[Discussion] Roleplay/Newspaper Amendment

To avoid future problems there should be language in that amendment specifically protecting the free speech while at the same time excluding unintended consequences like recruiting spam and really filthy language. At the same time that language should specify that one does not have an absolute right not to get their feelings hurt, their nose out of joint or their blood pressure up.

 

Role Playing only works well with a set of guidelines.

1) Not allowed to impersonate another nation
2) Not allowed to control another nation
3) Good faith and agreement telegrams between two nations
4) Defining technology limitations
5) Sentient species limitations
6) Mapping Limitations

I believe the first two are quite evident as they apply to a general order of role playing. The third come from how RPing has been running for this past month. When a nation is interested in joining some event going on in the paper, they telegram the nations involved in the event and discuss their intentions of joining in as a show of good faith.

Points 4 and 5 regard things I have seen crumble regional RPs. Many nations come in with a different idea of their nation's technological advancement or species which may yield a perceived large disparity in each nations ability. Therefore, while a technology setting and restrictions to species might be a disincentive to some, I believe it will ensure longevity to the RPing.

Point 6 is a restriction to who can RP, if a nation has no placement on the map then it cannot RP. What I have observed is that nations without a map spot can act aggressively and without retaliation from other nations as they cannot loose land or anything.


As for things posted in the paper which are not RPs, I am in agreement with Capitalist Producers, there should be not restrictions to the articles beyond the traditional rules of the NS site.

 

Personally I feel there should be a clause protecting period speak from being censored. There was a time in history when certain words, mostly racial, were commonly accepted. Freedom means putting up with things you don't necessarily agree with. I urge you to consider Huckleberry Fin.

Edit: (Just in case there is any confusion, I am Czeckolutania.)

Edit 2: I agree with most of acario's ideas... But as it stand I would be excluded from role playing. This would be problematic as myself and another member of CP were considering role playing a referendum to return some of my land to me.

 

I want a part of legislation not allowing Propaganda. It ruins the fun of Rp and it messes up the rp process.

 

I have talked about the map with several nations and I believe that it would be best to have two maps: one is the official map that will be posted on our regional page and a second which changes with the RPing. Therefore, the map limitation would only limit nations who are not on the official map.

Czeckolutania is currently not on the RP map, but Czeckolutania is on the official map so you would still be allowed to post role play.

This allows for land exchanges to occur in an RP without having to change the official map with every small land change in an RP. In addition the RP map would be solid colors only so RPing nations can easily change the map without my assistance as long as the two nations changing lands agree to the terms of land exchanges.

Which brings me to another point of the map, right now, I have been forbidding RP nations to annex territory (that is land not occupied by a nation). The purpose of this is so land is open for new nations to join into the RP. My other thought would be to allow RP nations to annex territory on the RP map, but if a new RPer chooses the annexed territory for their nation then a rebellion RP takes place which results in the new nation being formed.

However, I guess I am getting ahead of myself here. While the map is strongly tied to RP, I am not sure if this piece of legislation should extend to defining map guideline and regulations...

 

Propaganda could mean anything at this point in time

 

I have plans to have some rough images of the two maps up by this week sometime. The idea is that the official map would be the only time-consuming one as it would have the geographic features and such while the RP map would be simple solid color that once made anyone would be able to edit and post a new version of it.

 

I agree completely with the points made by Acario. God-moding is a cardinal rule of all roleplaying, not just on NS. Taking control of another player's nation via newspaper articles should not be permitted. This would be talking about events that happen inside a nation that is not your own.

Another topic that should be addressed is libel. Outright lying and defamation of a player and their nation should be against the rules. One article outright accused me of supporting something unspeakable which I'd rather not repeat. People submit articles to the newspaper because they like writing and to have fun, not to be defamed like that.

Edit: As for what words are allowed, I would recommend against using the newspaper to circumvent NS rules. If you can't use the word on the RMB or the forums, then by extension you shouldn't be able to say it on the newspaper. We don't need any more moderator attention in the region.

 

-- and --

Therein lies the problem. The LGBT community loathes anything the religious right has to say on the matter of same sex, or for that matter anything more the traditional one man-one woman relationships. They consider anything coming out of that realm that even remotely disagrees with anything the LGBT community feels like they want at the moment to be propaganda.

The right sees almost everything coming out of MSNBC to be propaganda.

Obama considers Fox News to be nothing more then a propaganda machine.

You are getting the idea, right? One person's propaganda is another person's truth. I do not see a way to reconcile that.

But then again, who is to know who is lying. The person claiming to be slandered may in reality be lying simply because they were called out in public. No one really knows the people that are sitting behind these keyboards typing these words.

Going to see a list of those words before I can support that.

