UK Blacklist bill
Day 2,807, 11:44
•
Published in United Kingdom 
•
by
•
by dougal4chaos
UK BlackList Bill
This piece of legislation is designed to protect the UK against players that have proven to be anti UK in the past, by PTO'ing any UK party, by attacking the UK, by military coup against the UK, treasury theft, or by giving citizenship to a player already on the Blacklist.
1: Maintaining the Blacklist
The Blacklist will be maintained by the speaker of the house and kept on the congress spreadsheet. Also a public copy is to be available to the UK public in an article.
2: Effect of being on the Blacklist
Players on the UK Blacklist are not allowed to be a part of the UK government, are not allowed to be in the UK congress, and are not allowed to be UK citizens.
The player will be on the Blacklist for 12 months before they are allowed to appeal.
3: Submission to Blacklist
In order to be put on the blacklist, a player must first have to be nominated by a UK congressman.
33% of Congress must sponsor the proposal to place the player on the Blacklist.
If the sponsorship is achieved then there will be a 48 Hour Vote.
66% of Congress that actually vote must vote in favour for the player to be put on the UK Blacklist.
4: Appeal for removal
After 12 months the Blacklisted player may ask the Speaker to start a vote for Removal.
33% of Congress must sponsor the petition to instigate a vote.
If the sponsorship is achieved then there will be a 48 Hour Vote.
66% of Congress that actually vote must vote in favour for the player to be removed from the UK Blacklist.
If the sponsorship is unsuccessful another request for removal can be made 2 months after the most recent request.
If the vote is unsuccessful another request for removal can be made 1 month after the most recent request.
5: past transgressions.
Once this bill is approved, any player with past crimes can be submitted for inclusion to the UK Blacklist.
originally given to speak of the house on 14th June 2015
re submitted to speaker of the house on 27th July 2015
This piece of legislation is designed to protect the UK against players that have proven to be anti UK in the past, by PTO'ing any UK party, by attacking the UK, by military coup against the UK, treasury theft, or by giving citizenship to a player already on the Blacklist.
1: Maintaining the Blacklist
The Blacklist will be maintained by the speaker of the house and kept on the congress spreadsheet. Also a public copy is to be available to the UK public in an article.
2: Effect of being on the Blacklist
Players on the UK Blacklist are not allowed to be a part of the UK government, are not allowed to be in the UK congress, and are not allowed to be UK citizens.
The player will be on the Blacklist for 12 months before they are allowed to appeal.
3: Submission to Blacklist
In order to be put on the blacklist, a player must first have to be nominated by a UK congressman.
33% of Congress must sponsor the proposal to place the player on the Blacklist.
If the sponsorship is achieved then there will be a 48 Hour Vote.
66% of Congress that actually vote must vote in favour for the player to be put on the UK Blacklist.
4: Appeal for removal
After 12 months the Blacklisted player may ask the Speaker to start a vote for Removal.
33% of Congress must sponsor the petition to instigate a vote.
If the sponsorship is achieved then there will be a 48 Hour Vote.
66% of Congress that actually vote must vote in favour for the player to be removed from the UK Blacklist.
If the sponsorship is unsuccessful another request for removal can be made 2 months after the most recent request.
If the vote is unsuccessful another request for removal can be made 1 month after the most recent request.
5: past transgressions.
Once this bill is approved, any player with past crimes can be submitted for inclusion to the UK Blacklist.
originally given to speak of the house on 14th June 2015
re submitted to speaker of the house on 27th July 2015
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
I'm not in Congress but can I add some things?
Under "1: Maintaining the Blacklist"
The list of all blacklisted players and reason for them being blacklisted should be made public.
"66% of Congress that actually vote must vote in favour for the player to be put on the UK Blacklist."
But we should require a minimum number of Congress to vote (if there isn't any legislation on that). Maybe 33% of Congress must vote?
"After 12 months the Blacklisted player may ask the Speaker to start a vote for Removal."
12 months seems like a very long time to me, maybe 3-6 months. If they still deserve to be blacklisted then Congress will keep them on the list, but we still need a decent length of time so Congress isn't dealing with requests each day.
"Blacklisted" and "Blacklist"
Why do they start with capital letters? My OCD is screaming!
