[Debate] Automatic blacklist pardon
Day 4,330, 01:11
•
Published in Netherlands 
•
by
•
by UNL Congress
Greetings, citizens of Netherlands,
a new debate has been started at the request of Congress member Janty F.
Prelude: When you look at our blacklist (https://wiki.erepublik.com/index.php/Dutch_blacklist), you will notice our active blacklist consists of entries made for people, who are dead for years. In one case, the person on the blacklist is even banned, meaning there is no way he can return to the game anyway. I personally think this devalues the blacklist, as it should not be littered with entries, that can no longer be applied.
On another note, people usually enter the blacklist for not paying a Congress Tax once. For that, they can be sentenced and ostracized for the rest of their eRepublik lives. Is it fair to do so? Sure, people should be punished for not following the rules, but even in real-life, only the most serious punishments end with lifetime jail. While here we are potentionally jailing everyone for lifetime, no matter how serious is his crime.
That's why I propose the following change to Chapter II, Article 9 by adding a new article 4:
4. Any Blacklist entry older than 2 years is automatically marked as inactive blacklist, unless the Congress prolongs the validity of blacklist entry by following the procedure in Article 9.3
(For reference, current article 9.3:
3. Citizens of the eNetherlands can be put on or removed from the Blacklist by Congress by the voting procedure laid down in Article 7 with the exception that it needs a two-thirds majority to pass. An exception to this rule is the failure to pay the Medal Tax, as laid down in Chapter III, Article 3.)
The proposal was accepted.
Yes: 19
Neutral: 0
No: 9
Janty F and Shawtyl0w
CoC Team
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
unless the requirements to lift it set forth by the original blacklisting are met, they should remain on the blacklist.
Most of the cases I mention never had any requirements to begin with, despite how minor their crimes were - so this would merely fix the injustices of the past. All in all, in democracy, you do not keep people imprisoned, when they die 😉 .
On the active blacklist 5 out of 8 have valid reasons.
Removing banned accounts shouldn't really be a problem, unless we know for sure another account is the reincarnation.
Everything else should remain on the list unless tax is repaid or congress decides to revoke the individual blacklisting.
So even you, a staunch opponent of de-blacklisting, admit almost half of current blacklists are nonsense.
Good start 🙂 !
8 van de 8.
blinded
Davis Calia
Alesaxa
staan erop voor het niet betalen van congres belasting.
ah 8 out of 8. so like 1 banned account that could be removed from the list.
just open a vote for that 1 and move on to something important.
Heh, I like how you immediately had to change your opinion after odan's comment - shows your independent will 🙂 .
Either way, if you consider blacklist to not be important issue to debate, we can just remove them all, and be done with it easily.
how did i change my opinion? a vote for the banned would still be the one i agreed with.
5 out of 8, 8 out of 8... I am waiting for 11 out of 8 people to be blacklisted soon, once you get the clue from your director 😉
so because he checked what those 3 are on the blacklist for and informed us about it. i changed my opinion?
the only thing that changed was the information we were given was updated to include all the facts.
So... either you cannot read blacklists, or you are trying to do a really bad cover-up of you accidentally disagreeing with your Party President 😉 .
It's okay to have free will though, so do not worry, no harm will be done to you, if you will disagree with blacklists like a normal human being 🙂 .
ik heb in de archieven gekeken (wat janty ook kan doen) en de spelers die ik hierboven genoemd heb staan erop voor het niet betalen van de congres belasting. of te wel alle 8 mensen staan erop met duidelijke redenen.
dus misschien moet je dat eens aanpassen in plaats van dom door te zeuren.
So because i disagree with you i'm not considered a normal human being....
The whole proposal is pointless anyways since even if it passes all current blacklisted persons will remain there.
The proposal will remove all the active blacklists, except the permament one.
If it gets accepted, of course.
ook al zou 100% van het congres ja stemmen voor deze wet, dan nog heeft dit geen uitwerking op de huidige mensen.
de constitutie is duidelijk:
4. Wetten hebben geen terugwerkende kracht.
Mensen die na deze stemming op de lijst komen te staan gaan na 2 jaar naar inactief (als congres geen bezwaar heeft) maar de mensen die op de lijst stonden voor deze stemming blijven op actief staan.
