Regional Security Act

Our regional legislature - IDUSA.
Post Reply
User avatar
Libertas Omnium Maximus
Speaker
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Regional Security Act

Post by Libertas Omnium Maximus » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:07 pm

Regional Security Act
A bylaw to regulate the use of Executive Powers in The International Democratic Union
This IDU States Assembly,

Grateful that the members of The International Democratic Union (hereinafter “IDU”) who have the ability to eject/ban other members of the IDU are some of most well respected and upstanding members of the community.

Believing that it directly counters the founding principles of this region that said members would posses the unchecked ability to eject any member of the IDU for any reason deemed arbitrarily to be a "security threat."

Noting that there is no regional definition of what a security threat is or looks like and therefore the members of The IDU with Founder privileges may and must interpret "security threats" as they see fit.

Acknowledging that, although unlikely, a regional raid is a distinct possibility and a severe threat to the IDU as a region. As such, it would be unwise to prohibit founder privilege nations to use their executive function in times of actual time-sensitive crisis.

With that said, hereby resolves the following

§1 Ejection Protocol

1. Defines Executive Powers as the ability to eject/ban users from the region and suppress the posts of another user

2. Defines "Founder Privileges" as the individual users who have access to the Founder Nation, "The IDU"



3. All members of the IDU with Executive Powers must do the following in the event that they see fit to eject a member for breaching regional policy:

a. Formally declare their target and rationale for ejection on The IDU's Regional Message Board

b. Contact another member of the IDU who holds Executive Powers and gain their explicit consent to eject the member. This consent should be expressed publicly on the RMB or other public method such as the IDU official discord chat.

4. In the event that a user with founder privileges uses the founder nation to nominate a user for ejection, they must disclose which user they are.

5. In the event that two or more nations with Executive Powers agree to the ejection of the target, herein referred to as "the defendant,” this assembly shall grant the defendant these following rights:

a. A minimum of 24 hours to voluntarily leave the region

b. A chance on to defend their actions or statements on a public chat such as the RMB or a specifically designated appeals channel/forum on either the IDU Forums or Discord.

c. All nations with Executive Powers should take the merits of the defendant's argument into account and, should they prove valid, reverse their decision to eject.

§2 Ejections of Regional Officials

1. Defines "Elected Official" as a user who's nation holds an regional role that they were elected to

2. No regional officer may be ejected or removed from position without an IDU Judiciary Committee hearing. In the event they are found to have breached regional policy, the defendant may be removed from office or ejected from the region by any user with eject/ban capabilities at the Committee’s discretion.

§3 Raid/Raiding Provision

1. Herby defines the following,

a. A “Raid” as: The event in which a group of non-region native nations/users rapidly join the region with the intent of quickly electing a member of their group to the position of delegate via endorsements and harming the IDU.

b. A “Raider” as: Any user or nation taking part in the raid

2. In the event of a raid from an outside entity, it is the duty of those individuals granted Executive Powers to use every ability at their disposal to avert a crisis. In the event of a raid:

a. Article I of this bill is suspended for the duration of the raid

b. Any and all nations with executive powers have the right to eject, ban, and suppress the Message Board post(s) of any members they deem to be part of the raid

c. If a non-democratically instated Delegate should take power, they are exempt from Article II and may be banned/ejected.

c. After the invariable conclusion of the raid, when all raiders have been ejected or have left, Article I shall take effect again


§4 Other Provisions and Exemptions



1. Users with Executive Powers may eject any member from the region during the Z-day Event for breaching the Anti-Zombie Policy so long as the following requirements are fulfilled:



a. Members of the region have been reminded of the Anti-Zombie Policy by messages on the Regional Message Board and given ample opportunity to correct of their actions



b. Is not the delegate



2. Upon the conclusion of Z-Day Event. The user in question shall be unbanned (if applicable) and formally invited to rejoin the region with all due cordiality.

