Criminal Regions and Organisations Act

[Geomania]

 

8.     When a new Criminal Group is designated, the Speaker of the Assembly will be charged with validating that each current citizen is not a member of a designated Criminal Group;

 

That seems like that would be an onerous, tedious process.

 

 

10.   
If there is evidence to support that a current citizen is a member of a designated Criminal Group then :


<p style="margin-left:1in;font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">1.     
In order for “evidence” to be considered factual, the Speaker must submit all corroborating documents to the Supreme Court for verification.


<p style="margin-left:1in;font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">2.     
The Supreme Court will have 96 hours to review and render a decision as to the veracity of the evidence.


<p style="margin-left:1in;font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">3.     
The citizen will have (7) seven days to renounce membership within the designated Criminal Group once the Supreme Court has verified the evidence.


<p style="margin-left:1in;font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">4.     
The citizen must produce supporting documentation that they have renounced membership from the designated Criminal Group.


<p style="margin-left:.5in;font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">11.   
If the citizen does not renounce membership within the designated Criminal Group within the (7) days, the citizen will have their citizenship revoked.

 

I prefer this particular language. It explicates the process and gives the accused a chance to defend his/herself or renounce citizenship before we put his/her head on the chopping block.

 

I still am opposed to this sort of legislation; it seems superfluous and unnecessary to me. But some of Punk D's edits are encouraging.

[Cormac]

With respect to Punk D, I still think his draft is too restrictive. Here's my take on a revision:

 

Article 9: Criminal Regions and Organisations

1. The Cabinet and/or CSS may request the Assembly designate regions and organisations deemed hostile to The South Pacific as Criminal Groups.
   
2. Membership in a designated Criminal Group is prohibited within The South Pacific and grounds for revocation of citizenship, following a 7 day grace period to allow renunciation of membership in the Criminal Group.
   
3. Any individual whose citizenship has been revoked for membership in a designated Criminal Group may contest their membership in the Criminal Group to the Supreme Court within 14 days of their citizenship being revoked. The Supreme Court shall uphold the revocation of citizenship if the individual is found to have been a member of a designated Criminal Group at the time of citizenship revocation and shall reinstate citizenship if the individual is found not to have been a member of a designated Criminal Group at the time of citizenship revocation.
   
4. Applicants for citizenship who are members of a designated Criminal Group shall not be granted citizenship unless they renounce membership in the Criminal Group.
   
5. Membership in a designated Criminal Group does not constitute a criminal offence; failure to disclose such membership shall constitute fraud.
   
6. Regions at war with The South Pacific shall be automatically considered Criminal Groups. The Assembly may further designate Criminal Groups via a vote with a 66% majority in favor, should the Cabinet and/or CSS request such a designation. The Assembly may rescind a Criminal Group designation via a vote with a 66% majority in favor.
   
7. The following regions and organisations are deemed Criminal Groups within The South Pacific: The Greater German Reich, Gatesville Inc.
   
8. The Chair of the Assembly shall update section 7 of this Article following any declaration of war by or against The South Pacific or following designation of a Criminal Group.
   

 

[Vibrant Coconuts]

There's obviously a lot of shadow-boxing going on here, which I admit is going over the head of someone like me who is not really involved in gameplay. So, can I ask what actual groups we're really talking about here? GGR and Gatesville are mentioned, but presumably this is intended to address more than just them. So, who, beyond them, are the "regions and organisations" that might be "deemed hostile", but not at war, with the South Pacific?

[Punk D]

Vibrant Coconuts - I think "shadow boxing" is a very appropriate term. 

 

Cormac - Yes, my edits maintain the spirit of restrictiveness from the original proposal. though, I make it a bit more difficult to become a Criminal Group and as Tsu said, I am also trying to give citizens an opportunity to renounce affiliation with a criminal group. But if the restrictions are too much for some then rewording isn't the answer, voting nay when this or similarly worded legisltation comes up for vote seems to be the way to go.

 

 

 

That seems like that would be an onerous, tedious process.

 

What I imagined was the Speaker asking the applicant if they are a member of X Criminal Groups and the applicant giving an answer. I didn't envision more than that, but given the wording I can see how it could be interpreted that way. Essentially, new citizens and current ones will just need to make a statement saying they are not members of a Criminal Group. We should take people at their word and then if evidence is uncovered that shows otherwise, we'd follow the steps outlined. But the intent was not to give the speaker a ton of more work to do.

[Unibot]

There's obviously a lot of shadow-boxing going on here, which I admit is going over the head of someone like me who is not really involved in gameplay. So, can I ask what actual groups we're really talking about here? GGR and Gatesville are mentioned, but presumably this is intended to address more than just them. So, who, beyond them, are the "regions and organisations" that might be "deemed hostile", but not at war, with the South Pacific?

