Persona non grata is a tool of diplomacy. The CRS isn’t powerless as it is, we’re just talking about a completely different type of power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

My goal here is to get to a law that is (1) sensible (2) enjoys wide support (3) is supported by both Glen and Bel, since if they both like it, it's likely to be pretty decent

So, new comments and questions.

@ everyone

• We appear to have a consensus that our restrictions nowadays can be more than just restricting Legislator status, despite the precedent set by the PGO law, due to the different paradigm of legislator status today vs. citizen status back when the PGO law was originally introduced in 2014.
  

@sandaoguo

• The mere presence of a nation in TSP does not automatically grant the rights afforded by the charter. Kris ruled on this in HCLQ1708, so while it's not enshrined in law, it's defined by judicial precedent. It's not fully objective, no, but it is something that can be determined legally in one way or another.
  
• You mentioned that you did not support having trials+preemptive measures as an alternative to a process to PNG Legislators. Your stated reasons were our court system as well as precedent with the PGO law. What I missed was an argument on the matter itself - assuming we didn't have the PGO precedent, and our court system was perfect, why would you or would you not support the alternative I proposed earlier?
  
• Would you generally support allowing the court to set preemptive measures based on a standard of evidence? If so, which standard of evidence?
  
• Do you consider it possible that an individual can commit an IC action in another region that is so heinous that we would no longer want them to be a Legislator in our region, even if they did not break any of our region's laws while doing so? If so, can you think of an example?
  

@Belschaft

• The mere presence of a nation in TSP does not automatically grant the rights afforded by the charter. Kris ruled on this in HCLQ1708. I didn't see anything wrong or inherently authoritarian in what Glen stated.
  
• Do you consider it possible that an individual can commit an IC action in another region that is so heinous that we would no longer want them to be a Legislator in our region, even if they did not break any of our region's laws while doing so? If so, can you think of an example?
  
• Do you consider proscriptions of individuals and/or groups as a diplomatic measure, a security measure, or both? Please elaborate.
  

@southern bellz

• A disapproval vote rather than requiring a vote strikes a balance - on the one hand, it grants the Cabinet to set executive policy for these matters, as Glen described, whilst also giving the Assembly an easy chance to intervene if it needs to, as you required. I personally like that balanced option best, actually, for the same reasons.
  
• Would you support that method?
  
• If so, would you support Escade's idea that the disapproval vote requires a time frame? If so, which time frame do you think is reasonable?
  

@Escade

• Do you think PNG/PGO declarations should come from Cabinet, CRS, Cabinet and CRS together, or a specific combination thereof?
  
• What time frame do you consider reasonable for allowing a disapproval vote?
  

(This post was last modified: 04-15-2018, 05:17 PM by Roavin.)

Reply

The mere presence of a nation in TSP does not automatically grant the rights afforded by the charter. Kris ruled on this in HCLQ1708, so while it's not enshrined in law, it's defined by judicial precedent. It's not fully objective, no, but it is something that can be determined legally in one way or another.

Not beyond "I know it when I see it", if we're being real. Which is my whole point, and why these decisions should be left to the judgement of people and not poorly written legalese. (Not referring to Kris's ruling, but to the fact that none of us are uber-lawyers here.) HCLQ1708 is based entirely on "good faith," which is inherently subjective. Sometimes it's better to let politics and political accountability handle things, than to try to codify subjectivity.
 

You mentioned that you did not support having trials+preemptive measures as an alternative to a process to PNG Legislators. Your stated reasons were our court system as well as precedent with the PGO law. What I missed was an argument on the matter itself - assuming we didn't have the PGO precedent, and our court system was perfect, why would you or would you not support the alternative I proposed earlier?

If the court was perfect, we would be using a lot more, instead of trying to avoid it as much as possible. I don't see the point in fantasizing about it. I really don't believe that regional security or interregional diplomacy should be handled through the court.
 

Would you generally support allowing the court to set preemptive measures based on a standard of evidence? If so, which standard of evidence?

No, because the court isn't the body who should be doing any of this. I frankly didn't vote on Kris's judicial nomination thinking he should be the final person to make decisions about regional security or political diplomacy.
 

Do you consider it possible that an individual can commit an IC action in another region that is so heinous that we would no longer want them to be a Legislator in our region, even if they did not break any of our region's laws while doing so? If so, can you think of an example?

Yes, and that's why we should have a law that allows the Cabinet to single out those people. Literally anybody who coups is a good example.

