by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .147148149150151152153. . .2,0492,050»

New Makasta wrote:And who is the Honk?

The Honk

That's her name

Malgax wrote:The Honk

That's her name

Oh really? how do you know this if your not part of the cartell?

New Makasta wrote:Oh really? how do you know this if your not part of the cartell?

I have extensive experience with fighting the Goose Cartel, not knowing the name of my mortal enemy would be absurd

Malgax wrote:I have extensive experience with fighting the Goose Cartel, not knowing the name of my mortal enemy would be absurd

Says famed member of the goose cartel

"MAL-GOOSE!"

The Tirol Region wrote:Makasta is not the incumbent, and I am not a consul I'm not required to both sides this, you are getting a chance to show the public what you've done with your term in office.

I passed CRL#25, a bill that reformed The League's legal code from an outdated monolith of irrelevant legal jargon and archaic regulation into a modern code that better serves the region and it's people. Also, I noticed your criticism about "banning giving things to League officials," it doesn't do that, it just bans giving them things in exchange for doing things with the office they currently hold.

Malgax wrote:I passed CRL#25, a bill that reformed The League's legal code from an outdated monolith of irrelevant legal jargon and archaic regulation into a modern code that better serves the region and it's people. Also, I noticed your criticism about "banning giving things to League officials," it doesn't do that, it just bans giving them things in exchange for doing things with the office they currently hold.

Tag: The Tirol Region

While I understand the ambiguity, I'll try to clear things up a little bit. Disclaimer: This hypothetical and while it's my opinion as Chief Consul, it shouldn't substitute for a hypothetical official and full court opinion if one were requested by a citizen.

    Bribery of officials is considered the action of giving League officials, be they council members, diplomats, or other office holders acting in the service of the Republic something in return for an action by the official.

This is the section in question, yes? So while it's not worded as clearly as it could be (sorry Malgax) unless a really convincing argument were made in court that it means the person overall and should be nullified on those grounds, I find it likely that the law would be interpreted and understood to mean "action by the official" as an action executed in the office and capacity of the person in question. Just my two cents.

Quebecshire wrote:Tag: The Tirol Region

While I understand the ambiguity, I'll try to clear things up a little bit. Disclaimer: This hypothetical and while it's my opinion as Chief Consul, it shouldn't substitute for a hypothetical official and full court opinion if one were requested by a citizen.

    Bribery of officials is considered the action of giving League officials, be they council members, diplomats, or other office holders acting in the service of the Republic something in return for an action by the official.

This is the section in question, yes? So while it's not worded as clearly as it could be (sorry Malgax) unless a really convincing argument were made in court that it means the person overall and should be nullified on those grounds, I find it likely that the law would be interpreted and understood to mean "action by the official" as an action executed in the office and capacity of the person in question. Just my two cents.

Time to utilize the Addition of New Sections To CRL#25 clause!

Malgax wrote:I passed CRL#25, a bill that reformed The League's legal code from an outdated monolith of irrelevant legal jargon and archaic regulation into a modern code that better serves the region and it's people. Also, I noticed your criticism about "banning giving things to League officials," it doesn't do that, it just bans giving them things in exchange for doing things with the office they currently hold.

Thank you for your answer, and I agree CRL#25 was certainly a vast improvement and update upon its predecessor.

Do you have anything to say in regards to the second part of my question, "Additionally, what actions have you taken to progress in the areas you have outlined your support for in response to Quebecshire?"

On the note of my criticisms of the law, the omission of the qualification that the action be utilising the office is a cause for unnecessary legislative ambiguity leaving far too much to interpretation, of course as Quebec says it would take an exceptionally strong argument for someone to persuade the present consulate to carry out the law in the strictest sense, but this, in my view, is not an ambiguity that should have been present in the first place.

Malgax wrote:Time to utilize the Addition of New Sections To CRL#25 clause!

Quite, if I hadn't been going into exams I'd have endeavoured to immediately pass such an amendment.

The Tirol Region wrote:...as Quebec says it would take an exceptionally strong argument for someone to persuade the present consulate to carry out the law in the strictest sense....

I feel like it's worth noting that even if we were persuaded, the law would not be enforced as such, in my view. If the Consulate interpreted the law to mean the broader or person-scale definition, I find it likely that said understanding would be followed by a nullification on constitutional grounds.