I like the idea but I am not in favor of making even more rules. Less rules is the key for a happy community.
Well, we can always de-blacklist them, but the option I present is much easier to implement and exercise.
Remove after 2 years sounds good. If we want we can always vote on a new blacklist if needed anyway. Let's clean that list up.
Lets not give the bad guys a page in our history books
To meet in the middle Iwe could change the rule into:
4. Any blacklisted person will automatically be put on revote after 2 years. If the vote to keep him on the blacklist fails he’ll be removed from the blacklist.
That way there is no automatic removal, yet there is an automatic need to reconfirm he should still be punished for a probably outdated offence.
That's also an option - however we can already do the revotes now without needing such a paragraph to exist.
most of the persons on the list are there because of tax evasion. easy for them to rectify those situations.
When their accounts are dead or banned 😉 ?
dead people can and have returned in the past. and just because someone went away for some time shouldn't wipe their misdeeds away.
For me, spending time on this ancient blacklist is already too much. I believe it is common sense to automatically remove people that have been dead/banned for years or have been blacklisted on some very questionable terms that were relevant in 2015. So I agree with the spirit of the proposal.
Common sense prevailing in Congress? Nonsense!
At the request of the author of the debate, the proposal was submitted to the vote.
@Jacen.Solo who wrote
"Also because nobody probably realized this. This does not do anything for the players currently on the blacklist, since laws do not apply retroactively. The players currently on the blacklist will remain and it will only apply to persons blacklisted after this vote + 2 years"
No, even though laws do not apply retroactively, this law has no effect on the past. If it would have said "exactly 2 years" instead of "older than 2 years" then the moment that this law removes people from the blacklist would indeed be in the past. But right now this law can be applied at any time, and it will still have an effect on exactly the same blacklist items, and those people will only be removed after this law comes into effect, NOT before. I.e. no retroactivity.
And yes, it will also apply to people blacklisted in the future.
natuurlijk heeft het effect op het verleden. op dit moment kunnen de mensen op die lijst alleen door congres verwijderd worden door een stemming die 2/3 benodigd is (of in het geval van congres belasting door te betalen). deze wet benodigd slechts een meerderheid, daarmee retroactief een andere wet omzeilend.
Wat jij schrijft impliceert dan dus dat deze wet een 2/3 meerderheid nodig heeft om niet strijdig te zijn met artikel 9.3, maar verder wel bovengenoemde effecten kan hebben.
nee dat impliceer ik niet. als je zoiets zou doen open je hele gevaarlijke precedenten. waarbij een onschuldige wetswijziging die met een goede meerderheid aangenomen zou worden veranderd in een vrijbrief voor een coc/president/etc.
de mensen op de lijst nu, kunnen enkel verwijderd worden volgens de procedure in 9.3.
om een voorbeeld te geven stel we verwijderen/veranderen de budgetwetgeving. dat betekend niet dat een regering in een periode daarvoor die bijvoorbeeld verwijderd werd omdat ze illegaal geld buiten budget hadden uitgegeven, vrijgesproken worden daardoor.
Er is straks gewoon een nieuwe regel voor gezwartlijstte mensen die wordt toegepast en dus gaat iedereen op de zwarte lijst daar van af en kan via een stemronde worden teruggezet via de procedure in 9.3 Succes met iedereen er weer op krijgen.
er is straks inderdaad een nieuwe wet voor mensen die vanaf dan op de zwarte lijst komen. en die na 2 jaar op inactief komen te staan.
er is straks geen wet die retroactief (want tegen constitutie) de wetgeving veranderd waardoor mensen die nu op de lijst staan verwijderd worden.
Als we een verandering zouden doen dat er geen 2/3e meerderheid meer hoeft te zijn maar een 50% meerdereheid heeft dat geen effect op een stemming die 60% meerderheid haalde. Die persoon wordt niet alsnog op dezwarte lijst gezet. Dit gaat over wat er gebeurt met mensen op de zwarte lijst. Dat is niet retroactief.
+1 to djirtsdew. I could not explain it better myself.