User avatar
Libertas Omnium Maximus
Speaker
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Libertas Omnium Maximus » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:25 pm

For the most part we have at least some regulation regarding pretty much every faculty of The IDU. The only body of users that is not currently regulated is Executive Power group (Anyone with the ability to eject/ban/etc. other users from the region). I think that it is against the spirit of democracy and what this region stands for to not have any sort of guidelines or rules in place for how the executive actions are carried out. Thus this legislation was born.

In all likelihood, should it pass, it will be amended in the future to add more potential regulations as situations/circumstances may dictate. That is fine with me. However, I believe that all of the essentials are present in this bill (please, correct me if I am wrong).

For you all, the nations of the IDUSA, to consider: The Regional Security Act.

User avatar
Sanctaria
Site Admin
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Sanctaria » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:42 pm

You can't pass legislation to control the Founder nation.

Gonhog
Ingénue
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Gonhog » Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:28 pm

As stated in Discord, that rule was established in 2004. Perhaps there should be a new discussion on it?

User avatar
United New England
Writer
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 10:15 pm
Location: New England

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by United New England » Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:47 pm

Gonhog wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:28 pm
As stated in Discord, that rule was established in 2004. Perhaps there should be a new discussion on it?
Plus, as stated on the Discord, that “rule” came from a discussion and not an official document. Perhaps LOM’s proposed legislation needs editing, but I support the idea of creating a clear policy regarding Founder privileges. I also want to say that I appreciate the hard work that LOM has put into this document.

User avatar
Libertas Omnium Maximus
Speaker
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Libertas Omnium Maximus » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:06 pm

Also, the rule is sort of ridiculous. No offense to whoever created it. The rule effectively means the Founder users are completely untouchable. They aren't elected. They have no check on their power (aside from each other but then you basically have the IC Kerlian government). They aren't beholden to the legislative body. They can basically do whatever they want without consequence. That doesn't really scream democratic to me.

I think that legislation should absolutely be able to effect founders.

User avatar
Libertas Omnium Maximus
Speaker
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Libertas Omnium Maximus » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:22 pm

However, I see what you are saying, it can't practically effect founders because the nation is tied in to multiple users. I will try to figure out what to do about that and in the mean time clear up any ambiguous clauses.

User avatar
Zamastan
Cabinet Minister
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:00 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Zamastan » Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:29 am

I would second UNE's statement. I do believe that founder privileges should be limited in order to maintain the semblance of democracy. It doesn't have to be dramatic per say, though there should be some sort of restrain as there is in any political office. However, some of the wording in the proposed legislation can be broadly interpreted, and I think there should be more specific guidelines than what we currently have. I propose we should work together as the IDUSA body to determine what specifically needs to be further defined - possibly creating more subsections would help to expand clarifications? Just an idea. This would be a beneficial bill for the entire region if it's done properly.

Other than that, I do appreciate and acknowledge the drafting. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

User avatar
Sanctaria
Site Admin
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Sanctaria » Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:00 am

Founder privileges cannot be limited due to game mechanics. They're there and no legislation passed by IDUSA can change that.

User avatar
Zamastan
Cabinet Minister
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:00 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Zamastan » Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:13 am

Sanctaria wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:00 am
Founder privileges cannot be limited due to game mechanics. They're there and no legislation passed by IDUSA can change that.
Well, yes, I understand that. I might've not made myself clear in my post, I apologize. But there could be a way that we work some rule into legislation that a founder is able to abide by. Like I said, it wouldn't be incredibly limiting, but I think it would be beneficial. Otherwise, the fact that the founders are basically untouchable under the game mechanics could potentially become a bad thing for our region in the sense of their ability to limit democratic processes. Yes, I understand that they technically cannot be limited via the games rules itself, but I still think this would be a good piece of legislation to work on further. If not for the upright legitimacy, at least for the symbolism of it.