(This post was last modified: 04-15-2018, 05:36 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

The mere presence of a nation in TSP does not automatically grant the rights afforded by the charter. Kris ruled on this in HCLQ1708, so while it's not enshrined in law, it's defined by judicial precedent. It's not fully objective, no, but it is something that can be determined legally in one way or another.

Not beyond "I know it when I see it", if we're being real. Which is my whole point, and why these decisions should be left to the judgement of people and not poorly written legalese. (Not referring to Kris's ruling, but to the fact that none of us are uber-lawyers here.) HCLQ1708 is based entirely on "good faith," which is inherently subjective. Sometimes it's better to let politics and political accountability handle things, than to try to codify subjectivity.

... and my point too. So we're in agreement, basically
 

You mentioned that you did not support having trials+preemptive measures as an alternative to a process to PNG Legislators. Your stated reasons were our court system as well as precedent with the PGO law. What I missed was an argument on the matter itself - assuming we didn't have the PGO precedent, and our court system was perfect, why would you or would you not support the alternative I proposed earlier?

If the court was perfect, we would be using a lot more, instead of trying to avoid it as much as possible. I don't see the point in fantasizing about it. I really don't believe that regional security or interregional diplomacy should be handled through the court.

I do hope we start using it more now, tbh. But yes, I understand your argument.

Reply

I do hope we start using it more now, tbh. But yes, I understand your argument.

The court is there to answer the question, "Is this legal under the law?" It's not there to tell us if PNG'ing the Queen of Balder is a politically appropriate response to acts of aggression. So I'm not really sure what more you're wanting the court to do in this arena.

Making all of this into criminal law and requiring trials is, quite honestly, the worst idea I've heard in a while. Might as well just not have this debate at all, because the moment we're forced to go through the courts, the Cabinet and CRS aren't going to bother doing anything at all.

Reply

No no, I meant using the courts more in general.

Reply

@Belschaft

• The mere presence of a nation in TSP does not automatically grant the rights afforded by the charter. Kris ruled on this in HCLQ1708. I didn't see anything wrong or inherently authoritarian in what Glen stated.
  

I believe you have misunderstood Kris' ruling in HCLQ1708; all residents of TSP are not to be considered members of the coalition, but most are. Glen's distinction between Legislators and non-Legislators, and his grant of civil rights (ie; right of appeal) to the first but not the second, is contrary to precedent and law. Members and non-members is the correct, and legal, distinction that must be made.

As such Glen is attempting to create a group of second-class members - non-Legislators - who are not extended the full civil rights they Charter guarantees them, and may be treated as if they were not members of the Coalition. Based on his response in this thread this appears to be intentional rather than accidental.

This is one of several reasons why Glen's draft is unconstitutional, and to my mind the clearest cut. Members who are not Legislators cannot be treated differently from members who are Legislators.
 

@Belschaft

• Do you consider it possible that an individual can commit an IC action in another region that is so heinous that we would no longer want them to be a Legislator in our region, even if they did not break any of our region's laws while doing so? If so, can you think of an example?
  

I'd suggest that an individual IC action would rarely be sufficient by itself, though it could possibly be otherwise in limited circumstances; malicious forum destruction is the only one which immediately leaps to mind. I know some people view "bad" GP actions like couping or purging as unforgivable, but it's certainly not something I agree with - the idea of PNGing Tim, for example, due to his historical actions in Osiris is silly to me. I wouldn't even necessarily apply this to people like Mall, who are serial and unapologetic purgers; I wouldn't support electing him to the cabinet or putting him on the CRS, but as an individual player he's fun to be around, always good for a laugh and relatively harmless if we don't give him access to Regional Controls - and he always plays within NS' rules.

Most of the actions that fall under "so heinous that we would no longer want them to be a Legislator in our region" are OOC for me; NS is a game, banning people for playing that game in a rules complaint manner isn't something I support.

The overlap between TSP crimes and non-crimes is also problematic here; there are some things that I think could be put on a list of "do this and you're out, doesn't matter what rights you have IC" but that's a mix of OOC and IC. That's not what is being proposed here though, it an extra-judicial system that covers TSP members - and for things that are existing offences dealt with judicially.

As I've said before, having this apply to non-members is fine - I can see an argument for "Mall is a serial couper/purger, it would be stupid to let him join TSP" even if I don't agree with it. It's when it is expanded into "Tim has couped Osiris in the past, let's declare him PNG even though he is a member and that's not against our rules". Curating who can join is different to kicking people out.
 

