed, would you really like to see a wall of suppressed posts? It's very easy to ban them, and we're all the better for it. Again, we have to put some faith in the Delegate and LC and trust it to their ability to judge.

I'm also wondering if this along with the other pieces of legislation up for discussion right now in the Assembly are a knee-jerk reaction to events going on outside TSP. I myself am not seeing the threat which is so imminent that we need to restrict voting or give more people the power to ban-eject members. This is all happening very quickly and we shouldn't be rushing these kinds of serious security pieces of legislation through as quickly as possible.

I believe the only imminent threat to TSP itself recently has been a mildly malicious troll attempt to put Tsu back in the delegacy, which failed. Certainly not the most imminent or perilous threat, but enough to get the ball rolling on some reforms which have been talked about for a bit. That said, I think we're taking an good amount of time to talk, and I don't think anyone wants to rush such a serious piece of legislation.

Marius Rahl

Fortitudine Vincimus!

Reply

<snip>

(The post is already long and I don't like splitting posts like that.)

An "informal appeal" like you suggest is no appeal at all. There's no legal weight to it. No matter how valid the arguments or the level of valid regional opposition there is no means to actual appeal. If the CRS chose to they could freely ignore the banned user altogether with no legal reprecussions. I know you bring up recalls but "accept what I do or recall me" is neither a reasonable nor stable policy, and it shouldn't be relied on for that purpose.

While most of these are of a maximum length, the spammer one remains permanent. And for a high influence nation this unappealable ban could still last for several months until their influence decays. My previous thoughts were a bit rushed (I lost around half my original post while writing it), and I jumbled a few comments. When I mention the Delegate and CRS agreeing, under the current form of the Border Control Act they could eject any nation they chose indefinitely as spammers, and as I have said before there is no reasonable means of appealing it.

And you are correct that the recent situation was less than ideal, and I don't dispute the need for greater security powers that would have helped that situation. I think some of these in some form should be added. But the fact it could be repelled even without these increased security powers, and the relatively small consequences if they had succeeded, shows that the situation isn't as drastic as some statements I've seen claim.

Reply