I would prefer a regional proscription but I have a feeling that my opinion is in the minority, I would vote on a full proscription as well.

My reasoning for preferring a regional proscription is that I don't see an avenue where a TBH member can infiltrate our region and stuff when they are banned from the region and cannot be legislators. Plus, the TBH members who di hang out in our servers are friendly and generally respect us in person (i.e. they don't actually try to manipulate TSPers to defecting to TBH, in fact I've seen the opposite happen, where a TBH member encourages them to join the SPSF after a brief discussion.)

Plus, players who might pop in would see the fun that we have as TSP, and maybe they want to join the fun. They find that TBH is proscribed, they leave TBH and start contributing to TSP instead.

As far as the "well TBH doesn't allow defenders in their server!" argument, while that is true, TBH is also a pure military organization. TSP has a lot more to us. Why not allow them glimpses into TSP and TSP culture and get enticed by just how awesome we are?

And if TBH members start trying to manipulate our citizens to leave TSP and stuff, we issue the full proscription then.

That is my opinion on the matter. Again, if everyone else wants to go straight for the full proscription then I'll vote on that, but I would prefer a regional proscription.

Empress of Fire 
Current Minister of Military Affairs
Chair Perch of the Assembly (February to June 2020)
SPSF Soldier
MoRA Fellow
Ambassador to Forest and Lazarus

Reply

I see what you’re saying Phoenix and while I’m inclined to agree are we thinking that we can put them on a full prescription for like six months and then drop it down to regional ?

This is Penguin!!
Nothing Gold Can Stay
Penguins shall one day rule the pie!
And by "pie", I mean "World"!!
Goddess Empress Queen Princess Lady of TSP 
Lilium Inter Spinas // Non timebo mala
I have done a lot of things in the Region in my History.
There's a list somewhere if you wanna go looking. 

Reply

I see what you’re saying Phoenix and while I’m inclined to agree are we thinking that we can put them on a full prescription for like six months and then drop it down to regional ?

Your proposal of this suggests that you see a proscription more as a "punishment" for TBH than as a necessary security action. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page: is the Cabinet proscribing TBH, despite it not being totally necessary, in order to punish them? Or is it proscribing TBH because it actually believes they are an active threat that must be prevented from getting near the region?

If it's the latter, then your proposal makes no sense at all. If it's the former, are we sure that's a good use of proscriptions?

~ Aumeltopia ~

Raccoons are bandits! First they steal your food . . . and then your heart/identity!

Reply

I have the same opinion as Phoenix although I will not vote against a full proscription.

I see what you’re saying Phoenix and while I’m inclined to agree are we thinking that we can put them on a full prescription for like six months and then drop it down to regional ?

What will this accomplish? Those who want a full proscription argue that TBH members who come there can manipulate TSPers. Removing this after 6 months kinda invalidates the whole point.

Chief Supervising Armchair

Reply

On the regional vs full issue, I didn't really want to respond point-by-point but I feel like I have to because there are some things that are, to my understanding, simply not accurate.

First, the law delineates two different forms of proscription (and calls one “full”) for a reason. Just definitionally, the option that isn’t a “full” proscription is a “less than full” one. Regional proscriptions are very obviously a lesser form punishment, i.e. a half-measure.

I wrote the law, and while some parts of it were lifted from other drafts or laws, the specific language that delineates full vs regional proscriptions were written by me, with names I came up with at the time without any opposition. I don't mind arguments against the names. But at the end of the day, what matters is what they describe: The regional proscription is the full monty in terms of anything game-related, i.e. no nation in our region or any of our subsidiaries, therefore no access to legislator status, RMB votes, whatnot. The regional proscription also gives the tools to banject nations and strip legislator status for affected individuals. That's what I mean when I say a proscription is a proscription - the tools are there with either one. The "full proscription" is all of that and merely adds what amounts to a contact prohibition on TSP offsite property. Yes, technically a regional proscription is "lesser" than a full proscription but concluding therefore that a regional one is a half-measure when it already includes all the security tools is, frankly, silly.

