|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 3, 2004 13:53:55 GMT -5
A greater incentive for endorsing Francos, along with a minor 'legal' clarification as far as Code 1005 goes. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Warrior Thorin on Jul 3, 2004 19:06:36 GMT -5
My question is why would you wish to change the current policy? How would it improve the Pacific specifically?
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 4, 2004 0:36:37 GMT -5
Ok. I don't feel extremely strongly about any changes, I just wanted to put something out there so I could get a better feel for people's attitude towards changing it, but I do think encouraging endorsements of Francos would be a good idea. This would allow people to garner endorsements for the same reason the original max. was raised from 15 to 40, but to get a larger countm you have to endorse Francos. I think it would encourage endorsement, and maybe even activity levels.
The second change to Code 1005 is largely one of legal clarification, since according to the codes as the stand, it could be construed as legal for single nations to engage in subversive acts.
But as I said, I don't feel extremely strongly about changing the code at all, I just wanted start a bit of a discussion and hear people out.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Jul 6, 2004 4:03:25 GMT -5
Interesting. I understand the concept of encouraging citizens to endorse vis a vis the concept of allowing more endorsements but really don't know why we'd want to do it. It would only serve to confuse those not active here that "Why was I ejected? I endorsed Franco."
All too often one sees what they want to see as opposed to what's in print. If they were to be that offended they always have the High Court to appeal to.
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 6, 2004 5:49:42 GMT -5
Again, this is largely a hypothetical proposal I decided to put forward to get a feel for everyone's attitudes
|
|
|
Post by Warrior Thorin on Jul 6, 2004 8:55:44 GMT -5
I have to agree with Black Adder: We have the High Court to address problems. I am opposed to changes in the Civil Code because, frankly, why fix something that is not broke? I think I understand your reasoning, but I am not convinced that it would serve the Pacific and the NPO well.
I think it is good that you bring such a dialogue to the forum, but I can not see any good in making these changes to the Civil Code.
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 6, 2004 13:46:22 GMT -5
Totally understood mate, and like I said, I just put this forward as a hypothetical change so that I could get a feel for people's attitudes towards legislation and the like. Thanks for putting up with this and being so polite guys
|
|
|
Post by Anti Pharisaism on Jul 7, 2004 11:42:36 GMT -5
As an objective observer...
The changes do broaden the civil code in a manner that allows Franco to more easily remove insurgents.
If that goal runs parrallel to your creating such a code, these recomendations should be adopted.
Come on now...if it's not broken don't fix it is no argument against an upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by Tharain on Jul 11, 2004 17:57:00 GMT -5
I'd like to add my voice to this discussion.
The best way to ensure compliance, is to follow KISS: "Keep It Simple, Silly!"
I see 0001 & proposed 0002 as muddying the waters. Take the present situation: Francos Spain in the North Pacific.
If before he moved I had 30 endorsements and had endorsed him, I would be complying with the Civil Code. However, on the day he moved my endorsement of Francos Spain is lost and thus I am NOT endorsing Francos Spain, and have more than 25 endorsements. Thus grounds for ejection under proposed code 0002.
This strikes me as not totally fair. I believe proposed Civil Code 0002 is not required, and would actually cause confusion in the Pacific.
|
|
|
Post by Warrior Thorin on Jul 11, 2004 18:08:53 GMT -5
Consider the spirit of the law here. As long as you ally yourself with Francos vis a vis the next in delegate, Poskrebyshev, then the matter would be moot.
I think a good change to the code might be to change the name "Francos Spain" to the "NPO UN Delegate" to allay such legalistic interpretations in the future. But for now, I believe that as long as you remain loyal to the NPO by endorsing Poskrebyshev, you would be okay with your 30 endorsements.
|
|
|
Post by Tharain on Jul 11, 2004 18:16:33 GMT -5
That would be fine with me if the code reflected "NPO UN Delegate". True, any violator in that situation would be let off on the spirit of the law, but too many times in RL you hear of criminals getting off on technicalities. Just thought I'd mention it. Sorry, I did some legal courses at Uni.
|
|
|
Post by CaerRialis on Jul 13, 2004 9:54:41 GMT -5
As an obsever from the South Pacific, I think you may very well want to remove Francos Spain from clause 0002 and simply Pacific Delegate. The only reason I would suggest you not use the term NPO UN delegate is that technically, in NS terms, the NPO is an off-site organization
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Jul 13, 2004 12:01:49 GMT -5
As is any Constitution or Electoral system a region may employ.
I would agree that perhaps an addendum could be made specifying Francos Spain or in his absence the Regent/UN delegate.
|
|
|
Post by SardaASSK on Jul 13, 2004 14:36:45 GMT -5
Once again, purely hypothetical proposal here YOu'll notice that the current code doesn't specify the name of the delegate.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on Jul 13, 2004 14:56:33 GMT -5
Ah, but Franco is the heart of the Revolution. Until he is no more the Pacific is the NPO, The NPO is Franco. Removal of El Caudillo even symbolically will not occur.
|
|