 

Bel used The Empire and NPO as examples, which I find kind of shocking, The Empire, sure but NPO!?  I don't understand why TSP would declare NPO, a "criminal group" - we were allies with them like a year ago and we accepted their punishment of Milograd .. but then to flip around and bite them again, a year later, is like classic TSP logic. >_<

 

I imagine given the timing of this bill, the real intended target however is UDL.

[Punk D]

Hmm...looks like the original legislation has passed. 

[Sandaoguo]

Punk's edits clarify the process, but don't address the terminal vagueness that makes the original such bad policy. This has no meaning:

 

1.     A Criminal Group is defined as a regional government or organization that has declared war on The South Pacific, seeks to impede the goals of The South Pacific, or in any way infringes upon the sovereignty of The South Pacific and/or her allies through but not limited to espionage, blackmail, subterfuge, infiltration, etc.

 

The complexity of the active clause has increased, but none of the abuse potential has decreased. In fact, it seems to have <i>increased</i>. Literally anything can be argued to "impede" our "goals." And now we're required to declare groups criminal because our allies have problems with them. I don't think it's appropriate for TSP to copy every foreign policy decision of our allies, especially considering as an "Independent" region our allies will have wide and varying policies on which groups they feel infringe their sovereignty.

 

This needs a limiting principle. There needs to be something here that prevents the Cabinet, CSS, and Assembly from using the law for political and frivolous purposes.

[Punk D]

70% Assembly approval does reduce the probability of abuse. 

 

You are correct that there continues to be vagueness around what would be grounds for designating a group a "criminal group". No argument there, but I think for this to be effective it needs to be vague. That vagueness increases the probability of abuse but I really believe that is sufficiently offset by the 70% requirement.

[Unibot]

We currently have a mechanism of removing members individually - 75% for each member. Perhaps this would be a fairer system and open to less abuse, then kicking out members en masse at 70% with each "group". Likewise, there is no member of GGR or Gatesville in TSP's citizenry and no open member of The Empire. The only NPO member that I can think of is.. well me (I'm confused on why TSP would declare NPO, a "criminal group").  

 

So if Bel is being honest in his intentions, I'm not sure why we cannot handle this "issue" on an individual basis and find each member on the basis of their individual merit. 

[Kris Kringle]

Citizenship isn't removed by the Assembly. It's removed by the Cabinet and the former citizen can appeal to the Assembly.

[Unibot]

Citizenship isn't removed by the Assembly. It's removed by the Cabinet and the former citizen can appeal to the Assembly.

 

Ah, thank you, I read that in reverse for some reason.

[Belschaft]

I used the Empire and NPO as examples of how a group of citizens loyal to a foreign entity could subvert and coup a region without direct conflict or military action. The Empire more or less took over and destroyed our ally the KRO from within, and NPO senators worked together to purge our ally Lazarus of all non-defender citizens and then establish a dictatorship under one of their own. I propose criminalizing neither, but note that had Osiris and Lazarus been free of their respective influences then the KRO would not have fallen and Lazarus would still be a democracy.


The infiltration and subversion of GCR's is a real threat, that we would be foolish to not protect against.

[Unibot]

I used the Empire and NPO as examples of how a group of citizens loyal to a foreign entity could subvert and coup a region without direct conflict or military action. The Empire more or less took over and destroyed our ally the KRO from within, and NPO senators worked together to purge our ally Lazarus of all non-defender citizens and then establish a dictatorship under one of their own. I propose criminalizing neither, but note that had Osiris and Lazarus been free of their respective influences then the KRO would not have fallen and Lazarus would still be a democracy.


The infiltration and subversion of GCR's is a real threat, that we would be foolish to not protect against.

 

The Empire was the major governing party in Osiris though - you can't fight that with legislation, you need a coup and we would need a coup too, to fight that kind of state control.

 

NPO did not subvert Lazarus - TNI did. Likewise, not all "non-defender citizens" were purged from Lazarus, imperialist citizens were. There is a difference there. 

 

The KRO did not "fall", it was essentially created by The Empire. It was corrupt from Day 1. 

 

What Lazarus and Osiris did was remove a limited amount of very powerful people in their respective regions, who were largely obstructionist and colonial in nature. Usually speaking, these cases are more "fuzzy" than they are clearly defined. "The Empire" was not a solidly defined institution with a constitution and such, it was a web of contacts and affiliates. Likewise, the imperialists in Lazarus were not a clearly defined group of TNIers. 

 

True power obscures who is who; what you're doing is going after is outsiders who you want to name, blame and shame, by banning them due to their membership in a defined region or organization. That's a lot different than targeting powerful networks - it is incredibly difficult to determine who is serving these networks under the cloak of power and it requires a lot of hard (not legal) force to remove them. 