User avatar
Sanctaria
Site Admin
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Sanctaria » Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:20 am

Zamastan wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:13 am
Sanctaria wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:00 am
Founder privileges cannot be limited due to game mechanics. They're there and no legislation passed by IDUSA can change that.
Well, yes, I understand that. I might've not made myself clear in my post, I apologize. But there could be a way that we work some rule into legislation that a founder is able to abide by. Like I said, it wouldn't be incredibly limiting, but I think it would be beneficial. Otherwise, the fact that the founders are basically untouchable under the game mechanics could potentially become a bad thing for our region in the sense of their ability to limit democratic processes. Yes, I understand that they technically cannot be limited via the games rules itself, but I still think this would be a good piece of legislation to work on further. If not for the upright legitimacy, at least for the symbolism of it.
The Founder nation has had Bears, Grosse, Scion, and myself able to access it since 2013. Longer for Bears and Grosse! We're not giving anyone else access. I don't understand why we suddenly think that the Founders are going to interfere in democratic processes when they haven't thus far. Especially when 3 of the 4 are members of the actual game's staff and any interference in stuff like this would ruin our credibility (and we'd likely get in much serious trouble than this region alone could ever).

As I explained on Discord also, because of the way the backend is set up, if one of the founders did something you didn't like, there's no way of knowing which founder it was.

And as I also said, this option of kicking and banning and suppressing speech is currently not just restricted to Founders - all members of cabinet have the Border Control powers, and a few have the Communications power. So I don't understand why we're worried about the Founders - four people who have served in this region for about a decade now, at least, each - and not about the regional officers.

User avatar
Zamastan
Cabinet Minister
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:00 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Zamastan » Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:53 am

Sanctaria wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:20 am
The Founder nation has had Bears, Grosse, Scion, and myself able to access it since 2013. Longer for Bears and Grosse! We're not giving anyone else access. I don't understand why we suddenly think that the Founders are going to interfere in democratic processes when they haven't thus far. Especially when 3 of the 4 are members of the actual game's staff and any interference in stuff like this would ruin our credibility (and we'd likely get in much serious trouble than this region alone could ever).

As I explained on Discord also, because of the way the backend is set up, if one of the founders did something you didn't like, there's no way of knowing which founder it was.

And as I also said, this option of kicking and banning and suppressing speech is currently not just restricted to Founders - all members of cabinet have the Border Control powers, and a few have the Communications power. So I don't understand why we're worried about the Founders - four people who have served in this region for about a decade now, at least, each - and not about the regional officers.
All very fair and accurate points - I hadn't considered or was fully aware of some of those realities (still in recovery so I hadn't seen some of the conversation on the discord). Thanks for clarifying, sorry for the confusion.

User avatar
United New England
Writer
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 10:15 pm
Location: New England

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by United New England » Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:48 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:20 am
Zamastan wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:13 am


Well, yes, I understand that. I might've not made myself clear in my post, I apologize. But there could be a way that we work some rule into legislation that a founder is able to abide by. Like I said, it wouldn't be incredibly limiting, but I think it would be beneficial. Otherwise, the fact that the founders are basically untouchable under the game mechanics could potentially become a bad thing for our region in the sense of their ability to limit democratic processes. Yes, I understand that they technically cannot be limited via the games rules itself, but I still think this would be a good piece of legislation to work on further. If not for the upright legitimacy, at least for the symbolism of it.
The Founder nation has had Bears, Grosse, Scion, and myself able to access it since 2013. Longer for Bears and Grosse! We're not giving anyone else access. I don't understand why we suddenly think that the Founders are going to interfere in democratic processes when they haven't thus far. Especially when 3 of the 4 are members of the actual game's staff and any interference in stuff like this would ruin our credibility (and we'd likely get in much serious trouble than this region alone could ever).

As I explained on Discord also, because of the way the backend is set up, if one of the founders did something you didn't like, there's no way of knowing which founder it was.

And as I also said, this option of kicking and banning and suppressing speech is currently not just restricted to Founders - all members of cabinet have the Border Control powers, and a few have the Communications power. So I don't understand why we're worried about the Founders - four people who have served in this region for about a decade now, at least, each - and not about the regional officers.
In my opinion, it would be nice to edit this legislation in order to regulate the powers of the regional officers as well. However, I don’t see why we couldn’t make an IDU policy regarding the Founder account that adds to the restrictions of the game mechanics instead of contradicting them. We already have other IDU regulations on top of the game rules. As for determining which person with Founder privileges committed an unfair action in a theoretical situation, we might be able to call upon the game administrators for help in telling who was logged in at a given time.

