But, here's the thing: We don't offer bans for minor offenses, just for egregious one. I suppose the more recent example of a low level criminal case was against CS, but he wasn't even banned.

Look, I get it. Saying there's a permanent ban on someone sounds harsh and unforgiving ... but it should be! That's the point.

To come back to Milo, there's little equivalent IRL to couping for the lulz. It would literally be like having someone completely erase the U.S. government. Someone who did that would never get parole ... so, I'm not sure why we should be worrying about that here.

I'd support Roavin's idea of a simplified system. But, I'm also in favor of scrapping this full force.

It's not about whether TSP bans other criminals, it's about whether there is a negative on reintegration in general *regardless* of the crime and punishment.
Laws can have indirect effects by affecting people's attitudes, even if they aren't directly affected by that law in any way, that's what I am saying.

Reply

But, here's the thing: We don't offer bans for minor offenses, just for egregious one. I suppose the more recent example of a low level criminal case was against CS, but he wasn't even banned.

Look, I get it. Saying there's a permanent ban on someone sounds harsh and unforgiving ... but it should be! That's the point.

To come back to Milo, there's little equivalent IRL to couping for the lulz. It would literally be like having someone completely erase the U.S. government. Someone who did that would never get parole ... so, I'm not sure why we should be worrying about that here.

I'd support Roavin's idea of a simplified system. But, I'm also in favor of scrapping this full force.

It's not about whether TSP bans other criminals, it's about whether there is a negative on reintegration in general *regardless* of the crime and punishment.
Laws can have indirect effects by affecting people's attitudes, even if they aren't directly affected by that law in any way, that's what I am saying. 

They're coupers. We don't want them back.

Even the punishments aren't really analogous to real life. We don't lock them in a cell for the rest of their lives, we just block them from a tiny part of NS. The IRL equivalent is overthrowing a government and your only penalty being a travel ban from that country. (And it isn't even necessarily for your home country.) They're free to continue interacting with TSPs, do all their other NS things. They're pretty much able to continue their work in exile if they want to, using their allies. It's a minor inconvenience to them, really. And since they tried to overthrow our government they probably don't like it anyway.

We don't just give permanent judicial bans for nothing. But even then, there's really not even really a reason for them to repent or change.

Reply

But, here's the thing: We don't offer bans for minor offenses, just for egregious one. I suppose the more recent example of a low level criminal case was against CS, but he wasn't even banned.

Look, I get it. Saying there's a permanent ban on someone sounds harsh and unforgiving ... but it should be! That's the point.

To come back to Milo, there's little equivalent IRL to couping for the lulz. It would literally be like having someone completely erase the U.S. government. Someone who did that would never get parole ... so, I'm not sure why we should be worrying about that here.

I'd support Roavin's idea of a simplified system. But, I'm also in favor of scrapping this full force.

It's not about whether TSP bans other criminals, it's about whether there is a negative on reintegration in general *regardless* of the crime and punishment.
Laws can have indirect effects by affecting people's attitudes, even if they aren't directly affected by that law in any way, that's what I am saying. 

I totally understand what you're saying. But, I think our criminal code is so rarely referenced and even less used that it's not like we have an imposing system that is limiting/informing the way people act.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Practically speaking, parole just doesn't work. Just as most people don't return after being temporarily banned from the region, the idea that we need parole is ... just yeah. I don't even know the last person who was on parole. And honestly, I feel like there was only ever one person, no?

 

And the people who do return — when we make the dumb mistake of allowing them back — never do so in good faith. 

It would still be nice to actually have an idea why the system failed rather than just general comments. Just because Obamacare had negative effects in some regions and on some people doesn't mean that all healthcare is bad, does it? I do not believe that offering some kind of parole or similar system is (fundamentally) bad - this is one is simply lacking.
 

The system didn’t fail. The process worked exactly as described. It’s just a bad idea in and of itself to allow people back into the region after they’ve betrayed it or done something to earn a ban.

If anything failed, it’s been the community’s reluctance to believe that bans are good and permanent bans are even better. It’s the minor delusion that TSP is like a real-life country, rather than an online community, and so people tend to think it’s immoral or unethical to ban others forever.

(This post was last modified: 10-28-2019, 09:01 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Motion to vote.

_{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

I second the motion

Reply