And I have some suggestions for who should be blacklisted if this passes or has passed.
12 months does look a little harsh, but...
"I'm sorry I nicked the treasury, I won't do it again!"
Yeah, sure, right...
Some people's memories are not quite that long, unfortunately, and 12 months might see a very different congress with a very different "understanding" of affairs that happened a year or more ago.
And just for CC's OC😨 ||||||||||\||||||||||||||||| 😉
That's why the blacklist and reasons for being blacklisted should be made public. If the reason is stealing the treasury, attempting a PTO, or something horrible, Congress should realise this and keep them on the blacklist. If Congress is so stupid that they are going to remove someone like BigAnt from a blacklist they deserve everything that's coming to them. We also shouldn't elect idiots into Congress.
Plus, pretty much everyone in Congress has been around for a while and we wont get many new players anymore 🙂
"We also shouldn't elect idiots into Congress."
If only...
At least this term's congress seems reasonable (so far).
According to Addaway's own words you can't use this against me again unless the reason is completely different
but I am sure it is only for this purpose that it is being introduced
What was the reason last time?
You are partially correct. I said that about six weeks ago, referring to the motion to suspend you from congress- not a blacklist in the manner that is being proposed by Dougal. It is ultimately up to the Speaker to decide whether a motion to suspend is being put forward on reasonable grounds, so technically you could have it called against you on the same grounds.
If it were me though, I'd probably want to see some fresh events/evidence to justify another vote against you.
Also, I don't think this is being proposed to target you- dougal voted and argued against your suspension from congress and would likely do so if you were put forward for a blacklist
Seems a little McCarthyist to me. And largely unenforceable.
For instance, let's take two scenarios.
In scenario A a known enemy of the UK - let's for argument's sake call him "Bapper" gets blacklisted. He's therefore not allowed to be part of the UK government. However, "Bapper" is part of a rogue party filled with blacklistable comrades and multis, which happens to be in the top five. At congress election time, the PP puts "Bapper" on the congress list and then uses his multis to vote for the party. Bapper therefore gets his place.
In scenario B another known enemy of the UK - this time let's call her "Capper" - is a UK citizen. She gets blacklisted by Congress and therefore is not allowed to be a resident of the eUK. But she already is. And there's no "deport" button. Despite lots of strongly worded messages, it turns out that "Capper" has a pretty thick skin, and refuses to leave.
The Congress thing is not so much of a problem while we have a dictator (which I presume we are going to keep - I think we have an act on it) since Congress has no in-game powers. Congress is all settled by gdoc voting and mass PM's which we can easily exclude a blacklisted person from.
As for Capper, yes we can't kick her out. I see that part of the bill as a more official way of rejecting people from entry. Probably not necessary but if we are going to have a blacklist we may as well include it, maybe worth changing to "they are not allowed to be given UK citizenship".
Besides the "UK citizen" part it is as enforceable is any piece of legislation (not very), it basically requires the eUK community to accept it.
I would be sceptical as to whether there is a strong enough case from the clauses here to get King William added to a Blacklist.
As for Bapper and Capper - if such characters are blacklisted, the risk they pose outside the community could be greater - i.e establishing themselves as anti-establishment figures.
However without blacklisting them and keeping a clear record of any 'crimes' committed, how would you prevent them from gaining power?
Turn the clock back a year to 18 months and allegations of cheating and vote buying and multimaking was being thrown at anyone and everyone seemingly from all sides. For me personally the key figure in deciding on a course to follow was Woldy but, how would new players coming into a new situation be able to make that choice?
PTO of a UK party with help from the BDP. After gaining presidency of the UKPP by fair means or foul, Willy sought to exclude long serving members of the party who disagreed with his policies, despite his assertions that such exclusions would not occur in his PP manifesto.
Whether any such blacklist would be enforceable is another matter. It only takes one rogue politician to cause havoc...
Oh but the UKRP helping ya'all isn't a PTO? K
ATO actually.
Well done Senator McCarthy
I think even when removed from the blacklist names and crimes should remain recorded, that way people can check back if another offense occurs. Also perhaps separate the blacklisting and the crime, have one vote to see whether or not the crime is pinned on them and then one to blacklist. That way we have a slightly fairer system with a trial of sorts.