 

Article 9 cannot accomplish what you're talking about here, but what it can accomplish is your average witch-hunt, fueled by rampant regionalism, targeting whole swathes of players because of their affiliation with the weekly boogeyman. 

[Belschaft]

Ah, I see. My thanks Unibot, until now I was deeply mistaken about what occurred in Lazarus. I was under the false impression that those who purged an entire third of the citizenry of the region and then established a dictatorship were the villains of the piece, but now I see that they are actually heroes who acted in the best interests of Lazarus by ridding it of such negative and dangerous elements like democracy and the rule of law.

 

All hail the NPO, saviors of Lazarus and vanquishers of democracy!

 

o/

[Belschaft]

This is a modified version of Cormacs revised version;

 

 

Article 9: Criminal Regions and Organisations

1. The Cabinet and/or CSS may request the Assembly designate foreign regions and organisations deemed hostile to The South Pacific as Criminal Groups.
   
2. Membership in a designated Criminal Group is prohibited within The South Pacific and grounds for revocation of citizenship, following a 7 day grace period to allow renunciation of membership in the Criminal Group. The seven days grace period begins immediately after the notification of the citizen in question that they are a member of a Criminal Group by the Vice Delegate or a member of the CSS.
   
3. Any individual whose citizenship has been revoked for membership in a designated Criminal Group may contest their membership in the Criminal Group to the Supreme Court within 14 days of their citizenship being revoked. The Supreme Court shall uphold the revocation of citizenship if the individual is found to have been a member of a designated Criminal Group at the time of citizenship revocation and shall reinstate citizenship if the individual is found not to have been a member of a designated Criminal Group at the time of citizenship revocation.
   
4. Applicants for citizenship who are members of a designated Criminal Group shall not be granted citizenship unless they renounce membership in the Criminal Group.
   
5. Membership in a designated Criminal Group does not constitute a criminal offence; failure to disclose such membership shall constitute fraud.
   
6. Regions at war with The South Pacific shall be automatically considered Criminal Groups. The Assembly may further designate Criminal Groups via a vote with a 60% majority in favor, should the Cabinet and/or CSS request such a designation. The Assembly may rescind a Criminal Group designation via a vote with a 60% majority in favor.
   
7. The following regions and organisations are deemed Criminal Groups within The South Pacific: The Greater German Reich, Gatesville Inc.
   
8. The Chair of the Assembly shall update section 7 of this Article following any declaration of war by or against The South Pacific or following designation of a Criminal Group.
   

 

My alterations consist of the addition of the word foreign in C.1, clarification of the grace period in C.2, and a move back to the 60% majority in C.6 - the same majority required for declarations of war.

[Cormac]

I'm personally fine with a 60% majority as well, but had upped it to 66% as an attempt to compromise with those concerned about abuse of this process.

 

I support Bel's revisions.

[Belschaft]

I think 60% is the appropriate level, keeping it the same as declarations of war. That way both ways to designate a group as criminal require identical majorities.

[Sandaoguo]

70% Assembly approval does reduce the probability of abuse. 

 

You are correct that there continues to be vagueness around what would be grounds for designating a group a "criminal group". No argument there, but I think for this to be effective it needs to be vague. That vagueness increases the probability of abuse but I really believe that is sufficiently offset by the 70% requirement.

 

You guys simply don't get it. You could require consensus and that still wouldn't stop abuse. Without any kind of guidance and limiting principle of what are appropriate targets, this act will be open to abuse. All you and Belschaft have done is complicate the procedures, while failing to address the real problems of the act. I don't understand why there's so much stubbornness in putting in actual language about what "hostile" means. It's not that difficult to define, unless you actually want it to be so open-ended as to be used towards political, petty, and frivolous means.

[Unibot]

Ah, I see. My thanks Unibot, until now I was deeply mistaken about what occurred in Lazarus. I was under the false impression that those who purged an entire third of the citizenry of the region and then established a dictatorship were the villains of the piece, but now I see that they are actually heroes who acted in the best interests of Lazarus by ridding it of such negative and dangerous elements like democracy and the rule of law.
 
All hail the NPO, saviors of Lazarus and vanquishers of democracy!

"A third" - you mean 4 people.

And Lazarus's rule of law and democracy signed off on the "purges". It was totally legal and a popular move.

Should TSP have this mechanism of just kicking swathes of its members out though? Doesn't seem much like TSP democracy to me. :/

[Penguin]

Ok so I have tried to stay out of this because I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we make our citizens Choose to what region they are allowed to be a part of becusae we might have an issue with maybe said region. especially if a citizen is part of said region before the issue happens. now don't get me wrong, I understand the need for security and protection and making sure TSP is safe, however I agree with Sandaoguo when he points out that if you could Please start by making proper definitions on what "hostile" is considered to be and maybe start by explaining to me (and if there is anyone else who feels like me) how this is fair to our citizens who hold 'ships all over NS. Or if you already explained that and I missed it in all of the hubbub and blarghness that always seems to muddle up these threads, please by all means point me in the right direction.