Secondly, that’s exactly how proscriptions have been treated by previous Cabinets. When you look at the list of extant proscriptions and read the justifications for them, the pattern is quite clear. McMannia/HYDRA was fully proscribed for infiltrating, but The Ragerian Imperium was only regionally proscribed because McMannia was no longer in leadership there. Core leadership of Rahl is fully proscribed, but the underlings and associates who work with them are only regionally proscribed because they’re not the same level. It’s very clear that there’s a distinction of regional proscriptions as lesser than full proscriptions, and full proscriptions are reserved for the worst of enemies.

Yes, and I haven't always agreed with the decisions made. But the Rahl designation that you pointed out was based on my suggestion and it's a good use of how I feel the delineation should work: The rank and file of Rahl can't become members of our regions. But the ones that pulled the strings in the background, manipulating people to their cause, etc. also got the contact prohibition because they are the ones that are "responsible for planning their political machinations, while compartmentalizing access so that regular members, unaware, can be used alternately as shields or pawns". It wasn't based on who's the "worser" enemy - the Rahl family as an entity is an enemy, period, and the regional proscription gives us the necessary security tools against their machinations.

I think the idea was useful 2-3 years ago, when it was a compromise for Belshaft’s intransigence about proscriptions. In other words, it was better than nothing.

This is false. Bel's view on this is probably mildly closer to Glen's than mine is — Bel's view is simply nuance, while my view is proscribe regionally by default, and go for full only for individuals and only when the contact prohibition is necessary.

That’s why it’s personally frustrating for me that, despite the previous 2+ years of TBH being hostile and pulling these stunts, the instinct of the Cabinet is to choose the lesser form of proscription. TBH is either an enemy or they’re a minor nuisance.

TBH is an enemy, full stop. Therefore, they will be proscribed, full stop. The argument here is merely about if the rank and file of TBH is so dangerous as to not even see the public offsite places of TSP. with their main Discord accounts. And honestly - I'd rather have the rank and file hang out with their main accounts than their alt accounts, so we can see where they are.

And a final note: I'd even consider the regional proscription the stronger one in this case. The full proscription is "we're so scared of you we're not even gonna talk to anybody associated with you". In fact, as I mentioned on Discord, I'd even be so daft as to include a note in the statement along the lines of "OOC: This is a regional proscription and does not bar access to our off-site platforms. Members of TBH, while they cannot have a nation or partake in our governance, are welcome to continue their participation as visitors on our off-site platforms, as several have been doing already."

(This post was last modified: 12-03-2020, 07:50 AM by Roavin.)

Reply

Additionally, there a few government officials of regions we talk to who are in TBH so barring them from the Discord seems to not be useful. All for regional, and would vote for full, but a regional gets the job done and address what we are worried about.

Should we reach out to the CRS to get their views?

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

(This post was last modified: 12-03-2020, 11:19 AM by Omega.)

Reply

I just want to point out that it was a question :-) 

I am for keeping them from being in our government but if we have some cool people here already - what are we gonna do? be like "CHOOSE TSP OR BAN!!" Because like, no.... I mean i would LOVE it if they put TSP first but maybe we ban the ones who done us wrong and watch the ones who didn't.

This is Penguin!!
Nothing Gold Can Stay
Penguins shall one day rule the pie!
And by "pie", I mean "World"!!
Goddess Empress Queen Princess Lady of TSP 
Lilium Inter Spinas // Non timebo mala
I have done a lot of things in the Region in my History.
There's a list somewhere if you wanna go looking. 

Reply

So is the consensus to move forward with a regional proscription of all of TBH?

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

Reply

I don’t believe that’s the consensus at all. I will respond to Roavin in more detail later today.

Reply

Yes, technically a regional proscription is "lesser" than a full proscription but concluding therefore that a regional one is a half-measure when it already includes all the security tools is, frankly, silly.

When you have to hide behind a technicality to say it's "silly," clearly it is not. Your argument here is "glass half full" vs "glass half empty." The lesser form of proscription is, by definition, the half-measure.

Yes, and I haven't always agreed with the decisions made. But the Rahl designation that you pointed out was based on my suggestion and it's a good use of how I feel the delineation should work: The rank and file of Rahl can't become members of our regions. But the ones that pulled the strings in the background, manipulating people to their cause, etc. also got the contact prohibition because they are the ones that are "responsible for planning their political machinations, while compartmentalizing access so that regular members, unaware, can be used alternately as shields or pawns". It wasn't based on who's the "worser" enemy - the Rahl family as an entity is an enemy, period, and the regional proscription gives us the necessary security tools against their machinations.