User avatar
Sanctaria
Site Admin
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Sanctaria » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:20 pm

The Game Mods won't give out that kind of information for two reasons.

1) They don't like to get involved in regional issues - they only get involved if there is site rule breaking, which unfortunately couping/misuse of regional officer powers is not.

2) They won't confirm or deny information like that because it's personal identifiable information (PII) and they can't give information like that out to third parties without breaking the law.

I think LOM should focus this more on preventing anyone with Border Control powers or Communications powers (so any regional officer) from acting in a way they shouldn't. Up until now the Founders have done a good job of keeping track/tabs on each other, and I see no reason why that should not continue.

If you want more oversight on who does what with the Founder, maybe put in a clause requesting that when a Founder nation does something with the Founder, they makes a post on the RMB and sign off with the nation that they are - but honestly that is really the only thing that can be done realistically.

User avatar
United New England
Writer
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 10:15 pm
Location: New England

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by United New England » Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:49 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:20 pm
The Game Mods won't give out that kind of information for two reasons.

1) They don't like to get involved in regional issues - they only get involved if there is site rule breaking, which unfortunately couping/misuse of regional officer powers is not.

2) They won't confirm or deny information like that because it's personal identifiable information (PII) and they can't give information like that out to third parties without breaking the law.

I think LOM should focus this more on preventing anyone with Border Control powers or Communications powers (so any regional officer) from acting in a way they shouldn't. Up until now the Founders have done a good job of keeping track/tabs on each other, and I see no reason why that should not continue.

If you want more oversight on who does what with the Founder, maybe put in a clause requesting that when a Founder nation does something with the Founder, they makes a post on the RMB and sign off with the nation that they are - but honestly that is really the only thing that can be done realistically.
Sounds good to me.

User avatar
Libertas Omnium Maximus
Speaker
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Libertas Omnium Maximus » Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:11 am

Sanctaria wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:20 pm
If you want more oversight on who does what with the Founder, maybe put in a clause requesting that when a Founder nation does something with the Founder, they makes a post on the RMB and sign off with the nation that they are - but honestly that is really the only thing that can be done realistically.
Yeah, that is probably all it takes. I will attempt to fix it up so that regional admins, not just founder users, are effected.

User avatar
Libertas Omnium Maximus
Speaker
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Libertas Omnium Maximus » Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:01 am

Ok, Proposal Updated.

The proposal now explicitly states that the regulations put in place by this bylaw would be applied to all nations with eject/ban/suppress privileges, not just the founder access nations.

The proposal now includes a clause requiring founder nation access users to disclose their user identity when nominating (which is the wrong word. It is a placeholder for now) a user for ejection

The proposal now also allows the appeals to take place on the forums or in the discord, circumventing the spam concern with appeals.

User avatar
Zamastan
Cabinet Minister
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:00 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Zamastan » Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:04 am

I like those amendments so far! I'd like to see what other IDUSA members who haven't given their opinions yet think of it.

User avatar
Sanctaria
Site Admin
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Sanctaria » Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:51 pm

2. No regional officer may be ejected or removed from position without an IDU Judiciary Committee hearing

As it's currently written, a Delegate would have to get an IDU Judiciary Committee hearing to fire a cabinet member. I don't think that's either fair or realistic - the Delegate should be able to choose his/her team, and remove members if necessary, without due hindrance.

User avatar
Libertas Omnium Maximus
Speaker
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Libertas Omnium Maximus » Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:48 pm

I could alter it to just extend to elected positions. Cabinet positions would be exempt from this.

User avatar
Libertas Omnium Maximus
Speaker
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 12:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Regional Security Act

Post by Libertas Omnium Maximus » Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:19 pm

Sanctaria wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:51 pm
2. No regional officer may be ejected or removed from position without an IDU Judiciary Committee hearing

As it's currently written, a Delegate would have to get an IDU Judiciary Committee hearing to fire a cabinet member. I don't think that's either fair or realistic - the Delegate should be able to choose his/her team, and remove members if necessary, without due hindrance.
I addressed you concern and fixed a grammatical error.

Post Reply