[Amendment] Section II Security Amendment

[Ryccia]

Section II of the Twelfth Mandate shall be amended to read:

(9) No person that has participated as a leader of a coup d'etat in any Game-Created Region except the Warzones shall be permitted to ascend to the office of the Delegacy nor hold the position of Vice Delegate.

(10) Leaders of a coup d'etat are defined as those persons who have held the positions of Delegate and in-game regional officers that collaborated with a coup d'etat by ejecting and/or banning nations.

(11) If a candidate for the Vice Delegacy did hold an in-game regional office during a coup d'etat, they must explain their involvement in said coup d'etat. If they are found to be lying by misinterpreting the facts or ommiting said information, any citizen may lodge a criminal case against the nominee for the Vice Delegacy, an incumbent Vice Delegate or an incumbent Delegate to the Court of Lazarus. Punishment if found guilty shall be the destitution of the Vice Delegate or Delegate if they are the incumbent, and the barring of candidacy for a nominee. Those found guilty can appeal to the Assembly, who may confirm a nominee or incumbent Vice Delegate or Delegate with a four-fifths majority vote.

(12) Those who participated in a coup d'etat before the year 2010 are exempted from the rules stipulated in the articles governing the restrictions of a person succeeding the Delegacy or the Vice Delegacy for participation in a coup d'etat.

Thoughts?

 

[Domais]

I don't, "coup" is too subjective. Sometimes couping a region is what is best for the region, now I would support the CLS making a list of people who can't become delegate for various reasons, but, I don't think being a couper should automatically disqualify someone. I think it should be up to the CLS and whether they think it should disqualify someone, on a case by case biases.

Edit: As it stands the Delegate has to be confirmed by either the CLS or the Assembly, so why not defer this to them?

 

[joWhatup]

I don't think couping should automatically prevent one from holding positions. Coups aren't always bad - in fact, it is worth remembering that the only reason this government exists is because there was a coup.

 

[New Rogernomics]

(12) Those who participated in a coup d'etat before the year 2010 are exempted from the rules stipulated in the articles governing the restrictions of a person succeeding the Delegacy or the Vice Delegacy for participation in a coup d'etat.

I don't think time should be a factor, if hypothetically the goal is to prevent someone who couped from holding a Delegacy, as afterall it is about trust more than anything. If someone is untrustworthy it wouldn't matter whether they couped in 2010 or yesterday.

Likewise, guilt by association is hard to use as justification, unless they worked with the coupers, personally aiding the coup. Simply knowing a couper isn't proof that they approve of said coupers' methods.

Then finally there are gut feelings, general distrust, and circumstantial evidence, which wouldn't stand up in a court of law, though could be the tipping point to convince the region to not let someone hold the Delegacy.

 

[McChimp]

I don't think legislation is necessary for this, the security apparatus exists to make these decisions at their own discretion.