You're contradicting yourself here, in what I suspect is a post hoc attempt to defend your belief. You're saying the core Rahl leaders were the really dangerous ones, and so got the full proscription. But then trying to say there wasn't any kind of belief that they were more or less dangerous than the non-leaders. Clearly, there was a determination that certain Rahl family members were more dangerous, and thus needed a heightened level of proscription. The less dangerous ones got the lesser form of proscription. And I would argue not because of some metric-driven analysis or whatever, but simply because the Cabinet operated under the idea that full proscriptions are for the really big bad people, and so if you're not as bad as them, you get the half-measure by default. In reality, every member of the Rahl family should have been fully proscribed, because having any in our region whatsoever poses a serious risk. The reason why that was never done was entirely political-- there were people in the Rahl family who weren't outwardly nefarious and it would be politically difficult to ban them. That's it. The way previous Cabinets handled security was very poor, if you ask me.

This is false. Bel's view on this is probably mildly closer to Glen's than mine is — Bel's view is simply nuance, while my view is proscribe regionally by default, and go for full only for individuals and only when the contact prohibition is necessary.

No, it is not false. I know, because I was the one who wrote the initial bill that would allow individual PNG declarations and fought with Bel about it. You stepped in and offered a compromise because Bel was wholly opposed to the idea of targeting individual people period. The compromise was that there would be a less severe form of security threat ban, the "regional proscription," and there would be judicial review of all proscriptions. (By the way, not entirely related, but I was absolutely right about what would happen if the Court got the final say )

TBH is an enemy, full stop. Therefore, they will be proscribed, full stop. The argument here is merely about if the rank and file of TBH is so dangerous as to not even see the public offsite places of TSP. with their main Discord accounts. And honestly - I'd rather have the rank and file hang out with their main accounts than their alt accounts, so we can see where they are.

Clearly they are not "an enemy, full stop" if they are permitted to chat and socialize and ingratiate themselves with TSPers. You don't allow enemies to do that. I think the way you view TBH is an adversary, not an enemy at all.

And a final note: I'd even consider the regional proscription the stronger one in this case. The full proscription is "we're so scared of you we're not even gonna talk to anybody associated with you". In fact, as I mentioned on Discord, I'd even be so daft as to include a note in the statement along the lines of "OOC: This is a regional proscription and does not bar access to our off-site platforms. Members of TBH, while they cannot have a nation or partake in our governance, are welcome to continue their participation as visitors on our off-site platforms, as several have been doing already."

And this is where I disagree with you most vehemently. Due respect Roavin, but the previous attempts you oversaw on dealing TBH clearly did not work. It's time to try a new way of handling TBH, one that is far more aggressive and no-nonsense. You keep defaulting to this idea that if we go hard on TBH, that somehow makes us the weak ones. And if we go easy on them, well that just shows how confident we are in ourselves. That's just... nonsense. It's the same view that got us to where we are now.

Your logic here basically precludes full proscriptions. That's not acceptable to me. If you want that, then repeal the full proscription clauses. If we consider a group or region to be a straight up enemy, they do not belong in TSP. We are not obligated to provide a public hang-out space for our enemies, but some of you are certainly acting like we are. You are ignoring the serious risk associated with that, under some disproven notion that we are stronger by choosing the weaker course of action. I've yet to see a single counter-argument to my explanation that we know nefarious people can use socializing to ingratiate themselves with TSPers and get them to start advocating for their de-proscription.

TSP loses absolutely nothing by kicking TBH out of TSP completely. We gain nothing by allowing any TBHer to stay. We risk real dissonance in what the government is saying (TBH is a threat) with what the average TSPer experiences (this TBHer is nice and hanging out with us, how can they be a threat?). "Regional proscription" is frankly nonsensical and counterproductive to actual security. It was introduced in a compromise bill and does not actually do much to protect TSP's security. If we are going to say that a region or organization is dangerous and an enemy, we need to put up or shut up. Enough of this too-clever-by-half approach to regional security.

Reply