@Belschaft

• Do you consider proscriptions of individuals and/or groups as a diplomatic measure, a security measure, or both? Please elaborate.
  

Both. I can think of groups (ie; Nazi-whatever-they-are-calling-themselves-this-week) that are so pathetically awful at NSGP that they could not possibly be a security threat, but we may very well want to proscribe them anyway because of diplomatic reasons.... and because they are just the worst people. In much the same way, there will be individual players we want to proscribe because they are a threat to out community, even if it's diplomatically awkward or harmful for us.

_{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

No no, I meant using the courts more in general.

I imagine the court already has the power to issue restraining orders and the like. I’m reluctant to get into another generalized discussion about the court though. We’re talking about this very specific issue of PNG/PRO.

@Bel: I think you’re caught up on an issue that doesn’t actually exist. “Non-legislator” = foreigner. If that needs to be edited, fine. But at the end of the day, merely parking a nation in TSP doesn’t make somebody a TSPer and grant them special rights. That’s ridiculous.

To take my last example, if the Cabinet was preparing to PNG the Queen of Balder, and she created a nation and put it in TSP, that doesn’t suddenly make her a TSPer. That’s an absurd idea that would be abused by (and HAS BEEN prior to Kris’s ruling) enemies and aggressors.

That’s what I mean when I say people bloviate about civil rights without taking the game into any kind of context.

Anyways, your constitutionality argument is still wrong and still in contradiction with the PRO law you wrote. At the end of the day, you don’t agree with the entire concept of dealing with problematic people on an individual basis (but think it’s just fine banning everybody in a group based on the actions of the few??). I’m not sure why the bill, then, should be written around or altered for your personal belief on the topic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 04-16-2018, 01:31 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

No no, I meant using the courts more in general.

I imagine the court already has the power to issue restraining orders and the like. I’m reluctant to get into another generalized discussion about the court though. We’re talking about this very specific issue of PNG/PRO.

@Bel: I think you’re caught up on an issue that doesn’t actually exist. “Non-legislator” = foreigner. If that needs to be edited, fine. But at the end of the day, merely parking a nation in TSP doesn’t make somebody a TSPer and grant them special rights. That’s ridiculous.

To take my last example, if the Cabinet was preparing to PNG the Queen of Balder, and she created a nation and put it in TSP, that doesn’t suddenly make her a TSPer. That’s an absurd idea that would be abused by (and HAS BEEN prior to Kris’s ruling) enemies and aggressors.

That’s what I mean when I say people bloviate about civil rights without taking the game into any kind of context.

To the contrary, I'm merely applying the laws we all agreed on and the courts rulings on what they mean. Non-legislator has not meant foreigner for years - and you should know that. It's a settled matter of law.

And you need to read Kris' ruling - no part of it says that Rach could become a member just by sticking a nation in TSP.

_{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

arghbrgl

I believe you have misunderstood Kris' ruling in HCLQ1708; all residents of TSP are not to be considered members of the coalition, but most are.

Correct. What I said doesn't contradict that.

Glen's distinction between Legislators and non-Legislators, and his grant of civil rights (ie; right of appeal) to the first but not the second, is contrary to precedent and law. Members and non-members is the correct, and legal, distinction that must be made.

While it's perfectly legal to draft legislation differentiating between Legislators and non-Legislators (our laws are full of them), for the purposes of the BoR, the distinction must be between member and non-member as per HCLQ1708 - so, you are correct.

Glen also agrees with this, though in somewhat of an obtuse way:

@Bel: I think you’re caught up on an issue that doesn’t actually exist. “Non-legislator” = foreigner. If that needs to be edited, fine. But at the end of the day, merely parking a nation in TSP doesn’t make somebody a TSPer and grant them special rights. That’s ridiculous.

To take my last example, if the Cabinet was preparing to PNG the Queen of Balder, and she created a nation and put it in TSP, that doesn’t suddenly make her a TSPer. That’s an absurd idea that would be abused by (and HAS BEEN prior to Kris’s ruling) enemies and aggressors.

Ignoring the "non-legislator = foreigner" line, this is pretty much saying that the differentiation should be between members and non-members as per HCLQ1708.

TL;DR you two agree in the most disagreeable way possible, as usual (though, honestly, Glen could have been a bit clearer imho)

Reply