Here is the problem with what you suggested. The words Nation States moderators will allow depends on four things:
- The subject of the thread.
- What side of the debate those words are coming from.
- Who those words are being directed toward.
- Whether or not the moderator in question had their donut that morning.

If you go wandering through the Nation States forums, especially around the WA forums, you will find just about all of the seven words you cannot say on television and a few words it never crossed your mind even eixisted. Those epitaphs, personal attacks and slurs based on "white privilege" and wealth are still there to be found as long as the politically correct causes are being fought. While at the same time anything more harsh then the word "fiddlesticks" is immediately deleted and the user warned for trolling if they happen to be supporting something conservative.

We either have free speech in this region or we do not. The regional newspaper is by default under the command and control of the regional government. It is impossible to set up a competing newspaper on the same footing as the built in paper. Therefore the unwritten rule, "freedom of the press is only for those that can buy a printing press" does not apply here.

The other down side to your suggestion is that once a list of forbidden words is established, that list will grow. The minute someone gets a mild case of butthurt they will petition the government to add what ever word or phrase lead to the diaper rash. Not every petition for new restrictions will pass. But it is inevitable some will. Like the snowball rolling down the hill, eventually that list will grow to the point that the only meaningful phrase left that is legal to post will be, "The gender neutral infant feline of non-specific breed and color prefers its dolphin safe tuna with soy milk in a reclaimed recyclable Earth Day commemorative bowl for its first meal of the day... or night, depending on its caretaker's sleeping preferences."

 

Perhaps we should make the focus of this legislation negative liberties. Instead of trying to decide what we will do in every case, let us instead decide what will never be allowed. From there we can leave the rest open to the reviewing party's discretion.

 

At the beginning of my term I established a new cabinet position of Chief Editor and appointed Luthatania to the position. From there Luthatania organized an editing body composed of RPers as kind of a check to his power as Chief Editor. Now that the SC has ruled the editing body unconstitutional, sole editing power should be in the hands of the Chief Editor and his duty is to enforce the rules that will be contained in this piece of legislation. So I guess the answer to your question is someone completely different. The reasoning here is that many people may want to become Delegate or MoI who do not read nor care for the health of the paper. A cabinet position filled by someone interested in RP and the paper is the best option to ensure the continuance of the paper.

 

For the same reason that I do not like the idea of the WAD being chief editor, I do not like the idea of chief editing power being a position appointed by the WAD. If the WAD is apathetic towards the regional paper, why would he care how the chief editor chose to enforce rules? I would be in favor of making chief editor an elected office.

 

I disagree with making it an elected position as it could create potential conflicts of interest. If we have a nation who is actively at war with another nation, giving either of those nations (if they decide to run) the Chief Editor position could allow them to create rules that would favor them. They could use their position for intimidation and could even edit other people's articles if they were corrupt enough. Unless there are clear rules about who is allowed to run for the position, I'm against making Chief Editor an elected position.

My preferred method is an appointment. I trust our current delegate to appoint someone who isn't involved majorly in the newspaper. An independent third party would be best, perhaps not even someone from Capitalist Paradise as there would be no way that person could be accused of bias. As long as they have an interest in writing and roleplaying, then they would be qualified.

 

Agreed. There needs to be someone that is unbiased and only uses the NS posting rules as their guide and as long as those rules are not violated, the article must be published. If the rules are violated, the author needs to be informed of the violation and allowed to correct said violation.

 

I don't like the idea of a position with so much power that isn't subject to anyone's review except that of the WAD. If a WAD could be apathetic enough to neglect the paper, could he not also be negligent in appointing a CE (chief editor)? Furthermore could he not also be negligent in ensuring the chief editor performs his duties faithfully?

You have raised concerns about a CE being elected and abusing his power to gain an upper hand in region RP. Could this not also happen via appointment, Especially if the WAD was one to truly neglect the paper? I believe the legislative body of CP is wise enough to recognize and expose a conflict of interest.

 

The best thing about an appointed CE is that the WAD can easily remove and appoint another if the CE proves to be inadequate; however, if the WAD is negligent problems of a poor CE will be exacerbated.

An elected CE will be held accountable to the legislature which is probably the best method for an editor; however, elected offices usually come with a 90 day protection clause to challenge for office. Such protections could also exacerbate problems of a poor CE.

Maybe the best formation for the office would be a combination of the two. Just throwing out an idea here: CE is elected by the Legislature with 90 day protection while the WAD monitors the CE duties; if the WAD has evidence of improper management by the CE then the WAD can terminate the 90 day protection clause and allow for challenges early. SC could also be the review body to the WAD's evidence. If they support the WAD's proposal then protection is dropped.

Edit: Just saw Drasnia's post, maybe the Vocals would be a better review body.