Osiris Fraternal Order

I'm wondering if Jakker or other members have proposals with regards to the language or intent? As someone who has been exiled from Osiris, I do not relish the thought of others having to wait for years for them to be allowed back in to their home. I've been angry and furious at the actions of the OFO. I've seen the region I developed taken away from me. The region I built, gone.

I've also seen the flip-side of that. The Osiris Fraternal Order has done a lot of good for this region. I believe that, and even when I was not a member, the leadership here knew that I would not prevent them from doing good work so long as they were doing good work. It's for the best interest of Osiris, and only Osiris. We all have the opportunity to build something better, something that is a genuine Osiran project. I do not wish for anyone to be restricted as I was.

Now, are there any particular comments on clauses of the proposal?

I would also be glad to hear from Jakker or others regarding the specific language of this draft, or other things they feel should be added.

I feel as if this is inviting trouble. As someone that has been on the side of those "exiled" (The NPO coup of Lazarus), and as someone with extensive Gameplay experience, I am almost certain that there will be a player that will abuse this act of amnesty. What protection is there against a 'sleeper' that returns to the region with bad intentions, but purposefully avoids crossing into the territory of what qualifies them for this act's restrictions? From where I stand, it seems there is none.

I would be more on board with case-by-case amnesty than a general declaration of amnesty, and the passing of an act that would help protect our region from potential sleepers that see would see any kind of amnesty as a weak spot.

I understand the value of following through on your promises, but I would much rather break a promise for the integrity of the OFO, than keep a promise and potentially compromise the integrity of the OFO.

Alas, this is simply my opinion on the subject. If this act turns out to be what we're going with, I'll support it and instead urge for more focus on the intelligence sector once it passes to make up for it.

I should note that any sleeper(s) would still be subject to the endorsement limit which is the primary safeguard against sleepers intent on doing harm, and that by definition, given that a sleeper is a secret nation, someone committed to doing damage here with a sleeper can do that without amnesty. With this amnesty only applying to past actions, anyone engaging in future action against the government of Osiris would still be subject to penalty upon discovery of their actions.

That said, I'm open to suggestions for additional language that might more thoroughly address these concerns.

The wording will depend on you are hoping to hit with this act. It does make it a tad challenging with the wording being vague as Syl has mentioned. However, it seems like this is more intended as a symbol to say that OFO is moving on from the conflict. If that's the case, the wording is fine because there is no need to differentiate between the types of actions committed.

The only clause I see a challenging putting in practice is 5. Does this mean that if someone is part of an organization that fought the TGOFO, but wasn't directly part of any military action not allowed to be a citizen? Why are foreign organizations singled out?

Jakker wrote:Thu May 05, 2016 12:34 amThe wording will depend on you are hoping to hit with this act. It does make it a tad challenging with the wording being vague as Syl has mentioned. However, it seems like this is more intended as a symbol to say that OFO is moving on from the conflict. If that's the case, the wording is fine because there is no need to differentiate between the types of actions committed.

The intent definitely isn't symbolic. The intent is to grant real, non-symbolic amnesty to every Osiran resident who was involved in military conflict against the TGOFO. I'm open to wording that would make that more explicit.

Jakker wrote:Thu May 05, 2016 12:34 amThe only clause I see a challenging putting in practice is 5. Does this mean that if someone is part of an organization that fought the TGOFO, but wasn't directly part of any military action not allowed to be a citizen? Why are foreign organizations singled out?

Well, amnesty doesn't necessarily equal citizenship anyway, as clause 3 makes clear. And denial of blanket amnesty doesn't mean that anyone involved in the conflict on behalf of a foreign military would definitely be penalized, it just means they don't get automatic amnesty.

But the intent of clause 5 is to deny automatic amnesty to foreigners who were involved in military conflict against the TGOFO. That wording could probably be made clearer as well. How about this:

(5) Amnesty will not be applied to anyone acting exclusively on behalf of a foreign military without previous residency in Osiris, even if their acts against the TGOFO involved nations that re-founded in Osiris.

As expressed during the conflict, full support for amnesty, and this proposal seems to cover it well.

Clause 5 seems like it could get potentially problematic without further definition, the re-worded thing Cormac proposes seems good. The only other issue there specifically I might see is some sort of time frame. Under current definition, someone could theoretically claim past residency if they were a citizen for a week of even, say, the KRO.

I agree with Tim concerning Clause 5.

Seeing as though we plan to grant general amnesty as promised, rather than case-by-case, we definitely need to ensure that Clause 5 leaves no potential loopholes that could be exploited in the future.

I have decided not to pursue this legislation at this time, and to handle this on a case by case basis.