Osiris Fraternal Order

Wrektopia wrote:Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:30 amCormac, are you against removing the grace period because it would close the loophole that would allow you to work with a (not very newly designated as proscribed) region like The Grey Wardens, as long as you did so irregularly?

It never ceases to amaze me how some here now resort to character assassination and questioning of motives and loyalties, rather than actually engaging with a reasonable argument that has been put forward. Is it your choice, then, not to address concerns about this legislation, but rather to attack anyone who disagrees with it? That seems to be the general trend lately. I hope, soon, that responding that way to disagreement will result in legislation being voted down, so that those who have been employing this divisive approach to getting their way will see that it is ineffective and start behaving like reasonable people engaging in civil discourse.

I contend, and have always contended, that my joint participation in a military operation alongside the Grey Wardens was legal, and would have been legal had there been no grace period. Working alongside an organization is not the same thing as participating in an organization. Osirans are already explicitly permitted to work alongside the Grey Wardens in the context of CAIN, and until I worked alongside them it was never claimed that working alongside them in a military operation constituted participation in their organization. That claim would not stand up before the Council of Priests because it is, frankly, legally ridiculous.

Regardless, I'm barely active in NationStates these days and I have no plans to work with anyone on any military operations. I'm against removing the grace period for the reason I've stated: It would transform a law that was intended to be a reasonable deterrent against participation in proscribed regions and organizations into a harshly punitive process instead. I will thank you to address that concern, rather than questioning my motives and loyalties after the nearly five years I have spent looking after the well-being of this regional community. I have done that imperfectly, at times, but my motives and loyalties should not be in question. I have earned at least that much respect.

Honestly I'm almost at a loss for how to respond to this. This was not intended to be any sort of "character assassination" but a question regarding your interaction with this law that I thought was pertinent and wanted to see a response to before going further here, and I guess I've definitely received a response. In the context of the question, which I think was perfectly reasonable to ask, you've made it clear that your position is unrelated to your recent interaction with The Grey Wardens and is entirely to avoid establishing a "harshly punitive process" in place of a law you view as a "deterrent". I will happily respond to this concern with my opinions on the purpose of the law outside of anything it might have to do with you individually, but I felt the need to deal with this question first and foremost. There were enough individuals that made note of your participation in this organization or "alongside" it (you did not do so as part of a CAIN operation or in any context relevant to Osiris) or whatever semantics you prefer to use to describe your interaction with it last month to impress upon me that it may be something to be concerned with, and your strong opposition to making this amendment brought this to mind specifically. And I defend the opinion that the action made was not in the spirit of the law (I concede it was not outright "against" it, which was the wording I used on Discord, because the "72 hours" part essentially allows for such an action), since The Grey Wardens is a proscribed region which we are openly at war with.

This was not meant as an attack. It was a concern that I hoped to see addressed and believe I have seen addressed, and I thank you for doing so directly at the end of your post. Before I move on to the meat of this I want to make one final comment on this ordeal: "character assassination" rhetoric and perceived insult aside, I think questioning motive is entirely relevant to a debate and a healthy democratic process and not at all un unfair or divisive tactic. Disallowing people from questioning or commenting on motive, or perceived motive, is downright Orwellian ... we are not objective animals, and it may be that an individual's personal experience or selfish interest is strongly motivating their stance on an issue (they might not even be aware of it themselves) and might be an unfair influence over an argument, ESPECIALLY if it not allowed to be addressed. Dictating that "motives and loyalties should not be in question" if there is a chance they are influencing a position, and trying to shout down and threaten someone who does question your motive is, I would argue, far more dangerous than what you claim to be afraid of in my "response to disagreement". And I do not feel I questioned loyalties, but I do see how this could be inferred and apologize for any misunderstanding.

Now, as for my response to the concerns presented, I can agree with them to an extent. But it is mostly a difference of opinion here, and a lot of what I'm going to say will be redundant. Firstly, I do not see this as a deterrent. I do see it as a punitive measure. It's written like one, or like it's meant to be one. And proscribed regions include regions that we are AT WAR WITH ... there should be more than just a "deterrent" from participating in these in our legal code. And is a punitive measure not a deterrent?

Regarding getting the Pharaoh's permission for operations, I had made this edit (I thought) in the context of covert operations ... but requiring his assent for general military operations is not necessary, yeah ... unless he were just to give blanket authorization to the military for any and all of such operations, but it does seem redundant. But the espionage part is my main concern: if that's not authorized by the region's higher leadership, who is to say that it is legitimate? And I can probably rework the edit to make it channel through the military leadership instead, but that was really what I was going for here. We need accountability. I appreciate the input on this.

If the 72 hour window is eliminated, I'm voting against. Others should as well. Full stop. I'm not going to go in circles with you about it. We should not automatically remove citizenship without giving individuals a chance to correct their behavior.

In regard to the Pharaoh's approval for military and intelligence operations, the issue is not military and intelligence operations conducted by Osiris against a proscribed region or organization, but military and intelligence operations conducted by other regions against a region or organization we have proscribed. It is unreasonable to expect citizens here who are acting on behalf of another region they are involved in to disclose that other region's military and intelligence operations. That may even be against the law for them in the other region.

I'm honestly not seeing any purpose to your amendments. This law is fine as it is, and I will be voting against any amendment unless the amendment is a definition to clarify what participation means.

Since this seems to be an issue between you guys, I have a suggestion. So Wrek wants to get rid of the grace period and Cormac wants to keep it. Idk if this will help but why don't you guys try to agree on a middle ground, like shortening the grace period from 72 to 48 or something. That's what I think could help settle this down a bit

LexerMercs wrote:Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:47 pmSince this seems to be an issue between you guys, I have a suggestion. So Wrek wants to get rid of the grace period and Cormac wants to keep it. Idk if this will help but why don't you guys try to agree on a middle ground, like shortening the grace period from 72 to 48 or something. That's what I think could help settle this down a bit

I don't think there is any need to shorten the grace period. It's fine the way it is and won't fix the problem Wrektopia perceives, in any case. Simply defining participation would fix the problem Wrektopia perceives to exist.

I agree with Cormac. Though I do believe it would be a good idea to include the proscribed regions on the citizenship application in the future.

A bit of a bump on this thread, but technically because the Pharaoh controls naturalization and citizenship, then he could simply add on the Proscribed Regions part onto the citizenship application form, no? This particular aspect which I mentioned earlier is only if we want to fully codify it into law. Otherwise, I believe the Pharaoh can just simply add that to the form if he wishes.

Thanks Dalimbar.

Just out of curiosity, it was mentioned earlier, what are everyone's thoughts on repealing the whole PRO section of the Legal Code? I can make a new thread if people want to have a discussion about it, but I just want to know everyone's opinions.

Sygian wrote:Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:09 pmThanks Dalimbar.

Just out of curiosity, it was mentioned earlier, what are everyone's thoughts on repealing the whole PRO section of the Legal Code? I can make a new thread if people want to have a discussion about it, but I just want to know everyone's opinions.

I have no interest in repealing all the PRO.

I motion to vote