New Makasta
You say your greatest weakness is a lack of experience in NS politics. In terms of the Council itself, in the previous legislative session, what actions, if any, have you taken to encourage activity and the passage of legislation in the council as is the remit of the speaker?

Did Makasta write a bill to refrom CLR#25? I didn't think so, he's too busy posting goose gifs in #Spam-and-ect. This is why you should vote for Malgax in the upcoming speaker election.

SPEAKER OF THE 13th COUNCIL OF THE REPUBLIC ELECTION

Candidates:

Malgax
New Makasta

Question / Discussion Topic:

Many regions have formal processes and definitions regarding which institutions can ban people and for what reasons. Most places call this a "persona non grata" proceeding, or something to that effect. Should the Council consider legislation to define and better direct such processes for relevant Council-derived authorities, such as the Department of Defense?

Obviously, as implied if not directly stated, this exclusively refers to people being for in-character reasons such as lawbreaking or whatnot. i.e. not people banned by the out-of-character administrative/moderator team.

Also, the reason I say "Council-Derived" and not any institution is that generally, the constitutional principle makes it so that the Council cannot regulate much of the Consulate nor its subordinate institutions without its consent, and generally vice versa. This has especially been the case since Consulate-Convened Court of Appeals, 16 December 2020. That said, the Council could legislate a process by which certain bodies established by its own laws could move for bans, likely with Consulate approval thereof. It's what you make of it beyond the legality notes, really.

Quebecshire wrote:SPEAKER OF THE 13th COUNCIL OF THE REPUBLIC ELECTION

Candidates:
Malgax
New Makasta

Question / Discussion Topic:

Many regions have formal processes and definitions regarding which institutions can ban people and for what reasons. Most places call this a "persona non grata" proceeding, or something to that effect. Should the Council consider legislation to define and better direct such processes for relevant Council-derived authorities, such as the Department of Defense?

Obviously, as implied if not directly stated, this exclusively refers to people being for in-character reasons such as lawbreaking or whatnot. i.e. not people banned by the out-of-character administrative/moderator team.

Also, the reason I say "Council-Derived" and not any institution is that generally, the constitutional principle makes it so that the Council cannot regulate much of the Consulate nor its subordinate institutions without its consent, and generally vice versa. This has especially been the case since Consulate-Convened Court of Appeals, 16 December 2020. That said, the Council could legislate a process by which certain bodies established by its own laws could move for bans, likely with Consulate approval thereof. It's what you make of it beyond the legality notes, really.

This is an interesting topic as the council has not encountered a situation (that I am aware of) where a subordinate institution banned a persona non grata at the behest or approval of the council. I think that legislation should be passed that makes it so that if the Director of Defense, or Director of Foreign Affairs was to ban someone, they should go to the council to approve the ban by majority vote of the Council Delegates.

Malgax wrote:This is an interesting topic as the council has not encountered a situation (that I am aware of) where a subordinate institution banned a persona non grata at the behest or approval of the council. I think that legislation should be passed that makes it so that if the Director of Defense, or Director of Foreign Affairs was to ban someone, they should go to the council to approve the ban by majority vote of the Council Delegates.

Interesting perspective - though I must admit I would be hesitant to approve such legislation. I've been deeply critical of the FCN and RCN's processes that allow the legislature to ban people, as I think it creates a sentiment of mob rule.

Alternatively, I might suggest allowing the Council to call a hearing on the matter and recommend future action, instead of having a binding reversal vote. Do you have any notes or criticisms on such a possible compromise?

Quebecshire wrote:Interesting perspective - though I must admit I would be hesitant to approve such legislation. I've been deeply critical of the FCN and RCN's processes that allow the legislature to ban people, as I think it creates a sentiment of mob rule.

Alternatively, I might suggest allowing the Council to call a hearing on the matter and recommend future action, instead of having a binding reversal vote. Do you have any notes or criticisms on such a possible compromise?

While I would disagree with your comments about “mob rule” that’s not the topic of the discussion. I would support this compromise suggestion however, as long as the ban be put on memorandum until the council gives its recommendation, as well as including punishments for ignoring the process.

Malgax wrote:While I would disagree with your comments about “mob rule” that’s not the topic of the discussion. I would support this compromise suggestion however, as long as the ban be put on memorandum until the council gives its recommendation, as well as including punishments for ignoring the process.

I fundamentally disagree with giving the legislature banning powers - though perhaps the ability to reverse said bans with caveats would be reasonable, as you suggested. Are these policies and regulations applying to everyone or just residents?