 

I get where we might not want to take on new citizens who are part of the "mean group" but how is it fair to basically force prior citizens to chose just becasue someone on board might not like them and gather enough support to make it so. 

[Belschaft]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
Ah, I see. My thanks Unibot, until now I was deeply mistaken about what occurred in Lazarus. I was under the false impression that those who purged an entire third of the citizenry of the region and then established a dictatorship were the villains of the piece, but now I see that they are actually heroes who acted in the best interests of Lazarus by ridding it of such negative and dangerous elements like democracy and the rule of law.

 

All hail the NPO, saviors of Lazarus and vanquishers of democracy!

"A third" - you mean 4 people.


And Lazarus's rule of law and democracy signed off on the "purges". It was totally legal and a popular move.


Should TSP have this mechanism of just kicking swathes of its members out though? Doesn't seem much like TSP democracy to me. :/
 


</blockquote>
Four people constituted a third of Lazarus' citizenry at the time.

 

As for the legality of the purge, I do not agree with that interpretation. Approval of 2/3 of Lazarus' legislature to remove citizenship from an individual. He 'acquired' this approval in secret over a period of weeks, talking to individuals via PM or IRC. There was no public discussion, thread, or vote. His claim of legality stems from there being a massive loophole in the law which he argued legalized his process.

 

There was no vote to remove anyone's citizenship.

 

---

 

Further, and once again, I must remind you that Article 9 does not allow for a single individual to be kicked out of TSP, never mind swathes of them. Unless you begin criticizing what Article 9 actually does, not what the pretend version you have in your head does, then I will start ignoring you.

[Belschaft]

Ok so I have tried to stay out of this because I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we make our citizens Choose to what region they are allowed to be a part of becusae we might have an issue with maybe said region. especially if a citizen is part of said region before the issue happens. now don't get me wrong, I understand the need for security and protection and making sure TSP is safe, however I agree with Sandaoguo when he points out that if you could Please start by making proper definitions on what "hostile" is considered to be and maybe start by explaining to me (and if there is anyone else who feels like me) how this is fair to our citizens who hold 'ships all over NS. Or if you already explained that and I missed it in all of the hubbub and blarghness that always seems to muddle up these threads, please by all means point me in the right direction.

 

I get where we might not want to take on new citizens who are part of the "mean group" but how is it fair to basically force prior citizens to chose just becasue someone on board might not like them and gather enough support to make it so. 

Describing it has 'might have an issue with maybe said region' is rather missing the point. It's not a question of having an issue with them, but rather with them being irrevocably and clearly hostile.

 

TSP has enemies. Some are obvious, and can be confronted on the field of battle. Those are not the dangerous ones.

 

The dangerous ones are the clever ones, those who seek to walk among us in sheep's clothing, to divide and weaken us from within. Those who fake loyalty, whilst working against us, who hate and despise us and wish the ruination of our region and all we stand for. We cannot always easily identify them, but we can work against them.

 

The 'loyal' TSPer who votes here in the interests of their foreign masters, or for their own extra-regional interests, is what Article 9 seeks to deal with. Do not deny that they do not exist, for we all know that they do and where we can find them.

 

Liberty is not something which can exist without protection. Without vigilance and willingness to defend ourselves, our republic will fall.

[Geomania]

I guess this discussion is moot, but I'm not exactly sure who this law protects us against. Bel, you suggest that this law inoculates TSP from enemies that are currently not obvious to us. But from what I can tell, these enemies you speak of are nothing more than a nameless, faceless specter.

[Punk D]

I think the only thing I dislike about Cormac's version is that it doesn't allow people the opportunity to renounce membership in a Criminal Group prior to booting them from TSP. That's one part of this bill (now law) I'm not fond of and Cormac's revision doesn't deal with that from what I read. 

 

Also (sigh) Unibot got himself banned?

[Cormac]

I think the only thing I dislike about Cormac's version is that it doesn't allow people the opportunity to renounce membership in a Criminal Group prior to booting them from TSP. That's one part of this bill (now law) I'm not fond of and Cormac's revision doesn't deal with that from what I read. 

 

Also (sigh) Unibot got himself banned?

 

Membership in a designated Criminal Group is prohibited within The South Pacific and grounds for revocation of citizenship, following a 7 day grace period to allow renunciation of membership in the Criminal Group. The seven days grace period begins immediately after the notification of the citizen in question that they are a member of a Criminal Group by the Vice Delegate or a member of the CSS.