Consular

I thought I'd bump this while I was in this area of the forums. I think this would be good. I'm not too worried about impersonation tbh. People can already name their account whatever they want anyway.

That's the word. Thanks, Winnipeg!

The small emblem that shows up on chrome tabs, next to the page name, when you have this forum open. Is there a way I could get a larger version of that? It's a white hexagon with a wave shape on it?

I second.

Surely it's not spam if I bribe you with cookies Elegarth.

As much as you may dislike plurality voting, there's a reason it's incredibly widely used.

^ Indeed. TWP's relations with the Pacific, who are certainly not friendly to the UIAF, predate its relations with the UIAF regions and have survived just fine after treaties with the UIAF regions were signed. I would also note TWP attended that conference thingy in Lazarus, without complaint from the UIAF regions despite their distaste for said conference. Recently, TWPAF has also been participating in defences and liberations, as is its right, without the UIAF complaining about that either, despite its obvious preference that the FRA and co not achieve anything worthwhile. TWP is not bound by the UIAF or any other external force Cormac, despite what you so desperately need to be the truth to justify your own pathetic little crusade. The only joke here is you. So why don't you just fuck off, since you apparently have such a low opinion of us as a region? Nobody will miss you.

I like this.

That's basically the same thing as last time Llamas. 1. I don't think resigned positions should be appointed. By-elections are preferable imo. 2. You've once again referenced a PM, a position not defined in any laws atm.

[insert comment about the redundancy of the PM office here]

You have a perverse fascination with weird election systems.

Whatever you say, buddy. I don't think I need to waste more words running in circles with you. We've made our stances clear enough. If other assembly members would like to provide any commentary, I'd welcome them to do so.

I would appreciate the input of the actual military commanders on this I think.

I'm not sure what I've done to merit your generally hostile tone Vlagh. You seem to be making a lot of almost personal attacks, and I've no idea why. This was not a kneejerk reaction, I've thought the civil code has no purpose for a while now, and only just got to trying to repeal it. I'm also not sure what you're grounding your wild accusations of personal bias on. Who am I biased against? How it is 'bias' for me to dislike a piece of legislation. You're dogmatically focusing on point 3 of my argument, which as I've already stated was but an aside. The simple fact is I feel everything in the code is always covered by the long established Bill of Rights and Obligations. I'm also not the only one who thinks this. I feel like you've just become oddly hostile because I suggested we shouldn't copy the Pacific, as if I was somehow insulting the Pacific when I said that, which I actually was not. You also took the opportunity to snipe at me in the Speaker's proposed announcement thread over the same issue, which imo was rather immature. So maybe, you know, calm the farm and be less of a jerk bro. I also didn't misunderstand WW, I was just saying that how he said it could be construed as clashing was indeed how I saw it, though I may have expressed myself poorly there. I'm also not sure what's stopping the Judiciary from enforcing the Bill of Obligations. It appropriately reflects the authority of the Delegate to enforce regional order. What other laws do we need in a code of laws that aren't covered by it?

Yo

I would rather things be left to the discretion of the relevant commanders. If the Assembly has to actively regulate their actions, that is somewhat concerning really. I otherwise support the passage of this if we end up needing to force their hand.

My personal thoughts are that intelligence and military should be separate portfolios. Particularly in GCRs, intelligence concerns are far greater than merely provision of battle related information to the military. I've always regarded militaries as capable of conducting their own intelligence operations without the need for them to have a separate intelligence department. But if everyone else disagrees with that, and thinks the two divisions are good like this, I don't particularly mind. I will say I find this whole hierarchy to be something of a mess. Delegate > Field Commander > The two division heads > Everyone else. I would have suggested simply: Delegate (CinC) > The divison heads, War Lord (or whatever) and Spymaster. Otherwise we have this elaborate chain of command that has as far as I can tell little purpose. I suppose the problem with this would be intel would no longer be subject to the appointed commander though, which I guess was the whole point of the bill, so I don't know. It's just my opinion that the whole thing is messy - no other military I can think of has such a convoluted command structure. My final point would be I dislike the PM appointing the Commander. Partially because I don't like the PM office as noted elsewhere, and more importantly because I think the military head should always be appointed or at the very least confirmed by the Delegate, since they must remain CinC. A final note; betrayal of information is just treason, I don't think it qualifies as high treason. The latter is usually reserved for absolutely colossal betrayals.

The origins are relevant, imo. That point was not made out of any bias against the Pacific, merely a thought that we should be able to come up with our own approach, rather than blanket copying someone elses. And indeed, we have our own approach; which is the Bill of Rights and Obligations. TWP may be very close to TP, but they are fundamentally different communities and have different atmospheres. Regardless, this was not the primary argument for repeal, more of a footnote. As Westwind pointed out, it is in fact against the spirit of TWP. That section could be construed very widely, in the sense that anything not supporting the Delegate is a crime. Traditionally, at least in the past couple years, not agreeing with the Delegate has not been a crime here. Indeed, the Bill of Rights protects such. You can save the patronising eye rolls, buddy.

Yup, I welcome thoughts.

I don't even know what that number means. American exams.

I think we should repeal and remove the The Civil Code for Uniform Justice and Order in the West Pacific. 1. I think the political accountability section actually goes completely against the spirit of The West Pacific. 2. Treason and Civil Disobedience are covered by Bill of Rights and Obligations, though in deliberately vaguer terms, which is not a bad thing. The Delegate already has discretion to deal with these matters. We basically passed a piece of useless legislation in an area that our own Bill of Rights and Obligations already covers. And by we I mean someone else, I certainly did not vote for this. 3. I really really don't think we need a carbon copy of the Pacific's civil code, thanks.

I had assumed llamas or another commander had removed it deliberately. :S