Quote:

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 Elected Official 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.

Gonhog post_id=19687 time=1565717294 user_id=591 Wrote:As stated in Discord, that rule was established in 2004. Perhaps there should be a new discussion on it?

Sanctaria post_id=19694 time=1565758800 user_id=259 Wrote:Founder privileges cannot be limited due to game mechanics. They're there and no legislation passed by IDUSA can change that.

Zamastan post_id=19695 time=1565759619 user_id=500 Wrote:

Sanctaria post_id=19694 time=1565758800 user_id=259 Wrote: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.

Sanctaria post_id=19696 time=1565760053 user_id=259 Wrote: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.

Sanctaria post_id=19696 time=1565760053 user_id=259 Wrote:

Zamastan post_id=19695 time=1565759619 user_id=500 Wrote: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.

Sanctaria post_id=19702 time=1565788818 user_id=259 Wrote: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.

Sanctaria post_id=19702 time=1565788818 user_id=259 Wrote: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.

Sanctaria post_id=19725 time=1565898677 user_id=259 Wrote:[box]2. No regional officer may be ejected or removed from position without an IDU Judiciary Committee hearing[/box]


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.

Quote:§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.

Lauchenoiria post_id=19773 time=1566238696 user_id=461 Wrote:

Quote:§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.

You define "elected official", but the subsequent clause does not use that wording, it uses "regional officer" which is not defined in the legislation and thus still has the problem where a delegate cannot remove an officer from their post without a judiciary committee hearing.