- Joined
- Feb 12, 2023
- Messages
- 122
- Thread Author
- #1
'Mmh. Yes... yes. This is acceptable. One... one- one city, one people! Let this be but another way to find and punish them. Let it be so.' Regent Benjamin Orwell
Nº 01
CITY-24 | SECURITY COUNCIL |
Introduced by Vivienne Rodier-Geudreau
Additions by Vanya Komarov
Honourable mention to the many members of the Imperial Ascension Party
26/01/2021
Additions by Vanya Komarov
Honourable mention to the many members of the Imperial Ascension Party
26/01/2021
Oath of Allegiance
"I believe it wise for the circumstances the Oath is spoken in to be amended to include not only events such as this Security Council, but all political meetings between parties." - VIVIENNE'S INITIAL RECORDED QUOTATION - 26-01-2021 | 20:38:11
The Oath, as it is, serves a very clear purpose: uncovering those unwilling to make clear their loyalty to the Regent. Accordingly, there is little reason to limit the Oath to being said only during meetings of the Security Council.
Having it be repeated during the now-frequent meetings between the various Collaborator Parties allows for easier recognition of those who may not be quite so loyal to the Regent as they claim to be- self-supervision is a key tenet of the Party, after all, and this merely expands the net.
"If they are to be found acting incorrect while being in the face of our benevolent Combine, would it be too simple or more so too merciful as to just simply kick them out of the party? I believe there needs to be a stricter punishment, in this case monetary sanctions against said individual. It would be more so a final doing for the party after they get booted." - VANYA'S INITIAL RECORDED QUOTATION, 26-01-2021 | 20:52:53
Likewise, as members of the party, we are offered ways to earn past what much of the citizenry can expect. Sir Vanya's suggestion of a monetary punishment ensures that what was given through the Party can just as deservedly be taken away.
"I believe it wise for the circumstances the Oath is spoken in to be amended to include not only events such as this Security Council, but all political meetings between parties." - VIVIENNE'S INITIAL RECORDED QUOTATION - 26-01-2021 | 20:38:11
The Oath, as it is, serves a very clear purpose: uncovering those unwilling to make clear their loyalty to the Regent. Accordingly, there is little reason to limit the Oath to being said only during meetings of the Security Council.
Having it be repeated during the now-frequent meetings between the various Collaborator Parties allows for easier recognition of those who may not be quite so loyal to the Regent as they claim to be- self-supervision is a key tenet of the Party, after all, and this merely expands the net.
"If they are to be found acting incorrect while being in the face of our benevolent Combine, would it be too simple or more so too merciful as to just simply kick them out of the party? I believe there needs to be a stricter punishment, in this case monetary sanctions against said individual. It would be more so a final doing for the party after they get booted." - VANYA'S INITIAL RECORDED QUOTATION, 26-01-2021 | 20:52:53
Likewise, as members of the party, we are offered ways to earn past what much of the citizenry can expect. Sir Vanya's suggestion of a monetary punishment ensures that what was given through the Party can just as deservedly be taken away.
Requested Amendments
- The recitation of the Oath of Allegiance at all political meetings of Binders (IAP, HRP, MdF, CWP, as well as those in the future), to be done before the meeting's formal commencement. Where the presence of Civil Protection or Ministerial authorities at such meetings is not guaranteed, it shall instead be handled by those participating, in accordance with existing self-governance and reporting.
- An escalating monetary sanction, as decided by relevant figures within the administration, alongside the existing punishment given (be it suspension, expulsion, or further), up to and including total asset forfeiture for those most egregious failings and cases of corruption.
Wording subject to change by relevant authorities.