Citizens are already covered in a right to a trial, so we're mostly talking about residents and below, or those already convicted.

The Tirol Region wrote:New Makasta
You say your greatest weakness is a lack of experience in NS politics. In terms of the Council itself, in the previous legislative session, what actions, if any, have you taken to encourage activity and the passage of legislation in the council as is the remit of the speaker?

In oervous sessions I havnt done much for the concil the onlything I can really say is voteing and nomantions to the consil

Quebecshire wrote:SPEAKER OF THE 13th COUNCIL OF THE REPUBLIC ELECTION

Candidates:

Malgax
New Makasta

Question / Discussion Topic:

Many regions have formal processes and definitions regarding which institutions can ban people and for what reasons. Most places call this a "persona non grata" proceeding, or something to that effect. Should the Council consider legislation to define and better direct such processes for relevant Council-derived authorities, such as the Department of Defense?

Obviously, as implied if not directly stated, this exclusively refers to people being for in-character reasons such as lawbreaking or whatnot. i.e. not people banned by the out-of-character administrative/moderator team.

Also, the reason I say "Council-Derived" and not any institution is that generally, the constitutional principle makes it so that the Council cannot regulate much of the Consulate nor its subordinate institutions without its consent, and generally vice versa. This has especially been the case since Consulate-Convened Court of Appeals, 16 December 2020. That said, the Council could legislate a process by which certain bodies established by its own laws could move for bans, likely with Consulate approval thereof. It's what you make of it beyond the legality notes, really.

The consil is ment to ensure regonal surcurty with the laws it creaes. As such if someone has shown themselves to be a threat to the instions that uphold the region then those instions should have the right to ban poeple for acting in such a way with a long concil vote

Quebecshire wrote:I fundamentally disagree with giving the legislature banning powers - though perhaps the ability to reverse said bans with caveats would be reasonable, as you suggested. Are these policies and regulations applying to everyone or just residents?

Citizens are already covered in a right to a trial, so we're mostly talking about residents and below, or those already convicted.

These policies would apply to residents, I’m not going to deny citizens a right to a trial.

Malgax wrote:Did Makasta write a bill to refrom CLR#25? I didn't think so, he's too busy posting goose gifs in #Spam-and-ect. This is why you should vote for Malgax in the upcoming speaker election.

Did makasta go for low hanging ad hom attacks the first opperty he got?
yes of course he did he went after turkies and the status of the oppent being a bird!

NO! He waited untill his oppent did that
This ad as brught to you by the Makasta is based Assciaotion not to be confused with makasta for speaker

New Makasta wrote:In oervous sessions I havnt done much for the concil the onlything I can really say is voteing and nomantions to the consil

The consil is ment to ensure regonal surcurty with the laws it creaes. As such if someone has shown themselves to be a threat to the instions that uphold the region then those instions should have the right to ban poeple for acting in such a way with a long concil vote

Without or with a Council vote?

Malgax wrote:These policies would apply to residents, I’m not going to deny citizens a right to a trial.

I know, you don't have the authority to do so.

What I'm asking is if the institutions in question would have to go through the same process to remove a non-resident as well as a resident. I.e. is the same level of scrutiny to be applied to removal of foreigners, in your vision?

Quebecshire wrote:Without or with a Council vote?I know, you don't have the authority to do so.

What I'm asking is if the institutions in question would have to go through the same process to remove a non-resident as well as a resident. I.e. is the same level of scrutiny to be applied to removal of foreigners, in your vision?

Without a consil vote sorry that I didnt word that well

New Makasta wrote:Without a consil vote sorry that I didnt word that well

Does this apply to both residents and foreigners in your vision?

Quebecshire wrote:Does this apply to both residents and foreigners in your vision?

It applies to both.

Quebecshire wrote:Without or with a Council vote?I know, you don't have the authority to do so.

What I'm asking is if the institutions in question would have to go through the same process to remove a non-resident as well as a resident. I.e. is the same level of scrutiny to be applied to removal of foreigners, in your vision?

I believe that the process should only apply to residents and not foreigners. Residents live (is that the right word) here, foreigners do not.

Malgax wrote:I believe that the process should only apply to residents and not foreigners. Residents live (is that the right word) here, foreigners do not.

So foreigner removals/PNGs/bans would not be subject to the same governmental scrutiny, to be clear?

«12. . .147148149150151152153. . .2,0492,050»

Advertisement